BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => Case Archives => Magistrates Case Archive => Topic started by: BattleMaster Server on December 21, 2013, 09:02:26 PM

Title: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: BattleMaster Server on December 21, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Summary:Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Violation:Friendly Realm Merger
World:Dwilight
Complainer:Jordan Dishman (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=34300)
About:Khari (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=29885)

Full Complaint Text:
I'm not sure of the specifics, but Duke Khari Kye has joined Aslyon, leaving Farronite with a single city. I suppose so long as Farronite can continue as a one region realm it wouldn't be a realm merger, but it doesn't seem feasible.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Dishman on December 21, 2013, 09:12:47 PM
As a side note, I tried to figure out more about what happened in-game, but was directed here. I haven't really paid attention to the area enough to know much background. There are quite a few regions under Duke Khari, so I could imagine some of them splitting off to rejoin Farronite for a more functional realm.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 21, 2013, 10:10:25 PM
Seriously? The duchy has been set up that way for ages.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: dustole on December 22, 2013, 12:03:31 AM
I dunno, its iffy.  Terran thing was ruled a non merger by 1 vote and that was essentially because Terran was losing/had lost its war.  Farronite had no conflict.  They had signed a rather beneficial treaty with Astrum and they got out of the war.  Internal political conflict would be a great reason for such actions.  An IG source tells me there was a power struggle in the realm.   I have not verified it.

Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 22, 2013, 06:33:18 AM
Its only iffy because it was Asylon involved... Anyways I am done replying or adding to this conversation I just think its typical of this server to act like this.  :-[
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on December 22, 2013, 06:58:28 AM
I dunno, its iffy.  Terran thing was ruled a non merger by 1 vote and that was essentially because Terran was losing/had lost its war.  Farronite had no conflict.  They had signed a rather beneficial treaty with Astrum and they got out of the war.  Internal political conflict would be a great reason for such actions.  An IG source tells me there was a power struggle in the realm.   I have not verified it.

The Terran thing involved all of the realms regions. This does not. See the Solaria/Luria Nova realm merger case. This fits into the first allegiance change involved in that, and yes, while it screwed the original realm, it was not ruled a realm merger. The second city joining was, because that consisted of the entire realm moving. You cannot have a realm merger without the entirety of the realm merging. In no way did the Farronite Republic and Asylon become a singular entity on equal terms. A single (albeit powerful) Duchess changed allegiance. The Farronite Republic still exists as a realm, how could a realm merger take place if one of the two realms in question continues to exist?

There is no question in this case.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 22, 2013, 05:03:53 PM
Per game mechanics, barring a bug, it is impossible to merge every region into another realm. You have to leave one city behind. What happened here is that every region of a realm merged with another realm, to the extent possible by mechanics. (Again excepting bug abuse.) The realms involved are friendly. They were in fact strong allies.  The merger provides a big advantage in a war to the realm to which received the regions; economically, militarily, and geographically.

What you have here are two regions who have historically been strong friends and allies.  They are both strong, viable realms. Neither one is under any obvious external pressure or duress. The action taken merges the two realms, providing a large and obvious advantage to the realm that received the regions. The realms were merged to the maximum extent possible, limited by game mechanics. The remaining region is a city that cannot feed itself, and can only exist by receiving food from the realm to which all its regions moved.

Whether or not there were any IC reasons for the merger is irrelevant. This is an ooc rule which limits the actions of players for ooc reasons. (Besides, anyone with two braincells to rub together can always come with an IC reason to do anything they want. )

Imo, this violates the realm merger rule to the maximum extent possible without deliberate exploitation of a bug. Even if the player that did it did not intend it that way, That's how it ended up.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 22, 2013, 08:30:42 PM
I dont think Asylon and the Farronite nobles should be punished for the actions of one noble. I dont actually see that any of us have done any wrong except step on Astrum.

Perhaps the ability for Duchies to seperate and join other realms should be taken out if it causes so many problems, or perhaps only a certain amount of duchies can cede at a time. We didnt write the code or make the rules but it seems when it benefits Astrum there is no issue, let us not forget Kabrinskias realm merger.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: dustole on December 22, 2013, 10:47:39 PM
let us not forget Kabrinskias realm merger.


Which was ruled as illegal.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 22, 2013, 11:06:45 PM
I dont think Asylon and the Farronite nobles should be punished for the actions of one noble. I dont actually see that any of us have done any wrong except step on Astrum.

Perhaps the ability for Duchies to seperate and join other realms should be taken out if it causes so many problems, or perhaps only a certain amount of duchies can cede at a time. We didnt write the code or make the rules but it seems when it benefits Astrum there is no issue, let us not forget Kabrinskias realm merger.
1. Who said an entire realm should be punished, even if this is ruled as illegal?
2. You are not the one accused of doing anything wrong. Even if this is ruled as an illegal realm merger, nothing will happen to you.
3. As dustole says, the kabrinskia merger was ruled as illegal.
4. I agree that the current duchy system makes this kind of thing too easy. It was not possible under the old system. If I could think of any specific mechanic that would prevent realm mergers, and not unduly create artificial restrictions, I would propose them. If you can think of any, please do.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: vonGenf on December 23, 2013, 01:23:21 AM
4. I agree that the current duchy system makes this kind of thing too easy. It was not possible under the old system.

What exactly prevented this in the old system? I can't access the political map from the wiki right now, but FR was a two-city realm (Via and Golden Farrow), right? Then all the rurals could swear allegiance to the non-capital city in the old system too.

I would be a big fan of a system which would remove the possibility that clicking a button in game results in a forbidden result.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vita on December 23, 2013, 01:53:55 AM
Asylon is a one city realm that has been, for some months now, composed of two duchies. One full of rurals under Khari and one city duchy. To make it clear, there was no creation of the rural duchy for the purpose of changing allegiance/realm merger, but a pre-existing two duchy system that allowed one duchess to leave a city-state behind. Don't let your rurals get so powerful next time ;)
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 23, 2013, 03:36:18 AM
What exactly prevented this in the old system? I can't access the political map from the wiki right now, but FR was a two-city realm (Via and Golden Farrow), right? Then all the rurals could swear allegiance to the non-capital city in the old system too.

I would be a big fan of a system which would remove the possibility that clicking a button in game results in a forbidden result.

FR has never owned Via, its Asylons capital. FR was a one city realm.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 23, 2013, 03:37:17 AM
Asylon is a one city realm that has been, for some months now, composed of two duchies. One full of rurals under Khari and one city duchy. To make it clear, there was no creation of the rural duchy for the purpose of changing allegiance/realm merger, but a pre-existing two duchy system that allowed one duchess to leave a city-state behind. Don't let your rurals get so powerful next time ;)

Asylon is not a one city realm...
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 23, 2013, 03:38:02 AM
1. Who said an entire realm should be punished, even if this is ruled as illegal?
2. You are not the one accused of doing anything wrong. Even if this is ruled as an illegal realm merger, nothing will happen to you.
3. As dustole says, the kabrinskia merger was ruled as illegal.
4. I agree that the current duchy system makes this kind of thing too easy. It was not possible under the old system. If I could think of any specific mechanic that would prevent realm mergers, and not unduly create artificial restrictions, I would propose them. If you can think of any, please do.

