Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Stabbity]

Solaria was left with two regions actually, and it was very, very unfriendly.

[dustole]

None if the council is getting positions in Dhara.  most of the nobles  aren't staying in Dhara.

[DamnTaffer]

This is without doubt a realm merger done by players for personal gain.

[vonGenf]

This is without doubt a realm merger done by players for personal gain.

Which players?
What gain?

[Sarwell]

As I said on the first page, I'm the complainer here, so you should know where I stand. But I do believe that the single biggest "rules lawyering" here is from the people who say that this constitutes a "surrender". A "surrender" is, in practical terms, a concession (territorial, for example) of some sort made by party A to party B to end a conflict where party B has an advantage. It is not a concession made by party A to a neutral party C for that purpose.

And as to anyone who is still using the "it's just two lords acting on their own will" argument, read the letters again - they indicate an explicit agreement on the part of the rulers with the intent of joining the entire realm into D'Hara, and it just so happens that there are only two regions where that can be done "with the push of a button".

Speaking of which, there's the "mechanical technicality" argument that says "Well, D'Hara still has to capture one region to completely envelop Terran", which seem to seek precedent from when the capital of a realm could be ceded without a takeover. If we follow that definition, then "realm mergers" were made completely impossible after the Kabrinskia case (jeez, dustole's got a real history with these, huh?).

It's the intent that matters here, though - the letters concede that D'Hara will have to take over Chateau Saffalore manually, and that they intend to do so. Just because you can't combine realms at the push of a button any more does not mean that the intent of combining them is unimportant. I'm not a magistrate, but I would venture to say that the most important part of determining a "merger" is not the means by which it is accomplished, but whether the two realms agreed to it beforehand.

[dustole]

I don't feel this is a realm merger for the simple fact that the nobles of Terran aren't going to be part of D'hara.  Even with those that switched over aren't going to stay long.   The fact that we aren't staying makes it a non merger.  Alaster is a die hard Astroist.  He serves the church before the realm. 

In this case the realm was part of the church and it came down to losing it to enemies of the church or giving it to those who are at least friendly to the church.   

weeks before the war broke out this had been discussed with the Theocratic Rulers, D'hara's Ruler, other trusted nobles and most of Terran.  Not once was it brought up that this might be a realm merger.  My understanding of the rules was that this would not be a merger. 

My other case should have no bearing on this one as the situations aren't related.


As I understand it, the only thing that made the Solaria/Luria Merger not legitamate is that there was a bug that allowed him to take the capitol with him.  In this case, the capitol has not changed hands.  If D'hara wants it they are going to have to occupy the city.

[Anaris]

As I understand it, the only thing that made the Solaria/Luria Merger not legitamate is that there was a bug that allowed him to take the capitol with him.  In this case, the capitol has not changed hands.  If D'hara wants it they are going to have to occupy the city.

By that logic, when the code is working properly, it would be impossible to accomplish an illegal realm merger, and thus the rule against them would be unnecessary.

This is not the case. The rule is not, "You may not press a button to peacefully bring the last region of a realm into another realm." The rule is, "You may not peacefully merge two realms."

It should be obvious that, when the code is working properly, it is always necessary to either declare war to conquer the capital (or other last region), or somehow induce it to revolt to your realm.

There is some validity in the question of whether this is an illegal realm merger versus a surrender. There is absolutely no validity in the argument that "we have to declare war to conquer the last region, so it can't be a peaceful realm merger," and you should frankly know better than that, Dustin.

[dustole]

I would like to point out one thing else...


"Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms. "



It says right there that realms may surrender to another including the annihilation of their lands.  They may not merge as equals.   Show me where there is any equality.  Will the Dukes retain their titles?  Will the Ruler?  How about Judge, General or Banker?  How many nobles of Terran will even stay in D'hara?   

Everyone points to the rule and says realms may not merge on friendly terms.   That is not what the rule says.  The rule says they may not merge as equals.  There is nothing equal about this process.  Show me who is gaining by this other than D'hara...

[Anaris]

I would like to point out one thing else...


"Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms. "

Like I said, I do believe there is some question as to whether this is applicable in this case. I believe that the answer is, "Yes, it still qualifies as an illegal realm merger," but I do acknowledge that reasonable people could find the opposite to be the answer.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever as to whether the fact that D'Hara must conquer the last region of Terran makes this a realm merger. That is utterly preposterous, and just a few minutes' thought about the implications of it could have quite easily shown that.

[Chenier]

My understanding of the realm merger rule is that it is intended to prevent a king from voluntarily giving up not only his kingship but his domain, which is not something a King should do.

(This applies equally to other titles of ruler.)

He isn't voluntarily giving it up. Had Terran not been under threat of destruction, he'd never have even sought it probably. He's not choosing to die, he's just choosing who to die to.

