Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Vellos]

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

I think it, like most BM rules, is about game balance and keeping the experience fun for players. I think sore-loser moves make things less fun and make the game imbalanced. This seems to me the general reason why mergers are disallowed. But certainly the increasingly common tactic of evading takeover by swapping to some neutral third party is annoying, and doing it at a realm-wide level orchestrated by the ruler seems just like the kind of thing the realm merger rule was created to prevent.

I don't think I'm changing the spirit or purpose of the rule. I think we're just having a disagreement about which course of action best embodies that spirit and purpose.

[Geronus]

I think it, like most BM rules, is about game balance and keeping the experience fun for players. I think sore-loser moves make things less fun and make the game imbalanced. This seems to me the general reason why mergers are disallowed. But certainly the increasingly common tactic of evading takeover by swapping to some neutral third party is annoying, and doing it at a realm-wide level orchestrated by the ruler seems just like the kind of thing the realm merger rule was created to prevent.

I don't think I'm changing the spirit or purpose of the rule. I think we're just having a disagreement about which course of action best embodies that spirit and purpose.

Except that none of what you're saying is, to my understanding, what the rule is intended to prevent. It's not the "No sore losers" rule. There are numerous precedents for this type of allegiance changing and/or political arrangement, some of which were listed by Indirik. On Dwilight alone I can think of three previous examples off hand, none of which were punished, or even overly controversial. If Tom thought this was a problem, he'd have made a rule about it years ago. It's no different in principle to what happened with Entai during the war between Sanguis Astroism and the League of Free Nations on Dwilight, and no one complained about that piece of political maneuvering when it went down.

[Vellos]

Except that none of what you're saying is, to my understanding, what the rule is intended to prevent. It's not the "No sore losers" rule. There are numerous precedents for this type of allegiance changing and/or political arrangement, some of which were listed by Indirik. On Dwilight alone I can think of three previous examples off hand, none of which were punished, or even overly controversial. If Tom thought this was a problem, he'd have made a rule about it years ago. It's no different in principle to what happened with Entai during the war between Sanguis Astroism and the League of Free Nations on Dwilight, and no one complained about that piece of political maneuvering when it went down.

Entai was at war with its neighbors: it surrendered to an enemy in war.

I have personally not witnessed very many similar cases in my time playing BM.

[Chenier]

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

Then, by game mechanic terms, there was NO MERGER, because Terran STILL EXISTS.

This argument is dumb. Was D'Hara to annex the Chateau, war would have been declared between the two states, thus, "in game-mechanic terms", they'd be hostile to each other.

And the diplomacy chart doesn't say "these two realms are friends". It states that "these two realms operate as a federation". That's not the same. Lots of people in Québec hate the rest of Canada, and lots of anglo-canadians hate the Québécois. Doesn't make Canada any less of a federation.

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

It is what happened in Terran, but isn't what happened in IVF: the ruler/duke made the switch for everyone there. In Terran, 2 lords switched to D'Hara, and the capital stayed behind. And hey, surprise!!! No sanctions or reprimands for anyone in IVF.

[Chenier]

Also, Anaris:

You are saying this is wrong, and yet you were among the people condemning Enweilian nobles for not ditching their non-viable realm to merge their regions with Riombara. Same measures for everyone?

[Geronus]

Entai was at war with its neighbors: it surrendered to an enemy in war.

I have personally not witnessed very many similar cases in my time playing BM.

I'm not sure it was. It might have only been threatened by them at the time, but we arranged it so that they effectively gave up without fighting a single battle, and Morek inherited their regions while the nobles left after disbanding all their militia in Aegir. Aegir's Deep may have outright changed allegiance, I do not recall specifically.

Everguard's last few regions changed allegiance to Averoth after we took Gelene.

Probably a solid quarter of Caerwyn's lords went over to Asylon when they decided they were fighting a hopeless cause against Astrum.

These things do happen. And up until now, they have always been dealt with IC.