Thankyou for the clarity.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Feylonis on December 23, 2013, 03:58:06 AM
From the messages that I've received, Khari changed allegiances because there weren't enough nobles in FR to maximize lordships in the rurals, while Asylon had plenty. Whether o not that can be taken as evidence for a strategic merger, I'll leave for you all to decide.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Penchant on December 23, 2013, 04:21:15 AM
From the messages that I've received, Khari changed allegiances because there weren't enough nobles in FR to maximize lordships in the rurals, while Asylon had plenty. Whether o not that can be taken as evidence for a strategic merger, I'll leave for you all to decide.
Unless the player of Khari confirms it, the letters are needed IMO for that info to be used.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on December 23, 2013, 05:24:37 AM
I will cite the example of Solaria again because the situation with the Ducny of Sun Hall joining Luria Nova is IDENTICAL. That was ruled legal. Its a power play, not a realm merger. You're allowed to do dastardly things, which this was. This is not two sovereign entities becoming one. This is a    Duchess making a power play. There is already a set precedent. Go read the Solaria/LN realm merger case.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Penchant on December 23, 2013, 09:04:33 AM
I will cite the example of Solaria again because the situation with the Ducny of Sun Hall joining Luria Nova is IDENTICAL. That was ruled legal. Its a power play, not a realm merger. You're allowed to do dastardly things, which this was. This is not two sovereign entities becoming one. This is a    Duchess making a power play. There is already a set precedent. Go read the Solaria/LN realm merger case.
Can you give me a link? I am not being lazy, I genuinely can't find, albeit I might be able to when I am not so tired.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on December 23, 2013, 09:10:49 AM
Can you give me a link? I am not being lazy, I genuinely can't find, albeit I might be able to when I am not so tired.

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3396.0.html

This case is identical the switching of allegiance of the Duchy of Sun Hall which was the prelude, and is discussed in this point. A duchy containing all but two regions (a stronghold and a mountain) changed allegiance to Luria Nova from Solaria. Nothing was found wrong with this, which is damned near identical to what just happened. The only reason a case was opened is because a bug was in place that allowed the final duchy of Solaria to change allegiance, which was declared a realm merger. My point is, if Sunhall leaving Solaria wasn't a realm merger, then the recent FR duchy leaving FR for Asylon isn't one either.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 23, 2013, 01:07:25 PM
What exactly prevented this in the old system?
In the old system, duchies were tied to cities. It was impossible to have a duchy without a city. (I'm considering strongholds as cities for this purpose.) If your realm had one city, you had one duchy. Since the last city can't swap allegiance, it was impossible for the duke of a one city/duchy realm to switch allegiance. You had to have at least two before you could pull something like this.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 23, 2013, 01:13:23 PM
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3396.0.html

Nothing was found wrong with this, which is damned near identical to what just happened.
You are incorrect. That case only deals with the second transfer that actually was the last two regions of the realm, and not the initial transfer. The verdict of that case also clearly states:
Quote
The Magistrates decline to rule on the question of realm mergers generally and the secession of capital duchies at this time...
That case explicitly did not rule on the realm merger aspect, and gives only a "guilty of bug exploitation" verdict.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vita on December 23, 2013, 05:49:32 PM
Asylon is not a one city realm...

Oops. My quote should've said FR not Asylon.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 23, 2013, 06:14:49 PM
FWIW - The following message was sent IG to the SA "all members" channel about this:

Quote
Out-of-Character from Khari Kye   (1 day, 20 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in "Sanguis Astroism" (124 recipients)
Well apparently people think Im cheating or some such, which is absurd.

FR has had two duchies for over half a year real time. Something like 3 rulers ago when I was its Governor General. I guess I have to explain every little thing we do to appease the masses. I created the second duchy so someone else could potentially be duke of Golden Farrow and ruler, ideally Gustav before he quit but it never happened. Since then yes FR had a treaty with Astrum, so what. Treaties are broken all the time in this game.

FR has dropped dramatically in its player count and was becoming near silent. I had been in talks with both Asylon and Phantaria about moving my duchy to either realm. I exercised my right as a Duchess and basically have ended the Farronite republic but only after consulting over half of its players. the other half possibly may have know something was in the works but im not sure.

All of this was done in game. So yes I gave the realm it its greatest ally. Big deal.

Frankly im kind of irked right now.
Jeff Walker
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 23, 2013, 07:19:42 PM
I will cite the example of Solaria again because the situation with the Ducny of Sun Hall joining Luria Nova is IDENTICAL. That was ruled legal. Its a power play, not a realm merger. You're allowed to do dastardly things, which this was. This is not two sovereign entities becoming one. This is a    Duchess making a power play. There is already a set precedent. Go read the Solaria/LN realm merger case.

Not the same. There was no power struggle that caused this if the OOC message that Indirik posted here is an accurate summation of events.

Question - who is/was the ruler of FR? Was it Khari?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vita on December 23, 2013, 08:50:38 PM
Widden Fraoch (still is). Khari was royal duchess.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 23, 2013, 09:03:37 PM
Some recent rulership changes in FR. There could very well have been others in-between. Family history records on this kind of stuff are a bit spotty...

2013-08-21      Khari      Stepped down from rulership.
2013-09-06      Hireshmont II      Elected as Ruler of Farronite Republic
2013-12-06      Widden      Elected as Ruler of Farronite Republic
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: cenrae on December 24, 2013, 12:34:43 AM
Arya was ruler for a week after Khari.

I was also a bit reactive in my ooc post. If there are questions for me feel free to ask.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on December 24, 2013, 04:25:24 AM
You are incorrect. That case only deals with the second transfer that actually was the last two regions of the realm, and not the initial transfer. The verdict of that case also clearly states:That case explicitly did not rule on the realm merger aspect, and gives only a "guilty of bug exploitation" verdict.

Stop. Read. I am not referring to the Duchy of the Courts of Stone which was a bug exploit. I.specifically said the first Duchy to leave Solaria which was Sun Hall, and if you bothered to read the thread, Sun Hall was decidely not a realm merger. Sun Hall joining Luria Nova is IDENTICAL in scope to Mech and Farrow.

Throw this case out. Its clearly not a realm merger. FR still exists, so what realms merged?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Dishman on December 24, 2013, 05:21:38 AM
Is three people and a city enough to consider Farronite a realm? Perhaps they will get a few immigrants, but without a few rurals for scouts and food then I'm not sure it will last.

When it does begin to waver, I wonder how long until they abandon ship and let it go rogue, letting it go to Asylon. I think it is a rather appropriate way for it to end up, but wouldn't it amount to the same thing as merging all at once?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on December 24, 2013, 08:52:46 AM
Is three people and a city enough to consider Farronite a realm? Perhaps they will get a few immigrants, but without a few rurals for scouts and food then I'm not sure it will last.

When it does begin to waver, I wonder how long until they abandon ship and let it go rogue, letting it go to Asylon. I think it is a rather appropriate way for it to end up, but wouldn't it amount to the same thing as merging all at once?

Yes. It has a banner, a government, and territory. Its a realm.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 24, 2013, 02:29:05 PM
Please read the message posted by the player that did the merge. Their stated intention was to destroy the realm by merging with one of their two neighbors. There is no power struggle or ic political scheming here. If there is, then it should be quite easily provable with a few messages to show it. Without that, all you have the player's own message stating their intentions to merge the realms.

