OOC Thread and Chatroom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar

I already edited my posts. You misunderstood the first point. "the defeated ones" is how I call them in the edict, and not how I suggest to call them. Read the whole edict first, before you judge. If you had read the last point, you'd see that I proposed to call them "allies of rome" or friends or whatever.

Of course it's more meant to see them as friends. You will not be punished, if you don't call them "friends of rome" in every sentence. :clown:

I edited my edict and made it clear now

---

I did read the whole and I at first had a part saying that "if you meant that you personally would (...), then you should not have put it in the edict". It was that last part that made me erase it and think that you really did want to put that into law. :shame:

But what is your point with proclaiming that we would call them "allies of Rome", since you don't mean to make us refer to them as such? I mean, I'm sure everyone here will agree that if we ally with Epeiros, Epeiros will be our allies. That's on a very basic level of logic. ~;p

well, it's more a political kind of suggestion than a gameplay necessity. I thought it would be quite apropriate to call them friends when we make them allies ^^ would be quite nasty to call them "protectorate" *G*

acutally it's more meant for our diplomats who should propose it to epeiros. not that important to us as players, but I think it was not unimportant in reality to be called friend of rome or not

Does anyone know where these guys are?

hell if i know, mooks was ready to take the defense he said if he had to but then i dont know what happened to him...makes me angry.

I'm here but work has been hella crazy today so I won't be a be able to comment IC.

and I dont have anything to comment ON yet......

Before anyone starts whining that I'm being obtuse in the curia again..

It's simply some historical roleplaying on my part. In hindsight we all of course know that all senators were like any other man. They had vices and flaws like anyone. Maybe even more!

But the general idea lived that senators were actually a better kind of men. Not that they were thought of as gods or anything, but you get the idea.
That's the reason most of the famous family members always were a sure thing in elections, and why new men had such a hard time getting into the senate. Men like Gaius Marius and Cicero had to fight hard to get into the senate and even harder to climb the cursus honorum, because they had no real ancestors in roman eyes.
This idea was imo one of the reasons why the republic existed for as long as it did. The right to rule was never really put in doubt by the general populance, something that was guarded well by those in power of course.


Whenever some incompetent commander bungled things up, they weren't usually openly prosecuted (unless they were relative nobodies), especially when they had serious clout in the senate.
Part of the reason for this, was not to give the plebs the note that any senators might not be as competent as he should be.

Sure they were politically isolated for a while, untill the storm blew over. And they surely didn't get elected for a few years (in most cases..not always!) but never publically condemned for being incompetent.

For instance Quintus Caecilius Metullus who stole the gold of Tolosa, refused the share the co-command with someone he thought of as a new man even though the senate had obliged him to do so. He practically told the senate to bugger off, which it did.
His refusal resulted in the battled of Aurasio, 80k romans killed. (and enabled gaius marius to get elected consul 3 years in a row)

Quintus Caecilius Metullus eventually got exiled for stealing the gold of Tolosa.



Patricians especially were known to 'protect eachother" from dangers from outside.
Sure they would quarrel and fight eachother tooth and nail!!!!!
But against things from outside the senate? No.


Gaius Julius Caesars debts before he managed to become consul, were so appallingly big. Really outrageous. And common knowledge in senatorial circles.
Being in debt was legally outlawed. Yet no one turned him in, not even his political enemies (though Cato did advocate this at one point I believe as the only way to bring him down.)




Well, I always try to give 'magnificent' speeches in order to bring people around instead of dry, logical facts.
The latter would work better, because most of us of course think in a logical frame. We are a product of modern times, and not to be convinced by sweet words alone.
Yet in Roman times, the point of what you were saying was mostly not important. It was how you said it.
If you could deliver a strong speech, an emotional speech... you usually ended up in the right.
It was even so in their legal system. Court cases were won with how the defence pleaded.

Look at Hitler. He swayed an entire nation around by words. Look at Obama, his charisma and extraordinary speeches are one of the foundations for his succes. And in modern times we aren't by far as 'vulnerable' for the power of words as 2000 years ago.
It's just one of the difference I noted when re-reading most of the Curia yesterday :) Which is why I deplore TCM quitting.
He though roleplayed his character this way, using more eloquent speeches with a little historic flavoured mindset instead of appealing to modern logic.

you are right. But this is different. Anyone could lose a battle. Not fighting it is the crime. I explained my opinion in the Curia

and that was a wee bit longer post than I expected :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar

you are right. But this is different. Anyone could lose a battle. Not fighting it is the crime. I explained my opinion in the Curia

---

Well they didfight :) otherwise we wouldn't have had a battle result to discuss.
They did not play it, because they were absent, that's true.

