BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: Buffalkill on November 06, 2013, 04:26:58 PM
-
As long as the seceding realm stays out of the war there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they'd agree to sign a non-aggression pact.
-
Just because they may have been planning this for years, and for reasons independent of the war, doesn't mean that the timing wasn't influenced by the strategic implications. I doubt the timing was totally random, and while there were likely other factors involved, it's hard to believe that the strategic implications in the current state of war didn't enter into anyone's thinking. If they really didn't wish to gain a strategic advantage in this war then let them sit this one out, or at least stay out of it for a specified period of time. That way the opposing realm will have time adjust its deployments accordingly. Otherwise it's a veiled strategic secession and it puts the opposing realm at a disadvantage.
-
It has been absolutely, 100% clear for RL years now that this was going to happen. The timing was up in the air, but the fact of it was totally public.
None of that is relevant. There's no requirement that a strategic secession has to be a spur-of-the-moment decision, a short-term proposition, or a secret deal. Just because you publicly declare that you will do something does not mean that the action, and specifically the method and timing of the execution of that action, are automatically legitimate.
The secession should be done after the war so that no strategic advantage is granted.
I agree with this. But just because it was done *during* the war doesn't automatically make it a strategic secession.
The war was made to carve out Enweil. This secession helps achieve this goal. Thus, this secession yields strategic advantages. The rest is moot. Building infrastructure will be easier now. Nobles will be able to join. Increasing strength will be considerably easier with the significantly alleviated bureaucratic and logistic burdens.
One cannot argue that it isn't a strategic secession just because it could have been "more" strategic. Plopping a puppet colony in the heart of your enemy's realm is a blatant strategic achievement.
These are good points....
-
If they really didn't wish to gain a strategic advantage in this war then let them sit this one out, or at least stay out of it for a specified period of time. That way the opposing realm will have time adjust its deployments accordingly.
That's not really possible. It's also ridiculously exploitable.
-
Frankly, this is one of those rules that exists as a relic of earlier attitudes. I haven't seen a legitimate case of strategic secession in years, despite constant accusations. I'm thinking the last one to my memory was in Luz de Bia, and one of the last lightning bolts or storms (i don't remember which)?
There are only two cases of this that I can remember as being obvious. Well, obvious to me, anyway. And they both occurred many years ago. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever punished for it.
However, that is also irrelevant. Just because a rule hasn't been broken in a long time doesn't mean that the rule no longer applies.
-
I am not saying it doesn't apply. I'm saying that as I've seen so many accusations over the years and few legitimate cases, I'm a bit wary of any new accusations. And this one doesn't measure up to what would be considered a violation of the rule. I'm saying that there really are few instances of this rule getting violated and its thrown around as an accusation more than necessary.
-
That's not really possible. It's also ridiculously exploitable.
Of course it's possible if the parties agree to it. If the seceding realm isn't willing to forgo this supposed advantage then they're in violation of the rule.
-
The rule against strategic secessions is specifically because of the local recruitment advantage it grants. There is nothing else (that I can think of offhand) that making Iato the capital of a tiny realm allows Riombara + IVF to do that keeping it as part of Riombara allows Riombara to do.
That advantage will only be enjoyed by the nobles within IVF, which will never be more than a tiny fraction of those in Riombara, certainly not during the time frame the war is likely to represent.
None of that is relevant. There's no requirement that a strategic secession has to be a spur-of-the-moment decision, a short-term proposition, or a secret deal. Just because you publicly declare that you will do something does not mean that the action, and specifically the method and timing of the execution of that action, are automatically legitimate.
No, but the rule does care about intent, when intent can be reasonably determined. Surely the fact that the creation of this realm has been declared as a goal for so long—and the fact that it would have been founded regardless of the war—is a strong indication of intent.
Otherwise it's a stupidly bypass of the rule, anyone can just declare they'll make a colony out of every strategic enemy city before declaring war, suddenly making it all okay?
Not unless they can manage to come up with plans to secede the city years in advance, when the city is not even held by the realm they would eventually have to go to war with to take it.
To equate the situation in this case with one where Realm A says, "We wish to create a realm out of Keplerville! Therefore, we must declare war on Realm B to take Keplerville!", and immediately declares war on Realm B, is little short of absurd.
If the rule against strategic secessions simply forbid any secession while a realm is at war, that could be easily prevented in code. It is not, because that is not the purpose of the rule.
One cannot argue that it isn't a strategic secession just because it could have been "more" strategic.
This is also true. However, when the strategic gains involved, in practice, will be quite minimal (if not negative), and there is a long public documented history of the realm in question stating the fully IC reasons for the secession, the label of "strategic secession" must start to come into doubt.
Again: If the rule were a simple, unqualified, "No secessions during wartime," there wouldn't be much doubt that this violated it, and your points would be valid. But that's not what the rule is, and your arguments seem to simply assume that a secession during a war of a city near the front will, ipso facto, grant strategic benefits significant enough to turn the tide in a war, rather than look at the actual facts of the case at hand.
-
Of course it's possible if the parties agree to it. If the seceding realm isn't willing to forgo this supposed advantage then they're in violation of the rule.
Buffakill, you are clearly horribly ignorant of the specific facts of the case.
There is no way in twelve hells that Enweil would be wiling to accept IVF's neutrality even if IVF were to try to ask for it. They want the city back.
-
Frankly, this is one of those rules that exists as a relic of earlier attitudes. I haven't seen a legitimate case of strategic secession in years, despite constant accusations. I'm thinking the last one to my memory was in Luz de Bia, and one of the last lightning bolts or storms (i don't remember which)?
That was a capital move, not a secession. And it was a bolt, not a storm: part of my outrage at the time was that their "punishment" for moving the capital effectively amounted to nil, since it occurred during the period where the "insta-elections" bug was still extant. This meant that though the ruler lost his position, he healed up at the turn change, and was also re-elected as Ruler, mere hours after the lightning bolt.
But yes, I cannot offhand recall an actual secession that was deemed strategic and punishment handed down for its execution. I believe that the fact that we have the rule against it more or less works.
-
The rule against strategic secessions is specifically because of the local recruitment advantage it grants. There is nothing else (that I can think of offhand) that making Iato the capital of a tiny realm allows Riombara + IVF to do that keeping it as part of Riombara allows Riombara to do.
That advantage will only be enjoyed by the nobles within IVF, which will never be more than a tiny fraction of those in Riombara, certainly not during the time frame the war is likely to represent.
No, but the rule does care about intent, when intent can be reasonably determined. Surely the fact that the creation of this realm has been declared as a goal for so long—and the fact that it would have been founded regardless of the war—is a strong indication of intent.
