How would FSA overseas territories work?
The USA has plenty of them and the FSA could have one.
Comment from Rhiney boi on 30 June 2019 at 02:02
Ask wangi, he is the guy who is in charge of the FSA, even above the AR120 Coordinator (TheMayor), I think, since he's the South Archanta admin.
And I agree, but do we need a 1:1 copy of the US?
Comment from Megacity2005Creator on 30 June 2019 at 12:46
Maybe unclaimed inland territories of the FSA (like AR120-86) could be underpopulated and mostly desert, making them ineligible to be a state.
Comment from Rhiney boi on 30 June 2019 at 14:29
Eh, we've already established that all 67 territories in the FS are states.
Perhaps UL303? Seems right, and we could bust it up into tons of atolls, which the US seems to have a lot of.
Comment from TheMayor on 30 June 2019 at 18:39
Does the FSA really need overseas territories though?
Comment from Rhiney boi on 30 June 2019 at 18:47
@TheMayor exactly what I thought.
But shouldn't we have a southern islands base?
Comment from Toadwart on 30 June 2019 at 20:15
I wonder why these ideas are discussed with one sentence posts.
If you had an idea you could elaborate it here or in the forum. Given the size of the FSA overseas territories may make sense. Smaller islands nations maybe which decided to half-joinf the FSA. Maybe a military base.
Also what would be your intention as a mapper. Why do so many people want to have an Ingerish overseas territory? To map in English and have a higher GDP I guess. Maybe you have good reasons as well. But we don't know them.
So, if you have a good plan and can explain your motivation behind it, then it might be discussed seriously.
Comment from Luziyca on 30 June 2019 at 21:01
I don't think this is really the appropriate time to discuss overseas territories for the FSA.
I'd suggest that we only discuss this possibility when:
As it stands right now, considering that we have a ton of open states, and states that have not been well-developed, discussing overseas territories seems a bit premature.
Comment from Toadwart on 30 June 2019 at 22:12
Do you really mean that? Let's be honest, that's never going to happen. 75% is realistic for states to be claimed, let alone being mapped to your measure of quality.
There may be loads of arguments against OTs.
But postponing a discussion until an unachievable state is reached? That's incomprehensible to me.
Comment from Luziyca on 30 June 2019 at 23:02
For the 95% threshold that I have proposed earlier, it is because right now, the FSA has a ton of empty states that are yet to be claimed. While Rhiney Boi did say last night that only twenty states are green, and forty-three states have been claimed (47 if we include the collaborative states), that is only about 68% of the FSA that is claimed if we exclude the collaborative states, and 70% if we include the collaborative territories. That still leaves a lot of states left to be claimed, so to add another territory/territories to the FSA does seem a bit premature when we still have plenty of states waiting for new owners.
Likewise, for my suggestion that we should wait until that amount has been mapped to such a detail that should the participant leave, the admins would prefer that the work made be preserved, it is because right now, many states are largely empty: apart from the occasional natural feature or motorway or town, there isn't really a lot of development in many states. By having us map to such a level before we consider an overseas territory for the FSA, it should help improve the quality of the mapping and verisimilitude of the FSA, give mappers a "carrot" to encourage them to map better if they do want that territory to be a thing, and allow the FSA to be more fully developed.
However, after having read your reply and having examined your points, Toadwart, maybe I have been a bit too harsh in my strict 95% claimed and 95% of FSA being high-quality mapping, and I do admit that these two requirements put together would probably make discussing the matter completely impossible.
Perhaps having 90% of non-collaborative states be claimed, and 75% of all states having these requirements could resolve this dilemma?
That way, it would help delay this particular discussion until the FSA is far more developed, while simultaneously allowing discussion on having an overseas territory to take place at some point down the line.
Comment from Toadwart on 30 June 2019 at 23:23
Yes, if someone has a good idea how an OT would look like and why it deserves a special status, that should aloways be allowed to discuss.
Whether to actually have some is a discussion for later. I would suggest it depends on the plan, when.
Comment from Rustem Pasha on 30 June 2019 at 23:49
May I propose something? There are still a lot of places outside FSA which are mapped in "American" style. Try to reach them and talk about the cooperation with the FSA as the oversea territories. Maybe they don't want to be involved directly in the FSA issues (that's one of the reasons why these mappers didn't claime a state instead of independent country I guess) but some of them may like the idea of semi-independent overseas territories. It would help to rationalise the existance of various mini-US the OGF and you would have thing that you want.
Of course before someone declare his country as an overseas FSA territory there should be agreement between FSA state-owners that all of you want to actually have them. Probably the admin team permission may be required too. In this case the percentage and quality of mapping of FSA would become less important because no state-owner will be involved in mapping overseas territories. However the better the FSA will be mapped the higher chance would be that someone from the outside would like to join.
Comment from wangi on 1 July 2019 at 00:53
It's not something we need to think about just now.
Comment from TheMayor on 1 July 2019 at 00:55
The FSA has plenty of vacant spaces for mappers to join us, we should be encouraging more people to join the project on the mainland before we start looking to expand the FSA’s reach.
Comment from Rhiney boi on 1 July 2019 at 01:08
I agree with TheMayor.
* First item
* Second item
1. First item
2. Second item