But the battle happenend, and their chars were involved. So we can roleplay this as them being bad generals.
But being a bad general was not somethign you got prosecuted for. There is no law to base any prosecution on anyway :)

Like I said in the curia, WE are going to punish them. They'll get politically isolated because we won't elect them to any position of importance for quite a while (until they proof to be active enough again).
But that's an indoor-affair (in the P.O.V. of the senate) and should not be showed to the plebs :)

just reminding everyone else that RC 7.1 and CA 7.1 are still not completely seconded yet, and would really like to see them implemented ingame.

i seconded CA7.1


edit: I've editted my post to make things more clear Everyone.
I seconded both your proposals.

I sense a family tragedy in Curia ^^ Mini's char definitely fell to the dark side of the force :laugh4: :laugh4:

Bah, I really don't get you guys...

We have a difference in opinion, and suddenly i'm darth vader.
If your characters would have anything riding on it, like financially or politically or even ANYTHING at all, i could comprehend your reactions.
But since nobody has anything to gain or lose by this trial, the only ones who will be losing something, are the 2 guys on trial.

I tried explaining you my motives, they're both logical and historical. But you keep on regarding this as a personal matter and acted like it was a vendetta from the first post I made.

Well sorry, but you left me no choice in the matter but to veto.



Personally, I don't know how much longer i'll be sticking around.
For one thing, fine words and speeches have no result. Nobody RP's a sensetivity to fine words or speeches. It's like there's an instant decision on how you stand on a certain decision, and no matter how eloquent a speech is, nobody is willing to budge from their point. TCM had a few speeches which made my character change his mind. Not that I did, but I liked the speech so my char changes his mind. Doesnt come easily, but I know that's how it was in ancient Rome, where rethoric really made the biggest difference. Impress the senate with a witticism or gain the upperhand in a verbal fight, and ppl voted for you that day.

Here, it doesnt matter how well you say things. Changes nothing.
There are a few players concentrated in a house. 2 or 3 players in that house dictate the way the house should go, and beware the one who doesnt follow every single thing.
The house has no decent opposition, in fact, has no opposition. The only active player not involved is TCV.
So when I try to keep things politically interested, and keep the door open for those inactive players should they decide to come back, I get threatened to be kicked out the house...

Meh, call it selfish, call it a personal rant, but there is no flux in the game.
An issue rises, everyone has an opinion from the beginning. A debate follows for a few days, nobody changes their mind and the verdict comes down to what the house wants. That's how this is going to go in this session and the ones coming.
And yes, I have changed my mind. or better, my character. Blame TCM and his fine speeches, but I felt like my char would appreciate the rethoric. I understand that in modern days, we are not as succeptable to fine words as back then but meh, it's a pbm, we're supposed to rp our char like it's back in those doys, atleast for a bit and try to.

and this, was another way too long post which will undoubtedly offend a few people.

i hear you breathing, vader ^^ man, it was a joke, and I said nothing about you not being a nice son.

Everyone had good arguments in this matter. Why should we now all change to "your side" , just because you speek english well enough to be eloquent? You should roleplay that we all are native latin speakers. Maybe you should change your mind yourself, due to all our fine arguments, instead of insisting on us changing our minds because of you.

beanz did

and the post above is just how I feel about the course of the game. It's sad, cuz i'm really into the roman republic.. but this doesnt feel like it at all. it's more like everyone is trying to play his own singleplayer campaign.
If it weren't for me (and TCV to an extend) the curia would be a collection of 2-3 peepz happily agreeing on everything and the game something which goes as easy as a singleplaye campaign with no challenge whatsoever.
It's the same feelign which drove certain other people away i'm sure.

I've tried makign this challenging, like with the legions having to change regularly. Boycotted by those 2-3 peepz.
I've tried creatign a crisis when the Epeiros sunddenly invaded us and we had no legion there. Boycotted by those 2-3 peepz
I'm trying to keep a door open to those inactive players, so that they don't have to come back and having to RP a character who has been prosectuted (on no legal term whatsoever) and the likes, which would drive them straight away again. i'm boycotted again by the same ones.


But now i'm going to stop trying and watch this game drive itself to boredom city and premature ending.


