OOC Thread and Chatroom

[/Bean\]

Ah, Plan B, eh?

[navarro951]

yes and blasio will turn into a hypnotist wielding the mighty power of propaganda. ALL WILL KNO THE NAME OF CALIFORNIA CHEESE AND HAPPY COWS!

[/Bean\]

ALL WILL KNO THE NAME OF CALIFORNIA CHEESE AND HAPPY COWS!ALL WILL KNO THE NAME OF CALIFORNIA CHEESE AND HAPPY COWS!ALL WILL KNO THE NAME OF CALIFORNIA CHEESE AND HAPPY COWS!ALL WILL KNO THE NAME OF CALIFORNIA CHEESE AND HAPPY COWS!

Wow it really works

[navarro951]

hahaha nice...off to work yall, short day (ya a freakin miracle), so ill be back at 1200 Pacific.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

I'm not sensing a plot, its just the way the dice fell that they get the benefit of this particular event. Let's create our own and submit it for voting or to navarro to implement for everyone to take part in. Oh, and we'll get our House soon enough, Mooks and Potocello. Then the real fun can begin!

[/Bean\]

Not before us , muhahaha:laugh4:

Anyway, there is no plot. The fact that Legio I went to Gaul has nothing to do with favourites or anything. They were a free legion, closest to the destination, and at the time under the command of TCV. It just so happens he's Consul now and relieved of command by Everyone, who has carried on the plan.

Unless I'm mistaken, weren't the Legio III either meant to go north or go to Sicily? So really that's not our fault that hasn't happened and the Legio III isn't getting any action. I don't see how I can be blamed for anything anyway. How am I profitting?

Let me know of any event ideas you come up with, TCM. I like events. :beam:

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Where is the Pomoerium? I need to look up Dentatus' information for a post; but it seems to be gone

[/Bean\]

Near the bottom

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111397

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Thanks! Oh, btw, I hope your friend Balbatus survives. :sweatdrop:

[/Bean\]

Of course he will. Did I mention he's from Steeltopia, the land where people have metal skin?

[Iskander 3.1]

WISCONSIN CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Of course he will. Did I mention he's from Steeltopia, the land where people have metal skin?

Too bad he doesn't have steel teeth :laugh4:

[SwissBarbar]

SWISS CHEESE is the best anyway

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

SWISS CHEESE is the best anyway

Gross, I'm a cheddar man myself. I prefer very sharp white or yellow cheddar - especially the good imported stuff from England. I have been known to snack on a good brie, spanish manchego, and fromage de chevre from time to time.

[/Bean\]

Did I mention I live in Plymouth? :yes: (Thats near Cheddar Gordge for all you thick American kids...

[navarro951]

haha hey i happen to be a slim 140 pound american so ha!

[/Bean\]

:sweatdrop: Thick does not mean fat...this is embarrassing

[navarro951]

lol well in california thick is good lookin on a girl depending on what kind of thick. but on a guy, for the most part, i think most would just say fat :laugh4:

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Hehe, yeah, thick can be good on a girl; but Bean means 'thick' as in 'dense' or 'mentally slow' (read: stupid) :smile:

[/Bean\]

Your a very backwards people That's great! Keep up the good work of screwing up our language!

It doesn't here :2thumbsup:...I'll stop now

[Mooks]

Not before us , muhahaha:laugh4:

Anyway, there is no plot. The fact that Legio I went to Gaul has nothing to do with favourites or anything. They were a free legion, closest to the destination, and at the time under the command of TCV. It just so happens he's Consul now and relieved of command by Everyone, who has carried on the plan.

Unless I'm mistaken, weren't the Legio III either meant to go north or go to Sicily? So really that's not our fault that hasn't happened and the Legio III isn't getting any action. I don't see how I can be blamed for anything anyway. How am I profitting?

Let me know of any event ideas you come up with, TCM. I like events. :beam:

Dont pretend to be stupid, unless your not pretending and just being stupid; then stop being stupid. Its your fault the whole war with Carthrage started, Illyria was just conquered when you dreamt up the script army near massilia, which made absolutely no sense IC.

Also, a little bit of "thickness" on a girl looks good. Skinny is good too, but really overrated.

[Potocello]

ok taking the save and moving the Legio III towards Sicily?? there wasn't an assigned place for the Legio III to go so we'll just go there.

@Swissbarbar i don't think i will be able to do a test game with you online for the tournament. however, if you go on Hamachi i'm sure there will be people willing to play with you.

[/Bean\]

Mooks, you need to drop this attack. I don't understand what your going on about now. As stated in the rules:


1.5 Events

Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, navarro951, or anyone he choose's may create an in-game Event.
Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation.
All game rules, including * marked rules, can be violated to implement an Event.
The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.


I've bolded the bits you may want to take notice of. I wanted an event, Everyone had an idea for one; war with Carthage, a surprise war we didnt want, hence it was an event. He scripted some armies so that hopefully they would attack. This isnt some sort of consipircy against you; your not that special. This continued attack is pointless, boring and starting to get really desperate and personal. Your making the whole forum, the game and players look bad, which effects everybody. For your sake and everyone elses, just take my advice and drop it.

[Potocello]

okay i'm confused. i am looking at the savve now so i can move the Legio III out of Epidamnos yet the units there are not the right units for the Legio. In the edict we voted for the upgrades but i don't see them.. ahhhh

[/Bean\]

The last 4 are the garrison, others have gone back for retraining

[Potocello]

The last 4 are the garrison, others have gone back for retraining

okay, well what of the Triarii? just don't want to move the wrong unts.

EDIT: nevermind i found them. problem solved

[/Bean\]

Whoops! Damn firefox

[/Bean\]

You must have been around for that! Speaking of which, where are my Triarii?

[Potocello]

i may have snagged your Hastiti and Pricipes, the Triarii are on the ships and i plan on taking those too!:whip: :2thumbsup:

[/Bean\]

Waaa...Sir, he stole my soldiers!

Are you done with this save yet, Yankee boy? I want it before bed. Some of us sleep during the night...when the night comes at the right time

[Potocello]

Yankee boy eh? yes i am done with the save, i'm posting it now

[SwissBarbar]

ok taking the save and moving the Legio III towards Sicily?? there wasn't an assigned place for the Legio III to go so we'll just go there.

@Swissbarbar i don't think i will be able to do a test game with you online for the tournament. however, if you go on Hamachi i'm sure there will be people willing to play with you.

That's ok, I was very busy too. My younger brother has to join the army next week, so we went for some beer today :laugh4:

[navarro951]

ah good for him I will be in boot camp myself this summer

[SwissBarbar]

for him it's 10 months *G*

[navarro951]

ah yea? ill be enlisting next wednesday but i dont go to boot till July.

[SwissBarbar]

you have the choice?

[everyone]

whoa. who said anything about scripted armies? that band of libyan spearmen just appeared next to massilia during Cicero's early term as CoL; and it randomly appeared there (looking at previous saves I concluded that it was randomly moving in southeastern Iberia doing nothing in particular). so I decided an IC reason that was carthage preparing an attack. so you have the event.

and sorry about the confusion over the legion upgrades. here are what which legio II and III are supposed to contain:
Legio III:
-the triarii you found are yours
-the 3 accensi and 1 leves you found in Epidamnos are for the garrison
-1 equites and another infantry unit (I forgot which one but it was a hastati/principes) are in Roma for retraining
-I forgot whether have I disbanded the 1 hastati and accensi I am supposed to because I just woke up and I'm still muddled.
-but the 1 rorarii and 1 leves that is supposed to be there is already there.
-so all units meant to be there are there. just that I might not have disbanded the hastati and accensi yet.
-if you wait another turn, Cicero could arrange for the ships to pick you up and sail you back to Italy. but that depends on your SOT, potocello

Legio II:
-your triarii are on the way
-as provincial gobernor, you can move any units that start their turn in your province provided they are not controlled by another player; so you can control those 4 garrison units mentioned above
-haven't got a chance to retrain your units.
-but I merged your units and disbanded 1 hastati and accensi and replaced them with 1 principes and leves. and as said above, triarii are on their way.

[navarro951]

you have the choice?

well im going guard and have worked very close with my recruiter so they pretty much helped me go on a date that works perfectly

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

ah good for him I will be in boot camp myself this summer

In which branch did you enlist?

[navarro951]

National Guard, that way I can stay in California and help bust dopers on the Mexican border. :smg:

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

you have the choice?

Yeah, in America we do not have compulsory service or military conscription. It is one of the many benefits and freedoms we enjoy because we have volunteers who love our Democratic Republic and the ideals for which it stands and are willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect it.

Now, as a former service member myself I can say that I certainly won't agree with many of the decisions made by individuals in the government; but as a whole (with the exception of everything our Lord and Savior the Great Obamanation is doing right now :wall:) I agree with the path that our government leads us. Having given up many freedoms to join the military, I now understand them much more and relish them passionately as a private citizen. I would say that I am even more willing to give my life to protect this country now that I'm out and have a family.

With the way things are going now......who knows how much more the American people are willing to take before they decide to kick the bums out.



EDIT: Thank you for your pending service, Navarro. It is men like you who keep our country strong.

[navarro951]

A very great piece ^^^. I thank you very much and look forward to this serving this country as well as my liberal state :laugh4:. And I feel the SAME way you do about this obamatized bandwagon that threatens our very way of life in some ways. *cough socialism cough*

[Potocello]

It is men like you who keep our country strong.

Army strong...

@everyone: if you could take the Legio III back to Italy with the ships that would be great, i'll put it in my SOT too.

EDIT: SOCAILISM? c'mon guys it's in times like these when we need government to step in and fix the issue. take the financial crisis for example, it was us who messed it up not big government. Obama kicks ass..

ok i'm saying no more on politics, it will mess up this game

[Iskander 3.1]

Kick the bums out?

[Iskander 3.1]

Just remember who got us into this Charlie Foxtrot in the first place...