As for the assertion of "its not a merge because FR still exists", that's irrelevant. The realms we merged to the extent possible by game mechanics restrictions. To get any more, you'd have full combine this with a bug exploit, which is a violation all on its own.  If this isn't a realm merger, then it is impossible to have a realm merger that doesn't involve bug exploitation. Which makes the realm merger rule superfluous.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 24, 2013, 04:00:15 PM
Please read the message posted by the player that did the merge. Their stated intention was to destroy the realm by merging with one of their two neighbors. There is no power struggle or ic political scheming here. If there is, then it should be quite easily provable with a few messages to show it. Without that, all you have the player's own message stating their intentions to merge the realms.

As for the assertion of "its not a merge because FR still exists", that's irrelevant. The realms we merged to the extent possible by game mechanics restrictions. To get any more, you'd have full combine this with a bug exploit, which is a violation all on its own.  If this isn't a realm merger, then it is impossible to have a realm merger that doesn't involve bug exploitation. Which makes the realm merger rule superfluous.

These are good points...
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 24, 2013, 07:15:51 PM
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: cenrae on December 24, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
That very well sums up most of the events leading to this situation.

Oh I also hired an assassin to strike Vellos when he joined FR. A very successful assassin. That was a nice RP from the infiltrator.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 24, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
What many outside of FR/Asylon do t know is how much gold FR was pumping into Asylon the whole time. When Vellos took control of FR we thought that our relationship was over but found that actually strengthened. We have been aware for a long time of two factions in FR. On another note it was always Asylons intention to have astrong independent FR on our east flank, them joining us was a bonus but not our intention.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Marlboro on December 26, 2013, 09:48:48 PM
Is this still ongoing? I'd like to weigh in, as the player of the sole land-owning noble of FR.

Paul saw firsthand two single-region realms withstand direct assaults from multi-realm coalitions; he was on the other side. Eventually they won out, but it was lengthy and costly for the aggressors. Now he finds himself in the same situation, but regionally he has many allies, having paid his dues to Phantaria and D'Hara. Asylon considers GF cursed, so they will not attack, and FR has a non-aggression treaty with Astrum, which it fully intends to uphold. So it will not fall due to enemy action.

Starvation is an issue. However, with Farrowfield to feed as well, starvation has been an issue for FR for a long time. The realm was simply unable to feed itself. Due to treaties with various entities, they were unable to expand. Asylon's resurgence is thus a boon to Golden Farrow. As their own food situation stabilizes and they grow their borders, they will have more food to sell than FR's rurals alone did, and Paul pays top coin for every bushel. The realm may fall due to starvation, but that was always a danger.

In my opinion, FR as a single region stands a better chance of survival than before. It will not be a very exciting realm, but Paul Marlboro doesn't care for excitement. He sees gold, and lots of it, and now has no obligation to spend it on throwaway armies to back the ally-of-the-day. There is no politicking separating him from his gross profits. Ever since he first swore an oath to Allison Kabrinski, then-margravine of the city, he knew he wanted it all to himself. Now he's finally got it. This wasn't a realm merger, it was a power play. It may turn out to be a really stupid one, but the dice haven't finished rolling.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Penchant on December 27, 2013, 01:50:39 AM
Tom's post in the Solari and Luria Nova realm merger thread states:
Quote
A "friendly realm merger" does not require a precise definition of every word. What I intend by those words is that I don't want realm A and realm B to sit together and say "hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side" or whatever, and then simply join up.
Duchess Khari decided she didn't want to be a part of FR anymore, not the rulers simply agreeing to merge, thus this is not a realm merger.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on December 27, 2013, 02:01:31 AM
It's really sad to have to show up plans, strategies and RPs to defend some situation, exposing it to everyone... hoping that they will understand the difference about what is discussed here and what they can use in their own benefit in game.

Quote
To use the term realm merger is incorrect, the term should not be used and another term should be used in its place such as duchy merger.

And I fully agree with this. If you don't want to see it happening, instead of open cases and always untangle situations like this, even bringing to the table some kind of bug abuse, try to create some code to avoid entire duchies moving to another realms leaving just one city behind... or live with that, because even when it's considered illegal, fix it after it happened is a huge inconvenience for a lot of players involved, especially when they are unaware that they are doing something wrong. That's useless to show it in our Forums and open cases if the game continue allowing you to do it.

Invariably you will find someone who doesn't know the rule and will not do with bad intentions, but simple ignorance of a rule that exists just here, while the game itself doesn't prevent you from making this kind of decision.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 27, 2013, 03:11:27 AM
Quote
And I fully agree with this. If you don't want to see it happening, instead of open cases and always untangle situations like this, even bringing to the table some kind of bug abuse, try to create some code to avoid entire duchies moving to another realms leaving just one city behind... or live with that, because even when it's considered illegal, fix it after it happened is a huge inconvenience for a lot of players involved, especially when they are unaware that they are doing something wrong. That's useless to show it in our Forums and open cases if the game continue allowing you to do it.
You're correct in that, where possible, these kinds of things should be handled by game mechanics. If it was easy/possible, I assume that Anaris would have already fixed it. As I said before, this kind of thing was not really possible under the old duchy system. The new one is much more complex and flexible, and unfortunately leaves some loopholes like this. I would love to see some kind of code-based fix, if it were possible. If it is or not, is something that really only Anaris or ^ban^ could answer. It is also a matter for a different thread.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Chenier on December 27, 2013, 03:44:01 AM
From the messages that I've received, Khari changed allegiances because there weren't enough nobles in FR to maximize lordships in the rurals, while Asylon had plenty. Whether o not that can be taken as evidence for a strategic merger, I'll leave for you all to decide.

That's what I was told IG by FR'S ruler...

I really don't like this move, but in the definitions of what are illegal realm mergers, we consider the merger of two viable realms. Was FR viable? The one doing the move did not appear to think so.

That being said, is her say enough? Was the lack of noble so bad that the realm was "non-viable"? I personally have a hard time believing that... FR had a lot of regions, if density was too low it could have skipped on a few until density increased to proper levels. Not to mention other realms had it at least as bad before without imploding. And where do we draw the line? FR as a realm certainly is no longer viable.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Graeth on December 27, 2013, 05:45:26 AM

I have some messages from more than a month back that may be helpful.  I do have to edit out some fields though for IG reasons.

Quote
Letter from Grimrog Bjarnson   (45 days, 4 hours ago)
Message sent to  -----------------------
Duke Graeth,

Duchess Khari of the Farronite republic has sent us a letter where she lets us know that she is considering abandoning the Farronite Republic and bring her duchy to Asylon... This would leave the Farronite Republic with just one province, their ever-consuming-city Golden Farrow and add the rest of their realm to us.

We would swell in size and never need to worry about starvation again...

Myself I see this as an oppertunity too good to refuse, what are your thoughts on this?


Honor, Glory and Unity.
Grimrog Bjarnson
King of Asylon
Royal of Asylon
Duke of Bloodmoon
Earl of Via

That was the first time my character became aware of the possible plans.  I then asked why she would be considering this and here is the reply:

Quote
Letter from Grimrog Bjarnson   (44 days, 18 hours ago)
Message sent to------------------------------------
I belive she is unsatesfied with what her realm has turned into, and the only way for it to prosper is to join us. But I will ask her and see what she replies.


