Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Christ....I need a permanent lawyer in this game :wall:
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Christ....I need a permanent lawyer in this game :wall:
Well, that's more a pre-cataclysm convention than a rule. And it makes sense in a non-cataclysm context when only a settlement might be lost only very rarely.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
In the context of the cataclysm, I had hoped to make recaptured settlements up for grabs, to make things more interesting politically post-cataclysm.
The Charter itself is rather ambiguous on the subject, as losing a settlement was frankly not something I had considered at the start of the PBM!
I suppose by the rules, the interpretation could be decided by the Council (the four Dukes) that is called when rules disputes directly concern the Kaiser's power. However, I rather suspect they would all prefer the conservative interpretation that they can keep what was once theirs. I guess we will play it that way unless I hear from two of them that they want the Kaiser to allocate recaptured settlements. (One can live in hope ... :tumbleweed: )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charter
I think the Charter is actually quite clear on this. It would also mean that Nuremburg cannot be Imperial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amendment
The first thing you quoted is the FAQ I wrote, not the Charter. It is for guidance only and is not legally binding. It specifically states that in italics at the top.
Well, part of me is glad that all previous settlements are returned to thier respective houses, but there could be some really interesting politics assosiated with re-distrobuting them. (imaginary: "Loyal Franconians I do bestow on you Naples, good luck defending it!)
Ugh, I'm going to get killed by arguing with a lawyer, but here goes:
Since there is nothing in the rules conflicting this information, the FAQ content in this particular case would be in effect and binding until the rules (i.e. charter) are amended.Quote:
Originally Posted by FAQ title
Your first quote is not from the Charter - it is from TinCow's preamble that is to provide a "simple understanding" of the rules. In this particular case, I think the preamble goes quite a bit further than what I can find in the rules proper.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Your second quote does not seem to bear on the issue.
As I said, I am not going to push this unless two Dukes back me up. Returning everything to it's House makes my role IC much easier. The only province Elberhard would really blanche at returning to its owner is poor Stettin.
On another subject, a battle report for Palermo is up. I can start to see Zim's point about the timer when it comes to siege assaults. Mini-Econ was really fighting against the clock - if you look at the last screenshot, there is no shaded area on the hourglass at all. However, we struggled to find an in-character rationalisation of why there was a need to hurry. (The best we could come up with was possible outside reinforcements and unrest within the city).
I still think we should keep the timer, but agree it can seem gamey in some situations.
BTW: the battle reports thread is getting rather full of screenshots, so takes a while to load. Please split your reports up into multiple posts if you are going to post a lot of screenshots. That way we will fill up the 30 posts/page quota without readers having to load over a hundred images. The WotS battle reports thread became unreadable to people with slow connections because of this problem.
Possibly, but it's a pointless argument under the circumstances. Lothar wants to give Nuremburg to Elberhard until Rome is recaptured. If he needs to, he will point to the following rule language and say that this authorizes it:Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
If you argue against that, he will say that the rules are unclear and ask for the Kaiser to mediate. Since the situation directly involves the Kaiser, it will then turn to the four Dukes to decide. Lothar knows that Arnold will support his decision, thus meaning that at worst it is an even split. In the event of a tie, the Kaiser's vote is the deciding factor. Thus, there is no point in arguing that Lothar can't give away Nuremburg, because even if you are right he will do it anyway.Quote:
4.4 Dukes can then grant a settlement to a player, making him Count of that settlement. The settlements remain nominally within the relevant Duchy.
I don't think TC intended to "legislate" with the FAQ. If he thought he was creating new rules, I suspect he would have proposed a CA. (He has proposed "tidying up" CAs before for more minor things.)Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Alright, I'm going to argue this for the point of arguing :clown:
Except that Emperors cannot be made counts, so this wouldn't be possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metallic Bovine
Anyway, need to be off to a charity event now.
True, they cannot be made Counts, but it says that Dukes can distribute provinces to other players. It does not limit it to "Electors" or even members of their own House. The Emperor is a player and thus qualifies, except that he cannot become Count. So, the question is whether the settlement can still be granted to the Emperor even though he cannot gain the title of Count. The rules say nothing about this, so it is unclear and goes to the Kaiser for resolution with the eventual predictable result.
For the record, it is totally impossible for the FAQ to be considered law. It was never voted on by the Diet, it was simply written up by me and pasted at the beginning because I thought a 'plain English' explanation was needed given the complexity of the rules. Since it was never voted on, it cannot be law in any manner, regardless of what it says. I tried to show this with my 'pre-amble' but apparently even that language was not clear enough.
