| Summary: | Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger |
| Violation: | "Realm mergers are illegal." |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | Colin Kern (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=33539) |
| About: | Alaster (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=29042) |
Summary: The leader of Terran has agreed to a friendly "realm merger" with D'Hara.
A verbatim excerpt from a letter from Pierre von Genf:
Grandmaster Alaster has accepted to transfer the regions of Terran to D'Hara if and when he believed that there were no actual chance of defending them.
As of writing this, both non-capital regions of Terran had already switched their allegiances to D'Hara, indicating that the merger is being executed as planned.
I believe that a plan to transfer the entirety of a realm voluntarily to another realm is essentially the definition of "realm merger". According to the "Rules and Policies" page on the wiki:
Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms.
Which appears to be what is happening here. The letter goes on to state that the two realms intend to merge on friendly and pre-agreed upon terms;Â Terran is not "surrendering" to D'Hara.
It's tricky from the perspective of the individual lords; the line between "region changing sides" and "realm changing sides" gets hard in very small realms.
At the same time, this seems pretty cut and dry. This is clearly a collaboration between Alaster and Pierre to merge the whole realm in in a friendly fashion.
Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms.
Were Terran and D'Hara at war before this?
Because if not, I think that the "surrender" argument is on shaky ground.
I think it's also appropriate to point out that despite their being Magistrates, Vellos and Chénier are both directly involved in this case, and thus can only speak as well-informed players.
They weren't at war, perhaps not, but their official diplomatic relations are a relic of the past. Neither Barca nor D'Hara could have expelled Terran without going through a war period with each other, and both realms had other priorities. That does not mean they were friendly, however, or that they planned on a long period of good neighboring.
Just to add something more: I have heard that there have been at least casual discussions of how D'Hara will re-found Terran out of these lands once the war is over and the brouhaha has died down.
If possible, I would like to see evidence of this. If not, I would like to see some firm denials from people who would know.
However, I would note that casual discussion of such a topic may not end up being viewed as evidence of further intent to break the realm merger rule; it may simply help clarify what is going on here. Much depends on the specifics, which is why I would like to see the messages in question.
Letter from Pierre von Genf (1 day, 20 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
Welcome to D'Hara, Lord Grayson of Gretchew.
I owe an explanation to D'Harans for your coming, for it is not a surprise to me, even though the timing is. I have held talks with Grandmaster Alaster of Terran concerning their realm's fate. As you know, it is very unlikely that Terran will survive the combined assault of Phantaria and the Farronite Republic.
Grandmaster Alaster has accepted to transfer the regions of Terran to D'Hara once if and when he believed that there were no actual chance of defending them. In exchange, he only asked that only Astroist Lords be appointed to these regions, so as to comply with his oath to the church not to leave lands in other hands, something to which I readily agreed. As such, Lord Grayson retain the rights to Gretchew within D'Hara.
The capital, of course, would eventually have to be taken by force, and the same rule would apply as to its Lords.
Which brings me to a plan I have considered for some time now. D'Hara is becoming stretched almost to the breaking point. To keep these lands, it would better to split off into an eastern realm on the islands and the Sallowcape and a Maroccidens realm comprising Paisly, Chesney and Saffalore. Both realms would be viable. Both realms would be republican. And both realms would share a constitutional monarch, King Machiavel, who would hold the single D'Haran crown. I feel this would be a great boon for nobles of both sides.
This can be done quickly if we are to take these lands. What do you say?
Pierre von Genf
Prime Minister of D'Hara
Royal of D'Hara
Priest of Sanguis Astroism
Letter from Rurik Clarke (1 day, 9 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
Prime Minister,
I am opposed to accepting the regions of Terran. I am opposed to a pledge to place those regions under the lordship of any specific religion as lords are chosen by their peers based on ability. I am opposed to spiting any of D'hara's traditional lands off into another realm.
More importantly, I am opposed to your continued diplomatic policy of provoking other realms into declaring war on D'hara.
(ooc: Furthermore, such actions are not allowed to my understanding. It is a clear case of "peaceful" realm merging which is been disallowed by word of Tom.)
Rurik Clarke
Duke of Port Nebel
Margrave of Port Nebel
Out-of-Character from Pierre von Genf (1 day, 8 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
Tom has always been clear that while merging among equals is disallowed, surrendering is clearly allowed. Terran is being soundly defeated as of now. It is normal that they would seek refuge elsewhere. I am confident that this is strictly within the rules.
Olivier landry
Out-of-Character from Rurik Clarke (1 day, 8 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
Well, you can try painting it as a surrender, thou I am unsure how you surrender to someone who you are not in conflict with. It would be a technicality at best, which Tom is traditional fond of...
Dan Rhinehart
Out-of-Character from Kay Kinsey (1 day, 4 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
As long as one Terran region remains, it's fine. It's a technicality but it's hard to tell where you draw the line. No one was punished when almost all of Solaria merged into Luria Nova, leaving behind a non-viable rural region in the middle of nowhere.
There would be trouble if that one last region joined D'Hara, though. You can't surrender to a federation partner. I think that's silly.