Not unless they can manage to come up with plans to secede the city years in advance, when the city is not even held by the realm they would eventually have to go to war with to take it.
To equate the situation in this case with one where Realm A says, "We wish to create a realm out of Keplerville! Therefore, we must declare war on Realm B to take Keplerville!", and immediately declares war on Realm B, is little short of absurd.
If the rule against strategic secessions simply forbid any secession while a realm is at war, that could be easily prevented in code. It is not, because that is not the purpose of the rule.
This is also true. However, when the strategic gains involved, in practice, will be quite minimal (if not negative), and there is a long public documented history of the realm in question stating the fully IC reasons for the secession, the label of "strategic secession" must start to come into doubt.
Again: If the rule were a simple, unqualified, "No secessions during wartime," there wouldn't be much doubt that this violated it, and your points would be valid. But that's not what the rule is, and your arguments seem to simply assume that a secession during a war of a city near the front will, ipso facto, grant strategic benefits significant enough to turn the tide in a war, rather than look at the actual facts of the case at hand.
"A year is okay" but "just before declaring war is not" is poor policy: how long beforehand does it need to be declared in order to be okay? Determining the legality of the move by how long ago it was declared only sets up arbitrary rules that no one can predict or understand.
And no, it would not be easy to code. Because not all secessions are made with the purpose of carving out the enemy realm. Duchies can secede by betrayal during war, or to avoid the fate of the central government, and that has nothing to do with plopping a colony in the heart of enemy land. This is what this secession does, however.
And I already named a ton of advantages seceding grants. At least now the city doesn't risk revolting just because it's so far from the capital and troops cannot make it on time for maintenance work. This alone is a serious blow to Enweil. IVF doesn't need to boast a huge army in order to push Enweil further down.
-
"A year is okay" but "just before declaring war is not" is poor policy: how long beforehand does it need to be declared in order to be okay? Determining the legality of the move by how long ago it was declared only sets up arbitrary rules that no one can predict or understand.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that there's a lot more than time involved here.
And no, it would not be easy to code. Because not all secessions are made with the purpose of carving out the enemy realm. Duchies can secede by betrayal during war, or to avoid the fate of the central government, and that has nothing to do with plopping a colony in the heart of enemy land. This is what this secession does, however.
So are you saying that any secession during wartime that doesn't immediately declare war on its parent realm is a strategic secession?
And I already named a ton of advantages seceding grants. At least now the city doesn't risk revolting just because it's so far from the capital and troops cannot make it on time for maintenance work. This alone is a serious blow to Enweil. IVF doesn't need to boast a huge army in order to push Enweil further down.
So you agree that Enweil has more or less lost the war already, too. If you are attempting to argue that if Riombara had kept Iato, Enweil could have won the war, but now they can't, you're not doing a very good job of it.
-
IMO the intent is not as important as the consequence. The consequence of this secession appears to be precisely the type of unfair disadvantage that the rule exists to prevent. Doesn't matter that they've been thinking about it for years. It looks kinda like insider trading to me.
Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.
-
Please describe for me exactly how this realm with one depopulated region and one noble will cause a measurable unfair disadvantage for Enweil.
If they continue the war then Enweil is suddenly in a two-front war.
-
For what its worth, we've all made our points here and lest this turn into every other magistrate thread, filled with repetitive, pointless arguments, we should probably step back and let the Magistrates weigh in or ask for clarifying information. We're nearing the third page already and I note that only one Magistrate has posted here and as the reporter himself is recused from typical magistrate duties.
-
In some ways is it not easier for Enweil to take back Iato now? Rio can not drop troops as milita (so I believe) and must now use gold mules in order to transfer income to the city which from all accounts can not support itself in terms of income. It is unlikely to have the RC's to recruit significant militia even if the gold is made available and while Rio may be able to repair in the city, pretending the city is in a state that allows blacksmiths to operate, they still must travel back to their capital to replace their losses.
Now if we see a sudden influx of nobles into the new realm, I would re-evaluate the situation. Given the succession just happened (I assume) it is hard to know exactly how that aspect will play out.
-
Word of Tom.
By one guy. With practically no income, and a city that can barely support any infrastructure. Yeah, that's unbalancing.
Anaris, you seem to forget that this one guy won't be alone for long. After all the realm is being created for a few nobles.
Even if only 4 more nobles join now, Riombara has 7 other cities and a lot of gold and food they can provide for the 5 nobles.
They can fund 2-3 RCs on the city of Iato, and these nobles for the war.
These nobles can make an attack on Enweill and Nothoi quicker, causing the same mayhem Nothoi was causing on Riombara, with faster recruitment, without the need to go all the way to the other side of the map to get fresh units.
This does give them strategic advantage.
And please mbeal44 keep it civil.
-
You can't wave away that the intent is a large part of the rule. It's a simple matter of if they seceded to circumvent the ability to only recruit in the capital or not. An instance of that would be CE or Darka allowing dukes to secede so their army could respond to attacks on the perimeter more easily. Happening to gain an advantage in the process of sensible IC developments is not prohibited. An advantage which I still attest is negligible considering the state of the realm, even recognizing other characters join.
-
This could easily be resolved IG if the seceding realm would simply observe a cooling off period of, say, a week, to allow the opposing realm to revise its troop deployments. I think you guys are over analyzing this. Forget about the intent. Trying to get inside the player's mind is a mug's game.
-
This could easily be resolved IG if the seceding realm would simply observe a cooling off period of, say, a week, to allow the opposing realm to revise its troop deployments. I think you guys are over analyzing this. Forget about the intent. Trying to get inside the player's mind is a mug's game.
Um really? If it IS a strategic Secession the issue is the ability to continuously field a force with significantly reduced refit times. A weeks grace isn't going to change the advantage that provides. Changing your troop deployments to respond is more then likely necessary, but won't change the fact that your enemy will recover losses much faster then they once did.
Likewise you could say, oh just have the realm be "neutral" Oh what a surprise when a region is taken over is being transfer to that neutral realm as soon as is possible.
-
Forget about the intent.
No, that's out of the question.
This rule is specifically about intent, as much as some people would like to make all the rules simple cut-and-dried, "Did this happen? Was it in a situation that was absolutely clearly that? Then punish!"
If that's all there is to it (Secession? Check! Friendly with parent realm? Check! During war? Check! Close to the border with the realm they're at war with? Check!), then we don't need Magistrates. All we need is a relatively simple algorithm to recognize 3 of those 4 criteria and post an alert, and a couple of humans receiving the alert to do the fairly simple check of "are they friendly with the parent realm?" and if so, press the "yes, punish them!" button.