Time for me to weigh in as "Lieutenant Deputy Lord of Charter Interpretation".
Kaiser authority "adds" to the one vote everyone gets. Look at old voting records and you'll see Henry got 11 "votes" on things.
I agree with TC's interpretation of the Nuremburg issue. The Charter is unclear about Dukes giving up their provinces so it's a "rules dispute". The Kaiser would rule on it unless someone declares that it involves the Ducal Council due to it being a rule that involves the Kaiser. Then they would meet and Lothar and Arnold would likely vote in favor of it. The Kaiser would then break the tie. Since we effectively have 3 out of 5 of the votes locked up, there is little reason to go through with the long drawn out process unless people want to do it for IC political reasons.
Going through the old OOC threads, playing the save for fun is allowed but some people don't want to know the results. At the very least, discuss them in spoilers so those of us who like surprises can ignore them. Same goes for "heir hunting".
The faq is just helpful and not to be taken as legally binding. If it was, a whole lot of legal disputes may have gone differently because the faq lays things out much more clearly than the charter. Ironically I try not to read the faq at all when I am researching the Charter for a legal dispute. I don't want the faq coloring my legal argument.
love this discussion, and wish it could be more IC. we need a court. i just wish I had time to flesh that idea out before the Diet. We shall have to see
Nooooooo, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
Our last few diets have been plagued with Charter interpretation to a ridiculous extent. Let's get all the legal crap out of the way now so that we can focus on playing the game in 1340.
You might change your mind when you see ideas like this debated and dragged out before the Diet.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
:laugh4:
Last few!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
:laugh4:
Look through the old Diet threads and you'll see that this has been pretty constant.
The first Diet had Max Mandorf agonizing over whether the Kaiser truly had the right to distribute territory. It was a legal nitpick on par with "it depends what the definition of is is."
Or when Kaiser Heinrich tried to persuade a generic elector that it was wrong to talk about Chancellor elections before the Diet. (because the Kaiser wanted to be Chancellor again...)
Or the classic fight between Dietrich von Saxony and Kaiser Heinrich over whether you can refuse to build something in the build queue.
Having actually lived through the Diet threads, let me say that the whole Mandorf/territory thing was an outlier. It didn't dominate debate like issues in recent ones did, and you'll notice after that the main topics were where to expand next, what to do about the Pope, whether or not to go on Crusade, etc.
Once all parts of the Empire got established is when we started squabbling about what is is.
I blame FactionHeir. :tongue:
Ironically, Hans participated in relatively little legal debate. ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I'm talking about FH's penchant for excellence in the field of... excellence as far as M2TW goes.
So Hans caused our legal squabbling by his very presence? Or was it because he was one of the first chancellors to really have his options limited in terms of expansion?Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
While you ponder that philosophical question, I'll go dig up some links to old Diet debates.
Anything to keep me from working on my end of semester stuff...
No.
I'm talking about him being so freakin' efficient at being Chancellor.
If he never took the position it probably would have taken us twice as long to get where we got and given us more time to squabble over real issues.
Yeah, he is like that isn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Ok, then it is settled. The official reason for there being so much legal squabbling in the Diet is FH!
:clown:
History has vindicated Mandorf. I quote the great man himself:Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I now note that Elberhard wishes he could do exactly that.Quote:
Furthermore, I would be concerned about such land powers being abused by future Kaisers who do not have the proven wisdom of Heinrich. By your interpretation of the laws, if the House of Swabia were to be attacked by the French and lose control of Staufen, the Kaiser could subsequently deliver it to Austria upon its recapture, even though this would be a blatant violation of Swabia's sovereignty over its own lands. While I know that the noble Heinrich would never do such a thing, we cannot trust that we will not some day find ourselves bending knee to a madman who would! We must protect our rights to our own lands now, lest our leniency be taken advantage of later.
Regarding the legal nitpicking, though, I think there are two kinds of ways to do it and they are very, very different. The first way is to use the law to manipulate the political process for personal (avatar) gain. This has been done often, and no more superbly than by Kaiser Heinrich to declare war against the Papacy. This is a good kind of legal manipulation and it should be encouraged because it is, in essence, smart politicking. The second kind of legal manipulation is the discussion of the rules without any real IC purpose. This is usually pointless, annoys people, and contributes little to the entertainment factor of the game. As a general guideline, I would say that if your avatar has no real reason to be discussing the rules, it should not be done.
