Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Geronus]

Even so, a few years ago (before magistrate), when Caligus anexated Tuch V on the EC, the rulers were punished by Tom for doing a realm merger. Even if a TO was made and war was declared. Why? Because in the end, Tuch V nobles abandoned the realm, joining Caligus, and the leaders of the realm continued as Duke. The city was left empty allowing the troops to TO the city without resistance, and at the time it was considered a peacefull realm merger.

The federation and in game mechanics here are important because both realms are not at war as many claimed here or even hostile. The distance that the realms developed could have been shown by a break of the federation when the realm became a theocracy.

This is directly contradicted by Indirik's account of this specific incident earlier in the thread. Were they or were they not punished for this?

[Vellos]

This is directly contradicted by Indirik's account of this specific incident earlier in the thread. Were they or were they not punished for this?

Or maybe we should recall that the Magistrates were implemented because the Titan system us untransparent, very hard to use for understanding the rules, and felt very inconsistent to many players, and so probably isn't a very good source of precedent for very debatable rules.

[Geronus]

Or maybe we should recall that the Magistrates were implemented because the Titan system us untransparent, very hard to use for understanding the rules, and felt very inconsistent to many players, and so probably isn't a very good source of precedent for very debatable rules.

Unless we just make up our own precedents (and rules) out of thin air, which is what you seem to want to do, we really should be keeping in mind how these rules have traditionally been interpreted and applied. There are precedents from the days of the Titans, and we have relied on them many times before now as guides to our own interpretation of the rules. This is no different beyond its apparently greater degree of controversy.

[Geronus]

I have already done so, though I'm starting to feel like people are ignoring me...

I went back through the thread. The only thing I found was your statement about how Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings. That's more of an SMA justification for the rule than anything else... Did I miss something else?

[Anaris]

I went back through the thread. The only thing I found was your statement about how Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings. That's more of an SMA justification for the rule than anything else... Did I miss something else?

No. That is Tom's original intent for the rule. To the best of my memory and understanding, everything else is a secondary justification others have come up with after the fact.

[Geronus]

No. That is Tom's original intent for the rule. To the best of my memory and understanding, everything else is a secondary justification others have come up with after the fact.

Well that's intriguing.

[Indirik]

No. That is Tom's original intent for the rule. To the best of my memory and understanding, everything else is a secondary justification others have come up with after the fact.

"Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings" Is not an intent. That is a justification, or rationalization. It is an IG/IC reasoning used to explain the existence of the rule. The intent, or purpose, of the rule is the OOC/OOG reason that the rule has been implemented. It is a purely OOC rule that was implemented for OOC gameplay/game quality purposes. It was NOT implemented to ensure proper RP on the part of rulers. After all, the assertion, that rulers wouldn't give up their sovereignty is broken all the time, whenever a ruler steps down from the throne. They are giving up their sovereignty and placing them back under the authority of someone else. i.e. they are becoming someone else's vassal, willingly.

The intent of the rule is to prevent healthy/viable realms from voluntarily/cooperatively merging into larger realms. The ability to do so would have a negative effect on gameplay.

This rule is obviously not intended to limit the options of players who's realms have been defeated, or have no hope of survival. To assume that it applies in those cases is mean-spirited, unnecessarily limits the options of the players, reduces the chance for the creation of meaningful conflict between other realms, and provides no positive benefit for the game.

[Anaris]

"Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings" Is not an intent. That is a justification, or rationalization. It is an IG/IC reasoning used to explain the existence of the rule. The intent, or purpose, of the rule is the OOC/OOG reason that the rule has been implemented. It is a purely OOC rule that was implemented for OOC gameplay/game quality purposes. It was NOT implemented to ensure proper RP on the part of rulers. After all, the assertion, that rulers wouldn't give up their sovereignty is broken all the time, whenever a ruler steps down from the throne. They are giving up their sovereignty and placing them back under the authority of someone else. i.e. they are becoming someone else's vassal, willingly.

The intent of the rule is to prevent healthy/viable realms from voluntarily/cooperatively merging into larger realms. The ability to do so would have a negative effect on gameplay.

This rule is obviously not intended to limit the options of players who's realms have been defeated, or have no hope of survival. To assume that it applies in those cases is mean-spirited, unnecessarily limits the options of the players, reduces the chance for the creation of meaningful conflict between other realms, and provides no positive benefit for the game.

