Farronite-Aslyon Merger

[Vellos]

I don't think the two different narratives are exclusive.

Cenrae saw FR getting boring as it became near-silent with no interesting conflicts. So new activity and conflicts had to be found. So stir things up with a merge to Asylon.

However, I would argue that the presence of a genuine political struggle in FR is irrelevant. The OOC motivation is clearly stated. Now in my opinion the realm merger ban is total crap and has no point or game benefit. But the rule exists and, if we're going to enforce it, I don't think there's a clearer example than this. We have a powerful player who decided to launch a merger of all but one regions in order to rejoin a war that a majority of the realm's players voted to stop fighting. Now maybe those players have changed their minds; fine.

But the point is that, insofar as the merger rule has a point, this is it: to make it so that influential players can't just drag their vassals around into the flag of their choice. You can't just shuffle whole realms around to optimize who is in your message recipient list or what your noble-to-region count is.

For myself, I sympathize with the desire to merge to Asylon. FR was pretty dull the entire time I was there. The only conversation I ever saw was conversation I started by approaching various nobles or starting fights about foreign policies. It was generally a pretty quiet realm and suffered from attrition and a sense of helplessness and pointlessness.

Such a realm can only really end three ways: revitalization by some means (a new war, culture change, new nobles, etc), merging into another realm, or death. FR wasn't looking at a likely revitalization, death isn't usually preferable, so Khari went with a merger. It's a reasonable choice and, in the absence of the rule, it's the one I would have made too. But the rule exists. In the current regime, the proper end of FR was a death spiral of noble depletion and starvation, leading to a wide wasteland between Phantaria and Astrum. That would be a lot of fun for the nobles of Phantaria as they could expand northwards, and lead to some Asylonian expansion too. It's not necessarily a worse result for the game, or even for FR's players.

[Penchant]

I don't think the two different narratives are exclusive.

Cenrae saw FR getting boring as it became near-silent with no interesting conflicts. So new activity and conflicts had to be found. So stir things up with a merge to Asylon.

However, I would argue that the presence of a genuine political struggle in FR is irrelevant. The OOC motivation is clearly stated. Now in my opinion the realm merger ban is total crap and has no point or game benefit. But the rule exists and, if we're going to enforce it, I don't think there's a clearer example than this. We have a powerful player who decided to launch a merger of all but one regions in order to rejoin a war that a majority of the realm's players voted to stop fighting. Now maybe those players have changed their minds; fine.

But the point is that, insofar as the merger rule has a point, this is it: to make it so that influential players can't just drag their vassals around into the flag of their choice. You can't just shuffle whole realms around to optimize who is in your message recipient list or what your noble-to-region count is.

For myself, I sympathize with the desire to merge to Asylon. FR was pretty dull the entire time I was there. The only conversation I ever saw was conversation I started by approaching various nobles or starting fights about foreign policies. It was generally a pretty quiet realm and suffered from attrition and a sense of helplessness and pointlessness.

Such a realm can only really end three ways: revitalization by some means (a new war, culture change, new nobles, etc), merging into another realm, or death. FR wasn't looking at a likely revitalization, death isn't usually preferable, so Khari went with a merger. It's a reasonable choice and, in the absence of the rule, it's the one I would have made too. But the rule exists. In the current regime, the proper end of FR was a death spiral of noble depletion and starvation, leading to a wide wasteland between Phantaria and Astrum. That would be a lot of fun for the nobles of Phantaria as they could expand northwards, and lead to some Asylonian expansion too. It's not necessarily a worse result for the game, or even for FR's players.

Can you please tell me how based on the below that this is an illegal realm merger?

Tom's post in the Solari and Luria Nova realm merger thread states:

A "friendly realm merger" does not require a precise definition of every word. What I intend by those words is that I don't want realm A and realm B to sit together and say "hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side" or whatever, and then simply join up.

Duchess Khari decided she didn't want to be a part of FR anymore, not the rulers simply agreeing to merge, thus this is not a realm merger.

Btw:

But the point is that, insofar as the merger rule has a point, this is it: to make it so that influential players can't just drag their vassals around into the flag of their choice. You can't just shuffle whole realms around to optimize who is in your message recipient list or what your noble-to-region count is.

That is false. A duke decides that realm B has better name or cooler flag than there current realm, they can change allegiance.  A duke decides they just don't like the look of the map with their duchy a part of their current realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that they would rather be addressing 40 nobles instead of 20 when they address the realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that the land needs more nobles to reign it in, they can change allegiance.

[cenrae]

To be perfectly honest with everyone if I read the realm merger rule it was long ago and really did not know about it. This is the first I have ever looked at the cases threads, but hey... 500 views.

