[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Greetings from Tibor (with trepidation).
I see the deeply held beliefs over the principality issue, and I can only
add to the discussion by retreating to philosophy. (By the by, it is
fascinating to be reading three Kingdom's discussions on this topic at once:
An Tir, East and Atlantia.)
There are clearly situations where the creation of borders (Principality
or Kingdom) is, in the long term, a good thing. If we can form a
characterization of situations where it might be good, and when it
might be bad, we may then be able to see more clearly whether our
current situation fits any of the criteria.
In the East kingdom, where I reside, we are discussing (and polling) for a
Northern Principality, and discussing the borders. I have been calling for
an attempt to not merely draw borders, or create them, but to recognize
them. I feel it is a msitake to impose a group structure, rather than
Perhaps there are sets of groups that wish to band together to create a
Principality, within Atlantia. I'm surely not a judge, but I don't see much
reference to that. I do often see reference to why a Principality, as an
abstract concept, would be good for the Kingdom, why particular pairs of
groups should or shouldn't be separated, and how it might help administer
the Kingdom. Plus the appropriate counter arguments.
I would, with deference, suggest that you have a hammer, and are searching
for a nail. Perhaps with a better sense of the problems you would like to
solve, you could better determine what to do next. That may involve getting
an exception made to Corpora and creating a new type of group, or making
administrative regions, or working on motivation for people to feel closer
Dafydd is right. What is the problem you are trying to solve? And is it
really a problem?