I love this idea. I would like to join the game, if possible, in the House of Bavaria, although I really have no previous experience with anything of the sort.
Hi Vpmd!
TC: It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between the 1st and 2nd kind of "legal nitpick". Sometimes bringing up inane tiny details of an opponents legislation, in order to annoy him, is political strategy by itself. :2thumbsup:
Yeah, but it's annoying IC and OOC, especially if done repeatedly.
Welcome vpmd! ~:wave: You picked a very good House.
I strongly concur on both points.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I personally think that intentionally annoying people is not a good way to play your character. If you have no other reason for writing something other than to cause someone else irritation, you are making the game less enjoyable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Welcome vpmd!
Let me make sure I've got this right. The following people need avatars for next turn:
FLYdude
Tristan de Castelreng
vpmd
Am I missing anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Since we're on that subject, actually, I'd like to request a diplomat avatar. I'm not sure I'll always be able to fight the battles within 48 hours, so that seems best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
It's still part of the game and has been used by just about every player here at one time or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Every part of the Charter is written in a way where it is possible to find loopholes. Announcing or ignoring those loopholes is political strategy in itself. If your avatar likes another avatar, you ignore the loopholes in his legislation or send him a private letter. If your avatar does not like an avatar, you brutally announce the legal shortcomings of his legislation in plain view of the Diet in order to embarrass him and politically alienate him.
So, I'm all for both kinds of "legal disputes" and it is up to other characters to provide the consequences. OOC legislating of what we can and can not say in the Diet will not lead us down anywhere I want to go. Make real IC consequences for behavior you don't like. Do not tell me OOC what I can or can not say in the Diet. :no:
Now on a lighter note, I will provide you all with my annotated list of events in the famous Edict 1.13 dispute. With links! Anytime I'm sad or bored, or both, I just have to pull up the 1st Diet thread for some entertainment. :2thumbsup:
Edict 1.13 is proposed. It dictates that Bern be captured and given to Bavaria. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=12
First rebuttal: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=14
First show of support: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=17
And the legal nitpicking begins: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=26
Counter-nitpick. This post contains one of my favorite lines in all of KotR: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=28
By the way, my favorite quote in that post is, "Please note the most crucial of words in the legislations. The Kaiser CAN allocate settlements. This does not mean he must nor that he always has the ability." Just priceless...
More rebuttals: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=29
In an attempt to both defend his power, and placate the Dukes, Kaiser Heinrich proposes a CA that would mandate that every Kaiser take an oath regarding territory allocation fairness: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=30
Debate over the new CA: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=32
Mandorf realizes the pandora's box he opened and asks the Kaiser to reconsider the CA: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=47
More debate: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=49
More fears over the CA: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=50
The CA is withdrawn: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=51
More support for 1.13: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=70
More fears over 1.13: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=74
Edict 1.13 is finally amended and the legal dispute is over: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=78
This "outlier" took 3 days in real life, spanned 3 pages in the Diet thread, almost spawned a reactive CA, and involved many of the players of the game at that time.
The idea that legal disputes in the Diet are somehow new, is contradicted by this Massive dispute that happened in the very beginning of the game.
I love the first Diet thread and I can see why it's one of the most read threads in the Throne Room.:2thumbsup:
Welcome vpmd!
econ21: Do I have to pick a heir any time soon? I don't really want to set anything in stone (i.e Still deciding)
Edit: Whoa! THats one massive post beforehand!
I very much apologize to anyone who thinks that is an absurdist statement. One unfortunate side-effect to be a lawyer is that you cannot turn it off. It permeates your entire life, whether you want it to or not. In legal practice, the use of words like "must" and "should" or "can" makes an enormous difference. I have a proofreading checksheet next to my desk that I use to go over all judicial decisions I write before I submit them as completed. One of them literally reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I recognize, however, that this is one of the things that makes people shake their heads and hate lawyers. I sincerely apologize for everything I do like this. I swear it's just the way my brain works now. I promise I pay for it, though. My wife is also a lawyer. You can imagine the arguments... :wall:Quote:
Remands - Always use "must" never "should"
glad I finally have people discussing after mentioning this for the third time. I agree fully that I don't the entire diet clogged up with legal issues and I don't want people debating too much legal stuff that doesnt concern their avatars...
