Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-data: January 2001:
[freeciv-data] Re: freedata

[freeciv-data] Re: freedata

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx (Freeciv data/)
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: freedata
From: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:39:39 +0100
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:20:32PM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
> In general I think it is difficult to make a distinction between
> historical and modern nations, if they exist both under the same name,
> since freeciv starts at 4000 B.C.
> > 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,
> Official Turkish policy is to call them mountain-Turks.
> > which is a reasonable
> > claim,=20
> I do not think so at all. They have a culture, a language, and, more
> important, there exist people who consider themselves as being Kurdish.
> The only thing is that there is no state labelled Kurdistan.

I think this is a reasonable objection, which is not to say that I
would personally consider it enough reason not to include such a nation
in Freeciv.  My point is, I don't think rules can be established to
decide this.  For modern nations we can adopt the rule 'a modern nation
must be widely recognised bu=7Fy other existing states in the world today'.
But as long as nobody objects to having Bavaria, why have this rule?

> Do you consider a state to be a neccessary requirement for a nation to
> exist? I do not.

I don't think it is desirable to discuss this question in detail, because
the discussion would require would involve examples, and before you know it
all kinds of political issues and partisan sentiments are in the discussion.

> There are examples where states did cease to exist and
> later came to existence again, e.g. Poland. Would you say that the Polish
> nation did not exist in the 19th century?

Again, this is an unwise question.  The relevant question we have here is:
what rules can we propose for the including of nations in Freeciv, and how
would *those* rules apply to Poland?

> On the contrary, there (did) exist states, e.g. the former GDR, that were
> states, but, in my opinion, do not have an own nation.

Such opinions have no place in the Freeciv Nations FAQ.

> > 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.
> I do not like it. I would rather like to include every nation that
> somebody wants to be included to be included. And I do think that it is
> possible to decide what is a nation and what is not. Take the existance of
> a language as an example.

To mention language as a criterion for distinguishing nations is to
*beg* for endless political and nationalist discussions on this list.
A Freeciv Nations FAQ will be an attempt to shorten discussions,
not an attempt to stir them up.

> > [...]   The rules can be changed to handle rulers and cities identicall=
> > as follows: rulers and cities of modern nations must at one time have b=
> > rulers/cities within that nation, and they may not have been cities/rul=
> > of a different nation.=20
> This is probably a non-problem for rulers, but would require cities to
> have existed without being part of a nation.

I was thinking of Chang Kai Shek and Victoria Empress of India.

> > (I think it's this second case that causes problems.)
> Indeed. But what would be the actual problem if the modern nation (or
> rather state) Great Britain included cities that have been parts of the
> British Empire at one time?

People living in those nations today will object.  Besides, it would make
to inclusion of their nations more difficult because of the colliding
city names.  Your making it seem as if these objections haven't already
been raised on the list before.

> If somebody plays as Victoria a city of Cape
> Town or New-Delhi would be historically correct. But this would not be
> true if you play as Elizabeth II.
> A possible solution would be to mark cities in the ruleset to be
> allowed for one ruler and not the other. Of course the player could
> override it.
An interesting idea but maybe too much work to specify.  Besides,
many names are generic: the Dutch 'Willem' refers to at least nine
different persons.

> > 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 guidelin=
> > that people could consult when they want to contribute nations.  It's
> We should make sure that existing freeciv-nations should also conform to
> them.

Not necessarily - I don't think Bavaria conforms, but nobody objects to it.
> > I think it would be completely hopeless to use that kind of argument
> > as a basis for what nations to allow in Freeciv.=20
> > It is too subjective.
> Is it? Maybe we should get expert advice.

In issues over which real lives have been lost no expert can decide
the matter for everyone concerned.

> > This is why the rules don't mention anything of the kind.
> >=20
> > 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.
> But with Niels' ruleset, only Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schr=F6der would ma=
> sense as a ruler. How many people would like to play as them?

> If, however, somebody plays as Bismarck, it would not make sense to
> exclude K=F6nigsberg or Stra=DFburg, but to include Wolfsburg.

You're right, but I think it's a reasonable concsession to practicality.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]