[Chenier]

Realms die. It's normal. It's okay. To rule this as being against the rules is to make the death of realms a completely confusing grey area of what is and what isn't allowed.

The no-merger rule should ONLY apply to viable realms. It should be rephrased as a "no strategic realm mergers" for clarification, as an extension of the secession and capital move rules.

[Indirik]

A guilty verdict will also not remove ambiguity. It will just shift it to a different place. How many regions can flee the sinking ship? Can 3 of 5 regions run away? Only 2? If four go, who do you punish? The last one or two? All of them? What if the duke of a two-duchy realm runs, and then a couple lords follow? At what point do you say "enough is enough"? How many regions can be transferred between two peaceful realms before it's a merger? All but the last city? No more than 50%? 75%?

You cannot remove all of the ambiguity. But in the process of trying, you're going to confuse even more people.  People in losing realms will now be forced to either fight it out to the bitter end, or just give up and walk away from everything they had. You've turned their already sucky situation into an even more sucky situation from which they have no good alternative. This removes another point of conflict, that could threaten to drag other realms into the war.

While I agree with your general premise of removing the ambiguity, I disagree in the way you have chosen to do that in this case. This is a fuzzy, inexact rule. That's why there have been so many cases involving it. (Even if some, like the Tara/Coria one, are completely absurd.) But you can't (well, you can, but you shouldn't) just ignore precedent just because you think it's a bit messy, and want to clean things up a bit. You will be completely destroying the intended spirit of the rule, as well as making the situatuion overall, IMO, even worse. Yes, there have been a few cases of this lately, but there many more that weren't cases that your new interpretation will drag into the forum here.

IMNSHO, the Magistrates should rule this case in line with prior cases that have already set the precedent, and then kick this rule back to Tom/the players for it to be debated and overhauled. That's the proper way to do it, rathed than legislating from the bench and completely changing the purpose and the historical interpretation of the rule.

[Anaris]

Also, Anaris:

You are saying this is wrong, and yet you were among the people condemning Enweilian nobles for not ditching their non-viable realm to merge their regions with Riombara. Same measures for everyone?

a) As I have said, I am now on the fence.
b) No, actually, I'm not. I do not believe that I have ever directly advocated that particular action. At most, my character is a political ally of some who do.
c) That was (IIRC) over 2 years ago, and never actually happened (and there was never really any chance of it happening), so you're really reaching to try and tar me somehow here.
d) Can you really not leave Enweil vs Riombara—or, as the case may be, Anaris vs Chénier—out of any thread on the whole damn forum, Dominic?

[Anaris]

Then, by game mechanic terms, there was NO MERGER, because Terran STILL EXISTS.

This argument is dumb.

Yes, it is.

...Wait, you weren't talking about the argument you made just there? 'Cause if you were, then I'd agree with you.

Yes, of course Terran still exists. The merger hasn't been completed yet. One is not required to wait for the action to be fully carried out to begin a Magistrates case about it, especially if there is documented evidence of it being planned at the highest levels, and parts of it begun to be carried out.

[Anaris]

While I agree with your general premise of removing the ambiguity, I disagree in the way you have chosen to do that in this case. This is a fuzzy, inexact rule. That's why there have been so many cases involving it. (Even if some, like the Tara/Coria one, are completely absurd.) But you can't (well, you can, but you shouldn't) just ignore precedent just because you think it's a bit messy, and want to clean things up a bit. You will be completely destroying the intended spirit of the rule, as well as making the situatuion overall, IMO, even worse. Yes, there have been a few cases of this lately, but there many more that weren't cases that your new interpretation will drag into the forum here.

IMNSHO, the Magistrates should rule this case in line with prior cases that have already set the precedent, and then kick this rule back to Tom/the players for it to be debated and overhauled. That's the proper way to do it, rathed than legislating from the bench and completely changing the purpose and the historical interpretation of the rule.

I will go a step further.

Tom hates clearly spelled-out rules, that specify all cases where they apply and all cases where they don't.

You know this. I know this. We all know this. It's been true for the entire lifetime of BattleMaster. It's certainly been true for the entire lifetime of both of the quasi-judicial systems we currently have to resolve breaches of the rules and in-game disputes. So why, at this late date, are people who should totally know better still acting as if anyone should expect rules in BattleMaster to be of the type where you can read it and see every single sharp boundary line (and thus be able to carefully avoid breaking the letter of the rule, while trampling all over its spirit), rather than the type where they explain what's forbidden, but those whose duty it is to enforce the rules are expected to use common sense and real human judgement, as well as an understanding of the rule's original intent, to determine whether it has been broken or not?

[Geronus]

I will go a step further.

Tom hates clearly spelled-out rules, that specify all cases where they apply and all cases where they don't.

You know this. I know this. We all know this. It's been true for the entire lifetime of BattleMaster. It's certainly been true for the entire lifetime of both of the quasi-judicial systems we currently have to resolve breaches of the rules and in-game disputes. So why, at this late date, are people who should totally know better still acting as if anyone should expect rules in BattleMaster to be of the type where you can read it and see every single sharp boundary line (and thus be able to carefully avoid breaking the letter of the rule, while trampling all over its spirit), rather than the type where they explain what's forbidden, but those whose duty it is to enforce the rules are expected to use common sense and real human judgement, as well as an understanding of the rule's original intent, to determine whether it has been broken or not?

It would actually be helpful if someone remembers what that original intent was and can state it here clearly and concisely (Tom, that's your queue if you're reading this). I have a definite conception of what it was, but that's based on years of off-hand references to it on the D-list and elsewhere, and my institutional memory of Battlemaster only goes back a little over five years. I suspect much the same would be true of many of us. That might help us to put this debate back into perspective. IMO, it is being significantly muddied by arguments that stem from how people think things should be, or want them to be, rather than a true understanding of the intent of the rule. Hell, I might even be guilty of that myself, but that's why a clarification might prove useful in re-framing this issue.

[Naidraug]

Then, by game mechanic terms, there was NO MERGER, because Terran STILL EXISTS.

This argument is dumb. Was D'Hara to annex the Chateau, war would have been declared between the two states, thus, "in game-mechanic terms", they'd be hostile to each other.

And the diplomacy chart doesn't say "these two realms are friends". It states that "these two realms operate as a federation". That's not the same. Lots of people in Québec hate the rest of Canada, and lots of anglo-canadians hate the Québécois. Doesn't make Canada any less of a federation.

It is what happened in Terran, but isn't what happened in IVF: the ruler/duke made the switch for everyone there. In Terran, 2 lords switched to D'Hara, and the capital stayed behind. And hey, surprise!!! No sanctions or reprimands for anyone in IVF.

Even so, a few years ago (before magistrate), when Caligus anexated Tuch V on the EC, the rulers were punished by Tom for doing a realm merger. Even if a TO was made and war was declared. Why? Because in the end, Tuch V nobles abandoned the realm, joining Caligus, and the leaders of the realm continued as Duke. The city was left empty allowing the troops to TO the city without resistance, and at the time it was considered a peacefull realm merger.

The federation and in game mechanics here are important because both realms are not at war as many claimed here or even hostile. The distance that the realms developed could have been shown by a break of the federation when the realm became a theocracy.

[Indirik]

Even so, a few years ago (before magistrate), when Caligus anexated Tuch V on the EC, the rulers were punished by Tom for doing a realm merger. Even if a TO was made and war was declared. Why? Because in the end, Tuch V nobles abandoned the realm, joining Caligus, and the leaders of the realm continued as Duke. The city was left empty allowing the troops to TO the city without resistance, and at the time it was considered a peacefull realm merger.

Are you 100% sure about this? By which I mean, were you the ruler of Tuchanon? (I don't think you were...)  I can clearly recall that the merger was not ruled against the rules.

[Anaris]

It would actually be helpful if someone remembers what that original intent was and can state it here clearly and concisely.

I have already done so, though I'm starting to feel like people are ignoring me...