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

[vonGenf]

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.

There wasn't any law of the realm stating that or anything remotely close, and there still isn't. Erik was not Judge, and he probably knew the Judge would not take his side in this case. He threatened to run for Judge to ban Eldarion anyway, he conceivably could have done that and won.

[Anaris]

There wasn't any law of the realm stating that or anything remotely close, and there still isn't.

Really? If that's so, then it makes Erik's already indefensible position even weaker.

He certainly seemed to think there was such a law, though. I think he even said on IRC that he wrote it into the realm's laws himself, at an earlier point when he was Judge.

[vonGenf]

He was never appointed there to hold a position. He was elected and ordered to leave. Call it another name if you want, but he's not a placeholder, just a victim of a crazy Duke with power in his old head accomplishing the laws of his old realm.  After all it's a roleplaying game.

That's a reasonable way to see it - honestly, I thought the same at first. Since it seems the Titans think differently, then that clarifies the rule.

The way I see it post-judgment, the issue is not so much that you ordered Eldarion to leave but that you meant to give back the region to the previous Lord - if you had simply hated Eldarion's guts for some random reasons, it would have been OK.

Celine was fast to ensure a punishment, but never to change the law before it as a Judge. Just old things that no one cares until the Titans appears to illuminate our world with a yellow message.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[vonGenf]

Really? If that's so, then it makes Erik's already indefensible position even weaker.

Why? He was the Duke, he sent an order to his vassal. You don't need laws for everything.

If Eldarion had turned to me (I'm the Judge of Sirion), I would have suggested him to evade that order by switching allegiance to my own Duchy. But he didn't, so that's that.

[Anaris]

Why? He was the Duke, he sent an order to his vassal. You don't need laws for everything.

Because it allows him to say, "But I was just following the law, that we've had for years, and we've used in exactly this same way dozens of times." Which was what I had understood him to already be saying.

That's not a viable defense for breaking the rules, but it at least makes doing so more understandable.

[Anaris]

The way I see it post-judgment, the issue is not so much that you ordered Eldarion to leave but that you meant to give back the region to the previous Lord - if you had simply hated Eldarion's guts for some random reasons, it would have been OK.

Yes, exactly.

The primary purpose of the placeholder rule is to make sure that once someone loses a position of power to someone else, it stays lost at least for a good while.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Erik had, from the start, aggressively pushed Eldarion to step down because he didn't like him, and he did like Rhiannon and wanted her to have the Lordship, rather than quoting some "tradition" of returning lost lordships to the person who used to hold them, the Titan ruling might well have been different. It might not have, but the discussions surrounding it would certainly have been different, as that would have been much closer to the line of a power play, rather than a clear, straightforward case of getting the original position holder reappointed just because "that's what we do."

[Chenier]

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.

Run for election means campaigning against someone who already holds the position and apparently disagrees with his intent. There's a power play in itself, there.

Giving a duke the ability to remove lords is something that has, to my knowledge, been seen favorably by the devs for some time, now (if a proper way of doing it can be thought of).

The character in question was not, from what I can tell, stripped of his lordship. The duke complained... that's it. The character can join another duchy if he wants. If the duke does manage to somehow ban the character, that character can bring the region with him to another realm.

I have a hard time seeing this as anything else than a power struggle. Someone in power who disagrees with the votes of others. It's not as if the duke went out to appoint someone "until the proper lord comes back", just to cancel the election. That the realm had a law or not on the topic seems irrelevant to me, because nobody agreed to place someone temporarily, nor did anyone seek to do so. It is hard to see this as a case of a placeholder, when no one was put in place specifically to hold the seat for someone else.

If the intent of the rule is to make game elections binding, then the rule needs to be rewritten to state as much. But that would be stepping into dangerous grounds, because many power struggles and aspects of politics revolve around disagreements over election results.

[Anaris]

Run for election means campaigning against someone who already holds the position and apparently disagrees with his intent. There's a power play in itself, there.

Giving a duke the ability to remove lords is something that has, to my knowledge, been seen favorably by the devs for some time, now (if a proper way of doing it can be thought of).

