| Summary: | Farronite-Aslyon Merger |
| Violation: | Friendly Realm Merger |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | Jordan Dishman (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=34300) |
| About: | Khari (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=29885) |
I dunno, its iffy. Terran thing was ruled a non merger by 1 vote and that was essentially because Terran was losing/had lost its war. Farronite had no conflict. They had signed a rather beneficial treaty with Astrum and they got out of the war. Internal political conflict would be a great reason for such actions. An IG source tells me there was a power struggle in the realm. I have not verified it.
let us not forget Kabrinskias realm merger.
I dont think Asylon and the Farronite nobles should be punished for the actions of one noble. I dont actually see that any of us have done any wrong except step on Astrum.1. Who said an entire realm should be punished, even if this is ruled as illegal?
Perhaps the ability for Duchies to seperate and join other realms should be taken out if it causes so many problems, or perhaps only a certain amount of duchies can cede at a time. We didnt write the code or make the rules but it seems when it benefits Astrum there is no issue, let us not forget Kabrinskias realm merger.
4. I agree that the current duchy system makes this kind of thing too easy. It was not possible under the old system.
What exactly prevented this in the old system? I can't access the political map from the wiki right now, but FR was a two-city realm (Via and Golden Farrow), right? Then all the rurals could swear allegiance to the non-capital city in the old system too.
I would be a big fan of a system which would remove the possibility that clicking a button in game results in a forbidden result.
Asylon is a one city realm that has been, for some months now, composed of two duchies. One full of rurals under Khari and one city duchy. To make it clear, there was no creation of the rural duchy for the purpose of changing allegiance/realm merger, but a pre-existing two duchy system that allowed one duchess to leave a city-state behind. Don't let your rurals get so powerful next time ;)
1. Who said an entire realm should be punished, even if this is ruled as illegal?
2. You are not the one accused of doing anything wrong. Even if this is ruled as an illegal realm merger, nothing will happen to you.
3. As dustole says, the kabrinskia merger was ruled as illegal.
4. I agree that the current duchy system makes this kind of thing too easy. It was not possible under the old system. If I could think of any specific mechanic that would prevent realm mergers, and not unduly create artificial restrictions, I would propose them. If you can think of any, please do.
From the messages that I've received, Khari changed allegiances because there weren't enough nobles in FR to maximize lordships in the rurals, while Asylon had plenty. Whether o not that can be taken as evidence for a strategic merger, I'll leave for you all to decide.Unless the player of Khari confirms it, the letters are needed IMO for that info to be used.
I will cite the example of Solaria again because the situation with the Ducny of Sun Hall joining Luria Nova is IDENTICAL. That was ruled legal. Its a power play, not a realm merger. You're allowed to do dastardly things, which this was. This is not two sovereign entities becoming one. This is a Duchess making a power play. There is already a set precedent. Go read the Solaria/LN realm merger case.Can you give me a link? I am not being lazy, I genuinely can't find, albeit I might be able to when I am not so tired.
Can you give me a link? I am not being lazy, I genuinely can't find, albeit I might be able to when I am not so tired.
What exactly prevented this in the old system?In the old system, duchies were tied to cities. It was impossible to have a duchy without a city. (I'm considering strongholds as cities for this purpose.) If your realm had one city, you had one duchy. Since the last city can't swap allegiance, it was impossible for the duke of a one city/duchy realm to switch allegiance. You had to have at least two before you could pull something like this.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3396.0.htmlYou are incorrect. That case only deals with the second transfer that actually was the last two regions of the realm, and not the initial transfer. The verdict of that case also clearly states:
Nothing was found wrong with this, which is damned near identical to what just happened.
The Magistrates decline to rule on the question of realm mergers generally and the secession of capital duchies at this time...That case explicitly did not rule on the realm merger aspect, and gives only a "guilty of bug exploitation" verdict.
Asylon is not a one city realm...
Out-of-Character from Khari Kye (1 day, 20 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in "Sanguis Astroism" (124 recipients)
Well apparently people think Im cheating or some such, which is absurd.
FR has had two duchies for over half a year real time. Something like 3 rulers ago when I was its Governor General. I guess I have to explain every little thing we do to appease the masses. I created the second duchy so someone else could potentially be duke of Golden Farrow and ruler, ideally Gustav before he quit but it never happened. Since then yes FR had a treaty with Astrum, so what. Treaties are broken all the time in this game.
FR has dropped dramatically in its player count and was becoming near silent. I had been in talks with both Asylon and Phantaria about moving my duchy to either realm. I exercised my right as a Duchess and basically have ended the Farronite republic but only after consulting over half of its players. the other half possibly may have know something was in the works but im not sure.
