To be discussed: Development of New Region Act

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Following (mostly) our Chancellor's request of speeding up the process of developing a new region, I propose the following for discussion:

Development of New Region (West Neufreistadt) Act

Rationale

The Confederation of Democratic Simulators has reached a point where few, if any, parcels are currently being offered for sale. As our 10th anniversary approaches, and expecting that its promotion (and subsequent visits) will potentially attract new citizens, as well as encouraging existing citizens to expand their land ownership in the CDS, it is urgent that a new region is set in place for the upcoming celebrations. A previous act, CDSL 16-02 'New Sim Competition Act', passed on March 3, 2012, had no effect and was mostly ignored.

Therefore, the Representative Assembly, in conformity with the guidelines established in NL 8-2 'Land Establishment Act', determines the following:

1. Repeal CDSL 16-02 'New Sim Competition Act'.

2. According to NL 8-2 '“In-Theme” Expansion Act' and the General Masterplan, determine that the new region shall be deployed westwards of 'Neufreistadt' and named 'West Neufreistadt'. Its theme, determined by the cluster it belongs to, shall be Bavarian/Middle-European-themed, set in the mountains, and optionally with the same structural and aesthetical divisions between 'city' and 'valley'.

3. The Chancellor shall include in their Executive budget for the 21st term an amount for buying the new region and (optionally) an amount for funding the building costs and acquiring intellectual property which might be required (e.g. textures, any specialised software, etc.), as well as promotion costs.

4. Because NL 8-2 refers to a non-existing entity ('New Guild', long dismantled), the Chancellor shall launch a public contest, open to all citizens for participation, to determine the overall landscaping and terraforming, features, facilities, public land and landmarks, and general layout of future plots for subsequent sale.

5. The submitted plans for competition shall include an area or areas for commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators. Citizens might propose those areas to be either public land (with subsequent re-use of the facilities for different purposes) or land to be subsequently parcelled out for sale.

6. As per NL 8-2, all plans shall include, even if in very preliminary and rough form:

   1. the rough number of plots;

   2. the range of sizes of plots;

   3. price and affordability;

   4. single/double prim;

   5. rough balance between public, private and commercial land;

   6. any specific public builds;

   7. any other infrastructure that can serve the interest of the community and territory.

7. For information on how to formally present the above data, citizens are welcome to draw inspiration from http://masterplan.slcds.info/2008/06/11 ... arameters/ and optionally extend those tables.

8. Submitted plans should at least include a 2D drawing of the proposal, showing zoning and individual plots on top of terrain/landscape data. 3D models are welcome.

9. A proposal for the Covenants to be implemented on each zone can optionally be presented, which should be based on the existing covenants for regions on the same cluster and consistent with them.

10. The plans shall also include an estimate for building costs (which might be zero if all builders agree on voluntary work). The estimate for overall building time shall be one month.

11. The Chancellor, working together with the Treasurer, will evaluate each proposal as to its financial exequibility. If a plan is deemed to be financially unsound, the proponent shall have two choices:

    1. Make all necessary changes to fulfill the requirements of financial exequibility, assuming there is time left;

    2. Withdraw the proposal.

12. Proposals that fulfill the requirements of financial exequibility shall be delivered to the Chancellor until June 7 by noon SLT [TBD] as well as made public on the Official CDS Forums. Any proposal which does not fulfill the above requirements will be discarded and their proponents duly informed of the reasons.

13. The Chancellor shall display the proposals on public land and arrange devices that allow a public vote. Voting shall begin on June 8 by noon SLT and finish on June 14 by noon SLT [dates TBD]. The Chancellor will then announce the winning proposal. In case of a tie, the Chancellor will decide the winner.

14. No later than June 21 [TBD], the Representative Assembly shall convene and vote to buy the new region and order its immediate development according to the winning proposal.

15. The office of the Executive shall oversee all development and building and pay any expenses related to the work to be done (including builders' fees, acquisition of intellectual property, etc.).

