So, my realm was still in a federation with a dead realm which was causing moral problems because apparently our peasants didn't like Kambriskia. I broke away from our federation with them and it auto kicked me out of the entire federation which automatically made them declare war on me.
That is freaking stupid on so many levels. First off whether or not to declare war when you break a federation should be up to the members of that federation. Second when a realm is dead diplomatic ties should disappear anyway. Third when you're about to do something that will cause a war there should be some sort of "this will cause a war are you sure you want to do that?"
First off, if you sign a federations, you accept the conditions that come with it, one of which is an automatic declaration of war against the remaining members upon your leaving. Second, dead realms are manually removed by Tom, so it can take a while for them to disappear. Third, I assume you are the ruler of Iashalur. Automatic war declarations for leaving a federation are not a new addition to the game. I'd say not knowing the consequences of your actions as ruler is your own fault.
1. Absolutely no diplomatic relations should be automatic except for neutrality to a new realm. That is bad game mechanics plain and simple. If a federation want's its policy to be war with any realm that breaks from the federation that should be up to the players of the ruling characters to uphold the treaty.
2. I shouldn't have to consult the wiki every time I do something. When other realms broke from federations the message was "War will likely commence" which suggests that they have the option of not declaring war. When I joined the Federation it did not inform me in any way that the federation would be unbreakable.
Quote from: Sacha on December 14, 2012, 07:40:27 PM
Second, dead realms are manually removed by Tom, so it can take a while for them to disappear.
Perhaps a better way of handling dead realms would be in order. Like, if the realm has 0 regions, it's automatically gone in two weeks or something.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 14, 2012, 07:53:21 PM
1. Absolutely no diplomatic relations should be automatic except for neutrality to a new realm. That is bad game mechanics plain and simple. If a federation want's its policy to be war with any realm that breaks from the federation that should be up to the players of the ruling characters to uphold the treaty.
2. I shouldn't have to consult the wiki every time I do something. When other realms broke from federations the message was "War will likely commence" which suggests that they have the option of not declaring war. When I joined the Federation it did not inform me in any way that the federation would be unbreakable.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that a) federations do this, have done so for years, and are not going to change just because you don't like the auto-war declaration that is an intended part of the feature, and b) as ruler, it is
your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the options you are using.
It may not be reasonable to require all 1000-odd players to read all the manual info on the Wiki, but I do not believe it is at all unreasonable to require those very few players who have attained the
highest position in the game to learn what the buttons they push are going to do before they push them.
Quote from: Anaris on December 14, 2012, 08:02:31 PM
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that a) federations do this, have done so for years, and are not going to change just because you don't like the auto-war declaration that is an intended part of the feature, and b) as ruler, it is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the options you are using.
It may not be reasonable to require all 1000-odd players to read all the manual info on the Wiki, but I do not believe it is at all unreasonable to require those very few players who have attained the highest position in the game to learn what the buttons they push are going to do before they push them.
Is it so hard to just add (this results in automatic war) to that button? Or to update the federation broken message to not be so misleading?
Most huge decisions in battle master have a "are you sure you want to do this" section in case of a missclick. Why on earth would an action that can automatically get you into multiple wars be exempt form this?
Quote from: LilWolf on December 14, 2012, 07:56:41 PM
Perhaps a better way of handling dead realms would be in order. Like, if the realm has 0 regions, it's automatically gone in two weeks or something.
Or how about a feature by which a realm can be kicked out of a federation? Seems like that's impossible right now.
Funny stuff. This is exactly why you carefully choose who to form a federation with.
I wonder if Iashlur will suffer like Aurvandil.
No it's not. You want to be careful who you join a federation with in case of actual political incompatibilities not because someone hit the wrong button.
Iashalur should be just fine because I immediately roleplayed that the mistake was the result of an anarchist scribe who slipped the papers to dissolve the federation in with a bunch of other stuff I was signing. (scribes are always great scape goats for mistakes made in game).
That's exactly why this is such poorly designed mechanics. There's no advantage to accidentally declaring war, and there's no advantage to a dead realm draining your moral. Everything's going to be bungled, possibly for weeks, for absolutely no reason.
It is poorly designed. More like out dated. I am sure once all the coding transition is done, it will be updated eventually...
Quote from: pcw27 on December 14, 2012, 09:34:40 PM
No it's not. You want to be careful who you join a federation with in case of actual political incompatibilities not because someone hit the wrong button.
Iashalur should be just fine because I immediately roleplayed that the mistake was the result of an anarchist scribe who slipped the papers to dissolve the federation in with a bunch of other stuff I was signing. (scribes are always great scape goats for mistakes made in game).
That's exactly why this is such poorly designed mechanics. There's no advantage to accidentally declaring war, and there's no advantage to a dead realm draining your moral. Everything's going to be bungled, possibly for weeks, for absolutely no reason.