Yangfan Wang
Out-of-Character from Machiavel Chénier (1 day, 3 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
It's vassalization... We are destroying the theocracy, eradicating the name, to put something D'Haran in its place. This is not a merger of equals. It's well within the rules.
Dominic
Out-of-Character from Rurik Clarke (1 day, 2 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
As far as I can tell, and with what I've heard from a game dev on the issue, it is a planned peaceful realm merger. That is not allowed.
Furthermore, Dustin O. (player of the Kabrinski family) should know this better than anyone. From the Kabrinskia Realm Merger Magistrate case:
Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms.
You can't paint it as surrendering because it is not. Terran and D'hara are not enemies. You cannot take over the regions of another realm on friendly terms. The welcome and friendly take over of all the regions of a realm is not allowed.
While the Kabrinskia Realm Merger case had the issue of the "last duchy allegiance change" bug, the verdict clarifies that the bug only made mergers easier, but the policy on them is independent of the bug.
Calling it "vassalization" or "surrendering" is just a rather poor attempt to pretend that it is different from previous cases and not against the rules.
For referance, previous cases are:
Merger of Solaria and Luria Nova
forum board <Edit: Was a link to relevant case>
Verdict: Guilty with one day lock
Kabrinskia Realm Merger
forum board <Edit: Was a link to relevant case>
Verdict: Guilty with three day lock
Dan Rhinehart
Out-of-Character from Machiavel Chénier (1 day, 1 hour ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
I disagree, it's a total surrender. The new Terran has nothing to do with the Old Republic, the federation status is illegitimate, and we would not lift a finger to help this new Terran if they asked it. We aren't trying to preserve them under a new banner.
Dominic
Out-of-Character from Rurik Clarke (1 day, 1 hour ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (30 recipients)
I will say again. You don't surrender to people who you are not fighting. Even though D'hara will need to "declare war" to take the last region, there is no conflict. It is prearranged and is a peaceful act. It is a merger.
No amount of rule lawyering will change that. And Tom's thoughts on rule lawyers should be well known and surrounded with lightning bolts.
Also, saying that D'hara would not lift a finger to help Terran is false. What do you think is happening? Offering political asylum is generally not considered a harmful act.
Dan Rhinehart
Out-of-Character from Machiavel Chénier (1 day ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
Right, because there was a ton of bolts given when the Lurias merged.
Oh wait...
As a magistrate, I'm telling you that I would not expect this to warrant any sanctions. Far worse has been done with no punishment.
And we aren't granting them asylum, we are profiting of an opportunity to satisfy our own expansionist ambitions. This may not be the case for your character, but a bunch of southern characters hate the idea of a theocracy in 'moot lands, and equally hate the idea of a Kabrinski in power. The Chateau would make a perfect addition for the colony that was discussed.
Dominic
Out-of-Character from Rurik Clarke (1 day ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
As a magistrate, I'm telling you that I would not expect this to warrant any sanctions. Far worse has been done with no punishment.
Implication: Because we won't get punished for not following this rule, we shouldn't follow the rule.
Dan Rhinehart
Out-of-Character from Machiavel Chénier (1 day ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
If things are not worthy of sanction or reprimand, then they are not against the rules.
Your interpretation of the no realm-merger rule is not the same as the one made by the bodies entrusted with enforcing the said rule.
There is no equal-to-equal union here, which is what is prohibited. We aren't forming an Empire where Terran basically continues to exist. We are destroying it. If their ruler prefers being destroyed by D'Haran than Phantaria, than be it. It doesn't make it against the rules. And there's nothing to say we wouldn't have declared war on them anyways once they were down to their capital.
Dominic
Out-of-Character from Rurik Clarke (1 day ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
To quote the interpretation of the Magistrates from the verdict of the Kabrinskia Realm Merger case:
Realm mergers as stated in the Rules and Policies does not, as originally envisioned, refer to a 'push button to join' another realm but through the welcome and friendly take over of all the regions of a realm which is not allowed. Realm mergers are only allowed if all its regions are taken over through war. This would be the meaning of 'no friendly realm mergers allowed'. Also, previously, the last duchy (with the capital) could not join another realm. This was regulated through game mechanics.
It is currently through a bug that realm mergers with the last duchy containing the capital can join another realm by 'pushing a button'. Even so, any merger of an entire realm by its original conception whether it is by by pushing a button or through the friendly takeover of all its regions outside of a war is not allowed.
Your interpretation seems to be the one which is at odds with the body entrusted with enforcing said rule.
Dan Rhinehart
Out-of-Character from Machiavel Chénier (1 day ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
No, it isn't. "All" includes the Chateau, which WOULD be taken through war. We aren't exploiting of a bug, like they did in Luria Nova, to do what we shouldn't be supposed to be able to do. The rule requires hostile action, which would be taken.
Dominic
Out-of-Character from Rurik Clarke (23 hours, 52 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
Firstly;
Realm mergers as stated in the Rules and Policies does not, as originally envisioned, refer to a 'push button to join' another realm but through the welcome and friendly take over of all the regions of a realm which is not allowed.
Realm mergers are only allowed if all its regions are taken over through war.
