| Colonies Act 2015 (Yukon) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 20 2015, 06:35 PM (231 Views) | |
| Arcadia | Apr 20 2015, 06:35 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
|
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Apr 20 2015, 07:34 PM Post #2 |
|
Well, I think I might have several questions, but let's start with an obvious one: Is this accomplished via creation of a new NS nation to stand in as a colony, or just accomplished via RP to declare there is a colony being created of X million people? |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Apr 20 2015, 08:00 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
I have a question regarding the colonial establishment: should a colony be made from the nation's land or not? And why may colonies not have a larger population than the parent nation? My guess is that on Yukon there is no indigenious population and therefore there can not be more people in the colony than in the mother nation. Is that a correct guess? Furthermore, what are the proposals for dominions, protectorates, vassal states, etc.? Those all essentially fall under a category that could be called a puppet. I do disapprove of this idea for the moment.
Edited by Herargon, Apr 20 2015, 08:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Apr 21 2015, 03:21 AM Post #4 |
|
But what if you just annex a small island? Would that be considered a colony or just an island that you annexed? Because for me, a colony is where I would go into tropical zones to get resources like fruits and bamboo instead on relying on trade. So I would have to go and colonize near the equator. But I have my eyes set on an island not far from my nation and I was wondering if just a small island is considered a colony. |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Apr 21 2015, 03:23 AM Post #5 |
|
NVM, I read it wrong. But would I have a choice on whether I want to just annex a nice piece of clay on the equator or if I would be obligated to create a colony? |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Apr 21 2015, 09:40 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Administrator
|
@Tyvenia: The answer to your question is found in the Act, in 2.2 to be precise.
To expand on this no, no new NS nation will be created or accepted, since the population of each colony is subtracted from that of the parent nation. Even if said colony gains independence the rule on population and economy remain the same. @Herargon: This act refers purely to overseas colonies. The land claimed for a colony will be small in size and shall be claimed in addition to the parent nation's territory, not subtracted from it. This Act does not include any legitimisation of dominions, protectorates or vassals, however it does facilitate the creation of independent micronations. These micronations however are not puppets in the traditional sense because they will be totally independent of the parent. @Unibearia: The creation of a colony is entirely optional. So if you want to claim a single island or distant equatorial land you can do so without making it a colony; of course such expansion claims would have to be carefully considered on a case by case basis by the Minister for Cartography. So to answer your question briefly, no you are never under any obligation to create a colony. |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Apr 21 2015, 11:59 PM Post #7 |
|
I realize that the language within the legislation already implies this, but I would like it to see explicitly reinforced that, especially for the first colony, the RPMT can't/won't reject colonies without cause. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Apr 22 2015, 12:58 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Actually the text of the Act is intentionally phrased so as to establish a presumption against allowing colonies. Unlike my other Acts relating to RP rules this one is meant to be quite prohibitive in nature, this is because of its close similarity to the contentious issue of Puppet Nations and because of the broad potential for abuse colonies present. Thus my intention was that it is for the player to provide proof and good reason why they should be allowed to create a colony, rather than for the RPMT to provide a reason why they cannot. I understand the view that the RPMT should generally provide clear reasons for any ruling, however, as is law there are occasions when the role is reversed. The presumption against colonies is intended to prevent the willful abuse of the system to create puppet nations; you will of course remember my previous Puppet Control Act which was resoundingly defeated because it failed to sufficiently limit the ability of nations to create such puppets. While a colony is not, under this Act, automatically a puppet state they do inherently have the potential to become such. Additionally in an IC context we are role playing in a period where society and politics have gone beyond the ideologies of imperialism and colonialism. In place of vast multinational empires we have federalised states, even those nations referring to themselves and empires are in truth hardly that (myself included), therefore it cannot automatically be assumed that the establishment of colonies on Yukon is the 'done thing' so to speak. |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Apr 22 2015, 01:33 PM Post #9 |
|
Well, that changes things a bit then. I'm not convinced that this is the best way to have a prohibitive statute against colonies. I think, most importantly, that it subjects the players to two burdens, the RPMT and the Minister of Cartography is overly burdensome, and will create potentially cause unnecessary hard feelings if someone has an good thought process and put a lot of time into a proposal that gets through the hurdle of the RPMT only to be shot down by the MoC. If we're going to be restrictive about a certain sector of RP then we should at least be plain about it from the start. If this is something the Assembly wants to undertake, I'd favor an outright ban with a sunset limitation this summer sometime. Also, is the legislation meant to include mining colonies on asteroids and moons and such, or only those on Yukon itself? **Edited for content prior to any reply on the original post. Edited by Tyvenia, Apr 22 2015, 01:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Saratoga | Apr 22 2015, 04:22 PM Post #10 |
|