16. All issues related to implementing the winning proposal, specially regarding its interpretation, shall be resolved by the Chancellor.

17. During the expected month of development, the Public Information Officer (or the Chancellor, in case the Civil Service does not include a PIO) shall start a promotion campaign. During this phase, the Executive may also optionally accept pre-reservations and set the terms for them (which can include a down payment), which shall be made publicly known in advance. Some or all plots might be held in reserve by the Executive until the 10th anniversary commemorations are over.

18. At the end of the building phase, the Executive shall announce a formal inauguration of the region.

19. Both citizens and non-citizens (which will become citizens after buying their first plot in the CDS) will have the same, fair, equal access to the pre-reservation list (if one exists) as well as to the general reservation system. In the case that two persons desire the same plot, the first person that commits to the sale will have priority, but optionally either party can appeal to the Chancellor (to arrange for land swaps, etc.)

[Patroklus Murakami]

A few quick points:

• * this is very welcome and I am glad to see that Gwyn agrees this should take priority over some other matters
  * I don't think you should specify the sim at this stage. Some of us would favour NFS East over NFS West because that would extend the current dense urban build. We could complete the city walls and pack in far more citizens this way! And NFS inside the city walls sells *very* well indeed. Others may favour a different solution and, if you specify this now you just create uncertainty (oddly) because the incoming RA could take a different view and then we have to start all over again
  * on para 4, the RA should launch the contest if this is to be in keeping with the 'In Theme Expansion' act
  * on para 6, the RA should specify the plans for number of plots, balance between public and private land etc. It is the RAs responsibility to carry out long-term planning and this is where this comes in. It also avoids wasting people's time. If someone comes along with a plan for 100% public land and you reject it saying 'Oh that's too much' then a reasonable response would be 'why didn't you say so in the first place?'

[Cadence Theas]

Gwyn,
You mentioned you are an expansionist. I am too, but I don't think that CDS is ready to make the sorts of final decisions that you are calling for in the time frame that you stipulate--viable proposals in four weeks when we have not even finished LA yet. In your proposal, there is no middle ground between the expansionists and the conservatives (I forget the term you used). We should use the term of the 21st RA to bring people up to date, establish a series of Town Hall meetings and forum discussions, rethink the 2008 GMP, and then plan the new sim with an informed public for the 22nd RA. Racing this through an agenda will only reproduce the LA history.

[Timo Gufler]

Gwyn,
You mentioned you are an expansionist. I am too, but I don't think that CDS is ready to make the sorts of final decisions that you are calling for in the time frame that you stipulate--viable proposals in four weeks when we have not even finished LA yet. In your proposal, there is no middle ground between the expansionists and the conservatives (I forget the term you used). We should use the term of the 21st RA to bring people up to date, establish a series of Town Hall meetings and forum discussions, rethink the 2008 GMP, and then plan the new sim with an informed public for the 22nd RA. Racing this through an agenda will only reproduce the LA history.

I agree with Cadence. Even if it would be great to get the new sim ready by the 10th anniversary, I'm against rushing, that voting in early June would require from us. Expansion is a great goal, but we have to ensure, that we do it well and consistently. The GMP is not up-to-date and the world has changed since it was finished in 2009. Let's update and revise it first, before starting designing the new sim.

Meanwhile, I created a new thread about the General Master Plan of 2008/2009.

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4625

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Gwyn,
You mentioned you are an expansionist. I am too, but I don't think that CDS is ready to make the sorts of final decisions that you are calling for in the time frame that you stipulate--viable proposals in four weeks when we have not even finished LA yet. In your proposal, there is no middle ground between the expansionists and the conservatives (I forget the term you used). We should use the term of the 21st RA to bring people up to date, establish a series of Town Hall meetings and forum discussions, rethink the 2008 GMP, and then plan the new sim with an informed public for the 22nd RA. Racing this through an agenda will only reproduce the LA history.

