Page 2 of 2

Re: Second Agenda Item

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:42 am
by Mynwyn
Or maybe we should just require 1 K3 for kingdom and leave the rest?

Either way, I think we should come up with some compromise, because this item really should pass.

Myn

Re: Second Agenda Item

Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:16 pm
by DameKyrie
I do have several of the knighthoods that need to be specific areas. I know that this is a very rough first draft and that hopefully we will get more opinions during the meetings. Am willing to change some things but still feel the K3's are necessary at least on the Kingdom Level. I wanted to get the ball rolling on considering alternates to the territory status' other than just numbers.

Dame Kyrie

Re: Second Agenda Item

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:32 pm
by lassidor
didn't principality get changed to 75 sometime back?

Personally, I think a single knight is probably enough.

Of course the way I read the item it's very specific as to what territory is being described without naming it. A simpler version would just be to waive the pop requirements for TN.

Re: Second Agenda Item

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:27 pm
by Mynwyn
I suppose I can get behind the K3 thing. I just mostly think there should be minimum population requirements. I find that far more important than whether or not to require K3's.

As for Lassidor, I think the idea is a good and important one, regardless of whom it might benefit.

Myn

Re: Second Agenda Item

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:50 am
by Valdis
Dame Kyrie, after speaking with Sir Dae last week and coming to a better understanding of what you are thinking with the K3s, what about removing the K3 requirement and requiring some sort of Imperial level office/work? (BoD, Imperial Officers, Sovereign... I can't think of anything else...)