Secondly, a "war" where the "enemy" willingly hands over all but their last holding and then invites us to come and get the last one because they want us to have it is not a war. This has all been prearranged and is therefor a peaceful merger.
The rule on realm mergers existed before the bug which allowed for the Lurian merger. Without the bug, a war to take the last region would always be required. Therefor, a peaceful realm merger, during the point that the rule was written, was written with the understanding that there would be a "war".
Dan Rhinehart
Out-of-Character from Gornak Gellander (22 hours, 58 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (29 recipients)
Let's cut the OOC chatter, which is ALSO discouraged on Dwilight.
If and when we take that final region, open case, Rurik. I have saved our message log from the past 2 days to provide as evidence.
So, I suggest we all drop it, and we can let the Magistrates argue about it when the time comes. No need for us to argue about it.
Eric Henson
It is currently through a bug that realm mergers with the last duchy containing the capital can join another realm by 'pushing a button'. Even so, any merger of an entire realm by its original conception whether it is by by pushing a button or through the friendly takeover of all its regions outside of a war is not allowed.Gretchew, Saffalore = "pushing a button"
-The anti-merger rule is meant to preclude peaceful merger. There is nothing peaceful about the current situation. Lords of Terran are being thoroughly beaten, and they try to find a way to keep their lands. I think that's entirely legit.
-The anti-merger rule is meant to preclude peaceful merger. There is nothing peaceful about the current situation. Lords of Terran are being thoroughly beaten, and they try to find a way to keep their lands. I think that's entirely legit.
What is the intent of the rule? What anti-fun behaviour is it intended to prevent?
The fact that Terran was at war, and on the verge of destruction, is what makes this NOT a friendly merger. It is a couple lords fleeing a dying realm to join a third party. If you want to deny that, then what you are doing is declaring that lords are no longer allowed to leave a dying realm, that they are forced to stick it out until the end.
A friendly merger would be two realms, in the absence of any external pressure, joining together as equals to make one larger realm. That is definitely not the case here. The fragments of the realm that used to be Terran are being absorbed by D'Hara in order to escape a losing war they cannot possibly win.
If you're playing a game with friends, and someone starts to lose and says "screw you, I'm giving all my pieces to Kepler", its not a very friendly thing to be doing.
They are welcome to leave the dying realm. They do not, however, have any particular right to keep their regions.
Terran is merging with a realm they are friendly with.
There is a difference between 1 and 2.
1. Lords, of their own volition, joining a neighboring realm when their realm is collapsing to retain their lordship. That has happened throughout BM history and should continue.
2. Lords, under influence by their rulers, joining a neighboring realm to give a less hated realm more regions and prevent the more hated realm from conquering them. Especially when the rulers of both realms coordinated such a move with specific terms for those regions.
They do not, however, have any particular right to keep their regions.
*puts on flame-retardant suit*
How is this any different from Solaria handing over all but one of its regions to Luria Nova?
Yeah, ithe first Solaria/LN thing wasn't a total realm merger because Malus left one rural region behind. Therefore it's legit because one guy with a single rural region didn't get to go with them. But when Terran leaves a city behind, it breaks the rules.
This case is bogus. The rule prevents a "merger of equals". In what reality are Terran, a besieged dying realm of three region, and D'Hara, a thriving healthy realm of 16 regions (or so, can't check right now...) anywhere near equals?
Ruled when and where? I don't see any mention of it in the Courthouse forums.
A verdict has been reached, and necessary IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:
"The Magistrates decline to rule on the question of realm mergers generally and the secession of capital duchies at this time, due to ongoing discussions among the Magistrates, Dev Team, and Tom. However, the cession of the last duchy of Solaria to Luria Nova and the resultant realm merger was clearly in violation of this rule. Furthermore, it was only possible due to the exploitation of a known bug. Finally, the bug exploiter can reasonably be expected to know it was a bug and that his actions were prohibited given that he took part in a discussion of the issue on the forum in the days leading up to the merger. As such, the Magistrates find him guilty, and shall apply a 1-day account lock.
Magistrates voted 1-7 in favor of the guilty verdict, with 2 in favor of a warning, 3 in favor of a 1-day lock, and 1 in favor of a 3-day lock. A 1-day lock has been applied."
This thread will remain open for a brief time to allow for any questions for clarification regarding the verdict.
Yeah, ithe first Solaria/LN thing wasn't a total realm merger because Malus left one rural region behind. Therefore it's legit because one guy with a single rural region didn't get to go with them. But when Terran leaves a city behind, it breaks the rules.
This case is bogus. The rule prevents a "merger of equals". In what reality are Terran, a besieged dying realm of three region, and D'Hara, a thriving healthy realm of 16 regions (or so, can't check right now...) anywhere near equals? So the rulers talked about it. Big deal. Alaster said that when it was certain that they could no longer defend them, they would swap, and become D'Haran regions. Not D'Hara and Terran would merge and become the D'Haran Republic of Terra, and all of Terrans council would join D'Hara's council and they would rule the combined land forever and ever, amen.
No, it was "when we've lost, our last regions will join you and become D'Haran, Terran will be dead".