I agree with Cadence. Even if it would be great to get the new sim ready by the 10th anniversary, I'm against rushing, that voting in early June would require from us. Expansion is a great goal, but we have to ensure, that we do it well and consistently. The GMP is not up-to-date and the world has changed since it was finished in 2009. Let's update and revise it first, before starting designing the new sim.

Meanwhile, I created a new thread about the General Master Plan of 2008/2009.

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4625

I have to politely disagree with Cadence and Timo here. I agree that the GMP is not up-to-date and the world has changed since it was finished in 2009. So do we spend months redoing a GMP that may become out of date as soon as it is completed because the world is always changing. It isn't necessary to tie up our next sim in 6 months of talk. This has been a problem in the CDS for many years, talk with no action.

Trebor Warcliffe

[Cadence Theas]

I have to politely disagree with Cadence and Timo here. I agree that the GMP is not up-to-date and the world has changed since it was finished in 2009. So do we spend months redoing a GMP that may become out of date as soon as it is completed because the world is always changing. It isn't necessary to tie up our next sim in 6 months of talk. This has been a problem in the CDS for many years, talk with no action.

Trebor, do you think that a careful, well thought out proposal that can survive all the different perspectives that CDS members brings to any endeavor can be done in the four weeks time that Gwyn stipulates? It is just that sort of haste and lack of consultation that leads to the arguments here and in world. How many people have expressed an opinion about the new sim in the forum? So far, just the candidates. That leaves a huge group of people who may or may not know about the GMP, who may or may not know about the financial requirements, who may or may not know enough of the CDS history to make an informed choice about the next sim theme.

I am not suggesting that we wait an eternity to make the new sim, but I am suggesting that we proceed carefully to avoid a repeat of LA.

I think a new sim is a great idea that unfortunately acquired cachet in the context of an election campaign season where rhetoric trumps reason.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Trebor,

Just a word of caution.....

Beware of CONSERVATIVES in EXPANSIONIST clothing.

There is an election on the horizon....

[Timo Gufler]

I'm sorry to say this, but we can't go on with the old version of the GMP, which was replaced later. I'm for moderate expansion, but as someone said in the other thread, we should choose the happy medium between expansionism and conservatism. The Act proposed above represents aggressive expansionism in my opinion.

Three pictures of GMP evolution can be seen in the other thread.

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 923#p23923

[Trebor Warcliffe]

I have to politely disagree with Cadence and Timo here. I agree that the GMP is not up-to-date and the world has changed since it was finished in 2009. So do we spend months redoing a GMP that may become out of date as soon as it is completed because the world is always changing. It isn't necessary to tie up our next sim in 6 months of talk. This has been a problem in the CDS for many years, talk with no action.

Trebor, do you think that a careful, well thought out proposal that can survive all the different perspectives that CDS members brings to any endeavor can be done in the four weeks time that Gwyn stipulates? It is just that sort of haste and lack of consultation that leads to the arguments here and in world. How many people have expressed an opinion about the new sim in the forum? So far, just the candidates. That leaves a huge group of people who may or may not know about the GMP, who may or may not know about the financial requirements, who may or may not know enough of the CDS history to make an informed choice about the next sim theme.

I am not suggesting that we wait an eternity to make the new sim, but I am suggesting that we proceed carefully to avoid a repeat of LA.

I think a new sim is a great idea that unfortunately acquired cachet in the context of an election campaign season where rhetoric trumps reason.