[Potocello]

Just remember who got us into this Charlie Foxtrot in the first place...

right you are sir

[Iskander 3.1]

You're right Potocello, this doesn't belong here. All we'll end up doing is pissing off each other. I'll cease all further political posts (unless they have to do with the Roman Senate!).

[navarro951]

well in that case damn these togas...BRING IN THE COTTON, fresh wool is itchy!

[/Bean\]

I wish we had compulsory army service...I wonder if TCV's done his yet? They still do that in Scandinavia don't they?

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, technically we (Sweden) do, but in practice we don't. Our army is so small not everyone gets into it, not even if they really want to. They call you up and ask you some questions, like if you want to be in the army, to which I said no because I've never liked taking orders, so I didn't have to do it either. Sometimes that's enough.

[SwissBarbar]

Yeah, in America we do not have compulsory service or military conscription. It is one of the many benefits and freedoms we enjoy because we have volunteers who love our Democratic Republic and the ideals for which it stands and are willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect it.

Now, as a former service member myself I can say that I certainly won't agree with many of the decisions made by individuals in the government; but as a whole (with the exception of everything our Lord and Savior the Great Obamanation is doing right now :wall:) I agree with the path that our government leads us. Having given up many freedoms to join the military, I now understand them much more and relish them passionately as a private citizen. I would say that I am even more willing to give my life to protect this country now that I'm out and have a family.

With the way things are going now......who knows how much more the American people are willing to take before they decide to kick the bums out.



EDIT: Thank you for your pending service, Navarro. It is men like you who keep our country strong.

That's cool. On the other hand, a country with only 7.5 million inhabitants like mine cannot afford to wait for the ones to join the army for free, so anyone has to go *GGG*

[SwissBarbar]

no, when I took the save, the infantry units were already in Epidamnos, somehow; unless you're referring to a few units (rorarii and something I forget) with Cotta somewhere in Epirus.
darn. there must be some way to keep track of units from individual legions other than writing it on post-it notes.

well, in my save, the units are still with me... when i start the save of potocello these units are in HIS army, and I have none anymore



Sempronivs Longvs, legiones redde !!!!!!!! :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:

[/Bean\]

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar View Post
ehrm.... were are the units I moved with me at the order of quaestor cotta, are you kidding me?
what's going on? where are they
I think Everyone moved them into Epidamnos. He didnt know about meeting up with me
no, they are in potocellos army
Where are you then? Get them back! Where's Caivs? What the hell? Agh!
Caivs is in the fort, where the infantry was.

I am a short distance outside the fort, because I took the units from there. When you download my save, I'm there with the units. When you d.l. the save of Potocello, who took the save after me, I'm there allone and forsaken and the units are...well...somewhere else - meaning in his army
Someone took our infantry away from your direct command?

you see the problem clear-sighted ^^

Who the hell stole my men? Gimme back! How the hella re we going to rollplay this? Wheres my men...aghhhh

[Potocello]

:oops:oh no did i take your men? if i did take your Hastiti and the Principes, take them and i'll get others in italy when we go back.

EDIT: looks like i did take your men. i hope i'm not already on the way to Italy, if i am i'll send them back. i took the garrisoned units... woops :oops:

[/Bean\]

Your lucky Pyrrhus has moved south...

[Potocello]

oo that i am. although it could have made for an interesting story if he hadn't

sorry!

[/Bean\]

Right, I'm chasing Pyrrhus with my cavalry, taking Mini with me. Gonna make a story of all this soon, from my time as governer through the battles and so on. Gonna be good fun...anyway, got a battle, back in a bit

[everyone]

since everything seemed to be settled while I was conquering the rest of Germany as Prussia in ETW; it seems my TinCowish admnistration skills are not needed here.
but I suppose somebody still needs to move troops across the adriatic.
so I'll add this line into my SOT that only applies for this turn (since I assume the fleets are under CoL's control):

the commanders of Legio II and III, or anyone they give authority to, who has their units mixed up may use the merchant fleet somewhere between Italy and Epirus to transport units across.
the above sentence only applies for the turn of Autumn, 258

[SwissBarbar]

It's ok, just send the infantry back to my character :smash:

[Mooks]

I didnt say it was a conspiracy against me. Now your just sounding silly (Since stupid is considered vulgur and innapropriate by the forum staff here at the org, im forced to use that word).

Everyone, I remember reading something that there were going to be scripted armies near massilia?

[/Bean\]

Yes, that was for Carthage, part of the event was to script them armies so they would pose a threat.

[navarro951]

well i think too, you have to realize that Carthage's land forces were generally composed of mercs. So i look at the spawned units as payed mercs you know?

[/Bean\]

Right, opinion needed.

For roleplay reasons, should I show that Pyrrhus got away, but died of his wounds, or should I say the man who fled dressed as Pyrrhus, and that Pyrrhus (dressed as one of the other Companions) died at the battle?

[Iskander 3.1]

Was Pyrrhus known for disguising himself? I would just go with him dying of his wounds later on.

[/Bean\]

Fair do's old chap

[navarro951]

"Where is the proof?", shouted a senator. "Until I see Cavis Avrelivs walk through the streets of Roma bearing Pyrrhos's head I will not believe it!"

Haha...must we make glory an argument as well :whip:

[desert]

I regret nothing! Except for misspelling his name. :oops:

[Potocello]

I regret nothing! Except for misspelling his name. :oops:

way to stick it to the man desert!! down with Cotta! :smash:

oh good lord i just got ETW to work on y macbook wooooooooo

[navarro951]

o nice enjoy that, i cant keep myself away from ETW right now. hehe

[desert]

My graphics card is too old to even recognize ETW. :shame:

I'll have to get it later.

[navarro951]

hmmm, im not sure if it has anything to do with it, but I just tried to open rome since my installation of ETW and for some reason it is now missing files. ARRRGH. I will have to reinstall. I have a solution to the problem as I know we need new RBGs....so

ALL PLAYERS DOWNLOAD THIS AND PUT THEM IN YOUR EB/DATA files. They will allow for RBG recruitment....http://files.filefront.com/BtSH+Modszip/;13434645;/fileinfo.html

Only Consuls of the Legions, myself, or anyone i specify may recruit them. Also, for some reason I cannot get the unit to cost 1 denarri. So when you recruit it, just add the EXACT amount of money for the unit (1783 denarii) and then recruit it so we neither gain nor lose money. The upkeep for them is already set to 0. Thank you and enjoy.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Bean - your screen shot shows your forces OUTSIDE roman territory, into the province that contains Ambrakia, instead of staying within Illyria Hellenike.

I believe, according to the rules, your battle against Pyrrhus is invalid since you were not given orders by the senate to go on the offensive. I'm going to check the rules to make sure.


***********************************************
1.4 Game Management

At the start of each turn, the Consul of Finance will post a seasonal report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the seasonal report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves.

Players can move their avatars, move any army (Imperial Legion or otherwise) their avatar commands and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army.

The Consul of the Legions may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, units on a Provincial Governor's territory or units under player's control in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The Consul of Finance may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

Players may not move avatars or armies into the territory of a neutral or allied faction without the permission of the Senate. Nor may they attack the settlements or armies of neutral or allied factions without a declaration of war from a Senate's Edict.

I have looked through the curia and the consul reports; but I cannot find if peace or even a ceasefire was agreed upon with the Epirotes like I swear I remember happening. If anyone can find it then this attack would have been against the game rules. If it cannot be found and we are indeed still at war, then you will have the argument that your actions are technically legal.

3.6 War
Any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict of the Senate.

The edict to fight Epiros was your Dux Campaign, which you yourself declared concluded several sessions ago. If the campaign is over, does that make the war over?

4.4 Dux Campaign
(4) The Dux will have this command until he has completed his goals or determined he can no longer continue the campaign. Should he utterly fail in his campaign, he will be stripped of the title of Dux and be demoted to Legatus.

This rule states that your command and the liberties that you possessed while conducting the Dux Campaign revert to their previous status and senate authorized control/oversight.

**********************************

Navarro951 and TCV, you're pretty on top of the rules, what do you think?

[/Bean\]

We had a ceasefire after we took Taras, which as broken to take Illyria. Me being in Epirus has already been explained. I was in Illyria Hellenike when Pyrrhus walked right past me. The Senate has said nothing about stopping the war against Pyrrhus, nor making me reliquish command of the Second. I attempted to ambush him (in my own territory) but he got past me (he retreated as soon as the battle started) and so my forces pursued him into enemy territory.

I plainly stated that I only used my lightest troops to for pusuit, leaving my heavies protecting the mountain passes, and at this point the Legio III and my new troops were in Epidamnos protecting that; thus I did not leave my territory unprotected seeking glory.
If you think pursuing the enemy King and killing him when he has very little protection is illegal I am seriously worried. What on earth do you find legal?

[mini]

The deciding point in this discussion:

Are we currently at war with Epeiros?
If yes, and bean got phyrrus killed in Epeiros territory: no harm done.
If no, this action was illegal and bean should be prosecuted for transgression.

Have no acces to the save so I myself cannot check :)
Though I'm fairly sure we are still in a state of war with Epeiros.

[/Bean\]

Of course we are; we always have been, except for a small time after Taras was captured. Then we waged war again taking Illyria, and we never stopped.

[mini]

As the territory you moved into was Epeirotean?

Then there are no legal grounds to presecute you

Absolvo

[/Bean\]

How come Roman generals got Triumphs for things like capturing a few minor cities on Syracuse or a victory against the Sardinians, but not for conquering Illyria and killing Pyrrhus? Tad unfair don't you think?

[mini]

Actually, the granting of a triumph was something that was voted upon by the senate.

All I am saying, is that if you want a triumph, you'll need a put up a voting :)
(this is one of the occassions where it would pay off to have a tribunus plebis that is loyal to you under my new rules, as he can push things through without a congressional vote)

My IC reaction is thus accordingly. No congressional sessions is no vote. No vote is no triumph.

Which is why i chose to RP it being said by another tribunus plebis in office, rather than an envoy or whatever from my character, since this latter is loyal to his adoptive father.

[/Bean\]

But that isnt the argument you put forth. Yours was we dont have spoils. I can create some out of thin air if that would help

[mini]

It is now ;-)

[/Bean\]

Yeah but I read this first...Rereading that I don't see how it can be an argumentative point...but meh

[SwissBarbar]

Yeahyeah, always trouble with the children, eh? ^^

[/Bean\]

Drains on my resources...that's all they are :laugh4:

[mini]

i'd like to point out that you're adoptive son has nothing to do with this issue ;)

[/Bean\]

I agree, its the rank he holds that is the important issue. To be a judge of law, you can't have exceptions

[SwissBarbar]

Norbanus interjected

"Avlvs Aemilivs I never presumed blabla... tata"


I'm Lvcvllvs in the Curia, not Avlvs - he's in Epeiros ;-) please note that ^^

[mini]

I agree, its the rank he holds that is the important issue. To be a judge of law, you can't have exceptions

When i say he has nothing to do with it i mean:

you're adoptive son would love to see you get a triumph :)



but me as a real-life person think that granting of triumphs has to be agreed upon in the senate and voted for as in the real ancient republic. Therefore I chose to roleplay someone else to object to your triumph


That I chose to roleplay another tribune of the plebs is twofold:
1) it's related to what my IC character is ingame, keeping a connection
2) the right office to be objection about these sort of things, tribunes of the plebs were usually pain in the asses ;p



special edit: ETW has arrived for me, huzzah. Now 4 more hours of work! ;p

[mini]

soz for doublepost but

navarro, had any time to read those rule propositions? :)

[/Bean\]

This is going to be a very busy Congressional Session...

[mini]

Should I apologize? ;-)

[/Bean\]

Only if it all goes horribly wrong...like someone dies or something :skull:

[everyone]

damn. nothing to do now. Cicero's not taking any stand in the Curia about the triumph thing yet; and since Navarro doesn't want me to end the turn and I'm reinstalling ETW; I guess I'll just write some stories.

[/Bean\]

I had nothing to do...so I skipped school, and decided to completely revamp my room :2thumbsup: Nearly done now.

[SwissBarbar]

nice stories @ everyone

[/Bean\]

Triremes!!

[Potocello]

nice stories @ everyone

agreed, nice job everyone.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

We had a ceasefire after we took Taras, which as broken to take Illyria. Me being in Epirus has already been explained. I was in Illyria Hellenike when Pyrrhus walked right past me. The Senate has said nothing about stopping the war against Pyrrhus, nor making me reliquish command of the Second. I attempted to ambush him (in my own territory) but he got past me (he retreated as soon as the battle started) and so my forces pursued him into enemy territory.

I plainly stated that I only used my lightest troops to for pusuit, leaving my heavies protecting the mountain passes, and at this point the Legio III and my new troops were in Epidamnos protecting that; thus I did not leave my territory unprotected seeking glory.
If you think pursuing the enemy King and killing him when he has very little protection is illegal I am seriously worried. What on earth do you find legal?


1) Ok, Ceasefire after Taras - that was what I was remembering, so we are still at war with Epiros, even though the campaign ended. That's fine by me, I just wanted clarification re: the peace treaty I knew we had signed at one point.

2) Just because you left the Roman territory defended would be irrelevant because roman forces left roman territory period. Whether or not you used light troops, heavy troops, one troop, all troops, or girl scout troops wouldn't matter if you had violated the game rules (which has been clarified that you did not because we are still at war).

3) I find any infraction of the game rules illegal, which is why I brought it up. It's the same reasoning behind preventing Mini from spontaneously creating laws because real life Tribunes of the Plebs did it. We have a system, and that system must be followed at all costs or else there is no reason to play the game since we all can just do what we want.

Congratulations on your excellent victory over Roma's long-time enemy!


How come Roman generals got Triumphs for things like capturing a few minor cities on Syracuse or a victory against the Sardinians, but not for conquering Illyria and killing Pyrrhus? Tad unfair don't you think?

I agree that for this occasion you deserve a triumphus. This is a major blow to our enemies, moreso than just conquering Illyria which was not entirely their territory and TCM will support a vote to honor you in the Curia.

[/Bean\]

Cheers. The only reason I was arguing against you in here so much was because I never had an inkling of a thought that we had not stopped fighting the Epirites. I couldnt see how you could possibly have thought I was breaking the rules.

And too be fair, you've had plenty of time to bring it up. I did defeat a large Epirite army straight after the congressional session as well. No harm done and no hard feelings though, eh?

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

No, of course no hard feelings. I just wanted clarification on the subject. It's such a profound turn of events that I wanted to make sure we had it right. With all of the cumulative victories that Cotta has, it is time that he's rewarded. TCM will most likely begin showing some deferential respect for this earned glory, though I doubt the two men will always agree on most things.

[/Bean\]

I hope not :laugh4:

[mini]

oh stop posturing, you're just sad you got no cause to preosecute hsi ass :D

atleast tensions keeps the game interesting

if everyone always agreed, this would be like wotb, utterly boring ;p

[/Bean\]

Is that why you don't like it?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Honestly right now is just slow for WotB, thing will pick up eventually. However the restrictions on rebellion do keep political intrigue down in the game, if only satraps can rebel it means the rest of us just have to live with the Basileus, not that I am complaining, I always seem to choose the loyal type anyways, but a rebellion or two would spice things up.

[/Bean\]

Realistic though. If you've just experienced all those rebellions, it would be natural for the king to keep all his subjects under wraps. Patience is the key.

[Mooks]

I have nothing against you killing Pyrros, but a triumph? We conquered illyria and thats it. AND with 3 whole legions. Thats barely anything.

[desert]

So navarro, I can just take the save and make my own RGB then?

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

@ Navarro951:

What say we clear out the inactive players and avatars and their respective SOT posts? We could RP a plague killed them off or something. It will clean up the SOT and library threads somewhat.


@ TCV or anyone who knows: that bit in the curia re: consular legio IV roma being ambushed and your avatar being wounded, was that just RP to cover your computer being out of commission, or do I need to enter that into the Phalerium as an actual loss?



EDIT: Ok, Phalerium updated w/ the new battles (except for the Cons.Leg. IV Rom. - if that was even a real battle), etc. Remember, Commanders, please PM me awards you want to bestow upon your troops (units, not individuals) and a brief description of what happened and why you want it or what you want it to say, etc. As always, commendations for Tribunes or Commanders need to be brought before the Senate to be voted upon.

Additionally, I see that Bean recently updated the Legion Avatar rosters in the Campus Martius, however, I believe there are some new additions. Please send a PM to me so I can update you as a new Tribune in the proper legion in the Phalerium, and please PM Bean so he can update the Campus.

Thank you!

[navarro951]

damn. nothing to do now. Cicero's not taking any stand in the Curia about the triumph thing yet; and since Navarro doesn't want me to end the turn and I'm reinstalling ETW; I guess I'll just write some stories.


i just put up the link to include RBGs you can do it now

[Potocello]

TCM check your PMs =)

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Got it - they're in for a world of hurt :-P

[everyone]

darn, I almost forgot that S.C. Scapula (iskander II) and S.C. Sulla (cultured drizzt fan) are supposed to be Legati already; now that they have participated in two battles (actually they already participated in 3, the most recent being the assault on Tolosa)

[mini]

damn


bean, get me into some battles, dont want to be a tribune forever :p

[Iskander 3.1]

No promotion for you, Pleb!
:P

[Iskander 3.1]

Is there an age minimum to lead a legion? If not there should be, I'll consider proposing one with my new Legatus powers. It'll be something like...Legati under 30 years of age may not lead a legion but the general may order them to command part of an army to mop up after conquering a territory. In times of crisis a dictator may appoint a young Legatus to temporarily command a legion (think Scipio Africanus). I'll work on the wording and introduce this next session.

[SwissBarbar]

Why would you want that?

[mini]

some people like historical feelings :)

in that case, 30 would even be too young still ^^
Anywayz, this will probably be unnecessary if my reforms go through

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Is there an age minimum to lead a legion? If not there should be, I'll consider proposing one with my new Legatus powers. It'll be something like...Legati under 30 years of age may not lead a legion but the general may order them to command part of an army to mop up after conquering a territory. In times of crisis a dictator may appoint a young Legatus to temporarily command a legion (think Scipio Africanus). I'll work on the wording and introduce this next session.

That sounds more like a charter ammendment to me - CA's last forever until changed
Edicts only last until the next congressional council (save for legion creation, or political/governing appointments - those last until the term specified is up)

[/Bean\]

Mini you'll be a Legatus after your term as TotP. How can I promote you when your Tribune of the Plebs? You've already served in enough battles

[Iskander 3.1]

It's historical, plus it can help if we have too many legates and not enough legions.

[/Bean\]

I demand I am promoted to Praetor! :beam:

[Iskander 3.1]

So is my promotion automatic?

[Iskander 3.1]

Ok, I'll draft a version of the amendment and then find someone to actually propose it since I can't. One of you will get a PM from me tonight...

[Iskander 3.1]

Sorry mini I missed your post...I'll still find someone to propose the CA just in case your reforms fail.

@swissbarber: My guy is sharp/uncharasmatic, as well as unselfish, so I'm sure he would want this to pass even if it limits what he can do right now.

[SwissBarbar]

the question was directed to you, why you should want that.. not your character. But I see your point

[/Bean\]

I dont really understand the privlages of being a Praetor. Since Quaestors can now create houses without Praetors, they don't gain any more voting or congressional rights, and our armies aren't that big anyway.

Is there any historical job we can give Praetors to make it a more commendable title?

[Iskander 3.1]

How about if we let them wear flowers in their hair!

[mini]

meh, what's the use of finding such thing after my reforms? :p

seeing as everyone seems to be of the opinion to vote for them, i am assuming there will be a system switch after next congress :)

[/Bean\]

Well first you need to find people willing to use their CA rights to propose them...whats your new rules say about Praetors then?

[mini]

meh, you have to interpret the system as a whole :)

since praetor will be an electable office, it's rather powerful :)


Best thing you can do to understand my reforms, would be copy pasting every rank from bottom to top and then try to sum every rank down to a few keywords


then you get a nice overview :)

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Bean, give us a post in the battle reports thread so I can update the Phalerium - you conquering dog! Save some of the enemy for us!

[/Bean\]

Haha, there was only 80 of them, and a captain...I'm just waiting for the screenies to upload to Photobucket downstairs.


understandable, but anything which has to be discussed, should be put in the curia ;p

not obliged by the rules, but things like the spies thing etc, could be discussed.
I know the current rules don't need you too, but a little discussing can never do any harm :)

But I'm still in Epirus. I can't discuss them. And its hard to let a 'representative; do it.

EDIT: There we go TCM

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

ok managed to drag myself away from my British campaign in ETW to look whats going on here.... who else feels like Cotta is starting to overshadow everyone else here? looks like we have the next caeser on our hands (and by that I mean someone who has gained huge power and popular support not a dictator, though it could go down that route if you wanted to bean :clown:)

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

He absolutely is getting too big for his britches. You should voice your concern in the Curia like a good Roman.

[everyone]

Moved the rest of the Legio III Campania north to join up with the Eq. Rom. and Rorarii
The legion, when these units are all together will have:

3 Generals
1 Equites Romani
2 Hastati
2 Principes
2 Triarii
1 Rorarii
1 Leves
1 Accensi


Is this correct?


it is. and be reminded that you can't add units to retraining. only CoL can, but I intend to add the principes to Arpi's retraining anyway.

and about the battle points and such, it doesn't fit much with how Rome governed itself, because the battle points system is based on WotB's which probably applies for hellenistic factions with a basileus in charge.
and seeing with everybody else proposing rule changes and such, I think I'll use Cicero's newly-attained ability to propose CA's to propose that RC's be allowed to be proposed in congressional sessions, unless they involve changing large parts of the rules.
mini's offices idea should really be implemented, it's much more fitting for a Rome-based game.

[SwissBarbar]

Good morning, members of BtSH, may the gods be with you *yawns* :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm looking forward to the next session. On some interesting matters will be voted then

[/Bean\]

Mornin'.

Am I getting too big? It's only because I'm getting promoted quicker isn't it? Your all jealous...everyone's out to get me! I only see enemies everywhere!

Woop, I fit the requirements of a dictator already. But no seriously, I don't want to be dictator. Cotta is just ambitious and proud, because he has risen so quickly when he started life with nothing.

[mini]

mini's offices idea should really be implemented, it's much more fitting for a Rome-based game.


I hope so too :)

When is the next session anyway?
Since my new offices are heavily dependand upon the elected offices, we may want to look into more sessions. Otherwise the game might be dominated by the same men too long.
Since the elected persons have more power then the others, it might be wise to cut down turns between sessions from 12 to 8.

I'm also thinking about a law that will allow minor decisions to be voted straight in the curia (for example, the triumph of cotta, we should be able to decide such things outside session. Strictly speaking, this triumph is not a law, so it needs no congressional session)

[/Bean\]

256 IIRC

[everyone]

close, you're a year late, it's at the end of this IG year (257); which is the beginning of Winter; which in real-life equates to this Saturday.

[mini]

eek

got no inet in weekends. Gotta find a way to propose my shizzle :D

[everyone]

2) LAY-OUT : anything that is NOT your characters speech, put it in italics. Anything that is SAID by your character, put it between parenthis and "in bold"
special remarks : when you are storytelling something that your character is thinking, you can use single parenthis (lucius cornelius was walking and thought to himself: '[flower] i need to get laid. Where's are my slaves!' He then walked against a cart unloading amphoras).
actually, the 'bold' part is commonly ignored; I just dump whatever my character says inside inverted commas, and use bold to make it a bold statement. but I find myself using Italics less though.

[mini]

I know, but the bold would be quite nice to distinguish the speech. You can add extra emphasis by underlining or caps.

Just trying to create some posting etiquette, which is badly needed when i glance over the latest posts.

[SwissBarbar]

OOC:

Guys, guys. I know it is not in the rules of this PBM (another proposal i will have to make) but please..

UNIFORM ROLEPLAY ETIQUETTE !!!


1) Roman family names: Always use the 2 parts of the name. WHen speaking of yourself in third person / when speaking to someone alse directly / when talkign about someone else in third person. ALWAYS use 2 first parts of the name. You can include the third part if you want to emphasize about who you're talking (for example if there are more than one Lucius Cornelius'ses)

2) LAY-OUT : anything that is NOT your characters speech, put it in italics. Anything that is SAID by your character, put it between parenthis and "in bold"
special remarks : when you are storytelling something that your character is thinking, you can use single parenthis (lucius cornelius was walking and thought to himself: ':daisy: i need to get laid. Where's are my slaves!' He then walked against a cart unloading amphoras).


I know it's not in the rules in this PBM (There are PBM's where it is) but still, it would make posts a lot clearer.
The Roman name thingy is something I stress because it enhances historical immersion. It makes the game a whole lot more fun, trust me :)

If anyone needs any more roleplay tips as how to say certain things or how to address in particular situations, do not hesitate to ask me.


Yeah, you're right, but 2 questions/points:

1. If I say sth like my last post: "Good luck, tribune" - I'm sure in such a good wish or whatever, you don't have to mention his first 2 names, but can call him "tribune", and he won't be offended. I just can't imagine, that Romans went around and spoke like

"Hello, Marcus Claudius, how are you?
"Well, thank you, Cnaeus Iulius."
"Good to hear. Let's go for a drink, Marcus Claudius"
"Great idea, Cnaeus Iulius."

and so on.



2. The "bold" part should be turned into "italic", because during the sessions we emphasize our proposed edicts, CAs and "seconded-posts" in bold letters, so you see them at once.

Besides that, I'm always for accurate Roleplay and stuff

[/Bean\]

Yeah, the bold has always been for parts peeople need to take notice of, like an order or something that changes stuff. Since we started, most of us have always used Italics for 'stage directions' if you like, and then normal stuff for speech. It's never bothered me. To be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think we should all write how you want us to just because you don't like how it looks. I'm happy with the way I've always done it.

[mini]

Yeah, you're right, but 2 questions/points:

1. If I say sth like my last post: "Good luck, tribune" - I'm sure in such a good wish or whatever, you don't have to mention his first 2 names, but can call him "tribune", and he won't be offended. I just can't imagine, that Romans went around and spoke like

"Hello, Marcus Claudius, how are you?
"Well, thank you, Cnaeus Iulius."
"Good to hear. Let's go for a drink, Marcus Claudius"
"Great idea, Cnaeus Iulius."



Besides that, I'm always for accurate Roleplay and stuff

Actually, that's exactly the situation how it was in Ancient Rome. Atleast during the Republic.
Calling someone by the 3rd part of his name was considered quite rude and never done in public. Also when speaking of oneself, they used their names as I stated.

As we are roleplaying Roman Senators, it would be nice if people actually tried to stick atleast a bit to reality, especially on this name part thingy as we do use eachothers name very frequently.


In the current situation, addressing him as a 'tribune' would be incorrect. I suggest that when using someone's rank as to indicate whom you're talking about, only do it when it's in 3rd person (I heard the consul has crucified one of his slaves)
If you insist on using the rank directly, best to add his name behind it ("Dear Consul Gaius Julius, you rock!")


Yeah, the bold has always been for parts peeople need to take notice of, like an order or something that changes stuff. Since we started, most of us have always used Italics for 'stage directions' if you like, and then normal stuff for speech. It's never bothered me. To be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think we should all write how you want us to just because you don't like how it looks. I'm happy with the way I've always done it.

I'm not offended as I know you do not intend to be rude. But you must understand than I did not make the remark because I simply 'dont like the way it looks'.
Check the rules of the LOTR PBM if you don't believe me, there they do have layout etiquette. And I for one, find that if people all post by the same rules, it's so much easier at first glance to read the posts.

And I mean come on, it's not like thàt much effort?
I am willing to forgo the speech-in bold part.
Just everything in Italics, and IC-speech in normal text between parenthis is good enough for me.

But atleast SOME form of etiquette would be nice, instead of everyone just typing randomly, one time this way, the other time that way.. Combined with one person this way and the post below him another person types everythign exact the opposite.

I don't want to be a pain, but you got to admit it would look a lot better and would be a lot more efficient if we have uniform guidelines as to how-to post.

[/Bean\]

Then lets do it the way we original BtSHers always did; italic OOC and normal for speech, bold for notiable parts

[The Celtic Viking]

Mini, I will not write anything your way. I really don't like it. The italics is unnecessary, the bold is "making big of something small" (for lack of a proper word :sweatdrop:) and quite simply I find your way of "asking for it" to be very rude.

I'll continue doing it my way, thank you.

[mini]

what do you mean OOC in italics?

When telling an IC story, without speech, describing what your character is doing (walking somewhere i dunno) and you describe what happens, the scenery, his clothing whatever... that should be in italics, right?

basically: Everything in italics, except SPEECH, which is in normal between "parenthis"


(anythign that is actually REALLY ooc, should be between brackets with ooc in front)

EXAMPLE


My senator walked to the forum, wearing nothing but a tunic. He stole 5 appels and got clubbed to death by the store owner.
"Jupiter!" said his companion, and ran for his life.


(OOC: i am hungry)

[mini]

Mini, I will not write anything your way. I really don't like it. The italics is unnecessary, the bold is "making big of something small" (for lack of a proper word :sweatdrop:) and quite simply I find your way of "asking for it" to be very rude.

I'll continue doing it my way, thank you.


Well it's in the rules in other PBM's and sorry if you find this rude, but I can see why they have it in their rules. Reading some of the posts recently made, take quite an effort to read.

It should be instantly clear what is being said and what not, easier to distinguish etc. I didn't say it HAS to be the way I said, as my discussion with Bean proves that I'm open for other suggestions. Simply stating that 'everyone at will' is just not clear enough and measures should be taken.


If you consider that rude, ok then. Sorry for trying to make the Curia clearer and neater.

[SwissBarbar]

You mean they mentionned the name of their interlocutor in EVERY sentence? I don't believe that :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Conversation between Marcus Claudius Cicero and Cnaeus Iulius Caesar:

C. :"Hello, Marcus Claudius, how are you?
M. :"Well, thank you, Cnaeus Iulius."
C. :"Good to hear. Let's go for a drink, Marcus Claudius"
M. :"Great idea, Cnaeus Iulius."
C. :"How is your wife, Marcus Claudius"
M. :"She suffers from pestilence, but apart from that fine, Cnaeus Iulius"
C. :"What's her name again, Marcus Claudius"
M. :"Aemilia, Cnaeus Iulius"
C. :"A, right. And your son's name is Tiberis Claudius, Marcus Claudius?"
M. :"Yes, exactly"
C. :*cough* *cough*
M. :"Oh, sorry, I meant: yes exactly, Cnaeus Iulius"
C. : "It's ok, Marcus Claudius."
M. : "Thank the gods. Haha"
C. : "Again you did not mention my 2 names, you pig.... CICERO"
M. : "Whhaaaat??? Only my 3rd name? you...you..... CAESAR!!!"

they go in different direction and swear


C. : "CICERO"
M. : "CAESAR"
C. : "CICERO"
M. : "AARGHHH ... CAESAR"






No, I don't think so. :dizzy2:

[mini]

You mean they mentionned the name of their interlocutor in EVERY sentence? I don't believe that :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Conversation between Marcus Claudius Cicero and Cnaeus Iulius Caesar:

C. :"Hello, Marcus Claudius, how are you?
M. :"Well, thank you, Cnaeus Iulius."
C. :"Good to hear. Let's go for a drink, Marcus Claudius"
M. :"Great idea, Cnaeus Iulius."
C. :"How is your wife, Marcus Claudius"
M. :"She suffers from pestilence, but apart from that fine, Cnaeus Iulius"
C. :"What's her name again, Marcus Claudius"
M. :"Aemilia, Cnaeus Iulius"
C. :"A, right. And your son's name is Tiberis Claudius, Marcus Claudius?"
M. :"Yes, exactly"
C. :*cough* *cough*
M. :"Oh, sorry, I meant: yes exactly, Cnaeus Iulius"
C. : "It's ok, Marcus Claudius."
M. : "Thank the gods. Haha"
C. : "Again you did not mention my 2 names, you pig.... CICERO"
M. : "Whhaaaat??? Only my 3rd name? you...you..... CAESAR!!!"

they go in different direction and swear


C. : "CICERO"
M. : "CAESAR"
C. : "CICERO"
M. : "AARGHHH ... CAESAR"






No, I don't think so. :dizzy2:

Sorry, but that's exactly how it went.
I understand it is hard to understand, as in modern days this seems ridiculous. But your story nailed it :)

[Iskander 3.1]

Were you there?

[The Celtic Viking]

Well it's in the rules in other PBM's and sorry if you find this rude, but I can see why they have it in their rules. Reading some of the posts recently made, take quite an effort to read.

It should be instantly clear what is being said and what not, easier to distinguish etc. I didn't say it HAS to be the way I said, as my discussion with Bean proves that I'm open for other suggestions. Simply stating that 'everyone at will' is just not clear enough and measures should be taken.


If you consider that rude, ok then. Sorry for trying to make the Curia clearer and neater.

Oh, please! The rude part is of course you coming here and telling us - not proposing anything, but telling us - how to do things. That is what I don't appreciate. If you had asked us to standardize it, and simply proposed your way, I would only have rejected it on the simple basis that I don't like it. But what you did was to instruct us on how we should write it.

I'm not against standardizing the way we write in the Curia, absolutely not. It might be a good thing, though I really don't care much either way. We already do make distinctions between when our avatar talks and when he's gesticulating or whatever, and it works. If we are going to standardize it, I would not like having it with bold being anything else than to point out some important information, such as when a session is started. Having it in each and every post cheapens that effect a lot. The way things I do it is:

Something that happens, is shown through body language or of that kind, I simply type it out.

Something very important is written in bold. (So far I've never used it.)

"When something is being said, it's put in quotation marks."

Italics is used to denote a special tone in my character's speech, like when Pvblivs sarcastically called Blasio King.

[/Bean\]

TCV, take a breath and calm yourself. I agree with you, but we can't afford to have splits in the OOC rather than the IC. Fair enough?

Mini, the best way is as we've always done it. Italics for non-speech and for emphasised speech, normal for normal speech, and bold for notable sentences or words. I'd be interested if you could post quotes of 'the posts recently made, that take quite an effort to read.'

Frankly, I hated your first posts in the Curia with the speech in bold. Blocks of bold are horrible to read and actually harder than normal text, in my opinion.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

it is. and be reminded that you can't add units to retraining. only CoL can, but I intend to add the principes to Arpi's retraining anyway.

Oh, I know - I only moved them into the city, didn't click "retrain" or spend money.

*******************************

I commented in the Curia (poor form on my part) but Mini; you MUST edit your post there to prevent a moderator either censoring you or shutting us down. Your use of curse words in the post is unacceptable. Personally, I do not care; but the people who run this place do and will hammer us all with you.

Additionally, in my post in the Curia, I provided two links from the website of the organizaion "Nova Roma" regarding proper usage of Roman names. They are a modern day real life role playing organization who live like romans, especially when they get together for re-enactments. I would trust their word over anyone save a historian or college professor of ancient Roman history. They are a true authority on the subject.

[mini]

Mini, the best way is as we've always done it. Italics for non-speech and for emphasised speech, normal for normal speech, and bold for notable sentences or words. I'd be interested if you could post quotes of 'the posts recently made, that take quite an effort to read.'




EXAMPLE


My senator walked to the forum, wearing nothing but a tunic. He stole 5 appels and got clubbed to death by the store owner.
"Jupiter!" said his companion, and ran for his life.


(OOC: i am hungry)

What you said, perfectly fits the example I wrote, no? Which is absolutely fine by me :)



as to a few examples:

Almost EVERY post on the last page :)
No parenthis, bad disctinction between speech and events etc


This random smiling has got to stop, if anything we should have a emergency session just for that.


I do not believe it would be correct politically or indeed practically if the victorious General needs to return to Roma in order to request to return to Roma in triumph. Corlucius smiled.


I agree with Quintus Fulvius, since I presume he meant "change" in the sense of having the courage to improve. That's always been our strong point


Lvcivs Cornelivs Scipio rose, ignoring Corlucius' interjection.

It wasn't due to fickleness but due to the ideals and laws passed down from our forefathers that we were able to make the Res Publica into what it is now, you should know this best, Quintus Fluvius. It is not change but preservation that keeps us from becoming "irrelevant".

L. C. Scipo made a short break before he continued:

Anyway, I do not want to start a discussion on principles now.

I agree with the triumphus being requested by an official messenger and with the voting outside of the season as well - there's a difference between preservation of the law and foolishness.


Do you perhaps mean this letter, old friend? Corlucius asked Quintus Fulvius.

I believe messengers are sometimes required to carry these letters, and read them out for us all to hear at once. He smiled kindly at his companion, meaning no malice in his joking sarcasm.


Don't be modest, some of the elder senatores already gave their opinion, and besides: are you talking about the same senior senatores, a certain "mere Tribune of the Plebs" intended to throw from the Tarpeian rock? Your opinion is most welcome, you should share it with us. But I don't want to force you. If you first want to hear other's opinions to form your own conform to them, that's ok.

TCM's post are always a bliss to read. They're so easy to read and interpret, and you instantly know which is said and what not etc.


About name usage on your site TCM:
"In everyday use, people are referred to by either a combination of the praenomen and nomen, or even more usually by just their cognomen. "

use of the cognomen was not unusual in the empire. Yet during the timespan we (and the game) are taking place, use of cognomen was generally thought of as rude and poor form :)

[The Celtic Viking]

TCV, take a breath and calm yourself. I agree with you, but we can't afford to have splits in the OOC rather than the IC. Fair enough?

I am calm. Here's a silly face to prove it: ~;p

[/Bean\]

Mini, whats wrong with all those posts. People just did not all include non speech...if you quote them they all end up in Italics, which is why it jumbles together. The only one there is Tolq, who has only just joined and no one has told him. Even that I didnt really have trouble reading...

[mini]

Since there is no standard, and ppl just type in a kind of spurr-of-the-moment way, you have to read it to know it's speech, for example.

It would just be a lot nicer if everyone would type his posts like TCM.
But nm, i'll just try harder when reading :)

[/Bean\]

You have to read it anyway!!

If people were writing really small, or with no puncuation, or every other word a different font style, I could understand, but quite frankly I see nothing wrong. So maybe some people need to concentrate a bit more and make sure they italicalise some of their sentences, but thats hardly a big matter; its still readable.

[mini]

never said it wasn't readable.

but a simple thing like parenthis for speeches would do much :)

[navarro951]

I WOULD ASK THAT ALL PLAYERS WITH STORIES NOT CURRENTLY ENTERED INTO THE HISTORY THREAD PM THE LINK TO THE SINGLE POST AND THE YEAR AND SEASON IN WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE POSTED. DUE TO THE PREVIOUS WEEK IN WHICH I WAS UNAVAILABLE IT HAS BEEN HARD FOR ME TO TELL WHICH STORIES GO WHERE.

THANK YOU, NAVARRO

[Mooks]

Mini, are you perhaps a english major?

[Mooks]

A great milestone has been achieved....the first house of BTSH has been established.

I couldnt find a adequte name though. I tried to find something that rolled off the tongue, but latin isnt good for that as I found out. Maybe I shouldve went for greek, o well.

o, and a :balloon2: for the first person to post the english translation of the house name.

[navarro951]

Mooks who sponsored your house???

4.5 Forming a House/Family

Once you have been granted a Provincial Governorship, and gained the rank of Quaestor, you will want to befriend a standing Praetor and create a family/or house. A house must consist of at least three members including the Quaestor. To form a house, you must be given a Praetors “sponsorship”, announce the name of the house and which region it hails from, and what it stands for. Have your sponsoring Praetor announce the fact that he is sponsoring your House/Family in the senate and then you can get creative. Explain what your House/Family will stand for politically, militarily, and economically.

A house will create huge advantages for the players in it. You will all be able to vote more powerfully during Congressional Sessions and also will be to place your members in better seats of power through your influence. Each house will have its own thread to discuss its own agenda.

[mini]

I'm not even english :)

I do quite read a lot, but that's it.

I was just trying to achieve a little bit of order in everyone's layout :)

[Mooks]

Mooks who sponsored your house???

4.5 Forming a House/Family

Once you have been granted a Provincial Governorship, and gained the rank of Quaestor, you will want to befriend a standing Praetor and create a family/or house. A house must consist of at least three members including the Quaestor. To form a house, you must be given a Praetors “sponsorship”, announce the name of the house and which region it hails from, and what it stands for. Have your sponsoring Praetor announce the fact that he is sponsoring your House/Family in the senate and then you can get creative. Explain what your House/Family will stand for politically, militarily, and economically.

A house will create huge advantages for the players in it. You will all be able to vote more powerfully during Congressional Sessions and also will be to place your members in better seats of power through your influence. Each house will have its own thread to discuss its own agenda.


Someone in this very thread said all that was required was a Quastor sponsorship. Wasnt there a edict vote on it?


This pisses me off, im taking a break from this game. All that hard work for nothing.

[mini]

I have no idea about the edict or anything.
But it seems to be clear in the rules.


I know it's hugely frustrating if your hard work is for nothing.
Yet nothing is lost, your house will only have to wait a little bit longer..

Just take a small break for a day, and you'll feel a lot better.
I felt the same way when all my reforms were rejected. But I'm still here and it still is fun.

So relax a little :)

[SwissBarbar]

In the Fourth Congressional Council - Legislation Voting he have voted upon this matter:



CA 3.10:
4.5 Forming a House/Family

Once you have gained the rank of Quaestor and have been granted a Provincial Governorship, you will want to befriend a standing Praetor and create a family/or house. A house must consist of at least three members including the Quaestor. To form a house, you must be given a Praetors “sponsorship”, announce the name of the house and which region it hails from, and what it stands for. Have your sponsoring Praetor announce the fact that he is sponsoring your House/Family in the senate and then you can get creative. Explain what your House/Family will stand for politically, militarily, and economically.

A house will create huge advantages for the players in it. You will all be able to vote more powerfully during Congressional Sessions and also will be to place your members in better seats of power through your influence. Each house will have its own thread to discuss its own agenda.

(Confirmation with the dictator removed from rule 4.5)



The rule is the same, it only does not need the confirmation of the "Dictator" anymore.


And in the Fifth Congressional Council - Legislation Voting we decided this:


CA 5.2: That if there is no standing praetor to give sponsorship, a Quaestor may start a family/house with a voting by the senate.



A vote of the senate would be necessary. But however it is, you must be a Quaestor to form a house in any case.

[everyone]

Could you tell me the name of my wife? So i can rp it a bit :)

darn. I forgot. I just saw the announcement and the long-ish looking name. :wall:

@ mooks: don't worry, the Congressional session is only 2 days away, by then you can probably get potocello to propose (or propose in the name of potocello) that you're forming a new house.

[/Bean\]

In the Fourth Congressional Council - Legislation Voting he have voted upon this matter:





The rule is the same, it only does not need the confirmation of the "Dictator" anymore.


And in the Fifth Congressional Council - Legislation Voting we decided this:




A vote of the senate would be necessary. But however it is, you must be a Quaestor to form a house in any case.

And now there is a standing Praetor, so this rule is no longer valid.

[mini]

Correct

The edict clearily states: IF no standing praetor, vote in senate


There IS a standing praetor atm, so it must be requested of the current praetor.


Nevertheless, nothing stops potocello from issueing an edict to start a house. As this is a democracy, any law may be proposed.

So Mooks: my advice is: get Potocello to propose an edict, calling your house into creation. Have your members seconding this proposal, so it will go to the votes.
If enough people vote yes, your house will be made by law, no matter what the rules say.
There is no rule in the faq that forbids you to create your house this way.

[The Celtic Viking]

Nevertheless, nothing stops potocello from issueing an edict to start a house. As this is a democracy, any law may be proposed.

So Mooks: my advice is: get Potocello to propose an edict, calling your house into creation. Have your members seconding this proposal, so it will go to the votes.
If enough people vote yes, your house will be made by law, no matter what the rules say.
There is no rule in the faq that forbids you to create your house this way.

This is incorrect. Without a Praetor sponsoring it, there is no way to create a house now that we have one. If you want this changed, a Charter Amendment that proposes such a change must go through first. Rule 4.5 is quite specific on this.

[mini]

There is no law saying that a house may not be created by a vote in a congressional session.

And what is not forbidden, is allowed.

If they propose the creation of the house in Congress, everyone gets a vote at it.
if it passes, it's legal.

[The Celtic Viking]

As I said, rule 4.5 does say a praetor must sponsor it, so it isn't allowed.

[/Bean\]

So we basically need to change the last CA; rather than no Praetor, say no Praetor availiable. I take it a Praetor cannot sponser more than one house at a time?

[mini]

As I said, rule 4.5 does say a praetor must sponsor it, so it isn't allowed.
And as I said: the rule says a praetor must sponser it.
The rule does not say that creating a house via congressional session is not allowed..
Basically everything is allowed in a congressional session.. if you don't want it, vote against it.
But they do have the legal option to force creation on a house through the Senate session. They just propose their law as: "Creation of House XX without the requirement of a praetor sponsering"
Then all can vote for or against and that's the end of that. Nothing you can do about it.



So we basically need to change the last CA; rather than no Praetor, say no Praetor availiable. I take it a Praetor cannot sponser more than one house at a time?

No, 1 house / praetor. See my pm concerning the problem. Should be the solution

[SwissBarbar]

Sounds logical. Why should a praetor sponsor 2 not-allied houses. Indeed we need to change the rules

[The Celtic Viking]

And as I said: the rule says a praetor must sponser it.
The rule does not say that creating a house via congressional session is not allowed..
EVERYTHING is allowed in a congressional session.. if you don't want it, vote against it.
But they do have the legal option to force creating on a house through the Senate session.

:wall:

If there is no praetor to sponsor it, it can't be created. An edict that would propose a house to be created when there is no praestor sponsoring it would thus be invalid.

Also, please don't strawman my position. I have simply said it is impossible under the current rules, and proposed that they should make a CA to change this if that's what they want. That's their only option (unless they can get Cotta to sponsor it, of course), and that's all I'm saying.

[mini]

And I say that if they create a law like I said, there is nothing you nor the rules can do about it, since it is a legally voted law with a clear overruling of what is currently in the existing law.


Since there is no * in front of rule 4.5, this is not a core law and can be bypassed.
The way I explained above is totally legal.

[SwissBarbar]

You 2 realize, that you both actually agree, right? :laugh4: :laugh4:

[/Bean\]

Oh not again. You keep doing this Mini

[The Celtic Viking]

And I say that if they create a law like I said, there is nothing you nor the rules can do about it, since it is a legally voted law with a clear overruling of what is currently in the existing law.


Since there is no * in front of rule 4.5, this is not a core law and can be bypassed.
The way I explained above is totally legal.

No law can be bypassed. It can be changed or taken away through a Charter Amendment (which is what I proposed they should do), but it must be followed if it's in the law and any edict that contradicts it is invalid.

The lack of a * simply means it can be modified through CAs, nothing else.

[mini]

Oh not again. You keep doing this Mini

Why is it me you direct your comment to? I merely stated they could push it through congress and TCV started argueing...

Besides, there is a difference here..
He says it can only be done by CA
I say that from a legal point of view, an edict is also possible.
They would have to vote their house every sessions, but it's possible :)


No law can be bypassed. It can be changed or taken away through a Charter Amendment (which is what I proposed they should do), but it must be followed if it's in the law and any edict that contradicts it is invalid.

The lack of a * simply means it can be modified through CAs, nothing else.


Like I said: if they propose the creating of their house, their house becomes a part of the collection of laws. Nothing you can do about it.

Of course a CA would make it permanent, but there's nothing illegal about creating an edict which clearly makes an exception to a certain law. That's democracy.

[The Celtic Viking]

Like I said: if they propose the creating of their house, their house becomes a part of the collection of laws. Nothing you can do about it.

No, it would not. The only way to change the rules is through a Charter Amendment. Edicts don't do that. Stop saying that "there is nothing I can do about it", because that's just the way it is. I do not care if they create a house or not, and have no personal interest in this.


Of course a CA would make it permanent, but there's nothing illegal about creating an edict which clearly makes an exception to a certain law. That's democracy.

Yes it is, because edicts do not create nor do they change laws, nor can they contradict the laws that are in place. That's why a house cannot be created the way you suggest, because it is in direct contradiction with rule 4.5.

[/Bean\]

Let me get this straight.

Mini, are you saying that they could ask the Senate to let them create a house through an edict?

Because there must be either one of them is a Quaestor and there are no Praetors, or they need a sponsership from an existing Praetor, while one of them is already a Quaestor. Since there is an existing Praetor (me), and your rank reforms have yet to be passed, they cannot in anyway ask to form a house, even if I did sponser it; because one of them must be a Quaestor.

[mini]

And I say that, from a legal point of view, an edict can say: "We waive rule 4.5 and the need from a sponser of a praetor, and hereby establish House XX"

And if it reaches a majority, the house will last for 12 turns.
It may contradict your sense of 'playing by the rules' -which I understand - but it's a legality point I'm making.

We're roleplaying a sort of real life situation, as the Roman Empire did exist. Which means Law is like reality.
And looking from it's PoV, this can be done.


And tbh, that's just the FUN part about a PBM about Roman Republic. The whole history of Rome is nothing but a succession of Roman senators who found loopholes in the law to do what they wanted to do.


I see no law currently stating that edicts who contradict rules are invalid.
What is not forbidden, is allowed

ERGO, it is possible.


End of story.

[mini]

Let me get this straight.

Mini, are you saying that they could ask the Senate to let them create a house through an edict?

Because there must be either one of them is a Quaestor and there are no Praetors, or they need a sponsership from an existing Praetor, while one of them is already a Quaestor. Since there is an existing Praetor (me), and your rank reforms have yet to be passed, they cannot in anyway ask to form a house, even if I did sponser it; because one of them must be a Quaestor.

That is what I am saying.
If their edict clearly states that the edict waives the preriquisites from law 4.5, and it gets passed, their house will be legally valid for 12 turns.


There is no law forbidding edicts which are contradictionary to the rules.
Thus an edict which specifies that the requirements are waved that gets passed in session , IS VALID.


Only for 12 turns though :) I wouldn't risk my house being abadond after 12 turns :D


But for Mooks, it's the only option he has to make a house now, because it wil ltake another long time before any of them has a high enough rank.

[/Bean\]

But none of them are Quaestors, Mini. The rules state that there must be a Quaestor to start a house, no matter how long it lasts.

[mini]

Bean

Rule 4.5 states indeed there must be a quaestor.

But like I said: if their edict specifies that law 4.5 will be waived in this matter (AND THEREFORE DOES NOT INFLUENCE THIS EDICT PROPOSAL) it doesn't matter what the rules say.

If this edict passes in congressional session, the edict will be valid for 12 turns. (and thus their house valid)
Thus, if you do not wish to see rule 4.5 avoided, vote against it or ask a tribunus plebis to pose his veto.



There is nothing in the rules that prevent the usage of this loophole.
It is a serious bending of the rules, but it's not breaking them.


And mooks and his friends have no other option.

[The Celtic Viking]

This is ridiculous.

No, Mini, you cannot ignore the rules. You simply can not. Edicts can't contradict any rule, even if it says so and everyone votes for it. Det är omöjligt. Det er ikke mulig. Geht nicht. I would say it in other languages to get you to understand this, but I don't know as many as I would like. The point is, the rules must be followed, and using an edict to try and break the rules is not doing that.


It is a serious bending of the rules, but it's not breaking them.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[mini]

And you can say what you want, but it is not a breaking of the rules. it is working with the tools of law.

The rules DO NOT SPECIFY that edicts which contradict rules are invalid.

So it's not breaking of the rules. Point finale.

Besides, I have no benefit with the creation of this house, so I would like you stop saying that I ignore the rules.
I have done nothign here, I'm just giving Mooks a way to achieve his goals.

And frankly, if he goes for it, i'll give him my vote simply to spite you.

[/Bean\]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't contradict mean break? Therefore you are breaking the rules.

[Iskander 3.1]

It's like the US Constitution. Senators can't just vote to override something in the Constitution; it must be amended. BtSH works the same way, I believe.

[mini]

Bean

If I make a law that says: LAW 0.6 all apples must be green.
And a year later I make a law that says: Law 1.3 all apples must be yellow

This means that the second law contradicts the first. We can't have two colours.

But I say to mooks: make a law which says: Law 5.1 My apple right here, can be blue, even though 0.6 is in effect.


If this proposal reaches a majority, democracy has said that mooks apple can be blue.





THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CURRENT RULES WHICH SAY THAT EDICTS CANNOT CONTRADICT GAME RULES.

[mini]

It's like the US Constitution. Senators can't just vote to override something in the Constitution; it must be amended. BtSH works the same way, I believe.


If you want to match this to the US constitution, the CORE RULES (rules with an * in front of it) would be the constitution.

All the other rules are just laws enacted later.

[The Celtic Viking]

And you can say what you want, but it is not a breaking of the rules. it is working with the tools of law.

The rules DO NOT SPECIFY that edicts which contradict rules are invalid.

They don't have to. Anything that contradicts the rules are against the rules. Since the rules aren't followed, it should be obvious that edicts that contradict them are invalid.


So it's not breaking of the rules. Point finale.

Yes, it is. Point finale.


Besides, I have no benefit with the creation of this house, so I would like you stop saying that I ignore the rules.

This is a non sequiteur if I ever saw one. That you have no benefit from the creation of the house does not mean that you're incapable of proposing something that is against the rules.


I have done nothign here, I'm just giving Mooks a way to achieve his goals.

And frankly, if he goes for it, i'll give him my vote simply to spite you.

What you would vote for doesn't mean a thing since such an edict would be invalid. It's not a personal thing, it's just the rules.


If you want to match this to the US constitution, the CORE RULES (rules with an * in front of it) would be the constitution.

All the other rules are just laws enacted later.

As I've already said, you're dead wrong. The * only marks which rules you can modify through a Charter Amendment and which you cannot. That's it. It doesn't mean you get to ignore the others, with or without an edict.

[mini]

They don't have to. Anything that contradicts the rules are against the rules. Since the rules aren't followed, it should be obvious that edicts that contradict them are invalid.
it not against the rules to contradict edicts, because it isnt stated :)






This is a non sequiteur if I ever saw one. That you have no benefit from the creation of the house does not mean that you're incapable of proposing something that is against the rules.
I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.



What you would vote for doesn't mean a thing since such an edict would be invalid. It's not a personal thing, it's just the rules.
Again, there is no legal point stating a contradictionary edict is invalid.



As I've already said, you're dead wrong. The * only marks which rules you can modify through a Charter Amendment and which you cannot. That's it. It doesn't mean you get to ignore the others, with or without an edict.
Again, the Senate (and congressional Session) IS A DEMOCRACY. Which means you can put anything you want to the vote. And since there is nothing in the constitution (in the rules) that say that edicts which contradict the rules are invalid, this issue can be put to the vote.



1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.

2) Stop accusing me of breaking the rules. I have done nothing IC which gives you the right to accuse me of such a thing. Beyond some sound advie to Mooks, I have done nothing wrong here. So I appreciate you ceasing your personal assaults, thankyouverymuch.

3) Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.

4) keep the game a little bit dynamic ffs. Otherwise we might go play chess instead for some real excitement.

[The Celtic Viking]

1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.

As far as something being allowed if it's not forbidden, that's true. However, creating a house without a sponsoring praetor is forbidden in the rules. Edicts that contradict the rules are automatically invalid because they would break the rules.

What you're saying here is "unless the rules say we can't break the rules, we can break the rules". That is ridiculous.


I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.

Calling me names now, are you? That's... great. No, seriously, just stop that. It does no good.

As for the rest, I suggest you read what I said once more, because you'd then perhaps note that I haven't accused you of breaking any rule.


Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.

*Yawn*

The historic Romans' laws are completely irrelevant here. The game's rules are the ones we are obliged to follow, and if you want them to be more according to the historic laws, then you must make Charter Amendments first, and they must then be seconded and be voted for by the senate.

[The Celtic Viking]

And now you edit out your personal attack against me and replace it with a plea for me to stop making personal attacks against you (something which I've never done)? :laugh4:

That's rich.

[mini]

As far as something being allowed if it's not forbidden, that's true. However, creating a house without a sponsoring praetor is forbidden in the rules. Edicts that contradict the rules are automatically invalid because they would break the rules.

What you're saying here is "unless the rules say we can't break the rules, we can break the rules". That is ridiculous.

Again, there is nothign which says that edicst cannot contradict rules.


Calling me names now, are you? That's... great. No, seriously, just stop that. It does no good.

As for the rest, I suggest you read what I said once more, because you'd then perhaps note that I haven't accused you of breaking any rule.

actually you have

*Yawn*

The historic Romans' laws are completely irrelevant here. The game's rules are the ones we are obliged to follow, and if you want them to be more according to the historic laws, then you must make Charter Amendments first, and they must then be seconded and be voted for by the senate.

[/B]

THE SPIRIT of the game is the most important. The spirit of this game is a roman republic, therefore we should act like it in spirit. The Roman Senate was a democracy with first true Law. What I have advised Mooks to do, acts within the law and withing the spirit of the game. If you seriously want this game to be rigid and static, by all means, everybody declare that this is not allowed and i'll go find myself another game.

[mini]

And now you edit out your personal attack against me and replace it with a plea for me to stop making personal attacks against you (something which I've never done)? :laugh4:

That's rich.

as far as i can see, the nitwit is still standing there :)

[SwissBarbar]

I can't believe you still are arguing

[mini]

it will require navarro's intervenance, since he's GM

I hope I can have a word with him before he decides.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

This is hillarious. I suggest we all step back and take a breath. Then, re-read the posts and take another breath, to get all the emotion out. Then, let's talk about this logically and calmly.

[/Bean\]

Oh great, while I've been contructing a long speech to combat TCM's riduculous lying, you two have been callign each other names...that's really mature.

:beam:-This legally proves I am not really stressy

[Iskander 3.1]

Excellent speech, TCM.

[GeneralHankerchief]

~:grouphug:

[/Bean\]

Excellent speech, TCM.

No..



~:grouphug:


Yes!

[mini]

Excellent speech, TCM.


second.

[Iskander 3.1]

Also an excellent speech, Bean...of course, Sextus Cornelius must form his own opinions...

[mini]

Well, the decision must fall shortly I feel.

If we take the city now, we can form a province and send a governor with the next session in 1-2 turns.

Otherwise this wil ldrag out again for 12 turns. Would be a waiste fo time imo.

As far as I can see, most senators are for the matter, only TCM is opposed.
We should send an IC reply to cotta to get on with it, if only TCM objects. It's only fair.

[/Bean\]

People...his speech was lies...none of its true..and Mini, your my son, your meant to be on my side

[mini]

euh.. Didn't I suggest that we should order you to go ahead if only TCM objected? :P

[/Bean\]

I will, but Everyone needs to end the turn first. TCV has been on and has had a chance to aruge, but didnt. Iskander classifies as one of TCM's 'lowly Tribunes with no voting rights'...and no one else is on...

[TinCow]

*Ahem*

This kind of behavior is not appreciated in the Throne Room. This forum is designed for friendly gaming, and heated discussions like this break the immersion and create personal problems between players. These games all have GMs for a reason. In the event of an OOC dispute over rules, the GM's decision is binding, as it is his game. In this game, navarro951 is the GM (unless he has handed that position over to someone else without my knowledge). Thus, if it becomes clear that there is an OOC rule dispute which cannot be otherwise resolved by mutual agreement, navarro951 should rule on it and his decision is final.

This is not Calvin Ball. There is one final deciding authority on these issues, so please make use of it to ensure that harmony and good cheer is maintained in this forum.

Many thanks.

[mini]

If you want my opinion, just go for it and worry about procesuction later :D

[mini]

*Ahem*

This kind of behavior is not appreciated in the Throne Room. This forum is designed for friendly gaming, and heated discussions like this break the immersion and create personal problems between players. These games all have GMs for a reason. In the event of an OOC dispute over rules, the GM's decision is binding, as it is his game. In this game, navarro951 is the GM (unless he has handed that position over to someone else without my knowledge). Thus, if it becomes clear that there is an OOC rule dispute which cannot be otherwise resolved by mutual agreement, navarro951 should rule on it and his decision is final.

This is not Calvin Ball. There is one final deciding authority on these issues, so please make use of it to ensure that harmony and good cheer is maintained in this forum.

Many thanks.


things got out of hand, but no harm is done. Atleast I hope TCV thinks the same :)
Just a little heated discussion, we're not about to strangle eachother :)

And the matter rests in navarro's hands indeed, as I said before.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Epic post.....lost because I clicked on a bookmarked tab while at work

I hope suicide is painless :'(

Also, don't end the turn......TCM is controlling Legio III while Potocello is unable to. I am going to take the save in 8-10 hours when I get home from work and move to fight the rebels in Italia. Remember: the turn takes 24 hours

Sorry Bean, old bean, you're going to have to wait! :-P

[mini]

Epic post.....lost because I clicked on a bookmarked tab while at work

I hope suicide is painless :'(

Bean will cheer you up with this: :belly:

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

wow... seems like every pbm is slowing down lately, wonder if this has to do with ETW

[/Bean\]

Your calling this slow?

And @TCM: sorry, I didn't realise Everyone had done the save this morning. I'll take Ambrakia now, thank you very much. Muahahahah

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

no BtSh seems unaffected by the phenomenon, most are suffering though

[navarro951]

things got out of hand, but no harm is done. Atleast I hope TCV thinks the same :)
Just a little heated discussion, we're not about to strangle eachother :)

And the matter rests in navarro's hands indeed, as I said before.

Regardless friends, TinCow is right. I am GM and I do have an obligation to keep this game CLEAN and FUN. This is now the third time I believe that a major, and disruptive, fight has occurred OOC spawning from something entirely IC. I have said it many times before and I will not say it again, if there are any MAJOR problems you are to PM me directly so we can work the dispute out with just the persons involved. IF this should happen again, the catalyst (the person who started said problem) will be removed from my game and all other persons involved will suffer in-game penalties decided entirely by myself. Thank you and try to keep the fun and games going.:smash:

[/Bean\]

*Peers around Navarro's back, an waves his fist menicingly at the evil people..."Yeah!"

:sweatdrop:

[TinCow]

For the record, the Moderators will back up any decision navarro951 makes with regard to the way this game is run. If he decides that someone needs to be removed from the game, I will enforce it. He makes the rules in here, so listen to him. If for some reason you have a problem with what navarro951 himself is doing, you should PM me directly. If you have a problem with what I am doing, you should PM TosaInu directly. If you have a problem with what TosaInu is doing, you should probably just keep it to yourself, because that's the end of the line. :laugh4:

[navarro951]

For the record, the Moderators will back up any decision navarro951 makes with regard to the way this game is run. If he decides that someone needs to be removed from the game, I will enforce it. He makes the rules in here, so listen to him. If for some reason you have a problem with what navarro951 himself is doing, you should PM me directly. If you have a problem with what I am doing, you should PM TosaInu directly. If you have a problem with what TosaInu is doing, you should probably just keep it to yourself, because that's the end of the line. :laugh4:

well said, and let me be the first to apologize for what has happened these few times. I know how things can get feisty these games in AND out of character, but no excuse can be made.

[/Bean\]

Enough pessimism!!

Look at it positivly...it shows how much we care about the game, that we argue for how we think it should be, and that we really do want to have fun. Right?

[navarro951]

Enough pessimism!!

Look at it positivly...it shows how much we care about the game, that we argue for how we think it should be, and that we really do want to have fun. Right?

Granted, but that doesn't mean we cant be civilized about it. I mean we do play Romans...hehe

[/Bean\]

As long as its a lesson learnt. Or is that learned?

[navarro951]

learned I believe.

[/Bean\]

Cheers :yes:

[TinCow]

Granted, but that doesn't mean we cant be civilized about it. I mean we do play Romans...hehe

Actually, might be best not to use the old Roman ways... :laugh4:

http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/1/0/Y/b/2/DeathofCaesar.jpg

[/Bean\]

Thats a picture of my school dinner hall at lunchtime, where did you get that? :beam:

Anyways, back on topic, can I take Ambrakia now, Mr Navarro sir?

EDIT: Agh, why would you log off now?

[mini]

nice picture of caesar, I love the drama at the on-seers

[The Celtic Viking]

Hey, I'm a keltophile and mini's a Roman fanboy... who did NOT see us clashing? :laugh4:

By the way, mini, as any zoologist will tell you (and they should know - they've studied me for years), this is classic TCV behaviour of reaching out. Lets put the past in the past and be friends now, eh?

Now, Navarro, I don't think you gave your ruling here...

:hide:


I will, but Everyone needs to end the turn first. TCV has been on and has had a chance to aruge, but didnt. Iskander classifies as one of TCM's 'lowly Tribunes with no voting rights'...and no one else is on...

I haven't argued as the only "representative" I have in the Curia is a messenger, and he's not of high enough standing to actually argue, nor does he have the permission to speak for Pvblivs. However, in the case of a vote, Pvblivs would send in his decision through a message, so he's still active that way.

[/Bean\]

Well, theres no point calling a vote 2 turns before the congressional session, it wouldnt be done in time. I have had a large majority of the votes as affirmative though, so its other Senators' faults for not saying anything if they dont want me to do it.

No case for TCM...muhahahaha, Ambrakia falls tonight!...even though it can't cos I havent got any siege equipment...damn

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, AFAIK there is nothing in the rules that says you can't do that. However, without an edict (or a voting, if that's allowed - which I, by the way, think it should), the senate (which includes the consuls) are not obliged to support you. Meaning, we could refuse to retrain your losses, send reinforcements, or do anything to back you up at all.

Personally I think this is a rather lame disincentive to attacking a settlement without senatorial backing, but meh.

[/Bean\]

But you won't...right? :sweatdrop:

[navarro951]

Well, theres no point calling a vote 2 turns before the congressional session, it wouldnt be done in time. I have had a large majority of the votes as affirmative though, so its other Senators' faults for not saying anything if they dont want me to do it.

No case for TCM...muhahahaha, Ambrakia falls tonight!...even though it can't cos I havent got any siege equipment...damn

From what ive seen in the curia, there is more approval then disapproval. My call is go ahead. From my knowledge, and this of course cannot be said in the curia for realism sake, their are still 2 decent sized armies left in Epeiros. So, taking their capital will GREATLY hurt their economy to support such armies as well as produce more to put against us. Also it will do us good money wise. Were in a time of expansion now, and being recognized as so throughtout the game map, no more American pre-WW2 isolationism, we need to either put our foot down on all enemies or we will show weakness, even if the AI cannot think in that sense.

[mini]

By the way, mini, as any zoologist will tell you (and they should know - they've studied me for years), this is classic TCV behaviour of reaching out. Lets put the past in the past and be friends now, eh?

Now, Navarro, I don't think you gave your ruling here...

:hide:


Wuh? We weren't friends to start with? :p

Meh, i'm used to worse (ruder) discussions than this, so wasn't anything out of the ordinary for me :D

[navarro951]

Well, AFAIK there is nothing in the rules that says you can't do that. However, without an edict (or a voting, if that's allowed), the senate (which includes the consuls) are not obliged to support you. Meaning, we could refuse to retrain your losses, send reinforcements, or do anything to back you up at all.

true, but it is ALSO in the rules that if a legion falls below minimum standing it MUST be retrained, not reinforced though true. The other option would be for "opposers" to ask for Cotta to be stripped of Legio II's command which is insane since he has won victory after victory since I commissioned that legion as dictator.

[/Bean\]

I take it that's a Yay rather than a Nay!

[navarro951]

ill be back in a sec...please allow me to eat this tasty sandwich in peace. :viking:

yes tis a nay.

[The Celtic Viking]

true, but it is ALSO in the rules that if a legion falls below minimum standing it MUST be retrained, not reinforced though true. The other option would be for "opposers" to ask for Cotta to be stripped of Legio II's command which is insane since he has won victory after victory since I commissioned that legion as dictator.

Actually, that rule makes an exception if the Consul of Legions agrees otherwise, so... :devilish:


Wuh? We weren't friends to start with? :p

Last time I checked, Arverni starts out at war with the SPQR, and we hadn't signed a peace treaty. :grin:

[/Bean\]

Are you against taking Ambrakia then TCV?

[mini]

well in that case, i'm actually a descendant of the eburoni (one of the belgae ;p)

[The Celtic Viking]

I'm indifferent. Pvblivs, on the other hand, would rather have a peace offer proposed, and only taking it if it's refused.

Of course, you can't act upon this knowledge IC, since it was said here OOC.

[/Bean\]

What, now? I would agree to one after Epirus is taken, but allow them to rebuild their elites? No way.

[The Celtic Viking]

So when I refuse to join the discussion IC, you go for me OOC? Is there some way I can escape - without actually going AWOL? :sweatdrop:

Pvblivs doesn't share your expansionist views, and would rather not fight a two front war just because we can. He sees the enemy dead (Pyrrhos), and see no reason to continue the fight against the Epeirotes.