General Requests

[Elena1012]

@Weim @Hex - not criticism at all, simply trying to gauge enforcement of ProNats. It's a new thing, we were bound to come across a few bumps on the road till it matures. And being even more bureaucratic about the rule itself as it was written wouldn't have solved the bumps.

Lemme ask you this:

1. What would you guys have done if ProNat didn't exist?
   
2. What should we do with other applicants (i.e. Facts / Pontesi) if we were to grant ProNats for you in Valr/Gad?
   

Absolutely, this is not criticism, it's just a rather hellish amount of bureaucracy for it.

As for the questions in mind;

Honestly. For me personally, I probably would've just stuck to the FBCs for good. Prior to ProNat being conceived, kind of was just running out of ideas and no other PTC nation had interest, the ones that did (ie Gaduridos), well I had hesitations of returning to Gaduridos due to the possibility of a Gaduri Situation happening again. 

As for the second part.

What should be done with other applicants? Should we not treat ProNat as we do with FBCs? Have a plan, have a good history, and meet the requirements? In the case of Facts, he does meet the requirements, and he has a good history. He is dedicated to telling a story for Pontesi, and has continued to do so. 

Personally I believe Facts should be approved. That's my personal opinion as a player. As for others, say Tukarali, well- that one doesn't have a plan that requires ProNat (like Gad and Val in this case) and to be frank, the nation has been unfortunately on and off on in regards to producing RP. 

Obviously we shouldn't see nations with a new player instantly locked because that was asked. But in our small community of 20, do we not trust each other to have the capacity to produce good RP? And to have the capacity to  operate under a ProNat in a responsible manner?