Hello Cadence I do appreciate your suggestion of proceeding carefully in order to avoid a repeat of LA. Though not in any official capacity there has been talk about NFS West for at least the past two years amongst various citizens. I'd have to search my hard drive but I know I have presented a map of possibilities and probably have already configured the public to private land ratio, NFS West being a double prim sim and the sale pricing and tier structure as well. I won't speak for others that I have spoken to over the past two years about the sim but I know more than just myself have worked on this proposal before now. I feel in this particular situation it's more of a "hey we've been talking about NFS West for a long time, lets get a general consensus from the community that this would be the logical next sim before we expand to other themes." By placing the topic on the ballot whether as a referendum or a simple opinion survey is the quickest and far reaching method to accomplish this. Even the citizen who may only log in once a month or two months would be able to give their input on the ballot. I don't feel for this particular sim that we need to take 6 months to debate this back and forth. The longest I think it would take to "go through the motions" would be a maximum of 6 weeks. This should allow us enough time to have the sim ready for our 10th Birthday.

Now when it comes to further expansion after NFS West I do think it will be very important to spend time in the planning stage. The reason being that we will be discussing themes as well as new sim/sims. Do we want to migrate over to a Colonial USA theme with a couple of water/island sims as a buffer between our current sims and the future sims? Are there other themes that are popular that would fit into our democracy? This would be the time where I could foresee a three to six month planning period to allow all of us some time to really explore the possibilities.

Trebor Warcliffe

[Patroklus Murakami]

But the proposal herewas for NFS *East* so ramming through a proposal for NFS West seems like a recipe for a repeat of the LA fiasco.

We should get citizen input first before committing to which sim we expand into. Let's agree the principle and then decide the specifics later. And let's make sure we have people in broad agreement.

I don't think, by the way, that a referendum is going to help us here. For referenda to work you need to have *one* very clearly defined question and a campaign to air all sides of the argument. Scotland will vote whether to leave the United Kingdom in September on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?". The official campaign has just started but Scots have been debating this for over a year already.

There has been *no* lead up to the proposed referendum on a new sim so our citizens will be voting 'blind'. For supporters of a new sim (that includes me) this proposal could backfire. Voters tend to be conservative with referenda and vote for the status quo. Spring a referendum on them for a new sim and... you might not like what you hear.

This should be something the new RA and Chancellor make a priority. Gauge citizen interest in a new sim and test their views by holding 'Town Hall' meetings for everyone to attend. Then forge ahead and get on with it. Going off half-cocked is a sure fire way to repeat our mistakes all over again.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I'm definitely willing to make a few changes, but I should explain that there were three reasons for the form given to the proposal:

1) The RA has decided in 2012 to go for West Neufreistadt, after a very long period of discussion. For me, it seems wasteful to ignore the work being done on previous terms and start now from scratch. But I won't be dogmatic on this issue! For instance, I totally agree that East Neufreistadt has more advantages than West!
2) 'In-theme' expansion is supposed to be less bureaucratic and speedier. Because everything has been discussed before under the General Masterplan, we can go with NL 8-2, which assumes a lot of prerequisites — namely, the theme for the cluster where the new region is supposed to be placed in, which already will deal with Covenants, etc. NL 8-2 actually makes the whole process of adding new regions a mere administrative procedure under the supervision of the Chancellor, instead of a complex political discussion.
3) Unfortunately, however, NL 8-2 assumed the existence of a 'New Guild' with the responsibility of keeping the GMP up-to-date and having builders on stand-by that are familiar with the urban planning process (besides, of course, being good builders ). Because this organisation doesn't exist in the CDS any more, I suggested reverting to the old contest system, effectively creating a 'temporary builder society' for the duration of the building of this particular region, and which will disband afterwards.

But of course I'm quite willing to change things, namely, give the opportunity of contestants to pick the region name and where to place it (as well as adding the other suggestions that Pat has proposed), and let all citizens vote on what they prefer. This is, in-my-not-so-humble-opinion, far better than a referendum (as Pat has pointed out). Instead, citizens will see lots (hopefully lots!) of different proposals, suggestions, ideas, etc. and pick the one they like most. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this means that giving citizens the ability to vote on their next region by looking at a plan and a model of what a contestant desires to do in that region is far better than endlessly discussing what is best

