In the proposed new map, nations, as described in the constitution, may not claim any land beyond an arbitrary limit of 1500 blocks in any direction. Settlements and non-political players are not bound by this restriction and are free to settle freely around the map and beyond the limit. If it is found by the players at any time and confirmed by the mods (through a majority vote) that this limit has become restrictive, it will be the perogative of the mods to institute a laxer limit or indeed abolish it entirely.

I don't think a 1500 block limit in any direction is a good idea. I think a nation should be limited to claiming 1-3 biomes (I prefer large biomes, so I was thinking 1 large biome initially, MAYBE 2 or 3, and it would also depend on the landforms, I wouldn't mind a thin strip of mountains + the biome being considered as a single biome), and MUST border another nation, and additionally must register with a mod by that mod signing their wiki page at the bottom of the page before it may be officially considered a nation (on a side not the benefit of registration with a mod could mean that the current qualifications for becoming a nation could become more loose and act more as guidelines). The limit on biomes claims could create opportunities for trade, conflict, unique cultural development, and serve as a good fundamental unit for nations and borders, also allowing for each biome to generate unique cultures and names for structures (mountains/etc). Possibly, this limit of 1-3 biomes could never be expanded, thus creating an incentive for imperialism. — Sikandar 2013/02/23 03:12

I don't think that forcing nations to fill up biomes is necessarily a good idea. I think that would be a good upper limit, but I don't think we should include a minimum size, especially since the threshold to be a nation has been significantly lowered, or will be in this next map. An entire biome (esp a large one) is far too great to grant to just 4 or 5 people.
Additionally, forcing them to be next to eachother I also don't think is a great idea. I think we should do everything we can to promote nations setting up near eachother, but I don't think we should force all nations to be touching- again, because there might be 2 or there might be 20. I think having a limit (1500 I think is generous enough to provide diversity of choice for locations but also constricting enough to keep everyone close since it will be only nations and not EVERYONE) is a better solution to the problem of keeping nations close than artificially forcing them to be friends/enemies. That should come organically and we should do everything we can to foster that, but we shouldn't try to create it artificially.
As for the idea of mods having to sign off on nations, I'm ok with that. It would be good to have a small amount of beaurocracy to keep track of this stuff, at least at the early stages of the proposed new map.
So to sum up, I think we should encourage nations to form as you suggest, but I don't think we should force them to.
— V1adimirr 2013/02/23 03:02

Personally, I prefer a large buffer area between my settlements and having a lot of room for expansion - I DO NOT like having my nation being completely urbanized, I prefer some countryside, so am not bothered by having a nation of 4-5 people control between 1 or 3 large biomes. It somewhat restricts where nations may develop, but it is still possible for a nation to choose, they simply must choose a biome that is bordering another nation, or wait until their biome is bordering another nation to officially become one. This restriction could be eased to allow nations to form within 1 biome of another nation's borders. I do not feel that nations should be allowed to grow their initial territory except through conquest on the new map. I additionally do not see moving settlements to another part of the map as a necessarily good idea. Perhaps we can consider them as free cities, the territory associated with the nation the land on which they've built, with the land possibly belonging IN NAME to the nation which claims it, but the settlements having their autonomy and rights to the specific area in which they build on (and perhaps a buffer area) and not to be interfered with. With large biomes, a nation should be able to accomodate itself and independent settlements. — Sikandar 2013/02/23 03:12

Nations are bound by the limitations in the constitution. The Rules of Engagement are needlessly specific and limiting and should be revised as follows:

At any time a nation may declare war on another nation (Settlements may never declare war, but may voluntarily enter a war or agree to a war if they so choose. Settlements may also withdraw from any war with no penalty). The declaration must be given unequivocally from leader to leader. It is the responsibility of the declaring nation to ensure that the receiving nation's government is fully aware of their status of being warred upon. Upon this declaration, the defending nation may choose from three options:

• To immediately surrender and pay a tribute agreed to by the attacking nation.
• To refuse the declaration entirely.
• To accept the declaration of war and immediately enter into a state of war with the attacking nation.