But the Magistrates are supposed to actually examine evidence and make judgments, not just hide behind "I don't want to try judging intent, because people are hard to understand, and some of them will try to trick you!"
If that's just too hard, then what the hell is the point of having human Magistrates anyway?
-
The arguments that there is only one guy are worthless. It equates to saying that the move that was done in the past (secession) can have been legal then, and then become illegal in the future (ex: a week) if certain criteria are met (nobles join it and infrastructure if funded). Something cannot be legal when it happens and become illegal afterwards.
The secession creates the potential to recruit closer to the enemy, and that is what matters.
Intent is bullocks, because you can't read minds. Intent is hearsay and propaganda. Intent cannot be proved. And no it would not be simple to code, and you know it. Friendly with parent realm cannot be coded, and any attempt would be easy to game. Proximity is relative and arbitrary. Heck, even war would be a poor filter, because that can be gamed as well by having troops loot while neutral, or by giving realms the ability to declare war on neighbors they know will split in order to turn planned splits into issues. This is not something a code can judge on.
The secession wasn't built to eternally have a single noble, nor a single region, nor little infrastructure. It wants to fight Enweil. It will get more nobles. It will attempt to annex Enweilian regions. It will have a much easier time with the logistics of it. The purpose of it existing is to be able to take over Enweil's territory, and it will be able to do so a lot easier by being closer than by having the capital forever away.
It is literally a 1/2 hour job to code as system that would prevent strategic secessions if this was the case. We already have the methods to determine distance between two regions, we can determine who is at war with whom. This could have been coded by Tom or the team at ANY time since he made his statements about strategic successions. So ask yourself, if that is the case why o why would Tom not have done so when we all know his complete aversion to rule lawyers?
-
In this case you don't need to divine his intent because the strategic advantage is self-evident. If I'm playing soccer and the ball touches my hand before entering the opposing goal, then the goal doesn't count. By having a cooling off period, you nullify the advantage and maybe even create a disadvantage for the seceding and parent realms, which is ok because it's self-imposed. If they don't like it, they can wait until the war is over to secede.
-
Intent is bullocks, because you can't read minds. Intent is hearsay and propaganda. Intent cannot be proved.
From the Rules and Policies page:
Strategic secessions are prohibited. This means creating a new realm, through secession, in order to circumvent recruiting-in-capital-only restriction. Friendly secessions are okay.
Intent is everything. The rule says it is only a strategic succession if its purpose is to circumvent in-capital recruiting. It specifically states that.
-
Intent is bullocks, because you can't read minds. Intent is hearsay and propaganda. Intent cannot be proved.
This is incorrect. People can be deceptive about their intent. People can be vague about their intent. Neither is the case here.
And no it would not be simple to code, and you know it.
I don't tell you how to do your job, Dominic, don't you tell me how to do mine. I get annoyed enough when Tom tries to say what would and wouldn't be hard for me to code, and you don't have anywhere near his accumulated stash of forbearance.
If I say I could code something pretty simply, then do me the barest courtesy of believing that I know how to do my damn job.
Friendly with parent realm cannot be coded, and any attempt would be easy to game.
Which is why—if you actually read what I wrote—I said that part should be handled by humans with access to the relevant information. "Friendly with the parent realm" is generally much easier to determine than the broader "intent of a secession," and if it's not glaringly obvious, then that means that, well, those humans will still have to use the tiniest modicum of judgement. Which is something that most of us are gifted with.
Proximity is relative and arbitrary.
Not really. There might be a few edge cases to catch, but by and large, if it's a true strategic secession, it's going to be right on the border or as close as the realm can achieve. I can measure twelve different axes of proximity and compare them if you really want, but 99.9% of the time, it won't be necessary.
Heck, even war would be a poor filter, because that can be gamed as well by having troops loot while neutral, or by giving realms the ability to declare war on neighbors they know will split in order to turn planned splits into issues. This is not something a code can judge on.
Oh, please. I'm not bloody stupid, Dominic. I know how to tell to a pretty good approximation whether a realm is at war with another realm, regardless of diplomatic status.
So, in summary, thank you for assuming I'm an idiot who doesn't have a clue how to do my day job. That really tells me a lot about your general opinion of me OOC. Enough that I'm pretty much done responding to anything you say here.
-
In this case you don't need to divine his intent because the strategic advantage is self-evident.
Buffakill, please stop ignoring everyone who is telling you that intent is an important part of the rule. Just because you'd love to reduce things down to their simplest possible form doesn't mean that's how they are, or will be.
As Velax says, the rule is specifically about intent. You cannot throw that out the window just because there is an easy misinterpretation of the rule that lets you think it's about simple static conditions.
-
In this case you don't need to divine his intent because the strategic advantage is self-evident. If I'm playing soccer and the ball touches my hand before entering the opposing goal, then the goal doesn't count. By having a cooling off period, you nullify the advantage and maybe even create a disadvantage for the seceding and parent realms, which is ok because it's self-imposed. If they don't like it, they can wait until the war is over to secede.
That is fine, since the creators of the rule intended it to function that way. The argument here is that Tom intended otherwise, which is why there have been so few punishments for strategic secessions compared to the amount of accusations (before the magistrate system was around mind you). Of course only Tom can confirm or deny this, everything else is based on assumption, and as we all know from long practise with this system, the chances of most people reconsidering the situation based on these discussions approaches nill.
-
I just briefly flipped through past Magistrate rulings.
As best I can tell, the Magistrates have not ruled on strategic secessions yet.
I would caution either side against saying the rule IS about either outcomes or intents. Say it has been interpreted that way, fine. But the rule IS about whatever the Magistrates say it is about, unless Tom decides to intervene.
Most of the arguments up to this point do not seem very germaine. The core debate here is how to interpret the text of the rule. Specifically, we should be arguing about the phrase "in order to circumvent." Does that imply "With the psychological intent and expectation of circumventing?" or "With the effect of circumventing?"
Once that debate is resolved, we can argue about efficacy: can we police intent? How far removed must the effect be, or how incidental? But until we settle, based on the text itself, the intent/outcomes question, the rest is moot.
Also, while Tom is free to intervene, unless and until Tom does intervene, we cannot base any rulings on how frequently or not he has chosen to respond to accusations. We haven't usually gotten detailed explanations and justifications of those decisions, so we really can't reason from them. And, to reiterate, the Magistrates are not inheritors of a pre-existing set of rules. Tom's previous decisions and Titan decisions were not always consistent, not widely understood, not regularly recorded, and do not constitute a basis of principles or rules to which we can reliably appeal. The only exceptions are in stated rules like the IRs and Social Contract, and if Tom decides to speak on this case specifically.
So, someone convince me that "in order to circumvent" means something other than intent.