Why shouldn't peasants be upset about a destroyed realm? A nation may not exist on paper, but it still exists in the hearts and minds of people, to put it cheesily. Dismay doesn't just vanish instantly once its subject ceases to exist.
Honestly, it does make sense that morale (that's the right way to spell it btw) would drop. A federation is not a mere alliance. It is declaring that your realms are united. You ARE one overarching realm, essentially. So when one portion of said federation is destroyed? Yeah... It'd be like a country losing half of itself to an enemy force. That wouldn't make the commoners too keen on the situation.
The only advantage of a federation over an alliance is the automatic war declaration when someone leaves the federation. That's really the only reason to create a federation in the first place.
Quote from: Indirik on December 14, 2012, 11:12:17 PM
The only advantage of a federation over an alliance is the automatic war declaration when someone leaves the federation. That's really the only reason to create a federation in the first place.
Indeed.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 14, 2012, 10:55:01 PM
Honestly, it does make sense that morale (that's the right way to spell it btw) would drop. A federation is not a mere alliance. It is declaring that your realms are united. You ARE one overarching realm, essentially. So when one portion of said federation is destroyed? Yeah... It'd be like a country losing half of itself to an enemy force. That wouldn't make the commoners too keen on the situation.
You haven't read very carefully. Moral didn't drop when we broke the alliance it was being hurt because of the continued alliance with a realm that didn't exist.
An allied realm being destroyed doesn't effect moral at all.
Quote from: Indirik on December 14, 2012, 11:12:17 PM
The only advantage of a federation over an alliance is the automatic war declaration when someone leaves the federation. That's really the only reason to create a federation in the first place.
There should be a function by which one realm can be forced out of a federation by the other realms. Maybe "propose expulsion" If a enough realms in the federation agree the realm gets expelled from the federation.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 12:38:32 AM
There should be a function by which one realm can be forced out of a federation by the other realms. Maybe "propose expulsion" If a enough realms in the federation agree the realm gets expelled from the federation.
I can't disagree there.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 12:38:32 AM
You haven't read very carefully. Moral didn't drop when we broke the alliance it was being hurt because of the continued alliance with a realm that didn't exist.
An allied realm being destroyed doesn't effect moral at all.
It is morale, not moral. Different words and meanings.
Yet it is you who fail to read, or more accurately, fail to comprehend.
A federation is a joining of realms under a common banner. Think of it as an empire or a kingdom with joint crowns.
Let us use the United Kingdom for instance. Your realm is England. You are in a federation with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. At some point, France decides to invade Scotland and they either annex it or drive it all into a state of anarchy. How do you think the common citizens of the rest of the federation will feel if England just sat back and LET it happen?
I would say morale would suffer, and rightly so.
The USSR was one big ass confederation.
The European Union is one big ass confederation.
The UK, IMO, is just a federation. Like Canada and the US.
Quote from: Chénier on December 15, 2012, 02:39:32 AM
The USSR was one big ass confederation.
The European Union is one big ass confederation.
The UK, IMO, is just a federation. Like Canada and the US.
Yeah. That is why Canada won't let Quebec break off from the Federation. ;) If they try to break off we declare war and take back!
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 02:03:36 AM
It is morale, not moral. Different words and meanings.
Yet it is you who fail to read, or more accurately, fail to comprehend.
A federation is a joining of realms under a common banner. Think of it as an empire or a kingdom with joint crowns.
Let us use the United Kingdom for instance. Your realm is England. You are in a federation with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. At some point, France decides to invade Scotland and they either annex it or drive it all into a state of anarchy. How do you think the common citizens of the rest of the federation will feel if England just sat back and LET it happen?
I would say morale would suffer, and rightly so.
Your saying things he didn't. Morale isn't dropping because Kabrinskia got destroyed, it's dropping because they disliked Kabrinskia yet were in a federation, when the realm was destroyed they would be happy.
I'll use Zaki's example:
The majority of Canada may not like Quebec, but if they tried to secede by force there would be armed intervention. If someone invaded and annexed Quebec, Canada would (or should) attempt to intervene. Just because Quebec is annexed by another/destroyed doesn't mutually exclude either the dislike Canadians overall might feel towards Quebec or their anger at what just happened to THEIR federation-mate.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 03:10:13 AM
I'll use Zaki's example:
The majority of Canada may not like Quebec, but if they tried to secede by force there would be armed intervention. If someone invaded and annexed Quebec, Canada would (or should) attempt to intervene. Just because Quebec is annexed by another/destroyed doesn't mutually exclude either the dislike Canadians overall might feel towards Quebec or their anger at what just happened to THEIR federation-mate.
And yet that's not what the reports say. The reports still say they are mad because they are allied.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 02:03:36 AM
It is morale, not moral. Different words and meanings.
