What's the best option for a regional organization in Archanta?
Comment from Mapping Expert on 11 May 2019 at 19:50
If this organization is considered "failed" I can only suggest creating one that is efficient and that can be evidenced in the maps, by having refuges for immigrants or opponents of a totalist government, among others.
Comment from Rhiney boi on 11 May 2019 at 20:41
Long since dead.
SWAEA and CAEU would be better for an OAS, though just Economic collaboration of.
Comment from zhenkang on 12 May 2019 at 09:58
The ANO is considered defunct (it should be marked for deletion). But some of its elements, such as the structure and the logo, can be reused for the Central Archanta Economic Union (CARECU). There was a small debate on whether CARECU should be renamed with north archanta.
The CARECU should be headquartered in Mecyna.
Comment from Toadwart on 12 May 2019 at 11:01
Keep the logo? Seriously?
Comment from Mapping Expert on 12 May 2019 at 14:18
I think that the new name of the CARECU will be Archantian Union (like the European Union).
Comment from Mapping Expert on 12 May 2019 at 14:22
Sorry again. I have a problem with my keyboard. I tried to say "could be Archantian Union".
Comment from Rhiney boi on 12 May 2019 at 15:29
I agree with Toadwart. The logo is very poorly designed and should be scrapped.
CARECU and SWAEA should merge to become AU, Archantian Union, imo.
Comment from iiEarth on 12 May 2019 at 18:58
‘Archantian Union’ is very close to ‘European Union.’ I suggest keeping Archantian (duh), but use a different word to replace union.
Comment from Rhiney boi on 12 May 2019 at 19:02
Possibly "Archantian Community"?
Comment from iiEarth on 12 May 2019 at 19:08
Maybe we could use the ‘union’ part, but put it differently. Merging with @Rhiney boi’s idea, how about “The Union of the Archantian Community?”
Comment from Rhiney boi on 12 May 2019 at 19:16
I like it.
So, we merge SWAEA and CARECU into the UAC, or would they be independent organizations?
Comment from wangi on 12 May 2019 at 20:06
First Archanta Festival of Acronyms
Comment from Toadwart on 12 May 2019 at 22:09
What was the point of the orgnization again?
Comment from Rhiney boi on 12 May 2019 at 22:54
Economic Union. SWAEA was to open borders and to create a trade union. IDK about CARECU.
Comment from wangi on 12 May 2019 at 22:58
Wasn't joking about the acronyms - this is a real barrier for many, so if you want as wide as possible participation in a discussion then do please expand, and make full use of the linking functionality available:
"What was the point of the orgnization again?"
Indeed, each of these had a handful of sign ups.
Comment from Luciano on 12 May 2019 at 23:13
The point is clear: the purpose of the Organization is to be organized.
Several committees will have been created to pursue this goal, with necessary but not sufficient technocratic support staff.
This committee and associated support staff attempts to address the question, Why does the Organization exist? Is the ongoing organization of such organizations as this Organization strictly necessary? Importantly, this committee serves to advocate that a main purpose of the Organization is to discuss (but avoid resolving) such questions.
This committee and associated support staff attempts to address the question, Who controls the Organization? How is this control (if it exists) implicated in processes of organizational creation and perpetuation? Is it possible for the various committees and directorates of the Organization to accomplish their goals without direction? Is direction perhaps inimical to the Organization?
This committee and associated support staff attempts to address the question, To what extent are the demiurges behind our perceived reality (this knowable Archanta beneath our feet) actually more real? More troubling, what are these demiurges' motives? Are they a unified front, or a disparate group operating at cross-purposes? What are their origins? And to what extent do they wilfully misrepresent their true motives and origins? (Among a certain cabal of Retired Cyclopedians, this last question has been identified as being equivalent to the Master Cartographers' so-called "Abunadi Deserts Paradox").
This committee and associated support staff attempts to address the question, How can the Organization best emit a maximum proportion of signs to actual meaning? How best can the resources available (e.g. diaries, newscasters, hermetic hypertexts and encyclopedic simulacra) be leveraged to increase the full coverage of the Known Universe with (and by) content-free organizational representations?
Comment from Rhiney boi on 12 May 2019 at 23:16
@Luciano, I'm not following.
It almost seems as if you are in the wrong place, but I know you aren't.
Comment from Alessa on 13 May 2019 at 00:13
I, for one, wouldn't cry a tear to see the Archanta Nations Organization (ARNO) eliminated.
