SO 2017-22 Regional Map Territory Adoption Act

I. Adoption of the Regional Map

This bill will allow for the map entitled "Map B" that was voted for by regional poll will hereby be instated as the official map for the Parliamentary Union of Nations. This map will be used primarily for Role Play, but may also be used for other reasons.

II. Preface

Recognizing that there is no current system of adopting territory on our newly owned regional map, the following rules will dictate how these specific interactions decide separate territories.

III. Assignment of Land

The official who will be assigning land and receiving proposals for land will be the Minister of Development, who will verify either that a nation will be receiving their requested land, or will not be receiving their land of choice, until everyone has land, after which the authority of the map will go to a Role Play moderator. If the Minister of Development has unfairly distributed land, he/she may receive punishments. These punishments include:

A) Loss of land
B) Loss of credibility
C) Possible court trial

IV. Claiming Territory

Claiming territory will be much more simple than any other way: make a claim on a piece of the map, you may have it or be shot down for the following reasons:

I. Merit: If a citizen doesn't participate in regional democracy or is never active, often keeping to themselves, they may receive less land than an active nation.
II. Nation Size: If a citizen has a huge nation or needs a huge nation because of past Role Play or other justified reasons, you will receive a large plot of land.
III. Population: If a citizen has a large population, they may receive a larger portion of the map than a newer country with a small population.

V. Alternative Means of Obtaining Territory

If a citizen receives a small portion of the map, such citizen may request for the Prime Minister to re-think their actions through any form of contact, which will allow for the possibility of such citizen receiving a larger portion of land. You may also conquer others land through role play, which may result in the loss of your own land..

VI. Map Violations

If any nation chooses to do something wrong or invalid by RP or other standards, you may receive a loss of a portion of your land as well as any other criminal charges seen just in the court of the Union. During the criminal trial, you may be subject to RP, Map and other violations.


April 9th, 2017
Sepharich, PM
Thomolia, MwP

I need critique please! Please feel free to assess and help edit my bill! This is my first!

1) This doesn't actually establish the base map.  In other words, if this proposal was passed as it is written, there would be a mechanism to claim land on a map, but we wouldn't actually have a map.
2) Land claims should all be equal.  No one should be discriminated against because of their past participation (or lack thereof).
3) The Prime Minister needs more guidelines to prevent the arbitrary denial of claims to people the PM doesn't like.  (theoretically, of course).  Also, you can't just say "the PM will be punished"  That is waaaaay too vague.  He could be getting a strongly-worded TG, or he could be getting perm banned.  You need more specificity.
4) Get rid of the MSC thing.  The two ways of getting land should be through apportioning and RP.  Not "applying for more land".
5) Again, way too vague.  Like all you say is "if you do something wrong, whatever that may be, you might be punished".  Again, you need to specify each crime individually.  Also, if it is to be called a "crime", then it must be adjudicated at a trial, not by an RP arbiter. And if it is a "crime", you would need to amend the Judicial Rights and Procedures to make revocation of map claims a valid punishment.

Libertarian Democracy wrote:1) This doesn't actually establish the base map.  In other words, if this proposal was passed as it is written, there would be a mechanism to claim land on a map, but we wouldn't actually have a map.
2) Land claims should all be equal.  No one should be discriminated against because of their past participation (or lack thereof).
3) The Prime Minister needs more guidelines to prevent the arbitrary denial of claims to people the PM doesn't like.  (theoretically, of course).  Also, you can't just say "the PM will be punished"  That is waaaaay too vague.  He could be getting a strongly-worded TG, or he could be getting perm banned.  You need more specificity.
4) Get rid of the MSC thing.  The two ways of getting land should be through apportioning and RP.  Not "applying for more land".
5) Again, way too vague.  Like all you say is "if you do something wrong, whatever that may be, you might be punished".  Again, you need to specify each crime individually.  Also, if it is to be called a "crime", then it must be adjudicated at a trial, not by an RP arbiter.  And if it is a "crime", you would need to amend the Judicial Rights and Procedures to make revocation of map claims a valid punishment.

