Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Indirik]

But beyond that, I'm happy to overturn Titan precedent if the Titans were obviously wrong: and the ruling you quote, as you've described it, seems obviously wrong to me. No realm mergers is a very, very simple rule.

Or, maybe, the problem isn't that the ruling was wrong, but that your interpretation of the rule is wrong? In fact, I think it must be, because you're trying to claim that it's a simple rule. It is anything but a simple rule, and that's part of the problem. In fact, you're still saying that the rule is "no realm mergers", when it most emphatically is NOT "no realm mergers". Precedent demonstrates, in a few cases, that this is not the case.

Here's another one: Wasn't it IVF at the end of the fifth invasion when all the lords up and switched to Enweil? (This was facilitated by the allegiance change bug, but as we've seen before, that has no bearing on the case.) Tom's reply about it: "They didn't really have a choice, as they are about to lose their only city. What else could they have done?" I believe they did then lose that city a turn or two later.

The no mergers rule is not intended to force people to play out a losing war to the last dregs. It is intended to prevent two otherwise viable, healthy realms from joining together to create a larger entity in which both of the two former realms will participate.

And asking the Magistrates to come up with a qualification for what makes two realms "equal" is a crazy big can of worms. How equal do they have to be? How friendly must they be?

I'm not asking you to make that decision. The rule and the "spirit of the rule" is asking it. But you cannot abdicate your responsibility to enforce it because you think that it's a can of worms, or that the resulting decision will be one you don't like.

[Chenier]

I'm saying based on the attitude displayed by your nobles and House of Lords, it wouldn't have flown. Edimilison I think said it best, I'd have to check, but "D'hara is spreading itself dangerously thin." Not to mention, doing so and taking the regions is a good way to alienate your allies, but it is a bit late for that.

Right, so now "acquiring more lands is unprofitable" equates to "we should totally always side with Terran because Alaster is the best guy ever"?

We could have easily joined with Phantaria and FR against Terran, without taking the lands ourselves. A much more realistic scenario than seeing anyone in D'Hara go "Oh, but we should totally save Alaster's realm, he's totally our FRIEND".

But you're not giving anything away to Phantaria. You're simply annexing them in the most friendliest of ways possible. You cannot simply claim "We're trying to spite our enemies. But D'hara isn't friendly, we're obviously enemies." Unless you want to claim schizophrenia. So what is it? Is Terran attempting to spite its enemies, or is D'hara an enemy?

And obviously D'hara wouldn't want to stand up to the theocracies alongside Phantaria, they'd get stomped. Realistically, baring the current conflict, a D'haran war on Terran was never going to happen. Especially not with Luria chomping at the bit to the East.

I would love to call Terran a Petty Theocracy, however its a term that really isn't applicable in Battlemaster, since it is impossible to have independent Dukes and Landholders.

We are talking about REALMS here... You know, entities made of multiple people, with multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas? And of alliances... you know, entities made up of multiple realms, with multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas?

Phantaria acting more hostile to Terran than D'Hara was doesn't mean that D'Hara wasn't hostile to Terran. Not all hostilities are out in the open, and not all hostilities are equal. They aren't even all reciprocal.

It is very possible that many Terran nobles had nothing against D'Hara, while many D'Haran nobles had much against Terran.

[Stabbity]

Right, so now "acquiring more lands is unprofitable" equates to "we should totally always side with Terran because Alaster is the best guy ever"?

We could have easily joined with Phantaria and FR against Terran, without taking the lands ourselves. A much more realistic scenario than seeing anyone in D'Hara go "Oh, but we should totally save Alaster's realm, he's totally our FRIEND".

We are talking about REALMS here... You know, entities made of multiple people, with multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas? And of alliances... you know, entities made up of multiple realms, with multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas?

Phantaria acting more hostile to Terran than D'Hara was doesn't mean that D'Hara wasn't hostile to Terran. Not all hostilities are out in the open, and not all hostilities are equal. They aren't even all reciprocal.

It is very possible that many Terran nobles had nothing against D'Hara, while many D'Haran nobles had much against Terran.

