Thanks for your input Arjen and Freyr.



Freyr, this was my thought too. Earlier in the thread here, I suggested that we refine the points made by Sam and others into one document, entitled (say) "Guidelines for Ascension to King/Queen", ratify that, and create a legal requirement that the Council consult that when making a determination. As you say, this allows for a transparent process where the prospective applicant knows pretty well what the Council is basing their judgment on, but also leaves some leeway for the Council to make their decision.

I suggested that we change the current legal language from this:



To something like:



Thoughts on this?

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

The new language looks good to me! Definitely a lot clearer than the current guidelines.

_________________
Guardian of Casadia
Master of the Slayers Guild
Minister of Hermertian History

Hey lords and ladies!

Could we get the ball rolling on this again? When we left off, my language as proposed here seemed to meet with approval; it would be great to get the changes to the ascension process finalized and legalized.

My proposed language:

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

This is looking more like the language that we need for sure and it definitely makes things clear. The only thing I am concerned with is the build requirements. What I have noticed in the past, and it is just my opinion, is that the builds are lacks so that individuals can build up their counties quick and so forth (not everyone is like this). What was proposed is that an individual in search of Kingdom status must have at least 2 duchies with the 3 county requirement in each. Where it becomes different is that an individual could then either choose to add another county on top of the 2 that are required as a minimum or participate in co-builds.

The aim of these proposed changes was to foster more community involvement to ensure the longevity of the server rather than just focus on builds and such. If we have a requirement of 3 duchies my concern is that we will have counties with either little amounts of buildings or counties with a lot of the same building. This doesn't really do much for us in terms of marketing our server in the long term.

So is there any way we can alter the first requirement to include a provision to have 2 duchies (i agree there should be at least this to ensure a notion of a Kingdom is established or in the works) at a minimum with an option to either build a 3rd duchy or to participate in co-builds instead?

The rest I would agree with.

_________________
Scrios V
King of Perth, Brother of Valyria

I agree with all of the above. I think it strikes a good balance between developing one's own lands and community involvement.

_________________
Guardian of Casadia
Master of the Slayers Guild
Minister of Hermertian History

That was the entire basis for this argument from the outset, to make it easier for people to become kings by allowing them to not have to slave away at uniform builds, so I agree

_________________
Ainmire Sera-Blodh of House Flenadrison, second of his name, King in the South, Ruler of Carrickshire, and slayer of false Kings.
"The Crippled King"
"Flanders"

Agreed with Freyr's comments.

_________________
Petra Ravnikaar of The Veil

I think we're all in agreement here that 2 duchies strikes a good balance; that fulfills a clear build requirement while also allowing some leeway on the part of the Council (which will inevitably be part of the ascension process after all) in regards to the prospective King/Queen's participating in other building (i.e. Co-Builds).

Thanks all for your insight! I have altered the language and copied it below; if this meets with approval perhaps one of the Kings - or I would also be happy to do it - can create a separate thread for voting on this finalized language.

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

First question:
How would you define "serviceable"? Is merely a useability important? Or does it have to fill a certained set of rules? aestetics? size? with minecart tracks/ice roads or without?
Second question:
What does "having proven themselves" mean to you?
Best buddies with everyone except The Fishlord? Know some of the folk by name? Drinking buddy with Sam and Ferris?
Same thing with "outstanding member".

My point here is, that I know that you want to make the rules sound mighty and grand, keeping them in touch with the overall In-Lore feeling.
But the more grandeur you use, the more loopholes and things, which could lead to disagreements or even quarrels, you insert in the rules.

Rules should be as short and clear as possible to give it a good understandabilty for everyone. So that everyone talks about the same thing and not 20 different people with 20 different definitions of "outstanding member".

Thanks, and if you think I'm not aloud to talk here aswell, read my other post first or have a look at the forum rules and the Indoles Carta.

It is in the parliament so I think you should be fine posting in here.

In regards to your suggestions, Roglar, do you have any suggestions on how it could be worded in order to meet your wishes; being short and concise while also as clear and exact as possible to minimise loopholes?

_________________
Ainmire Sera-Blodh of House Flenadrison, second of his name, King in the South, Ruler of Carrickshire, and slayer of false Kings.
"The Crippled King"
"Flanders"