For your first point, we kind of changed that we needed it to be in a bill passed by parliament into a poll that everyone votes for. Land claims shouldn't be equal because people that never play will have the same amounts of land as us and we will not be able to have RP that functions correctly. I will edit the bill in accordance with 3,4 and 5 though.

1) Again, unless the map that we voted for is included in an annex and established as the regional map by an article in this bill, there is nothing in the law actually saying we have a regional map. Governmental committees have no legal authority, and don't even have a defined legal status, making their work purely advisory unless its backed up by an Act of Parliament.
2) I firmly believe that each nation should get an equal parcel of land to start with, but I think that there should also be a mechanism whereby they can gain (and lose) further parcels, through some mechanism like warfare/treaties/etc. The parcels should therefore be very small.

Will comment further on the bill when I have more time (soon).

Abdoa wrote:1) Again, unless the map that we voted for is included in an annex and established as the regional map by an article in this bill, there is nothing in the law actually saying we have a regional map. Governmental committees have no legal authority, and don't even have a defined legal status, making their work purely advisory unless its backed up by an Act of Parliament.
2) I firmly believe that each nation should get an equal parcel of land to start with, but I think that there should also be a mechanism whereby they can gain (and lose) further parcels, through some mechanism like warfare/treaties/etc. The parcels should therefore be very small.

Will comment further on the bill when I have more time (soon).

I still don't believe in the second point you brought up.

The problem I have with unequal partition as currently proposed is that it is based on previous activity, and therefore is highly subject to what the PM thinks of the applicant's history in the region. Having initial claims be of equal parts but allowing for expansion (and deletion if CTE) makes this process less judgmental and fairer for newer residents. The PM is by no means a non-partisan position, and thus must be given strict limits on their influence in this decision. I would maybe even venture to put gestation of the regional map in the hands of an agency under the MoD (the roleplay ministry), or eventually of a parliamentary commission established for that purpose (a commission, not a committee, so appointed by parliament, but not necessarily from among the senators, and having as function only the upkeep of the regional map).

Abdoa wrote:The problem I have with unequal partition as currently proposed is that it is based on previous activity, and therefore is highly subject to what the PM thinks of the applicant's history in the region. Having initial claims be of equal parts but allowing for expansion (and deletion if CTE) makes this process less judgmental and fairer for newer residents. The PM is by no means a non-partisan position, and thus must be given strict limits on their influence in this decision. I would maybe even venture to put gestation of the regional map in the hands of an agency under the MoD (the roleplay ministry), or eventually of a parliamentary commission established for that purpose (a commission, not a committee, so appointed by parliament, but not necessarily from among the senators, and having as function only the upkeep of the regional map).

No, it's supposed to be based on overall participation. It will mostly consist of me searching through what someone has done (good or bad) to earn a plot of land, big or small. Also, giving equal territory would allow for increased risk taking, for example, starting wars for no reason, which would really screw up international relations only to get the biggest ink blotch on the map. I'm just trying to make the most safe and effective mode of giving people what they want. Also, after everybody claims some land, the map will officially go to whoever controls role play so that there is no tampering with land.

I am not doubting your judgment, but the law is supposed to fit all PMs, which means we cannot assume that there will always be a PM who looks at things from an impartial point of view. If initial apportionment is done in an equal fashion, and the rest happens through a defined system, there is a much reduced chance that the PM (perhaps a land-owner himself) can manipulate the system to his advantage. And I feel like I need to repeat that the bare minimum we need is a map cut up into relatively equal and small parcels so that land transactions can actually happen in a way where there won't be confusion as to what is being traded.

In any case, I'll repeat my suggestion that land apportionment be dealt with not by the PM but by some other agency that is already in less of a partisan position, such as the MoD (the ministry that is actually in charge of roleplay affairs anyways), or a Parliamentary Commission of moderators for the regional map.

Abdoa wrote:I am not doubting your judgment, but the law is supposed to fit all PMs, which means we cannot assume that there will always be a PM who looks at things from an impartial point of view. If initial apportionment is done in an equal fashion, and the rest happens through a defined system, there is a much reduced chance that the PM (perhaps a land-owner himself) can manipulate the system to his advantage. And I feel like I need to repeat that the bare minimum we need is a map cut up into relatively equal and small parcels so that land transactions can actually happen in a way where there won't be confusion as to what is being traded.