If D'hara has no interest in the lands, then why is it taking them? You should also be quite aware that there is a massive gulf of political stances between Enemy and BFFs. Nobody said D'hara is siding with Terran. That doesn't make it a non-peaceful merger, because in the context of the phrase "peaceful merger" it means without an actual state of war between the two entities (not any other damn entity on the planet, or Fissoa and Aurvandil could merge because Aurvnadil feels its has no choice and is soundly beaten by Corsanctum. That is hyperbole, just to be clear.)

The simple fact is: D'hara is not currently engaged in hostile relations with Terran. D'haran has taken no hostile actions towards Terran, and has not displayed hostile behavior. You can stew and plot and scheme and plan and have goals all day long, however there are no hostilities between the nations to speak of. None. You are attempting to create a scenario which does not exist. Hostilities on a national level consist of more than just thinking bad things about each other, or hoping you get the chance one day to takeover some of their regions, or every realm in the game would be hostile with every other realm in the game.

[Geronus]

I don't care about historical analogies. Fundamentally this rule exists for game balance reasons, even if the justification is in part based on Tom's interpretation of the behavior of medieval nobility. Let's focus on the case at hand and an understanding of the spirit and intent of the rule itself.

I'm not asking you to make that decision. The rule and the "spirit of the rule" is asking it. But you cannot abdicate your responsibility to enforce it because you think that it's a can of worms, or that the resulting decision will be one you don't like.

I agree with this. Our function is to interpret these rules. It will not always be easy, but we should resist any temptation to oversimplify the rules just to make our lives easier; if there are good and valid reasons to limit our interpretation then we should, but I don't think this is one of them. "Realm merge" events are relatively rare, so I do not see this as opening up anything we cannot handle.

[egamma]

Offtopic (or rule-violating) posts have been mostly moved here:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4410.0.html

A reminder of the rules:
All replies need to follow these rules, or they will be moderated:

• remain strictly on topic. Information relevant to the actual case only. This goes especially for speculations, hypotheticals, variations - discussing of the this could be... if... kind are unwanted. We have a specific case before us and will decide that case, nothing else.
• be positive and friendly. Don't insult or troll.
• add new information. Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.

I have seen a LOT of hypotheticals and speculations. I have seen a few insults. I have seen very little NEW information.

[Naidraug]

If D'hara has no interest in the lands, then why is it taking them? You should also be quite aware that there is a massive gulf of political stances between Enemy and BFFs. Nobody said D'hara is siding with Terran. That doesn't make it a non-peaceful merger, because in the context of the phrase "peaceful merger" it means without an actual state of war between the two entities (not any other damn entity on the planet, or Fissoa and Aurvandil could merge because Aurvnadil feels its has no choice and is soundly beaten by Corsanctum. That is hyperbole, just to be clear.)

The simple fact is: D'hara is not currently engaged in hostile relations with Terran. D'haran has taken no hostile actions towards Terran, and has not displayed hostile behavior. You can stew and plot and scheme and plan and have goals all day long, however there are no hostilities between the nations to speak of. None. You are attempting to create a scenario which does not exist. Hostilities on a national level consist of more than just thinking bad things about each other, or hoping you get the chance one day to takeover some of their regions, or every realm in the game would be hostile with every other realm in the game.

Just like to add(if not pointed out already) that, officially, D'hara and Terran are part of the same federation. So they are not only allies, they are federated allies.

[egamma]

Just like to add(if not pointed out already) that, officially, D'hara and Terran are part of the same federation. So they are not only allies, they are federated allies.

How is the existence of this federation relevant to the case?

[Vita`]

It documents that D'hara and Terran are not hostile to one another, in game-mechanic terms.

[Geronus]

It documents that D'hara and Terran are not hostile to one another, in game-mechanic terms.

Neither were Caerywn and Astrum, until they were. I doubt anyone could honestly argue that they were not growing hostile to each other well before that federation was broken, however.

Particularly when it comes to federations, the game moniker is irrelevant to the true state of two realms' relationship. Because of the mandated war dec that happens when you break a federation, most realms won't attempt to adjust them to reflect the actual relationship between them and their federated partners if they start to drift apart since the consequences are highly awkward to deal with.

