Posts that do not provide evidence

[Buffalkill]

As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.

[Buffalkill]

Just because they may have been planning this for years, and for reasons independent of the war, doesn't mean that the timing wasn't influenced by the strategic implications. I doubt the timing was totally random, and while there were likely other factors involved, it's hard to believe that the strategic implications in the current state of war didn't enter into anyone's thinking. If they really didn't wish to gain a strategic advantage in this war then let them sit this one out, or at least stay out of it for a specified period of time. That way the opposing realm will have time adjust its deployments accordingly. Otherwise it's a veiled strategic secession and it puts the opposing realm at a disadvantage.

[Indirik]

It has been absolutely, 100% clear for RL years now that this was going to happen. The timing was up in the air, but the fact of it was totally public.

None of that is relevant. There's no requirement that a strategic secession has to be a spur-of-the-moment decision, a short-term proposition, or a secret deal. Just because you publicly declare that you will do something does not mean that the action, and specifically the method and timing of the execution of that action, are automatically legitimate.

The secession should be done after the war so that no strategic advantage is granted.

I agree with this. But just because it was done *during* the war doesn't automatically make it a strategic secession.

The war was made to carve out Enweil. This secession helps achieve this goal. Thus, this secession yields strategic advantages. The rest is moot. Building infrastructure will be easier now. Nobles will be able to join. Increasing strength will be considerably easier with the significantly alleviated bureaucratic and logistic burdens.

One cannot argue that it isn't a strategic secession just because it could have been "more" strategic. Plopping a puppet colony in the heart of your enemy's realm is a blatant strategic achievement.

These are good points....

[Indirik]

If they really didn't wish to gain a strategic advantage in this war then let them sit this one out, or at least stay out of it for a specified period of time. That way the opposing realm will have time adjust its deployments accordingly.

That's not really possible. It's also ridiculously exploitable.

[Indirik]

Frankly, this is one of those rules that exists as a relic of earlier attitudes. I haven't seen a legitimate case of strategic secession in years, despite constant accusations. I'm thinking the last one to my memory was in Luz de Bia, and one of the last lightning bolts or storms (i don't remember which)?

There are only two cases of this that I can remember as being obvious. Well, obvious to me, anyway. And they both occurred many years ago. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever punished for it.

However, that is also irrelevant. Just because a rule hasn't been broken in a long time doesn't mean that the rule no longer applies.

[Vita`]

I am not saying it doesn't apply. I'm saying that as I've seen so many accusations over the years and few legitimate cases, I'm a bit wary of any new accusations. And this one doesn't measure up to what would be considered a violation of the rule. I'm saying that there really are few instances of this rule getting violated and its thrown around as an accusation more than necessary.

[Buffalkill]

That's not really possible. It's also ridiculously exploitable.

Of course it's possible if the parties agree to it. If the seceding realm isn't willing to forgo this supposed advantage then they're in violation of the rule.

[Anaris]

The rule against strategic secessions is specifically because of the local recruitment advantage it grants. There is nothing else (that I can think of offhand) that making Iato the capital of a tiny realm allows Riombara + IVF to do that keeping it as part of Riombara allows Riombara to do.

That advantage will only be enjoyed by the nobles within IVF, which will never be more than a tiny fraction of those in Riombara, certainly not during the time frame the war is likely to represent.

None of that is relevant. There's no requirement that a strategic secession has to be a spur-of-the-moment decision, a short-term proposition, or a secret deal. Just because you publicly declare that you will do something does not mean that the action, and specifically the method and timing of the execution of that action, are automatically legitimate.

No, but the rule does care about intent, when intent can be reasonably determined. Surely the fact that the creation of this realm has been declared as a goal for so long—and the fact that it would have been founded regardless of the war—is a strong indication of intent.

Otherwise it's a stupidly bypass of the rule, anyone can just declare they'll make a colony out of every strategic enemy city before declaring war, suddenly making it all okay?

Not unless they can manage to come up with plans to secede the city years in advance, when the city is not even held by the realm they would eventually have to go to war with to take it.

To equate the situation in this case with one where Realm A says, "We wish to create a realm out of Keplerville! Therefore, we must declare war on Realm B to take Keplerville!", and immediately declares war on Realm B, is little short of absurd.

If the rule against strategic secessions simply forbid any secession while a realm is at war, that could be easily prevented in code. It is not, because that is not the purpose of the rule.

One cannot argue that it isn't a strategic secession just because it could have been "more" strategic.

This is also true. However, when the strategic gains involved, in practice, will be quite minimal (if not negative), and there is a long public documented history of the realm in question stating the fully IC reasons for the secession, the label of "strategic secession" must start to come into doubt.

Again: If the rule were a simple, unqualified, "No secessions during wartime," there wouldn't be much doubt that this violated it, and your points would be valid. But that's not what the rule is, and your arguments seem to simply assume that a secession during a war of a city near the front will, ipso facto, grant strategic benefits significant enough to turn the tide in a war, rather than look at the actual facts of the case at hand.

[Anaris]

Of course it's possible if the parties agree to it. If the seceding realm isn't willing to forgo this supposed advantage then they're in violation of the rule.

