Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?

Velax · October 13, 2011, 02:57:00 AM

Without going into detail about the players and realm involved, recently there occurred what appeared to be a "friendly" rebellion.

1. The ruler moved out of the capital.
2. One turn later, the duke of the capital declared a rebellion.
3. The duke sent a message to rulers of surrounding realms saying the rebellion "was not a hostile one".
4. Three hours after the rebellion started, minutes after turn change, the ruler gave in to the rebels and was autobanned. The rebels didn't take the capital, the ruler specifically gave in.
5. The former ruler immediately started travelling back to the capital.
6. Within two turns the former ruler was unbanned and rejoined the realm.

I don't know why someone would do this rather than just step down, but it seems pretty clearly to be a rebellion planned with the involvement of the ruler. Does this go against any rules of the game? Should it be reported?

De-Legro · October 13, 2011, 03:17:34 AM

No specific rule that I am aware of, though it seems strange and against the spirit of the game.

Sacha · October 13, 2011, 03:37:09 AM

Was the government system changed after the rebellion?

Hyral · October 13, 2011, 03:49:51 AM

It wasn't.

In this specific case, what (it looks like) they were trying to do does make at least some IC sense...That said, while I'm not aware of any rules against using a rebellion this way, it may be against the spirit of the thing.

De-Legro · October 13, 2011, 03:58:23 AM

Quote from: Hyral on October 13, 2011, 03:49:51 AM
It wasn't.

In this specific case, what (it looks like) they were trying to do does make at least some IC sense...That said, while I'm not aware of any rules against using a rebellion this way, it may be against the spirit of the thing.

It makes VERY little sense to rebel against a Ruler, but then allow him back in. If they wanted to replace him, and he was willing to go along with it, then stepping down would be the appropriate action.

Velax · October 13, 2011, 04:03:59 AM

I'm sure you can guess who the ruler was I'm talking about and you know how hated that family is. Invading the realm just to get rid of him was likely. Possibly the rebellion was designed to convince other realms that the ruler had been utterly rejected and get those other realms off their back. If that's the case, though, letting him back in one day later seems incredibly stupid.

Hyral · October 13, 2011, 04:28:26 AM

Yeah, letting him back in right away made the whole thing sort of pointless (I, for one, was looking forward to seeing them try to pull it off so they could lay low for a while and do something interesting later :/ ) But I don't see it being against the rules unless, as De-Legro said, they were trying to take advantage of the switch-government mechanic, which they didn't. But...is this one of those things where 'clearly the mechanics were not meant to be used that way don't do it'? I really don't know >_<

Sacha · October 13, 2011, 05:09:10 AM

Which realm are we talking about here?

De-Legro · October 13, 2011, 05:36:25 AM

Quote from: Sacha on October 13, 2011, 05:09:10 AM
Which realm are we talking about here?

I'm guessing Cathay.

Chenier · October 13, 2011, 05:41:54 AM

Hmmm... I vaguely remember Tom being hardline about there not being any such thing as a "friendly rebellion". Then again, that might have been in the days where friendly secessions were a serious offense. If ever.

Adriddae · October 13, 2011, 06:21:03 AM

What about rebellions to catch catch rebels? For example, the leader of the rebellion is secretly an agent of the ruler but calls a rebellion to root out those who would want to rebel.

De-Legro · October 13, 2011, 06:23:59 AM

Quote from: Adriddae on October 13, 2011, 06:21:03 AM
What about rebellions to catch catch rebels? For example, the leader of the rebellion is secretly an agent of the ruler but calls a rebellion to root out those who would want to rebel.

In such a case you wouldn't expect the ruler to give up to the rebels though would you.

Bedwyr · October 13, 2011, 07:21:58 AM

I will note that according the OOC's from the (new) Ruler, this was an attempt to change the government system and name of the realm. What I didn't know was that they were letting Optimus back in immediately (i.e. I wasn't sure if Optimus had just been backstabbed or not).

That...Sounds very fishy.

Shizzle · October 13, 2011, 08:57:50 AM

For me it's simply abuse of the game mechanics. A lot worse than strategic secessions. Especially because the "rebellion" allowed the same people to stay in power. Though I guess if the whole realm supported this...

Carna · October 13, 2011, 09:51:27 AM

Quote from: Shizzle on October 13, 2011, 08:57:50 AM
For me it's simply abuse of the game mechanics. A lot worse than strategic secessions. Especially because the "rebellion" allowed the same people to stay in power. Though I guess if the whole realm supported this...

Then it wasn't really a rebellion at all, was it? That's my problem with it. If they rebelled to make use of mechanics, its a cop out. Its hard to see how they think they can survive when they know precisely why they're doomed and do nothing about it? In line with the families involved though. Keeps things interesting ;D

Finn.

News:

Friendly rebellion - A case for the Titans?