OOC Thread and Chatroom

[Kagemusha]

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.

Oh now Ignoramus could turn things very interesting by showing up.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I.... still haven't read the Charter.

I probably should go do that.

Still, it's nice to know I won that debate.

[TinCow]

Oh now Ignoramus could turn things very interesting by showing up.

Actually, I got that one wrong. I just went back and read the rules and if the rule involves the Basileus or the Caesar, it goes to the highest ranking Senator. If there are multiple of those, it is decided by a group vote.

Sorry about all this confusion, guys. Apparently even I need some time to adjust to the new rules that I wrote.

[Ituralde]

Sorry about that, of course I meant Edict 1.9.

So by the precedent you made with the Protosecretares I guess from now on we'll go with an Edict can't violate the Charter?

[Kagemusha]

Sorry about that, of course I meant Edict 1.9.

So by the precedent you made with the Protosecretares I guess from now on we'll go with an Edict can't violate the Charter?

But in matter of fact, dont we have both Basileos and Caesar,who both can actually put out an charter amendment. In this situation, i wouldnt blame either if they would like to make the power of Basileos grow, so he could get provinces from anyone.

[TinCow]

So by the precedent you made with the Protosecretares I guess from now on we'll go with an Edict can't violate the Charter?

Did we do it differently in KOTR? econ21 always took care of these kinds of things, so I'm stumbling my way through them kind of blindly.

The way I see it there are two options: void any Edict that violates the charter or allow an Edict to trump the charter. In the latter case, the only difference between an Edict and an Amendment is that an Edict expires after 10 turns and an Amendment doesn't. That doesn't seem to be the intent of the rules we've always used, though. If an Edict can violate the Charter and still be valid, then an Amendment can essentially be obtained by a 51% vote as long as the same group of supporters vote for it every session. IMO, that's not in the spirit of the rules. Thus I'm left with voiding Edicts that violate the Charter.

To compensate for my own imperfect understanding and the fact that I may be subconsciously biased, I am perfectly happy letting the 'rule dispute' clause trump me. Someone just has to raise a rule dispute IC, and then we'll go through the usual process. That should provide a way to get around me if I make a bad decision.

But in matter of fact, dont we have both Basileos and Caesar,who both can actually put out an charter amendment. In this situation, i wouldnt blame either if they would like to make the power of Basileos grow, so he could get provinces from anyone.

The Caesar can't propose any Amendments at the moment because his rank isn't high enough. However, the Basileus can propose as many as he wants and they don't need to be seconded. Anyone who wants to put forward an Amendment (or indeed any legislation) can spam them in the Senate, as long as they can convince the Basileus to act as their proxy in proposing it.

[Privateerkev]

Did we do it differently in KOTR? econ21 always took care of these kinds of things, so I'm stumbling my way through them kind of blindly.

I distinctly remember Econ vetoing Edicts that violated the Charter. In KotR, an Edict could not over-ride the Charter. It could only add to the Charter and only for a term.

For example, you can't make an edict that says, "any avatar can decide who the princess marries this term". It would have to be a Charter Amendment.

Edicts are to direct the Mega's handling of the "game". The Charter is the basic rule set of the game. A Megas can ignore Edicts but not the Charter.

At least that is how I understand the rules.

[Ituralde]

Did we do it differently in KOTR? econ21 always took care of these kinds of things, so I'm stumbling my way through them kind of blindly.

That was basically the question I had in my first post, becaus I couldn't remember it either. Either way though I'm perfectly happy with the procedure you have sketched out.

The only alternative would be the special thingy 2/3 majority rule for an Edict, but that would turn some Edicts into 10 turn Amendments without the proposer having the powers to propose an Amendment so that's ruled out too!

So for me the thing is settled.

[Ferret]

@ATPG in the Maugnaura: you just said "I will accept employment from Anastasios Neokaisareitis", there was no mention of it being an oath and it was not bolded or anything so it may not have counted.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Thats what I suspected.

I was hired basically as a mercenary, nothing more it seems. I did say I would be willing to swear an oath, I guess I just didn't do it yet.

As of this time, the Asteri and I have pretty much decided to go seperate ways (as friends) because of different ambitions.

My house will still be your friend and ally, though.

[TinCow]

As of this moment, ATPG has not sworn an oath to anyone and is considered unaffiliated. Let's let that be and keep the Senate discussions on IC issues and skip over this one.

Let me again emphasize that you must SPECIFICALLY swear an oath of fealty to another person in a public thread. Swear an oath, take an oath, make an oath... however you phrase it, you must use the word Oath. You must also specifically name a single person as the target of that Oath. It is not good enough to swear to a 'House.' You must pick a specific person to swear to.

The target of your Oath does not have to acknowledge it in order for it to be valid. All Oaths will be considered accepted unless the Lord specifically rejects it. If you want to accept the Oath, you can just keep quiet. The reverse is not true for the breaking of Oaths, however. If an Oath is broken, the old Lord must specifically state that he gives permission for the Oath to be broken, otherwise the 5 turn ban on reswearing will be enforced.

[Privateerkev]

I've been going by the Senate Library.

In there, you are listed as a member of House Asteri.

So it seems as if you swore an oath. Well at least TC thought you swore an oath.

We're basically learning as we go and there seems to be no exact working required for oath swearing.

*edit*

nevermind

[TinCow]

I was being a bit more lax on the Oath swearing method in the beginning. That stops now because it's becoming a pain for me to figure out who has sworn to what. Anything that doesn't conform to the bolded bit above will not be valid from now on.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Excellent! So I'm free as a bird! Yayyyy

I'm off to swear an oath, A Wonderful Oath to my Lord.
You'll find he is a whiz of a Lord! If ever a Whiz! there was.
If ever oh ever a Whiz there was The Lord of my House is one because,
Because, because, because, because, because...
Because of the wonderful things he does!
I'm off to swear an Oath, A Wonderful Oath to My Lord!!!