...which is exactly why i think some sort of IC court, where only those appointed to it, or appearing before it discuss, limiting appearances to when they are justified IC, is the way to go. plus it adds another fun dimension, and gives another set of players more to do. (that being said, given the decision times in real courts, its not like the time pressure would be very large).
I feel that way we can have fun with the legal stuff, ensure it doesn't get out of hand, make sure it doens't clog up the diet, and create more positions for characters.
edit: tincow, nonsense, legal talk ftw!! :D
Again: Outlier. So yes, a big legal issue happened the first Diet. The Charter at that point was still unclear (Christ, I still remember having to keep track of two turns after people entered settlements and such).
Next Diet: Expand east or west?
Next Diet: What do we do about Rome?
Next Diet: Heinrich or Mandorf? Should we include Household Armies?
Next Diet (1154): Crusade? Yes? No?
Next Diet: Crusading Chancellor good or not? What to do about Heinrich?
You get the idea.
Nitpicking on minor legal issues in Diet sessions, which become less and less frequent as the game goes on, take away from the enjoyment of KotR in general. When Diet time rolls around, I want to, IC and OOC, give my view on what we should be doing for the next twenty years, beat down the opposition, and explain to the world why he is an idiot, why my position is great, and how I'll provide every Elector with legit male heirs if elected Chancellor.
What I do NOT want to do, yet still find happening every Diet session, is debate for the millionth time regarding the Outremer succession issue or debate the merits of "can" as opposed to "must." This is Medieval 2, Total War. The goal is to conquer and play the game efficiently, to focus on domestic and foreign affairs. NOT to waste three days of precious debate time with stupid, meaningless legal disputes. There's a reason why there's no such thing as Mavis Beacon Teaches Law. I played Jens Hummel to reflect this view.
As far as I'm concerned, this behavior is extremely distracting from the game as a whole. I despise logging on, reading the Diet thread, only to see more of the same legal wordmongering. It takes away from my enjoyment of the game, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this view. And if the trend continues, especially in 1340, I may just have to resign from the game.
"Honey, can you take out the trash?"Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
"I CAN take out the trash. This does not mean that I must nor that I always have the ability."
:laugh4:
The truly hilarious part is that we have said things exactly like that MANY times. It is not unusual for one of us to say to the other "Can you do X?" at which point the other person says "Yes." and continues to sit there for several minutes. Eventually the other person comes back, glares, and says "Will you do X?" at which point it actually gets done.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
Well, if you ever get bored of being a lawyer, you'd make a fine English teacher.
I think it is like a Will - you don't have to have write one, but if you don't and your time is up unexpectedly, then things could get messy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
I guess there could be an issue with publicly announcing an heir - particularly if you fear you may change your mind. However, in that case, you could pick one in secret and PM it IC to Elberhard - or any other third party - in spoiler quotes (to reflect a seal). That's what I would like the Dukes of Bavaria and Austria to do. You can always change it later and, being secret, there would be no repercussions.
I had thought about some sort of "Limited scope emergency diet session" law allowing for a court type proceedings. Or that the E-diet sessions have thier scope and width defined at the start of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
Here is how I view KotR in a nutshell.
It is a game about trying to get your character to make other characters do things. (feudalism)
To provide the mechanical means of "making other characters do things", you need rules. Since, in real life, we have very few ways of actually making each other do anything.
Since these rules are basically the levers of power in the game, they are highly contested spaces.
Contesting these spaces IC, is in my opinion, completely legitimate and needs to be countered IC if people don't like it.
If Power is the ability to "make your dreams manifest", then these rules are the way to do it. How the rules are written, re-written, and interpreted is crucial.
Now, I think annoying "players" should be discouraged. But annoying other "characters" is completely legitimate in my view. If a player gets annoyed about something that happened to his character, he needs to remind himself that this is only a game.
If I want to have my avatar run naked throughout the Diet screaming while covered with cow dung, I can do so. It is then up to the players to figure out how their avatar will react. But telling me OOC that I can't do something in the Diet will be unproductive.
OOC, we have very few actual rules in this game and I think it should be kept that way. If we start urging people OOC to police their own IC language so that it is not "annoying", then things will get complicated and less fun. We'll basically have to all "be nice to eachother" in the game because it may have a slight chance at annoying another player.