I might have some qualms about totally abandoning the GMP. On that front, I'll comment on Timo's thread, but I can tell in advance that I'm not considering to propose a renewed discussion of the GMP before starting to work on the new region, or we'll just have it ready for the 15th anniversary. I understand that there might be a 2009 GMP written 'somewhere' but I've (so far) been unable to find it. Certainly the masterplan website doesn't have it. It's probably buried in the forums. So, all I can suggest is to rewrite the proposed bill to say 'the most current General Masterplan' instead of 'the 2008 GMP', which — hopefully — allows us to find the correct document (and eventually even change it!) before we launch the public contest. But I do have a few comments about that as well (they will go on the other thread!).

Nevertheless, as you all know, any citizen is allowed to propose new bills for ratification by the RA, so feel free to do so — just don't count on my vote if you wish to stall the process by starting the discussion from the very beginning

Regarding Pat's suggestions, I accept that there were some flaws on the process, namely, about the sizes of plots and so forth. My current problem is that, as a RA member, I don't have any data to be able to 'decide' what's best for the CDS. Previously (except for Neufreistadt, of course) this was the kind of thing that the Treasurer provided the RA (and, later, the Chancellor) with, so that the RA could decide. Put in other words: RA members are not necessarily experts in 'land baroning' (I'm certainly not!), and the RA always relied upon the Treasurer (and others) as 'expert consultants' giving their opinion on what is best for our expansion, in financial terms.

On the other hand, I most certainly agree that leaving that out of the proposed bill will cause us trouble later. Pat's quite right on that! My suggestion is thus to do the following: push the dates a month in the future and allow the Executive (well, mostly the Treasurer, but the Chancellor is the Treasurer's boss!) to prepare the necessary recommendations, as per NL 8-2. The RA will the approve the recommendations, and all contestants are required to abide by them (again, the Executive will do the validation).

That way, we avoid both the pitfall that the RA might make serious mistakes and, of course, we won't rely on contestants to become expert land barons as well.

So here goes revision #2, taking all the above into account:

Development of New Region Act revision 2.0

Rationale

The Confederation of Democratic Simulators has reached a point where few, if any, parcels are currently being offered for sale. As our 10th anniversary approaches, and expecting that its promotion (and subsequent visits) will potentially attract new citizens, as well as encouraging existing citizens to expand their land ownership in the CDS, it is urgent that a new region is set in place for the upcoming celebrations. A previous act, CDSL 16-02 'New Sim Competition Act', passed on March 3, 2012, had no effect and was mostly ignored.

Therefore, the Representative Assembly, in conformity with the guidelines established in NL 8-2 'Land Establishment Act', determines the following:

1. Repeal CDSL 16-02 'New Sim Competition Act'.

2. The Chancellor shall include in their Executive budget for the 21st term an amount for buying the new region and (optionally) an amount for funding the building costs and acquiring intellectual property which might be required (e.g. textures, any specialised software, etc.), as well as promotion costs.

3. According to NL 8-2, the Executive will prepare a set of recommendations for the future region, namely:

   1. the rough number of plots;

   2. the range of sizes of plots;

   3. price and affordability;

   4. single/double prim;

   5. rough balance between public, private and commercial land;

   6. any specific public builds;

   7. any other infrastructure that can serve the interest of the community and territory.

4. This recommendation shall be presented to the Representative Assembly until June 22, 2014.

5. The Representative Assembly will assemble, either ordinarily or extraordinarily, until June 29, to approve the recommendations.

6. Because NL 8-2 refers to a non-existing entity ('New Guild', long dismantled), the Chancellor shall launch a public contest on June 30, open to all citizens for participation, to determine the overall landscaping and terraforming, features, facilities, public land and landmarks, and general layout of future plots for subsequent sale.

7. Contestants will present their proposals according to the approved recommendations. For information on how to formally present the above data, citizens are welcome to draw inspiration from http://masterplan.slcds.info/2008/06/11 ... arameters/ and optionally extend those tables.