Buffakill, you are clearly horribly ignorant of the specific facts of the case.

There is no way in twelve hells that Enweil would be wiling to accept IVF's neutrality even if IVF were to try to ask for it. They want the city back.

[Anaris]

Frankly, this is one of those rules that exists as a relic of earlier attitudes. I haven't seen a legitimate case of strategic secession in years, despite constant accusations. I'm thinking the last one to my memory was in Luz de Bia, and one of the last lightning bolts or storms (i don't remember which)?

That was a capital move, not a secession. And it was a bolt, not a storm: part of my outrage at the time was that their "punishment" for moving the capital effectively amounted to nil, since it occurred during the period where the "insta-elections" bug was still extant. This meant that though the ruler lost his position, he healed up at the turn change, and was also re-elected as Ruler, mere hours after the lightning bolt.

But yes, I cannot offhand recall an actual secession that was deemed strategic and punishment handed down for its execution. I believe that the fact that we have the rule against it more or less works.

[Chenier]

The rule against strategic secessions is specifically because of the local recruitment advantage it grants. There is nothing else (that I can think of offhand) that making Iato the capital of a tiny realm allows Riombara + IVF to do that keeping it as part of Riombara allows Riombara to do.

That advantage will only be enjoyed by the nobles within IVF, which will never be more than a tiny fraction of those in Riombara, certainly not during the time frame the war is likely to represent.

No, but the rule does care about intent, when intent can be reasonably determined. Surely the fact that the creation of this realm has been declared as a goal for so long—and the fact that it would have been founded regardless of the war—is a strong indication of intent.

Not unless they can manage to come up with plans to secede the city years in advance, when the city is not even held by the realm they would eventually have to go to war with to take it.

To equate the situation in this case with one where Realm A says, "We wish to create a realm out of Keplerville! Therefore, we must declare war on Realm B to take Keplerville!", and immediately declares war on Realm B, is little short of absurd.

If the rule against strategic secessions simply forbid any secession while a realm is at war, that could be easily prevented in code. It is not, because that is not the purpose of the rule.

This is also true. However, when the strategic gains involved, in practice, will be quite minimal (if not negative), and there is a long public documented history of the realm in question stating the fully IC reasons for the secession, the label of "strategic secession" must start to come into doubt.

Again: If the rule were a simple, unqualified, "No secessions during wartime," there wouldn't be much doubt that this violated it, and your points would be valid. But that's not what the rule is, and your arguments seem to simply assume that a secession during a war of a city near the front will, ipso facto, grant strategic benefits significant enough to turn the tide in a war, rather than look at the actual facts of the case at hand.

"A year is okay" but "just before declaring war is not" is poor policy: how long beforehand does it need to be declared in order to be okay? Determining the legality of the move by how long ago it was declared only sets up arbitrary rules that no one can predict or understand.

And no, it would not be easy to code. Because not all secessions are made with the purpose of carving out the enemy realm. Duchies can secede by betrayal during war, or to avoid the fate of the central government, and that has nothing to do with plopping a colony in the heart of enemy land. This is what this secession does, however.

And I already named a ton of advantages seceding grants. At least now the city doesn't risk revolting just because it's so far from the capital and troops cannot make it on time for maintenance work. This alone is a serious blow to Enweil. IVF doesn't need to boast a huge army in order to push Enweil further down.

[Anaris]

"A year is okay" but "just before declaring war is not" is poor policy: how long beforehand does it need to be declared in order to be okay? Determining the legality of the move by how long ago it was declared only sets up arbitrary rules that no one can predict or understand.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that there's a lot more than time involved here.

And no, it would not be easy to code. Because not all secessions are made with the purpose of carving out the enemy realm. Duchies can secede by betrayal during war, or to avoid the fate of the central government, and that has nothing to do with plopping a colony in the heart of enemy land. This is what this secession does, however.

So are you saying that any secession during wartime that doesn't immediately declare war on its parent realm is a strategic secession?

And I already named a ton of advantages seceding grants. At least now the city doesn't risk revolting just because it's so far from the capital and troops cannot make it on time for maintenance work. This alone is a serious blow to Enweil. IVF doesn't need to boast a huge army in order to push Enweil further down.

So you agree that Enweil has more or less lost the war already, too. If you are attempting to argue that if Riombara had kept Iato, Enweil could have won the war, but now they can't, you're not doing a very good job of it.

[Anaris]

IMO the intent is not as important as the consequence. The consequence of this secession appears to be precisely the type of unfair disadvantage that the rule exists to prevent. Doesn't matter that they've been thinking about it for years. It looks kinda like insider trading to me.

Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.

[Buffalkill]

Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.

If they continue the war then Enweil is suddenly in a two-front war.

[Vita`]

For what its worth, we've all made our points here and lest this turn into every other magistrate thread, filled with repetitive, pointless arguments, we should probably step back and let the Magistrates weigh in or ask for clarifying information. We're nearing the third page already and I note that only one Magistrate has posted here and as the reporter himself is recused from typical magistrate duties.