Sorry for the double post, but I think this warrants a separate one:
Can the first anti-Patriarch Senator who reads this please post in the thread so I can contact you regarding something (OOC)?
Thanks.
Printable View
Sorry for the double post, but I think this warrants a separate one:
Can the first anti-Patriarch Senator who reads this please post in the thread so I can contact you regarding something (OOC)?
Thanks.
:deal:Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I'll be this anti-patriarch Senator... if you want...
I'm here.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Yeah, but is your character truly anti-Patriarch? You did vote against 4.5.
-edit- Nvm, Andres has it.
As you want... But Methodios has 1-piety and doesn't want to see the Patriarch in Alexandria...
Though i'd like to do a story with you about his relocation if I happen to take the town...
IF Methodios is going to take the town! :evil:
This from the Crusade rules.. So once Efstathios lays siege to the city them.. Methodios must ask his approval to attack the city :devil:Quote:
If there are multiple Crusaders in the conquering army, they must all agree on who will command the attack and who will receive the city prior to assaulting the city.
no, because you will be seiging it seperately. Only me and Tristan have to agree about who will attack and who will get Alexandria because we have formally allied.
Ah, no. Permission is only required from people in the same stack that is attacking. All other stacks will be moved so that they do not partake in the battle at all. People need only to be in agreement with their allies, not everyone else. It's one of the 'penalties' for allying.
So if I want to attack the city then TC will remove the other Crusaders and I'll be left alone??
So who will be playing the part of the Council of whatever to help the Emperor pick the new Patriarch of Constantinople? Perchance some members of the Order? :laugh4:
Or is all that just a rubber stamp for the Emperor's own decision as to who gets the Patriarchy?
:egypt:
Correct. Allies make it easier to take the cities, but require you to split the rewards, some of which cannot easily be split.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
Since we didn't define the actual position, like we did with the Dean, I am assuming it will just be a NPC that gets the title. Maybe the Bishop agent we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
For the record (since I can't tell whether the Magnaura question was serious or in jest) the basis for a second tie going to the oldest candidate goes all the way back to WOTS. econ21 wrote it that way, figuring that the oldest avatar would die sooner and thus have fewer chances to run for office again, while the younger guy would have more chances to take the role. I'm sure he'd be proud to know that 2.5 years later, his rule finally got used.
I see Smowz finally logged in. I missed winning the election by only 2 hours... :laugh4:
Oh pretty much everything I've said this session has been in jest, a demonstration of contempt, etc, etc. I'm finally in position to appreciate having an avatar with a disloyalty trait. :laugh4:
I'm sure I read that rule many times and, like everyone else, never figured it'd be used. I would prefer to base it on authority, command stars, heck, even piety or loyalty over age, but obviously that'd have to wait for the next Senate session, and how likely is it to happen again?
:egypt:
Damn I missed the vote by three hours.... I spent hours wandering the streets of Amsterdam looking for a place to go to check.
I even had this https://i187.photobucket.com/albums/.../Byzantium.jpg
to help find my way.
Well my 6 week holidays end on wednesday so I guess I will be online and participating at bit more soon!!!
It might happen again in a couple days... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses
*edit*
love the sign. :D
I will abstain next time, as I dont really know who either person is, or what thier political goals are...
And I dont really know where to look...
I loved your tie announcement post TC :laugh4:
Ah, so I was done in by the "uninformed voter." (As well as non-voters.) :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
I'm amused by how much these political PBM's reflect real life politics sometimes. :beam:
I just picked a guy...:shame:
Seriously, what do you two have in mind to change the empire?
That's awesome... This historic moment was brought about because someone played "eenie, meenie, miney, moe." :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
Our platforms are in the Magnaura. You can read them there, and ask us both questions. Since you have sworn to someone, you might want to ask that person what they think. They will probably have very definite ideas on who you should vote for. When in doubt, vote how your lord does... :yes:Quote:
Seriously, what do you two have in mind to change the empire?
If you want, I can forward you the PMs sent to my "generic Senator" persona, since I'm probably just going to abstain again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I do not as of yet trust my lord's judgement.
I have read reports from the council, and have decided to lay my vote with you,
Makedonios Ksanthopoulos. Maybe you can bring Morality back to the empire?
Yes.. Don't trust your Lord, your big brother, for his a bully :clown:
That's going to make for some awkward Komnenos family picnics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
:grin2:
Just so people don't get confused, (and i am easily confused,) we try to keep what we call "IC" and "OOC" separate in these games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
IC stands for "in character." When I speak to you "IC", I am speaking as Grandmaster Makedonios. The lovable, huggable, squeezable fighting monk.
OOC stands for "out of character." When I speak to you "OOC", I am speaking to you as Kevin the .Org member. Still equally lovable, huggable, and squeezable. But not a fighting monk.
This thread, named not-coincidentally, the OOC thread, is where the players talk to each other OOC. We try not to bring IC stuff in here. Especially since we tend to yell at each other IC a lot.