The way to stop IC legal nitpicking is through using the levers of power to discourage and punish such behavior. People have many of these levers available to them. Lobby the Kaiser to throw the offender out of the Diet. Kill the offender's legislation. Lobby the Chancellor candidates and make sure the offender will have a "rough" time for the next 20 years. Try to pass a "legal obfuscation" CA. Appeal to the offender's patron to coerce a change in behavior. These will all work a lot better than telling people to behave a certain way on the OOC thread.
While I'm not quite as passionate as GH on this, I too worry about the effects of thinking too much about legislation. I think it's important to remember that in order for this to be exciting, people need to be able to do unpopular things. The most dramatic moments in this game have been when one person does something to cause in uproar, and the others must decide individually or in groups what the consequences will be for that person. The biggest examples of that would probably be Heinrich's war against the Papacy and Peter's march on Constantinople. I don't want the Diet to be powerless, but I think players should be given a wide berth in how they use the resources given to them, be they armies, counties, or duchies.
Yay! The Tavern's back! :jumping:
Rules are good. I agree. But we have precious little time to actually debate and change these rules, and far too much of this time is squandered on rules. Rules about rules = bad.
PK, I'm appealing to your nature here. This Diet is important. It's signalling another chapter in this game. We haven't had one for several months, and considering the gradual slowdown of the game, we may not have another one until after the New Year.
I'm asking you, OOC, from one player of the game to another, to please not focus on this legal obfuscation. It annoys far too many people. You can do it any time you want, just please - not during the Diet session.
If you disagree, then you and I have nothing more to say to each other.
i agree with GH. this diet session, at least, i want to have sparks fly, and not about charters and @#$%^. actual debate about the cataclysm. a lot happened that needs to be answered for.
I think with many new Bavarians, maybe they want to wait for an actual avatar (Steffen has 4 sons) for a few extra turns rather than get a general?
come on guys, lets keep it nice. it IS a game, yes, and it SHOULD be fun, but it should be fun to everyone, without trying to limit what they can and cannot do IC.
My proposal still stands, and the more I hear the better I think it is: IF we have a court as a seperate institution to the Diet, in a seperate thread, then people who dislike all the legalisitc debate can just ignore it. It doesn't have to clog up the Diet, and on the off-chance something important is decided, that can be announced in the messenger service. On the other hand, those like PK and myself, and I assume TinCow who find some sort of pleasure in making and debating rules, can be active in that thread and institution and can get our kicks out of the game without annoying the others.
so lets all get along, ey!
nice thoughts deguerra. that's a compromise i can accept.
It's an interesting idea, deguerra, but I think creating a court specifically for legal disputes will just encourage them. We'd end up role-playing Medieval lawyers rather than generals.
And I don't think non-legalistic minds would be able to ignore the court - law is too important to be left to the lawyers. For example, whether the Kaiser can allocate recaptured settlements is a pretty major issue.
When the issue of too many rules queries arose before, PK and I agreed that he PM me first with any genuine (OOC) rules queries. If he gets satisfaction, then we've dealt with it without bothering any one else. If he doesn't, then it goes public but at least we've probably clarified the issues so can present them straightforwardly. I think this screening process would be useful across the board, and not just for PK.
If people want to have IC legalistic arguments for political advantage that is another matter, but even then some exploratory private discussions may be useful for them. If the Diet gets sidetracked with esoteric legal arguments, you can always ignore them. I confess, I occasionally did. This is one reason I'd like people to PM me about rules queries, in case I've slept through the dispute. (For example, I recommend a detailed understanding of the Franconian succession circa 1300 as an excellent antidote to insomnia.)
We have a pretty well established mechanism for handling rules disputes. The Kaiser makes a ruling, unless it directly concerns his powers, in which case it goes to a Council. But the Diet can change virtually everything with a 2/3 vote. Most rules disputes seem to be about situations that were never envisaged when the Charter was drafted (who would have thought we would lose many provinces?), so new laws are often appropriate.