-
I would caution either side against saying the rule IS about either outcomes or intents. Say it has been interpreted that way, fine. But the rule IS about whatever the Magistrates say it is about, unless Tom decides to intervene.
I think it would be instructive to read this particular passage:
I'm not making exceptions to the rule. If its the rule on the 'Rules and Policies' wiki page, I wrote that myself, with input from Tom. The rule, and what I remember Tom saying about his motivations for the rule, was strictly about a realm using a secession to gain an undue strategic gain in the war, as related to recruitment and similar mechanics.
It is not the job of the Magistrates to reinterpret rules that Tom has set down clear expectations for. It is the job of the Magistrates to enforce the rules.
Unless you've decided to take up Fury's cry of "The Magistrates should rewrite all the rules to suit us" now that he's gone?
-
That is fine, since the creators of the rule intended it to function that way. The argument here is that Tom intended otherwise, which is why there have been so few punishments for strategic secessions compared to the amount of accusations (before the magistrate system was around mind you). Of course only Tom can confirm or deny this, everything else is based on assumption, and as we all know from long practise with this system, the chances of most people reconsidering the situation based on these discussions approaches nill.
This is ludacris. There is no arguing about a fact. Does the rule say that a strategic secession is based off intent? Yes, thus it is. Thats a fact, not an opinion or an argument. You can't just exclude parts of a rule because you feel like it. "Well the rule stated you can not do x, but I excluded the not part because I don't like that so now I can do x" is obviously illogical and what is being stated in a different by seemingly all those who wish for the secession to be punished in some way or another already. As well, last I checked its innocent until proven guilty so Riombara does not need to prove its innocence, those who are prosecuting Riombara/the specific player need to prove guilt. (The magistrates should be somewhat prosecutors though as they are more or less the detectives as well since regulars players are the equal of citizens, not having the power to investigate.)
-
This is ludacris. There is no arguing about a fact. Does the rule say that a strategic secession is based off intent? Yes, thus it is. Thats a fact, not an opinion or an argument. You can't just exclude parts of a rule because you feel like it. "Well the rule stated you can not do x, but I excluded the not part because I don't like that so now I can do x" is obviously illogical and what is being stated in a different by seemingly all those who wish for the secession to be punished in some way or another already. As well, last I checked its innocent until proven guilty so Riombara does not need to prove its innocence, those who are prosecuting Riombara/the specific player need to prove guilt. (The magistrates should be somewhat prosecutors though as they are more or less the detectives as well since regulars players are the equal of citizens, not having the power to investigate.)
Penchant that is MY reading of the rules as well. I was answering in regards to using the football analogy that boiled down to, well in football the handball rule does not take into account intent, thus NO rules in things completely unrelated to football must take intent into account. If intent wasn't important in the world, we wouldn't have man slaughter everything would be judges as murder, nor would we need to prove pre meditation. Obviously there are rules were we are meant to judge intent, I believe the wording of this rule implies this is one of them. I'm willing to be wrong, though I have spoken English my entire life it is not my first language nor the language I predominately think in.
-
If he intended to secede knowing that something would result, then he intended whatever the foreseeable consequences of his action were.
While it seems like you are attempting to troll, in case its simply a lack of understanding I will prove that false through a counterexample: If I get in a car I know it ups my risk for injury and death but I that is not my intention. My intention is to get somewhere faster.
And if you are unaware, a counterexample proves an implication false.Penchant that is MY reading of the rules as well. I was answering in regards to using the football analogy that boiled down to, well in football the handball rule does not take into account intent, thus NO rules in things completely unrelated to football must take intent into account. If intent wasn't important in the world, we wouldn't have man slaughter everything would be judges as murder, nor would we need to prove pre meditation. Obviously there are rules were we are meant to judge intent, I believe the wording of this rule implies this is one of them. I'm willing to be wrong, though I have spoken English my entire life it is not my first language nor the language I predominately think in.
Two things,
First, my apologies on the misunderstanding as it seemed to me, you were saying you agreed with the quoted user.
Second, it was not an attack upon the post I seemed to misunderstand, but all those arguing that when intent is stated as being a part of the definition that it can be ignored. I just briefly flipped through past Magistrate rulings.
As best I can tell, the Magistrates have not ruled on strategic secessions yet.
I would caution either side against saying the rule IS about either outcomes or intents. Say it has been interpreted that way, fine. But the rule IS about whatever the Magistrates say it is about, unless Tom decides to intervene.
Most of the arguments up to this point do not seem very germaine. The core debate here is how to interpret the text of the rule. Specifically, we should be arguing about the phrase "in order to circumvent." Does that imply "With the psychological intent and expectation of circumventing?" or "With the effect of circumventing?"
Once that debate is resolved, we can argue about efficacy: can we police intent? How far removed must the effect be, or how incidental? But until we settle, based on the text itself, the intent/outcomes question, the rest is moot.
Also, while Tom is free to intervene, unless and until Tom does intervene, we cannot base any rulings on how frequently or not he has chosen to respond to accusations. We haven't usually gotten detailed explanations and justifications of those decisions, so we really can't reason from them. And, to reiterate, the Magistrates are not inheritors of a pre-existing set of rules. Tom's previous decisions and Titan decisions were not always consistent, not widely understood, not regularly recorded, and do not constitute a basis of principles or rules to which we can reliably appeal. The only exceptions are in stated rules like the IRs and Social Contract, and if Tom decides to speak on this case specifically.
So, someone convince me that "in order to circumvent" means something other than intent.
Even if somehow "in order to circumvent" could be interpreted in such a way that intent does not matter, interpretation does not matter when the one who wrote the rule has stated the reasoning for the wording, which is that intent matters. Any arguing of that simply seems like rules lawyering, something Tom is against and obviously wouldn't approve of.
Intent of the rule should be considered when deciding rules lawyering though because of cases like no merger rule that was brought up and rules lawyering was said to be done but Tom proved after explicitly repeating his intent after it was already stated several times in the thread. Running to Tom to decide on intent of the rule when it is easy enough to deduce shouldn't be done IMO. In this case, given that the wording included circumventing, it seems obvious the intent of the rule is to prevent those who attempt to "win" battlemaster to not be able to do so through unfair means.
-
We know he intended to secede with the full knowledge that a strategic advantage would result from his action. No part of this was a surprise to him or a random occurrence. You guys keep hemming and hawing about the player's intent as if there could be any doubt about it.
While it seems like you are attempting to troll, in case its simply a lack of understanding I will prove that false through a counterexample: If I get in a car I know it ups my risk for injury and death but I that is not my intention. My intention is to get somewhere faster.
And if you are unaware, a counterexample proves an implication false.