Edit: seriously Swiss? I mean.. I think I know quite more than most people in this game of how roman politics worked and of roman history in general. As if I don't know there are plebeians in the senate.. But what has that got to do with anything???

it's not like the plebeians in the senate were all looking after the plebs.. Hell, most of them were just as conservative as the next patrician. There is a HUGE difference between plebeian and the plebs.
Senators of a plebeian rank are just like patricians, except their families did not come from a few ancient roman families that were the landowners. Plebeians are simply the new nobility, men who enriched themselves and their families and entrenched themselves in the Senate. Most of them cared as much for the Plebs as any patrician

the Plebs on the other hand, is a term used for everyone below the 2nd class. Middlemen shopkeers etc, all right down to the Headcount, the poor of Rome. Most of the senators -plebeian and patrician' would regard this Plebs as rabble.
Even decent shopkeepers and the like, were 'rabble'.
To the First Class Senators, all that mattered was the first class itself: the senate and the knights.




Anyway, I really have no idea why you made that last comment in the curia about plebs and plebeian, but clearly you either misunderstood all I've been trying to say, or you didn't want to understand, or you lack the insight in roman politics to understand it.

Don't have to reply on this, cuz I give up.

beanz is not "you guys" ;-)

Unfortunately we have no more than these 2-3 peoples, because the rest got inactive. Not our fault. Instead of making the game a challange by insisting on matters, that these 2-3 people naturally simply cannot agree, because it's against them personally (of course I mean the characters, not the players), f.e. the Epeiros thing, you should recruit new players to make the game more interesting.

OMG mini, now you wanna quit? because we don't agree? no one stops you from vetoing the matter, it's your right by the rules, but this does not mean I have to agree with it. My god! Next time you don't agree with me, I'll quit too, really.

read the edit Swiss :)

Actually, re-read the whole post, because you clearly don't get what i'm saying there.
it's not about you disagreeing with me, it's about the game lacking flux.

But doesnt matter Swiss.
You and Bean, navarro and Everyone can happily play on, agree on everything and have a nice game were everything goes smooth and debates in the senate are reduced to knowing what you al lwant to do and deicding it's all good, and a game where the biggest challenge is where to expand next first.

Hey, I perfectly got what you said. Of course my answer does not fit anymore, if you edit the post *G*

I think the only point we don't agree is this one:

you say the were only incompetent, but leading the battle and losing it
I say they were not there, let their soldiers fight but did not even bother to watch the battle.

That still doesnt provide any legal grounds.

besides, my other points were more important, the precedents it creates + power of the senate diminished etc

So let me see. The fact, that a senator did send (not lead) a whole invasion army into destruction does not diminish the power of the senate. But officially punishing this man for that would. Makes no sense at all, my friend, a fact which is proven by your argumentation "if you don't listen to me, I'll quit".

You always say you want to create a challenge, but when we actually do argue in the Curia, you freak out. What you really want, is an argument in the Curia, in which you and all senatores but one argue with the remaining one, and he loses. Now that you're the one, it's not funny for you, is it? That's why you wanted to quit. But that's not fair on navarro.

Veto the damn edict if you want, it's your right and no one in RL has something against it! But don't confuse OOC with IC.

I'm still deciding who or what to support in the Curia on the edict 7.2 matter; but I would agree to 7.1.X, except probably the expansion controlling, and 7.3 for obvious reasons :egypt:
and anyway, it seems that mini's arguments always sound convincing to me. it's like TCM's. though I eventually make no conclusion over the debated matters.

edit: navarro, you may wish to edit the FAQ and rules. unless you're busy. because it may be required as reference for further CAs, and also new members who are referring to an old set of rules

the expansion controlling can be thrown, no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar

So let me see. The fact, that a senator did send (not lead) a whole invasion army into destruction does not diminish the power of the senate. But officially punishing this man for that would. Makes no sense at all, my friend, a fact which is proven by your argumentation "if you don't listen to me, I'll quit".

You always say you want to create a challenge, but when we actually do argue in the Curia, you freak out. What you really want, is an argument in the Curia, in which you and all senatores but one argue with the remaining one, and he loses. Now that you're the one, it's not funny for you, is it? That's why you wanted to quit. But that's not fair on navarro.

Veto the damn edict if you want, it's your right and no one in RL has something against it! But don't confuse OOC with IC.

---

You really don't get it...
A senator losign a battle does not dimish the power of the senate indeed.
It's when we admit to the world that we are at fault, we diminish our power. Do you think the plebs is at full aware what happened there? Do you think they were that informed back then? They didn't have senators explaining theml what happened, they didn't have CNN then.
All they knew was that a battle is lost, and they look to the senate for explanation and solution.

