[freeciv-data] Re: freedata

[Gerhard Killesreiter <killes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Reinier Post wrote:

> 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. 

ACK. What do you think about R. Miller's suggestion?

>  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?

We could move Bavaria to not-UN-nations then.

> 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.

I _love_ discussions ;o) But I agree that it would be beyond the scope of
this list. That is why I propose to not discuss it and let the submitter
decide. The maintainers could reserve a right to _where_ include it.
 
> 
> Again, this is an unwise question.

There are only unwise answers. ;->

>   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?

Poland would have been in not-UN-nations in the 19th century (together
with Germany) and now in UN-nations. Yes, I do know that the UN did not
exist ;-))

> > 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.

I correct: Not my opinion, but a fact. But you are right.

> 
> To mention language as a criterion for distinguishing nations is to
> *beg* for endless political and nationalist discussions on this list.

Remains to be seen. I only took language as an example.

> A Freeciv Nations FAQ will be an attempt to shorten discussions,
> not an attempt to stir them up.

That's why I say, that every nation should be included: No discussion
neccessary.

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

I see.

> 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.

I remember that somebody said that there are so many Birminghams(?) as
real cities that it would not be a problem to have more in the rulesets.
But this problem can be solved by forbidding identical names in one game.
He who founds Birmingham first gets 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, it is probably an overkill.

> Not necessarily - I don't think Bavaria conforms, but nobody objects to it.

Not yet. Imagine that somebody from Saxonia complains. Wouldn't it be
easiest to explain to him that he should stop complaining and make a
saxonia.ruleset?

> > 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.

I would simply throw everythig in one bag and let the player decide which
city he wants.

Gerhard