You might also look up the definition of false analogy. Getting injured in a car accident is merely a risk that you try to avoid. The strategic advantage here is a foreseeable consequence of seceding and a relative certainty. But if you're driving your car and you see someone standing in the middle of the road, and you don't make any attempt to avoid him, then you intended to run him over. If you point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, then you intended to shoot him. You're not excused just because the bullet passed through him and hit a deer.
-
It actually seems pointless to have this rule if the only time it would ever be invoked is if someone openly and explicitly seceded a city in order to start recruiting somewhere closer to the front, and did so in such a way that you could prove their intent. If you make such a rule, it will never need to be enforced unless someone didn't bother to read the rules in the first place. People who did read the rules would merely ensure that they had some other plausible reason to secede a city in order to accomplish the same damn thing so they can point to their story and say, "See? I had an acceptable reason for doing this, so the rule does not apply." The problem is especially acute since every single reason that isn't explicitly "because it will help me win" is seemingly permissible if the rule is so narrowly interpreted.
I mean, what is the point here? In theory, it's to protect one realm (and group of players) from a particular action that exploits game mechanics to generate an advantage that the very existence of the rule implies must be unfair. That has unquestionably happened here. By introducing the question of intent, the rule is made practically unenforceable and its reason for existence compromised. It essentially makes it so that something that is apparently considered to be objectively unfair (generating a wartime advantage through secession) is only considered a violation of the rule against it if someone is foolish enough to admit that what they did was purely to generate that advantage and for no other reason. In other words, it states that the very same action is unfair if done for one specific reason but not unfair if done for any other reason at all, which is both a logical contradiction and utterly nonsensical. Either it's not fair or there's nothing wrong with it; it can't be both.
If the consensus is that intent is all that matters (and not the impact it's going to have on the other team, which seems to me to be the only reason to have made the rule in the first place), you might as well just scrap the rule altogether; several people have already suggested that it's been ages since it was actually enforced, which I think just goes to prove the point - as interpreted by Anaris and others, the rule is both pointless and virtually unenforceable. No one will be stupid enough to actually admit that they're seceding a city in order to gain a strategic advantage even though that's exactly what they're getting, and so the rule will never be invoked and the possibility of strategic secessions will be a de facto reality whether they are fair to the other side or not.
-
We know he intended to secede with the full knowledge that a strategic advantage would result from his action. No part of this was a surprise to him or a random occurrence. You guys keep hemming and hawing about the player's intent as if there could be any doubt about it.
You might also look up the definition of false analogy. Getting injured in a car accident is merely a risk that you try to avoid. The strategic advantage here is a foreseeable consequence of seceding and a relative certainty. But if you're driving your car and you see someone standing in the middle of the road, and you don't make any attempt to avoid him, then you intended to run him over. If you point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, then you intended to shoot him. You're not excused just because the bullet passed through him and hit a deer.
Which is it. First we have people claiming we can't POSSIBLY know his intent. Now we have the revelation that the intent is obvious. It is reasonable to believe he understands the possible strategic advantage his actions could provide. Considering that this has been many times in the past, for example Fontan spun off SOA in the middle of the war against Old Rancagua and Ubent captured the rogue city of Isadril and turned it into the realm of Fallangard, creating a realm that could fight against Itorunt leaving Ubent free to focus on Sirion instead, it might be reasonable to assume that things are not as simple as you present.
By introducing the question of intent, the rule is made practically unenforceable and its reason for existence compromised. It essentially makes it so that something that is apparently considered to be objectively unfair (generating a wartime advantage through secession) is only considered a violation of the rule against it if someone is foolish enough to admit that what they did was purely to generate that advantage and for no other reason. In other words, it states that the very same action is unfair if done for one specific reason but not unfair if done for any other reason at all, which is both a logical contradiction and utterly nonsensical. Either it's not fair or there's nothing wrong with it; it can't be both.
This is false. Intent is a HARD thing to deal with I grant you. But we often "prove" intent in the real world without admission from the suspected guilty party. Just like in real life anything to do with intent is also likely to involve controversy. For instance the recent Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger case hinged on intent. The magistrates had to decide if it was a friendly merger, or if the merger was a "surrender", though they did not surrender to the force arrayed against them. Yet in a previous case the magistrates declared
"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'."
It was decided that although the regions were not "taken over" through war, the intention was basically similar, it was a surrender.
-
This is false. Intent is a HARD thing to deal with I grant you. But we often "prove" intent in the real world without admission from the suspected guilty party. Just like in real life anything to do with intent is also likely to involve controversy. For instance the recent Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger case hinged on intent. The magistrates had to decide if it was a friendly merger, or if the merger was a "surrender", though they did not surrender to the force arrayed against them. Yet in a previous case the magistrates declared
"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'."
It was decided that although the regions were not "taken over" through war, the intention was basically similar, it was a surrender.
That rule is also written around intent, but it is not quite the same in my reckoning. There's more of a gray area about who exactly is getting hurt in the event of a realm merger, as well as a decidedly different intent behind the rule. Most of BM's rules are designed to protect players from each other. The realm merger rule is not. I'd elaborate but that would be decidedly off topic. In short, I do not accept the equivalence you are posing.
Edit: Also, as to intent, it's virtually impossible for us to prove, reliant as we are on evidence provided by others. Unless the defendant has been relatively open with at least one person about their intent, a person who then comes forward with the evidence to prove it, there's not much we can do other than look at what happened and the evidence provided and try to guess what the actual intent was. Sometimes it may seem like the only reason to do something is for advantage but we can't really know, and our decisions will end up being essentially arbitrary and heavily weighted toward innocence in virtually all cases that invoke this rule since it is so narrowly interpreted.
-
What it really comes down to for me is, just what is the purpose of this rule? Presumably, it is to prevent one group of players from unfairly gaining an advantage over another via secession. My problem with all this business of intent is that it compromises that basic purpose and renders the rule almost completely useless as a means of protecting players. That being the case, the rule seems pointless to me if interpreted in such a fashion. Does anyone believe that the purpose of the rule is not to protect players?
-
That rule is also written around intent, but it is not quite the same in my reckoning. There's more of a gray area about who exactly is getting hurt in the event of a realm merger, as well as a decidedly different intent behind the rule. Most of BM's rules are designed to protect players from each other. The realm merger rule is not. I'd elaborate but that would be decidedly off topic. In short, I do not accept the equivalence you are posing.