@Luciano: I couldn't have intimated it better myself. After all, doesn't any governmental and intergovernmental organization need a group of question-answerers to attempt justification of its raison d'être? I too join the resounding chorus crying out from yonder "to what end?" At the same time, I tend to not dismiss these attempts at "organization" out-of-hand as odious repugnancies. Sure most are nominalistic and useless. If there are enough people to put in the work, however, these can move well into conceptualisms and eventually toward the closest thing we can have for realism: cartographic verisimilitude.
@Rhiney_boi: Luciano is being both a bit sarcastic and proving a point. These types of organizations often have little impact on the map. I believe that these types of groups can have an impact with the right people involved, working together for common ends. It just takes a lot of work, and a willingness to be patient with the challenges that face OGF as a community. Simply plopping a building down, writing wiki articles, and calling it 'an organization' is not really going to suffice in many ways. Given the anti-wiki mindset that has begun to take an even stronger hold in the community, it simply means people will have to work harder to ensure that the map reflects what these organizations are. International cooperation that is long-standing, for example, may mean sharing companies, population groups, religious organizations, linguistic traits, etc. This is the type of hard work that is difficult with a rolling community.
Comment from Rhiney boi on 13 May 2019 at 00:16
Okay; much thanks
Comment from zhenkang on 13 May 2019 at 01:13
I was just kidid g about keeping the logo.
Such organisations and also sports events are rather symbolic and it is difficult to reflect much of it on the map. But I believed at the time such organisations were created just to show how nations interact with one another and organise a 'collection of nations that happens to be in the same region' into an organisation.
But now, such are useless given the changing view that we should focus on the map more than do such 'roleplaying' that gives less benefit besides just overwikification.
The ARNO can be shut down; what is the purpose of keeping it? Best to leave Archanta divided into north and south. The question is how does organisations necessarily impact your mapping? Will it?
Comment from zhenkang on 13 May 2019 at 01:14
'Just overwikification' in quote marks.
Comment from Toadwart on 13 May 2019 at 09:46
I wonder if the current anti-over-wikification atmosphere doesn't go too far.
My mapping is partly motivated by the things around it, electoral systems, currencies, sports, etc. The current atmosphere discourages most interaction with other users, which is a bit frustrating. Go too far with that atmosphere and I quit mapping. I wonder if that is intended.
In any case, these organizations went too far. The ARNO was one of the most annoying, ego-boosting and cover-up-non-existing-mapping-skills of them.
If the organization does something meaningful it may make sense. Alas, I haven't seen much going in that direction. The EUIOA does neither have a parliament nor a currency union. Not relevant mapping-wise, but could at least been an interesting playing field. So what's all that for then?
There could be so much potential. Like showing what a group of users agreed. Something like the embassies page. Show your local companies for use inside or outside the organization. Offer other interaction possibilities for other users. Presenting a policy about flight destinations, sports participations.
If you make something meaningful out of it, it could be interesting.
So, if anyone has any idea for the purpose of an organization, let us know. After that you can discuss names and members...
Comment from zhenkang on 13 May 2019 at 11:46
@Toadwart, well it was once said recently that OGF is not for roleplaying, and those who go too far to that spectrum might as well make their way out.
I will say the only successful organisation so far that works is the Vinnic Economic Community, which even has a page for opening other members' companies in your own nation. I think smaller organisations work best at the moment; not having to deal with the mess of trying to ensure collaboration between more than 20 states.
An attempt to create a cross-Ulethan organisation UAC was made by stjur. The proposal for the organisation looks nice and neat with many proposals on how it can be linked to the map. I wonder what is the status of the organisation, but given the fact it involves many nations, I am not sure how it can be sorted.
How regional collaborations can be done: shipping lines, FTAs shown by more foreign franchises in your nation, cultural trails and monuments (as proposed in the UAC), a regional network (rails or (possibly) motorways alongside other minor roads). Free-visa travels -> no need checkpoints at borders or military posts. Students exchanges -> Universities mapped. Some nations can even erect monuments to commemorate ties between nations and also the anniversary of the founding of the union they are actively involved in.
*far to the roleplaying spectrum I mean.
Comment from Luciano on 13 May 2019 at 14:25
Given that my effort to troll this thread has largely failed, perhaps I should speak more seriously and directly.
I actually happen to agree with those who feel the overwikification rules go too far. The rules end up being subjective, they are painful and time-consuming for the admin team to enforce, and they ultimately fail in their intended purpose, which is to increase the overall quality of the wiki, so as to reflect the OGF site in a positive light.
My reaction, however, is not to want to end or relax the overwikification rules. Rather, I believe that OGF should close down its wiki altogether. There are plenty of free wiki services for those who want to wikify their territories, and even for groups of users together to create cooperative wiki enterprises. And perhaps, with time and luck, some of these "off site" OGF-themed wikis might become of high quality.
