This is the incident I remember, and it sounds like the bolt came down before anyone even tried anything, just based on the idea being discussed. But again, curious as to how that's different from this case - it doesn't seem to me like the proposed Thulsoma-Summerdale-Averoth merger was about exploiting game mechanics any more than the current case is, which calls into question that narrow interpretation of the rule and would seem to place more emphasis on the idea that realm mergers between equals are not permitted for other reasons (game balance? promoting conflict? keeping with Tom's interpretation of medieval governments?).
Equals (that is sovereigns/rulers, not realms of equitable strength) would indeed not voluntarily submit to another (hence why there's *not* a mechanic for a ruler joining an entire realm), according to how I've read Tom's words.
I note a distinct difference between TSA attempting to merge as equal realms to one another and a farronite duchy changing loyalty to Asylon's king. TSA would've changed from three independent realms with different rulers, capitals etc. to one realm with the benefits of communication channels, gold transferability, less complicated diplomacy in battles, one governing system (in contrast to three realms where, even if federated, one of them could have a falling out with the other through some internal political change), only one realm to improve sympathy towards, and all the other little mechanic benefits a realm provides. It would've actually been different entities merging as one (similar to how Riombara formed, which I believe predated and was the cause of this rule's creation) as opposed to a realm expanding through an allegiance change. TSA merging would've been done for the purpose of forming one game mechanic realm to defend itself with while this FR incident was about either IC tension or OOC boredom.
I'll try to avoid chiming in too much on the specifics of the IC and/or OOC reasoning, as I'm rather far removed from the specifics, but I would be hesitant about punishing someone for an attempt to liven up the game. Obviously a broken rule is a broken rule and must be dealt with, but I've often seen (and done myself) IC actions done for the sake of a better playing environment and don't think that should be discouraged. I would hope players would also keep it within IC sensibility in not breaking their character's style either.
I think a key element is that FR is continuing as a realm, however much diminished. There is no movement of nobility leaving Golden Farrow to join Asylon and reconquer GF, as you would seen in a merger that wasn't also a bug exploit. Asylon had two choices for interacting with GF without merging. Conquer it in a war based on various grievances between farronite nobility and those who left for Asylon. Or ignore it. They're taking the latter route.
