Ryu, Atanamir, now Erik... good guy BM!

[De-Legro]

The rule says:

Nobles holding placeholder positions are prohibited. It is not acceptable for Keplerina to hold a position for Kepler and step down when Kepler is able to take the position again. This applies for all positions.

It does not mention elections, and it's fine that way. It covers all cases.

What is clear to you, may well not be clear to others. The reasons real life law has precedents is the acknowledgement that judgements further elaborate on written laws and provide greater detail. Not every one here has the same level of English comprehension and we do need to ensure that you don't need to have played for 10 years and have a superb memory to know all the ins and outs of a rule.

More to the point though I was referring to specifying that elections are binding in terms of "rightful" Lords and realm should not make laws that allow Dukes or whomever to then declare they are not and the real Lord should be installed. That "real" lord could be the old position holder or someone else entirely, either way it challenges the concept that elections are reasonably binding.

[Chenier]

A character is a construct. It is devoid of autonomy. Everything it does, says, or thinks is at the whim of its creator.

Yes, there's such a thing as roleplaying. But experienced roleplayers know full well that roleplay is not an excuse that forgives everything. Simply put, if a character is an !@#$%^&, it's because there's a player behind him that wants to be an !@#$%^&.

However, with the rule, I'm with De-Legro. I don't consider it very clear in this case. Nor do I consider this application to be similar with most previous position holder verdicts. The placeholder rule is typically involved for temporary appointments "We need a lord for X so that he may recruit milita, but Y will be made lord again when he can" and such. It has not been traditionally invoked in cases where people in positions of power do not agree with the result of an election. In fact, I think the only such case I can recall was many many years ago, when a realm (Melhed?) wanted to ignore the game's referendum because they had come up with their own more complicated lordship deciding system. And this was back before one could customize these government settings.

I'm not even sure I agree with the verdict. When realms are divided into competing factions, when the dominant faction loses the rulership due to some similar event, they will also usually do all in their power to remove whoever was elected. Is this normal politics, or is this a violation of the game's placeholder rules?

[Eduardo Almighty]

Lords can kick Knights and close estates. Dukes can appoint Lords, Lords can kick knights, Dukes cannot kick Lords... nor Knights  .......... Duke is less than Lord in this kind of decision. Hierarchy!? I cannot open BM now, but in Hierarchy, you are related to your Lord, to your Duke and the Ruler, in the highest stance. Duke is the midway... sounds good, but you cannot manage anything. The way? The way Erik always did in a last stance... banish. Too much used to be Judge, when the game says you can ban anyone simple if you want to do it. Face the consequences.

He faced. 

[Anaris]

I'm not even sure I agree with the verdict. When realms are divided into competing factions, when the dominant faction loses the rulership due to some similar event, they will also usually do all in their power to remove whoever was elected. Is this normal politics, or is this a violation of the game's placeholder rules?

That has nothing to do with this case. Here, there was a law of the realm that Lords who lost their positions in war were required to be reappointed to them. A Lord lost his position, a new Lord was elected, the old Lord was released from prison, and Erik not only demanded that the new Lord step down, he threatened to run for Judge just so he could ban the new Lord if he didn't step down. There was no battle between factions

I cannot fathom how one could think the placeholder rule could reasonably be applied to straightforward power plays, especially with regard to the ruler position.

[Eduardo Almighty]

My worries is that people said NO with the TITANS.

I would do different... but that is it.

[Anaris]

Lords can kick Knights and close estates. Dukes can appoint Lords, Lords can kick knights, Dukes cannot kick Lords... nor Knights  .......... Duke is less than Lord in this kind of decision. Hierarchy!? I cannot open BM now, but in Hierarchy, you are related to your Lord, to your Duke and the Ruler, in the highest stance. Duke is the midway... sounds good, but you cannot manage anything.

The Ruler can't kick Dukes, either.

In the history of the game, there have only been 2 ways to reliably remove a Lord from position without banning him: one of those was the "question nobility" option, which was removed for various kinds of abuse, and the other is the auto da fe option for priests, which has limited applicability.

This should indicate to you that the idea that Dukes "should" be able to remove Lords from their positions on a whim is not based on anything from BattleMaster's history.

I do think that Dukes need more interesting options, but that doesn't mean that they're not already a very powerful position. The idea that Dukes being unable to kick Lords out of their positions makes them somehow inferior to Lords, or deeply unbalanced, is simply ridiculous. For one thing, if you like the powers of a Lord, and you're a Duke, you can just...make yourself a Lord.

[Anaris]

My worries is that people said NO with the TITANS.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean with this.

[Eduardo Almighty]

No one said a thing in character until I received the verdict. Not a single word since the one of the bullied Eldarion saying "I lost your request, sorry, I will obey your order". And reading it now, by my own words, I would not be bullied... but very angry. I can understand why I was punished for not playing as a friend. But Erik is a construct and he is an !@#$%^&. A douchebag. Call it as you want. If you will consider every threat he made, every stupid thing he said... well... you will face some bad times.

Unfortunately, this time he went too far while I thought he usually acted as his behavior.