Yet it is you who fail to read, or more accurately, fail to comprehend.
A federation is a joining of realms under a common banner. Think of it as an empire or a kingdom with joint crowns.
Let us use the United Kingdom for instance. Your realm is England. You are in a federation with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. At some point, France decides to invade Scotland and they either annex it or drive it all into a state of anarchy. How do you think the common citizens of the rest of the federation will feel if England just sat back and LET it happen?
I would say morale would suffer, and rightly so.
Nope you're the one who's not comprehending. Let me use your analogy so you finally get the point.
England didnt' like Scotland. England wanted Scotland kicked out of the federation in the first place. Scottland gets invaded sacked what have you, and England is still mad that they're allied with Scottland. Do you get it? England is mad about
AN ALLIANCE WITH A REALM THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
THE DESTRUCTION OF SAID REALM DOESN'T HURT MORAL IN FACT IF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY BECAUSE THEY HATE THAT REALM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Is there any ambiguity here? Seriously if you still think this has anything to do with a morale drop caused by a realm in a federation dieing read this all again because YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GAME MECHANIC THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
DOES NOT EXIST. Let me just repeat this a few times, IF A REALM IN A FEDERATION IS DESTROYED IT DOES NOT EFFECT MORAL IN THE REST OF THE FEDERATION. IF A REALM IN A FEDERATION IS DESTROYED IT DOES NOT EFFECT MORAL IN THE REST OF THE FEDERATION. IF A REALM IN A FEDERATION IS DESTROYED IT DOES NOT EFFECT MORAL IN THE REST OF THE FEDERATION.
However if your realm hated that member to begin with, they will go on hating that realm even after it's dead. In fact in this case the entire geographical area of that realm became a new realm and was thus neutral to us. So functionally we had no diplomatic relations with them. Here's an analogy
In Great Britian, the people of England hate Scottland and are mad that there's an alliance with them. Scottland is dissolved and declares itself Williamwallacistan. Because Williamwallacistan is a new country England has no alliance with them.
So how should the peasants feel now? Should they still be mad about the alliance with Scottland? Erm, no, because functionally they just got exactly what they wanted.
So you make a FEDERATION (not an alliance) with a realm your peasants hate, which hurts MORALE (not moral), and lack the intellectual fortitude to have diplomats correct the issue even before that realm is destroyed... You have problems after it's been wiped out because you had that Federation. And still refuse to use diplomats.
You seem to have issue with terminology.
However, you don't want the peasants angry at you for entering your realm in a federation with a realm they hated. Yet you want a magic turn-off switch? Hell, I think Tom should tweak it that they remain angry for a few months after that realm is destroyed for the simple reason that you apparently don't think things through when making diplomatic decisions.
It'd be like Old Grehk entering into a federation with Fronen or Perdan entering into a federation with Ibladesh and then complaining that the peasants are throwing a fit!
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 08:39:49 AM
So you make a FEDERATION (not an alliance) with a realm your peasants hate, which hurts MORALE (not moral), and lack the intellectual fortitude to have diplomats correct the issue even before that realm is destroyed...
I'll be honest I didn't know diplomats could do that, I started playing this game well before diplomats existed. That is however irrelevant since through most of my realm's existence we've had between one and zero diplomats.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 08:39:49 AMYou have problems after it's been wiped out because you had that Federation. And still refuse to use diplomats.
I'll get all of my diplomats right on it! Lets see...
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 08:39:49 AMHowever, you don't want the peasants angry at you for entering your realm in a federation with a realm they hated.
False. I have no problem with the fact that the peasants can dislike a realm you're allied with. That's a fun challenge, balancing public opinion with foreign policy, something countries have struggled with throughout history.
I have a problem with them complaining about our relations with a realm that doesn't exist. This has been explained to you at least twice by me and by two other poster yet you keep going back to square one as if we just bashed our heads against the keyboard. At this point I think you either like to argue, hate to be wrong or both.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 08:39:49 AMYet you want a magic turn-off switch?
To make relations with a dead realm revert to neutral? Yeah that would be nice. That way I wont have to waste the time of all zero of my diplomats fixing the moral penalties caused by an alliance with a nonexistent realm until such time as the realm is manually deleted.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 08:39:49 AMHell, I think Tom should tweak it that they remain angry for a few months after that realm is destroyed for the simple reason that you apparently don't think things through when making diplomatic decisions.
How much should one have to think about not having any treaties with a realm that doesn't exist? I in fact think pretty darn carefully about treaties when they pertain to realms that still exist. If you have to think hard about your diplomatic stance with a dead realm, there's something wrong with game mechanics.
