King of the Romans OOC thread IX

I thought Warluster assigned Paris to Swabia when he became emperor?

Regarding avatar shortage if settlements are lost: its very easy to make avatars hirable, includiding price and availability. So if we have a shortage and want everyone to have an avatar, thats the way to go, note it only makes generals, no family members, but they can be adopted, married or just stick around as bachelors.

Regarding Dukes. My plan for the next PBM (I was favoring France tbh, although Russia would also be interesting) was to make Dukes able to bind Counts and Counts able to bind barons. The way it would work would be that generals can be hired to everyone starts off with one. Those in the royal family can become dukes and counts. Generals can be bound to counts as Barons. Everyone is free to vote the way they want and influence bonus is not due to position but to the people you bound. So i.e. Duke has 1 influence, and his counts are his bonus if they vote with him. Barons tend to support their counts as they may risk losing any vote (they start with no influence and cannot vote unless bound)
Of course thats nothing to worry about at this stage and irrelevant to KOTR really. As for mods, im planning to make 2 versions of KOTRfix, one for PBM, one for general.

Legislation. Dread generals arent that disadvantaged with releasing as thats only 1 line of many. However they would gin chiv from it, which is bad.

OK, need to run again, will hopefully be back in about 4 hours or so.

Ituralde, can you play today? You've got a large battle this year.

If not, who do you designate as your second?

AG, if you wish, I can fight your battles when Ituralde is away. That way we save an additional save swap.

I will be posting a battle queue shortly.

Alright OK, you can fight my battles to stream line things.

You know the rules of engagement though? :2thumbsup:

Another thing.

After reading Ituralde's IC Diet comment, I believe we have a number of tasks to conduct once the results are confirmed.

Including a number of Edict and CA's that seem to overlap and a number of votes and discussions to organise.

Am I reading all that correctly?

I'm going to be copying FLYdude's style as it worked well.

We currently have two battles for 1260, I will be fighting AG's battle:

Count Peter von Kastilien:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You have assumed command of the Franconian Household Army. There is a Polish army directly north of you. Destroy it so the Teutonic Crusade can have a clear path when they deploy.

Kaiser Siegfried:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You face a new Danish force directly northwest of Hamburg. Your army has been reinforced temporarily from Hamburg. Drive the Danes from our lands.

You know the rules, first come first serve. Only claim the save right before you fight, and upload it right after and post a link for the next person. I will need casualty screens.

Here's the save: http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/kotr1260-2.zip

Now don't CA 11.3 and the part of CA 11.4 that deals with edicts and CA's in an overlap manner for Outremer

Don't CA's 11.1 and 11.7 also over lap and require clarification. This deals with the poll econ has posted up about succession. There seems to be an overlap of how this is to be done.

And finally doesn't CA 11.6 and part of CA 11.4 (CA 9.1 point 4) also need to be worked out as they both speak about Outremer succession

We need to tie break this don't we.

I've never seen this since I was looking at law in 2nd year uni!!

My word.

TC, we need to give you the usual 400 bucks to sort this out I suppose!!??

I believe CA 11.1 should take precedence since its a CA while 11.7 is only an edict

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

I believe CA 11.1 should take precedence since its a CA while 11.7 is only an edict

---

I'm talking about CA's 11.1 and CA 11.7. Plus now you mention edicts then Edict 11.9 also deals with succession.

Now we have a three way. Which would be fine normally but not when it comes to legislation...Boom Boom.

As I just complained in the Diet, it looks to me like 11.3 and 11.4 are both in effect. I should have included a "If this Amendment passes, Amendment 11.3 is void" clause. I didn't expect you people would be so dense as to vote them both in... :wall:

Well, dont assume. Things are bound to go wrong that way :tongue:
Kind of funny both passed. But then I personally wasnt aware that 11.4 was supposed to cut Outremers power, but to fix the extra CC point and give Dukes a few more influence and raise the cap in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

As I just complained in the Diet, it looks to me like 11.3 and 11.4 are both in effect. I should have included a "If this Amendment passes, Amendment 11.3 is void" clause. I didn't expect you people would be so dense as to vote them both in... :wall:

---

Dense....it's gone beyond dense...we clearly have no idea what we are doing anymore...I had a suscpicion but I wasn't able to study all this enough.

Please have a look at my other "itches" that something is wrong TC.

I think it gets worse.

TC clearly we need to see which one's overlap and use the tie breaking rule to pick one. Can you first determine which ones do overlap.