Is it IC spiteful? Hell yes. Is it OOC spiteful? Hell no. There's worse crap that goes on in this game every day. And there's absolutely no way we can start ruling on "I wouldn't do that with my friends". Because at least half the stuff I see people do is stuff you wouldn't see around a gaming table.
No, it was "when we've lost, our last regions will join you and become D'Haran, Terran will be dead".
IIRC, Malus left behind a (small) Duchy, including a stronghold. And the Duke was pretty damn pissed.Wasn't it a single-region duchy? The most substantial portion of the realm, pretty every region that was worth anything, which was what, >90% of the realm swapped allegiance to a friendly realm. The dregs that were left behind were so crappy the realm was essentially non-functional. This was a realm-merger, by all but the barest technicality.
Terran leaves behind a city, because it is mechanically impossible not to now that I've fixed the bug, and explicitly plans to have D'Hara conquer that city.
A "merger of equals" is not required to trigger the no-realm-mergers rule. Only a friendly merger."Merger of equals" is explicitly noted in the description:
This is planned between the rulers, it is not a surrender, and it is clearly a violation of the realm merger prohibition.Alaster did not propose a merger. He said that when Terran couldn't defend their regions any more, D'Hara could have them. i.e. "When we've lost, and have no hope left, we'll acknowledge defeat, and what's left of our realm will be yours." Terran is, from what I understand, getting crushed. There's no way it can last against both Phantaria and the Farronites, and no one is going to jump in to save the day.
I'd find it OOC spiteful.I find a lot of things that people do in-game to be OOC spiteful. Am I now allowed to file Magistrates cases against them?
And besides, the Solaria merge was found to be illegal. People were punished. So you CAN'T say it was legit. Or did you ignore that entire case?The second half of the process was ruled against the rules. IIRC, the part of the process where Malus absconded with all but one or two regions, which probably comprised 99% of the realm's population, food production, and gold production, was not ruled illegal. Malus took everything that was truly Solaria and merged it into Luria Nova, leaving behind a technicality.
Problem: There was only one fight in this war, and Terran won it.So then since you're losing the war, I'll expect to see the Farronite's surrendering to Terran any day now, right?
So then since you're losing the war, I'll expect to see the Farronite's surrendering to Terran any day now, right?
I can't see how anyone can interpret this as a friendly realm merger of equals.
This is without doubt a realm merger done by players for personal gain.
As I understand it, the only thing that made the Solaria/Luria Merger not legitamate is that there was a bug that allowed him to take the capitol with him. In this case, the capitol has not changed hands. If D'hara wants it they are going to have to occupy the city.
I would like to point out one thing else...
"Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms. "
My understanding of the realm merger rule is that it is intended to prevent a king from voluntarily giving up not only his kingship but his domain, which is not something a King should do.
(This applies equally to other titles of ruler.)
That is not even a little bit true.
They are welcome to leave the dying realm. They do not, however, have any particular right to keep their regions.
Terran is merging with a realm they are friendly with.
This is planned between the rulers, it is not a surrender, and it is clearly a violation of the realm merger prohibition.
I'd find it OOC spiteful. And besides, the Solaria merge was found to be illegal. People were punished. So you CAN'T say it was legit. Or did you ignore that entire case?
Sanguis Astroism's theocracies benefit directly from Phantaria not expanding. You didn't do this for D'Hara. You certainly didn't SURRENDER to a realm you're in a Federation with.
Wasn't this rule added sometime after the Rines Republic and Irombro merged into Riombara, as two entities merging to give themselves a fighting chance against Eno Chia?
That's probably what lead to the "on equal terms" part of the rule. The previous two cases regarding realm mergers dealt with bug exploits, this one does not, and shall have to dealt with on the sole issue of the merger.
This case has a precedent.
This case has a precedent.
Tuchanon V, reduced to the city of Isadril through war with Perdan, "surrendered" to Caligus. The rulers of Tuchanon and Caligus conspired together to give the city of Isadril, the last city and region of the realm, to Caligus. In a maneuver timed to coincide with the refit of Perdan, Tuchanon V disbanded all the militia in the city, and all the nobles moved out. Caligus declared war and simultaneously moved in to quickly TO the city. This was specifically done to prevent Perdan from defeating the defenders and CTOing to form a new realm in Isadril. The duke of the city was reappointed by Caligus, and I believe one of Tuchanon's council members became a Caligus council member, too. All the Tuchanon nobles stayed on as Caligus nobles.
The maneuver was reported to the Titans. The decision was reached that the maneuver was not an illegal realm merger. Tuchanon had no hope of living or expanding they were facing a superior enemy, and were on the road to destruction. IIRC, the question was asked on the old DList, and the answer was something like "Well, what do you expect them to do? You want us to make them fight it out to the end? The realm was dead. Move on."
The realm merger rule, as someone already mentioned, is intended to prevent two healthy, functional, and viable realms, from joining together *in equality* to create a realm that is the merging and fusion of the two. I.e. Asylon and FR cannot join together to form a single big ream for the purpose of attacking Astrum. It is not intended to force a realm to fight an obviously losing war to the bitter inevitable end. Nor is it intended to reserve the last few regions of the defeated realm for the conquerors. Nor is it intended to limit the choices of the nobles who may be ruling regions in that defeated realm.