You know what you should do, you should go to the UN and protest the UN membership of Czechoslovakia, see how much support you get. I'm sure a lot of men in white coats will show up to join your protest with a nice warm jacket for you.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 15, 2012, 08:39:49 AMIt'd be like Old Grehk entering into a federation with Fronen or Perdan entering into a federation with Ibladesh and then complaining that the peasants are throwing a fit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AM
I'll be honest I didn't know diplomats could do that, I started playing this game well before diplomats existed. That is however irrelevant since through most of my realm's existence we've had between one and zero diplomats.
I'll get all of my diplomats right on it! Lets see...
False. I have no problem with the fact that the peasants can dislike a realm you're allied with. That's a fun challenge, balancing public opinion with foreign policy, something countries have struggled with throughout history.
I have a problem with them complaining about our relations with a realm that doesn't exist. This has been explained to you at least twice by me and by two other poster yet you keep going back to square one as if we just bashed our heads against the keyboard. At this point I think you either like to argue, hate to be wrong or both.
To make relations with a dead realm revert to neutral? Yeah that would be nice. That way I wont have to waste the time of all zero of my diplomats fixing the moral penalties caused by an alliance with a nonexistent realm until such time as the realm is manually deleted.
How much should one have to think about not having any treaties with a realm that doesn't exist? I in fact think pretty darn carefully about treaties when they pertain to realms that still exist. If you have to think hard about your diplomatic stance with a dead realm, there's something wrong with game mechanics.
You know what you should do, you should go to the UN and protest the UN membership of Czechoslovakia, see how much support you get. I'm sure a lot of men in white coats will show up to join your protest with a nice warm jacket for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
If you think that a feature needs to be adjusted or you think there is a bug with the system then you had best go and put in a feature request to have things changed (as you have done) or place a bug report rather than being an ass on the forums. Posting childish youtube links is basically the behaviour of a troll.
One issue I see here is that Kabrinskia existed for far longer than it started not existing. Why didn't you fix the sympathy problems earlier? These complaints can't be a new problem, they date from when the realm actually did exist...
Quote from: Ravier on December 15, 2012, 11:02:30 AM
If you think that a feature needs to be adjusted or you think there is a bug with the system then you had best go and put in a feature request to have things changed (as you have done) or place a bug report rather than being an ass on the forums. Posting childish youtube links is basically the behaviour of a troll.
I was doing just that before Dracos derailed the discussion with his repetitive mischaracterization of my complaints despite multiple posters and my self correcting him. So lets get back on track.
Let me reiterate what I suggest:
-When a realm loses its last region it should default all diplomatic stances to neutral because it's pointless to have peasants mad about foreign policy with a realm that doesn't exist. It would be like people protesting the Vietnam war in 1980 or demanding we nuke the Soviet Union. It would be even more ridiculous to ask players to spend time on diplomacy with non existent realms, that would be like present day United States having an ambassador to Yugoslavia
-The federation broken indicators should be more clear. I believe in learning by playing, not by consulting the wiki every time I do something. Many in game actions have "War will most likely commence" should be "war will automatically commence". If that's what it reads now then that's my mistake, I do however remember the former being what it says (side note I didn't get a "war breaking out" message when the federation broke.
-There should be an "are you sure page" or at least a parenthetical next to the "Withdraw from federation link" warning that it will result in an automatic war. Most other big decisions in game have such a warning page. Again, learn by playing is the goal here. Many actions in the game interface are self explanatory and feature descriptions of just what that action does. An action with the widespread effects of breaking a federation should not be the exception to this rule. Accidental war isn't fun for anyone. It's a waste of time.
I also suggested a way to expel a realm from a federation by consensus of the other realms but that's already been rejected.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 08:05:35 PM
-When a realm loses its last region it should default all diplomatic stances to neutral because it's pointless to have peasants mad about foreign policy with a realm that doesn't exist. It would be like people protesting the Vietnam war in 1980 or demanding we nuke the Soviet Union. It would be even more ridiculous to ask players to spend time on diplomacy with non existent realms, that would be like present day United States having an ambassador to Yugoslavia
Actually, it makes quite sense that people keep hating the government that made previous treaty, even if they are no more. Following your example, people still protested for the Vietnam war in 1980, even now the whole thing tainted the USA irreparably.
People sometime remembers
Got a source for that? I've never heard of an anti vietnam war demonstration happening after US forces were completely withdrawn. I know there were issues post vietnam which may have been cause for protest such as homeless GIs or nuclear proliferation but I've never heard of a protest demanding an end to a war that's already over.
Less so have I heard of people demanding war with a country that no longer exists.
There's already several game mechanics that can simulate the lasting effects of war and the design flaw I'm pointing out would be a terrible way to do so anyway.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AM
I'll be honest I didn't know diplomats could do that, I started playing this game well before diplomats existed. That is however irrelevant since through most of my realm's existence we've had between one and zero diplomats.