8. Contestants will be allowed to pick a name and location of the new region.

9. Proposed themes should follow the broad guidelines established in the most recently approved General Masterplan (GMP), by choosing which cluster the new region shall belong to.

10. Contestants should give preference to a visually contiguous solution (i.e. no isolated region, invisible from the rest of the regions).

11. The submitted plans for competition shall include an area or areas for commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators. Citizens might propose those areas to be either public land (with subsequent re-use of the facilities for different purposes) or land to be subsequently parcelled out for sale.

12. Submitted plans should at least include a 2D drawing of the proposal, showing zoning and individual plots on top of terrain/landscape data. 3D models are welcome.

13. A proposal for the Covenants to be implemented on each zone can optionally be presented, which should be based on the existing covenants for regions on the same GMP cluster and consistent with them.

14. The plans shall also include an estimate for building costs (which might be zero if all builders agree on voluntary work). The estimate for overall building time shall be one month.

15. The Chancellor, working together with the Treasurer, will evaluate each proposal as to its financial exequibility and conformity with the recommendations. If a plan is deemed to be financially unsound, or does not conform to the recommendations, the proponent shall have two choices:

    1. Make all necessary changes to comply with the requirements, assuming there is time left, and resubmit the proposal;

    2. Withdraw the proposal.

16. Proposals that fulfill the requirements of financial exequibility and conformity with the recommendations shall be delivered to the Chancellor until July 5 by noon SLT as well as made public on the Official CDS Forums. Any proposal which does not fulfill the above requirements will be discarded and their proponents duly informed of the reasons.

17. The Chancellor shall display the proposals on public land and arrange devices that allow a public vote. Voting shall begin on July 6 by noon SLT and finish on July 12 by noon SLT. The Chancellor will then announce the winning proposal. In case of a tie, the Chancellor will decide the winner.

18. No later than July 19, the Representative Assembly shall convene and vote to buy the new region and order its immediate development according to the winning proposal.

19. The office of the Executive shall oversee all development and building and pay any expenses related to the work to be done (including builders' fees, acquisition of intellectual property, etc.).

20. All issues related to implementing the winning proposal, specially regarding its interpretation, shall be resolved by the Chancellor.

21. During the expected month of development, the Public Information Officer (or the Chancellor, in case the Civil Service does not include a PIO) shall start a promotion campaign. During this phase, the Executive may also optionally accept pre-reservations and set the terms for them (which can include a down payment), which shall be made publicly known in advance. Some or all plots might be held in reserve by the Executive until the 10th anniversary commemorations are over.

22. At the end of the building phase, the Executive shall announce a formal inauguration of the region.

23. Both citizens and non-citizens (which will become citizens after buying their first plot in the CDS) will have the same, fair, equal access to the pre-reservation list (if one exists) as well as to the general reservation system. In the case that two persons desire the same plot, the first person that commits to the sale will have priority, but optionally either party can appeal to the Chancellor (to arrange for land swaps, etc.)

[Rosie Gray]

I'm definitely willing to make a few changes, but I should explain that there were three reasons for the form given to the proposal:

1) The RA has decided in 2012 to go for West Neufreistadt, after a very long period of discussion. For me, it seems wasteful to ignore the work being done on previous terms and start now from scratch. But I won't be dogmatic on this issue! For instance, I totally agree that East Neufreistadt has more advantages than West!

Can you please point to where the RA decided to go for West Neufreistadt? I don't recall that, but I do recall our discussions on creating East NFS, and we even have map plans done, created by both me and Trebor. See this thread: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... ast#p19748

[Timo Gufler]

7. Contestants will present their proposals according to the approved recommendations. For information on how to formally present the above data, citizens are welcome to draw inspiration from http://masterplan.slcds.info/2008/06/11 ... arameters/ and optionally extend those tables.
8. Contestants will be allowed to pick a name and location of the new region.
9. Proposed themes should follow the broad guidelines established in the most recently approved General Masterplan (GMP), by choosing which cluster the new region shall belong to.
10. Contestants should give preference to a visually contiguous solution (i.e. no isolated region, invisible from the rest of the regions).

