Forced Realm Splits and Voluntary Realm Mergers

[Penchant]

Tom is the ultimate authority on such "doctrinal issues" though. Tom: The Pope of Battlemaster.

Yes and lol, great title, actually pretty fitting.

[Indirik]

As Vellos says, strategic secession is loosely and unofficially described as splitting your realm to get an advantage during time of war, or in preparation for war. It is usually an attempt to get around the OOC restriction of recruiting only in the capital. You can't have a "strategic secession" while you're not at war.

[Vellos]

As Vellos says, strategic secession is loosely and unofficially described as splitting your realm to get an advantage during time of war, or in preparation for war. It is usually an attempt to get around the OOC restriction of recruiting only in the capital. You can't have a "strategic secession" while you're not at war.

Unless you're clearly prepping for war with it.

[Indirik]

Well, yes, that is true.

[Penchant]

As Vellos says, strategic secession is loosely and unofficially described as splitting your realm to get an advantage during time of war, or in preparation for war. It is usually an attempt to get around the OOC restriction of recruiting only in the capital. You can't have a "strategic secession" while you're not at war.

So the official policy is based on an unofficial definition of strategic secession that can be found no where on the rules and policies page yet is expected to be abided by according to that definition?

[Gustav Kuriga]

Sounds like SNAFU waiting to happen.

[Geronus]

So the official policy is based on an unofficial definition of strategic secession that can be found no where on the rules and policies page yet is expected to be abided by according to that definition?

Welcome to Battlemaster?

[Indirik]

Yes! You should know by now that it's all a plot to confuse people.

[vonGenf]

So the official policy is based on an unofficial definition of strategic secession that can be found no where on the rules and policies page yet is expected to be abided by according to that definition?

The Rules and Policies are quite clear:

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.

Indirik's unofficial explanation is a good one, but the rule remains unchanged.

[Draco Tanos]

So if it's a secession to better maintain control, it's okay, but if the excuse to recruit at the front, it's not okay.
Even during wartime.

So much for not having to do rules lawyering.  Seems like that's how everything is circumvented. :/

[vonGenf]

So much for not having to do rules lawyering.  Seems like that's how everything is circumvented. :/

So don't do rules lawyering, and don't circumvent the rules.

Staying honest is always the easiest option.

[Draco Tanos]

Yet you know as well as I do that if someone does it for an honest reason, someone else will claim it's for another reason.  Then it becomes one side versus another here.

[Eldargard]

I think the concern is that many rules, rights, policies are written in a way that allows much room for interpretation and argument. In the end we end up having to rely on the magistrate club to make a decision on the matter when one of these rules might have been broken. Plus, it seems that many of these rules, that are so open interpretation, have a popular interpretation amongst the devs/magistrates that is assumed to be THE interpretation but THE interpretation does not always get further than this forum or the chat room.

On the flip side, I could not do any better. I just wish that game mechanics could be adjusted to make secession, merger, capital move rules, and others unnecessary and that the rules that we really need could be updated as Tom/Devs/Magistrates provide additional insight/clarity. In the end, I get the concern but I am not much invested in it anymore. The game rocks as is and I would keep playing if nothing ever changed.

[Anaris]

Here's the best policy, always:

Stick to the spirit of the rules. If the spirit is unclear to you, or you're not sure whether a particular action you wish to take would fall within it, then ask the Magistrates. That's why they have a Q&A board.

Tom isn't into lawyers or strict letter-of-the-law thinking. If you try to operate based on that sort of thinking, you are likely to get burned.

[Indirik]

Part of the idea of the Magistrate system is to get a case history developed in the public eye. Most of these rules (strategic capital and secesion) have rarely ever come up in actual practice. When they do, it is usually very contentious, and, of course, the two sides never agree. (Which makes sense, as the people doing it obviously don't think they're breaking the rules.)  Making the rules more strict and clearly defined actually invites rules lawyering, as people try to find the loopholes and technicalities.