Page 1 of 1
The two Matbaas
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:11 am
by Ari Rahikkala
OK, it seems that after some internal trouble Matbaa is starting to figure out what kind of a nation they want to be. Seems they want to be two. Since we already had a treaty with the Zatriarchate, and since the new revision is headed by the much-loved and well-known benkern, I took the liberty to pursue a treaty with them that's equivalent no the one we had with the Zatriarchate.
See
http://ninetyone.org/matbaa/smf/index.php?topic=27.0 for the treaty proceedings (can you see I'm not particularly big on the three-month policy?) and
http://www.micromaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=559 for an overview of the new status of the Matbaas.
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:26 am
by benkern
*puts on Metropolitan hat*
The Synody of Matbaa would not be offended if the Imperial Republic were to delay this treaty in keeping with the 3 month rule - not to say we are not happy to sign a Treaty now, though!
*puts on Shirerithian green hair*
W00tylicious.
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:44 am
by Jonas
Why is Matbaa splitted in two parts?

Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:47 am
by benkern
Because the vast majority of the population wants to implement a brand new Constitution, but the Zatriarch (Head of State) is avidly against it, perhaps because it liquidates his position and replaces it with an elected version. And a civil war wouldn't help much, we're not active enough for that kind of thing.
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:47 pm
by Jacobus Loki
And a civil war wouldn't help much.........
I know that feeling.....
(Sigh)
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:17 pm
by Chrimigules
I've noticed that incumbent non-elected rulers tend to not like to be made a redundancy and removed, especially when such an action is beneficial for the micronation as a whole.
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:56 am
by Jonas
It's so confusing... but the treaty is approved

Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:11 am
by Maksym Hadjimehmetov
As a former Matbaic citizen and founder of the nation, I feel I shouldn't really comment on this. The Matbaics must do what they feel right, and I hope they take whatever choice benefits the nation most, be that Theocracy or Democracy.
The one thing I feel I must say is that it's
Matbaics, not
Matbaans.

Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:26 am
by Aurangzeb Khan
You are all still Syriac dogs to me.

Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:11 pm
by Jacobus Loki
How does a Syriac dog differ from a simple dog? Or a Assyriac dog? Is an Assyriac dog asymptomatic? Do I care?
C'mon, Matbaa used to be a very cool place. Now it's two very cool places.
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:52 pm
by Aurangzeb Khan
I shouldn't worry about it - as any foule or Matbaic knows 'Syriac dog' is a tdearment that Babkhans have for their Matbaic brethren. It dates back to the Circum-Raynor War and the glories of that struggle.
Re: The two Matbaas
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:02 am
by Maksym Hadjimehmetov
Good times, eh?
I like a good recwar- the good thing about ruling a theocracy during one is the endless propaganda oppurtunities, as well as Holy War and the right to have mad monks on the field of battle. Pretty sharp, those crosses are- I can assure you

Matbaics tend to go for the coarser 'Babkhan Scum' in addressing their Babkhan
bretheren.