The realm merger rule was specifically intended to disallow two viable, comparable, functional realms from willingly, and voluntarily, joining forces, subsuming themselves into a single greater realm consisting of the territories and nobilities of the two component realms.
This Terran/D'Haran "merger" fits neither the letter of the law, nor the spirit of the law. Period.
Edit: derp... wrong word...
I would note that Terran's situation is not hopeless.No realm mergers may be a very simple rule and the Magistrates can decide on it elsewhere, but changing a rule to make it easier for you guys to decide is not a part this case. While the Magistrates may change the rules, unless Anaris or someone else can articulate how this case is any different, when a precedent has already been made that makes the questioned parties clearly innocent I don't know how any Magistrate could say they are being just to say this case is guilty.
But beyond that, I'm happy to overturn Titan precedent if the Titans were obviously wrong: and the ruling you quote, as you've described it, seems obviously wrong to me. No realm mergers is a very, very simple rule. And asking the Magistrates to come up with a qualification for what makes two realms "equal" is a crazy big can of worms. How equal do they have to be? How friendly must they be?
My thoughts are this:Saying it doesn't fit the case due to not actually going against all the conditionals is hardly rules lawyering. Also unless I have missed it somewhere, it hasn't been said clearly what the purpose of this rule is which is the "spirit of the rule". Tom has stated before in a case (unless I am imagining things and no I am not going to cite it right now) that while the party did technically break the rule, they didn't break the spirit of the rule aka they didn't go against the reason for the rule and declared them innocent.
I see a lot rule lawyering trying to justify this merger. I've played the game for around a decade now, and seen a lot rules come and go, the implementation of the social contract, and read Tom's thoughts on these things. The general gist of Tom's stance is there are written rules and there is a spirit behind the rules. If you violate one or the other it doesn't matter in Tom's eyes, its a violation. Rules lawyering and petty justifications, sesrching for loop holes is stuff Tom despises, and seeing as its his game... Don't do it. If you have to justify something with some loophole in a rule, its still a violation of the rule. The guilt here is pretty clear, and it is a second offense.
Honestly, a region under a TO shouldn't be allowed to change allegiance. Seems like something you'd need actual control of the region to accomplish.
Indirik, the King of Leinster was a Petty King, on par with a Duke, and not the Royalty of England and more conventional nations.
Chenier, you're missing the point. D'hara is no Soviet Union, it is not a state hostile to Terran, has no intentions of becoming hostile to Terran, and barring the current circumstances would likely never become hostile to Terran. Which makes the analogy to Poland-Germany-USSR a poor one in comparison to Britan-France-Germany. And if you want so say fictional, well that invalidates your whole reason for posting a different analogy in the first place. If you want to go fictional well, obviously D'hara is Vermont when Babylon surrendered to it during its war with the Klingon Empire.
But beyond that, I'm happy to overturn Titan precedent if the Titans were obviously wrong: and the ruling you quote, as you've described it, seems obviously wrong to me. No realm mergers is a very, very simple rule.Or, maybe, the problem isn't that the ruling was wrong, but that your interpretation of the rule is wrong? In fact, I think it must be, because you're trying to claim that it's a simple rule. It is anything but a simple rule, and that's part of the problem. In fact, you're still saying that the rule is "no realm mergers", when it most emphatically is NOT "no realm mergers". Precedent demonstrates, in a few cases, that this is not the case.
And asking the Magistrates to come up with a qualification for what makes two realms "equal" is a crazy big can of worms. How equal do they have to be? How friendly must they be?I'm not asking you to make that decision. The rule and the "spirit of the rule" is asking it. But you cannot abdicate your responsibility to enforce it because you think that it's a can of worms, or that the resulting decision will be one you don't like.
I'm saying based on the attitude displayed by your nobles and House of Lords, it wouldn't have flown. Edimilison I think said it best, I'd have to check, but "D'hara is spreading itself dangerously thin." Not to mention, doing so and taking the regions is a good way to alienate your allies, but it is a bit late for that.
But you're not giving anything away to Phantaria. You're simply annexing them in the most friendliest of ways possible. You cannot simply claim "We're trying to spite our enemies. But D'hara isn't friendly, we're obviously enemies." Unless you want to claim schizophrenia. So what is it? Is Terran attempting to spite its enemies, or is D'hara an enemy?
And obviously D'hara wouldn't want to stand up to the theocracies alongside Phantaria, they'd get stomped. Realistically, baring the current conflict, a D'haran war on Terran was never going to happen. Especially not with Luria chomping at the bit to the East.
I would love to call Terran a Petty Theocracy, however its a term that really isn't applicable in Battlemaster, since it is impossible to have independent Dukes and Landholders.
Right, so now "acquiring more lands is unprofitable" equates to "we should totally always side with Terran because Alaster is the best guy ever"?
We could have easily joined with Phantaria and FR against Terran, without taking the lands ourselves. A much more realistic scenario than seeing anyone in D'Hara go "Oh, but we should totally save Alaster's realm, he's totally our FRIEND".