Other threads, like the Magnaura, Hippodrome, and House threads are IC threads. People tend to speak to each other as their character and will be confused if you speak to them OOC.
Please let us know if you have any questions. :beam:
Yeah, I know...
I just felt like saying that here...:shame:
And as to what people are saying about him, I must find out more abou this brother of mine. Would my person (a morally inclined person with a touch of bloodlust) actually support him?
That's something you'll just have to figure out for yourself in the game. It's part of the fun. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
I can't wait for Igno to become Emperor and start to ban political opponents from the Magnaura. For long enough now have we run a simulation of a modern democracy, time to give the single-party totalitarian state its fifteen minutes. Complain while you can, ek Lesvou, Comrade Emperor Ioannis won't stand for it.
It was a rhetorical question, one that I intend on answering in the next few turns...if they ever come...Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Anyways, I am seriously considering switching houses...though my current one is powerful, it appears to be devoid of morality...
And besides, being the enemy of the powerful ones is usually more fun than being theri allies!
I am deeply hopeful that I can get him to declare civil war first so I can kill him for his crimes. Indeed, you might say everything Vissa has done for the last X years has been geared towards that goal. Weep for my choice of a chivalry character, else we'd have our war going already. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by flyd
:egypt:
I sense insurrection. *rubs hands together* Things are getting interesting!
I conveniently ignored the first time you switched your oaths because you are new and also because oaths can't technically be sworn during a Senate session (though it doesn't matter since you're just a Strator). However I will not do so again. You are currently sworn to Ioannis Komnenos. If you break this oath and do not immediately re-swear to someone within the same House, unless Ignoramus gives his permission this oath breaking will be presumed to have been done without his consent and you will be barred from swearing to another Lord for 5 turns. That just means that you can't join another House until 5 turns has passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
You can find this info in Rule 2.5, and clarified a bit in the second to last FAQ question.
Oh...I skimmed taht part...:shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
The penalty for skimming the rules.... IS DEATH!
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/pr...xecutioner.jpg
:cry:
A minor thing, TC, while Anna's naming has taken a turn for the worse, I'm not quite ready to ban my newest son from the family just yet, so if you could add Ammonathas to my children that would be great.
Unless you're the first Megas to grossly abuse the rules in which case you'll get a pass... three times running.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
:egypt:
No, that's the penalty for reading them and ignoring them. Skimming is far, far worse!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
No, I am too young to die!
(My avatar is 17, and has a receding hairline...:brood:)
From the Magnaura:
Looks like we might finally get to find out how well this whole Banishment power works.:devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlax
I'm actually surprised how Ioannis is turning out. I tried roleplaying him historically, but historically he was loved by everyone, not hated, so that's gone out the window.
I can't promise you anything, but Ioannis won't go the way of Wolfgang. He's going to achieve his ends.
Lets hope so. If your ends are not achieved, than we will have nothing to unravel!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Anywho, my avatar am shamed. Your avatar 21 years older than mine, and yours has a fuller head of hair!
Count yourself lucky. Solomon has scurvy and Makedonios has had Pneumonia for 40+ years. Not to mention what's going to happen to Laskaris...
It's strange, every single avatar I've had has hardly had a negative trait. Ioannis doesn't, and Sigismund der Stolze never had one either.
But they have a full head of hair! :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
(Note: I very well may follow the males on my mothers side of the family, and start balding at 18. I Pray that doesnt happen...)
Vissa was 16 or so I think and has that dome you see in Ramses's avatar. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
And we will see how the banishment counter-measures work... :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I assure you everything going on in the game was brought about because of IC interaction. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
And people wonder why Mak gets cranky... :brood:Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
While this is all fascinating, would you mind blowing up the Empire after Aleksios is dead? I'm trying to mantain the illusion he actually accomplished something. :laugh4:
He did accomplish something. He set this all up. We would have nothing to tear down if it wasn't for what Aleksios built up. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
And there would be nothing for Ioannis to defend if Aleksios hadn't reigned.
And there would be no reason to tear it down if it wasn't for Ioannis... oh wait, we're supposed to be talking about Aleksios... :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
If there is a civil war(which would be the fault of traitors), then the empire will come out of it stronger and better.
"Traitors" usually need a rallying point, and a reason for betrayal, such as, say, the Caesar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
:clown:
I totally agree. People definitely see the Caesar IC as being a traitor... :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Umm..now what will happen to him then?? :inquisitive::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Or maybe the order will be crushed as mere traitors. Only time will tell what will happen.:2thumbsup:
Speaking of inter-house relations, are we seeing a merge in two houses, or is Savvas jumping over to the Asteri?
I was wondering the same thing, maybe rossah left the Asteri for the Tagamata? Too bad the people who can answer are in aussie time...
Well, any influence changes wouldn't take effect until the new term.