I agree somewhat econ, but I think there are perfectly good solutions to these issues, rather than keeping things as they are. As you said, currently things usually end up in front of a council or in the diet, and that is exactly what im trying to avoid.
with regards to encouraging legal discussion: then limit it. in most Common Law jurisdictions courts can only rule on issues brought before them, and can also throw out issues they do not even consider worth debating. if we apply the first, and charge that only legitimate IC claims will even be considered, then i think the amount of debate should be manageable and bearable, especially once it gets over the initial phase.
regarding the ignoring issue: sure, but if such is decided OOC in PMs that makes it no less important. Granted, the emperor and chancellor would prbly need to keep an eye on things, but a seperate thread for such arguments would only make that easier. as for retaining the emperors power to rule, he could manage judge appointing, have vetoes or both.
edit: and the problem seems to be that some people are unable to ignore legal debate in the diet. i still think this would alleviate that somewhat. the diet is much less ignorable as a whole than a thread specific to legal stuff
While I myself am in the anti-legal-nitpicking camp, this court idea might be worth trying. The Diet is a place to make laws, not to interpret the ones that already exist. Perhaps the best way to limit the debate is to have each house appoint one lawyer, who is instructed by his Duke which position to argue, and then its his job to write long arguments about single words from the charter. However, I don't think this should be a formal court with any direct power, which would require amending the charter. The way I'd implement this is to have the Emperor appoint the judge, who will, after a particular case is heard, give his advice on how the Emperor should rule on a dispute, and the Emperor will take that advice... if he wants. If it is the sort of dispute that involves the Council, the council should appoint the judge. This way, players who don't want to get involved in this, can appoint trusted proxies to argue for them. I stress that the charter need not be amended for this, and that the decisions of the court would be non-binding.
The concept of actually creating a judiciary arm of this GAME is terrifying and something that would have to be passed by OOC and/or IC CA.
Guy's this is like watching the embryonic stages of the bloody UN, which in my view is a bad bad bad idea.
Note I used three "bads" there which I rarely do.
Having a talk shop is not what this should be about.
Keep in mind, IC we are all nobles in the medieval age and while at this point in time there were lawyers and bankers and debate was advanced and insightful it was still the Dark Ages...each of us IC is a noble skilled in the force of arms and is daily confronted with the visceral world of blood shed, violence, hunger and life.
I can hardly believe that any of us would IC be inclined to spend most of our time together debating to such an extent that it impedes our ability to actually go out into the Empire and govern effectively and with real purpose for our own gain and that of our immediate superior.
This is not Rome where peace has spread across vast tracks of land...we are fighting for our lives, and we've just had our asses handed to us by the opposition.
This Diet is going to be a massive endeavor and made increasingly so by the substantial increase in players...the level of debate is going to be at record levels.
If you waste time...then you'll do yourselves a disservice, I for one am going to stay on target and get what I want before going off on any time wasting tangents.
That's not to say Arnold will not be in full swing and enjoying himself immensely back on the grand stage of this Empire.
I'm sure this will all be rather self regulating and clear to most as to when common sense needs to prevail. The escalation and resolution of issues should be kept as is and made as swift as possible. The Kaiser rules, if there is further issues regarding him the Dukes will get involved.
The Kaiser may not have much influence but he is the Rule maker and breaker...which is yet another powerful tool.
I do hear you AG, and I agree that I do NOT want people spending huge amounts of time debating the rules, and I especially would like to avoid it at this point in the game.
But, it may be desireable later on, and I still think we can keep it away from the game best by seperating it. I agree 100% that any such idea needs pretty much full IC and OOC support, and the last things I want is to take away from Imperial power.
the one point I have to disagree upon is that it is somehow "unrealisitic" for the time of KoTR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskammergericht
Yeah, I guess I really don't want rules debates at all. Econ seems to have a solid grasp of what's going on, and as the game goes on a few Charter Amendments may be necessary each session, but not for now.
Off-topic, any of you MP fans should check out the Multiplayer Tournament thread. If you're new to it, that's ok. I have a feeling not many of us have ever played online. This is an interesting experiment and should produce some fun reads.
Hello everyone. I was wondering if there's any cut off point for ending this turn. Is it about 48 hours after the upcoming battles are posted(in this case, after Warmaster Horus' upcoming battle was finally posted half a day ago)?
I'm not in a huge hurry, just curious. I'm looking forward to the Diet and the end of the Cataclysm. :2thumbsup:
I believe it's 48 hours. Warmaster Horus sounded like he was going to it this morning, but I'm in no rush. I'm very, very excited, however.
Ironically, I have planned on playing a much lower key character this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
For me this debate has been a matter of principle. I don't plan on engaging in what I call "lawfare" but I will defend what I see as my right to do so.
I do not enjoy being told OOC what I can and can not do IC. Something you and I have gone over before.
If you do not want "lawfare", then create real IC consequences. I will probably not engage in lawfare this time around but I reserve my right to do so. Also, we have a lot of new people here and I don't want them thinking they "can't" engage in lawfare.