Honor, Glory and Unity.
Grimrog Bjarnson
King of Asylon
Royal of Asylon
Duke of Bloodmoon
Earl of Via


Quote
Letter from Grimrog Bjarnson   (38 days, 17 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in message group "Diplomatic Council" (7 recipients)
Friends of the Diplomatic Council,

I will let you all know that I have exhanged several letters with some Lords of the Farronites, they are very unhappy with the current state of affairs within the Farronite republic and they are thinking about switching allegiance to Asylon...

I think this would be very fortunate for us, but so far nothing has been decided. I will carry on my talks with them and see what can be done, parhaps my diplomatic skill will grant us some more regions, making us thicker and stronger.

Honor, Glory and Unity.
Grimrog Bjarnson
King of Asylon
Royal of Asylon
Duke of Bloodmoon
Earl of Via

Obviously these are second-hand letters but I think they show that there was political unrest developing within FR for some time leading up to the duchy switch.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on December 27, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
Magistrate case threads are not general discussion threads. Posts that do not add actual content/evidence to the case, or those that simply repeat things that have already been said will be removed.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 27, 2013, 09:35:14 PM
I have cleaned out some irrelevant posts and pared down some others.

At the moment I see two conflicting characterizations of events. In one of them, the player of Khari Kye (posting here as cenrae) grew dissatisfied with the state of FR from an OOC perspective with too few nobles and too little activity in the realm, and resolved to essentially merge the vast majority of the realm with Asylon in an effort to achieve an increased noble density and perhaps liven up the game for her/himself and the remaining players in FR as well as deal with the problem of too many regions/not enough nobles. In the other, there was some sort of power struggle between pro- and anti-Asylon factions in FR that led to Khari making a power play and defecting with her duchy to Asylon.

Just based on what I've seen so far (and with no first-hand knowledge of the situation), I have to say that the case looks a bit stronger for the first characterization than the second (though I'm also sure they're both grounded in truth). It's hard to believe that there was much actively ongoing political conflict within FR given the OOC message that Khari sent to SA:

FR has dropped dramatically in its player count and was becoming near silent.

This is not generally how one would describe a realm with an active power-struggle on-going. The proximate cause of the action appears to have been not any sort of IC conflict per se, but rather OOC motives related to player count, realm viability and boredom. The other characterization of events seems frankly to be a bit of a ret-con... I'm sure there were some nobles in FR that were pro-Astrum, but it appears to me just from what's been posted here that the relative importance of the conflict between them and pro-Asylon nobles is being rather overstated for the sake of applying an IC justification to the secession ex post facto... Vellos had already paused by the time Khari acted, and I have seen no evidence so far of any sort of IC argument or conflict that led directly to what happened. I find the justification contained in Khari's OOC letter to SA to be far more believable, and have no reason to imagine that if there had been a genuine IC motivation for the whole thing, Khari wouldn't have mentioned it then.

So, I would ask you to dispense with the arguments about the IC justification at this point, unless there's more compelling evidence to be had. Instead, the question is (assuming the motivation of the action is as described by Khari in the OOC message), is this an illegal realm merger?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: cenrae on December 27, 2013, 11:09:39 PM
I am failing to see the point in all this. I used an in game mechanic to stimulate the game for all involved. Apparently the ability to move a duchy needs to be eliminated.

A far as evidence, plenty has been put forward that will either be used or ignored as one sees fit.

The FR was a shell of its original creation and there was internal strife between its ruling elite, some more prevelant than others.

Do what you will, i'm basically done with this discussion.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vellos on December 28, 2013, 12:52:55 AM
I don't think the two different narratives are exclusive.

Cenrae saw FR getting boring as it became near-silent with no interesting conflicts. So new activity and conflicts had to be found. So stir things up with a merge to Asylon.

However, I would argue that the presence of a genuine political struggle in FR is irrelevant. The OOC motivation is clearly stated. Now in my opinion the realm merger ban is total crap and has no point or game benefit. But the rule exists and, if we're going to enforce it, I don't think there's a clearer example than this. We have a powerful player who decided to launch a merger of all but one regions in order to rejoin a war that a majority of the realm's players voted to stop fighting. Now maybe those players have changed their minds; fine.

But the point is that, insofar as the merger rule has a point, this is it: to make it so that influential players can't just drag their vassals around into the flag of their choice. You can't just shuffle whole realms around to optimize who is in your message recipient list or what your noble-to-region count is.

For myself, I sympathize with the desire to merge to Asylon. FR was pretty dull the entire time I was there. The only conversation I ever saw was conversation I started by approaching various nobles or starting fights about foreign policies. It was generally a pretty quiet realm and suffered from attrition and a sense of helplessness and pointlessness.

Such a realm can only really end three ways: revitalization by some means (a new war, culture change, new nobles, etc), merging into another realm, or death. FR wasn't looking at a likely revitalization, death isn't usually preferable, so Khari went with a merger. It's a reasonable choice and, in the absence of the rule, it's the one I would have made too. But the rule exists. In the current regime, the proper end of FR was a death spiral of noble depletion and starvation, leading to a wide wasteland between Phantaria and Astrum. That would be a lot of fun for the nobles of Phantaria as they could expand northwards, and lead to some Asylonian expansion too. It's not necessarily a worse result for the game, or even for FR's players.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Penchant on December 28, 2013, 07:17:23 AM
I don't think the two different narratives are exclusive.

Cenrae saw FR getting boring as it became near-silent with no interesting conflicts. So new activity and conflicts had to be found. So stir things up with a merge to Asylon.

However, I would argue that the presence of a genuine political struggle in FR is irrelevant. The OOC motivation is clearly stated. Now in my opinion the realm merger ban is total crap and has no point or game benefit. But the rule exists and, if we're going to enforce it, I don't think there's a clearer example than this. We have a powerful player who decided to launch a merger of all but one regions in order to rejoin a war that a majority of the realm's players voted to stop fighting. Now maybe those players have changed their minds; fine.

But the point is that, insofar as the merger rule has a point, this is it: to make it so that influential players can't just drag their vassals around into the flag of their choice. You can't just shuffle whole realms around to optimize who is in your message recipient list or what your noble-to-region count is.

For myself, I sympathize with the desire to merge to Asylon. FR was pretty dull the entire time I was there. The only conversation I ever saw was conversation I started by approaching various nobles or starting fights about foreign policies. It was generally a pretty quiet realm and suffered from attrition and a sense of helplessness and pointlessness.

Such a realm can only really end three ways: revitalization by some means (a new war, culture change, new nobles, etc), merging into another realm, or death. FR wasn't looking at a likely revitalization, death isn't usually preferable, so Khari went with a merger. It's a reasonable choice and, in the absence of the rule, it's the one I would have made too. But the rule exists. In the current regime, the proper end of FR was a death spiral of noble depletion and starvation, leading to a wide wasteland between Phantaria and Astrum. That would be a lot of fun for the nobles of Phantaria as they could expand northwards, and lead to some Asylonian expansion too. It's not necessarily a worse result for the game, or even for FR's players.
Can you please tell me how based on the below that this is an illegal realm merger?
Tom's post in the Solari and Luria Nova realm merger thread states:
Quote
Quote
A "friendly realm merger" does not require a precise definition of every word. What I intend by those words is that I don't want realm A and realm B to sit together and say "hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side" or whatever, and then simply join up.
Duchess Khari decided she didn't want to be a part of FR anymore, not the rulers simply agreeing to merge, thus this is not a realm merger.