We are talking about REALMS here... You know, entities made of multiple people, with multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas? And of alliances... you know, entities made up of multiple realms, with multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas?
Phantaria acting more hostile to Terran than D'Hara was doesn't mean that D'Hara wasn't hostile to Terran. Not all hostilities are out in the open, and not all hostilities are equal. They aren't even all reciprocal.
It is very possible that many Terran nobles had nothing against D'Hara, while many D'Haran nobles had much against Terran.
I'm not asking you to make that decision. The rule and the "spirit of the rule" is asking it. But you cannot abdicate your responsibility to enforce it because you think that it's a can of worms, or that the resulting decision will be one you don't like.
If D'hara has no interest in the lands, then why is it taking them? You should also be quite aware that there is a massive gulf of political stances between Enemy and BFFs. Nobody said D'hara is siding with Terran. That doesn't make it a non-peaceful merger, because in the context of the phrase "peaceful merger" it means without an actual state of war between the two entities (not any other damn entity on the planet, or Fissoa and Aurvandil could merge because Aurvnadil feels its has no choice and is soundly beaten by Corsanctum. That is hyperbole, just to be clear.)
The simple fact is: D'hara is not currently engaged in hostile relations with Terran. D'haran has taken no hostile actions towards Terran, and has not displayed hostile behavior. You can stew and plot and scheme and plan and have goals all day long, however there are no hostilities between the nations to speak of. None. You are attempting to create a scenario which does not exist. Hostilities on a national level consist of more than just thinking bad things about each other, or hoping you get the chance one day to takeover some of their regions, or every realm in the game would be hostile with every other realm in the game.
Just like to add(if not pointed out already) that, officially, D'hara and Terran are part of the same federation. So they are not only allies, they are federated allies.
It documents that D'hara and Terran are not hostile to one another, in game-mechanic terms.
While I realize that relations are more nuanced than simple diplomatic stances, the diplomatic stances are game mechanic truth. Tom has said before that you can't pretend to be at war and likewise you can't say you're really at war with someone you're in a federation with.
So your argument is that because of the game mechanic relations between D'Hara and Terran, this has to be considered a friendly merger? I don't think I like that. By that logic, two federated realms could break their federation (thus going to war) and then the next day one could surrender to the other and merge all their regions together. Bingo bango, it was an "unfriendly" realm merger, see? "Not a violation of the rule at all! It was clearly hostile because we were at war!"
I'm certain that's not what you meant to imply, but that is the implication I would take away from accepting your line of logic in this type of case, and for obvious reasons I don't care for it.
Have you heard of the term "necessary but not sufficient"?
Just because a realm merger is friendly because the realms are allied or federated does not mean that it is automatically not friendly if the realms are at war.
Or, maybe, the problem isn't that the ruling was wrong, but that your interpretation of the rule is wrong? In fact, I think it must be, because you're trying to claim that it's a simple rule. It is anything but a simple rule, and that's part of the problem. In fact, you're still saying that the rule is "no realm mergers", when it most emphatically is NOT "no realm mergers". Precedent demonstrates, in a few cases, that this is not the case.
Here's another one: Wasn't it IVF at the end of the fifth invasion when all the lords up and switched to Enweil? (This was facilitated by the allegiance change bug, but as we've seen before, that has no bearing on the case.) Tom's reply about it: "They didn't really have a choice, as they are about to lose their only city. What else could they have done?" I believe they did then lose that city a turn or two later.
The no mergers rule is not intended to force people to play out a losing war to the last dregs. It is intended to prevent two otherwise viable, healthy realms from joining together to create a larger entity in which both of the two former realms will participate.
I'm not asking you to make that decision. The rule and the "spirit of the rule" is asking it. But you cannot abdicate your responsibility to enforce it because you think that it's a can of worms, or that the resulting decision will be one you don't like.
So in order to get rid of the ambiguity, you will completely change the underlying spirit and purpose of the rule. Yay for progress.
I think it, like most BM rules, is about game balance and keeping the experience fun for players. I think sore-loser moves make things less fun and make the game imbalanced. This seems to me the general reason why mergers are disallowed. But certainly the increasingly common tactic of evading takeover by swapping to some neutral third party is annoying, and doing it at a realm-wide level orchestrated by the ruler seems just like the kind of thing the realm merger rule was created to prevent.
I don't think I'm changing the spirit or purpose of the rule. I think we're just having a disagreement about which course of action best embodies that spirit and purpose.
Except that none of what you're saying is, to my understanding, what the rule is intended to prevent. It's not the "No sore losers" rule. There are numerous precedents for this type of allegiance changing and/or political arrangement, some of which were listed by Indirik. On Dwilight alone I can think of three previous examples off hand, none of which were punished, or even overly controversial. If Tom thought this was a problem, he'd have made a rule about it years ago. It's no different in principle to what happened with Entai during the war between Sanguis Astroism and the League of Free Nations on Dwilight, and no one complained about that piece of political maneuvering when it went down.
It documents that D'hara and Terran are not hostile to one another, in game-mechanic terms.
