[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:16:13PM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
> Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I propose to adopt the following rules for nations:
> > There are three kinds of nations:
> > + modern
> > + historical
> > + fantasy
> Ok, sounds good. But we will run into trouble if we want to define a
> nation in the first place.
The rules are intended to cover general admissibility, so they would
apply for any new nation.
> > A nation is 'modern' if its name it suggests identification with a
> > nation that actually exists today, unless it is explicitly part of a
> nation = state ? What to do with nations without a state
> (Palestinians, Kurds, ...)? How should parts of a nation classified
> (Bavarians as part of the German nation)?
This is handled by the guidelines on 'policy' below.
> > historic or fantasy nation ruleset. Its city names must be names of
> > cities that are part of the actual nation today.
> Part of the state that is formed by that nation? Again, what if there
> is no state?
See below ...
> > Its rulers must have been rulers of this actual nation at one point
> > in time; its flag must be the present flag;
> Ok.(But see above.)
> > its default ruler must be the present ruler.
> We should not require this. Anyway, there is no default ruler at the
Oh, does the dialog just pick the first?
> > A nation is 'fantasy' it is not modern or historic. There are no
> > rules for the names of its cities or rulers.
> That was easy :-)
It is intended to explicitly nations such as 'Fantasy Netherlands'
including cities like include Keulen, Luik and Luxemburg.
> > The policy on matters of actual or historical fact is to allow
> > everything in that nobody objects to, but to grant every objection
> > that can be said to be based on the rules above.
> Hmm, sounds resonable.
So the idea is, if a Kurdish nation is added, but someone objects to it
on the ground that it is not actually a nation, which is a reasonable
claim, we (who? the maintainers?) would not claim to be able to determine
'the objective truth' on the issue, but instead we would just withdraw
the Kurdish nation. (Same for Taiwan/China, etc.) I am trying to
describe the policy that is being followed in practice.
> > Finally, the nation rulesets distributed with Freeciv must not be
> > illegal anywhere. (As far as I know, this only affects flags.)
> > For example, at the moment, Hitler is part of the rulers of modern
> > Germany; as long as nobody objects, that is fine. An objection could
> > be based on the claim that modern Germany is not the same nation
> > that Hitler ruled.
> I can reverse the argument by stating: If Hitler is a legal
> freeciv-ruler of freeciv-Germany, then it should be legal to include
> freeciv-cities that have belonged to the state Germany during his
I am not presenting an argument, but a proposed rule. But I can see your
argument. The rules can be changed to handle rulers and cities identically,
as follows: rulers and cities of modern nations must at one time have been
rulers/cities within that nation, and they may not have been cities/rulers
of a different nation. (I think it's this second case that causes problems.)
But this may be too much detail.
> The same argument would apply to anybody from the ancient Kaisers to
> Bismarck and Adenauer. (But what about Honnecker?)
Yes, I know. It is impossible to make rules that settle all possible
causes for dispute in advance. The idea is to have some rough guidelines
that people could consult when they want to contribute nations. It's
supposed to be no more than a FAQ document, summarizing what has been
said on the lists.
> Moreover, it would apply not only to german.ruleset, but most European
> But I do not think that modern, i.e. todays, Germany is too different
> when it comes to culture from the Germany of say 1900.
I think it would be completely hopeless to use that kind of argument
as a basis for what nations to allow in Freeciv. It is too subjective.
This is why the rules don't mention anything of the kind.
> > This objection would be strong enough to get him
> > removed.
> Ok. If somebody raises it.
> > It would not get him removed from a 'Historical Germany'
> > nation.
> Of what time-period? Maybe better leave this to modpacks.
This is implicit in the rules: the default ruleset includes 'Germany',
which must adhere to the rules 'modern' nations because its name
suggests present day Germany.
To conclude, I think we agree.