[Northern] Running some numbers
vortmax at mac.com
Thu May 17 23:32:39 PDT 2001
Sir Burke scribed:
> The populace numbers are only for paid members so there is no real way to
> know if the true participating membership of these various groups has
> stayed level or not.
This indicates to me that the population of the region may be even more
unstable than I initially beleived. Unfortunately, as you stated, the only
way to "officially" measure the population of the group is to count paid
memberships. That is what both the crown and the BOD will use. And without
those being at a stable or steadily increasing level, I (and probably
others) remain unconvinced a principality is the right thing to do at this
> One more point, the requirement for a principality is at least 100
> subscribing members, the North has 240 as of 12/31/00.
Then why does the web page state 342 members in the Northern Region? The
numbers on the web page are what I based my analysis on. If those numbers
are in error, then both our analyses may be flawed.
Aunt Dwen then replied:
>I see the North in much the same stew. My objections
>to Principality at this time have had to do with our
>numbers as a shire, and what I have perceived as a
>somewhat thin strata of folks doing the majority of
>the work in other groups in the region. Please do
>not read the previous statement as an indictment of
>anyone's commitment to the game. We all have areas of
>interest and varying skills. We are younger or older
>players and need to be brought up to speed or given
>a break. I'm just saying I wish we had a few
>more folk before seriously pursuing Principality.
I must say this parallels my current line of reasoning. A few more "active
participants" that communicate across the virtual political barriers (and
hopefully even break them down) would go a long way towards making the
vision of a principality a viable one.
Lord Thomas of Weathershear
More information about the Northern