I have no problem with any number of lords changing allegiance. That's not what happened in Terran.
Entai was at war with its neighbors: it surrendered to an enemy in war.
I have personally not witnessed very many similar cases in my time playing BM.
Also, Anaris:
You are saying this is wrong, and yet you were among the people condemning Enweilian nobles for not ditching their non-viable realm to merge their regions with Riombara. Same measures for everyone?
Then, by game mechanic terms, there was NO MERGER, because Terran STILL EXISTS.
This argument is dumb.
While I agree with your general premise of removing the ambiguity, I disagree in the way you have chosen to do that in this case. This is a fuzzy, inexact rule. That's why there have been so many cases involving it. (Even if some, like the Tara/Coria one, are completely absurd.) But you can't (well, you can, but you shouldn't) just ignore precedent just because you think it's a bit messy, and want to clean things up a bit. You will be completely destroying the intended spirit of the rule, as well as making the situatuion overall, IMO, even worse. Yes, there have been a few cases of this lately, but there many more that weren't cases that your new interpretation will drag into the forum here.
IMNSHO, the Magistrates should rule this case in line with prior cases that have already set the precedent, and then kick this rule back to Tom/the players for it to be debated and overhauled. That's the proper way to do it, rathed than legislating from the bench and completely changing the purpose and the historical interpretation of the rule.
I will go a step further.
Tom hates clearly spelled-out rules, that specify all cases where they apply and all cases where they don't.
You know this. I know this. We all know this. It's been true for the entire lifetime of BattleMaster. It's certainly been true for the entire lifetime of both of the quasi-judicial systems we currently have to resolve breaches of the rules and in-game disputes. So why, at this late date, are people who should totally know better still acting as if anyone should expect rules in BattleMaster to be of the type where you can read it and see every single sharp boundary line (and thus be able to carefully avoid breaking the letter of the rule, while trampling all over its spirit), rather than the type where they explain what's forbidden, but those whose duty it is to enforce the rules are expected to use common sense and real human judgement, as well as an understanding of the rule's original intent, to determine whether it has been broken or not?
Then, by game mechanic terms, there was NO MERGER, because Terran STILL EXISTS.
This argument is dumb. Was D'Hara to annex the Chateau, war would have been declared between the two states, thus, "in game-mechanic terms", they'd be hostile to each other.
And the diplomacy chart doesn't say "these two realms are friends". It states that "these two realms operate as a federation". That's not the same. Lots of people in Québec hate the rest of Canada, and lots of anglo-canadians hate the Québécois. Doesn't make Canada any less of a federation.
It is what happened in Terran, but isn't what happened in IVF: the ruler/duke made the switch for everyone there. In Terran, 2 lords switched to D'Hara, and the capital stayed behind. And hey, surprise!!! No sanctions or reprimands for anyone in IVF.
Even so, a few years ago (before magistrate), when Caligus anexated Tuch V on the EC, the rulers were punished by Tom for doing a realm merger. Even if a TO was made and war was declared. Why? Because in the end, Tuch V nobles abandoned the realm, joining Caligus, and the leaders of the realm continued as Duke. The city was left empty allowing the troops to TO the city without resistance, and at the time it was considered a peacefull realm merger.Are you 100% sure about this? By which I mean, were you the ruler of Tuchanon? (I don't think you were...) I can clearly recall that the merger was not ruled against the rules.
It would actually be helpful if someone remembers what that original intent was and can state it here clearly and concisely.
Even so, a few years ago (before magistrate), when Caligus anexated Tuch V on the EC, the rulers were punished by Tom for doing a realm merger. Even if a TO was made and war was declared. Why? Because in the end, Tuch V nobles abandoned the realm, joining Caligus, and the leaders of the realm continued as Duke. The city was left empty allowing the troops to TO the city without resistance, and at the time it was considered a peacefull realm merger.
The federation and in game mechanics here are important because both realms are not at war as many claimed here or even hostile. The distance that the realms developed could have been shown by a break of the federation when the realm became a theocracy.
This is directly contradicted by Indirik's account of this specific incident earlier in the thread. Were they or were they not punished for this?
Or maybe we should recall that the Magistrates were implemented because the Titan system us untransparent, very hard to use for understanding the rules, and felt very inconsistent to many players, and so probably isn't a very good source of precedent for very debatable rules.
I have already done so, though I'm starting to feel like people are ignoring me...
I went back through the thread. The only thing I found was your statement about how Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings. That's more of an SMA justification for the rule than anything else... Did I miss something else?
No. That is Tom's original intent for the rule. To the best of my memory and understanding, everything else is a secondary justification others have come up with after the fact.
No. That is Tom's original intent for the rule. To the best of my memory and understanding, everything else is a secondary justification others have come up with after the fact."Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings" Is not an intent. That is a justification, or rationalization. It is an IG/IC reasoning used to explain the existence of the rule. The intent, or purpose, of the rule is the OOC/OOG reason that the rule has been implemented. It is a purely OOC rule that was implemented for OOC gameplay/game quality purposes. It was NOT implemented to ensure proper RP on the part of rulers. After all, the assertion, that rulers wouldn't give up their sovereignty is broken all the time, whenever a ruler steps down from the throne. They are giving up their sovereignty and placing them back under the authority of someone else. i.e. they are becoming someone else's vassal, willingly.