In order to surrender, the defending nation must acquiese to the terms set forth by the attacking nation. These terms may be negotiated, but both nations must agree and abide by them for the surrender to be valid. If the defending nation defaults on its debt, be it by choice or poverty, the surrender is no longer valid and the defending nation is regarded as having refused the declaration entirely. If the nation is for any reason unable to refuse the declaration, their status as a nation is revoked and they must function as a settlement. They may subsequently petition a tribunal of mods to reinstate their status as a nation, but said mods are under no obligation to do so.

Refusing a declaration of war affords the defending nation complete immunity from the perils of war with the declaring nation for a week. The nation need not pay tribute nor engage in battle- the declaration is utterly null and void. This must be explicitely made clear in the wiki in order to be a valid response [Author's Note: Perhaps a specific page would be made simply to recognize declarations of war and the responses of the other nations]. One week must pass before the attacking nation may once again declare war on the refusing nation. Upon refusing a sum of 3 declarations of war (not necessarily all from any one specific nation), any attacking nation may dispute any further refusals from the nation. In order to make null such a refusal, the attacking nation must convince a tribunal of moderators [Author's Note: Or just one moderator perhaps that has been elected to the position of wartime negotiator/Abriter] that their war is warranted and not simply an unjustified excuse to slaughter innocents. If the tribunal accepts the attacking nation's justification, the defending nation may either surrender or accept the war.

If a nation accepts a declaration of war, the two nations are immediately said to be at war. Before accepting, both nations must agree to the stakes of the war: what each nation will gain or lose depending on the outcome of the war. This must be clearly stated in the wiki to be valid and enforced. The following otherwise unacceptable actions are lawful during a state of war:

• Players of a nation can kill members of any enemy nation on its territory at any time.
• Lawful Raids
  • A raid is categorised as any hostile military action taken without the consent of both parties, though both sides must have agreed to be currently in a state of war.
  • There may be no griefing of blocks, though non-block entities (here defined as items such as torches or bed or other non-cube-shaped placements, excluding containers, stairs, slabs, and fences) may be destroyed.
  • All attackers are required to return any valuable loot at the request of the defenders.
  • Defenders may lawfully keep any spoils they strip from the raiders.
• Lawful Battles
  • In order for a battle to be officially and lawfully recognised, it must have the full agreement of both parties' governments and both sides must have agreed to be at a state of war
  • There may be no griefing of blocks, though non-block entities (here defined as items such as torches or bed or other non-cube-shaped placements, excluding containers, stairs, slabs, and fences) may be destroyed.
  • Any inventory loot attained by either side may be kept in an officially sanctioned battle as the spoils of war.
  • The battle is won when one side is unequivocally absent from the battlefield.
  • Violation of this treaty will result in capitulation of the battle, the war, or the status of 'nation.' Depending on the circumstances it could even warrant a ban from the server. Do not deviate from these rules.
• Lawful Assassinations
  • The player to be assassinated and the contractor must be at a state of war, though the assassin may be any player so inclined.
  • The player to be assassinated must be forewarned that he has a bounty on his head at least 24 hours before the assassination.
  • Immediately after the assassination, the assassin must declare his act as completed.
  • The assassin is, until the end of the war, considered to be a political-player who may be lawfully killed himself in retaliation.
  • Any loot acquired from either the assassin or the assassinated may be kept if it was dropped by either party less than 10 minutes after the act.

After 3 lawful raids committed against them, the defending nation must submit to a lawful battle. Failure to comply results in automatic copitulation (see: surrender).

The first nation to win 3 battles is declared the victor of the war. The loser of the war must submit to the agreed upon punishment. Failure to comply results in the automatic revoking of their status as nation (see: surrender).