In my opinion, the OGF wiki has patently failed in its intended mission: to impress newcomers to the site and serve as a positive reflection of the community. Instead it's become the scratchpad of a bunch of disorganized adolescents (mental if not actual) - and I'll miserably include my own crappy wiki contributions in this classification.
By removing the wiki from the official OGF site, the admin could focus on the one piece of the site that NO ONE ELSE OFFERS: the actual map. Free online wikis are a dime-a-dozen, but access to a free professional quality geofiction GIS is unique.
Barring outright removal of the wiki, an alternative would be to ban "in-character" articles altogether. People could build their user page sandboxes, there could be the useful OGF: namespace articles (helps and rules and such), there could be "meta" discussion of things like geology, ecology, history, politics, etc., but always clearly in the tone of "My country has ..." or "The territory owners of Archanta need to discuss...."
Comment from Toadwart on 13 May 2019 at 15:20
@Luciano, That's just outright depressing and discouraging. All the stuff I had in mind to map today ... gone ... meaningless. The whole thing is just plain meaningless.
Yes, I could have my own wiki. But, honestly, what's the point? No one would find it, no one could interact.
Why do I map here anyway?
I know that interaction is rare. But that it is also discouraged...
Even if 80-90% of the wiki is crap, does that mean the remaining stuff isn't worth it. From what you say, it's not.
Honestly, such a post is triggering again the "why am I mapping here anyway?" question.
I have tried to take part in the community. I discussed about the FSA even if I didn't need to bother. I would have even tried to help mapping in the FSA. I have also on numerous accounts offered to help with some minor admin task.
But if the philisophy is just: "Everone for himself", then so be it.
Comment from Fluffr_Nuttr on 13 May 2019 at 15:23
@Luciano Well, i found your attempts at trolling funny, if a bit confusing...
I do think the wiki's efforts to 'show off' OGF work well enough. The front page showcases the best of our community's mapping and worldbuilding, definitely attractive to new users.
Comment from Martinawa on 13 May 2019 at 18:26
Honestly, I am kind of frustrated by all of the failed attempts at international cooperation on the wiki, because they miss the most important part, which is that they need a relevant impact on the map, rather than just being a building on a city to boost a specific owner's ego by showing "hey, my country is important".
I myself have been discouraged to do many international cooperations because of this reason, and because many owners that pursue international relationships completely forget about developing their own country and rather prefer to leave their countries' name in as many buildings scattered around the map as possible. I don't even have any diplomatic missions, and many of the elements of the map that contain my country's name have been put there unsolicitedly (And by that I don't meen that I'm angry at them at all, as long as they don't try to impersonate my country in a way I haven't intended).
About how the wiki should be, I'm a bit divided on the opinion. For one part, yes, the map is what makes this site unique, and anything else can be find anywhere else. You can open your own Fandom site for your country's content, and fill it with stuff that you could never fit in the map because it is irrelevant to the geography of the country. But we should encourage (as I've seen lately) international cooperation in it. Maybe keep it as a meta site to make "trade deals" between countries, either bilaterally or in groups as the Vinnic Union. Focus the wiki on the map itself and the opportunities it brings. We could have a place for developing the world's history and another for actually talking between ourselves. I'd love to open the map and see my country spotted with factories from FSA businesses, or seeing Adarian businesses opening shops abroad all over Gwynian, seeing every dedicated mapper's footprint on the world at every zoom possible. If a country gets vacant, maybe its businesses can move to a neighboring country without having to delete and rename everything.
As a humble suggestion, I'd suggest giving focus onto the International Business Listing, and setting regions and spheres of influence for every business depending on their importance.
Maybe this way we can have something that resembles an Archantan Union, maybe with some internal regions of countries that have closer economic ties.
But maybe what I'm asking for is completely utopic.
Comment from Rustem Pasha on 13 May 2019 at 18:36
Although I'm not a wikiholic here I can't agree that wiki is completely useless for the community. If used wisely, it helps to organize collaboration - the FSA is the best example of Wiki usage but probably due to its size not the most successfull. The most fruitful ecample of Wiki usage is rather small initiative which I observe for quite long - Tarephian Franqueterre. It seems to affect both mapping and the logical aspect of OGF world - terrain and cultural planning on multinational level. This single initiative is for me enough to justify the wiki existence.
I don't buy the argument that everyone can set up own wiki. Yes, of course, everyone can and it's quite easy. But what is the reason behind writing the history if no one or almost no one reads it because it is hidden in the wiki deep down in the Internet oblivion? I say there is no single reason.