So your excuse is that since you've played for awhile you shouldn't have to be aware of any changes to an ever-changing game? Ignorance, least of all willful ignorance, is no excuse.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AMI'll get all of my diplomats right on it! Lets see...
Have you ever mentioned to your nobility that the realm requires diplomats and is seeking volunteers? Of course not, as you willfully let yourself be unaware as to their function. Try it some time. Or do it yourself.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AMFalse. I have no problem with the fact that the peasants can dislike a realm you're allied with. That's a fun challenge, balancing public opinion with foreign policy, something countries have struggled with throughout history.
I have a problem with them complaining about our relations with a realm that doesn't exist. This has been explained to you at least twice by me and by two other poster yet you keep going back to square one as if we just bashed our heads against the keyboard. At this point I think you either like to argue, hate to be wrong or both.
To make relations with a dead realm revert to neutral? Yeah that would be nice. That way I wont have to waste the time of all zero of my diplomats fixing the moral penalties caused by an alliance with a nonexistent realm until such time as the realm is manually deleted.
So you make a decision that your commoners do not want, and then complain when the realm's territories collapse. Guess what? That realm ISN'T dead. There are likely still inactive characters still hoisting the banner (one of the reasons Tom doesn't have realms auto-deleted).
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AMHow much should one have to think about not having any treaties with a realm that doesn't exist? I in fact think pretty darn carefully about treaties when they pertain to realms that still exist. If you have to think hard about your diplomatic stance with a dead realm, there's something wrong with game mechanics.
Obviously you do not in fact "think pretty darn carefully" about ANY treaties you make or else you would take all factors into consideration. There is no magic button that makes the peasants forget that you did something that they so vehemently opposed! Nor should there be. This isn't something 12 years after the fact. This isn't something three decades after the fact. This is something that is WEEKS after the fact. If you think protests die down that fast in ANY circumstance, you're deluding yourself.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AMYou know what you should do, you should go to the UN and protest the UN membership of Czechoslovakia, see how much support you get. I'm sure a lot of men in white coats will show up to join your protest with a nice warm jacket for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
No, this would be more like protesting the USSR's membership in the UN a month after it began breaking up.
But thank you for showing you are purely childish and cannot grasp realistic concepts. Or spelling.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AM
But thank you for showing you are purely childish and cannot grasp realistic concepts. Or spelling.
Thank you for showing yourself to be just as childish. Please do grow up and avoid personal attacks, especially ones which can easily be explained as english is not everyone's first language.
How am I childish? Because he IS refusing to learn any new rules or policies just because he's been here awhile? Because he refuses to accept corrections (alliance /= federation. Moral /= morale)? Or maybe because he wants a quick fix for not understanding how the game works and SHOULD work?
And yeah, another language would be understandable. More so if he didn't go to a college in Philly.
When someone has corrected to the proper word, and/or proper concept, and they refuse to use the correct word that is not a language difficulty or barrier.
So what if he goes to a college in Philly? You do realize how many foreign students go to U.S. universities and colleges, right? Honestly, you have been downright patronizing the whole time. That he doesn't spell one word correctly isn't an excuse to be an ass.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AM
So your excuse is that since you've played for awhile you shouldn't have to be aware of any changes to an ever-changing game? Ignorance, least of all willful ignorance, is no excuse.
The excuse is that it's reasonable in an ever changing game to miss a recent change. And you're not one to talk, you thought the collapse of a federated realm caused morale penalties throughout the federation. That's clear proof that you also don't have a complete knowledge of the game rules and yet you try to shame me for not knowing one of them. That's called hypocrisy.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AMHave you ever mentioned to your nobility that the realm requires diplomats and is seeking volunteers? Of course not, as you willfully let yourself be unaware as to their function. Try it some time. Or do it yourself.
You mean have I ever violated my fellow players inalienable rights? No I haven't. Check the wiki some time it says "When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders".
I imagine you'll argue that in practice a request made realm wide is an exception, but I'd rather not run my realm that way.
Even if what you're suggesting wasn't a gross violation of the game's most fundamental rules it wouldn't change my argument because what you're suggesting is a huge waste of people's time.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AMSo you make a decision that your commoners do not want, and then complain when the realm's territories collapse. Guess what? That realm ISN'T dead. There are likely still inactive characters still hoisting the banner (one of the reasons Tom doesn't have realms auto-deleted).
Only there aren't because the realm was reverted to part of Astrum and all citizens became Astrumese.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AMObviously you do not in fact "think pretty darn carefully" about ANY treaties you make or else you would take all factors into consideration. There is no magic button that makes the peasants forget that you did something that they so vehemently opposed! Nor should there be. This isn't something 12 years after the fact. This isn't something three decades after the fact. This is something that is WEEKS after the fact. If you think protests die down that fast in ANY circumstance, you're deluding yourself.
