Perdan's Capital Change

[Fleugs]

Okay, so after a lot of complaints within Ibladesh, and the apparent consensus that I as ruler should be taking care of this, I have decided to post on this forum something that bothers some people in Ibladesh about Perdan's recent capital change (from Perdan to Partora);

Now, we all know (or at least most of us old timers) that Perdan has had Partora as their capital before. So in that sense, I believe the reason why Perdan changed their capital officially will be of "historical reasons" (albeit having had Partora for over two months already). The question though is, and certainly because the rules about capital change are vague, is what they did okay or not? Personally, I don't see a problem with it. Let me put it out like this, and if the Perdanese are fair they will agree: it's much easier to have your capital way closer to the battlefield, which is the real reason, but it's easy to explain it as "historical". That is how it went, I believe, and the rules are not so strict that it is forbidden to go like that. I would do exactly the same. Heck, if I could make Castle Ubent the capital of Ibladesh I might even do it. Maybe rename the realm to Ubent for the sake of history.

Nevertheless, the question is if their true meaning is legal or not. Again, let's face it, they did it because it is easier, not out of an historical aspect. If they were so focused on making Partora their capital they could have done it when Caligus gave it back to them. But they didn't. All in all this capital change is an unpleasant event for us Ibbies, and they must have been expecting some complaints. My (personal) question though is: are the rules fair? I mean, a realm like Perdan that had capital changes before, clearly has an advantage over other realms, that have kept their realm stationary all the time (and thus cannot call in historical reasons). When reading the rules, I do have the feeling it is very easy to circumvent them, which actually reduces rules about capital change to ashes anyway.

So, please, let me hear your opinions. I'm not going to drag this to the Titans (yet), and I personally believe that the rules are too easily circumvented to make a clear decision.

Edit: to avoid misunderstandings, I have not decided to bring this up to a Titan or not. I'm here to collect opinions.

[Anaris]

If you think that something might have been done that violates the rules/Social Contract, contact the Titans.  That is exactly what their purpose is: to make decisions about what violates the rules.

If we had to be 100% certain that something violated the rules before we contacted the Titans, why would they even have a "reject issue" button?

[Naidraug]

I don´t see this as a problem at all.

To improve efficiency of their army and reinstating a historical place as their capital are in fact good reasons to change capital.
Besides you have a city that is in the center of their realm, close to most regions, something that can increase control over their regions.

If roleplayed correctly there is no problem at all on this. They have all the reasons to make Partora the new capital. It is strategy and history combined that are great motives for the change.


The problem is: if on the next war with their troops attacking north instead of south, and they change their capital AGAIN back to Perdan, then it will be an abuse of the mechanics.

[Indirik]

Now, we all know (or at least most of us old timers) that Perdan has had Partora as their capital before. So in that sense, I believe the reason why Perdan changed their capital officially will be of "historical reasons"

The message I sent to the realm about it was this:

Letter from Balkeese Indirik   (7 days, 19 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (47 recipients)
Nobles of Perdan,

Today is a historic day for Perdan. Ever since I first left my family manor in Montauban to serve our realm, our realm's capital has proudly sat in the city of Partora, except for two short spans of time. I am glad to once more be able to restore our capital to the place it belongs.
Lady Balkeese Indirik
Queen of Perdan

The "official" reason matches the "real" reason: Historical, and recentering. Partora is a much better, central location for the capital of Perdan. It is also, so far as my character is concerned, the "historical" capital of Perdan. Our capital has been in the city for as long as she's been an active noble in the realm. Except, as she noted, those two times when we had to give the city away.

(albeit having had Partora for over two months already).

We've been trying to to do it for quite a while. Problem is, someone keeps sending armies after us, forcing us to delay.

The question though is, and certainly because the rules about capital change are vague, is what they did okay or not? Personally, I don't see a problem with it. Let me put it out like this, and if the Perdanese are fair they will agree: it's much easier to have your capital way closer to the battlefield,

I think that just about anyone being honest would agree to that.

which is the real reason, but it's easy to explain it as "historical". That is how it went, I believe, and the rules are not so strict that it is forbidden to go like that. I would do exactly the same. Heck, if I could make Castle Ubent the capital of Ibladesh I might even do it. Maybe rename the realm to Ubent for the sake of history.

Nevertheless, the question is if their true meaning is legal or not. Again, let's face it, they did it because it is easier, not out of an historical aspect. If they were so focused on making Partora their capital they could have done it when Caligus gave it back to them. But they didn't.

To be completely honest, I totally forgot about it until someone prodded me.   And by then, we were actively at war, and had been for some time. So when they finally reminded me, we had to wait for a time when the war was slow enough that we could risk it.

All in all this capital change is an unpleasant event for us Ibbies, and they must have been expecting some complaints. My (personal) question though is: are the rules fair? I mean, a realm like Perdan that had capital changes before, clearly has an advantage over other realms, that have kept their realm stationary all the time (and thus cannot call in historical reasons). When reading the rules, I do have the feeling it is very easy to circumvent them, which actually reduces rules about capital change to ashes anyway.

So, please, let me hear your opinions. I'm not going to drag this to the Titans (yet), and I personally believe that the rules are too easily circumvented to make a clear decision.

This is the problem with rules that apply not to actions, but to the intent behind the action. Those that are tasked with enforcing the rules have to try to figure out not just what someone did, but [/b]why[/b] they did it. And unless you're a mind reader, or have clearly self-incriminating evidence, how do you judge that?

Edit: to avoid misunderstandings, I have not decided to bring this up to a Titan or not. I'm here to collect opinions.

If you think it might be a violation of the rules, then by all means, report it to the Titans. Even if you're not sure, report it. It's their job to sort out these things.

[Gloria]

If you think that something might have been done that violates the rules/Social Contract, contact the Titans.  That is exactly what their purpose is: to make decisions about what violates the rules.

If we had to be 100% certain that something violated the rules before we contacted the Titans, why would they even have a "reject issue" button?

But in the past, we used the d-list for this kind of cases.  I think consulting the playing community may be better and healthier to the playing environment than reporting this to the Titans. After all, I think this is in the spirit of what Tom suggested: a player notices something that may or may not be against the rules and brings it forward to other players to ask if it is. 

[Fleugs]

But in the past, we used the d-list for this kind of cases.  I think consulting the playing community may be better and healthier to the playing environment than reporting this to the Titans. After all, I think this is in the spirit of what Tom suggested: a player notices something that may or may not be against the rules and brings it forward to other players to ask if it is.

That was exactly my intention. I wish to get in touch with other players about how I should approach this, and maybe make room for a discussion about the rules. I also, briefly, spoke to Tom on IRC and he told me to take it to the forum so others may profit from it as well. Ergo...

[Galvez]

To be honest, I do not think 'history' is Perdan's only motive. If their enemy was Westmoor in stead of Ibladesh, they would have waited with the capital change until it would suit them better.

[Draco Tanos]

It's easy to claim that, but that's all it is:  A baseless claim.  Your opinion.

And the current rulers of Westmoor, HAVE tried demanding territory from Perdan.  Nothing like desiring a three front war.

So while they're actively fighting Ibladesh, they know Westmoor may eventually try something stupid.

[Indirik]

To be honest, I do not think 'history' is Perdan's only motive.

Well, no. We also moved it because Partora is more central to our claimed and actual territory.

If their enemy was Westmoor in stead of Ibladesh, they would have waited with the capital change until it would suit them better.

Hmm... interesting question. Well, let's assume that we are at war with Westmoor. That would mean we aren't expanding westward by taking territory like Woolton, Beziers, and Bisciye. And since the realm is not moving south-west, Partora would not be a more central location. So maybe we would, and maybe we wouldn't move it.

Also, let's face it, no one will move their capital to a location that is not advantageous to them in some manner or other.

Capital moves are some of the hardest things to deal with. It's one thing that everyone in the realm that moves the capital will see as perfectly reasonable, and everyone on the other side will see as a strategic move against the rules.

[Galvez]

Therefore it is in my opinion too easy to circumvent game-rules with underlying motives.

[Forbes Family]

Maybe a rule change should be placed into effect that after a war begins you may not change your capital unless it is lost?

[Galvez]

I believe you already can't change your capital during war.

[Forbes Family]

I believe you already can't change your capital during war.

I thought that's what all the hubbub was about. Can someone else clarify if Perdan is currently at war with Ibladesh?

[Anaris]

I believe you already can't change your capital during war.

This is not true at all.  You can change your capital any time you hold a city other than your capital.

[Anaris]

Maybe a rule change should be placed into effect that after a war begins you may not change your capital unless it is lost?

This would not prevent some of the most egregious abuses I have seen.  Luz de Bia moved their capital to Grehk, directly adjacent to Riombaran territory, and a few weeks later, once they had fully fixed the region damage, they declared war.

Their ruler was lightning bolted for this.