The character in question was not, from what I can tell, stripped of his lordship. The duke complained... that's it. The character can join another duchy if he wants. If the duke does manage to somehow ban the character, that character can bring the region with him to another realm.

I have a hard time seeing this as anything else than a power struggle. Someone in power who disagrees with the votes of others. It's not as if the duke went out to appoint someone "until the proper lord comes back", just to cancel the election. That the realm had a law or not on the topic seems irrelevant to me, because nobody agreed to place someone temporarily, nor did anyone seek to do so. It is hard to see this as a case of a placeholder, when no one was put in place specifically to hold the seat for someone else.

If the intent of the rule is to make game elections binding, then the rule needs to be rewritten to state as much. But that would be stepping into dangerous grounds, because many power struggles and aspects of politics revolve around disagreements over election results.

There's no factionalism here, no disagreement over politics. The only disagreement is over who should actually have that title—there's nothing larger behind it.

You're trying to make this out to be some kind of conflict between different political factions in the realm, with the lordship as part of the battleground between them, but so far as I can tell, it's absolutely nothing of the sort.

So far as Erik, the character, was concerned, the lordship was rightfully Rhiannon's because Sirion law and/or tradition stated that a Lord who lost their Lordship through capture in battle would have it returned. Eldarion was elected when the automatic referendum finished, and was in the way of Rhiannon being reappointed. That's literally all there was to it.

This wasn't a power struggle. As I said earlier, if there had been any evidence that it was, the Titans' considerations would have been somewhat different, though there's no guarantee the result wouldn't have been the same.

[Chenier]

There's no factionalism here, no disagreement over politics. The only disagreement is over who should actually have that title—there's nothing larger behind it.

You're trying to make this out to be some kind of conflict between different political factions in the realm, with the lordship as part of the battleground between them, but so far as I can tell, it's absolutely nothing of the sort.

So far as Erik, the character, was concerned, the lordship was rightfully Rhiannon's because Sirion law and/or tradition stated that a Lord who lost their Lordship through capture in battle would have it returned. Eldarion was elected when the automatic referendum finished, and was in the way of Rhiannon being reappointed. That's literally all there was to it.

This wasn't a power struggle. As I said earlier, if there had been any evidence that it was, the Titans' considerations would have been somewhat different, though there's no guarantee the result wouldn't have been the same.

If you changed the word "lordship" for "rulership" in that message, would your opinion remain the same?

So far as Erik, the character, was concerned, the rulership was rightfully Rhiannon's because Sirion law and/or tradition stated that a ruler who lost their rulership through capture in battle would have it returned. Eldarion was elected when the automatic referendum finished, and was in the way of Rhiannon being re-elected. That's literally all there was to it.

That the title be above or below in the feudal hierarchy doesn't change much in my eyes. Fundamentally, person X lost position Y due to capture, the game set off a referendum in which person Z was the winner, and person W disagrees with person X replacing person Z in position Y. Maybe there's no grand political battle behind it all, maybe the realm isn't fiercely split among competing factions, but would the titans really consider this? Would the rule be "you can't oppose someone's election unless your realm has opposing factions claiming said title"? That would seem absurd. There are a number of reasons one could oppose the winner of an election, it wouldn't make sense to start listing contexts where these reasons are legitimate and when they are not.

I've been a magistrate, and yet if I didn't know better than to threaten lords with bans (great way to create a big mess), even I would have thought this line of action to be fine. Placeholding, as the name implies and as the wording of the rule suggests, is merely the act of placing someone (oneself or another) in a position of a certain duration, for the specific intent of replacing that person with another before the duration expires. In this case, those who seek the replacing are not those who did the placing. They didn't seek for there to be a temporary lord, they outright opposed the person being lord at all.

[Anaris]

If you changed the word "lordship" for "rulership" in that message, would your opinion remain the same?

Are you trying to tell me you think a lordship is the same thing as rulership?

Of course it would be different if the position at stake were the ruler position. It's the highest position in the land, and has broad control over realm policy. A lord doesn't, realistically, have any say in policy decisions. (At least not by virtue of their being a lord.)