Still I am curious. I was wondering when the "Big Three" would start gobbling up the two smaller houses or if there would be fragmentation instead.
I should be paying more attention, I'll have to be dealing with House politics more directly soon enough.
Since Savvas accepted Zigavinos' oath without breaking his own, house Asteri is at the moment just Kalameteros while Tagamata gained 3 more members. Things are getting... interesting.
Technically, the senate is no longer in session. It's "open for debate", but no legislation can be proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
Since the senate is no longer in session, oaths can be broken and sworn.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by rules
I think this means the influence changes have immediate effect.
Exciting, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan
Why don't we just wait and see what happens with Ioannis, we don't want him to be lonely for too long, do we? :sweatdrop:
Aussie time means night time right now (7:55), EF.
I hope not. :sweatdrop:
Andres?
The fact is that we don't have enough players to support 5 houses. Without a private army, houses are too weak to be of much importance. The more members you have, the stronger you are.
Ignoramus brings up a good point of discussion.
Houses were never part of the rule set and their entities are not set in stone. The idea, just pending some OOC approval, is for Tagmata to remain independent as a House, but join our feudal chain.
Nobody ever said that one house = one feudal chain, that is just how things played out at the beginning. given that we have lost a few members, and that a few are taking some time in between characters, I thought it was a good time to challenge that initial set-up a bit. We'll see if it can work...
As you say Houses are nothing more or less than what we make of it IC. I think with generation changes this will become more and more obvious and Houses will shift, appear, disappear and even reappear. I think the whole dynamic involving the feudal chains and Houses is one of the more interesting things in this game.
Whatever we do, lets not make any more rules about it.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I like it as it is. The more freedom, the better. It allows for arrangements, agreements, treaties, conventions between Houses and Senators, spiced up with the occasional backstabbing, word breaking, lying, and disputes about interpretation of what has been agreed :smitten:
:laugh4:
With that I can agree
edit: also can somebody please tell me how to do tables for one's signature. I am very confused.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Consult our resident lawyer for any advise if there are concerns.
I see a re-vote as an exstension of a normal senate session. Therefore, I think it would be really unfair to let influence change place between a voting session and a re-voting session. I stayed quiet when we let Motep join after the session started. But if we let influence change between a vote and a re-vote, I will call "shenanigans." :yes:
As for "Houses" those are just made up entities and they can be what ever we want. The rules are based on "Feudal Chains", not Houses. A Chain can be called anything. You can call your chain a house, knightly order, politburo, ect... Therefore, a "house" is a made up construct and can be anything at all. It could be seperate chains, one member from each chain, the whole empire, anything.
*edit*
I realized the first part could sound harsh so I add this :clown: smiley for your viewing pleasure.
There should be no change in influence for the second vote in my view.
God I would just love to be able to say something in the Magnaura right now!!!
:yes:
I remember OK saying something similar when Matt was stuck in a Greek prison. :beam:
You could just use a proxy to do your talking for you. They seem to be all the rage...
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
The Senate session was closed. The current "session" is just a re-opening of the Senate for debate, not an "extension" of the previous session.
a) the previous session was closed, you cannot extend what has been closed;
b) the current debates are not a senate session, since we are now no longer discussing/proposing legislation, nor is there a possibility for each senator to propose himself as candidate for Megas. These debates focus solely on the two current candidates and as such, the debates do not qualify as senate sessions.
Of course, if TinCow has a different viewpoint, I will accept that.
EDIT : additonal arguments:
3.1 says that there can be debates out of session. The Protoasecretes announced that the Senate will be open for debate. I think this has to be interpreted as just that: debate.Quote:
3.1 –Sessions: The Senate will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.
3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, Senators may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other Senators before they can be put to the vote.
To back up this argumentation, I invoke rule 3.2. which clearly states that "during each session, Senators may propose Edicts and Amendments". Now, the Protoasecretes clearly stated that we cannot propose Edicts/Amendments (I believe he used the word "legislation, which is the same) during these debates. Now, rule 3.1 clearly says that we are allowed to propose legislation during a Senate Session. Since we cannot propose legislation now, the current debate does not qualifiy as a Senate Session.
Since we are now not having a senate session, the new oaths and the influence changes that come with it, come into effect and will have to be considered when counting the votes in the current re-vote.
We'll see what TC says. But if he rules that the influence can change, to say that I would be "unhappy" would be a gigantic understatement...
I see the Senate Session as still ongoing. Therefore, any influence that changes hands has to wait for the session to end. Plus, to reinforce my point, the new save has not been released. So, we're not even in the next term.
The candidates can lobby people to switch their votes. And even to get people to promise to "jump ship" after the session is over. But no influence can change hands between votes.
The way I see it, influence is "frozen" until the new save game is released. Plus, we wouldn't even have been in this position if it wasn't for Motep. I was never keen on letting a new player vote when he hadn't even sat through a whole Senate Session. But I kept quiet. But if we let influence change around, that will be too much IMHO.