Btw:
Quote
But the point is that, insofar as the merger rule has a point, this is it: to make it so that influential players can't just drag their vassals around into the flag of their choice. You can't just shuffle whole realms around to optimize who is in your message recipient list or what your noble-to-region count is.
That is false. A duke decides that realm B has better name or cooler flag than there current realm, they can change allegiance.  A duke decides they just don't like the look of the map with their duchy a part of their current realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that they would rather be addressing 40 nobles instead of 20 when they address the realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that the land needs more nobles to reign it in, they can change allegiance.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: cenrae on December 28, 2013, 08:21:55 AM
To be perfectly honest with everyone if I read the realm merger rule it was long ago and really did not know about it. This is the first I have ever looked at the cases threads, but hey... 500 views.

People are always saying if things are slow, quiet, or boring do something. Well I did, and I had the support of roughly half of the realm. The other half to my knowledge had no clue.

I also have to say I had that excited/nervous felling in my stomach when I pressed the button...
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vellos on December 28, 2013, 09:09:07 AM
Btw:That is false. A duke decides that realm B has better name or cooler flag than there current realm, they can change allegiance.  A duke decides they just don't like the look of the map with their duchy a part of their current realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that they would rather be addressing 40 nobles instead of 20 when they address the realm, they can change allegiance. A duke decides that the land needs more nobles to reign it in, they can change allegiance.

Btw: no it's not.

There's a difference between a duke seceding with 10 out of 40 nobles and a duke seceding with 8 out of 10.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: D`Este on December 28, 2013, 10:17:00 AM
Yes there is this rule, but we also have to look at what is best for the players. Quiet, almost dead realms are killing this game. Rules should be there to guide, not restrain.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vita on December 28, 2013, 10:34:49 AM
I've never really understood why this rule (or say, the strategic secession rule) is so contentious. It's always seemed simple when looking at Tom's words and the context of every other rule. Is this done to circumvent mechanic limitations put in place for game balance? Hence why strategic secessions are prohibited to avoid realms seceding just to better prosecute the war with a capital that has quicker refit times to the front. Hence why merging is prohibited to avoid realms combining messaging interfaces, command structures, easier to send gold to each other, or whatever else to advantage a war effort (also, I recall Tom mentioning that no sovereign would willingly cede their authority to another just because it makes war easier to organize or what have you).

As I've said with strategic secessions before, this is one of those rules that is often accused, but quite rarely actually violates the rule.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Penchant on December 28, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Btw: no it's not.

There's a difference between a duke seceding with 10 out of 40 nobles and a duke seceding with 8 out of 10.
Where does it state that in the rules, by Tom elsewhere, or in a previous Magistrates case verdict?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vellos on December 28, 2013, 06:53:00 PM
It states that right where I said it and I'm a Magistrate, and if the other Magistrates agree, it's a rule.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Anaris on December 28, 2013, 07:02:30 PM
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vellos on December 28, 2013, 11:10:08 PM
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Buffalkill on December 29, 2013, 12:45:29 AM
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Marlboro on December 29, 2013, 04:30:30 AM
So, by the rules, the proper result was the death of the realm, not its merger.

You were there; did it ever seem particularly alive?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vellos on December 29, 2013, 05:51:56 AM
You were there; did it ever seem particularly alive?

Only when I set to feuding, so, no. Death seemed a natural end.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 29, 2013, 07:29:23 PM
Cleaned up some more posts... Try to stay on topic.

I've never really understood why this rule (or say, the strategic secession rule) is so contentious. It's always seemed simple when looking at Tom's words and the context of every other rule. Is this done to circumvent mechanic limitations put in place for game balance? Hence why strategic secessions are prohibited to avoid realms seceding just to better prosecute the war with a capital that has quicker refit times to the front. Hence why merging is prohibited to avoid realms combining messaging interfaces, command structures, easier to send gold to each other, or whatever else to advantage a war effort (also, I recall Tom mentioning that no sovereign would willingly cede their authority to another just because it makes war easier to organize or what have you).

As I've said with strategic secessions before, this is one of those rules that is often accused, but quite rarely actually violates the rule.

And I have the same issues with interpreting this rule that way as I did with how the strategic secession rule was interpreted in our last case on the subject. If the only way to violate this rule is to explicitly say "I'm merging realms so that I can take advantage of game mechanics," then it's basically never going to be applicable and we might as well say "realm mergers are fine," because for all intents and purposes they would be. Furthermore, I recall that several of the characters involved in attempting to merge Summerdale and Thulsoma back in the day got lightning bolted for their efforts, and that case was similar. If that was an illegal realm merger and this isn't, I'd be curious to know why people think this is different.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Anaris on December 29, 2013, 08:37:38 PM

The realm's not dead, nor has it effectively ceased to exist. It still has a ruler, nobles, gold, soldiers, and the ability to engage in trade, diplomacy and military action with other realms.

You are splitting hairs.

It has only ever been possible to remove a realm's last region peacefully by bugs. Thus, any realm merger that is not also a bug exploit must, of necessity, leave every single one of these things in place.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Graeth on December 29, 2013, 09:32:07 PM
Cleaned up some more posts... Try to stay on topic.

And I have the same issues with interpreting this rule that way as I did with how the strategic secession rule was interpreted in our last case on the subject. If the only way to violate this rule is to explicitly say "I'm merging realms so that I can take advantage of game mechanics," then it's basically never going to be applicable and we might as well say "realm mergers are fine," because for all intents and purposes they would be. Furthermore, I recall that several of the characters involved in attempting to merge Summerdale and Thulsoma back in the day got lightning bolted for their efforts, and that case was similar. If that was an illegal realm merger and this isn't, I'd be curious to know why people think this is different.

If you are considering zapping players in a dying realm who are trying to keep the game fun admist game-wide declining populations then I think you need to seriously reconsider your policies.  I foresee this sort of case becoming more common as the game continues to lose players, banning your existing and loyal player base seems counter-intuitive.  This is a holdover rule from another time in this game's life.  It is also extremely obscure and poorly worded.  Realms can never merge as equal entities, and if they can it is not applicable here.  Asylon maintains its governmental system, personnel (especially in regards to our King), name, capital, distinct history, distinct culture and overwhelming player amount.  Further, Asylon unilaterally culled out FR nobles that it deemed politically harmful, explicitly demonstrating its overwhelming advantage in the duchy change.  And that is considering the fact that you are ignoring that FR still exists in GF and might be able to exist indefinitely and perhaps even expand with the new addition of sea travel.

Your post is extremely troubling.  In character wise I'm not sure what the problem is, it isn't like nation states in the past never conglomerated together.  It seems like you want to bring down the hammer just because you don't like the way the rule has been applied or not, and not for mechanical or roleplaying atmosphere reasons.  A dying realm can takes months to be finished off naturally, and I imagine that natural attrition is extremely boring for those involved.  In this case a Duchess decided to proactively change her duchy in a way that made sense in character and in line with explicit or implicit political strife in her realm.  The fact is that strategically this does not help our realm in our war, we now find ourselves in a food shortage after accepting the duchy change, further none of the regions would allow us to change the capital to a more strategic position.  Finally, it lowers our population density per region. 