That the title be above or below in the feudal hierarchy doesn't change much in my eyes. Fundamentally, person X lost position Y due to capture, the game set off a referendum in which person Z was the winner, and person W disagrees with person X replacing person Z in position Y. Maybe there's no grand political battle behind it all, maybe the realm isn't fiercely split among competing factions, but would the titans really consider this? Would the rule be "you can't oppose someone's election unless your realm has opposing factions claiming said title"? That would seem absurd. There are a number of reasons one could oppose the winner of an election, it wouldn't make sense to start listing contexts where these reasons are legitimate and when they are not.

I've been a magistrate, and yet if I didn't know better than to threaten lords with bans (great way to create a big mess), even I would have thought this line of action to be fine. Placeholding, as the name implies and as the wording of the rule suggests, is merely the act of placing someone (oneself or another) in a position of a certain duration, for the specific intent of replacing that person with another before the duration expires. In this case, those who seek the replacing are not those who did the placing. They didn't seek for there to be a temporary lord, they outright opposed the person being lord at all.

So you really think it's wrong to choose to be a placeholder, but just fine to force someone else to be a placeholder?

If that's the case, then I'm damn glad you're no longer a Magistrate.

There is a fundamental difference between a power struggle, with actual political power at stake, and simply disagreeing over who should be in a particular lordship solely based on what the realm's law says. In this case, Erik didn't even come to Eldarion and say, "I don't want you in this Lordship, so you'd better leave now, and if you don't I'll become Judge and ban you!" No, what he said was much more along the lines of, "If you step down peacefully now, I'd be happy to help you get another Lordship when there's one available, but this one belongs to Rhiannon."

Not every disagreement in BattleMaster is a political power struggle.

[Eduardo Almighty]

Firs, about the Sirionite Constitution, I found just a very small part of it at the Wiki. Specially the "BooK: Titles and Domains". That was formulated by Erik and and I cannot remember the character's name now (Anurak, maybe!?), but he received help of one Lord in this. In real life, he's lawyer. He's not playing anymore and believe me, I'm not compelled to seek 2TB of my olds computer to seek it now. As someone said, not everything must be or would be saved at the Wiki... seek for Sirion and you will find Rugina as Prime Minister. That's about lands, the power of the Duke to indicate in times of war, etc. Do we have become lazy with our records? For sure. I will need a bible to save everything Erik said inside the Council while Judge for years. The mentality is pretty obvious: We don't want to punish our Lords, giving their regions aways because they was caught in battle: a double punishment for fight for Sirion. She asked her region back. It's her right. Thinking about oath, she was indicated. She has his preference, his appointment and expected to have right over the lands given to her. Erik did it as a stubborn!? His way.

Also, back in time, I would have been punished before. Erik always said in his early campaigns that he would be the Judge to reform the Council, kicking old silent Dukes. Any way or another, he did. Power struggle. Let's put in in perspective: if Atanamir, by some miracle, decided to return to Sirion... put his name to a position in Avamar and won. Erik could not threaten half the world, or the entire world, to become Judge once again to kick him?

Once again, while I understand and accept the punishments, it's have northing to do with the placeholder thing. For me, and that was my fault, was to believe a Placeholder is someone appointed or elected with the specific "mission" to protect the region while someone else waits to take it... like: "I'm not in love but I gonna !@#$ you 'till someone better comes along". That's definitely not the case.

[Chenier]

Are you trying to tell me you think a lordship is the same thing as rulership?

Of course it would be different if the position at stake were the ruler position. It's the highest position in the land, and has broad control over realm policy. A lord doesn't, realistically, have any say in policy decisions. (At least not by virtue of their being a lord.)

So you really think it's wrong to choose to be a placeholder, but just fine to force someone else to be a placeholder?

If that's the case, then I'm damn glad you're no longer a Magistrate.

There is a fundamental difference between a power struggle, with actual political power at stake, and simply disagreeing over who should be in a particular lordship solely based on what the realm's law says. In this case, Erik didn't even come to Eldarion and say, "I don't want you in this Lordship, so you'd better leave now, and if you don't I'll become Judge and ban you!" No, what he said was much more along the lines of, "If you step down peacefully now, I'd be happy to help you get another Lordship when there's one available, but this one belongs to Rhiannon."

