Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Chenier]

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.

This is all a complicated wording, though. I propose a far simpler interpretation:

The no realm merger rule is an extension of the no strategic secession and no strategic capital move rules. It is essentially a "no strategic realm merger" rule, stating that realms cannot merge together for the sole purpose of having a military or administrative advantage.

Because that's what brought the rule: the two realms that formed Riombara did so to better fight a common enemy.

[Arrandal]

What Chenier said, and what I said...

[Velax]

Any verdict updates?

[egamma]

Terran's last region defected to D'Hara automatically, and D'Hara (me) did not send the starving region any food, and the region went rogue.

[Chenier]

The verdict is not-guilty... There just isn't any clear consensus on how the word the verdict. Different people cited different reasons for their verdict vote.

[Anaris]

So do it like the US Supreme Court: have the plurality be the official verdict, and have the rest who vote the same way but for different reasons write a "concurring opinion" that gets posted at the same time.

[Geronus]

So do it like the US Supreme Court: have the plurality be the official verdict, and have the rest who vote the same way but for different reasons write a "concurring opinion" that gets posted at the same time.

That would work, but only if other people are willing to write up opinions  :(

I apologize to all for how long this case has taken to settle. A combination of the fact that I have been busy and a lack of consensus about the verdict has made it difficult to wrap this up. Really, most of the problem is that I am the only one writing verdicts these days since Vellos got busy IRL and Fury quit, and I only have so much time.

I will write this verdict and the other outstanding one tomorrow, and then we'll be clear of cases... For now.

[Indirik]

I think it's a horrible idea. We need more clear decisions and precedents, not more wishy-washy weaseling. If the Magistrates disagree, then they need to hash it out in private, and post a single unified decision. The *last* thing we need is to set up some kind of minority, or dissenting opinion that contradicts or disagrees with the verdict, and allows those involved some way to consider even a losing position to be the correct one. We don't even need some kind of alternate interpretation of why the decision was correct, but the reasoning wrong. That's just more weaseling and rationalization.

Come to a decision, write the verdict, and be done with it.

[Geronus]

I think it's a horrible idea. We need more clear decisions and precedents, not more wishy-washy weaseling. If the Magistrates disagree, then they need to hash it out in private, and post a single unified decision. The *last* thing we need is to set up some kind of minority, or dissenting opinion that contradicts or disagrees with the verdict, and allows those involved some way to consider even a losing position to be the correct one. We don't even need some kind of alternate interpretation of why the decision was correct, but the reasoning wrong. That's just more weaseling and rationalization.

Come to a decision, write the verdict, and be done with it.

You're going to get a verdict, but since I'm the one who will write it, it's going to be largely my opinion. It will be posted for the other Magistrates to review before it winds up here, so if there's any major disagreement it will come out then and the verdict can be modified before it's finalized, but in all honesty it will probably reflect my views more than anyone else's. I doubt the other Magistrates are going to have lengthy objections for me to take into account.

[Vellos]

We've discussed and rejected "concurring opinions" before. They've happened informally a few times but we've generally felt they confuse (dissents as well) more than they help.

[Geronus]

The proposed verdict has been posted in the Backroom. Barring substantial objections, it will be posted here within a day or two.

[Sacha]

A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:

"After consideration, the Magistrates find the defendant Not Guilty of violating the rule against realm mergers. For reference, the rule is: "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." Since the actions in question were taken under duress, we do not feel that they constitute a realm merger in the traditional sense. Whereas Terran had no hope of surviving the war nor any chance of fighting, choosing to surrender is seen as a valid choice, even though they chose to surrender to a third party.

Magistrates voted 4-3 in favor of a Not Guilty verdict, with 4 votes for Not Guilty, 2 votes for Guilty with a warning, and 1 vote for Guilty and stripping the defendant's titles.

This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.

[Sarwell]

Whatever.

The merger failed anyway. Like, epically failed, flopped on its face. So I don't care about the verdict, even though I think it's tremendous rules lawyering to say one can "surrender to a third party".

[Penchant]

Whatever.

The merger failed anyway. Like, epically failed, flopped on its face. So I don't care about the verdict, even though I think it's tremendous rules lawyering to say one can "surrender to a third party".

As Anaris stated, although at the time against the case:

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.)

Which is precisely why surrendering to a third party works. While blatant things like a realm declaring war on another, and almost nothing happens in the war but they "surrender" to a third party would not be fine as its just abusing it, surrendering to a third party makes sense based on the reasoning of this rule because a king keeps more or equal power surrendering to a third party then if he were to surrender to the enemy.

Disclaimer: Its been awhile since the end of the case and I didn't reread it all or even the paragraph part of the verdict so my reasoning could be off from the official reasoning, which I will check at a later time.

[Indirik]

A verdict has been posted, and the thread left open for one week for comments. I am locking the thread, and reposting the verdict for reference.

A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:

"After consideration, the Magistrates find the defendant Not Guilty of violating the rule against realm mergers. For reference, the rule is: "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." Since the actions in question were taken under duress, we do not feel that they constitute a realm merger in the traditional sense. Whereas Terran had no hope of surviving the war nor any chance of fighting, choosing to surrender is seen as a valid choice, even though they chose to surrender to a third party.

Magistrates voted 4-3 in favor of a Not Guilty verdict, with 4 votes for Not Guilty, 2 votes for Guilty with a warning, and 1 vote for Guilty and stripping the defendant's titles.

This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.