I do not want to clutter this post, however I feel that the overwhelming amount of magistrates on the other side of this conflict puts Asylon and former Farronites at a severe disadvantage. 
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vita on December 30, 2013, 12:39:43 AM
Furthermore, I recall that several of the characters involved in attempting to merge Summerdale and Thulsoma back in the day got lightning bolted for their efforts, and that case was similar. If that was an illegal realm merger and this isn't, I'd be curious to know why people think this is different.

First, I don't recall any lightning bolts (could've been during one of my away periods), so its very likely I could be missing an important point from that specific situation. But playing the king of Libero Empire at the time, I do recall some of the ideas floated before any lightning bolts were used. They were very much of a joining as equals concept in order to be more powerful against neighboring realms and unify as northmen. The difference between then and now is that Duchess Khari is not also Queen of Asylon or some other arrangement where they 'merge' together. There is a difference between realigning one's loyalties and merging realms.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Dishman on December 30, 2013, 01:55:18 AM
I started this case with little info. Now that I'm more aware of the situation, it seemed like this (or something similar) was inevitable. It still seems to fit the mechanics for a realm merger, though. I'm content either way this is decided. The merger rule could potentially draw too many people away from the game as realms slowly wither.

Then again, I wonder why people stayed in Farronite? Dwilight is huge and with a good variety of flavor, not to mention other continents. Did people grow attached to their positions and lordships?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Anaris on December 30, 2013, 05:34:42 AM
If you are considering zapping players in a dying realm who are trying to keep the game fun admist game-wide declining populations then I think you need to seriously reconsider your policies.

If what was done violates the rules, then those who did it must be punished as laid out in those rules. "But the game's population is declining" or "But I was trying to make things more fun" are not valid defenses.

If you feel the rule needs to be changed, then that is a separate discussion, and does not belong here.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Chenier on December 30, 2013, 05:15:12 PM
I disagree with the assertions that it was "inevitable" or that FR was "not viable" due to low noble density. As others have stated, FR had a LOT of regions, ceding a few of these away could have brought density up considerably. Furthermore, density was no lower than other realms who have maintained such low levels for quite some time without ever talking about merging with a neighbor.

Just because the duchess lost hope doesn't mean the situation was truly hopeless.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: vonGenf on December 30, 2013, 05:25:21 PM
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Graeth on December 30, 2013, 08:42:43 PM
Even ignoring the fact that FR still exists, the rule prohibits two realms merging as equal entities.  What is the argument for that here?  It seems pretty clear that this "merger" was extremely unequal in terms of realm sovereignty among a long list of other inequalities. 
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 30, 2013, 08:53:02 PM
The Thulsoma/Summerdale merger was that the Queen or king got lightning bolted for a couple of days and we were told not to try a merger. Which we did anyways by abandoning Thulsoma inthe end but never tried to recover the old regions because the Summerdale nobles were extremely paranoid of SA nobles in their realm, which Thulsoma was so they didnt want to actually see it succeed, even though it would have been beneficial. After they combined Averoth was to join ad we would have been a large force in the north. It was my idea to found a federated united kingdom under the Summerdaliam crown with three kings in revolving leadership etc. it would have been cool and we could have offered a good bit of strength in that region. What happened instead was fragmenting and little wars and the Thulsomans left to Asylon where we thrived.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on December 30, 2013, 08:55:15 PM
What happened with FR and Asylon is a duchy merger not a realm merger. If you want to prevent duchies from merging then restrict the size of duchies or what or how duchies merge.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 31, 2013, 12:42:11 AM
If you are considering zapping players in a dying realm who are trying to keep the game fun admist game-wide declining populations then I think you need to seriously reconsider your policies.  I foresee this sort of case becoming more common as the game continues to lose players, banning your existing and loyal player base seems counter-intuitive.  This is a holdover rule from another time in this game's life.  It is also extremely obscure and poorly worded.  Realms can never merge as equal entities, and if they can it is not applicable here.  Asylon maintains its governmental system, personnel (especially in regards to our King), name, capital, distinct history, distinct culture and overwhelming player amount.  Further, Asylon unilaterally culled out FR nobles that it deemed politically harmful, explicitly demonstrating its overwhelming advantage in the duchy change.  And that is considering the fact that you are ignoring that FR still exists in GF and might be able to exist indefinitely and perhaps even expand with the new addition of sea travel.

Your post is extremely troubling.  In character wise I'm not sure what the problem is, it isn't like nation states in the past never conglomerated together.  It seems like you want to bring down the hammer just because you don't like the way the rule has been applied or not, and not for mechanical or roleplaying atmosphere reasons.  A dying realm can takes months to be finished off naturally, and I imagine that natural attrition is extremely boring for those involved.  In this case a Duchess decided to proactively change her duchy in a way that made sense in character and in line with explicit or implicit political strife in her realm.  The fact is that strategically this does not help our realm in our war, we now find ourselves in a food shortage after accepting the duchy change, further none of the regions would allow us to change the capital to a more strategic position.  Finally, it lowers our population density per region. 

I do not want to clutter this post, however I feel that the overwhelming amount of magistrates on the other side of this conflict puts Asylon and former Farronites at a severe disadvantage.

I think you're reading too much into what I posted... I have no particular desire to punish anyone. I am merely concerned now, as I was in the prior case concerning strategic secessions, that the rule could be so narrowly interpreted as to be pointless in which case why have a rule at all. That said, my thinking on the topic continues to evolve and these discussions contribute to that evolution. I hear what you are saying. Also, Please do not derail the topic with accusations of bias. Vellos and I happen to be the two Magistrates who do most of the posting in these cases, but we aren't the only ones who vote, and I haven't had a character active on Dwilight for months now.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 31, 2013, 12:55:25 AM
The Thulsoma/Summerdale merger was that the Queen or king got lightning bolted for a couple of days and we were told not to try a merger. Which we did anyways by abandoning Thulsoma inthe end but never tried to recover the old regions because the Summerdale nobles were extremely paranoid of SA nobles in their realm, which Thulsoma was so they didnt want to actually see it succeed, even though it would have been beneficial. After they combined Averoth was to join ad we would have been a large force in the north. It was my idea to found a federated united kingdom under the Summerdaliam crown with three kings in revolving leadership etc. it would have been cool and we could have offered a good bit of strength in that region. What happened instead was fragmenting and little wars and the Thulsomans left to Asylon where we thrived.

This is the incident I remember, and it sounds like the bolt came down before anyone even tried anything, just based on the idea being discussed. But again, curious as to how that's different from this case - it doesn't seem to me like the proposed Thulsoma-Summerdale-Averoth merger was about exploiting game mechanics any more than the current case is, which calls into question that narrow interpretation of the rule and would seem to place more emphasis on the idea that realm mergers between equals are not permitted for other reasons (game balance? promoting conflict? keeping with Tom's interpretation of medieval governments?).

There are arguments to be made that interpreting this rule too narrowly will encourage more virtual mergers like this one and lead to consolidation of smaller realms into bigger ones, something that I am certain Tom would not care for since it replaces expansion by conquest and limits conflict. There are also arguments that this sort of merger should be permitted anyway in an era of a shrinking player base, as Graeth is arguing, but that would definitely be a departure from current practice.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Vita on December 31, 2013, 01:55:57 AM
This is the incident I remember, and it sounds like the bolt came down before anyone even tried anything, just based on the idea being discussed. But again, curious as to how that's different from this case - it doesn't seem to me like the proposed Thulsoma-Summerdale-Averoth merger was about exploiting game mechanics any more than the current case is, which calls into question that narrow interpretation of the rule and would seem to place more emphasis on the idea that realm mergers between equals are not permitted for other reasons (game balance? promoting conflict? keeping with Tom's interpretation of medieval governments?).