In game time is relative. A few weeks is more like several months. I don't remember when exactly Kambriskia reverted itself to Astrum but it's no longer on my saved messages so it's at least four weeks old, which in game is more like four months since a year is only 12 weeks long.
I know from experience that protests die down pretty quickly after a war ends. Point in case the second Iraq war. I haven't heard of a simple anti war protest of any significance for years now, anti war protesting has almost completely shifted to Afghanistan and mind you there are still US troops in Iraq.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AMNo, this would be more like protesting the USSR's membership in the UN a month after it began breaking up.
Yet another bad analogy.
It would be like if the soviet union completely broke up, its national territory all became nations that are not UN member states and four months later there were non-crackpots protesting Soviet UN membership.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 16, 2012, 12:14:35 AMBut thank you for showing you are purely childish and cannot grasp realistic concepts. Or spelling.
Grammar nazing and personal attacks are the ultimate proof of someone on the internet with no argument. You're correct I don't spell that well. I rely on spell check pretty heavily and I don't proof read postings online. That's why Moral vs Morale comes up a lot, since they're both words it doesn't get flagged so it will come out as a typo a lot. I'm sure you don't do everything perfectly either (like for example it took you four tries to properly comprehend my complaints, I'll take reading comprehension over perfect spelling any day). I'm hardly "sndng mssgs dat luk like dis" which people online do all the time.
I'll admit my previous comment to you was a little overboard and for that I apologize, but you have to understand you were derailing my thread and are continuing to derail the thread. The continued morale penalties are the least of my concerns. I'm much more annoyed that breaking or joining a federation doesn't have an "are you sure" page.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 16, 2012, 03:42:37 AM
You mean have I ever violated my fellow players inalienable rights? No I haven't. Check the wiki some time it says "When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders".
Eh no, you can ask if there are volunteers for certain jobs, same as you can ask for nobles to for example recruit archers, but you can't punish them if they don't. They have the right to refuse it and make their own choice, but at the same time you have the right to ask it.
The wiki doesn't support the exception you're claiming.
"The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are."
"If there's a tournament, don't point out how important it is not to go - just shut up. If you would like more traders in your realm, come up with incentives and find out why people don't want to be traders. Don't lament to the realm, come up with a solution, that's your job as ruler or banker.
If some player explicitly asks for your advice, then feel free to give him some. Don't use it as an opportunity to give it to the entire realm.
In general, it is best to stay well clear of these rights, no matter how well-meaning or innocent your intentions. With the sheer number of players with very different backgrounds, there is always a reasonable risk that someone will misinterpret you. "
You can't ask Sir Haplessknight if he's willing to switch to Diplomat.
You can say that it would be good if the realm had Diplomats, ask if anyone is willing to switch, and even offer monetary compensation for anyone willing to do so.
Quote from: Anaris on December 16, 2012, 04:15:51 AM
You can't ask Sir Haplessknight if he's willing to switch to Diplomat.
You can say that it would be good if the realm had Diplomats, ask if anyone is willing to switch, and even offer monetary compensation for anyone willing to do so.
If that's a real exception I'd suggest verifying it and adding it to the wiki but the current text seems to directly contradict what you're saying.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 16, 2012, 04:18:45 AM
If that's a real exception I'd suggest verifying it and adding it to the wiki but the current text seems to directly contradict what you're saying.
It's not an exception. An exception is when the IR
would apply by their regular nature, but because of something specific to the situation, do not.
Here, the IR simply do not apply. You are not attempting to get anyone specific to do something that would violate their IR. You are stating a need of the realm, and asking for volunteers.
It would be just as valid to ask for volunteers to log in 10 minutes before the turn to move to a particular region.
I suppose clarification is a better word then exception however I still think you're mischaracterizing the rules.
The wiki does not make the distinction you're claiming exists:
"If you would like more traders in your realm, come up with incentives and find out why people don't want to be traders. Don't lament to the realm, come up with a solution, that's your job as ruler or banker."
"If some player explicitly asks for your advice, then feel free to give him some. Don't use it as an opportunity to give it to the entire realm."
It doesn't matter if you make a request to an individual player or make a request to the realm, it's a violation either way.
pcw27,
Please understand that Anaris is a game developer, in Tom's inner circle, and has been playing this game for over half a decade. He knows what he's talking about.
Quote from: egamma on December 16, 2012, 05:48:52 AM
pcw27,
Please understand that Anaris is a game developer, in Tom's inner circle, and has been playing this game for over half a decade. He knows what he's talking about.
I agree with you. What I don't get is why the devs and Tom are so against clarification to prevent misunderstandings. I would understand not clarifying everything, but if its been misunderstood and is easy to, instead of constantly having people needed to be corrected on a one-to-one basis why not easily clarify it for everyone.