That is not even a little bit true.

They are welcome to leave the dying realm. They do not, however, have any particular right to keep their regions.

Terran is merging with a realm they are friendly with.

So it's against the rules to try to keep their regions? But it's against the rules for rulers to accept not keeping their domains? This is inconsistent, and I thus completely disagree with your take.

And D'Hara and Terran are NOT friendly. Not being at war doesn't mean they are friends.

This is planned between the rulers, it is not a surrender, and it is clearly a violation of the realm merger prohibition.

How is this NOT a surrender?

I'd find it OOC spiteful. And besides, the Solaria merge was found to be illegal. People were punished. So you CAN'T say it was legit. Or did you ignore that entire case?

Pretty sure that the move of the last region, via a bug, was what was found to be against the rules, and NOT the fact that Malus had taken the whole realm (minus an non-viable region) to Luria Nova in order to preserve the status quo of the lurian empire.

Sanguis Astroism's theocracies benefit directly from Phantaria not expanding. You didn't do this for D'Hara. You certainly didn't SURRENDER to a realm you're in a Federation with.

The Federation argument is bull!@#$. If breaking the federation with Terran didn't mean D'Hara and Barca would need to go through a war period with each other, both would long since no longer be federated with Terran. They aren't friends. D'Hara is friendlier with Farronite Republic (you know, the realm doing the destruction?) than Terran. Plenty of D'Harans are silently cheering FR's invasion of Terran.

Wasn't this rule added sometime after the Rines Republic and Irombro merged into Riombara, as two entities merging to give themselves a fighting chance against Eno Chia?

That's probably what lead to the "on equal terms" part of the rule. The previous two cases regarding realm mergers dealt with bug exploits, this one does not, and shall have to dealt with on the sole issue of the merger.

If this is the case, then it would greatly explain the rule, and its wording. It's essentially an extension of the "no strategic secession" and "no strategic capital move". Having a bunch of realms merge as equals into the realm closest to the battle front is the same kind of abuse as the other actions which are against the rules. And it's the only reasonable explanation of this rule that doesn't make it sound totally arbitrary and stupid.

The rule states that it can be legal for realms to fold into each other, though, and provides an example of how. I seriously cannot understand how anyone can claim that this is "a merger between equals".

[Indirik]

This case has a precedent.

Tuchanon V, reduced to the city of Isadril through war with Perdan, "surrendered" to Caligus. The rulers of Tuchanon and Caligus conspired together to give the city of Isadril, the last city and region of the realm, to Caligus. In a maneuver timed to coincide with the refit of Perdan, Tuchanon V disbanded all the militia in the city, and all the nobles moved out. Caligus declared war and simultaneously moved in to quickly TO the city. This was specifically done to prevent Perdan from defeating the defenders and CTOing to form a new realm in Isadril. The duke of the city was reappointed by Caligus, and I believe one of Tuchanon's council members became a Caligus council member, too. All the Tuchanon nobles stayed on as Caligus nobles.

The maneuver was reported to the Titans. The decision was reached that the maneuver was not an illegal realm merger. Tuchanon had no hope of living or expanding they were facing a superior enemy, and were on the road to destruction. IIRC, the question was asked on the old DList, and the answer was something like "Well, what do you expect them to do? You want us to make them fight it out to the end?  The realm was dead. Move on."

The realm merger rule, as someone already mentioned, is intended to prevent two healthy, functional, and viable realms, from joining together *in equality* to create a realm that is the merging and fusion of the two. I.e. Asylon and FR cannot join together to form a single big ream for the purpose of attacking Astrum. It is not intended to force a realm to fight an obviously losing war to the bitter inevitable end. Nor is it intended to reserve the last few regions of the defeated realm for the conquerors. Nor is it intended to limit the choices of the nobles who may be ruling regions in that defeated realm.

The realm merger rule was specifically intended to disallow two viable, comparable, functional realms from willingly, and voluntarily, joining forces, subsuming themselves into a single greater realm consisting of the territories and nobilities of the two component realms.

This Terran/D'Haran "merger" fits neither the letter of the law, nor the spirit of the law. Period.

Edit: derp... wrong word...

[Anaris]

This case has a precedent.

This is actually somewhat persuasive. Based on this Titan ruling, I am willing to change my opinion from "definitely illegal" to "on the fence."

I feel like there's a material difference in the Isadril case, but at present, I can't put it into words, so it may not be that different after all.

If I find a way to articulate it, I'll be sure to post it here :)

[Vellos]

This case has a precedent.