Edit: Also, as to intent, it's virtually impossible for us to prove, reliant as we are on evidence provided by others. Unless the defendant has been relatively open with at least one person about their intent, a person who then comes forward with the evidence to prove it, there's not much we can do other than look at what happened and the evidence provided and try to guess what the actual intent was. Sometimes it may seem like the only reason to do something is for advantage but we can't really know, and our decisions will end up being essentially arbitrary and heavily weighted toward innocence in virtually all cases that invoke this rule since it is so narrowly interpreted.
And you know what, that is fine. You guys aren't omnipotent, you can only do as the evidence provides base on your own logical though process suggests. Juries are no different though we often like to pretend that somehow they are. My argument is that to simply throw intent out the window is not the way to handle it. I can argue till I'm blue in the face that I believe his intent was not to provide strategic advantage, but I can't know that either, it is just my opinion. This is why magistrates work as a group, so deliberation does not rely on a single opinion of the facts.
-
Why is there so much text in this thread?
This is not a strategic secession in the sense that the rule was written. I know how I'm voting.
-
It is not the job of the Magistrates to reinterpret rules that Tom has set down clear expectations for.
Has he done this? In a place we can all see? And not vague recollections?
Unless you've decided to take up Fury's cry of "The Magistrates should rewrite all the rules to suit us" now that he's gone?
No, I haven't. But I'm saying that we are under no obligation to accept a specific interpretation of the rule unless Tom says so when we consider it. Tom's preferences are not eternal and immutable.
Why is there so much text in this thread?
This is not a strategic secession in the sense that the rule was written. I know how I'm voting.
I tend to agree as far as intent is concerned: it seems evident to me that intent is the key component.
However, I share Geronus' concerns about feasibility.
-
Intent is quite important and juries do take that into consideration.
In fact here is a link to a news broadcast that shows what happens when intent is misconstrued.
(hopefully this isn't too off topic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE
-
I'm willing to accept the interpretation being put forward that intent is all that matters, but then I will also state one final time that I now believe the rule to be almost entirely moot, and barring a case where one or more parties involved is stupid enough to state, explicitly, that they are only seceding a city to gain an advantage, I would never vote to punish anyone based on this rule. The way it's interpreted it doesn't protect anyone from anything. All it does is force people to have a fig leaf to cover up their otherwise blatant exploitation of game mechanics.
-
I'm willing to accept the interpretation being put forward that intent is all that matters, but then I will also state one final time that I now believe the rule to be almost entirely moot, and barring a case where one or more parties involved is stupid enough to state, explicitly, that they are only seceding a city to gain an advantage, I would never vote to punish anyone based on this rule. The way it's interpreted it doesn't protect anyone from anything. All it does is force people to have a fig leaf to cover up their otherwise blatant exploitation of game mechanics.
Please reread Telrunya's quote (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5282.msg121629.html#msg121629) from Tom (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4434.msg113586.html#msg113586). It seems to pretty clearly indicate that it's meant to be a narrow rule protecting against blatant abuse. Not something intended for using as a club against anyone who secedes when you would prefer that they not do so.
All rules are not created equal. Some require careful scrutiny and long debate to be sure whether you've got it. Others, you can look at the situation and tell, "Yep, that's a violation," or "Nope, that's just fine." According to Tom, this is in the latter category, and the criteria you're supposed to use are not simple geography, but intent.
I challenge you to find a reasonable way to apply Tom's own words to this case and the clearly-stated intentions of Riombara and Marec Alumaani, and come up with a result of "blatant abuse."
-
Please reread Telrunya's quote (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5282.msg121629.html#msg121629) from Tom (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4434.msg113586.html#msg113586). It seems to pretty clearly indicate that it's meant to be a narrow rule protecting against blatant abuse. Not something intended for using as a club against anyone who secedes when you would prefer that they not do so.
All rules are not created equal. Some require careful scrutiny and long debate to be sure whether you've got it. Others, you can look at the situation and tell, "Yep, that's a violation," or "Nope, that's just fine." According to Tom, this is in the latter category, and the criteria you're supposed to use are not simple geography, but intent.
I challenge you to find a reasonable way to apply Tom's own words to this case and the clearly-stated intentions of Riombara and Marec Alumaani, and come up with a result of "blatant abuse."
I know the intent in this case was not abusive. That's not what I'm saying. I'm criticizing the rule as being either ineffective or unnecessary depending on what its intent actually is.
If the rule's only intent (which it is becoming increasingly clear to me must be the case) is to force people to have some sort of RP reason for a secession that confers a strategic advantage, then it is working perfectly. If its intent was ever anything else, than it's not.
-
If the rule's only intent (which it is becoming increasingly clear to me must be the case) is to force people to have some sort of RP reason for a secession that confers a strategic advantage, then it is working perfectly. If its intent was ever anything else, than it's not.
If it is the intent, then it's not an unreasonable one. On Dwilight that falls under the SMA rules, but on non-SMA continents it can ensure to at least force proper behaviour for actions that can single-handedly alter the history of the continent such as secessions, mergers and capital moves, while not forcing SMA for other actions with less wide-ranging consequences.
-
If the rule's only intent (which it is becoming increasingly clear to me must be the case) is to force people to have some sort of RP reason for a secession that confers a strategic advantage, then it is working perfectly. If its intent was ever anything else, than it's not.
My reading of it is that it requires that there be a real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.
I think you and Vellos have been coming at this from too much of a "court" standpoint, and therefore overthinking the whole thing :)
Like I said before, all rules are not created equal. Not every rule in the game has to be for preventing some broad class of behaviour: narrowly-defined rules can be very important, too.
-
Based on Tom's comment, I'd take blatant abuse to be seceding in name only to gain a second recruitment hub while effectively functioning as one realm.
-
Buffalkill, I believe that is indeed what the rule is supposed to prohibit.
-
My reading of it is that it requires that there be a real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.
I think you and Vellos have been coming at this from too much of a "court" standpoint, and therefore overthinking the whole thing :)
Like I said before, all rules are not created equal. Not every rule in the game has to be for preventing some broad class of behaviour: narrowly-defined rules can be very important, too.
I would have to agree with this, but then in effect we are saying that secessions which confer a strategic advantage are fine in principle which I think is a very important point to come out of this discussion, one that might be worth working into the rules page in a more or less explicit sense. I don't think that point is at all clear from a first reading of the rule. Read this way, the rule is about preserving a certain atmosphere for the game, not prohibiting a certain class of action.
-
What is barley been noted, which is a far more important weight to consider in your judgement, in my opinion, is how much value the event has.
Value in the sense that the realm has some story or reason for its creation as well as content.
Content in the sense it is not just an empty shell, but has a culture or a certain view point as to how things should be (ruled).
As well as that the characters them selves, who rule it or create it are in fact characters.
Where only looking at how exactly the rules have been followed or not and wasting allot of time on it.
The solution that is brought is to create better rules.