People are always saying if things are slow, quiet, or boring do something. Well I did, and I had the support of roughly half of the realm. The other half to my knowledge had no clue.

I also have to say I had that excited/nervous felling in my stomach when I pressed the button...

[Vellos]

Btw:That is false. A duke decides that realm B has better name or cooler flag than there current realm, they can change allegiance.  A duke decides they just don't like the look of the map with their duchy a part of their current realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that they would rather be addressing 40 nobles instead of 20 when they address the realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that the land needs more nobles to reign it in, they can change allegiance.

Btw: no it's not.

There's a difference between a duke seceding with 10 out of 40 nobles and a duke seceding with 8 out of 10.

[D`Este]

Yes there is this rule, but we also have to look at what is best for the players. Quiet, almost dead realms are killing this game. Rules should be there to guide, not restrain.

[Vita`]

I've never really understood why this rule (or say, the strategic secession rule) is so contentious. It's always seemed simple when looking at Tom's words and the context of every other rule. Is this done to circumvent mechanic limitations put in place for game balance? Hence why strategic secessions are prohibited to avoid realms seceding just to better prosecute the war with a capital that has quicker refit times to the front. Hence why merging is prohibited to avoid realms combining messaging interfaces, command structures, easier to send gold to each other, or whatever else to advantage a war effort (also, I recall Tom mentioning that no sovereign would willingly cede their authority to another just because it makes war easier to organize or what have you).

As I've said with strategic secessions before, this is one of those rules that is often accused, but quite rarely actually violates the rule.

[Penchant]

Btw: no it's not.

There's a difference between a duke seceding with 10 out of 40 nobles and a duke seceding with 8 out of 10.

Where does it state that in the rules, by Tom elsewhere, or in a previous Magistrates case verdict?

[Vellos]

It states that right where I said it and I'm a Magistrate, and if the other Magistrates agree, it's a rule.

[Anaris]

Where does it state that in the rules, by Tom elsewhere, or in a previous Magistrates case verdict?

Seems to me it's self-evident.

The rule is against realm mergers—that is, against one realm effectively ceasing to exist by a significant majority of its lands and nobles transferring to another existing realm.

There is no rule against a Duke taking a Duchy to another realm if it does not qualify as a realm merger. If there were, we'd just remove the bloody option, now, wouldn't we?

[Vellos]

Moreover, if the nobles in FR didn't care enough to save their own realm, it probably wasn't worth saving.

So, by the rules, the proper result was the death of the realm, not its merger.

[Buffalkill]

The rule is against realm mergers—that is, against one realm effectively ceasing to exist by a significant majority of its lands and nobles transferring to another existing realm.

So, by the rules, the proper result was the death of the realm, not its merger.

The realm's not dead, nor has it effectively ceased to exist. It still has a ruler, nobles, gold, soldiers, and the ability to engage in trade, diplomacy and military action with other realms.

[Marlboro]

So, by the rules, the proper result was the death of the realm, not its merger.

You were there; did it ever seem particularly alive?

[Vellos]

You were there; did it ever seem particularly alive?

Only when I set to feuding, so, no. Death seemed a natural end.

[Geronus]

Cleaned up some more posts... Try to stay on topic.

I've never really understood why this rule (or say, the strategic secession rule) is so contentious. It's always seemed simple when looking at Tom's words and the context of every other rule. Is this done to circumvent mechanic limitations put in place for game balance? Hence why strategic secessions are prohibited to avoid realms seceding just to better prosecute the war with a capital that has quicker refit times to the front. Hence why merging is prohibited to avoid realms combining messaging interfaces, command structures, easier to send gold to each other, or whatever else to advantage a war effort (also, I recall Tom mentioning that no sovereign would willingly cede their authority to another just because it makes war easier to organize or what have you).

As I've said with strategic secessions before, this is one of those rules that is often accused, but quite rarely actually violates the rule.

And I have the same issues with interpreting this rule that way as I did with how the strategic secession rule was interpreted in our last case on the subject. If the only way to violate this rule is to explicitly say "I'm merging realms so that I can take advantage of game mechanics," then it's basically never going to be applicable and we might as well say "realm mergers are fine," because for all intents and purposes they would be. Furthermore, I recall that several of the characters involved in attempting to merge Summerdale and Thulsoma back in the day got lightning bolted for their efforts, and that case was similar. If that was an illegal realm merger and this isn't, I'd be curious to know why people think this is different.

[Anaris]

The realm's not dead, nor has it effectively ceased to exist. It still has a ruler, nobles, gold, soldiers, and the ability to engage in trade, diplomacy and military action with other realms.

You are splitting hairs.

It has only ever been possible to remove a realm's last region peacefully by bugs. Thus, any realm merger that is not also a bug exploit must, of necessity, leave every single one of these things in place.