[Vita`]

While I realize that relations are more nuanced than simple diplomatic stances, the diplomatic stances are game mechanic truth. Tom has said before that you can't pretend to be at war and likewise you can't say you're really at war with someone you're in a federation with.

[Geronus]

While I realize that relations are more nuanced than simple diplomatic stances, the diplomatic stances are game mechanic truth. Tom has said before that you can't pretend to be at war and likewise you can't say you're really at war with someone you're in a federation with.

So your argument is that because of the game mechanic relations between D'Hara and Terran, this has to be considered a friendly merger? I don't think I like that. By that logic, two federated realms could break their federation (thus going to war) and then the next day one could surrender to the other and merge all their regions together. Bingo bango, it was an "unfriendly" realm merger, see? "Not a violation of the rule at all! It was clearly hostile because we were at war!"

I'm certain that's not what you meant to imply, but that is the implication I would take away from accepting your line of logic in this type of case, and for obvious reasons I don't care for it.

[Anaris]

So your argument is that because of the game mechanic relations between D'Hara and Terran, this has to be considered a friendly merger? I don't think I like that. By that logic, two federated realms could break their federation (thus going to war) and then the next day one could surrender to the other and merge all their regions together. Bingo bango, it was an "unfriendly" realm merger, see? "Not a violation of the rule at all! It was clearly hostile because we were at war!"

I'm certain that's not what you meant to imply, but that is the implication I would take away from accepting your line of logic in this type of case, and for obvious reasons I don't care for it.

Have you heard of the term "necessary but not sufficient"?

Just because a realm merger is friendly because the realms are allied or federated does not mean that it is automatically not friendly if the realms are at war.

[Geronus]

Have you heard of the term "necessary but not sufficient"?

Just because a realm merger is friendly because the realms are allied or federated does not mean that it is automatically not friendly if the realms are at war.

You have a point, but I object to automatically labeling this type of thing a "friendly" realm merger based solely on the game mechanical state of relations between the realms in question. There are circumstances where game mechanics do not provide sufficient context in and of themselves to reflect the reality of a situation, as my admittedly over the top example demonstrates.

[Vellos]

Or, maybe, the problem isn't that the ruling was wrong, but that your interpretation of the rule is wrong? In fact, I think it must be, because you're trying to claim that it's a simple rule. It is anything but a simple rule, and that's part of the problem. In fact, you're still saying that the rule is "no realm mergers", when it most emphatically is NOT "no realm mergers". Precedent demonstrates, in a few cases, that this is not the case.

Here's another one: Wasn't it IVF at the end of the fifth invasion when all the lords up and switched to Enweil? (This was facilitated by the allegiance change bug, but as we've seen before, that has no bearing on the case.) Tom's reply about it: "They didn't really have a choice, as they are about to lose their only city. What else could they have done?" I believe they did then lose that city a turn or two later.

I have no problem with any number of lords changing allegiance. That's not what happened in Terran.

The no mergers rule is not intended to force people to play out a losing war to the last dregs. It is intended to prevent two otherwise viable, healthy realms from joining together to create a larger entity in which both of the two former realms will participate.
I'm not asking you to make that decision. The rule and the "spirit of the rule" is asking it. But you cannot abdicate your responsibility to enforce it because you think that it's a can of worms, or that the resulting decision will be one you don't like.

No, your interpretation of the rule is asking for it. What the rule demands is, in fact, what the Magistrates say it demands (or rather, what Tom allows us to say it demands). I am saying what I think it demands. Other Magistrates are free to disagree, and probably will. If we are allowed by Tom to say that the meaning of the rule is "Pigs have wings," then that is in fact the meaning of the rule (though of course that would be insane).

What I am suggesting is that Magistrates should absolutely make prudential considerations in our rulings. We've now had four realm merger cases: more than any other subject besides maybe clanning. We have an obligation to stop leaving this rule so ambiguous because it's apparently one of the most commonly-tested rules. I for one am not okay with the Magistrates voting to endorse readings of the rules that invite new and even more ambiguous, for lack of a better word, "litigation."

[Indirik]

So in order to get rid of the ambiguity, you will completely change the underlying spirit and purpose of the rule. Yay for progress.