Not every disagreement in BattleMaster is a political power struggle.

Lords do hold power.

And the duke doesn't have any power to force him to do anything. The most he can do is hike ducal taxes for everyone, which will do him absolutely no good. He can bark all he wants, that's all he is doing. The lord has absolutely no reason to comply with this barking.

Unlike for rulership. When one gets a new ruler, be it by elections or rebellion, he can be ousted quickly if his opposition is large enough. If a new ruler is instantly protested out of office, is he being "forced to be a placeholder"? Is everyone protesting him deserving of a lock?

It's the "forcing another to be a placeholder" argument I don't buy.

[Anaris]

Lords do hold power.

And the duke doesn't have any power to force him to do anything. The most he can do is hike ducal taxes for everyone, which will do him absolutely no good. He can bark all he wants, that's all he is doing. The lord has absolutely no reason to comply with this barking.

Unlike for rulership. When one gets a new ruler, be it by elections or rebellion, he can be ousted quickly if his opposition is large enough. If a new ruler is instantly protested out of office, is he being "forced to be a placeholder"? Is everyone protesting him deserving of a lock?

So...what you're saying is that rulership is totally worthless, and being the ruler gets you no power, while being Lord gives you absolute power.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Power is about more than what buttons the game gives you and your political opponents.

The amount of power you have is the amount of power the people around you give you. If you're an untitled noble who is liked and respected by the people in the realm, you'll likely have a lot more power than a Lord or Duke everyone hates. If you're a beloved Ruler who was elected by a supermajority, put against a Lord who got his position by buying it from an enemy and who regularly lets his contempt for everyone else in the realm be known, then you probably have more power than he does.

It's the "forcing another to be a placeholder" argument I don't buy.

Well, fortunately, I'm not asking for you to buy it. You just have to accept that that is the official consensus of the Titans, which I fully support. The rule was created primarily to prevent turnover from being reduced; forcing the person who gained the position because of that turnover to give it back is significantly worse than that person simply choosing to do so of his own free will, because it actively deprives someone new of a position in favor of someone old.

[Indirik]

For me, what makes this situation bad is the idea that someone who wins an election for a lordship isn't the rightful lord. Of course they are, they won the election! Making claims to the contrary is an example of "RP trumps mechanics". That's not acceptable.

There is nothing against game rules by having an IG/IC policy of returning lordships to nobles that lost them due to wounds, imprisonment, etc. It's only a problem when you combine that with automatic lordship elections. You're having official elections, but ignoring the results, sometimes, because you don't like that specific outcome. If you don't want to accept the outcome of elections, then don't hold elections! Switch to an appointed system.

Let's put in in perspective: if Atanamir, by some miracle, decided to return to Sirion... put his name to a position in Avamar and won. Erik could not threaten half the world, or the entire world, to become Judge once again to kick him?

The answer to that is: "It depends." If you say you're going to ban him because he's an enemy of Sirion and shouldn't be in the realm at all, then you're fine. If you threaten to ban him because the noble that used to hold that position is really the rightful lord and he needs to step down from that position so you can reappoint the "rightful lord", and if he does step down it's all good, then you're back in the same situation that landed you here.

You can avoid this entire situation from ever happening again in two completely separate ways:
1) Stop electing lords when most of the time you really just want to reappoint the old one. Switch to appointed lords. When you do want to elect someone, start a referendum and appoint the winner.
2) Keep holding elections, but acknowledge that whoever wins the election is the lord of that region. You'll just have to accept that, on occasion, someone will lose a position that they used to have because they couldn't enter the election.

What you've got now is a bastardized half-and-half system that, most of the time, doesn't do what you want. This is guaranteed to eventually cause you problems.

[vonGenf]

For me, what makes this situation bad is the idea that someone who wins an election for a lordship isn't the rightful lord. Of course they are, they won the election! Making claims to the contrary is an example of "RP trumps mechanics". That's not acceptable.

Fortunately, that did not happen. What happened was this:

He was never appointed there to hold a position. He was elected and ordered to leave. Call it another name if you want, but he's not a placeholder, just a victim of a crazy Duke with power in his old head accomplishing the laws of his old realm.