Then Econ can work out the numbers and put them in order of strength...even then we should take the one that has the most concensus at this time.

I was trying to keep a clear head voting, but that isnt easy when the voting clock tells you, you got 5 mins left and you have yet to read 2 pages of diet and 6 pages of OOC at the same time :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I was trying to keep a clear head voting, but that isnt easy when the voting clock tells you, you got 5 mins left and you have yet to read 2 pages of diet and 6 pages of OOC at the same time :grin:

---

It's no one's fault. The voting was pretty clear in most cases.

we need to have a better handle on it in future. The only way I can see this is to keep the person edicts to one each and then take out a number of Outremer and Ducal edicts to one as well.

Now we really have to get ourselves out of this mess as fast as possible so OK can play the game.

Re: 11.4 v. 11.6, I don't see a problem. The stuff about succession in 11.4 is just the normal text from CA 9.1, nothing changed. It looks like 11.6 should've said that it was editing a part of CA 9.1, but even so it's not that bad. CA 9.1 says the King is appointed by the Emperor, while 11.6 says the King is appointed by the Emperor and makes other rules on top of it. So, 11.6 does not contradict anything currently in effect, it just adds to it. I say just stick 11.6 into the Charter as it stands and I will do another 'Charter Text Clean-up Amendment' at the next session.

Yes, I believe 11.1 and 11.7 directly overlap and contradict each other. So, under Rule 3.5, "the one with the most votes takes priority."

Unless an emergency session is held, I am playing the game. Once the battles have been fought, 1260 is about over.

While important, the game can continue while we figure out who is Kaiser. Think of it as a long parlimentary process that takes years.

Everyone take a deep breath. Just because Queen Elizabeth gets a cold doesn't meen Prime Minister Brown stops working.

I don't see a problem with CA 11.3 and 11.4. Seems we just gave the King of Outremer the ability to propose three edicts, two of which must be related to Outremere and all of which must be seconded by Crusader Counts. Where's the problem there?

Because some people (read: TinCow) were complaining that it gives the Crusader Counts access to too many Edicts.

So here goes in laymans terms gentlemen:

Overlap 1.

CA 11.3 says the King gets 3 edicts or CA’s and they have to be seconded before tabling. That passed so he has those.

CA 11.4 says the King gets up to 3 personal edicts and 2 have to pertain to Outremer.

That passed so he has those too.

These are running at the same time. Therefore at the moment the King gets 3 Ducal type edicts and now 3 personal edicts of which 2 must have something to do with Outremer.

He now has 6.

So we really need to work out which has precendent and remove one of them.

Overlap 2.

CA 11.1 is clearly understood in the poll. As it passed.

CA 11.7 says if there is a dispute over rules then the Kaiser works it out. If the dispute is about the Kaiser then the Dukes will decide, with the Kaiser splitting the vote. This passed.

Now I say there is a "dispute" about the Kaiser's succession. If you agree with that then in that case the four dukes must vote on the issue with the Kaiser splitting the vote. This is runnign parallel to the voting going on right now in CA 11.1

PLUS Edict 11.9 says basically. If the DUCAL Diet voting doesn’t find a clear winner in the succession issue (which I assume is dealing with CA 11.7 as that is the only vote with just the Dukes) then a vote will be given to every one to determine a clear winner.

This is basically a back up to CA 11.7 which is totally redundant as the Kaiser would split the vote.

So we really need to decide whether a "dispute" in CA 11.7 means the Kaiser succession problem or not. If it does mean thats then we have to work out if the Dukes vote first in CA 11.7 or the whole lot os us vote in CA 11.1

God damn it I feel like I'm back at work :beam:

Overlap 3. There is no overlap I just realised.

*Looks at the legal snarl after waking up*


this...is...hilarious! :laugh4:

I think a lot or people were not thinking very hard on a lot of the stuff they voted on because there was so much horse trading going on. Many people voted for things because it guaranteed that other people would vote for their things.

Jan, and by extension myself tried to :book: all of these rules and just ended up :dizzy2:

I agree PK it was quite funny.

I'd like everyone to read my post while I go and have a shower.

I think I'm on the money here as they would say at my place of work.

Take a moment and let me know.

One point I have is,

Does CA 11.3 and CA 11.4 truly overlap? One gives 3 personal edicts. One gives 3 house edicts. I am finding this absolutely hilarious. Seven people voted for both. I suggest that those who are unhappy with this find those seven people IC and yell at them loudly.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Does CA 11.3 and CA 11.4 truly overlap? One gives 3 personal edicts. One gives 3 house edicts.