All of this was done in game. So yes I gave the realm it its greatest ally. Big deal.
Frankly im kind of irked right now.
Jeff Walker
I will cite the example of Solaria again because the situation with the Ducny of Sun Hall joining Luria Nova is IDENTICAL. That was ruled legal. Its a power play, not a realm merger. You're allowed to do dastardly things, which this was. This is not two sovereign entities becoming one. This is a Duchess making a power play. There is already a set precedent. Go read the Solaria/LN realm merger case.
You are incorrect. That case only deals with the second transfer that actually was the last two regions of the realm, and not the initial transfer. The verdict of that case also clearly states:That case explicitly did not rule on the realm merger aspect, and gives only a "guilty of bug exploitation" verdict.
Is three people and a city enough to consider Farronite a realm? Perhaps they will get a few immigrants, but without a few rurals for scouts and food then I'm not sure it will last.
When it does begin to waver, I wonder how long until they abandon ship and let it go rogue, letting it go to Asylon. I think it is a rather appropriate way for it to end up, but wouldn't it amount to the same thing as merging all at once?
Please read the message posted by the player that did the merge. Their stated intention was to destroy the realm by merging with one of their two neighbors. There is no power struggle or ic political scheming here. If there is, then it should be quite easily provable with a few messages to show it. Without that, all you have the player's own message stating their intentions to merge the realms.
As for the assertion of "its not a merge because FR still exists", that's irrelevant. The realms we merged to the extent possible by game mechanics restrictions. To get any more, you'd have full combine this with a bug exploit, which is a violation all on its own. If this isn't a realm merger, then it is impossible to have a realm merger that doesn't involve bug exploitation. Which makes the realm merger rule superfluous.
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.
To use the term realm merger is incorrect, the term should not be used and another term should be used in its place such as duchy merger.
And I fully agree with this. If you don't want to see it happening, instead of open cases and always untangle situations like this, even bringing to the table some kind of bug abuse, try to create some code to avoid entire duchies moving to another realms leaving just one city behind... or live with that, because even when it's considered illegal, fix it after it happened is a huge inconvenience for a lot of players involved, especially when they are unaware that they are doing something wrong. That's useless to show it in our Forums and open cases if the game continue allowing you to do it.You're correct in that, where possible, these kinds of things should be handled by game mechanics. If it was easy/possible, I assume that Anaris would have already fixed it. As I said before, this kind of thing was not really possible under the old duchy system. The new one is much more complex and flexible, and unfortunately leaves some loopholes like this. I would love to see some kind of code-based fix, if it were possible. If it is or not, is something that really only Anaris or ^ban^ could answer. It is also a matter for a different thread.
From the messages that I've received, Khari changed allegiances because there weren't enough nobles in FR to maximize lordships in the rurals, while Asylon had plenty. Whether o not that can be taken as evidence for a strategic merger, I'll leave for you all to decide.
Letter from Grimrog Bjarnson (45 days, 4 hours ago)
Message sent to -----------------------
Duke Graeth,
Duchess Khari of the Farronite republic has sent us a letter where she lets us know that she is considering abandoning the Farronite Republic and bring her duchy to Asylon... This would leave the Farronite Republic with just one province, their ever-consuming-city Golden Farrow and add the rest of their realm to us.
We would swell in size and never need to worry about starvation again...
Myself I see this as an oppertunity too good to refuse, what are your thoughts on this?
Honor, Glory and Unity.
Grimrog Bjarnson
King of Asylon
Royal of Asylon
Duke of Bloodmoon
Earl of Via
Letter from Grimrog Bjarnson (44 days, 18 hours ago)
Message sent to------------------------------------
I belive she is unsatesfied with what her realm has turned into, and the only way for it to prosper is to join us. But I will ask her and see what she replies.
Honor, Glory and Unity.
Grimrog Bjarnson
King of Asylon
Royal of Asylon
Duke of Bloodmoon
Earl of Via
Letter from Grimrog Bjarnson (38 days, 17 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in message group "Diplomatic Council" (7 recipients)
Friends of the Diplomatic Council,
I will let you all know that I have exhanged several letters with some Lords of the Farronites, they are very unhappy with the current state of affairs within the Farronite republic and they are thinking about switching allegiance to Asylon...
I think this would be very fortunate for us, but so far nothing has been decided. I will carry on my talks with them and see what can be done, parhaps my diplomatic skill will grant us some more regions, making us thicker and stronger.
Honor, Glory and Unity.