If the problem lies behind using the private server then we can establish wiki for OGF on free hosting (like wikia, shoutwiki or any other else) but the stuff should remain integrated to not be purposeless.
Comment from zhenkang on 13 May 2019 at 19:43
I tuthfully also dont see the reason to shut the wiki altogether. But why are we going back to this again? It seems now we go back to the same old issue: do we need the wiki or not?
I respect your view Luciano, but it is not like everyone here is able to set up their own wikis. I tried to, but to try import templates it is kind of difficult. Not everyone has the same coding expertise as you. I will like to set up my own for Antigo and other stuff but I still need the multimaps extension which I am experimenting in my own sandbox.
And shutting the wiki down... is it to shut down interaction between users like in world OGF relations (wars and football)? Are you saying if the wiki is to be stripped, will it provide links to every nation's own wiki or otherwise?
I wouldnt be surprised if the wiki suddenly shuts dowm though. The likliness of its collapse is similar to North Korea's eventual collapse. It may be difficult to really piece the wiki together and reforms may not help at all amd gives limited benefits.
Comment from histor on 13 May 2019 at 19:46
@ Rustem Pasha: Indeed the OGF-wiki is useful for the community. And indeed a lot of wiki-pages have hight quality. An other question is, that we too have a lot of stuff - but no light without shadow.
I do not understand, why a fundamental aversion against overwikification leads to the idea, to drop the OGF-wiki.
Comment from Luciano on 13 May 2019 at 22:00
Some additional clarifications and observations.
The "overwikification rule" is fundamentally subjective. There are no objective standards. Therefore, the rule is at best unfair and at worst unenforceable. So I oppose the overwikification rule on principle.
I have not said so directly, but it's relevant: there is a strong likelihood that the OP was made by a user who is in fact a sockpuppet of a user previously banned for overwikification. Because sockpuppetry is hard to prove, this can have no resolution. But it's worth bearing in mind.
I find it depressing and discouraging that users who complain here about lack of collaboration have been such poor collaborators in the past, both with fellow users and with respect to having engaged in entitled and rude behavior toward the admin team.
Comment from zhenkang on 13 May 2019 at 22:50
Can we just go back to discussing about organisations instead of going off tangent talking about whether we should shut the wiki down? Or maybe we should stop talking about this - it is pointless to discuss and eventually do nothing.
Comment from Ernestpcosby on 15 May 2019 at 17:20
I found this a little late, so I'll just add a couple personal points-
I'ma be frank. The part that OGF offers that noone else offers isn't just the map. I did plenty of extensive geofiction on paper long before I found OGF, and if solely talking about the map aspect, I could easily go back to paper, or using Adobe Illustrator, or Inkscape, or Affinity Designer...
The part that OGF offers that noone else offers is a map- with interaction with other mappers. That's inherently the key that makes OGF more fruitful than just mapping offline. Even with the wiki, one of the things that can be the most discouraging in mapping for me is when some of the stuff I do goes with no interaction, and it being a community of other mappers is what convinced me to switch from mapping on paper in the first place.
If everything currently hosted on the wiki was offline or on a separate unlinked site, either noone would interact, or people would spam the user diaries trying to get people to interact.
Discontinuing the wiki would likely lead to a much less organized and more problematic situation of people going back to the problems of people trying to communicate about stuff in the user diaries or on other sites and further hurt the little bit of community that's here. It would also potentially lead to more terribly mapped areas by users who never engage with the how-to pages and have no reason to take any advice that wasn't about a direct rule violation seriously because every-mapper-for-himself-anyhow-so-why-should-I-care.
I personally have tried my best within my ability to engage and collaborate respectfully with the admin and with other users, taking feedback, even attempting to reward quality mapping by emphasizing connections with well-mapped countries and territories with respectful users. But conversations like this make me fear it's all for naught and that I'm lumped in as "another one of those annoying collaborators".
Comment from Rasmus Rasmusson on 16 May 2019 at 17:33
Concerning SWAEA (of which I am the main culprit): it was an attempt to some regional collaboration but it never got further than initial discussion and nations who joined, only to disappear again soon after.
The fact that this makes it quite impossible to create a common history (as disappeared users' nations are considered to have never existed in the first place) made me feel somewhat frustrated so I ignored SWAEA (or EUOIA in Uletha for that matter) for some time and focused on mapping instead.
I received a new membership request for SWAEA and I am willing to give it another go, but as far as I am concerned membership should have some heavy restrictions in order to keep the organisation manageable. This means no "one day fly" nations and e.g. a candidate status of at least six months :)
* First item
* Second item
1. First item
2. Second item