One thing I don't like about this is how it give the Cartographer power that too me seem like they should belong to the Minister of RP. "1.6) All nations wishing to establish a colony must justify this wish in in character terms; approval of Colony requests come at the discretion of the Role Play Moderation Team, on the advice of the Minister for Cartography." In this a player is Rping creating a colony. So the colony RP should be approved by the Role Play Moderation Team which i'm ok with, and the Minister for Cartography. Why is the Cartographer involved in this decision but not the Minister of Role Play? 1.7) The Minister for Cartography shall have the right to veto any colony claim. Reason for a veto may include but are not limited; attempts at boxing a nation, attempts to claim strategically valuable territory, attempts to unrealistically expand the territory of the home nation. Ok, I have one big problem with this which raises a ton of red flags (in my opinion). This proposed legislation is giving the Cartographer some power that could be taking advantage of within the RP. 1.7) "attempts to claim strategically valuable territory" This gives the Cartographer power to deny a player what he deems "strategically valuable territories". This to me is a flat out attempt to give any Minister of Cartography a small amount"god modding"(i try not to throw the term around a lot) powers. The responsibility of creating colony should be a shared tasking because of the ability to abuse it's power. I propose that responsibility should be left to the Role Play Moderation Team or it should be struck from the legislation. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Apr 22 2015, 05:10 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Administrator
|
@Tyvenia - The wording states that the MoC advises the RPMT on any colonisaton decision, therefore the MoC would be able to make plain that they are vetoing the claim during this process, thus preventing the two hurdle process you quite rightly fear. The veto on the part of the MoC is purely based upon the territorial claim and is included to protect their powers under the Cartography Act; of course I can only speak for myself as the present MoC but I would not veto any claim the RPMT approved except on the most extraordinary of grounds. To address your other question about extra-terrestrial colonies the answer is no. The (Yukon) suffix at the end of the Act means that this Act only applies to terrestrial colonies. @Saratoga - I'll address your concerns one at a time for ease:
|
![]() |
|
| Saratoga | Apr 22 2015, 05:37 PM Post #12 |
|
^^ This does calm some of my fears. I just wanted to make sure that there is the least amount of loophole as there can be. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Apr 22 2015, 06:42 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
Even if that act sounds attractive and gives the opportunity to establish colonies, Promethius, you still do not give any arguments against this act. Plus, puppets are bad and therefore they should remain banished from Yukon. We've seen what happened with Enkon and Ath's banject. Even if you may be reliable - more than Ath -, even then, I still stand against this act. Why? Colonies are territories that are strongly dependant on their masters, economically, militarily and politically even. Therefore they still are puppets - puppets are nations that are dependant on their liege nation for decisions. Thus this disapproval remains UNCHANGED. |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Apr 22 2015, 06:59 PM Post #14 |
|
Herargon, Well for starters, I think Prime's in favor of the legislation, so he's not likely to complain about it. Also, there's a world of difference between the absolute power in the hands of a single person in Enkon that led to its downfall, than a the constitutional protections we have here. I think Prime also suitably addressed the concerns about the puppet issue. What specifically concerns you in regards to the puppet issue that Prime didn't address, or didn't address sufficiently? |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Apr 26 2015, 04:21 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The mandatory 5 day debate period is over, please declare your votes, Aye or Nay. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | Apr 26 2015, 06:55 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
I vote Aye. |
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Apr 26 2015, 07:59 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
Well, colonies are part of the mother land and are made out of additional land, thus this is a law which if passed, contradicts the Cartography Act. That is, it contradicts the Cartography Act because that act said how often we were allowed to expand -and also essentially how much. Since colonies can undo this by having a large (more than 2 billion) population according to this proposal, or by adding your colony AND an expansion at the same time, it would violate law currently in use. Which is unlawful and therefore either the Cartography Act needs to be changed through Senate before proposing this act, or this act would not be in use, or this act needs to be changed to adhere to previously passed legislation, in accordance with the Constitution. And not only those are the reasons (but they are spoken through orating - speaking, - on the law), but they are important in analysing this proposal, that is for sure. The other reasons I have are based on what Athretvari did due to wanting too much power through his puppets. Though I know the people here are not like him, we shall need to take no risk, if we want to prevent another drama. That is why I would lean towards a strong 'Nay', instead, but for now, I will abstain and think for a moment whether my vote would make a difference. |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Apr 26 2015, 09:51 PM Post #18 |
|
Aye |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Apr 26 2015, 11:11 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Administrator
|
POINT OF ORDER: Herargon, please keep debate to the allotted debating period. Once voting has commenced you should not post lengthy debating posts and simply declare your vote. If you wish to motion for an increased debating period you may do so, however this would require a second. You have been warned about this before; if you do this again I will have to issue a Strike in accordance with the three strike law. |
![]() |
|
| Tyvenia | Apr 27 2015, 12:51 AM Post #20 |
|
Abstaining. |
![]() |
|
| New Wolfeinstein | Apr 27 2015, 02:36 PM Post #21 |
|
Aye
Edited by New Wolfeinstein, Apr 27 2015, 02:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Herargon | Apr 28 2015, 10:03 PM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Nay. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Apr 30 2015, 12:24 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Voting closes the result is: 3-1-1 The Act passes and shall be sent to the Senate once elections are concluded. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:21 PM Jul 11
|









7:21 PM Jul 11