Grimrog Bjarnson
King of Asylon
Royal of Asylon
Duke of Bloodmoon
Earl of Via
I don't think the two different narratives are exclusive.Can you please tell me how based on the below that this is an illegal realm merger?
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.
Tom's post in the Solari and Luria Nova realm merger thread states:QuoteDuchess 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.QuoteA "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.
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.
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.Where does it state that in the rules, by Tom elsewhere, or in a previous Magistrates case verdict?
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?
Moreover, if the nobles in FR didn’t care enough to save their own realm, it probably wasn't worth saving.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Cleaned up some more posts... Try to stay on topic.
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.
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.
If you are considering zapping players in a dying realm who are trying to keep the game fun admist game-wide declining populations then I think you need to seriously reconsider your policies.
Just because the duchess lost hope doesn't mean the situation was truly hopeless.
If you are considering zapping players in a dying realm who are trying to keep the game fun admist game-wide declining populations then I think you need to seriously reconsider your policies. I foresee this sort of case becoming more common as the game continues to lose players, banning your existing and loyal player base seems counter-intuitive. This is a holdover rule from another time in this game's life. It is also extremely obscure and poorly worded. Realms can never merge as equal entities, and if they can it is not applicable here. Asylon maintains its governmental system, personnel (especially in regards to our King), name, capital, distinct history, distinct culture and overwhelming player amount. Further, Asylon unilaterally culled out FR nobles that it deemed politically harmful, explicitly demonstrating its overwhelming advantage in the duchy change. And that is considering the fact that you are ignoring that FR still exists in GF and might be able to exist indefinitely and perhaps even expand with the new addition of sea travel.
Your post is extremely troubling. In character wise I'm not sure what the problem is, it isn't like nation states in the past never conglomerated together. It seems like you want to bring down the hammer just because you don't like the way the rule has been applied or not, and not for mechanical or roleplaying atmosphere reasons. A dying realm can takes months to be finished off naturally, and I imagine that natural attrition is extremely boring for those involved. In this case a Duchess decided to proactively change her duchy in a way that made sense in character and in line with explicit or implicit political strife in her realm. The fact is that strategically this does not help our realm in our war, we now find ourselves in a food shortage after accepting the duchy change, further none of the regions would allow us to change the capital to a more strategic position. Finally, it lowers our population density per region.
I do not want to clutter this post, however I feel that the overwhelming amount of magistrates on the other side of this conflict puts Asylon and former Farronites at a severe disadvantage.
The Thulsoma/Summerdale merger was that the Queen or king got lightning bolted for a couple of days and we were told not to try a merger. Which we did anyways by abandoning Thulsoma inthe end but never tried to recover the old regions because the Summerdale nobles were extremely paranoid of SA nobles in their realm, which Thulsoma was so they didnt want to actually see it succeed, even though it would have been beneficial. After they combined Averoth was to join ad we would have been a large force in the north. It was my idea to found a federated united kingdom under the Summerdaliam crown with three kings in revolving leadership etc. it would have been cool and we could have offered a good bit of strength in that region. What happened instead was fragmenting and little wars and the Thulsomans left to Asylon where we thrived.
This is the incident I remember, and it sounds like the bolt came down before anyone even tried anything, just based on the idea being discussed. But again, curious as to how that's different from this case - it doesn't seem to me like the proposed Thulsoma-Summerdale-Averoth merger was about exploiting game mechanics any more than the current case is, which calls into question that narrow interpretation of the rule and would seem to place more emphasis on the idea that realm mergers between equals are not permitted for other reasons (game balance? promoting conflict? keeping with Tom's interpretation of medieval governments?).
I'll try to avoid chiming in too much on the specifics of the IC and/or OOC reasoning, as I'm rather far removed from the specifics, but I would be hesitant about punishing someone for an attempt to liven up the game. Obviously a broken rule is a broken rule and must be dealt with, but I've often seen (and done myself) IC actions done for the sake of a better playing environment and don't think that should be discouraged. I would hope players would also keep it within IC sensibility in not breaking their character's style either.
I think a key element is that FR is continuing as a realm, however much diminished. There is no movement of nobility leaving Golden Farrow to join Asylon and reconquer GF, as you would seen in a merger that wasn't also a bug exploit. Asylon had two choices for interacting with GF without merging. Conquer it in a war based on various grievances between farronite nobility and those who left for Asylon. Or ignore it. They're taking the latter route.
To add a little to what Vita said, they planned on rulers of the other realms taking turns ruling such that that way all 3 kings are equal, making it more explicit that they are merging as equal entities.
I am inclined to agree with you at the moment. An argument could be made that in some cases a move like this one would be a true realm merger, but I just don't see the intent here, not really.
