Posts that do not provide evidence

[Anaris]

If the rule's only intent (which it is becoming increasingly clear to me must be the case) is to force people to have some sort of RP reason for a secession that confers a strategic advantage, then it is working perfectly. If its intent was ever anything else, than it's not.

My reading of it is that it requires that there be a real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.

I think you and Vellos have been coming at this from too much of a "court" standpoint, and therefore overthinking the whole thing

Like I said before, all rules are not created equal. Not every rule in the game has to be for preventing some broad class of behaviour: narrowly-defined rules can be very important, too.

[Buffalkill]

Based on Tom's comment, I'd take blatant abuse to be seceding in name only to gain a second recruitment hub while effectively functioning as one realm.

[Vita`]

Buffalkill, I believe that is indeed what the rule is supposed to prohibit.

[Geronus]

My reading of it is that it requires that there be a real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.

I think you and Vellos have been coming at this from too much of a "court" standpoint, and therefore overthinking the whole thing

Like I said before, all rules are not created equal. Not every rule in the game has to be for preventing some broad class of behaviour: narrowly-defined rules can be very important, too.

I would have to agree with this, but then in effect we are saying that secessions which confer a strategic advantage are fine in principle which I think is a very important point to come out of this discussion, one that might be worth working into the rules page in a more or less explicit sense. I don't think that point is at all clear from a first reading of the rule. Read this way, the rule is about preserving a certain atmosphere for the game, not prohibiting a certain class of action.

[Bhranthan]

What is barley been noted, which is a far more important weight to consider in your judgement, in my opinion, is how much value the event has.
Value in the sense that the realm has some story or reason for its creation as well as content.
Content in the sense it is not just an empty shell, but has a culture or a certain view point as to how things should be (ruled).
As well as that the characters them selves, who rule it or create it are in fact characters.

Where only looking at how exactly the rules have been followed or not and wasting allot of time on it.
The solution that is brought is to create better rules.
Where besides better rules i believe the magistrates could look at the value of the event self and its outcome, if its not clear cheating.

In this case it is allready mentioned, from scan reading the thread that there has been a story going back even before the war.
A group of people who once had their realm and culture, lost it and now look to regain it, which might mean taking it from someone else first by the support of a larger or mroe powerful nation.
Their little Isreal.
Don't deny Isreal caused 'interesting' situations eve since its founding.
The story is good and has allot of potential and value.
Off course, the magistrates should look more closely at it then i did, but hopefully my point is clear.

[Indirik]

My reading of it is that it requires that there be a real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.

I'm not so sure that how long the idea has been around has much, if any, value at all. Just because you've been planning it for a while does not make it legitimate. Nor does the possibility that you've only thought it up 5 minutes ago mean that you're breaking the rule.

For example, you could have been planning for years to spin off a new realm that would make absorbing all of Enweil much easier. Does the fact that you've been planning it for years make it OK?

Or the duke could have been insulted by the ruler, and decided on the spur of the moment to secede. Does the fact that it wasn't planned long in advance make it a violation?

Nor is the presence or absence of IG RP a determining factor. You can RP the hell out of a situation, and still violate a rule. That's because this rule is an OOC rule, which regulates the behavior of players. A rule such as this may force a player to alter the behavior of their characters in order to comply with the rule. Sometimes it may make perfect IC sense to do something *right now*, but OOC rules/considerations may require us to alter those actions to comply with the rules. That's just something that we, as game players, have to deal with.

IMHO, I don't think you can judge this rule solely by intent. It is quite possible to unintentionally violate a rule. The results of what you have done should count just as heavily as the intent with which you performed the action. Simply allowing someone to say "Ooops, I didn't *intend* to do that" is kind of ridiculous.

As for the idea that this particular secession does not create any specific advantage, it certainly does. I can think of two or three without even trying very hard, and none of them require the realm to be particularly strong, or have very many nobles.

And this entire situation could have easily been avoided by simply delaying the secession until the war was over.

All in all, this particular rule is nearly worthless, both in the way it is being interpreted, and in the way it has been enforced in the past. I can think of at least two secession cases on EC that were ridiculously blatant circumvention of multiple game mechanics, including the recruiting mechanic, that were shrugged off as OK because there was some RP behind it.

[Geronus]

All in all, this particular rule is nearly worthless, both in the way it is being interpreted, and in the way it has been enforced in the past. I can think of at least two secession cases on EC that were ridiculously blatant circumvention of multiple game mechanics, including the recruiting mechanic, that were shrugged off as OK because there was some RP behind it.

Well that's really been my whole point here. However, it now seems to me that circumvention of game mechanics isn't really what the rule is designed to prevent. Insofar as that is the case, it still serves a purpose, which is to ensure that people don't nakedly use secession as a way to power-game without at least coming up with a reasonable story justification. The rule seems to be more about preserving atmosphere than actually preventing the circumvention of game mechanics, for which you have correctly pointed out that it is nearly worthless.

Edit: I will also note that I think that the rule is pointless either way, and poorly written to boot.

[Buffalkill]

Based on Tom's comments provided by Telerunya:

As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:

If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.

If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.

These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.

I propose the following dictum: The onus is on the complainant to show that the seceder is seceding in name only to gain a second recruitment hub while effectively functioning as one realm.

The reason the onus should be on the complainant is that if it doesn't rise to the level of "blatant abuse" then the player shouldn't be required to justify his actions to the magistrates.

[Penchant]

Well that's really been my whole point here. However, it now seems to me that circumvention of game mechanics isn't really what the rule is designed to prevent. Insofar as that is the case, it still serves a purpose, which is to ensure that people don't nakedly use secession as a way to power-game without at least coming up with a reasonable story justification. The rule seems to be more about preserving atmosphere than actually preventing the circumvention of game mechanics, for which you have correctly pointed out that it is nearly worthless.

Edit: I will also note that I think that the rule is pointless either way, and poorly written to boot.

You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable. Having a RP reason does not make it ok by itself. IF it is blatant, that they are using the realm simply as a strategic advantage to be able to recruit outside the capital, then it is a violation. Intent does not have to be judged simply on what the players say their  intent was, but by looking at the situation as well. If for instance, a realm secedes, then instantly directs its military guidance to the parent realm in the war they are in, it would provide some evidence. I can't completely explain it, but its one of those, I will know it when I see it kind of things.

All in all, this particular rule is nearly worthless, both in the way it is being interpreted, and in the way it has been enforced in the past. I can think of at least two secession cases on EC that were ridiculously blatant circumvention of multiple game mechanics, including the recruiting mechanic, that were shrugged off as OK because there was some RP behind it.

Don't complain about injustice when you aren't willing to do even a little work against what you are complaining about. If it truly was blatant, and you had no time to look up evidence and such, you could have simply reported the realms/rulers for breaking this rule and left the Magistrates to ask others for evidence, which if it was blatant as you state, then they would have been convicted for it.

---
The rule is for blatant cases, and yet the example used why its an issue is blatant cases could come up with a RP reason and be find, but a RP reason doesn't cut it, its still violating the rule if the point is to circumvent recruiting in capital only.

[Indirik]

You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable.

Well, pardon me for stating my beliefs. But the only way to get it changed is to state that the way it is, is wrong.

Don't complain about injustice when you aren't willing to do even a little work against what you are complaining about. If it truly was blatant, and you had no time to look up evidence and such, you could have simply reported the realms/rulers for breaking this rule and left the Magistrates to ask others for evidence, which if it was blatant as you state, then they would have been convicted for it.

Please stop talking about things about which you have no clue.

[Geronus]

You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable. Having a RP reason does not make it ok by itself.

Well why not? What, ultimately is the purpose of the rule? Is it to protect players from strategic secessions, or is it merely there to ensure that the atmosphere is maintained? I would argue that if the answer is that it's about the atmosphere, then ultimately almost all non-absurd RP reasons will, in fact, suffice. The RP rationale would have to be extraordinarily flimsy and transparent for me to be willing to essentially rule that the defendant was lying about his intentions, which is exactly what I would be doing. It's an exceedingly high standard of proof. So high that I don't see it realistically ever happening barring a situation where someone was in total ignorance of the rule in the first place.

[De-Legro]

In the context of playing with friends, it was once the norm for us to assume good faith in peoples actions. In my opinion this is why Tom says

As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:

If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.

If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.

These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.

If we need to discuss it, even a little bit then there is doubt. If there is doubt then as we are friends we should in good faith believe in our friend. Does this work in practise? I don't know I'm generally the last person you want to talk to about social interactions. However a fixation with preventing ALL instances of gaming mechanics to me does not seem like something I would be preoccupied with if I was truly playing with friends. Family perhaps but not with friends.

Thus it seems in the context of providing a friendly and trusting environment that a great many cases of gaming some of the more complex elements is going to occur. One would like to think that the environment engendered by this attitude might give rise to less 
occurrence of people trying to do so.

[Geronus]

Thus it seems in the context of providing a friendly and trusting environment that a great many cases of gaming some of the more complex elements is going to occur. One would like to think that the environment engendered by this attitude might give rise to less 
occurrence of people trying to do so.

Your point is well taken, but I still think that it would be better to simply enact a blanket restriction if that's the intent of the rule. There are almost certainly people who can and will take advantage of the rule as written (and perhaps people who already have), though I'm sure that it does indeed go some way toward making most players less inclined to do it.

If the thought behind the rule is that strategic secessions are somehow exploitative, unfair, or otherwise have a negative impact on the game then they should simply be banned in all cases; I fail to see why the rule is written with such narrow parameters if that's truly the reason for its existence, hence my earlier conclusion that that probably isn't the case.

[De-Legro]

Your point is well taken, but I still think that it would be better to simply enact a blanket restriction if that's the intent of the rule. There are almost certainly people who can and will take advantage of the rule as written (and perhaps people who already have), though I'm sure that it does indeed go some way toward making most players less inclined to do it.

If the thought behind the rule is that strategic secessions are somehow exploitative, unfair, or otherwise have a negative impact on the game then they should simply be banned in all cases; I fail to see why the rule is written with such narrow parameters if that's truly the reason for its existence, hence my earlier conclusion that that probably isn't the case.

Can you imagine the state of the game if we enacted blanket rules to prevent every avenue of exploitation?

[Geronus]

Can you imagine the state of the game if we enacted blanket rules to prevent every avenue of exploitation?

Let me turn that around. What makes this particular form of exploitation so special that it warrants a rule? And if it's so special, why isn't the rule stronger?