The senate of course protected their own, and explained jack. Just enough so the plebs knew what was going on, but not enough to think less of the members in the senate.
Which is my whole point. You have to stop thinking in modern time frame, and start thinking in Roman republic mind frime.


I am lookign for challenges game-wise. Things that would make our game difficult.
I do not want to quit because i'm 'losing'.. I'm not even losing sicne I'm gettign things my way.
It's the fact that people insist on making this somethign personal.

I AM quitting, because not everyone is Rp as it ought. Seriously, what good is it to recreate a roman republic, a place where rethoric was all-important and a good speech could swing crowds of ten thousands, when ppl in here barely read comprehensional what you're actually saying?

You accuse me of running out of arguments? I have put forth 4 or 5 good solid arguements, both IC arguements and OOC arguments. I've done it in eloquent speeches, and all I get is:
1) being accused of personal attacks
2) some lame excuse about the people which doesn't make sense. The plebs is ignorant of details, they don't know what happened.
3) The fact that i'm doing this for the good of the Senate as a ruling body is completely ignored or not understood due to a lack of willingness to place oneself in the mind frame of the time.
4) Every time i refute the 'people' argument, or ask on what legal grounds you are wanting to do this, it gets ignored and there whine about being obtuse, after which more howling about the people starts (see point 2)
5) I get threatened to be kicked out of the family

Sorry, but if you can't see that it's wrong, this is useless.

The fact is, that some are not willing to let their minds be changed.
Hell I have let TCM talk me into things I personally wasn't feeling, but i placed myself in a romans shoes, and let the char changed his opinion because that's how it went.
A few however, are insisting on having things all their way, not letting for any dynamic in the game, no leeway whatsoever.

It may not be fair to navarro, I know he put a lot of work into this. And i've tried a lot to help him and make an even better game (reforms and all)

But the thickness of some players and the unwillingness to fully RP their char as they ought, has turned me off.

So, I hope for you that either TCV sticks around, or new players join.
Because otherwise, this game WILL degenerate into a curia which only trouble is to decide which city to conquer next.

Oh I'll read, and i'll vote. But i'm certainly not going to put so much effort in writing eloquent speeches and participating in useless debates.
i'll vote, and that's all participation you'll get from me for a while.

I'll stick to other PBM's where this kind of behaviour is actually well placed, like hellenistic kingsdoms or feadal ones. But a Roman Republic? Ha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by everyone

I'm still deciding who or what to support in the Curia on the edict 7.2 matter; but I would agree to 7.1.X, except probably the expansion controlling, and 7.3 for obvious reasons :egypt:
and anyway, it seems that mini's arguments always sound convincing to me. it's like TCM's. though I eventually make no conclusion over the debated matters.

edit: navarro, you may wish to edit the FAQ and rules. unless you're busy. because it may be required as reference for further CAs, and also new members who are referring to an old set of rules

---

yeah, i'm looking forward to see how navarro has implemented all the changes, as they were rather big.

I opposed to 7.1.x for reasons readable in the curia for those who care to read 20 posts back.
I think we should show the world we are unafraid and merciful


Comparison to TCM is a compliment Everyone, thank you.
Though I personally sometimes didn't agree with him, I let my char being influenced by his words. That's how it went back then. Almost unimaginable in modern times.
But hey, Hitler managed to pull it off.
Even Obama using eloquent speeches and personal charisma, and he made president. So words still have massive power. But modern man ist as vulnerable as back then of course to it.

Anyway, looking forward to read the faq soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mini

You really don't get it...
A senator losign a battle does not dimish the power of the senate indeed.
It's when we admit to the world that we are at fault, we diminish our power. Do you think the plebs is at full aware what happened there? Do you think they were that informed back then? They didn't have senators explaining theml what happened, they didn't have CNN then.
All they knew was that a battle is lost, and they look to the senate for explanation and solution.

Answer: they don't need CNN, they were there and fought the battle themselves !

The senate of course protected their own, and explained jack. Just enough so the plebs knew what was going on, but not enough to think less of the members in the senate.
Which is my whole point. You have to stop thinking in modern time frame, and start thinking in Roman republic mind frime.


I am lookign for challenges game-wise. Things that would make our game difficult.
I do not want to quit because i'm 'losing'.. I'm not even losing sicne I'm gettign things my way.
It's the fact that people insist on making this somethign personal.