In any case, I'll repeat my suggestion that land apportionment be dealt with not by the PM but by some other agency that is already in less of a partisan position, such as the MoD (the ministry that is actually in charge of roleplay affairs anyways), or a Parliamentary Commission of moderators for the regional map.

I see your point about the top part, the thing is that this will only be a temporary thing until everyone has a spot on the map. After that, a role play coordinator or the MoD will take the map.

Sepharich wrote:

Abdoa wrote:I am not doubting your judgment, but the law is supposed to fit all PMs, which means we cannot assume that there will always be a PM who looks at things from an impartial point of view. If initial apportionment is done in an equal fashion, and the rest happens through a defined system, there is a much reduced chance that the PM (perhaps a land-owner himself) can manipulate the system to his advantage. And I feel like I need to repeat that the bare minimum we need is a map cut up into relatively equal and small parcels so that land transactions can actually happen in a way where there won't be confusion as to what is being traded.

In any case, I'll repeat my suggestion that land apportionment be dealt with not by the PM but by some other agency that is already in less of a partisan position, such as the MoD (the ministry that is actually in charge of roleplay affairs anyways), or a Parliamentary Commission of moderators for the regional map.

I see your point about the top part, the thing is that this will only be a temporary thing until everyone has a spot on the map. After that, a role play coordinator or the MoD will take the map.

So basically it's already what you wan't except at the start.

In which case, why don't we just save our time and put all of these functions in the MoD/roleplay coordinator/roleplay coordinating commission's hands from the start, and set down guidelines in this bill for the roleplay moderation that will have to be specified anyways for this project to come to fruition. That way, we get it all done in one system and one bill.

Abdoa wrote:In which case, why don't we just save our time and put all of these functions in the MoD/roleplay coordinator/roleplay coordinating commission's hands from the start, and set down guidelines in this bill for the roleplay moderation that will have to be specified anyways for this project to come to fruition. That way, we get it all done in one system and one bill.

Ok, I'm cool with that.

I still cannot support giving out different size land allotments. One thing that I've found to work well is everyone starting with one very small section of land, and then every two weeks or so they automatically gain one adjacent very small section of land.

Libertarian Democracy wrote:I still cannot support giving out different size land allotments.  One thing that I've found to work well is everyone starting with one very small section of land, and then every two weeks or so they automatically gain one adjacent very small section of land.

Yeah, I really don't like that idea. It seems a little to regulated, while I see my idea giving leeway and stopping immediate conflict.

I think conflict will arise anyways whether we give out equal portions or not. That's the whole purpose of a regional map.

By the way, could we have a link to the map as well, in case we lose the other thread?

Abdoa wrote:I think conflict will arise anyways whether we give out equal portions or not. That's the whole purpose of a regional map.

By the way, could we have a link to the map as well, in case we lose the other thread?

Why not!
https://2img.net/h/oi68.tinypic.com/jv3xbq.jpg

Thanks!

Abdoa wrote:Thanks!

Of course!

I wish to co-sponsor this bill.

Bill placed in line for debate.

I would maybe venture that we might want to finalize the edits to and the fleshing out of the bill before it gets to the Debate Hall, so that we don't need to vote on amendments?

Abdoa wrote:Bill placed in line for debate.

I would maybe venture that we might want to finalize the edits to and the fleshing out of the bill before it gets to the Debate Hall, so that we don't need to vote on amendments?

Yes, but I thought I already edited it. What else did you want me to edit?

Sorry, overlooked some of the changes! It looks fine in its functions; however, I think the language is sometimes not as clear as it should be: for example, you should never use examples in legislation, there should be language that englobes the example; also you should never use the second person, always the third, except in the "We, the Parliament of the Union" bits.

Abdoa wrote:Sorry, overlooked some of the changes! It looks fine in its functions; however, I think the language is sometimes not as clear as it should be: for example, you should never use examples in legislation, there should be language that englobes the example; also you should never use the second person, always the third, except in the "We, the Parliament of the Union" bits.

All fixed!

Thanks!