If my stance means you will not talk to me, I find that regrettable but I will not be coerced or emotionally blackmailed into giving up valid role-playing options.
Econ has laid out a good procedure for lawfare. If you have a legitimate IC or OOC rule question, PM Econ either IC or OOC. This allows you to have your question answered without putting the other players/characters on edge. Then, if your not satisfied with Econ's answer, or just want your avatar to !@#$ with another avatar, then let the lawfare commence.
Many people on here have said that they want things to come about in the game "organically". I see this as one of those issues that should just be dealt with in the Diet. Trying to appeal OOC for certain IC behavior starts to get near the dangerous territory of meta-gaming.
Regardless of what happens with Warmaster Horus, I am going to move on to 1340 tomorrow. If there are not battles to be fought during the AI turn, the Diet can begin tomorrow night EST. If there are battles on the AI turn, it could take until Friday night EST.
does WH have anyone to fight his battle for him?
You can't use proxy battles unless you're on an extended vacation.
ah so. so what happens if he is attacked?
Just move on. The battle was horrible... It's not worth it.
Their general died, but many more of our men did too, and it ended in a massive rout...
I've got some screens detailing the battle results, and you'll see it's not worth it.
Let's just use 1338-8 as the next save. Sorry for the delay.
It's 4h20 here, so have a good day!
Having an entire court of law is a rediculous idea. Not only would it invariably draw attention from the other aspects of the game, it's completely ahistorical. The Middle Ages did not have the rule of law, because that was impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
This whole problems stems from the fact that we do not have the feudal system in KOTR. Counts and Dukes do not own what is given to them, as they would in real life. I understand the KOTR demo tried this approach and that it was judged as too complicated, but I think what we have now is also becoming too complicated in a different way.
again, lets be nice. I am in no way adamant about my idea. I kind of like it, but more importantly I was hoping it would resolve some of the OOC conflicts. Apprently it has done the opposite so lets drop it.
Once again though, ahistorical it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskammergericht
I admit that like econ21 I gloss over the legalistic arguments. Anything larger than two paragraphs and my eyes start to glaze over. I usually wait for the dust to settle and then go on doing what I want anyway. :laugh4:
I joined up mainly to roleplay. Some joined up for the battles. Some joined up for the debates. I hope we can, excuse me, will, recognize this and move on. If we become bogged down in one area to long we will lose momentum and the enjoyment we get from the game, however it is derived, will lessen for everyone.
If we can isolate the extended legal arguments in one thread, I'm all for that. I don't want to see the sausage making, I just want to eat the sausage. As long as econ stays the final arbiter, let people debate all they want.
There is a precedent, we have a stories thread for those inclined to writing, and we have battle reports thread for the military historians amongst us. Neither of these is required reading to play the game, though they do add to it. So if we have a seperate Court thread I can safely skim over, with occascional rulings arising from debate that might effect small elements of game play, I'm for it.
Woohoo! 1-2 more days to go! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
As for the Court thread idea, if there is to be a..reichstag, I think, it should probably be used for "lawfare" between Diets. I think the Diet should retain its role as both establishing law and discussing goals, voting for Chancelor, etc.
I don't object to the idea, but it could irritate a lot of people, who wouldn't want to be involved but would be affected by it.
Edit: I should also note, that unless it directly affects my characters or appeals to his principles, I will be sitting out any debates about law. :clown:
I'm afraid that if we take legal debates out of the Diet, then the Diet session will basically just devolve into "what settlement should we take this term?" We might as well just hand out multiple choice cards with settlement names on them and vote that way. The settlement that gets the most votes, becomes the next target. Kinda boring in my opinion...
I could care less what settlements we take, how black we can make the map, how many battles we win, or if we meet CA's victory conditions. If I cared about those things, I would just load up a SP HRE Grand Campaign and play by myself.
Without the Diet, Story, Tavern, House, and other threads, KotR is nothing but a savegame of the HRE in the 1330's and doing quite badly I might add. It is the character interaction and development in the other threads that give that savegame meaning.
To me, it is all of the other threads that are important. Because that is where the interaction happens. GH mentioned that he just wants us to conquer as efficiently as possible. Well, KotR is a very inefficient way to play M2TW. If you signed up, just so you can play battles or be Chancellor, then your going to be quite bored for much of the time.
