| The Mercurian Empire http://hermertia.com/ |
|
| Ammendment To The Land Claims Act http://hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=1426 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 10th, 2016, 1:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
I voice my support in letting the House of Dukes have input on voting for the creation of new realms. They already have input on the rank ascension of an independent Count to Duke, therefore they should have input on what is essentially a rank ascension from a Count under a Liege-lord to Count under the Council of the Crowned. |
|
| Author: | Wysterian Labourer's Council [ December 10th, 2016, 1:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
Agreed. Good job turning me around on this. Proposed New Draft: ------ Process for Claiming an Independent Holding Any member of the Empire of rank Count or above may seek to establish an independent holding, of which they are the highest legal authority, in any lands currently recognized as unclaimed. This is accomplished through the submission of a formal proposal for the creation of an independent holding to the Imperial Court; the proposal must include: a) A map of the area including defined borders claimed in context with current regional and/or imperial maps, and b) Statement of intent and purpose for the lands claimed. Once a proposal has been submitted to the Imperial Court, it must be subject to and pass a vote of confidence from the Imperial Parliament. To be recognized as an independant holding, the proposal must receive a vote in confidence from either a clear majority of the Council of the Crowned (60%) or a clear majority of the Council of the Crowned (50% + 1) concurrent with a majority of the House of Dukes (50% + 1) Once a proposal for the creation of an independent holding has been recognized, that realm shall immediately be recognized under Imperial law and entitled to all rights, freedoms, and duties this entails. Rules Governing Vassalage Relationships After Independence Where the creation of an independant holding results in a vassal or vassals ceasing to be under a liege, the former vassal(s) is entitled to the following rights: a) The individual(s) retain their former rank as recognized by the Empire. b) The individual(s) retain custody of all materials, items, and other goods in their possession at the time of the creation of the independant holding. The individual(s) do not retain custody of or jurisdiction over any physical buildings, property, lands, or peoples inside the lands of their former liege, which shall return to the primary custody of the liege unless otherwise agreed upon. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 10th, 2016, 2:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
Looks perfect to me! |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ December 10th, 2016, 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
Agreed! |
|
| Author: | King Tiber III [ December 10th, 2016, 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
The wording is great to me as well. |
|
| Author: | Scrios V [ December 11th, 2016, 4:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
Definitely looks great to me too! |
|
| Author: | The Chairman [ December 12th, 2016, 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
How do we define "in possession" in II. b.? Is that inventory, or all resources at the settlement? If it is the latter, I think there should be a time limit of one IRL week or one mercannum (a month) to retrieve resources from a previous holding. This will make it so the liege can utilize that holding without worrying about which resources are theirs and which belong to their former vassal. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 12th, 2016, 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
I get your point Chairman, but I feel trying to legislate that to that degree is... not in the spirit of the community. Couldn't that be something that is discussed between the two players instead? Couldn't signs be utilized? If there would be a time limit, that I'd recommend longer than a week. At least a month. |
|
| Author: | Wysterian Labourer's Council [ December 12th, 2016, 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
Personally, I don't really think we need to go so far as institute a strict time limit for the possession of goods. Even I think that we run the risk of legislating all the natural interaction out of a community of, after all, friends who can almost always find compromises and solutions - particularly in these matters. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 14th, 2016, 6:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ammendment To The Land Claims Act |
What else do we need to discuss here? I reiterate that I don't think we need to do what Chairman is suggesting. |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|