BattleMaster > Magistrates Case Archive
Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger
Geronus:
The proposed verdict has been posted in the Backroom. Barring substantial objections, it will be posted here within a day or two.
Sacha:
--- Quote ---A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:
"After consideration, the Magistrates find the defendant Not Guilty of violating the rule against realm mergers. For reference, the rule is: "Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms." Since the actions in question were taken under duress, we do not feel that they constitute a realm merger in the traditional sense. Whereas Terran had no hope of surviving the war nor any chance of fighting, choosing to surrender is seen as a valid choice, even though they chose to surrender to a third party.
Magistrates voted 4-3 in favor of a Not Guilty verdict, with 4 votes for Not Guilty, 2 votes for Guilty with a warning, and 1 vote for Guilty and stripping the defendant's titles.
This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.
--- End quote ---
Sarwell:
Whatever.
The merger failed anyway. Like, epically failed, flopped on its face. So I don't care about the verdict, even though I think it's tremendous rules lawyering to say one can "surrender to a third party".
Penchant:
--- Quote from: Sarwell on August 15, 2013, 04:45:55 PM ---Whatever.
The merger failed anyway. Like, epically failed, flopped on its face. So I don't care about the verdict, even though I think it's tremendous rules lawyering to say one can "surrender to a third party".
--- End quote ---
As Anaris stated, although at the time against the case:
--- Quote ---My understanding of the realm merger rule is that it is intended to prevent a king from voluntarily giving up not only his kingship but his domain, which is not something a King should do.
(This applies equally to other titles of ruler.)
--- End quote ---
Which is precisely why surrendering to a third party works. While blatant things like a realm declaring war on another, and almost nothing happens in the war but they "surrender" to a third party would not be fine as its just abusing it, surrendering to a third party makes sense based on the reasoning of this rule because a king keeps more or equal power surrendering to a third party then if he were to surrender to the enemy.
Disclaimer: Its been awhile since the end of the case and I didn't reread it all or even the paragraph part of the verdict so my reasoning could be off from the official reasoning, which I will check at a later time.
Indirik:
A verdict has been posted, and the thread left open for one week for comments. I am locking the thread, and reposting the verdict for reference.
--- Quote ---A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict is:
"After consideration, the Magistrates find the defendant Not Guilty of violating the rule against realm mergers. For reference, the rule is: "Realm mergers are illegal. Realms may surrender to another, including annihilation of their lands, but they may not merge as equal entities on friendly terms." Since the actions in question were taken under duress, we do not feel that they constitute a realm merger in the traditional sense. Whereas Terran had no hope of surviving the war nor any chance of fighting, choosing to surrender is seen as a valid choice, even though they chose to surrender to a third party.
Magistrates voted 4-3 in favor of a Not Guilty verdict, with 4 votes for Not Guilty, 2 votes for Guilty with a warning, and 1 vote for Guilty and stripping the defendant's titles.
This thread will remain open for any questions regarding the case.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version