[Anaris]

No one said a thing in character until I received the verdict. No one word since the one of the bullied Eldarion saying "I lost your request, sorry, I will obey your order". And reading it now, by my own words, I would not be bullied... but very angry. I can understand why I was punished for not playing as a friend. But Erik is a construct and is an !@#$%^&. A douchebag. Call it as you want. If you will consider every threat he made, every stupid thing he said... well... you will face some bad times.

No one is saying Erik is an !@#$%^&. (He might be, he might not; I don't know, and I suspect Chénier doesn't, either.)

What we're saying is this:

Everything—every single word and action—that happens in the game—that happens in-character—is totally, completely, 100% controlled by us out of character. Erik is not a real person. He is a bunch of entries in the BattleMaster database, and ideas in your head. You are totally in control of everything Erik does. He cannot do anything by himself. That means that you are responsible for actions that "Erik takes" breaking rules. You can talk till you're blue in the face about what is "right for RP" or what was "natural for him to do." There are actions that our characters would, if they were real people, absolutely do, but they can't, either because BattleMaster simply doesn't have code that lets it happen (such as wandering around in one region while our units fight in another), or because they are against BattleMaster's rules (such as ordering people not to go to a tournament hosted by a hated enemy with the stated purpose of raising gold to fight your own realm).

It doesn't matter how logical and obvious these actions would be to our characters. Because of BattleMaster's rules and the limitations of the game's code, many actions are either impossible or forbidden. If you want a totally freeform roleplaying game, BattleMaster is not it, and never has been. If you want to keep playing BattleMaster, you must keep your characters' actions within the rules, no matter how much the character might "want" to do something that breaks them.

[Eduardo Almighty]

Gravity. ok.

[Eldargard]

The rule says:

Nobles holding placeholder positions are prohibited. It is not acceptable for Keplerina to hold a position for Kepler and step down when Kepler is able to take the position again. This applies for all positions.

It does not mention elections, and it's fine that way. It covers all cases.

I have to say that from my perspective, that rule and my understanding of this situation do not line up 100%. The rule states that a character can not hold positions for another character and willingly make way for that other character to get it back once the mechanics allow. It doe not say it is not ok for other characters to expect or demand that such a thing occur. It says nothing about other characters leaning on Keplerina with hopes of her standing aside. It only says that Keplerina is not allowed to play the role of place holder.

When I try to logically apply the rule as written, the player who's character took the lordship and then stepped down should have been the one punished. That player chose to make their character a place holder and that character is the only one that broke the rule.

I am not saying that this is how the situation should have been handled but I am saying that the rule, as written, does not seem to match how the rule was applied n this circumstance. If I come to this conclusion than others might too and this certainly prevents me from agreeing that the rule is perfectly clear and unambiguous as written. No written rule will ever be completely unambiguous but this rule, in my mind, certainly invites misunderstanding.

[De-Legro]

I have to say that from my perspective, that rule and my understanding of this situation do not line up 100%. The rule states that a character can not hold positions for another character and willingly make way for that other character to get it back once the mechanics allow. It doe not say it is not ok for other characters to expect or demand that such a thing occur. It says nothing about other characters leaning on Keplerina with hopes of her standing aside. It only says that Keplerina is not allowed to play the role of place holder.

When I try to logically apply the rule as written, the player who's character took the lordship and then stepped down should have been the one punished. That player chose to make their character a place holder and that character is the only one that broke the rule.

I am not saying that this is how the situation should have been handled but I am saying that the rule, as written, does not seem to match how the rule was applied n this circumstance. If I come to this conclusion than others might too and this certainly prevents me from agreeing that the rule is perfectly clear and unambiguous as written. No written rule will ever be completely unambiguous but this rule, in my mind, certainly invites misunderstanding.

The punishment was for trying to FORCE someone to be a place holder, not for them fulfilling the role. It amounted to in character bullying that would have lead to a character breaking a rule had they complied. Think of it like Inciting Violence rather then personally committing that violence.

[Eldargard]

I totally get why the punishment happened. I am simply saying that, from my reading, the rule specifies that one is not allowed to take, hold and then turn over a position to insure the position makes it's way back into the original character's hands. That was not done by Eduardo and suggesting that he violated that rule as written seems a bit off. If you want a rule against conspiring, threatening or indulging in any placeholding, the rule should state as much because it clearly does not say that now - at least when I read it.

[De-Legro]

I totally get why the punishment happened. I am simply saying that, from my reading, the rule specifies that one is not allowed to take, hold and then turn over a position to insure the position makes it's way back into the original character's hands. That was not done by Eduardo and suggesting that he violated that rule as written seems a bit off. If you want a rule against conspiring, threatening or indulging in any placeholding, the rule should state as much because it clearly does not say that now - at least when I read it.

None of the rules state that. I'm guessing it was assumed to be self evident that attempting to force or trick someone else into breaking rules, would you know be not a great thing to do.

[vonGenf]

It amounted to in character bullying that would have lead to a character breaking a rule had they complied.

The character in question did comply before the Titan judgment was handed.