"Kings would never willingly give up their sovereignty to other Kings" Is not an intent. That is a justification, or rationalization. It is an IG/IC reasoning used to explain the existence of the rule. The intent, or purpose, of the rule is the OOC/OOG reason that the rule has been implemented. It is a purely OOC rule that was implemented for OOC gameplay/game quality purposes. It was NOT implemented to ensure proper RP on the part of rulers. After all, the assertion, that rulers wouldn't give up their sovereignty is broken all the time, whenever a ruler steps down from the throne. They are giving up their sovereignty and placing them back under the authority of someone else. i.e. they are becoming someone else's vassal, willingly.
The intent of the rule is to prevent healthy/viable realms from voluntarily/cooperatively merging into larger realms. The ability to do so would have a negative effect on gameplay.
This rule is obviously not intended to limit the options of players who's realms have been defeated, or have no hope of survival. To assume that it applies in those cases is mean-spirited, unnecessarily limits the options of the players, reduces the chance for the creation of meaningful conflict between other realms, and provides no positive benefit for the game.
This is directly contradicted by Indirik's account of this specific incident earlier in the thread. Were they or were they not punished for this?
As you may have noticed, there have been a large number of cases in the past several weeks, all of which require some degree of attention while they are open so that we can participate in and moderate the resulting discussions. We are working through the backlog now. Additionally some cases have been easier to decide than others. In this particular case, there is no clear consensus among the Magistrates as to the result, so it is taking longer for us to reach a verdict than it has for some of the others.
I remind you that we are all volunteers. Discussing these cases and writing the verdicts is all done with time that we set aside out of our personal lives in order to contribute to the game and the community. We will reach a decision on this case as soon as we can.
It really seems as though people are, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreting the "equal entities" part of the policy. In my opinion, it does not mean the two realms must be equal in size or physical strength. It is not "One realm has 20 regions and the others only has 5, so they're not equal entities!" Merging as equal entities means one realm is not completely dominated and subsumed by the other in the merger - as would be the case with a realm taking over the last few regions of a defeated enemy. Instead the two realms merge into an entity that is something more than each was on its own, as was the case with the formation of Riombara. Each of the original realms has representation in the power structures of the new realm (the representation does not have to be exactly equal). And most importantly, it must be voluntary on both sides. If one side forces the other into it, then it is not a merger of equal entities.
So do it like the US Supreme Court: have the plurality be the official verdict, and have the rest who vote the same way but for different reasons write a "concurring opinion" that gets posted at the same time.
I think it's a horrible idea. We need more clear decisions and precedents, not more wishy-washy weaseling. If the Magistrates disagree, then they need to hash it out in private, and post a single unified decision. The *last* thing we need is to set up some kind of minority, or dissenting opinion that contradicts or disagrees with the verdict, and allows those involved some way to consider even a losing position to be the correct one. We don't even need some kind of alternate interpretation of why the decision was correct, but the reasoning wrong. That's just more weaseling and rationalization.
Come to a decision, write the verdict, and be done with it.
A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:
"After consideration, the Magistrates find the defendant Not Guilty of violating the rule against realm mergers. For reference, the rule is: "Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms." Since the actions in question were taken under duress, we do not feel that they constitute a realm merger in the traditional sense. Whereas Terran had no hope of surviving the war nor any chance of fighting, choosing to surrender is seen as a valid choice, even though they chose to surrender to a third party.
Magistrates voted 4-3 in favor of a Not Guilty verdict, with 4 votes for Not Guilty, 2 votes for Guilty with a warning, and 1 vote for Guilty and stripping the defendant's titles.
This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.
Whatever.As Anaris stated, although at the time against the case:
The merger failed anyway. Like, epically failed, flopped on its face. So I don't care about the verdict, even though I think it's tremendous rules lawyering to say one can "surrender to a third party".
My understanding of the realm merger rule is that it is intended to prevent a king from voluntarily giving up not only his kingship but his domain, which is not something a King should do.Which is precisely why surrendering to a third party works. While blatant things like a realm declaring war on another, and almost nothing happens in the war but they "surrender" to a third party would not be fine as its just abusing it, surrendering to a third party makes sense based on the reasoning of this rule because a king keeps more or equal power surrendering to a third party then if he were to surrender to the enemy.
(This applies equally to other titles of ruler.)
A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:
"After consideration, the Magistrates find the defendant Not Guilty of violating the rule against realm mergers. For reference, the rule is: "Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms." Since the actions in question were taken under duress, we do not feel that they constitute a realm merger in the traditional sense. Whereas Terran had no hope of surviving the war nor any chance of fighting, choosing to surrender is seen as a valid choice, even though they chose to surrender to a third party.
Magistrates voted 4-3 in favor of a Not Guilty verdict, with 4 votes for Not Guilty, 2 votes for Guilty with a warning, and 1 vote for Guilty and stripping the defendant's titles.
This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.