I play this game in order to roleplay a character and interact with other players who are roleplaying characters. To spice things up, we have added a power structure in the game. Which means there will be power struggles to see who's agenda gets implemented. Part of that interaction with the power structure is debating the rules. Either to remake the rules to your liking, or prevent the rules from being remade in a way you don't want.
If people didn't want legal debate in this game, then they should have written the rules very clearly, and then banned the possibility of CA's. That would make the game rules static. After an initial "learning period", there would be few, if any debates. We would just play by the same exact set of rules for the entire length of the game.
I personally would not like that. I like that we can change the game to reflect different political circumstances. If a side effect of that is legal debates, then I'm willing to pay that price. Otherwise, how can we change things if we can't even debate them?
PK, speaking of the tavern, can anyone post there now that it's reopened. I think Andreas could use a drink. :clown:
Well, it's unlocked so I don't see why not. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
The tavern is open whether the Diet is in session or not. It's just busier during a Diet session because some people choose to roleplay distance.
Just read the first post for the general rules and have fun. :2thumbsup:
Thanks. :2thumbsup: Since noone had posted there since Econ opened it back up, I wasn't sure.
I would think that interactions at the Tavern would take place at an indterminate time, so distance wouldn't matter. In Andreas' case, i'd just pretend he is back for the Diet, ignoring the fact that he may be in a defensive battle in Outremer tomorrow. :yes:
Post away!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
There are no real rules for rp'ing distance. Some people observe very strict rules. Some ignore distance completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
But, since each "turn" takes 2 years, it is not totally unrealistic that nobles would sail back and forth.
During the Diet, a lot of people pretend the House/Outremer threads are "chambers" that are off of the Diet floor instead of "great halls" in between Diet sessions.
So, no real rules regarding travel. Some people just have their personal preferences.
Sending proxies is also a mechanism we use but it is sometimes frowned on if it is overused.
:bow: Thanks, Econ and PK.
P.S. PK, you haven't commented on the "mighty" empire I posted in the Britannia OOC thread yet. :clown:
Well I am of course amused that there is a "New Jansylvania". :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
You'll have to ask deguerra about the origins of that name and Ludwigistan. Basically, it came out of a joke between the two of us. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Uhhh so you played the battle, lost many men and just quit it and ask us to use the save before you fought it? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
If you are losing(have lost a battle, at least post a save of you having lost it rather than suggesting to skip it!
TinCow and I have discussed the Venice situation - if Warmaster Horus does not upload a post-battle save by the deadline, TC will just autoresolve it. I suspect it will be a defeat - not unlike what WH experienced fighting it manually.
People need to be cautious in the immediate post-cataclysm phase of the game. The AI will still be there in strength - it will be topped up for 1340 - and there won't be TC's safe asterisked option available. We won't be able to use the console to spawn extra men or teleport help. Our financial situation is tight so you can't bank on instant reinforcements.
There's no shame in picking your fights - apparently ancient and medieval generals used to maneouvre for weeks or months just to get the chance to give battle on the most favourable terms (the enemy generals seldom obliging). I doubt I could have won WH's assault on Venice - two stacks AND a bridge, when either one would give me pause for thought. And, even if I could, I am sure it would have cost me most of a full stack.
Well I'm torn in half to have to mention this but, I'm heading to mountains for some snowboarding from Friday night to Sunday afternoon.
I guess that doesn't place me in a good position for the Diet session.
How long will it be econ?
And where is the latest save by the way?
The latest save is still the 1338-8 one, until the Venetian situation is resolved. I am sorry to spoil things but I think Arnold will have a defensive battle, so we need to liase with TinCow to see if we can have you fight it before you pop off. I'll PM you both about that now.
I suspect we will open the Diet on Friday night or Saturday. People have asked for it to be longer than usual, so we could aim to close it on Wednesday evening. Vote on Thursday and then the new Chancellor will have next weekend to get to grips with it.
If you want to PM me an opening Diet speech or something, I could post it on your behalf - given Arnold's lastest story, that might be a better option for him than jumping in a couple of days after the initial hullabaloo.
Hi Econ,
I just read your PM.
I'm on GMT +1 in Switzerland. I wont be heading out until about 18:00 on Friday and more than likely returning around 18:00 on Sunday.
If the Diet could be extended I would greatly appreciate that given what I would like to do this session.
Ideally I'd like to fight the battle before I leave, send you my opening speech and then get back Sunday night and do some catch up reading and wade back in.
skiing in switzerland...you lucky bastard :thumbsup: