Shireroth

A debate. Do you support the traditional Three Month Rule for micronational recongition? This is the rule which states that a micronation cannot be recongized by another until three months after its foundation.

Personally, I'm leaning against it. After all, the Apollo Sector micronations had many conficts with nations that were short lasting, and some micronaions might be worthy yet at the same time not live long.

Than are they really wortth bothering with on an official level?

Are we really becoming so elitist that we judge a micronation on the time it's been around rather than on the merit of it's citizens?

You act like making a treaty of recognition is such big trouble.

My policy is to say we have it, to ignore it with micronations that we like, and to use it as an excuse for not recognizing new micronations that really don't like that worth recognizing without hurting their feelings.

Which would make us simply assholes instead of elitist. Why should one nation be exempted from the rule when another isn't?

I personally believe that the best course of action is to have relations with startup nations, but to not get into anything too serious with them until they have proven their stability (which may be more than three months or less than it). I don't think that a time length is really the best way to determine the stability of a nation. Delvenus was around for about four months before anything really happened there, as an example.

Time's a bad measurement in this instance. Go with something else.

I agree. The treaties of recongition are practically just treaties of contact, and nothing more. I don't see the har, in removing the restriction for recongition. If we want serious relations, then we can restrict it to a time limit, but even then I don't see the point.

You know, I'm going to check and see if we actually have the three month rule in the Lawbook or Decreebook. If not, then it was just policy (probably by Iain) that can be easily changed if we want to.

We don't have such a rule officially..

But I'm not being elitist. I just think it's a waste of time and energy to both with a nation that won't be there next month.

As long as the three-month policy isn't an actual law, we probably shouldn't worry so much. I agree with something like what Scott proposed, but we should make a point of telling new micronations from the start that the three-month rule is only a guideline, subject to revision based on our evaluations of their prospects.

Maybe we could help encourage them to undergo conscious effort to become stable... and perhaps give them advice on how to do so, if we can.