Quote from: egamma on December 16, 2012, 05:48:52 AM
pcw27,
Please understand that Anaris is a game developer, in Tom's inner circle, and has been playing this game for over half a decade. He knows what he's talking about.
Then the wiki is in need of an update. I've been playing for five years as well and to the best of my knowledge the wiki has always said such messages are a violation.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 16, 2012, 04:18:45 AM
If that's a real exception I'd suggest verifying it and adding it to the wiki but the current text seems to directly contradict what you're saying.
I do not have a link, but asking for volunteers is something I have confirmed multiple times as being a correct way of handling things.
Quote from: Penchant on December 16, 2012, 06:23:17 AM
I agree with you. What I don't get is why the devs and Tom are so against clarification to prevent misunderstandings.
We are not. What I am strongly opposed to is discussing a thousand hypothetical "what if" scenarios. The decision to stop doing that was put in place after lots and lots of that bogged down the mailing list, and the variants of "what if X, but with Z instead of Y" started to become ridiculous.
If it doesn't target anyone, and it doesn't incite through fear of reprisals, then it's fine to state that the realm could use more infantry, or that the realm could use more courtiers.
Inversely, though, saying that "the realm needs less priests", when there is only one in the realm, wouldn't be fine, because that'd just be a veiled order to change class targeted at an individual.
Quote from: Tom on December 16, 2012, 11:01:54 AM
We are not. What I am strongly opposed to is discussing a thousand hypothetical "what if" scenarios. The decision to stop doing that was put in place after lots and lots of that bogged down the mailing list, and the variants of "what if X, but with Z instead of Y" started to become ridiculous.
Fair enough but right now the wiki directly contradicts what you're saying. Would you mind terribly if it said something like"It is ok to mention a shortage of certain class/troop types as long as there are no threats of punishments or offers of bribes"?
Right now I wouldn't make such a statement even if it is permitted because I wouldn't want to get flagged or make my realm mates angry.
Perhaps what we need is not so much an addition to the Inalienable Rights page, but a separate page, along the lines of "Commentaries on the Inalienable Rights", linked from the main IR page. There, we can aggregate official information from threads such as these, as well as Magistrate rulings and discussions on the subject.
This would ensure that the information is readily available to those who go looking, but does not muddle the primary purpose of the IR page itself.
Quote from: pcw27 on December 16, 2012, 05:10:25 PM
Fair enough but right now the wiki directly contradicts what you're saying. Would you mind terribly if it said something like"It is ok to mention a shortage of certain class/troop types as long as there are no threats of punishments or offers of bribes"?
Right now I wouldn't make such a statement even if it is permitted because I wouldn't want to get flagged or make my realm mates angry.
You can offer "bribes" or benefits, just not punish others for not doing it.
Quote from: Tom on December 16, 2012, 11:01:54 AM
We are not. What I am strongly opposed to is discussing a thousand hypothetical "what if" scenarios. The decision to stop doing that was put in place after lots and lots of that bogged down the mailing list, and the variants of "what if X, but with Z instead of Y" started to become ridiculous.
I am not asking for a thousand clarifications based on hypotheticals but clarifications on things that are commonly misunderstood, such as this, also you said you have confirmed it is allowed to make a request to the realm at large with no punishments, but that was likely on the forum to one person, not on the announcements. Even if it was the announcements they are deleted eventually, but as you have stated, the wiki is the only place where it is permanent. The fact that you have needed to clarify several times before this should show that somewhere easy to see and permanent should be used to clarify.
Quote from: Penchant on December 16, 2012, 05:16:12 PM
You can offer "bribes" or benefits, just not punish others for not doing it.
More specifically, you can give people a choice. The IR are all about making sure that nobody has a limited gameplay experience in some core areas of the game. If you offer up an option, that's totally fine with me.
For example, some realms make it so that they say "we need more cavalry. If you want to recruit cavalry, tell the general and he'll send you gold so you can afford it." That's totally fine with me. You are not telling anyone what to recruit, but you will probably get more people recruiting cavalry this way.
Say how does that work with Aurvandil supposedly banning all religion? Do they accomplish it by not allowing any temples or open preaching?
Quote from: pcw27 on December 17, 2012, 03:33:21 AM
Say how does that work with Aurvandil supposedly banning all religion? Do they accomplish it by not allowing any temples or open preaching?
There is no inalienable right concerning religion.
"If you would like more traders in your realm, come up with incentives and find out why people don't want to be traders. Don't lament to the realm, come up with a solution, that's your job as ruler or banker."
If I say to the realm, "We are having severe diplomatic issues and could really use a few Diplomats to help alleviate these issues. If you are willing to aid the realm in this capacity, please let the Council know so we can help coordinate your efforts." it sounds a lot like lamenting to me. In fact, mentioning any thing to the realm or individual players that involves "Unfortunately we need more of CLASS/UNIT" or anything equivalent is clearly prohibited.