Equals (that is sovereigns/rulers, not realms of equitable strength) would indeed not voluntarily submit to another (hence why there's *not* a mechanic for a ruler joining an entire realm), according to how I've read Tom's words.

I note a distinct difference between TSA attempting to merge as equal realms to one another and a farronite duchy changing loyalty to Asylon's king. TSA would've changed from three independent realms with different rulers, capitals etc. to one realm with the benefits of communication channels, gold transferability, less complicated diplomacy in battles, one governing system (in contrast to three realms where, even if federated, one of them could have a falling out with the other through some internal political change), only one realm to improve sympathy towards, and all the other little mechanic benefits a realm provides. It would've actually been different entities merging as one (similar to how Riombara formed, which I believe predated and was the cause of this rule's creation) as opposed to a realm expanding through an allegiance change. TSA merging would've been done for the purpose of forming one game mechanic realm to defend itself with while this FR incident was about either IC tension or OOC boredom.

I'll try to avoid chiming in too much on the specifics of the IC and/or OOC reasoning, as I'm rather far removed from the specifics, but I would be hesitant about punishing someone for an attempt to liven up the game. Obviously a broken rule is a broken rule and must be dealt with, but I've often seen (and done myself) IC actions done for the sake of a better playing environment and don't think that should be discouraged. I would hope players would also keep it within IC sensibility in not breaking their character's style either.

I think a key element is that FR is continuing as a realm, however much diminished. There is no movement of nobility leaving Golden Farrow to join Asylon and reconquer GF, as you would seen in a merger that wasn't also a bug exploit. Asylon had two choices for interacting with GF without merging. Conquer it in a war based on various grievances between farronite nobility and those who left for Asylon. Or ignore it. They're taking the latter route.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on December 31, 2013, 02:26:17 AM
I'll try to avoid chiming in too much on the specifics of the IC and/or OOC reasoning, as I'm rather far removed from the specifics, but I would be hesitant about punishing someone for an attempt to liven up the game. Obviously a broken rule is a broken rule and must be dealt with, but I've often seen (and done myself) IC actions done for the sake of a better playing environment and don't think that should be discouraged. I would hope players would also keep it within IC sensibility in not breaking their character's style either.

I think a key element is that FR is continuing as a realm, however much diminished. There is no movement of nobility leaving Golden Farrow to join Asylon and reconquer GF, as you would seen in a merger that wasn't also a bug exploit. Asylon had two choices for interacting with GF without merging. Conquer it in a war based on various grievances between farronite nobility and those who left for Asylon. Or ignore it. They're taking the latter route.



I am inclined to agree with you at the moment. An argument could be made that in some cases a move like this one would be a true realm merger, but I just don't see the intent here, not really.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Penchant on December 31, 2013, 06:09:07 PM



I am inclined to agree with you at the moment. An argument could be made that in some cases a move like this one would be a true realm merger, but I just don't see the intent here, not really.
To add a little to what Vita said, they planned on rulers of the other realms taking turns ruling such that that way all 3 kings are equal, making it more explicit that they are merging as equal entities.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Buffalkill on December 31, 2013, 09:12:47 PM
I was looking through some of the past magistrate cases and I came across this post from Tom, which I think is instructive. I think that whatever arguments you can make to construe this as a violation, it's sufficiently ambiguous that the case should be dropped.
Quote
If I may inject, because this is already taking way too long.

We are bickering over details.

A "friendly realm merger" does not require a precise definition of every word. What I intend by those words is that I don't want realm A and realm B to sit together and say "hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side" or whatever, and then simply join up.

What happened here was NOT the scenario I see as a "friendly realm merger", because it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties. You can discuss the "friendly" part if you want, but there wasn't a merger. Whatever you call it, and it sure is a strange event, but it's not the event I ruled disallowed.

Moreover, that real question is, which part of the Social Contract was broken. If we can not spot one without lots of arguing, then we can not assume that the players should have.

That is what I meant a while ago when I said cases should be handled a lot faster because unless they are fairly obvious, we can't expect the players to have seen their acts as violations. If it takes a week of deliberation between half a dozen Magistrates to determine whether or not... - how can we expect the players to come to a sane conclusion?

I'm almost ready to make a ruling that says if the Magistrates can't clearly say "guilty" within a few days, then he's innocent. Mostly so the whole game doesn't get bogged down in rules-lawyering. If that means we let a few people go without punishment, that's fine with me. I'd rather improve the rules than try hard to get every last one of them.


http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3396.msg80195.html#msg80195
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Anaris on December 31, 2013, 09:27:12 PM
I believe Buffakill's quote is extremely relevant, particularly this portion:

Quote
...it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties.

Good find.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Chenier on January 01, 2014, 01:11:58 AM
Or, you know:

Quote
"hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side"

Which is the main reason I'm inclined to dismiss the case, even though I don't consider pertinent most of the defense's arguments.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on January 02, 2014, 06:07:23 PM
Quote
...it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties.

Good find.
That is, indeed, a good catch. It does beg the question, though: Why is it OK to swap and then get permission, but not get permission then swap?

Apparently this is bad:
Duke: "Can I swap to you?"
Ruler "Sure!"
Duke: *swap*

But this good?
Duke: *swap*
Duke: "Is this good with you?"
Ruler "Sure!"

Personally, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two. Yet we're supposed to consider one as good, and the other bad? ???
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Sypher on January 03, 2014, 06:22:57 AM
From reading Tom's post quoted by Buffakill, wouldn't the two parties be the two rulers? It seems to me like the restriction is against the rulers conspiring to combine their two realms.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Buffalkill on January 03, 2014, 08:17:30 AM
Good find.
That is, indeed, a good catch. It does beg the question, though: Why is it OK to swap and then get permission, but not get permission then swap?

[...]

Personally, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two. Yet we're supposed to consider one as good, and the other bad? ???


What I took away from Tom's post is that if there's no IR violation, it's better to let a few people get away with it than to aggressively pursue possible infractions. Players should police themselves, and the rule should rarely (if ever) require enforcement, except in cases where the abuse is so patent and unambiguous as to preclude any discussion. Since there is room for discussion in this case, the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully the spirit of fairplay is something that all players will take to heart.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on January 03, 2014, 06:13:19 PM
What I took away from Tom's post is that if there's no IR violation, it's better to let a few people get away with it than to aggressively pursue possible infractions.
If this were the intent of the rules, then we wouldn't need any rules other than the IRs. After all, if only IR violations can be acted on, then why have any other rules at all?

Quote
Players should police themselves, and the rule should rarely (if ever) require enforcement, except in cases where the abuse is so patent and unambiguous as to preclude any discussion. Since there is room for discussion in this case, the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully the spirit of fairplay is something that all players will take to heart.
That's a good theory. However, player-based enforcement in MMORPGs simply does not work. It's been tried many times in many games. There are too many people willing to look the other way, to conspire, who see things differently, or who just don't care. There must be some group in charge of investigation and enforcement, to make sure that everyone stays honest.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Buffalkill on January 03, 2014, 11:04:38 PM
If this were the intent of the rules, then we wouldn't need any rules other than the IRs. After all, if only IR violations can be acted on, then why have any other rules at all?
Over-enforcement of the rules has just as much potential to ruin the game as rule-breaking does. The level of enforcement should be tempered according to the rule that's being invoked. At one end, the IRs are enforced most aggressively because those violations are the most harmful, the most immediate, and are fairly unambiguous. At the other end, there are policies like "Nobles are to treat commoners poorly (with disgust) and commoners are to treat nobility respectfully (with fear)," which I assume should never be seriously enforced.


That's a good theory. However, player-based enforcement in MMORPGs simply does not work. It's been tried many times in many games. There are too many people willing to look the other way, to conspire, who see things differently, or who just don't care. There must be some group in charge of investigation and enforcement, to make sure that everyone stays honest.
In this case, there hasn't been any evidence of the sort of collusion that's being alleged, only speculation, and there's hasn't been any evidence of harm.

Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Velax on January 04, 2014, 01:00:18 AM
Might be time for an actual Magistrate decision on this. It's been, what, two weeks now.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: cenrae on January 04, 2014, 01:23:38 AM
I was thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Chenier on January 07, 2014, 06:50:29 PM
From reading Tom's post quoted by Buffakill, wouldn't the two parties be the two rulers? It seems to me like the restriction is against the rulers conspiring to combine their two realms.

That's pretty much my take on it.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Geronus on January 16, 2014, 04:48:08 AM
Might be time for an actual Magistrate decision on this. It's been, what, two weeks now.

As things stand, the verdict is guilty by a 3-2 vote, but no one has taken the lead in writing a verdict or splitting the difference in the guilty votes (as the three votes for guilty are all for different results). I voted Not Guilty, so I don't feel I should be the one writing the verdict in this case if Guilty is to be the end result.

Honestly without Vellos or I being deeply involved, I'm not sure who is up to actually managing the Magistrate cases... Tom had said quite a while ago that he intended to end the Magistrate experiment but it seems apparent that the mechanics are still there for people to open cases.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on January 17, 2014, 04:18:39 PM
So... guilty... what will happen now? I'm eager to know.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: D`Este on January 17, 2014, 04:41:01 PM
Honestly, it has taken this long that we should wonder if a verdict should be given.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Eirikr on January 17, 2014, 05:02:58 PM
A verdict should be given because there was a case opened and a record must be generated. The actions, however, may just not have any impact.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on January 17, 2014, 08:18:43 PM
I personally feel that the verdict was wrong. The duchy was already setup in the current manner long before any thought of moving it from one realm to the other was occurring. It wasn't like they suddenly conspired to have all the lords join a single duchy and then move it to Asylon, which would be a merger of the kind that isn't allowed. So in all practicality, blaming the duchess for what duchy the lords happened to have their region in is kind of ludicrous.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Eirikr on January 17, 2014, 09:15:52 PM
So in all practicality, blaming the duchess for what duchy the lords happened to have their region in is kind of ludicrous.

I'm not here to agree or disagree... But don't you have this backwards? The Duchess took the action, the Lords are always along for the ride if they don't have any warning. The Duchess is the only one that could shoulder the blame.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on January 17, 2014, 11:42:14 PM
I'm not here to agree or disagree... But don't you have this backwards? The Duchess took the action, the Lords are always along for the ride if they don't have any warning. The Duchess is the only one that could shoulder the blame.

But at the same time, the action is easily reversible. All one had to was be in the capital, and witch allegiance back. None did that.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on January 18, 2014, 02:25:03 AM
Which has nothing whatsoever with the original act being right or wrong.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Eirikr on January 18, 2014, 06:09:46 AM
But at the same time, the action is easily reversible. All one had to was be in the capital, and witch allegiance back. None did that.

What Indirik said. I'm just pointing out who actually has to pull the trigger. It's cliche, but it's a popular theme these days that 'I was just following orders' isn't a sufficient excuse for taking the shot.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Feylonis on January 18, 2014, 09:41:25 AM
I think it should be noted that FR's Ruler and lord of Golden Farrow (the last remaining region in FR) eventually joined Asylon anyway after the city went rogue. I did not notice any real effort to even keep GF; it's like we just waited for taxes before jumping ship into a different realm (D'Hara for my character, Asylon for the last FR Ruler). That makes everything seem like a realm merger, personally.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on January 18, 2014, 01:02:10 PM
If that was the case, we would do something to claim the lost city and that's not the case at all. You cannot blame someone for realm merger when there isn't a realm merging, but a duchy.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on January 18, 2014, 01:19:39 PM
Which has nothing whatsoever with the original act being right or wrong.

According to a very small number of magistrates I noted. I'm interested in who voted (not how they voted) and whether anyone with close connections to the case voted. It was a very close vote.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on January 18, 2014, 03:19:51 PM
Which is, again, irrelevant. Someone brought a case, it got discussed, and voted. But if you want to know who voted, ask them. Maybe they will tell you.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Buffalkill on January 18, 2014, 07:21:27 PM
It might be relevant to the credibility of the decision and the magistrate "experiment".
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Marlboro on January 18, 2014, 11:26:03 PM
I think it should be noted that FR's Ruler and lord of Golden Farrow (the last remaining region in FR) eventually joined Asylon anyway after the city went rogue. I did not notice any real effort to even keep GF; it's like we just waited for taxes before jumping ship into a different realm (D'Hara for my character, Asylon for the last FR Ruler). That makes everything seem like a realm merger, personally.

False. The Ruler of FR never left, even after the city starved itself rogue. On the note of starvation, you were the steward, with a 30% estate.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on January 19, 2014, 01:48:33 AM
I think we should have the right to know who the magistrates of the case are.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on January 19, 2014, 03:28:57 AM
Which is, again, irrelevant. Someone brought a case, it got discussed, and voted. But if you want to know who voted, ask them. Maybe they will tell you.

Its completely relevant. For example, if you voted, I'd consider it biased voting. Magistrates in the past have excused themselves from voting on cases they're personally involved in, and this should be the standard. A panel of silent, invisible jurors/judges does no good for anyone. I personally believe your attitude towards this case is because of your personal involvement. Back when the Terran/D'hara merger almost happened, your attitude was a full 180. [email protected]#$, based on what was discussed there, all Khari has to do is say she was surrendering to Asylon in the war against Luria.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Indirik on January 19, 2014, 03:50:52 AM
I think we should have the right to know who the magistrates of the case are.
The Magistrates are the same for every case. The public list is available here:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1071.0.html


Its completely relevant. For example, if you voted, I'd consider it biased voting.
I'm not a Magistrate. See the above list.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on January 19, 2014, 05:15:52 AM
Thanks Indirik.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Stabbity on January 19, 2014, 09:10:32 AM
Yes, thank you, I've been wondering if there was a list.
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: cenrae on January 21, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
So what's going to happen to me? Any chance of some closure soon?
Title: Re: Farronite-Aslyon Merger
Post by: Buffalkill on January 21, 2014, 10:43:27 PM
So what's going to happen to me? Any chance of some closure soon?
If it's a first offence you'll probably get off with a crucifixion.