[Andres]

I was hired basically as a mercenary, nothing more it seems.

A mercenary eh? That's an additonal reason to question your loyalties IC

[TinCow]

I have added two new Q&As to the FAQ, since this seems like the perfect use for it. The Q&As are:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Q: What is the proper format for proposing Edicts and Amendments in The Magnaura?
A: Edict/Amendment X.Z: Text of Edict/Amendment. (X = Number of the Senate session, Z = Number of the Edict/Amendment within the Senate session.) For example, the third Edict proposed at the fourth Senate session would look like this: Edict 4.3: All Senators will wear togas. The numbers of all Edicts and Amendment proposed during an Emergency Session will be the same, but with an E preceding the numbering (i.e. Edict E4.3).

Please also be aware that an Edict cannot contradict the Rules. Edicts that conflict with any part of the Rules will be considered invalid and will not be put to a vote, no matter who proposed them or how many people seconded them. The only legislation which may conflict with the Rules are Amendments.

Q: What is the proper format for swearing an Oath of Fealty?
A: There are three procedural requirements for swearing a proper Oath of Fealty. Oaths which do not meet these requirements will not be considered valid.

First, all Oaths of Fealty must be sworn in a public thread. Public threads are essentially any IC game thread, most commonly the The Magnaura, The Hippodrome, and the various 'House' threads. However, even the Stories Thread and the Battle Reports thread are public threads by this definition and can be used for swearing, if you think they are the appropriate place under the circumstances.

Second, all Oaths of Fealty must specifically use the word "Oath." You can make an Oath, swear an Oath, take an Oath, or any other term you wish to use. However, you absolutely must use the word Oath. This is because Oath is seldom used in normal IC conversation to mean anything other than an Oath of Fealty. If the word "Oath" is always used, the chance of confusion will be greatly reduced.

Finally, you must name a specific Senator as the target of your Oath. You cannot swear an Oath to a 'House,' to a title (i.e. Comes), or to any other entity. The feudal system we use has special rules that are greatly impacted by the precise hierarchical system created by the players. Thus it must be perfectly clear who is Lord and who is Vassal in every relationship.

As a final note, a Lord will be presumed to have automatically accepted an Oath unless he specifically states otherwise in a public thread. An 'acceptance' may be posted for IC purposes, but it is not required in order for an Oath to be valid. In contrast, when an Oath is broken it will be presumed to have been done without the permission of the Lord unless the Lord specifically states otherwise in a public thread. Thus, unless the Lord gives specific permission, the former Vassal will not be allowed to swear another Oath until 5 turns have passed. (See Rule 2.5)

[The Lemongate]

Well I'm glad I could consider someone as a vassal, have everyone else consider that man my vassal, and now, without foreknowledge, suddenly learn I never had a vassal.

Politics are way too efficient these days. I should keep up with the progress

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, you can always say the loopholes in the rules make the game more intriguing...

Next I will figure out that I was actually the Basileos all along, if you read the Charter very carefully...

[TinCow]

Well I'm glad I could consider someone as a vassal, have everyone else consider that man my vassal, and now, without foreknowledge, suddenly learn I never had a vassal.

Politics are way too efficient these days. I should keep up with the progress

Sorry, I know it's not exactly realistic, but I've got to keep track of these things and it's impossible for me to figure out what "I proclaim my loyalty to House X" means. Is it an Oath? Is it one of these generic offers of 'services' people have been bandying about? Who is it sworn to? The most senior member? The most junior member? This is a purely organizational thing. I don't think it's too onerous to ask for people to simply say "I swear an Oath to Bilbo Baggins" or whoever the Lord is. It's a small inconvenience for my sake.

[Privateerkev]

I know the Megas can violate Edicts, but can players violate Edicts?

If Edict 1.9 passes, can someone take the save and move their avatar into Durazzo anyways?

And it would be up to us to make up IC consequences?

[_Tristan_]

I think that anybody can violate Edicts... Laws are made to be broken... But you have to face the consequences...

[Cecil XIX]

Indeed. Edict enforcement is strickly limited to IC player reactions.

[TinCow]

Tristan and Cecil are correct. It's all IC when it comes to Edicts.

[Ituralde]

I heard that if you read the Charter backwards you gain the ability to excommunicate the Pope and call a Jihad against the Muslims!

[AussieGiant]

Just a short "all point bulletin" to a few guy's:

YourLordandConqueror
TheFlax
peverpink
FLYdude

I'm flat out at the moment but I've got all your PM's and I've not forgotten any of the requests for stories or replies.

As soon as I get a chance in this crazy schedule to get back to you all I will.

Sorry for the impersonal approach.

[KarlXII]

I have a question.

My MTW2 is not installed, and I don't have the time to become heavily involved (gameplay wise). Is there anyway I can still participate in a House, or in an electoral process but not have to play the actual game?

[pevergreen]

I'm going to say yes. As long as you have time to post in the Senate threads, and post what orders you have, you should have enough time.

[The Lemongate]

Well, after the latest story thread post, I'm sure everyone will agree the Empire should put all its efforts into capturing Genoa! It is vital for the mental well being of the princess!

[Privateerkev]

Well, after the latest story thread post, I'm sure everyone will agree the Empire should put all its efforts into capturing Genoa! It is vital for the mental well being of the princess!

You realize I am going to have to one-up you.

I promise that there will be a story with so much sap, you could caulk an ocean going vessel with it.

[The Lemongate]

Ocean going vessel or buoyant Genoese merchant?