PROPOSAL | Prohibition of creation of second countries

PROPOSAL | Prohibition of creation of second countries

Face to the recent events that we can saw in last months, some members of AIN did applications of second countries. The problem is that when the second countries join AIN, we never hear talking about and updates in the first countries CJ's.This is very unrealistic, too. We should put a point in this subject. So here is my proposal:

-Prohibition of creating new second countries.
-Members who have second coutries until now, will remain with them but need to update the first country CJ.
-Members who want to create new countries should deactivate the other country from AIN.

A question, can members change their 2nd country into other?

Give me an example, please. I can't understand very well what you are saying because they are lots of options.

Like... ERC replaced with Karasem

I remember from looking for suitable unions for New Chandler that the SCJU having four different types of membership (comparatively speaking, the AIN has two). One was Full Membership, like us. One was Ambassadorship, which is like Junior Membership. One was Observership, which, according to their billion rules, is hardly even a member, and IMHO, pointless. But then they had Sub-Ambassador States, which is all the second countries. I think we should have a totally different type of membership for the second countries of the AIN members.

I think it is a good idea to prevent new second nations being created, but current nations can be replaced over a period of time (Such as what happened with Ollingdale and Cattala).

I think that would also sort out the issue of whether a second nation is a dependency, junior member or full member.

K50 Dude wrote: I think we should have a totally different type of membership for the second countries of the AIN members.

I like this idea!

I was about to suggest this!

I would like to add a few options for discussion:

OPTION 1 - Strict 1 nation policy:
Members would only be allowed to have one country, dependencies would not be allowed. This may mean that Lycanthia, the Sarnia Islands and the Ceara Islands would be exited from the union unless an amnesty on existing member nations was declared.

OPTION 2 - Strict 1 nation, 1 dependency policy:
Dependencies would become members by proxy of their parent nations. They would still need to go through the membership approval process, but would have something like observer status. Nations would be limited to having 1 dependency.

OPTION 3 - Unlimited dependency policy:
Same as option 2, but there would be no limit placed on how many dependencies a nation would be allowed to have.

OPTION 4 - Status qou
There would be no limit on how many nations that a member could have, nor on dependencies. Normal membership requirements for each nation would apply.

Personally, I'm in favour of option 2. Members would only have 1 primary nation at a time, with one dependency that would be a member by proxy meaning that their membership is solely dependent on their parent nation. So, if a member wants to replace their primary nation with another one, the dependency goes with the first nation.

I don't like the idea of members having 2 countries that are completely independent of each other. It is unwieldy and confusing. The same problem happens when a country has more than 1 dependency.

Dependencies are usually smaller than their parent nation, so having one attached is kind of like having an extra state or province. It doesn't detract from the primary nation, it can enhance it.

Having a completely second nation almost always means a stagnation of the original nation. We only need to look at Ollingdale and East Rockcoast for an example of this.

AMNESTY -
An amnesty would apply to existing member nations and their dependencies.

First off I find this extremely funny because we just closed miguel's 2nd country application

But like Dan I prefer option 2, and most of you might not know this but it's kind of an unwritten rule that you can't have more than 3 dependencies

I agree with Dan and Tyler, Duwamish would eventually like a dependency, but won't immediately...

I agree with dan's Option 2. Although the member state (not dependency) should have to be a full member IMHO.

You mean you have to be a full member to have a dependency? I agree with that

So, it seems like we're getting some consensus.

If I get an in-principle agreement, I'll open a pole on the following question:

[DIRECTIVE] Members will be limited to one nation. Only full member nations will be allowed to have dependencies. Dependencies will be members-by-proxy of their parent nation. Nations are limited to 1 dependency each. Existing member nations and their dependencies are unaffected by this rule.

There will be 3 options on this pole. Agree, disagree, abstain. The pole will be open for 48 hours.

As the existing "unwritten" rule is 3 dependencies, do we want to discuss keeping that, or limiting the number of dependencies at 1, or compromising, setting the limit at 2?

You should note that the dependency can't be more powerful than a Junior or Full member

I completely agree with your directive Dan

Yeah, that's kind of what member-by-proxy means. When I post the pole, I'll explain it in greater detail, but in a nutshell it means that dependencies are completely reliant on their primary nation for membership and only have the equivalent of observer status, or dialogue partners. They will still be able to participate in events, even bid to host them. However, that's about the limit of their involvement.

So, do we want to discuss the actual limit of how many dependencies nations should be allowed to have? Or is 1 enough? Personally, I'm thinking that 2 might be more realistic and enable a bit of leeway. I think 3 is too many.

Few other things...

danspaceman wrote:When I post the pole

I think the word you are looking for is "poll"

They will still be able to participate in events, even bid to host them. However, that's about the limit of their involvement.

Embassies? City Journals?

Personally, I'm thinking that 2 might be more realistic and enable a bit of leeway.

I was going to say two myself.

LOL - sorry - I meant "poll."

As for embassies, no. Their foreign relations will be handled by their parent nation. They would still have their own city journals, however.

Alright. Then I think you should open the "poll" (EDIT: After a few other people say their comments)

Okay, I'll leave it open for comment for the next 24 hours and open the poll tomorrow morning.

While I'm not saying there shouldn't be a showcase of the Dependency, having an entirely new CJ for a DP would be just as confusing as a second country. It would also push the site truly to its limit, as it's already busting at the seams. (thread/topic speaking)

So, such as the diplomacy, I suggest we have the DP's CJ handled in the parent country's CJ thread.

TBH, the whole DP idea is a good step forward, but ultimately boils down to a similar split in focus. Although this can have the opposite effect as a second nation sometimes; for example, (and not to pick on/offend anyone) I haven't seen a Ceara Islands or Sarnia Islands update in my time as member of AIN.

As such, we've recently seen updates of Dan's Lycanthia, which shows a step in the right direction for showcasing of DP's.

Agree with option 2. Can we go to the votation pool?

On the point of Ollingdale and ERC, Cattala was, and always has been, a replacement for Ollingdale. Initially it was meant to be a second-version of the UIO, similar to Corraile V2. However I said all along that Ollingdale would be replaced by Cattala once Cattala joined.

I agree with Option 2 as well.

OKay, I'm moving this to the voting chamber.

The reason why I make 2nd country (Starfishland) is to change my nation because of my skill far improved than when I make ERC. Also it'll be nuked soon! :twisted: