King of the Romans OOC thread IX

I think you're totally off-base with your interpretation. CA 11.4 in no way requires a Crusader Count to relinquish any of their Duchy lands. It simply says you only get a +1 for being a Crusader Count if you're not already a Count in your Duchy. At the moment, that actually only applies to you (Jan von Hamburg). No one is required to relinquish anything, it simply prevents people from doubling up on Count and Crusader Count influence. Also, you say the King gets 'house' edicts from 11.4, which is totally false. He gets personal edicts, which are very different. The whole reason to put them in there is because it has been pointed out that the King doesn't actually have access to any House edicts of any kind, because he is forced to leave his Duchy. This means that without CA 11.4, the King only has access to 1 Edict proposal each Diet, which is a huge disadvantage. CA 11.4 is correcting that by giving him 2 more personal edicts.

Again, your statements that Crusaders have to abandon their lands in Europe is totally false.

Then I apologize that I read CA 11.4 wrong. Effectively my argument remains largely untouched. While Crusaders get to keep their land in Europe, they get no influence from it. So, again they can pretty much abandon their house for as long as they are a Crusader Count. And the edicts might be the King's but they still effectively act as "house" edicts while not being called "house" edicts. We have still effectively made Outremer more like a duchy while not calling it one. This is all fine with me but it is ironic because some of the same people who pushed for this have stated that Outremer should be less like a duchy.

So, the King is a King and not a Crusader Count? That means Conrad gets to keep both influence points because that part of CA 11.4 will not effect him? Sounds good to me if everyone else is cool with it. Though ideally we should figure out a OOC or IC rule change eventually to cover this.

I don't see any possible way you could interpret the rules to say that. If the King is a Crusader Count and the 'leaving his House' clause doesn't strip him of his Bavarian County, he does not get a Crusader Count +1 because he has a Bavarian County. If he is a Crusader Count and is stripped of his Bavarian County by the 'leaving his House' clause, he gets +1 for being a Crusader Count. If he is not a Crusader Count, but doesn't lose his Bavarian County, he gets +1 for being a Bavarian Count. if he is not a Crusader Count AND loses his Bavarian County, he get nothing whatsoever.

How can he possibly get +2?

My point is, in my opinion, he should have +2. People want Dukes to have more influence than their counts but the King should have equal or less influence than his Crusaders?

I guess my big question is, exactly what clause in what rule gives King Salier +1 influence for being King of Outremer and is that clause still active if CA 11.4 is voted on?

The only thing that can give the King a +1 for anything is the part of the Outremer law that gives all Crusader Counts +1. The question is whether the King is a Crusader Count, something which is not spelled out in the Diet and therefore subject to interpretation. Therefore I believe it is up to the Kaiser to determine if the King gets +1 or +0. It seems obvious that at the moment he will be given +1. If you think the King needs more than +1, that should be proposed in an Amendment at the next Diet because, as I said above, there is no way to interpret the law as giving him that if 11.4 passes. Hell, even if 11.4 doesn't pass, it actually looks like the King gets +1 and all all Crusader Counts get +2, because the King loses his Bavarian +1 because he has to leave his House.

For the record, Salier should also probably lose the right to post build queues for Nuremburg. If he's not in Bavaria, he can't be Count of Nuremburg, so he can't govern it.

Yeah, that is definitely my interpretation of the letter of the law. I guess we have been playing with a "spirit of the law" that has been allowing him to have both. I guess amending the Outremer charter made me take a good hard look at the charter. And while I want the King to have a +1 King bonus, I could not find anything in the charter that gives it to him. And since we're amending the charter, I want to be clear on what it did say and what it will say when the CA passes.

Your points about the Kaiser giving the King +1 and the King losing his county due to being out of the house are very good ones. Its just that we have kept playing with the King having +2 while ignoring part of the charter.

So, if CA 11.4 passes, is Conrad losing 1 influence because:

(a) He can only get influence from either being a count or a crusader count, but not both.
or,
(b) He has never had a county the entire time he has been King but we have ignored that part of the charter.

If the CA does not pass, how much influence does Conrad have and does he have a Bavarian county?
If the CA does pass, how much influence does Conrad have and does he have a Bavarian county?

So, is this a case of the CA taking influence away from him or is it a case of us finally following something that has been in the charter the whole time?

PS: I am really digging this legal discussion! :book:

I must say CA 11.8 is going to remove half the role playing ability of any future avatar.

That's pretty difficult to swallow.

Plus...just how are people going to prevent me from executing prisoners in the actual game before I hand the save back...and believe me someone better have that concept line up because I gently stated the enforcement quesiton in the Diet.

I figured we would just simply follow the rule. If the rule says hit the release button instead of the ransom or execute button, thats what you do. Its the same with loading FH's mod onto our computer, load only 2 units per boat, gift the AI or any other rule. Its a game mechanic. You can RP being mad about it as a character but I assume we would just follow the mechanic as players. I guess we can ask Econ what he wants to do should it pass. And that is assuming it will pass. It still has some hurdles to jump through.

Any other ideas?

I don't think it will affect roleyplaying at all. At least, I'm sure that if it does pass we'll hear no shortage of complaints throughout the term. Besides which, you can even try to get it repealed during the next session, something that will also provide more avenues for roleplaying.

Cecil, the dread traits are directly related to killing prisioners, which directly affect retinue, names of characters and other traits.

If you release all prisioners everytime, you'll get a house full of squeaky clean GQ men pracing around telling the world their wonderful...:dizzy2:

IC enforecement needs to be addressed PK. While I agree that the rules are the rules, in this case IC Arnold's going to want to break the rules...what going to happen then?

It's getting even more exciting.:2thumbsup:

Yeah, if we as players are going to ignore CA 11.8 if it passes, then we might as well ignore the other rules too. If you don't like 4.5, just set the queues to your Duke's settlement. If you don't like 5.3, just set the queues to any settlement you want. If you don't like 5.7, move the princess over to a rebel stack with a general. If you don't like 7.2, just hit the crusade button. If you don't like 8, just make a stack full of forlorn hope. Don't like 3.3? Just shove your army into a neutral faction and attack.

See where I'm going with this? OOC we should all be cool with it. IC, RP how much you hate it.

Again, were assuming it will pass. Still a long way too go.


*edit*

Quote:

---

IC enforecement needs to be addressed PK.

---

The same thing that stops you from loading 20 units on one ship should stop you from hitting the execute button if CA 11.8 passes.

and also it will effectively make the dread avatar less powerful, they has less trait related influence. their dread might reduce, and can never gain new dread traits and probably never be chivalrous anyway. I think... FH might be able to shed some light on that.

Well, it is officially killed. So, the point is moot except to figure out what to do if we ever try it again. And I am sure Jan will.

So far in this voting session:

Matthias is Chancellor

Edicts 11.1, 11.3, 11.4, 11.7, 11.9, and 11.11 have passed

CA 11.2 passed

CA 11.8 is dead

The rest are still in the air in theory if everyone votes. We still are waiting on five more people to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneCold

and also it will effectively make the dread avatar less powerful, they has less trait related influence. their dread might reduce, and can never gain new dread traits and probably never be chivalrous anyway. I think... FH might be able to shed some light on that.

---

I'd thought of that also StoneCold. I'm going to be in a world of hurt characterwise if this goes through...what am I supposed to do?

And PK, all your points are valid...BUT, I don't have a problem with them so that's not what I am discussing.

I'm discussing IC how a potential behaviour modifying order is going to be enforced on my character in the game.

It's a very specific issue.

Well like I just said, the bill is dead so we will not have to worry about it until next time. In theory I guess you would just have your avatar not do it just like you have him not do a lot of things. And then have your character complain in the Diet and arrange to have legislation passed to revoke the CA. Kind of like what we told Ignoramus on here a few days ago when he wanted to RP a revolution.

To prove that the bill is dead by math:

80 votes
28 votes against the bill
28 is more than 1/3 of 80
Therefore, bill is dead. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Well like I just said, the bill is dead so we will not have to worry about it until next time. In theory I guess you would just have your avatar not do it just like you have him not do a lot of things. And then have your character complain in the Diet and arrange to have legislation passed to revoke the CA. Kind of like what we told Ignoramus on here a few days ago when he wanted to RP a revolution.

---

Yeah I can see that being an idea. There's still votes to go though. I'm not sure how many people but it's based in influence not straight numbers so the individual votes get distorted when the count is done...

...but, I guess you have some type of live vote tracking device at hand no? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Yeah, if we as players are going to ignore CA 11.8 if it passes, then we might as well ignore the other rules too.

---

I think there are distinctions between rules. Some are OOC game mechanics (e.g. the Chancellor controls the save), others are IC policy decisions (e.g. no exterminating). I think players are free to break IC rules, but there would potentially be political consequences. For example, Chancellor Hummel broke some edicts and was impeached as a result.

If CA 11.8 passed, I can imagine Arnold or Anselhelm breaking it, and there then being a furore in the Diet with various sanctions being proposed.

In retrospect, I think CA 11.8 (a) was too chivalrous to pass. (b) seems less demanding (particularly given the pre-existing constraint on occupying more settlements).

That's what I was looking at Econ.

I'd say he was prepared to break the rules and see what happened :inquisitive:

I had the lawyers working out my defence as we speak :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Yeah I can see that being an idea. There's still votes to go though. I'm not sure how many people but it's based in influence not straight numbers so the individual votes get distorted when the count is done...

...but, I guess you have some type of live vote tracking device at hand no? :beam:

---

No live vote tracking. Well, kinda but a pretty archaic one. I wrote down everyone's "vote power" and added it up. It adds to 80. If you need 2/3 to pass a CA, then 54 will make you golden. But, if less people vote then the number changes.

Lets look at CA 11.8

If you add up everyone who voted yes, you get 36
Everyone against, before NN, was 23.
At this point we still had a chance.
Then FH logs off without voting and won't be back until voting is over.
This puts the total down to 75.
Even if we got every other un-voted vote to vote yes, that would still only leave us at 47 (adding Kag's 4, OK's 5, Ig's 1, and Warluster's 1)
47/75 is less than 2/3's (0.626666666666666666666666666ect..)

So, mathmatically, it could not have passed once FH logged off. So, I stayed quiet as Arnold was railing and panicking and twisting Zirn's arms off. While Zirn voting no makes it "officially" dead (since 28/80 is more than 1/3 needed if you factor in every possible voter) it was already "effectively" dead since it never was going to get all the yes votes it needed.


*edit*

I am actually wrong on this. I forgot to factor in NN as voting for the bill in the pre-NN-no-vote/post-FH-log-off phase. If he voted for the bill after FH logged off, along with the rest of the un-voted, it would add to 52. 52/75 would put it to .6933333333333ect.. which would have passed. So, it actually was Zirn that killed the bill. Arnold would be proud. :D

Hmm..I think CA 11.1 is gonna pass :)

If the vote stays as is, CA 11.1 will pass. It has 50 for it with only 14 against it. 50/64 is way more than 2/3

But, if every unclaimed vote voted no, then it would fail. There are 16 unclaimed votes. 50/80 is less than 2/3

I don't call bills until they mathematically could not pass or fail which is why I didn't call it yet.

So a question here on voting...god I feel like I'm back at uni.

If we know the total vote is 80 but people fail to vote is what PK doing correct?

That is, he reduces the numbers to those who actively vote and move the numbers down accordingly?

If you don't vote should this be included in the overall thing or not.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Well, I only call bills when they mathematically can not possibly pass or fail. Since I am assuming we are not taking in new players in the last hours of voting, we have a closed possible number of votes. If people do not vote, then it does change the number. But, I do not call a bill unless it hits the magic 41 for edicts or 54 for CA's. That is the point that it can not mathematically fail. Just like I do not call a bill failed until it hits 41 no votes for edicts and 27 no votes for CA's.

If you want to know if a bill will pass now while voting is still going on, then I need to factor in who has voted and not voted. Like I said to Xdeathfire, CA 11.1 will pass if the vote ends this second. But, if every un-voted vote votes no, then CA 11.1 will fail.

*edit*

I realized I didn't really answer your question. Your asking if Econ takes the votes cast as a total or the votes possible. I believe he takes the votes cast but I use the votes possible while voting is going on. When voting is over, econ will see if an edict has a majority of yes votes, not if it hit 41. An edict can pass if it has less than 41 yes votes as long as less people vote. For a CA, econ will see if a CA gets 2/3 of the votes that voted, not 2/3 of the possible votes. Practically, more edicts and CA's will pass than what I listed but I do not want to call them because there is a small possibility that they will shift enough into the other category. Like CA 11.1 to use again as an example. It will in all likelihood pass but there is a slight possibility of failure if you factor in everyone who has yet to vote.

Knock it off with the math already. Germans weren't good at math until Leibniz came along. :laugh4:

Well, seeing as it is the OOC thread, we don't have to pretend were German.

:laugh4:

Hey all,

econ has asked me to keep specific stats on battles, to know what he's looking for so we can include them in the battle reports, please look at his own table from Henry's Chancellorship contained in this post.

Hey guys, I haven't really been keeping up this weekend, but has ajjccio been given to a house yet?

Edit: Apparently it has been ignored in the Report....?

The new Kaiser has not distributed any Imperial lands.

Currently Paris, Rome and Ajaccio are Imperial. I don't think that econ has updated the list to include Ajaccio in the Chancellor's report section yet.

Edit: @Stuperman, I still control Milan, only the King of Outremer gives up his house.

Hey there,

I'd better say it here for everyone, but I won't be able to access the game or the internet Monday through Wednesday. That means specifically that I can't fight my own battles, nor those of AussieGiant.

And I have specifically not gifted any land yet. Regarding Ajaccio, wouldn't that province fall under the CA limiting expansion and would have to be voted upon to be included in the Empire? It should have been done during the last Diet session, shouldn't it?

Hey Ituralde,

Hope everything is going well.

Do you still want to fight my battles while I am away? I forgot to ask you again after so long.

It's a long stint this time. I'm away now and wont be back until the 2nd of October.

Let me know either way. I think I have some back up guy's incase.

And yes the current legislation is a 2 phased approach. You have to get permission to attack it then you have to get permission at the following session to keep it or it is rebelled or gifted or whatever.

Cheers
AG