JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
 Offline
Posts: 1710
|
 |
« on: September 06, 2013, 03:54:50 PM » |
|
I have been thinking perhaps non-gc members should be able to lay claim to solar objects. With GC approval of course though. As it is right now some might feel it is unfair that only we get to lay claim to solar objects.
12. Non-GC member Corps may petition to claim solar objects for their sole Corp use. Sole Corp ownership is contingent upon approval of the majority of the GC.
12.1. If another player sets up holdings on or around a claimed solar object the owner of said holdings may contact said player giving forty eight (48) hours notice of intent to remove the holdings in question by force.
|
|
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2013, 03:08:04 AM » |
|
I am assuming IMG is still discussing this matter. As for NHC. Haven't seen them around much lately. Hopefully everyone likes this addition I want to add.
|
|
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2013, 04:33:26 AM » |
|
Ok I would think discussion on this matter between IMG members wouldn't take this long. What's the hold up?
|
|
|
|
|
Aysle
Corporal
Reputation: +14/-5
Offline
Posts: 110
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2013, 05:46:18 AM » |
|
At this point in time IMG wants to ask exactly what other corps would be invited? As we see it, there is no reason to modify the charter without corps that would fit the invitation parameters... Right now, about 0 of the available corps are worthy of being invited....And such as NHC is being as silent as IMG was, its all talk since it would take a majority...this all seems pointless at this point in time...
|
|
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2013, 05:50:24 AM » |
|
Invitation doesn't matter with this. What I am proposing is for a way for non-gc members to stake claim on planets/moons/asteroid belts. Just as GC members can request approval for this. I think it is only fair non-gc corporations be allowed to request approval for this. I honestly wish I had thought of this sooner. By not allowing them to do this it makes us look like bullies who want to control the galaxy and not let them do anything.
|
|
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2013, 05:54:08 AM » |
|
I am also aware that NHC hasn't been on. But that shouldn't stop us from discussing it. I am hoping perhaps Goodperson might come on before long, see this and give their input.
|
|
|
|
|
Aysle
Corporal
Reputation: +14/-5
Offline
Posts: 110
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2013, 06:01:12 AM » |
|
Invitation doesn't matter with this. What I am proposing is for a way for non-gc members to stake claim on planets/moons/asteroid belts. Just as GC members can request approval for this. I think it is only fair non-gc corporations be allowed to request approval for this. I honestly wish I had thought of this sooner. By not allowing them to do this it makes us look like bullies who want to control the galaxy and not let them do anything.
IMG is not arguing the reason... we are fully behind the reason but we also stand behind the GC charter and the majority rule as was established. As it stands now...if NHC does not participate in the GC we have become a charter of PMI vs IMG rule of the galaxy which is not acceptable... If PMI looks back before the GC charter the other option was giving the "P" from PMI over...without a ruling council it becomes a case of we said/they said... |
|
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2013, 06:11:57 AM » |
|
That doesn't mean we can try to hold things together and discuss things. I am not sure what the heck is going on with NHC right now. It really aggravates me too. But I am still trying to hold the GC together cause I think it was a good idea. Yes we do need them for a vote such as this. But who says we have to even vote right away? We can at least discuss the idea rather then just refuse to discuss the issue at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Dadds
Sergeant First Class
Reputation: +41/-143
Offline
Posts: 734
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2013, 02:23:37 PM » |
|
The GC was a grand idea; only thing maybe a little "before its time" Or, has the GC taken the edge off the game and people are wandering off into bored oblivion? Perhaps it needs to be revisited and re-vamped as the game grows and the corps prosper.
|
___________________________________________
Dadds
Commander-in-Chief [IMG], Galactic Council member
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2013, 11:34:23 PM » |
|
I think perhaps what we need is growth. As it stands now the GC is still pretty small.
|
|
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2013, 09:17:41 AM » |
|
Discussion on this matter really needs to resume.
|
|
|
|
|
Jazzbob
Sergeant
Reputation: +5/-2
Offline
Posts: 164
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2013, 05:07:56 PM » |
|
I vote yes to add this points to the GC! Even because of the new formed Triangle Corp.
|
Leader
IMPERIAL TRADE ORGANISATION
|
|
|
JamJulLison
First Sergeant
Reputation: +55/-44
Offline
Posts: 1710
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2013, 08:07:45 PM » |
|
Well a vote wasn't really called for yet lol. Is there anything anyone else wants to say on this matter before we go to voting or should we go with what I suggested in the first post?
|
|
|
|
|
Jazzbob
Sergeant
Reputation: +5/-2
Offline
Posts: 164
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2013, 12:16:12 PM » |
|
sorry^^ So, I can only say: To me, there is no further need to explain something. But we need the opinions of the other corps I think.
|
Leader
IMPERIAL TRADE ORGANISATION
|
|
|
|