Where besides better rules i believe the magistrates could look at the value of the event self and its outcome, if its not clear cheating.
In this case it is allready mentioned, from scan reading the thread that there has been a story going back even before the war.
A group of people who once had their realm and culture, lost it and now look to regain it, which might mean taking it from someone else first by the support of a larger or mroe powerful nation.
Their little Isreal.
Don't deny Isreal caused 'interesting' situations eve since its founding. :)
The story is good and has allot of potential and value.
Off course, the magistrates should look more closely at it then i did, but hopefully my point is clear.
-
My reading of it is that it requires that there be a real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.
I'm not so sure that how long the idea has been around has much, if any, value at all. Just because you've been planning it for a while does not make it legitimate. Nor does the possibility that you've only thought it up 5 minutes ago mean that you're breaking the rule.
For example, you could have been planning for years to spin off a new realm that would make absorbing all of Enweil much easier. Does the fact that you've been planning it for years make it OK?
Or the duke could have been insulted by the ruler, and decided on the spur of the moment to secede. Does the fact that it wasn't planned long in advance make it a violation?
Nor is the presence or absence of IG RP a determining factor. You can RP the hell out of a situation, and still violate a rule. That's because this rule is an OOC rule, which regulates the behavior of players. A rule such as this may force a player to alter the behavior of their characters in order to comply with the rule. Sometimes it may make perfect IC sense to do something *right now*, but OOC rules/considerations may require us to alter those actions to comply with the rules. That's just something that we, as game players, have to deal with.
IMHO, I don't think you can judge this rule solely by intent. It is quite possible to unintentionally violate a rule. The results of what you have done should count just as heavily as the intent with which you performed the action. Simply allowing someone to say "Ooops, I didn't *intend* to do that" is kind of ridiculous.
As for the idea that this particular secession does not create any specific advantage, it certainly does. I can think of two or three without even trying very hard, and none of them require the realm to be particularly strong, or have very many nobles.
And this entire situation could have easily been avoided by simply delaying the secession until the war was over.
All in all, this particular rule is nearly worthless, both in the way it is being interpreted, and in the way it has been enforced in the past. I can think of at least two secession cases on EC that were ridiculously blatant circumvention of multiple game mechanics, including the recruiting mechanic, that were shrugged off as OK because there was some RP behind it.
-
All in all, this particular rule is nearly worthless, both in the way it is being interpreted, and in the way it has been enforced in the past. I can think of at least two secession cases on EC that were ridiculously blatant circumvention of multiple game mechanics, including the recruiting mechanic, that were shrugged off as OK because there was some RP behind it.
Well that's really been my whole point here. However, it now seems to me that circumvention of game mechanics isn't really what the rule is designed to prevent. Insofar as that is the case, it still serves a purpose, which is to ensure that people don't nakedly use secession as a way to power-game without at least coming up with a reasonable story justification. The rule seems to be more about preserving atmosphere than actually preventing the circumvention of game mechanics, for which you have correctly pointed out that it is nearly worthless.
Edit: I will also note that I think that the rule is pointless either way, and poorly written to boot.
-
Based on Tom's comments provided by Telerunya:
As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:
If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.
If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.
These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.
I propose the following dictum: The onus is on the complainant to show that the seceder is seceding in name only to gain a second recruitment hub while effectively functioning as one realm.
The reason the onus should be on the complainant is that if it doesn't rise to the level of "blatant abuse" then the player shouldn't be required to justify his actions to the magistrates.
-
Well that's really been my whole point here. However, it now seems to me that circumvention of game mechanics isn't really what the rule is designed to prevent. Insofar as that is the case, it still serves a purpose, which is to ensure that people don't nakedly use secession as a way to power-game without at least coming up with a reasonable story justification. The rule seems to be more about preserving atmosphere than actually preventing the circumvention of game mechanics, for which you have correctly pointed out that it is nearly worthless.
Edit: I will also note that I think that the rule is pointless either way, and poorly written to boot.
You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable. Having a RP reason does not make it ok by itself. IF it is blatant, that they are using the realm simply as a strategic advantage to be able to recruit outside the capital, then it is a violation. Intent does not have to be judged simply on what the players say their intent was, but by looking at the situation as well. If for instance, a realm secedes, then instantly directs its military guidance to the parent realm in the war they are in, it would provide some evidence. I can't completely explain it, but its one of those, I will know it when I see it kind of things.
All in all, this particular rule is nearly worthless, both in the way it is being interpreted, and in the way it has been enforced in the past. I can think of at least two secession cases on EC that were ridiculously blatant circumvention of multiple game mechanics, including the recruiting mechanic, that were shrugged off as OK because there was some RP behind it.
Don't complain about injustice when you aren't willing to do even a little work against what you are complaining about. If it truly was blatant, and you had no time to look up evidence and such, you could have simply reported the realms/rulers for breaking this rule and left the Magistrates to ask others for evidence, which if it was blatant as you state, then they would have been convicted for it.
---
The rule is for blatant cases, and yet the example used why its an issue is blatant cases could come up with a RP reason and be find, but a RP reason doesn't cut it, its still violating the rule if the point is to circumvent recruiting in capital only.
-
You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable.
Well, pardon me for stating my beliefs. But the only way to get it changed is to state that the way it is, is wrong.
Don't complain about injustice when you aren't willing to do even a little work against what you are complaining about. If it truly was blatant, and you had no time to look up evidence and such, you could have simply reported the realms/rulers for breaking this rule and left the Magistrates to ask others for evidence, which if it was blatant as you state, then they would have been convicted for it.
Please stop talking about things about which you have no clue.
-
You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable. Having a RP reason does not make it ok by itself.
Well why not? What, ultimately is the purpose of the rule? Is it to protect players from strategic secessions, or is it merely there to ensure that the atmosphere is maintained? I would argue that if the answer is that it's about the atmosphere, then ultimately almost all non-absurd RP reasons will, in fact, suffice. The RP rationale would have to be extraordinarily flimsy and transparent for me to be willing to essentially rule that the defendant was lying about his intentions, which is exactly what I would be doing. It's an exceedingly high standard of proof. So high that I don't see it realistically ever happening barring a situation where someone was in total ignorance of the rule in the first place.
-
In the context of playing with friends, it was once the norm for us to assume good faith in peoples actions. In my opinion this is why Tom says
As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:
If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.
If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.
These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.
If we need to discuss it, even a little bit then there is doubt. If there is doubt then as we are friends we should in good faith believe in our friend. Does this work in practise? I don't know I'm generally the last person you want to talk to about social interactions. However a fixation with preventing ALL instances of gaming mechanics to me does not seem like something I would be preoccupied with if I was truly playing with friends. Family perhaps but not with friends.