Tuchanon V, reduced to the city of Isadril through war with Perdan, "surrendered" to Caligus. The rulers of Tuchanon and Caligus conspired together to give the city of Isadril, the last city and region of the realm, to Caligus. In a maneuver timed to coincide with the refit of Perdan, Tuchanon V disbanded all the militia in the city, and all the nobles moved out. Caligus declared war and simultaneously moved in to quickly TO the city. This was specifically done to prevent Perdan from defeating the defenders and CTOing to form a new realm in Isadril. The duke of the city was reappointed by Caligus, and I believe one of Tuchanon's council members became a Caligus council member, too. All the Tuchanon nobles stayed on as Caligus nobles.

The maneuver was reported to the Titans. The decision was reached that the maneuver was not an illegal realm merger. Tuchanon had no hope of living or expanding they were facing a superior enemy, and were on the road to destruction. IIRC, the question was asked on the old DList, and the answer was something like "Well, what do you expect them to do? You want us to make them fight it out to the end?  The realm was dead. Move on."

The realm merger rule, as someone already mentioned, is intended to prevent two healthy, functional, and viable realms, from joining together *in equality* to create a realm that is the merging and fusion of the two. I.e. Asylon and FR cannot join together to form a single big ream for the purpose of attacking Astrum. It is not intended to force a realm to fight an obviously losing war to the bitter inevitable end. Nor is it intended to reserve the last few regions of the defeated realm for the conquerors. Nor is it intended to limit the choices of the nobles who may be ruling regions in that defeated realm.

The realm merger rule was specifically intended to disallow two viable, comparable, functional realms from willingly, and voluntarily, joining forces, subsuming themselves into a single greater realm consisting of the territories and nobilities of the two component realms.

This Terran/D'Haran "merger" fits neither the letter of the law, nor the spirit of the law. Period.

Edit: derp... wrong word...

I would note that Terran's situation is not hopeless.

But beyond that, I'm happy to overturn Titan precedent if the Titans were obviously wrong: and the ruling you quote, as you've described it, seems obviously wrong to me. No realm mergers is a very, very simple rule. And asking the Magistrates to come up with a qualification for what makes two realms "equal" is a crazy big can of worms. How equal do they have to be? How friendly must they be?

[Penchant]

I would note that Terran's situation is not hopeless.

But beyond that, I'm happy to overturn Titan precedent if the Titans were obviously wrong: and the ruling you quote, as you've described it, seems obviously wrong to me. No realm mergers is a very, very simple rule. And asking the Magistrates to come up with a qualification for what makes two realms "equal" is a crazy big can of worms. How equal do they have to be? How friendly must they be?

No realm mergers may be a very simple rule and the Magistrates can decide on it elsewhere, but changing a rule to make it easier for you guys to decide is not a part this case. While the Magistrates may change the rules, unless Anaris or someone else can articulate how this case is any different, when a precedent has already been made that makes the questioned parties clearly innocent I don't know how any Magistrate could say they are being just to say this case is guilty.

My thoughts are this:

I see a lot rule lawyering trying to justify this merger. I've played the game for around a decade now, and seen a lot rules come and go, the implementation of the social contract, and read Tom's thoughts on these things. The general gist of Tom's stance is there are written rules and there is a spirit behind the rules. If you violate one or the other it doesn't matter in Tom's eyes, its a violation. Rules lawyering and petty justifications, sesrching for loop holes is stuff Tom despises, and seeing as its his game... Don't do it. If you have to justify something with some loophole in a rule, its still a violation of the rule. The guilt here is pretty clear, and it is a second offense.

Saying it doesn't fit the case due to not actually going against all the conditionals is hardly rules lawyering. Also unless I have missed it somewhere, it hasn't been said clearly what the purpose of this rule is which is the "spirit of the rule". Tom has stated before in a case (unless I am imagining things and no I am not going to cite it right now) that while the party did technically break the rule, they didn't break the spirit of the rule aka they didn't go against the reason for the rule and declared them innocent.

[Chenier]

Honestly, a region under a TO shouldn't be allowed to change allegiance. Seems like something you'd need actual control of the region to accomplish.

Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.

Chenier, you're missing the point. D'hara is no Soviet Union, it is not a state hostile to Terran, has no intentions of becoming hostile to Terran, and barring the current circumstances would likely never become hostile to Terran. Which makes the analogy to Poland-Germany-USSR a poor one in comparison to Britan-France-Germany. And if you want so say fictional, well that invalidates your whole reason for posting a different analogy in the first place. If you want to go fictional well, obviously D'hara is Vermont when Babylon surrendered to it during its war with the Klingon Empire.

And who are you to say what D'Hara would or wouldn't have done?

D'Hara and Terran are NOT friends. D'Hara is, however, friends with Terran's invaders. And I dare say most D'Harans have more affinities with Phantarian than Terran. Your claim that nothing could have brought D'Hara to war against Terran is ridiculous. If it weren't for the kingdom of Saffalore occupying our forces, Alaster Kabrinski as ruler would have been more than enough causus belli.