I AM quitting, because not everyone is Rp as it ought. Seriously, what good is it to recreate a roman republic, a place where rethoric was all-important and a good speech could swing crowds of ten thousands, when ppl in here barely read comprehensional what you're actually saying?

Answer: you're the only one who's taking it personal at the moment, since you're the only one quitting. Why should we listen to your Rhethoric arts, and not to the other ones? Some of us are not as good in english as you are, shall the others just sit back and watch you do the game?



You accuse me of running out of arguments? I have put forth 4 or 5 good solid arguements, both IC arguements and OOC arguments. I've done it in eloquent speeches, and all I get is:
1) being accused of personal attacks
not from me, not personal
2) some lame excuse about the people which doesn't make sense. The plebs is ignorant of details, they don't know what happened.

Important !!!! ----> yes, they do know, better then us btw, because THEY fought, the senator did NOT. <---- Important !!!!

3) The fact that i'm doing this for the good of the Senate as a ruling body is completely ignored or not understood due to a lack of willingness to place oneself in the mind frame of the time.
4) Every time i refute the 'people' argument, or ask on what legal grounds you are wanting to do this, it gets ignored and there whine about being obtuse, after which more howling about the people starts (see point 2)
5) I get threatened to be kicked out of the family
not by me

Sorry, but if you can't see that it's wrong, this is useless.

The fact is, that some are not willing to let their minds be changed.
Hell I have let TCM talk me into things I personally wasn't feeling, but i placed myself in a romans shoes, and let the char changed his opinion because that's how it went.
A few however, are insisting on having things all their way, not letting for any dynamic in the game, no leeway whatsoever.

you don't let your mind change as well. again: why should some do so and you don't?

It may not be fair to navarro, I know he put a lot of work into this. And i've tried a lot to help him and make an even better game (reforms and all)

But the thickness of some players and the unwillingness to fully RP their char as they ought, has turned me off.

So, I hope for you that either TCV sticks around, or new players join.
Because otherwise, this game WILL degenerate into a curia which only trouble is to decide which city to conquer next.

Oh I'll read, and i'll vote. But i'm certainly not going to put so much effort in writing eloquent speeches and participating in useless debates.
i'll vote, and that's all participation you'll get from me for a while.

I'll stick to other PBM's where this kind of behaviour is actually well placed, like hellenistic kingsdoms or feadal ones. But a Roman Republic? Ha!

a kingdom is easier to play, since the king is the boss ;-) maybe it really is better for you, since other opinions seem to be very confusing to you

---

red=answers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar

red=answers

---

Numbers matching your red comments.

1) Newsflash: legionnairs who flee the field, return to their homes in silence, or disappear entirely.
otherwise they are treated as deserters. So they surely be telling no one nothing.
PLUS as if the simple ranker legionaire knows what has been going on in the command tent?
Again, this aint modern time.

2) I'm not taking the discussion personally, I'm just fed up with how the game is going.

Quote:

---

Why should we listen to your Rhethoric arts, and not to the other ones?

---

in case you haven't noticed, I just build an entire arguement aroudn the fact that I AM the only one that seems to be listening to others rethoric skills. i've changed my votes thanks to TCM's speeches. havent seen anyone else changes his mind on one single point (except iskander, granted)
And i'm not purely talking about quality english. I'm also taking about lay-out and effort in one's posts.

3) Not by you personally, but you jumped on his wagon, which means the same.


4) As i've explained before, their avatars were at risk, so they fought. Inactive or not. If one of them died, you could have hardly blamed it on them not being present.
As for the people knowing: read 1)
You'd be suprised how misinformd ppl were and what the senate got away with. Which is why we have to do things my way, to lull the people in the first place, instead of just showing to the world that the senate does make mistakes. Do you want the people to start doubting our right to rule?

5) I have changed my mind on numerous occassions. Unlike most here.

6) Not even going to bother refuting this. i'm the one having listened to both TCM and 'the other side' (meaning you, bean and the clique) etc. Is that all you can do, take my accussations one me?
"No i'm not, you are!" sounds a lot like playground material.

no, I did not jump on his wagon concerning your loyalty. In fact I did not doubt it with any word in this discussion.

I made myself (or my char. made himself clear) in the curia.

hold on there, are we RPing that D.C. Scipio and S.S. Longus having fled the battle, and thereby abandoning legio III to defeat (because that would be very hard to explain when RPed by their players, since what IC excuse (other than 'incompetence'/cowardice) could they make to explain why they were not there to control the battle); or that they are in control of the battle, but were either drunk/ill/ambushed?
because it would make a large difference to edict 7.2's validity