I was pretty sure the Seljuk siege of Antioch was in 1084, but I didn't verify.
And it's 1h45 AM.
And my brain is going :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
So I might, I just might be wrong.
Printable View
I was pretty sure the Seljuk siege of Antioch was in 1084, but I didn't verify.
And it's 1h45 AM.
And my brain is going :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
So I might, I just might be wrong.
Oh and Dyrrachion (Durazzo) was the capital city of Epirus. Not some huts in a mud patch with no walls.
I noticed many of the same inaccuracies when I did the Comnenian Restoration. My advice, just roll with it. We're about to go completely off the historical rails anyway if the revived Senate wasn't a clue. :laugh4:
Still I did try to give rationale for it in my speech.
Also, I took a look at the avatars save in the game. Are we going to be teleporting avatars before game play starts? A lot of the avatars are out of position.
Thanks to TinCow I finally got my signature to work. It really is more tricky than it might seem to the casual observer. But once I just put every single line into its own formatting it came out pretty nice.
@Northnovas
Like I said, having a table makes it look like it did, and then just adding the table=0 0 0 bit makes your whole layout go bonkers!
@deguerra
Well if you consider my username the part in my signature should not surprise you. And I found that once you got the hange of something it might be quite simple to you, but that does neither mean that it would be simple to us nor that we can't appreciate the results! :2thumbsup:
Why, it doesn't seem tricky at all! I don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
:tongue3:
Hmmmmm, it seems Anna is the most popular Belle at the Ball. :laugh4:
Gah, I just want to go kill something (in the game that is).
I want to kill someone! New laptop, not even 20 minutes old, now mum somehow gets freaking mashed potato in the speaker vent...
Gah, all these desperate guys writing silly love letters and trying to meet Anna in secret...
Maybe it's time for her to meet a REAL MAN (TM) ~:cheers: --> :eyebrows:
And probably to get myself a slap in the face... :shame:
When does the voting start?
I just realized that I have to attend a wedding in the middle of nowhere on Saturday (literally). After Friday evening I'm (at best) down to a GPRS connection until Sunday evening and I really don't want to browse the forums using that.
First post read in the Senate reads "I hereby declare the Byzantine Senate to be in Session! The floor will remain open for debate and legislation until 3:30pm EST on Thursday, June 5th, at which point there will be 48 hours alloted for voting." So you will be quite fine.
Out of curiosity, where do you live and how are you getting to that island? I mean I live in Australia, and that still seems quite in the middle of nowhere :laugh4:
:embarassed: I managed to find it just after postingQuote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
From Helsinki (close enough to Espoo where I live) two hours by train to Turku, then a local bus as far as possible to the archipelago and then 4 hours by ferry.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
For the record, I will also allow voting via proxy, as econ21 did in KOTR. If you know how you want to vote on certain pieces of legislation, but won't be around to actually do the clicking, you can send me a PM stating how you want to vote on the various Edicts/Amendments. I will then include your vote in the final tally.
While this is being discussed in the Senate I'd like to speculate on some finer OOC points, that my character would never think of.
The system has always been that Edicts are enforced by the governing body, here speaking the Senate, and they are in place to limit the Megas' actions. What we are currently proposing though will limit the actions of avatars within the game. So while a Megas' may fear impeachment any avatar has no built-in penalty to fear.
This might be quite interesting, seeing as whoever would conquer Durazzo without the Basileos wishes, would have just broken an Edict, and would be standing in some tiny village without walls and only his retinue. It would just be about worth it, just to see the fuss created by such an action. IC penalties tend to be so much more cruel than anything set in the rules. :evilgrin:
It's little things like these that really show you the scope of possibilities within this game! I love it! :2thumbsup:
Yep, I'm a big fan of this move towards requiring IC enforcement of Edicts. People are still free to do what they want, they just have to deal with the IC consequnces of it. It's far more realistic and entertaining than having some artificial OOC authority blocking actions. I can't wait until we've got a House that's powerful enough that it thinks it can ignore the Senate and still survive.
I'm happy to have started it all...:2thumbsup:
I'm very amused to see so much fighting over a simple village. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
Such a little spark to start a big bonfire...
Im loving this little discussion. I can only imagine how these sessions will be when there are many powerful factions in the Empire.:2thumbsup:
I'm just hoping Tristans' Edict passes and that ATPG will take Durazzo without permission from the Emperor...
If that would occur, we'd have an interesting second session :2thumbsup:
When you have no territory at all, and your fellow senators block you from taking even one pathetic village, why would there not be a vigorous debate?
Same here... Do you see any land I own or hope to own soon ? Except for Durazzo ?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Oops, this is an OOC thread. Still, I feel I had to say it.
:laugh4:
Honestly, I don't care. I do not care about Durazzo. I am simply rp'ing my character who is interested in having at least one province.
Same here, once again... Just Rp'ing saving Durazzo from madmen ( 4 dread :jawdrop:)
I just want to get a good fight in while I still have the opportunity...
When this is over, I will buy your character a drink and simply say "I told you so".
:laugh2:
I will propose something In-Character to resolve this.
And I will buy you one back ~:cheers:
What was the thing we did in KotR when an Edict contradicted the Charter? Was it alright or did it need a 2/3 majority to pass or was it filed under a rule dispute and was delegated to the Kaiser/Basileus? :inquisitive:
Ah the intricacies of the Rules... :book2:
Aha, seems like TinCow beat me to it. But wouldn't Edict 1.8 go against the Charter too. I mean it also interferes with the allocation of settlements as laid out by the Charter... :inquisitive:
This is where my Senate alter-ego, as inherited from econ21, kicks in. Unless of course someone wants to actually claim a rule dispute about it, in which case it gets kicked up to the Basileus.
I believe we had something similar in the first KotR session where we tried to force the hand of the Kaiser to grant settlements to Houses. This time it's probably the other way around. And the Basileus is involved too, meaning that the actual rule dispute would have to be decided by the highest ranking feudal lords.
So someone could actually oppose Edict 1.8 legality. Had I been campaigning against this Edict I would be interested. :wink3:
Hmm, that's a very good point about 1.9 (which is I think what you meant, instead of 1.8). The clause which gives the province directly to the Basileus is illegal. I will have to invalidate that one as well. ATPG could have won that one a long time ago if he'd brought the Charter up.