Um...there are other rules that are implemented specifically to enforce what Tom views as proper RP. Just off the top of my head, the tournament IR, the ban on atheism in-game, and the prohibition on "duels for fun."

I don't know where you get the idea that every rule Tom has made for BattleMaster has a firm basis in OOC fun. You know perfectly well that he has strong prejudices in favour of certain RP styles, and is more than willing to enforce them on his game.

[Naidraug]

This is directly contradicted by Indirik's account of this specific incident earlier in the thread. Were they or were they not punished for this?

For what I remember, as member of the realm, there was at least a warning about the fact at the time that this should not be done.

I´m not sure if there was a locked account or not.

[Sarwell]

So when do we get a verdict? Or has this case already been forgotten?

[Geronus]

As you may have noticed, there have been a large number of cases in the past several weeks, all of which require some degree of attention while they are open so that we can participate in and moderate the resulting discussions. We are working through the backlog now. Additionally some cases have been easier to decide than others. In this particular case, there is no clear consensus among the Magistrates as to the result, so it is taking longer for us to reach a verdict than it has for some of the others.

I remind you that we are all volunteers. Discussing these cases and writing the verdicts is all done with time that we set aside out of our personal lives in order to contribute to the game and the community. We will reach a decision on this case as soon as we can.

[Sarwell]

As you may have noticed, there have been a large number of cases in the past several weeks, all of which require some degree of attention while they are open so that we can participate in and moderate the resulting discussions. We are working through the backlog now. Additionally some cases have been easier to decide than others. In this particular case, there is no clear consensus among the Magistrates as to the result, so it is taking longer for us to reach a verdict than it has for some of the others.

I remind you that we are all volunteers. Discussing these cases and writing the verdicts is all done with time that we set aside out of our personal lives in order to contribute to the game and the community. We will reach a decision on this case as soon as we can.

I understand. There just hadn't been any discussion or indications that a decision was being made, so I was growing a bit wary.

[Arrandal]

From a completely outsider point of view, reading these cases to get a sense of BM. I would like to point out what I see from all the back and forth.

1. Mostly the case comes down to this, why was this rule even put in place? Answer, Because the two healthy realms of Rines and Irombro (healthy and equal) joined with Riombara in a war against another Realm - strategic move.

I think that the equal part is the most important part of the law, and not whether Rulers decided or Lords decided. If you think about the difference of 2 equal realms merging, as opposed to 2 unequal realms merging - Rulers or Lords deciding on a merger only makes a difference to the strategic fairness and balance of things, if the realms are of equal value and will ensure that the newly formed realm will in turn kick their enemies arses/win something.

In this case, the situation between Terran and D'hara, is not against the spirit of this law.

2. In the spirit of rule making on BM, whose main clause seems to be 'fight till its no longer fun', for one side or the other.

Regardless of where they switched too, making a ruling in this case in favor of punishing either Terran or D'hara, will force every single Noble to have to fight to the bitter end. This should be an unacceptable decision on the Magistrates part.

3. The question on 'well then, what makes it a merger that breaks this law?' Answer: each case will be unique, and the answer will lie in the case, not in trying to put in all possible scenario's, now. I think the first two points above should be looked at, when judging any realm merger case.
____________________

All other arguments, are as nothing  to those first 2 very important things stated above. Which looks at why the rule was made, and what precedent that set, and it looks at whether their ruling will impact on the game viability.

Terran being friends, machinating, etc, is mostly hearsay and inter-player argument, which pulls apart the rule word by word, and does not focus as it should, on the spirit and reason for the rule in the first place, and whether Terran meets those same reasons. Which if looked at, in that sense, it does not.

[dustole]

But a realm is not just land.  It is land and nobles.   The nobles of Terran never intended and did not stay with D'hara.  The land was given to D'hara.  The nobles went elsewhere.   

[Velax]

It really seems as though people are, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreting the "equal entities" part of the policy. In my opinion, it does not mean the two realms must be equal in size or physical strength. It is not "One realm has 20 regions and the others only has 5, so they're not equal entities!" Merging as equal entities means one realm is not completely dominated and subsumed by the other in the merger - as would be the case with a realm taking over the last few regions of a defeated enemy. Instead the two realms merge into an entity that is something more than each was on its own, as was the case with the formation of Riombara. Each of the original realms has representation in the power structures of the new realm (the representation does not have to be exactly equal). And most importantly, it must be voluntary on both sides. If one side forces the other into it, then it is not a merger of equal entities.