The question of the micronation Safiria

[Octavius]

It's organic

So's anthrax.

[Jacobus Loki]

!

(I haven't laughed that much in MN's in quite a while, thanks!)

[Octavius]

Thank you. I'm here all week.

But in all seriousness, sure it's good to let things develop naturally, but we can't expect that that alone is capable of handling everything in a way that works and suits our sensibilities. The power of precedent above reason, and such.

[Jacobus Loki]

True. Trees need pruning on occasion.

[Andreas the Wise]

Actually Scott, I think the main point of Gerk's post is not "Why don't we let everyone in?" but rather "Why are we voting by nations?" If Bastion is purely a hosting arrangement with no affect on national sovereingty etc, then why are nations even getting involved - why isn't it just the people on the forums who have a say, regardless of how many or few nations they are a citizen of?

[Gerk]

That's exactly right, Andreas. Thanks for clarifying.

[Andreas the Wise]

No problem at all If there's one thing philosophy has drilled into me, it's how to clarify arguments.

[Daniel]

OK, let's just have a community-wide vote?

Everybody gets one vote.

[Gerk]

And the added benefit to a community vote is that all concerns are voiced in a single place where everyone can easily see and respond to them.

[Daniel]

Everybody can see and respond to this thread

Only nations seem to be able to vote though.

[Carl Jackson]

OK, let's just have a community-wide vote?

Everybody gets one vote.

AYE

[Kaiser Reynardine II]

"Associate member status" doesn't MEAN anything though. It's a term we've never defined and certainly aren't on the road to defining. The only difference between it and full out Bastion membership is that you can get the status without votes in member nations because it's so associative or something. As the Yak Horde is proving, they can still get any forums they ask for and a full theme without needing this nebulous full membership.

I think "Associate Member" was more along the lines of, "We'll give you some space on the forums, possibly just a bit of subforum under an "associate member" top-level forum, but you can't vote on Bastion issues like full members can."

I think voting as nations does have its merits. It makes tallying votes easier, since most are done on the national level then reported in this forum. It does have an "electoral college" problem to it, in that, say, 2 very large nations could vote in favour, but 3 small nations vote against, and that would amount to a decision against overall. Doing all of the voting in this forum gets rid of the potential for one person voting multiple times, but it might get a bit unruly.

Gah, all this is so complicated, I'm out of intelligible things to say on the matter.

[Jacobus Loki]

Hey, its the ancient lower-house / upper-house discussion again!

Except here, the person with the most multiple citizenships gets more weight.

hmmmmm....

[Gerk]

I'd just like to point out that my original point was not at all unfairness based on multiple citizenships. My point was that Bastion, serving only as a host for all of our nations, and having no political weight whatsoever, should not be run in part by a process that involves singular nations getting votes, instead of a community-wide system, because the community is what will be affected by any changes made to Bastion, not the nations.

[Kaiser Reynardine II]

Gerk, I do understand your point, it's just a positive thing that popped into my head.

[Andreas the Wise]

While this discussion is a helpful future thing, I think we've left Safiria in limbo long enough. Do we have a collective answer as to whether they're admitted or not?

[Daniel]

I think the collective answer is "no".

[Andreas the Wise]

Counting votes in this topic, we have two nos, one "Yes to associate but not full" and one "Yes to either". Add in Babkha's no and if we say you need 2/3+ approval to get in, that means it fails.

I shall inform Safiria officially.

[Jacobus Loki]

[Daniel]

And so Safiria applied for membership again.

In a poll held by the Senate of Elwynn, Amokolia and Hurmu in the end of November, there were three options that were discussed and voted on:

Option 1: Full support of Safiria joining Bastion as a full member.

Option 2: Reject Safiria joining Bastion as a full member, yet supportive of Safiria being hosted by any willing Bastion member.

Option 3: Limited support of Safiria joining as a junior member (the one-man nation category, still granted top-level board.)

In the end, Option 1 received one vote, Option 2 received three votes and Option 3 received no votes.

Accordingly, Option 2 remains the policy of Elwynn, Amokolia and Hurmu unless it is revisited. If Safiria makes a better case in February than it did in November, then, surely, this may be revisited.

If the admissions poll is held by the member nations of Bastion, then Elwynn, Amokolia and Hurmu will reject any application from Safiria as a full member, but support Safiria being hosted by another member. In IC contexts, that could be seen as a "protectorate" of Safiria.

Until Safiria explains why the EAH policy should be revisited, the policy remains as determined by the Senate poll.