---

https://i113.photobucket.com/albums/...patine2321.jpg

"Power!!! UN-LIM-IT-ED POWER!!!"

The question is, is that what everyone intended in the context of our discussion in and out of character.

Technically there is no dispute. Both are running parallel and therefore give the King 6 combination edicts and or CA's.

I will find it hard to believe that this was what everyone intended in the context of our discussions...and I'm sure there is more than enough quotes to show that.

As for the succession voting issues then I believe I have outlined the situation well and we therefore also have a few things to discuss OOC as to what was intended in the context of our confused voting.

We have two votes to technical table and to keep consitency that 5 person vote needs to be posted up also. This is limited to the 4 dukes or stand in's plus the Kaiser.

How does everyone wish to proceed?

Hey, thats what seven people voted for. Seven people voted to (a) change the Outremer charter to give the King 3 edicts and (b) to add a CA that gives the King 3 more edicts. I am not saying that it is a good thing. But, all because we do not like something, doesn't mean we should just automatically claim that they overlap. It is the law of the land and people will just have to figure out a way to change it IC next Diet.


*edit*

We are supposed to figure out voter intentions!?! We can't even do that in real life! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

https://i113.photobucket.com/albums/...patine2321.jpg

"Power!!! UN-LIM-IT-ED POWER!!!"

---

I guess that's where I was aiming at GH LMAO!! You beat me too it.

and to be specific if we have to I will quote my point verbatum in the Diet IC.

Hey, I hear ya. I IC and OOC thought having both CA's activate would be a horrible idea. But, it seems like that has happened. Look at the polls, find the seven people that voted yes for both, and shake their shoulders screaming at them, "What the !@#$ were you thinking!?!?!"


:laugh4:

GH, tat's is not really power, you still need people to vote for it... :P

Damn, I didn't realise till now we have 2 lawyers in our midst. I always tot there is only TC... :P.

So what are we going to do about both of them?

I think the tie breaker rule would be best.

The CA's and edicts should be classified as tie breaker in both topics and the strongest should overule all the others.

If we leave it as be then ironically with even more edict and CA slots out at the next session it will become even more complex and have a great chance of this happening again.

If it is to be left as is then the Succession voting thing is going to be long and drawn out as the Ducal/Kaiser vote needs to be posted and voted on. Then we can carry on working out which one is to prevail...keeping in mind the edict 11.9 would come into effect as CA 11.1 would make CA 11.7 "unclear" and lead to edict 11.9 activation...and guess what. edict 11.9 and CA 11.1 are very similar and involve everyone voting...

....see how screwy we have become :beam: :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneCold

GH, tat's is not really power, you still need people to vote for it... :P

---

Okay, fine. Have it your way.

https://i113.photobucket.com/albums/...patine2321.jpg

Edicts!!! UN-LIM-IT-ED EDICTS!!!"

Better?

I see no reason why CA 11.3 and 11.4 together should give the King six votes. 11.3 does not give the King 'personal' edicts, that word does not appear anywhere. It only says that that the King should get three edicts, something that is also said in 11.4. That fact that they both say the same thing just means they are in agreement, not that they are cumulative.

In fact, the only thing in 11.3 that isn't in 11.4 is the condition that the edicts need to be seconded by two Crusader counts. The passage of both 11.3 and 11.4 together simply means that the King has three House Edicts, all of which must be seconded by two Crusader Counts and two of which must pertain to Outremer affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

I see no reason why CA 11.3 and 11.4 together should give the King six votes. 11.3 does not give the King 'personal' edicts, that word does not appear anywhere. It only says that that the King should get three edicts, something that is also said in 11.4. That fact that they both say the same thing just means they are in agreement, not that they are cumulative.

In fact, the only thing in 11.3 that isn't in 11.4 is the condition that the edicts need to be seconded by two Crusader counts. The passage of both 11.3 and 11.4 together simply means that the King has three House Edicts, all of which must be seconded by two Crusader Counts and two of which must pertain to Outremer affairs.

---

I'm not being deliberately argumentative Cecil but why are they then in two separate edicts if that was the intention?

While I agree your common sense approach could be taken, I think you'd have to have everyone agree to that interpretation before it is taken as the version.

The fact you need to do this right after a vote on the topic proves the overlapping nature of the two edicts taken as seperate pieces of legislation.

I'm certainly happy to take that approach. Anyone else?

What about the succession voting issue though?