Catchment Area Reform Proposal

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The reporting is only necessary IF the Ministry finds the need for changes. The requirement is to REVIEW the catchment area for potential changes. Please read.

You are splitting hairs. Clearly the time spent doing the review (if it is done in good faith) would far outweigh the time physically typing out the report.

No I am not splitting hairs, Ian. I am reading what I wrote.
I have removed the Pengopats section as you made a good point on the need for other changes to implement it.

My point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.

Thank you for clarifying, Ian.

I think I need to clarify too. I hope I just proved it with removing the Pengopats section based on your point. But this proposal is intended as a potential starting point but not the end-point. The only reform I feel strongly about is spelling out each country rather than using potentially ambiguous general descriptors as we have in the current statutes.

If the regular review section is an objection which prevents you from supporting the reform effort then I am happy to remove it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

It's definitely a good idea to specify each country (or at least avoid vague and obscure phrases like "insular Central America")

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Here is a quick map I did of all the international assignments instead of sleeping (it's 4 AM help).



Some comments:
- Several countries appear misassigned, e.g. Uganda, CAR, Uruguay and Malta.
- The Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands are unassigned.
- Based on this assignment we can expect all future citizens of Maritiimi-Maxhestic to be from the US. I don't know what to think of that.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Here is a quick map I did of all the international assignments instead of sleeping (it's 4 AM help).



Some comments:
- Several countries appear misassigned, e.g. Uganda, CAR, Uruguay and Malta.
- The Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands are unassigned.
- Based on this assignment we can expect all future citizens of Maritiimi-Maxhestic to be from the US. I don't know what to think of that.

Thank you so much for the map Marcel. I have corrected those Oceanian nations I neglected.
And have corrected the placements for CAR, Uganda, Malta, and Uruguay.
I made no changes to M-M btw besides spelling out each nation and alphabetizing the lists.

[Iason Taiwos]

Can provinces independently swap catchment areas? ("We'll give you Serbia and Moldova for Libya and Morocco.") The whole catchment area thing has seemed to me to be largely arbitrary...like throwing darts at a map. "And...Burkina Faso goes to Benito!" Is there really any rhyme or reason to it? Being named Benito and having a large contingent of Italians in our province, I would assume that Benitian culture is largely based on Italian culture...but within our provincial catchment areas are places that have no connection with anything Italian. Places not even conquered by Italy. You'd think Sardinians would be placed in Benito. Is there no cultural basis behind provincial assignments? (Our Cjovani subculture is open to everybody. If you like us and we like you, you're in. Doesn't matter where you're from.)

[Danihel Txechescu]

[...] Articles 7.4 to 7.11 are amended as follows:

[...]7.6. VUODE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Vuode Province: The City of Milwaukee (WI) and the U.S. states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,  Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; And the Mexican States of Aguascalientes,  Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Queretero, and Zacatecas. Internationally, the nations of Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.

7.7. MARICOPA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maricopa Province: the Wisconsin counties of Adams, Barron, Buffalo, Chippewa, Clark, Crawford, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Monroe, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Richland, St. Croix, Sauk, Trempeleau, and Vernon; the U.S. states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Mexican States of Campeche, Chiapas, Colima, Distrito Federal (Mexico City), Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Mexico, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan. Internationally, the nations of Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, uruguay, and Venezuela.
[...]

[...]

Hmm, my state went to Vuode, with which we have no connection. I'm in Maricopa and Bråneu is in Fiova, even though we're both from the same city. If anything, the Northern states should go to Maricopa and the Southern states to Vuode.

Also, the Distrito Federal does not exist anymore, it's Ciudad de México (Mexico City).

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

[...] Articles 7.4 to 7.11 are amended as follows:

[...]7.6. VUODE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Vuode Province: The City of Milwaukee (WI) and the U.S. states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,  Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; And the Mexican States of Aguascalientes,  Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Queretero, and Zacatecas. Internationally, the nations of Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.

7.7. MARICOPA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maricopa Province: the Wisconsin counties of Adams, Barron, Buffalo, Chippewa, Clark, Crawford, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Monroe, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Richland, St. Croix, Sauk, Trempeleau, and Vernon; the U.S. states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Mexican States of Campeche, Chiapas, Colima, Distrito Federal (Mexico City), Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Mexico, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan. Internationally, the nations of Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, uruguay, and Venezuela.
[...]

[...]

Hmm, my state went to Vuode, with which we have no connection. I'm in Maricopa and Bråneu is in Fiova, even though we're both from the same city. If anything, the Northern states should go to Maricopa and the Southern states to Vuode.

Also, the Distrito Federal does not exist anymore, it's Ciudad de México (Mexico City).

This was an attempt to address Vuode's underpopulation.
I have corrected the Distrito Federal reference.
I can switch the catchment breakdown if that makes more sense. @Bråneu Excelsio what do you think?

[xpb]

A suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,

or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

A suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,

or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.

Thank you @xpb this has been added to the bill.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Can we omit "biological," please?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Can we omit "biological," please?

Good catch, done.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

A suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,

or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.

So by this logic, if I decided that since my mother was born in Iowa I could transfer to Vuode, and since I was born in Germany, I could transfer to Cezembre, despite the fact I've lived in California and thus Maricopa since 1987?

[Ian Plätschisch]

A suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,

or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.

Not a big fan of this

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@xpb there appears to be some skepticism to your contribution. Would you like to provide additional information?

@Ian Plätschisch what are your concerns?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Probably the same as mine. People to Provinces should mean just that. We stand by the principle of geographical assignment, otherwise the Provinces will cease to be provinces, they will become "self-sorting clubs" as people tweak the rules to end up in provinces with their friends. Fine, but let's abolish the Senäts if we do that.