Thus it seems in the context of providing a friendly and trusting environment that a great many cases of gaming some of the more complex elements is going to occur. One would like to think that the environment engendered by this attitude might give rise to less
occurrence of people trying to do so.
-
Thus it seems in the context of providing a friendly and trusting environment that a great many cases of gaming some of the more complex elements is going to occur. One would like to think that the environment engendered by this attitude might give rise to less
occurrence of people trying to do so.
Your point is well taken, but I still think that it would be better to simply enact a blanket restriction if that's the intent of the rule. There are almost certainly people who can and will take advantage of the rule as written (and perhaps people who already have), though I'm sure that it does indeed go some way toward making most players less inclined to do it.
If the thought behind the rule is that strategic secessions are somehow exploitative, unfair, or otherwise have a negative impact on the game then they should simply be banned in all cases; I fail to see why the rule is written with such narrow parameters if that's truly the reason for its existence, hence my earlier conclusion that that probably isn't the case.
-
Your point is well taken, but I still think that it would be better to simply enact a blanket restriction if that's the intent of the rule. There are almost certainly people who can and will take advantage of the rule as written (and perhaps people who already have), though I'm sure that it does indeed go some way toward making most players less inclined to do it.
If the thought behind the rule is that strategic secessions are somehow exploitative, unfair, or otherwise have a negative impact on the game then they should simply be banned in all cases; I fail to see why the rule is written with such narrow parameters if that's truly the reason for its existence, hence my earlier conclusion that that probably isn't the case.
Can you imagine the state of the game if we enacted blanket rules to prevent every avenue of exploitation?
-
Can you imagine the state of the game if we enacted blanket rules to prevent every avenue of exploitation?
Let me turn that around. What makes this particular form of exploitation so special that it warrants a rule? And if it's so special, why isn't the rule stronger?
-
Let me turn that around. What makes this particular form of exploitation so special that it warrants a rule? And if it's so special, why isn't the rule stronger?
This may be wrong, however it was what I understood at the time the rule was created.
The rule against exploits or playing counter to game mechanics in general is not explicit, but covered under "Play fairly, as with friends". This in itself allows for wide ranging interpretations. Many people would argue that, if we think in the frame of mind of our nobles things like strategic secession is logical, since nobles being aware of the recruitment limitation would seek to overcome it. If I recall correctly Tom's opinion was that nobles would NOT see their realm give up land and lose prestige for the sake of efficiency, that appearances were far more important. Thus a rule was born to cover the specific issue.
Why is it not stronger? Most of the rules in BM aren't. Part of this is no doubt tied up in Tom's love of social experiments. I believe another part is to prevent overly restrictive rules from being used to prevent fun and interesting play. This is tied up in the hybrid nature of the game. If it was only a strategy game without the strong RP element I believe things like strategic secession would indeed be outright banned. We want this game to be MORE then just a strategy game though, and so the rules must be flexible.
Finally, this is part of the "policies" These are things that have grown over time from discussions with Tom and messages covering specific events. Apart from Ethan trying to collect them and place them on the wiki, I don't believe anyone has tried to sit down and codify them as has been done for things like the Social Contract. They are like a informal series of precedents, and I think the ambiguity they present is in part because of their origins.
-
You may well be right about their origin, but then as I understand it part of the Magistrates experiment was about lending more transparency to the process of adjudicating the rules. Part of that process in turn properly ought to be trying to reduce the amount of arbitrariness in how they are applied, as our open record of cases will quickly expose any arbitrariness in our decisions. That may necessitate interpreting things somewhat differently than they have been in the past; we may have already done this with respect to realm mergers. This is no different than what real judges do: They interpret the law, a process which can effectively change it by changing how it is applied.
My arguments may be annoying to some people, but they're part of an honest effort to explore the scope and intent of the rule so that players' understanding of the rule and how it is applied will be increased. You can't have an open and transparent system of rules when 90% of the precedents and past interpretations of the rule are basically apocryphal. I mean we're practically ruling by anecdote here; someone will think they can recall something Tom said five years ago or a Titan case from four years ago and suddenly that becomes part of the basis of a ruling. If the Magistrates are going to do any good, then we need some leeway to tighten up the rules and precedents so that they're clearer and easier to understand for the 95% of the player base that doesn't have a decade-long store of memories of past cases, precedents and statements from Tom.
-
You may well be right about their origin, but then as I understand it part of the Magistrates experiment was about lending more transparency to the process of adjudicating the rules. Part of that process in turn properly ought to be trying to reduce the amount of arbitrariness in how they are applied, as our open record of cases will quickly expose any arbitrariness in our decisions. That may necessitate interpreting things somewhat differently than they have been in the past; we may have already done this with respect to realm mergers. This is no different than what real judges do: They interpret the law, a process which can effectively change it by changing how it is applied.
My arguments may be annoying to some people, but they're part of an honest effort to explore the scope and intent of the rule so that players' understanding of the rule and how it is applied will be increased. You can't have an open and transparent system of rules when 90% of the precedents and past interpretations of the rule are basically apocryphal. I mean we're practically ruling by anecdote here; someone will think they can recall something Tom said five years ago or a Titan case from four years ago and suddenly that becomes part of the basis of a ruling. If the Magistrates are going to do any good, then we need some leeway to tighten up the rules and precedents so that they're clearer and easier to understand for the 95% of the player base that doesn't have a decade-long store of memories of past cases, precedents and statements from Tom.
Can't help you there, I certainly wouldn't go messing with the "Word of Tom" :) The main problem as I see it is you guys have no easy way during a case to get information from Tom regarding the full purpose of a rule. Thus if you start meddling with the rules we leave the path open for Tom to come and and disagree after a ruling.
There is always going to be a difference here between the role and powers of the magistrates and RL systems. Tom created the game and the rules, and locked away in his head is the way they are supposed to work.
-
you guys have no easy way during a case to get information from Tom regarding the full purpose of a rule.
There's e-mail...
-
Can't help you there, I certainly wouldn't go messing with the "Word of Tom" :) The main problem as I see it is you guys have no easy way during a case to get information from Tom regarding the full purpose of a rule. Thus if you start meddling with the rules we leave the path open for Tom to come and and disagree after a ruling.
There is always going to be a difference here between the role and powers of the magistrates and RL systems. Tom created the game and the rules, and locked away in his head is the way they are supposed to work.
As is made evident by Tom's post, quoted below, there is no reason that the Magistrates can't ask Tom a question. I have done it at least once during a Magistrates Case. Tom might not be on the forums a ton but you can certainly send him an email (or forum PM which gets sent to his email).There's e-mail...