Territiory Division Agenda Item

[LS Otto der Bear]

I would like hard numbers in the submission and not try and put time or number of knights in it. I think that the numbers you are looking at would work very well.

[Valdis]

I think it's important to include both time and knights. I know I came in at the tail end of it, but remember Westergard... a group of new people, large enough to be a kingdom, formed a kingdom immediately with no knights and no understanding of our rules.

[Mynwyn]

There needs to be a requirement for at least a knight or two at the kingdom level. As Valdis said, it's important to have people who understand our rules at such a high level. I don't think we need to require 20 of them, but I think we need at least 2 knights, with 1 of them being a Knight Minister. I think the same is true for the principality. These 2 bodies have the ability to affect the game as a whole and they need to have some knowledgable leaders. As for the rest, I don't think we need to require knights.

Myn

[Valdis]

Myn, I can agree with that - Principalities and Kingdoms require 1 KMn and 1 other Knight, no other knighthood requirements for other size territories. I think I'd prefer one knight in each tier (and if an individual holds multiple knighthoods, I'd be willing to count one person for two or three of the knighthood requirements).

[Mynwyn]

I'm fine with that--as long as we spell it out that it doesn't have to be separate people.

Myn

[Valdis]

1 knight in each tier, but it doesn't have to be three individuals?

[lassidor]

Myn wha tI meant was that currently principalities aren't sovereign they are subject ie they have to have a kingdom above them that can overrule them on how they want to operate. For the first 10 or so years of the organization principalities were sovereign just like a kingdom but at less numbers. Currently kingdoms get 3 votes on the imperial estates and principalities get two. This was to reflect the weight of the populous numbers. I think they should keep that aspect.

As for a knighthood requirement, I beleive it should be two different knights who can qualify as sovereign without reguard to ranks or version. This would be so that the sovereign wasn't automatically given to one person since there is a knighthood requirement for sovereign.

[Valdis]

Lassidor, that's a good point about having at least two individuals who are Knights. The pursuant question though, if we insist on two individuals do we need to make a statement about whether or not they're in the same household? I believe the only other place in our rules that we specify something like that is in defining who can be signatories on the bank accounts.

My reasoning behind having knights in each tier is so that the new kingdom isn't reliant on another kingdom for their peer circles.

[Mynwyn]

Lassidor

Very good point about at least 2 different people. I don't think it's necessary to have them be in separate households. The only reason for the bank thing is so that they don't run off with the money.

As for sovereign . . . I don't know. It had to have been changed for a reason. Does anyone around remember that reason?

Myn

[lassidor]

I'm not sure there was a reason it was in the Rurik rewrite of territories when Kingdoms were limitted to a single state. At the time there hadn't been any principalites for several years. Maybe the thinking was that you couldn't have two sovereign territories within a single state? Now, with the kingdoms basically dividing the US into thirds and some of the smaller territories getting to numbers that rival the current kingdoms, requiring a territory to to be an underling to a home territory that is smaller just seams like a brake on progress to me.