What is a nation and how does a town become a nation?

A nation is a political entity that can only function within the Server Nation System. A nations is formed when 5 or more people declare themselves a political entity under a name and a symbol to represent them. They must create a Wiki page and have a picture of their territorial claims which must be reviewed by moderators. If one of these is not done, then the declaration is nullified.

What are the privileges of a nation / its citizens?

Nations and its citizens get to claim land based on how many they are and what they get to build. Nations and citizens can submit proposal bids for the Politburo to review and rule on.

Are there different tiers of nationhood/settlements/villages?

A settlement and a village are the same thing. Settlements exist within nations. A settlement would be the capital, for example, and they could have other settlements. All these plus the empty territories form the nation. Non political settlements can't claim lands like nations can, and that makes them in a way inferior to nations although apolitical players have more important rights.

How do nations claim land and how much can they claim?

They must make a map determining what land they're claiming. Each and every map shall be reviewed and approved by the Politburo otherwise the claim is not valid. The ideal way to claim something is to (surprise surprise) build a great wall around what you're claiming as yours. This is too demanding, so proper boundary stones with signs are valid. There should be a relations between how many people form the nation and how much they have built in order to claim land. Citizens should be encouraged to build in the granted territories.

How are disputes resolved between nations; between nations and non-nations?

Apolitical players get preference, after all this is not a political dedicated server. However, there should be a lot of negotiations with the Politburo as moderator to reach a deal between the affected parties.

What is a war and how does one begin and end?
What are the consequences of winning or losing a war?

All wars must be fought over something, be resources, territories or relics. This is not a Paradox game so worthless shit like prestige is up for the players to believe. There should be two levels of fighting. The lowest are raids and skirmishes. Nothing is being fought over in those, and they can only happen when there is a state of war between two or more nations. The next level are battles which are the ones that matter. Each and every battle must be fought over something, like a province for example. The sides involve can also agree to define the outcome of a war in a battle, for example, two nations agree that the victor of the battle gets the province and wins the war ultimately. This should be accorded by both sides, otherwise the war keeps going as much as they want. The Politburo should have no saying over the length of the war. Raids and skirmishes can happen at any time of the war, battles however must be agreed to in a specific date.

How is a war to be handled so it is not griefing?

Moderators must regulate all battles to make sure the rules are enforced. This means that the date of the battle should adjust to the chosen moderator's time. Skirmishes and raids can't be regulated when they happen due to their nature, but a mod can check later to see if there was any griefing if summoned by the victims.

Under what circumstances does a war stop being a war and become griefing?

I would say griefing should be fully allowed in times of war. This way players will consider when to declare war, contrary to believe that they'll be in a perpetual state of war and therefore griefing.

What penalties, if any, are there for not agreeing to a war or to losing a war?

Not agreeing for a war once should end in having the offending nation's nationhood revoked. The other side should be granted whatever they were fighting for. It should come from the offenders (for example a war over resources means having their chests opened to make them pay). Players should know what they get into when they apply for nationhood. Over the past three eras several nations have used the nation system just to claim land and wave their dick in diplomacy while declaring neutrality. War is the most important aspect of nations and the most regulated one, but if everyone goes around claiming neutrality then it has no point. War should be unavoidable. The Politburo is not the United Nations, we are not here to prevent war but to regulate it.

I believe nations and their actions should be regulated but we should lax the rules so political interactions can be more dynamic but also shows how serious (for autist) this thing should be. The nation system punitive in nature. You know you will be a target so enter under your own risk. That way we will see if this server is really politics-material. If not then it can go to hell. — caBastard 2013/12/15 04:17

So is there anything in the main article that you want to be changed? It seems pretty in line with my ideas. — v1adimirr 2013/12/15 08:59

I though that article was just a base on what we need to discuss. I say we must give our ideas (you included), discuss them and make a draft with the specific rules and vote on them. — caBastard 2013/12/15 21:20

Not agreeing for a war once should end in having the offending nation's nationhood revoked.

Offending nation as in the one disagreeing to partake in battle? — mazznoff 2013/12/15 09:25

Yes. It's a clumsy way of saying that if you don't agree to fight in wars then you aren't a nation. — v1adimirr 2013/12/15 09:31
Pretty much what v1adimirr said, mazznoff. I aim the nations system to prevent having faggots that shelter on “muh neutrality”. — caBastard 2013/12/15 21:24

A problem which should be addressed is the eventual problem of nations which have fallen into inactivity. In the past there have been areas once populated decomposed into so-called “one-man nations”. Would the individual claims degrade into separate apolitical settlements? Is there a set time an entity must recommend five active players before losing its nationhood? — hino 2013/12/15 10:00

Thanks for bringing this up. I believe PPA talked about it and I agree what v1adimirr also said. If a nations starts becoming inactive I suggest we Commission Members rule on that based on the players we know are part of it and how often they've been playing. For this we will need a proper census for each nation. We kindly expect the nations' leaders to do this in their wiki pages by putting each citizen's name in the population bracket. It's a good point because I don't want nations to end like me in Oceania Rhodes, a one-man Empire. Nations that become inactive will have their nationhood revoked. They will revert to just settlements and own what they've built. Any undeveloped land they claimed will be leased for all players to build in. — caBastard 2013/12/15 21:27

Nations only make sense if where is a sufficient number of people to maintain and defend them; otherwise they become a way for single players to claim disproportional amounts of land and to play themselves up to unwarranted importance on the wiki. Nations should require five active players to retain its status. Five unique members of a nation need to log in within a month of each other, otherwise the population is considered to have fallen below the threshold, and the nation reverts back to a settlement (it retains anything it has built and some land in between, but loses its undeveloped claims and can no longer participate in wars).

To ease the workload on mods, it should also be considered to allow (or force?) nations to policy themselves. If there is conflict within the nation, they should subdue the troublemaker themselves and discipline or expel them, and only if someone goes full buttmad and starts griefing on a large scale would mods be called in to ban the offender. Outsiders who settle on the nation's (legitimate) claims may also be driven out by the nationals, non-violently though if possible.

Land claims need to be marked visibly in-game to be valid. As caBst has said, a wall would be best, but obvious and visible markers, border posts, or rows of watchtowers work just as well.
I disagree on the idea of a politburo though. If a new nation is landrunning and claiming a disproportionate and unreasonable amount of land, moderators can intervene and demand that the nation reduces its claims based on common sense. Otherwise, as long as the claims are reasonable and does not intrude on the settlements of apolitical players, there will not be a need for a dedicated council of mods to approve everything. “Reasonable” claims for a nation would be its settlement(s), space for these settlements to grow/for planned projects, and the rest of the biome/the land up to a nearby river, mountain range, or coast. Anything beyond may be symbolically claimed but easily contested by other settlers.

The rules for war stem from a time when this server was much more active. Raids and skirmishes, and their distinction from battles, are in particular an anachronism. A nation with only five players cannot continuously defend itself against raids; and neither is there much of a point to organise proper battles if raids are possible without repercussions.
There are two ways to approach this problem:
One would be to regulate warfare even tighter, to limit the amount of raids that can be conducted until a battle has to be fought, or to outlaw them entirely in favour of moderated battles. This would be appropriate to the current amount of players and ensure that conflicts go over smoothly, at the expense of the nations' freedom to conduct war the way they see fit.
The other would be to abolish the distinction between raids and organised battles altogether. Most of the interesting battles during the last year happened spontaneously, as an escalation of localised conflicts or of terror attacks. If we go with this option, once two nations declare war—or a skirmish escalates and brings about a de facto state of war—the involved parties would need to remain on guard at all times. There would be no organised battles unless both sides agree to stage one, and clashes which draw in a surprisingly large number of players and drag on for longer than usual would count for a battle and be given due attention on the wiki.
To limit the butthurt, players of warring nations would only be allowed to kill each other within each of their borders, but not on neutral ground or in uninvolved nations and settlements.

Griefing should not be allowed, not even in war; but certain buildings and structures—like walls, towers, and castles—that are defensive in nature may be razed during warfare. Torches may be destroyed too, and fields burned down; but civilian buildings and infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.) are to remain untouched. Withers may be used during battles, but the damage they have caused by them will be rolled back after the dust has settled

-

and only if someone goes full buttmad and starts griefing on a large scale would mods be called in to ban the offender.

I don't think that should change from how it is now: if someone is killing people then the killed person can either make dealings or complain for a ban. If that's basically what you mean then ok.

More or less. Except while, now, asking a mod for help is the default course of action, nations would be expected to first try and handle a problem by themselves and ask mods second, not that it would make much of a difference in practise. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:57

That's a social issue not one that we should make a rule about. -vlad

There have been a number of incidents recently where people were pissed that a mod intervened in their favour, because they wanted to handle an issue by themselves. And of two Poles having a feud, me tempbanning one of them, and another getting angry because he deemed the offender innocent. Mod intervention in any nations' internal affairs is going to be very complicated, and it would be useful to ask of nations to try to solve a problem by themselves first (or to go to a mod right away when the problem arises). But I agree, this needn't be a rule but be handled differently. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 21:38

It's not my place to criticize your moderation decisions, but like you say I don't think that's a rule change we need to discuss here, that's something that individual mods will have to pay attention to. -vlad

Five unique members of a nation need to log in within a month of each other

I think this is a perfect instance of the ease in which we can fall into the trap of strict and useless rules. Instead of saying a month we should just say “a nation requires 5 active players” and let the political officers decide when that is no longer satisfied. -vlad

We need to decide whether we want the nation system to be fundamentally a framework for player libertarianism, or just a regulated way of playing on the server. In the case of the former, we could even allow single players to form their own nation, but they would have to deal with the consequences of being conquered by any other nation with a greater number of players, and being unable to maintain their borders. In other words, if your nation has too few players to function, dissolve it or deal with it. If we want more strict regulations, then a certain threshold for player activity should be put in place. If the lost players return, they can just re-form their nation after all. But there might be a position in the middle of both extremes. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:57

There will never be a nation of less than 5 people. Ever. 5 is already a low number. The best way of dealing with this is having the politburo have the power to disolve nations who are inactive and to elevate nations with active players. Remember we're trying to keep this as simple as possible. -vlad

Fair enough; caBst agrees too. So let's keep the wording of “five active people”. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 21:38

Cool -vlad

Raids and skirmishes, and their distinction from battles, are in particular an anachronism.

Not really, they're just poorly worded, like everything else.

Even with a different wording, raids are either unannounced battles, or a license to freely kill players of the other nation without repercussions. They're redundant. Either we decide that during a state of war, enemies can freely attack each other, which would make it unnecessary to call any of these aggressions “raids”, or we limit wars to organised battles, then raids would just be a way to circumvent/ignore such a rule. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:50

PPA if you read my opinion regarding this aspect of wars, raids and skirmishes are just that, unnecessary and redundant killing. A important aspect of war. Battles are fought to define the outcomes of wars. So eventually the nations' leaders will have to agree on having a battle. Either way I don't see why we should care if they live in perpetual state of war as long as there is a way to dictate the outcome of the war, which is what my suggestion is for. That's why I make a difference, raid and skirmishes are just fancy words for random killings which is what nations should be about. Battles are going to be the engine of wars, they'll define the outcomes and what is lost or gained. — caBastard 2013/12/15 20:02

Raids are meant to essentially be the catch all rule that you keep saying you want. If you want to ignore the term “raid” and pretend it says “rules for attacking people when it's not a battle,” then ok. We're obviously not going to limit wars to just battles. Honestly the only real question we have to answer is if we want to allow enemies to kill eachother in neutral territory like the open world or in other countries. Let's focus on that -vlad

I mostly want the rules to be reworded. If we decide that any (or some) PVP is legal between two nations at war outside of battles, let's define the limits of this as was done in the old battle agreements, but remove the headline “lawful raids”, replace it with “State of War” or something, and replace “A raid is categorised as any hostile military action taken without the consent of both parties, though both sides must have agreed to be currently in a state of war.” with “If two nations are in a state of war, they may take hostile military action without the consent of the other party.”, followed by the restrictions that apply (PVp, no griefing, yadda). — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 21:38

Like I said that's what it means, but I agree that we can change the wording to be more clear. What you said sounds good. -vlad

A nation with only five players cannot continuously defend itself against raids; the involved parties would need to remain on guard at all times.

Don't these two contradict eachother?

They do, but see the part about player activity. Either we treat nations as libertarian institutions where players put themselves at the mercy of other nations with faith in their ability to defend themselves, even if their numbers aren't really sufficient (they don't need to form a nation after all), or we give credit to the low number of players and moderate the effects of warfare. But right now, it's neither of the two, but a muddy legal grey area. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:50

I most fervently believe we should aim for the first one. If you're just barely on the minimum population requirement and you want to play as a nation, you should know you're going to be a easy target. This should work as an incentive for players to recruit more people to join their ranks, and it could actually lead players to prepare properly before claiming nationhood instead of claiming it the moment they get five people. This Politburo should strive to be a legislative and judicial body. We must make the rules simple and squared and judge if people are abiding to them. We must not be some sort of nanny executive state with progressive bullshit laws trying to protect the weak and handicap the stronger. Equal laws for all players so they know what they're getting into. — caBastard 2013/12/15 20:09
Let's not go full retard and allow individuals to be nations. Let's also not go full retard and talk about libertarianism in nations: there will absolutely always be an authoritative agency watching over everything they do, be it mods or the politburo. Be realistic please. What we CAN do is attempt to socially encourage players and nations to be more self sufficient. What that does NOT mean is that we should write rules that either force or encourage them to do stuff on their own. We should do that socially. We're trying to make the rules as simple as possible, please don't add stuff in that doesn't need to be. -vlad

Nations will of course be restricted to certain rules, but the question is to what extent these rules should regulate international and internal affairs. One-member-nations (which I agree would be unwise) would be the logical extreme of treating nations as groups of players who voluntarily exempt themselves from (some) protection to handle matters on their own. This is not a matter of rules, but of the underlying philosophy. Do we want to formalise the relations between nations in peace- and in wartime (by making universally binding battle rules, requirements for declarations of wars, etc.), or should we only impose limits on how far they make take it (no griefing, not harrassing non-nation players), while otherwise leaving the details to nations themselves to decide? — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 21:38

My answer to that is to have only limits in how far they can go aka rules about when you can break the server rules (essentially claiming land and griefing). Those limits are found in the rules of engagement. I feel like we should focus on critiquing and revising those rules. -vlad

If we go with this option, once two nations declare war—or a skirmish escalates and brings about a de facto state of war—the involved parties would need to remain on guard at all times. There would be no organised battles unless both sides agree to stage one, and clashes which draw in a surprisingly large number of players and drag on for longer than usual would count for a battle and be given due attention on the wiki.

But you're basically just describing the rules of engagement. Raids are just a term for anything that isn't an organized battle, they're not meant to be a hyperspecific term. On the contrary, it's just an easy way of regulating exactly what you're describing. Organized battles are the more specific term and can also be applied to the giant clashes that you're describing if both sides agree. I think what is best is to just ease the rules of engagement to be more flexible.

See farther above. “Raids” as a separate legal term are pointless once we settle on a ruleset. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:50

certain buildings and structures—like walls, towers, and castles—that are defensive in nature may be razed during warfare.

Interesting idea, I'm hesitant to include towers and castles because no one honestly uses those are defensive structures; theyre just attractive and for rp usually. Walls would be fair game, but again, I'm worried someone will just literally tear down every block of the wall and I'm not sure that's really what we want. I would consider rewording it to say something like “minor griefing allowed on structures that are explicitly being used as defensive structures” and then political officers can narrow down the list later. -vlad

You have a good point. We could limit it to just “breaching” such structures: blowing up a section of a wall with TNT, or digging underneath a castle. But any more damage than is necessary to easily infiltrate the structure would be deemed excessive and rolled back. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:50

Let's not use limiting words like “breaching.” We want to keep it as flexible as possible. Let's just say minor griefing is allow and case law will dictate what that means realistically. -vlad

Sounds good. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 21:38

Withers may be used during battles, but the damage they have caused by them will be rolled back after the dust has settled

Do withers even cause damage? I didn't think they do anymore since creepers don't. If they do then I agree.

On the old map at least, Creepers did no damage but Withers did. — P.P.A. 2013/12/15 20:50

Ok that's fine then -vlad

Settlements have, in the past, been treated like lesser nations, entitled to claim land—but less land than nations—, but without participating in wars—unless their leader wanted to, temporarily. Others have used them just to give their village an identity and presence on the wiki, to add fluff and lore. Under the new ruleset, I opine that the former usage be suppressed, and the latter be left intact.

Settlements are entitled only to the land they are actively using, or have previously developed; and a small buffer around it to allow for some expansion, but this needs to be marked in-game. (e.g. someone planning a small town and has only built a market square so far may claim the area he plans for his town to occupy, but he needs to clear the forest around it and light it with torches, lay down a grid of streets, or wall it in for it to be recognised. Like this.) Be it on its wiki page or in-game, a settlement may lay claim to as much land beyond this core area as it wants, but such a claim is invalid and cannot be enforced. Neighbouring players and settlements are free to recognise such disproportionate borders, if they wish to, but they will not be legally bound to it either way.

Settlements cannot be attacked by nations , and neither may they participate in wars between nations. Settlements may voluntarily join a nation, but only during peacetime, and in doing so they subject themselves to nation law.

Territorial disputes between settlements are mediated by the mods, as are internal conflicts.

Settlements can continue to use the Wiki as they have done in the past, creating flags, emblems, maps, histories, lore, and whatever else they want on their pages, as this adds to the server's rich history and ensures a lasting memory. However, settlements do not need a wiki page to be recognised (unlike nations), and exist as (even unnamed) in-game entities too.

Ok now that we've had some discussion and I think we all see where the others stand, I think we all kind of want the same things. Here is a short list:

• The vast majority of specific, micromanagement decisions made by people (politburo) not by a set of rules
• Nations to not just be easy and fun, but also to be responsible and self-sufficient, thus no way to avoid wars
• The rules to be made simple and easy to understand. We should err on the side of too few rather than too many.
• The basic rules of engagement as found in the article page to stay the same, but with wording made easier to understand. Also what should be allowed during all times to be made clear (not just under the heading “raids”).
• What should be allowed in wars even outside of battles is killing enemies and MINOR griefing of DEFENSIVE structures in enemy territory, as well as crop razing and murdering of livestock and horses.

Does anyone object to those or want to add anything?

The one question I don't think we have answered: should citizens at war be able to kill eachother anywhere and if so can they keep the loot?

My answer is yes to both, unless they're in a neutral nation or in a designated neutral zone (like spawn).

If we agree on all of this lets start editing the main article to reflect our decisions.

The one question I don't think we have answered: should citizens at war be able to kill eachother anywhere and if so can they keep the loot?

I'd say they should be able to kill each other on the soil of either warring nation, and in the wilderness; but not at spawn, in the End, in neutral nations, or in independent settlements. They should keep the loot. Anyway, going to bed for tonight, we've built a good foundation already.

I have updated the main page. If there is anything, ca or ppa, you disagree with say so please. Otherwise are we good to go?

The section about lawful assassinaiton ought to be removed as well; they'd just be another case of arbitrary PVP during wartime and don't need special mention. - PPA

It's different because it allows people who aren't citizens of a nation to pvp also. It is a specific case that needs to be included. -vlad

This “The declaration must be given unequivocally from leader to leader in the sight of a political officer”, this “The declaring nation must have terms that a political officer accepts as reasonable”, this “To bitch to a political officer to allow be allowed to refuse” need to go. Again, we're not babysitters. We're not some sort of United Nations that deems wars illegal or not. We just set the rules of how war will be played. There shouldn't be a way to escape war, is that simple. Nor should we be approving any war. It's their business not ours. We're just there to judge if they broke the rules. Also, remove the number of battles that it takes for a nation to win a war. Let them decide. And the “lawful assassinations” sounds like a lot baloney why even have that? — caBastard 2013/12/16 17:05

There are only two choices as I see it, ca: 1) We let them do whatever they want like you say, but have a lot of rules to make sure that actually can work or 2) we have very few rules and allow them to do whatever they want, but always stand in the background ready to interject when it goes too far. We tried (1) before, now it's time to try (2). I will not agree to anything that does not follow that path. You're welcome to come up with your own suggestions and I encourage you to come up with specific changes instead of just complaining, but it really must follow that philosophy or it will not pass.
As for the assassination it's included because it has been done in the past and will be done again in the future. If you want we can simplify those rules further, but something like that needs to be included.
And as for the 3 battles, that's how it's always been so it's sensible to keep that as the default, but you'll note that immediately after that is an allowment for the nations or the political officer to change that number, so I don't see a problem. -vlad