At the same time, offering incentive is OK. So saying, "From now on Diplomats of the realm will be granted a place on the Privileged People Council and granted 500 gold at the start of their career. If you are already a Diplomat, let the Privileged People Council know and you will be granted this boon retroactively." seems completely in line.
Based on the guideline above, mentioning a need or desire (which can easily be taken as lamenting) is not cool. If it is okay to make such comments/request to a group of nobles, then the wording of that sentence, in my opinion, needs to be updated.
As with all things social, linguistic, etc. it's a bit of a question of where to draw the line.
There are an infinite number of ways to say "we need more diplomats", so we can not possible ennumerate those that are fine and those that are not. "lament" per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lament is more strongly than just saying. It is "strongly" or "demonstratively". If you post "we need more diplomats" once, that's not lamenting. If you post it twice a day for weeks, that is lamenting. But there is no precise number where it suddenly becomes lamenting.
All very true. Which puts the act of mentioning the need for a class or unit type into a grey area. That combined with the "Do not touch with a 100' pole" piece makes me think that it would be best not to be making any such statements. I certainly do not see how these pieces end up meaning "Go right ahead and ask people to switch and tell everyone why the realm is suffering for the lack. As long as it is realm wide, no one is singled out and no one can prove that someone was punished for ignoring the pleas and comments."
I do agree that there is little to know chance that any wording will not leave room for conflicting opinions. That is so very true. Even if you revised things there would still be grey areas. That is why the wiki stresses that one should just stay away from these topics entirely. I can not see why someone who does their best to respect the IR are given a hard time for it. I do not see why the game would be built in a way that would cause a realm lacking a particular class would be hindered. So far I recall (perhaps erroneously) people being told to get traders if they need to buy food and to get diplomats if they do not want to be penalized by their populations preferences. It seems to contradict with the idea presented by the IR.
I admit, however, that I am probably more than a little ignorant though and that mu understanding is lacking based on my limited information base. This is just how things look from the perspective of one player reading the forums now and then.
Quote from: Unwin on December 17, 2012, 09:08:54 AM
All very true. Which puts the act of mentioning the need for a class or unit type into a grey area. That combined with the "Do not touch with a 100' pole" piece makes me think that it would be best not to be making any such statements.
Which is exactly what I thought.
There's the 100-foot pole, and then there's the 1000000-foot pole.
You can't tell someone to change classes. But you can say the realm would benefit from having more of a specific class. You need to reason a little.
Quote from: Chénier on December 17, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
There's the 100-foot pole, and then there's the 1000000-foot pole.
You can't tell someone to change classes. But you can say the realm would benefit from having more of a specific class. You need to reason a little.
That is just it. Reason can lead you to multiple conclusions based on your interpretations of lamenting. When I wonder if my comment might be considered such, could see a person simply deciding not to make the comment. It does not really matter how long of a pole you poke a bear with if you are told not to poke the bear. All the same, you guys have made it very clear to the limited number of people who visit this forum and read these threads what is acceptable in this regard. I just feel bad for the majority who may be needlessly hampering themselves in an attempt to respect the IR as written.
Quote from: Unwin on December 17, 2012, 08:27:22 PM
That is just it. Reason can lead you to multiple conclusions based on your interpretations of lamenting. When I wonder if my comment might be considered such, could see a person simply deciding not to make the comment. It does not really matter how long of a pole you poke a bear with if you are told not to poke the bear. All the same, you guys have made it very clear to the limited number of people who visit this forum and read these threads what is acceptable in this regard. I just feel bad for the majority who may be needlessly hampering themselves in an attempt to respect the IR as written.
Then you ask the magistrates. Or you ask more experienced players. This has been laid out clearly many many years ago. You don't really need to go on the forums.
The rules are stated as such because it's simpler to clarify this way than the other way around. Better appear stricter than how things really are than the opposite. Because if it was written in the rules "you can do a public request to have more of a certain class", then it could be misunderstood and abused. For example, if your realm has 13 warriors and 1 priest, and say your realm needs more warriors, then it's really a thinly veiled request directed at that one person, which wouldn't be fine.
Quote from: Chénier on December 17, 2012, 08:35:57 PM
Then you ask the magistrates. Or you ask more experienced players. This has been laid out clearly many many years ago. You don't really need to go on the forums.
Actually, you should absolutely go on the forums. Just...go on them to ask, as you say, not to whine that the system is broken or that the IRs forbid you from doing X, Y, or Z.
Ask for clarification. Seek understanding. That's a
great use of the forum. (One of the best, in fact.)
Wiki topic split and moved to appropriate board.
Original issue resolved.