Page 1 of 2
Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:13 pm
by b3n|<3r|\|

To be presented before the MCS for approval. A modification only, not a pixel of land gained.
(I will bring the modification to the MCS if it pleases the Landsraad, since I know how to post a claim correctly *glares at the space where Jacobus used to be*.)

To be added to the Mango Map. These lands were lost in the sands of time and so were not included in the original draft. Only recently has Ryan given this old map to me. Technically these lands should already be on there.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:13 pm
by Kaiser Ayreon
Lord von Benkern,
Mar Sara is already on the
Mango Map.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:14 pm
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
But not the whole island, m'lord Kaiser...
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:16 pm
by b3n|<3r|\|
Well, you're right, Your Niftiness, but not in its detailed entirity. The cities!
Though if the Landsraad or Your Niftiness believe Mar Sara's cities are not important enough to warrant placement on the Mango Map, I shall accept the decision gracefully and look forward to I SHALL REVENGE!
Roy: Well... the brownish bit at the top I believe indicates lost land... so the whole island *is* on there. Just not the detail as I say.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:18 pm
by Kaiser Ayreon
Well, is all of the land ours already? If not, you can just go ahead and claim it. *signs relevant papers*
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:19 pm
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
Ah, indeed...I didn't notice the brown...
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:20 pm
by Kaiser Ayreon
Or if you prefer to vote on it, do so too

Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:22 pm
by b3n|<3r|\|
I like voting, and it gives Jonas something to do.

He's such a great Praetor, it's a shame when there are no Bills.
I thank you for your support, Your Niftiness. It is most appreciated.

Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:20 pm
by Erik Mortis
So this only modifies the mango map, doesn't make a claim to the MCS?
Why not just have the MiniCart do this? Or whatever ministry it is under these days.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:01 am
by Jonas
Hehehe. Thank you, Benkern. It's all true.
Lord Dukes,
start voting!
Kildare votes Aye.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:05 am
by Aurangzeb Khan
Elwynn Aye
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:16 am
by b3n|<3r|\|
Erik Mortis wrote:So this only modifies the mango map, doesn't make a claim to the MCS?
Why not just have the MiniCart do this? Or whatever ministry it is under these days.
Well... it does make a claim to the MCS, sort of. Just a modification. Modifying our current lands.
And there is no MiniCart anymore and the MiniInfo is unsure of himself.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:11 am
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
Straylight AYE
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:35 am
by Kaiser Ayreon
Mr Prætor, sir,
I ask that you halt voting procedures, as I am unsure on what the Dukes actually are voting on.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:39 am
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
The first part is modification to Mar Sara on the MCS maps.
The second part is a modification to the Mango map.
Both involve putting cities on where there were none before.
Or is there something else confusing you, your Niftiness?
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:42 am
by Kaiser Ayreon
Mr Oroigawa,
Yes, there is, as the discussion of the bill referred to claiming all of the MCS for Shireroth. But I might have been mistaken. I haven't felt well the past days and I'm all dizzy, so I confuse things a lot...
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:50 am
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
I don't think it referred to claiming the MCS for Shireroth...that's foolish, ever for a Yardistani...

Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:55 am
by Jonas
They are voting about the modification and adding the claim to the Mango map (even if it's already on the map it isn't a problem).
The voting isn't halted.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:03 am
by Kaiser Ayreon
Oh God, I meant "all of the island"!
I am too dizzy

I really should go to bed.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:15 am
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
OH! Got it now! No, there is no claim to the MCS for the whole island...
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:29 am
by Erik Mortis
So the MCSpart is just added some Cities? And doesn't violate the resolution we passed a month or so ago about not claiming more land for 3 months?
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:35 am
by Aurangzeb Khan
I just voted yes to see if the doctrine of implied repeal works in Shireroth.

Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:00 am
by b3n|<3r|\|
Good to see everything has been explained in the end.
Yardistan votes aye.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:08 pm
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
Erik Mortis wrote:So the MCS part is just added some Cities? And doesn't violate the resolution we passed a month or so ago about not claiming more land for 3 months?
But it's not a claim, it's a modification...
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:26 pm
by Erik Mortis
Brookshire Votes NAY!
This violates the resolution we passed a month ago not to increase our land for 3 months. We are still in that period.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:54 pm
by Oroigawa Koreyasu
But it's not increasing our lands. It's just adding a city on lands we already control...
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:27 pm
by Erik Mortis
*is confused*
Fine... I change my vote.
Brookshire Votes NAY out of confusion of what is actually happening, but knows it will pass anyways.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:59 am
by Jonas
SILENCE!
It's very clear: modification of the cities AND adding the island to the Mango map.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:19 am
by Erik Mortis
Well, I'm tired.. I can't handle doing two things in different places in one bill.
Re: Cartographic Consistency Bill 3268
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:13 am
by b3n|<3r|\|
It all comes under the subject of cartographic consistency.
Erik, your lack of faith distrubes me, but since it seems it will pass anyway, no worries. Confusion can be hard sometimes.