(Rejected) Realistic Colonial Expansion Act

Realistic Colonial Expansions Act

Ooc:Doing this like Eurussia

Preamble

With the new land added by the map expansion, nations will jump at the chance to colonise.But Many will go about it in an illogical way,this bill is to attempt to stop it.

THIS IS ONLY APPLIED TO THE NEW TERRITORIES CREATED IN THE MAP EXPANSION.
Part 1

When colonising in the new territories,nations will have to go about it in a way that is how the actual Europeans did it in the new world.Would be only allowed to claim the terrain next to the ocean at first.At most, people would be allowed to claim a distance of 50 km from the shore( the 3000 km blocks used a measurement are about 40 km x 70 km). Every expansion period(every 100 days)they would be allowed to progress about 70km inward. This would keep the RP realistic.

Part 2

Nations are allowed to take the amount of land they are allowed to claim( as pointed out by Eurussia in expansions)and are allowed to divide that into multiple,smaller claims that add up to the amount of land allowed in the larger claim.Expansions such as the New Years expansion would not be allowed to be divided into multiple claims.

Part 3: Every nation will be allowed to exempt themselves from this law Twice.



Ooc:will post pictures as examples

I am in support of this

While we appreciate the initiative to make change for the betterment of our broken map system, I don't think this would be a step in the right direction. For instance, some of us roleplay that our nations have been in control over the land we claim for centuries, like Marquette of Wyland. I roleplay that Marquette of Wyland has existed since 1784, so it wouldn't make sense for me to have to claim land progressively as if I was colonizing it now, when in reality it was colonized centuries ago.

That brings us to another issue: the fact that, while colonization does not happen now (another good reason for nations to roleplay that they have controlled the land for a long time), colonization would no doubt be different, and, I daresay, quicker than it was in the 15th and 16th centuries.

This is for the new areas only but I do see sense in your point. Plus that scale seems way to small.

Perhaps we can edit it to say that this only applies to people who are colonizing, and not claiming land for their RP history?

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:Perhaps we can edit it to say that this only applies to people who are colonizing, and not claiming land for their RP history?

Yeah I think that would be better

Well how about everyone is allowed to have 1 "exemption card" in which they can claim like before. Keep in mind that it only applies to the lands added,so if the land already existed in 2013, you can still claim like before.

I believe that introducing the concept of colonization itself would be harmful to our Modern-Times RP. It's my opinion that it would be better to focus on how to RP, instead of expanding our countries more and more and more.
Obviously, it's only my own idea, but I think that, if we want to keep our RP as realistic as possible, we must right now put more strong limitations to expansion, leaving space only for new countries (new players).

We are now in an official debating period, which will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 3rd of March. After which, a three day voting period will begin, and will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 6th of the same month.
I invite everyone to not express every vote before the start of the voting period, thanks.

I agree with New Tarajan, colonisation doesn't really make sense,I mean how could civilisations with satellites not have discovered some land.

Atletius wrote:I agree with New Tarajan, colonisation doesn't really make sense,I mean how could civilisations with satellites not have discovered some land.

I am also inclined to agree. We are in the modern world. And if any nation has a good RP that will allow us to reasonably colonize neutral lands, then why not? But legalizing colonization is a bit too old and is already an ancient practice as new nations are presumed to be new countries built by the local population of a particular neutral land...

Thank you.

I believe that the Texanian proposal is opening a debate on a very important issue: how to improve our RP (globally).
Maybe we can start thinking about it.

For example, as I've already expressed before in front of the Parliament, I believe the best choice would be to leave the new territories as place for the States which will come in the future. Obviously, in the RP, it will be as they were always there.
For the already existing countries, it is necessary to give a stimulus not to territorial expansion, but toward RP depth. And this can be reached, this is my idea, through a series of bills of the Council and the Parliament.
Some ideas could include, for example, the introduction of new "grounds" for RP: the Eurussian proposal about territorial waters is one of these "grounds", introducing in the RP the (very important) factor of territorial and international waters. We can go further in this sense with the idea of introducing new guidelines for the role-playing of countries inspiring our actions to the real world (for example, trying to "fix" the holes the NS statistics could leave due the fact they do not cover the entirety of the fields of a State using what happens in the real world).

New Tarajan wrote:Thank you.

I believe that the Texanian proposal is opening a debate on a very important issue: how to improve our RP (globally).
Maybe we can start thinking about it.

For example, as I've already expressed before in front of the Parliament, I believe the best choice would be to leave the new territories as place for the States which will come in the future. Obviously, in the RP, it will be as they were always there.
For the already existing countries, it is necessary to give a stimulus not to territorial expansion, but toward RP depth. And this can be reached, this is my idea, through a series of bills of the Council and the Parliament.
Some ideas could include, for example, the introduction of new "grounds" for RP: the Eurussian proposal about territorial waters is one of these "grounds", introducing in the RP the (very important) factor of territorial and international waters. We can go further in this sense with the idea of introducing new guidelines for the role-playing of countries inspiring our actions to the real world (for example, trying to "fix" the holes the NS statistics could leave due the fact they do not cover the entirety of the fields of a State using what happens in the real world).

Yes. Maybe we could also take this opportunity (since were focusing on rp realism) to discuss guidelines on making deployments of forces (as it is common) more realistic in contrary to for example,

* Nation A deploys 100,000 jets?
* Nation B deploys 5,000 ships?
* Nation C deploys 1,000,000 troops?

Just a thought though.

Yes, of course.
It would be an excellent idea.
But, if we want to make the deployment of troops more realistic, at the same time we need to make more realistic the existence of those troops too.
In few words, what we need is an entirely new RP guidelines system.

New Tarajan wrote:Yes, of course.
It would be an excellent idea.
But, if we want to make the deployment of troops more realistic, at the same time we need to make more realistic the existence of those troops too.
In few words, what we need is an entirely new RP guidelines system.

Yeah. I support that.

I would remind you that we are into the voting period. Please post your votes.

Texania wrote:Realistic Colonial Expansions Act

Part 2

Nations are allowed to take the amount of land they are allowed to claim( as pointed out by Eurussia in expansions)and are allowed to divide that into multiple,smaller claims that add up to the amount of land allowed in the larger claim.Expansions such as the New Years expansion would not be allowed to be divided into multiple claims.

Part 3: Every nation will be allowed to exempt themselves from this law Twice.



Ooc:will post pictures as examples

Although it's too late, but as the map administrator I object to the following. First, splitting a large claim into smaller ones is a big job not to mention the fact that it defeats the purpose of one time expansion claim. This should just be left on the discretion of the map administrator.
Second is, why is the need to exempt? This will be hard to monitor due to the number of nations.
Therefore, Eurussia is against.

Due to our position against expansions, we are sorry, but our vote is AGAINST.

Against

Against

The Constitutional Monarchy of Marquette of Pacific respectfully ABSTAINS.

Novo Canuckia votes AGAINST the proposal.