At least in case of NFS 2 / NFS West the steps 9 and 10 would conflict with each other (see http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 009#p24009 ). I propose, that we omit the step 9 completely and let the contestants ignore GMP 2008, which needs updating. Later we can update the GMP to match with the terrain.

[Patroklus Murakami]

A briefer version of this bill would run as follows:

1. The Chancellor will set aside funds and run a competition for our new sim seeking proposals from citizens.
2. Citizens will decide who wins through a vote which the Chancellor will run. The Chancellor gets the casting vote in the event of a tie.
3. The RA will vote the funds to buy the region.
4. The Chancellor will oversee the build which should be completed by 1 September.

What I find odd though is that, contrary to the bills Gwyn has referenced this puts the Chancellor in charge of running the competition rather than the RA. I know Gwyn loves to create work for other people but, if you want the Chancellor to do this rather than the RA then I respectfully suggest you employ less micromanagement - 'by June 22', 'until June 29', 'on June 30' - or, as a matter of basic courtesy, discuss the timetable with the people you expect to do the work beforehand.

Or, even more simply, you could just amend CDSL 16-02 to read "Such plans shall be submitted by [insert new date]"

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Sorry to pipe in just today. There is a reason for that! I wished to let the election period to finish by allowing candidates to speak out their minds and debate them publicly, as well as to see the results of the referendum on the new region — and, also, as you have noticed, I have been a bit more busy iRL than usual and away from the forums.

Now that we have a new RA and a new Chancellor fully in office (congrats all!), it's time to get this back on track

In spite of some objections, I still intend to push this bill out, as soon as possible. Obviously the dates have to be corrected (again). And I'm naturally open to discussion on every aspect of the proposal.

Rosie, you're right. I wrongly assumed that CDSL 16-02 specified West Neufreistadt, but it doesn't. I'm sorry, I'm not in the mood for searching through forums today, so I'll take your word on it, that I'm confusing East with West. Or maybe vice-versa! No matter! Who cares! Please strike that word down from my post, and replace with 'The RA has decided in 2012 to go for a Bavarian-themed region, after a very long period of discussion' That would be Revision #3.

Because I understand that the work for a 'new GMP' will take months, if not years, I have attempted to give some strong hints that the new region ought to be a slight variant of an 'in-theme expansion' — and also because I wish to respect the decisions of the 2012 RA on this subject. So, technically, if it were a 'pure' in-theme expansion, all that would be needed was for the RA to approve the budget, and let the Chancellor start building.

But I would be inconsistent in my own words if I insisted in a less democratic process. Thus this bill: it opens up the possibility of any citizen not only to participate by suggesting a new plan, and for every citizen to vote on what plan they wish to see implemented, but also for groups of builders, no matter what their affiliation, to bid for the building. I understand there are already a few proposals from at least three citizens. I'll be glad to compromise with Timo, and drop the requirement for visual contiguity, even though at a personal level (long story) I'm very strongly against gaps in the landscape. But — this is democracy — let the citizens decide what's best! If a majority prefers visual gaps, who am I to say otherwise? So, I'm fine in striking that off Revision #3 as well. That would be deleting point 10. I'm a bit reluctant in completely deleting point 9, because that would be a good precedent for totally ignoring the GMP forever (we'd always come back to this issue and say, 'oh, in 2014 we ignored the GMP, so we can ignore it again'). This would still allow contestants to propose new regions in whatever cluster they wish and pick among the three possible themes — Roman/Greek, Middle-Age Central European, and Alpine. And they would also be able to propose a region surrounded by sea somewhere along the coast, invisible from the 'mainland' CDS, if they so wished.

Is that good enough for you, Timo?