If I may inject, because this is already taking way too long.
We are bickering over details.
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.
What happened here was NOT the scenario I see as a "friendly realm merger", because it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties. You can discuss the "friendly" part if you want, but there wasn't a merger. Whatever you call it, and it sure is a strange event, but it's not the event I ruled disallowed.
Moreover, that real question is, which part of the Social Contract was broken. If we can not spot one without lots of arguing, then we can not assume that the players should have.
That is what I meant a while ago when I said cases should be handled a lot faster because unless they are fairly obvious, we can't expect the players to have seen their acts as violations. If it takes a week of deliberation between half a dozen Magistrates to determine whether or not... - how can we expect the players to come to a sane conclusion?
I'm almost ready to make a ruling that says if the Magistrates can't clearly say "guilty" within a few days, then he's innocent. Mostly so the whole game doesn't get bogged down in rules-lawyering. If that means we let a few people go without punishment, that's fine with me. I'd rather improve the rules than try hard to get every last one of them.
...it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties.
"hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side"
That is, indeed, a good catch. It does beg the question, though: Why is it OK to swap and then get permission, but not get permission then swap?Quote...it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties.
Good find.
Good find.
That is, indeed, a good catch. It does beg the question, though: Why is it OK to swap and then get permission, but not get permission then swap?
[...]
Personally, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two. Yet we're supposed to consider one as good, and the other bad? ???
What I took away from Tom's post is that if there's no IR violation, it's better to let a few people get away with it than to aggressively pursue possible infractions.If this were the intent of the rules, then we wouldn't need any rules other than the IRs. After all, if only IR violations can be acted on, then why have any other rules at all?
Players should police themselves, and the rule should rarely (if ever) require enforcement, except in cases where the abuse is so patent and unambiguous as to preclude any discussion. Since there is room for discussion in this case, the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully the spirit of fairplay is something that all players will take to heart.That's a good theory. However, player-based enforcement in MMORPGs simply does not work. It's been tried many times in many games. There are too many people willing to look the other way, to conspire, who see things differently, or who just don't care. There must be some group in charge of investigation and enforcement, to make sure that everyone stays honest.
If this were the intent of the rules, then we wouldn't need any rules other than the IRs. After all, if only IR violations can be acted on, then why have any other rules at all?Over-enforcement of the rules has just as much potential to ruin the game as rule-breaking does. The level of enforcement should be tempered according to the rule that's being invoked. At one end, the IRs are enforced most aggressively because those violations are the most harmful, the most immediate, and are fairly unambiguous. At the other end, there are policies like "Nobles are to treat commoners poorly (with disgust) and commoners are to treat nobility respectfully (with fear)," which I assume should never be seriously enforced.
That's a good theory. However, player-based enforcement in MMORPGs simply does not work. It's been tried many times in many games. There are too many people willing to look the other way, to conspire, who see things differently, or who just don't care. There must be some group in charge of investigation and enforcement, to make sure that everyone stays honest.In this case, there hasn't been any evidence of the sort of collusion that's being alleged, only speculation, and there's hasn't been any evidence of harm.
From reading Tom's post quoted by Buffakill, wouldn't the two parties be the two rulers? It seems to me like the restriction is against the rulers conspiring to combine their two realms.
Might be time for an actual Magistrate decision on this. It's been, what, two weeks now.
So in all practicality, blaming the duchess for what duchy the lords happened to have their region in is kind of ludicrous.
I'm not here to agree or disagree... But don't you have this backwards? The Duchess took the action, the Lords are always along for the ride if they don't have any warning. The Duchess is the only one that could shoulder the blame.
But at the same time, the action is easily reversible. All one had to was be in the capital, and witch allegiance back. None did that.
Which has nothing whatsoever with the original act being right or wrong.
I think it should be noted that FR's Ruler and lord of Golden Farrow (the last remaining region in FR) eventually joined Asylon anyway after the city went rogue. I did not notice any real effort to even keep GF; it's like we just waited for taxes before jumping ship into a different realm (D'Hara for my character, Asylon for the last FR Ruler). That makes everything seem like a realm merger, personally.
Which is, again, irrelevant. Someone brought a case, it got discussed, and voted. But if you want to know who voted, ask them. Maybe they will tell you.
I think we should have the right to know who the magistrates of the case are.The Magistrates are the same for every case. The public list is available here:
Its completely relevant. For example, if you voted, I'd consider it biased voting.I'm not a Magistrate. See the above list.
So what's going to happen to me? Any chance of some closure soon?If it's a first offence you'll probably get off with a crucifixion.