Micronational Cartography Society

http://www.micromaps.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1041


and oh fuck i broke their map :s

after reviewing Greenuk's forums, I have come to the conclusion that there is very little really going on in any of them.

They also seem to have attempted a recwar with Numenor, but it seems that they did'nt take it seriously and it was called off.

Even their most serious threads have very little to do in building community, or culture in any form. I have seen very little in the development of any sort of government for that matter. This is not to say that they don't have a style, but it really is a hint of one, much rather then the implementation of anything.

I believe if they put more work into the culture and purpose of their nation, as well as get a decent setup of Government working, then I would support their work in expanding to space. However as of now I can find no evidence of their satelite launchings, their work on space technology, and very little about general enthusiasm for the entire thing.

My vote on this claim is: Nein

-St. Fenix

on their forum i find:
a rival map run by the greenuk government
a plan to take over the whole of their islands in 12 steps... they're on about step 2

yup
NEIN

Aye. They're a good bunch of chaps with an inspired leader; they lack enthusiasm but that's because of lack of direction. I feel confident that they'll be able to grow a lot more than you guys give them credit.

i vote Nyet

we'rw accepting too many tarsica bases... we don't want it packed like certain Micras countrys...

what do you think about banning all nations who do not meet the following criteria:

*been on MCS map for 12 months
*have millitery budget over $X ( we can work this out for none MRWS members)
*are mature

What?!?!?!

We can't do that Pete, we would single-handedly destroy our member base. Not to mention give little room for those newer nations to grow and expand on this map. We need to have standards yes, but we have to control these standards so that we can have members.

Instead let us go with a far less reaching rule, and merely re-instate the 3 month rule. In this way we will gain everything we want, since usually only mature ones make it past 3 months. As well as allowing all those nations who are already here to remain. I see no reason why we should rescind on their membership when we already agreed to have them.

I will make a thread upon this very subject myself. Since I believe it is of the utmost importance anyway. It was a usefull rule back in the day, and allows our membership to look better then it currently does with accepting all Micronations regardless of else.

-St. Fenix

Fenix he means on Tarsica i hope... but i doubt pete would try and ban loads of members from the map... it's ju7st that tarcsica should be a real challenge to members, otherwise we would see ethiopia on the moon

well let us hope Comrade.

I believe that Pete is Correct (If he means this). The Moon should be a challenge to Members, and I would support having a 6 month Rule for the Moon as well.

-St. Fenix

Then we are agreed (for it was what I meant).

let us talk budget numbers. Also I think that if a nation trys and fails they should get 6 months added on to the time before they are approved.

maybe 3 months... 6 months is a lot...
but that's realistic... if NASAs moon return mission blew up they'ld wait wuite a bit before re-trying

well comrades this has waited long enough, we need to finish this forum.

has this been declared Spangle? if so then feel free to get rid of this thread.

-St. Fenix

done