The Magnaura

[Askthepizzaguy]

And now that the true intentions behind this edict have been made clear elsewhere...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I propose cooperation instead of petty rivalry. If you wanted the province, my good man, you should have just said so. There's little point in this edict when we could discuss ownership like civilized men instead of fools.

Efstratios honks his giant red nose and spins his enormous bowtie around in circles.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You want this province, don't you? I can feel your desire. Take your steel sword, strike down the rebels there with it, give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more the Emperor's servant.

But why should we bicker and argue about it? Let's take the bloody thing together. Cooperation, gentlemen. We can expand all of our houses and give everyone what we want. Let us first focus on taking the settlements in question, then we can divide them between us.

We are ONE empire after all. Let's act like it. I propose a compromise. We will take the settlement together, and it will be the property of my house until my house expands further. Then, we can hand it over to you, good senator Tagaris. Perhaps we can continue our cooperation after that as well.

Why do our houses not work together to expand in the direction we all desire? We clearly want to go west, so let's go west, with the Emperor's permission or by Edict or both, whichever is the proper way. We should negotiate who owns what instead of make the Basileos decide for us, as if we were children who cannot reason.

Lastly, I hope that the tired and worn tactic of questioning my loyalties or allegiances has finally been put to rest. It does us all a disservice, gentlemen.

[_Tristan_]

I have no interest in the left-overs from your table, Monomachios.

I do not want land per se but want only to protect the people of Durazzo and claim land for our Basileos so that he can provide support to any of the Senators or Houses he deems worthy of it, be it now or in the future.

[Askthepizzaguy]

No interest in the province, but enough to propose an edict about it.

Very well, since we cannot reach an agreement as gentlemen, I'll just have to propose edict 1.10

"Rebel provinces may be claimed by those who actually capture them. If two or more senators take the rebel provinces, the Emperor can decide who deserves the province. Furthermore, Edict 1.9 is entirely unneccessary and unduly restricts the rights of Senators to claim rebel territory."

Now that the rational debate is over from me, and the ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are over from the supporters of 1.9, let's just vote on the bloody thing and move on, no hard feelings, fellow Senators.

Though I would appreciate it if you would not question my loyalties in public again or engage in slander.

[Privateerkev]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OOC:

LAWFARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glorious Lawfare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Senators, I bring your attention to this:

2.2 – Gaining and Losing Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, Senators gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple Senators are part of the conquering army, the Senator controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding Senator is considered the conqueror. If no Senator is involved in the battle whatsoever, the Basileus is considered the conqueror. [...]

So if you capture a province, it is yours if you have no lord. If Tagaris wants to promise that he will pass the territory on to the Emperor, I see no problem with that. But what if someone else takes the province? Would they then be forced to pass the province on? Would that violate their rights under Charter clause 2.2?

[TinCow]

*The Protoasecretes rises and clears his throat.*

As a point of order, I must make clear that Edict 1.10 is not valid as written. The Edict directly contradicts the Imperial Charter, and thus it must be in the form of an Amendment, not a normal Edict. As Senator Efstratios Monomachos does not have sufficient rank to propose an Amendment, I hereby declare Edict 1.10 void and it will not be put to the vote. This will not count against the Senator's Edict limit, though, and he may freely propose a new Edict or alter his current one in a manner that makes it legal.

[The Lemongate]

Anastasios who has been discussing in private with Tagaris lifts his head and reminds the assembly:

Senator Tagaris and I are trying to resolve this issue in private. I strongly urge everyone to please be patient.

[TinCow]

*The Protoasecretes rises and clears his throat... again*

Eh, I appear to be getting forgetful in my old age. It has been brought to my attention that Edict 1.9 also violates the Charter in the same manner as Edict 1.10, namely by altering the manner in which provinces are allocated. Accordingly, it must be proposed as an Amendment, which Senator Methodios Tagaris cannot do. Edict 1.9 is thus also void unless it is altered to make it legal. Similarly, the invalid Edict 1.9 will not be counted against Senator Tagaris' limit.

As a word of advice, Edict 1.9 can be made legal by deleting the following words: "After the village of Durazzo has been conquered, it will belong to the Empire and the Basileus, and only the Basileus, can do with it as he sees fit."

Of course, I remind everyone that the Senate is free to dispute my rulings on these matters. In such a case, it would be up to the Basileus to determine their outcome, though in the case of Edict 1.9, the job would fall to a group of the highest ranking Senators, in this case the Comes, as Edict 1.9 directly involves the Basileus himself.

[flyd]

Well, I must say, that has been the most frivolous argument since the one about Antioch not too long ago. I am glad to see so many wishing to scramble for Durazzo, as the only person who actually owns adjacent land. As long as somebody captures it and holds it before the Venetians, I am happy. Remember the Venetians? I am sure they have designs for it too. Why, their nobles may be arguing at this very moment the assembly of their republic about who should be the one to take it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Now that the straw man, red herring, ad hominem, false assumption, and slanderous arguments regarding an illegal edict whose true purpose has been exposed is over, I believe I have been vindicated. So, my good Markianos, I welcome your support in my claims over the rebels of Durazzo. Rest assured, the Venetians and the Sicilians will have to get through me in order to get to you, and the Emperor.

As we have already seen, sometimes I can be a formidible opponent. I will bring this same passion here to the defense of the realm.

[_Tristan_]

I shall soon reformulate the Edict 1.9 to make it legal.

[The Lemongate]

Anastasios who seems on the verge of another long tirade, but tries to refrain himself:

Senators! Let this dispute be resolved by those who see an interest in it! The edict will be re-written in a form that will be both legally correct, without the need for long interpretation and will not ruffle the feathers of any Senators involved! Now will you please give us the time to work on this and propose you an accord?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Efstratios rises again to immediately protest, but notices he is being asked to be quiet by an ally this time.

An ally... what in the bloody blazes is that???


ANNOUNCEMENT:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

After careful review of the Charter, I have not technically sworn fealty to anyone in the proper manner I am supposed to, and am not allowed to while the Senate is in session. Therefore my allegiances are not clearly defined, except to the Emperor himself.

[Privateerkev]

After careful review of the Charter, I have not technically sworn fealty to anyone in the proper manner I am supposed to, and am not allowed to while the Senate is in session. Therefore my allegiances are not clearly defined, except to the Emperor himself

OOC: You have sworn fealty to Anastasios in the House of Asteri thread. He accepted the oath.

TC is allowing oath swearing during this first Senate session since we can't really affect the voting power of the Senators.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's what I thought, and then I was contacted by a certain someone who shall remain TinCow.

Did I word it improperly?

[Andres]

2.2 – Gaining and Losing Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, Senators gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple Senators are part of the conquering army, the Senator controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding Senator is considered the conqueror. If no Senator is involved in the battle whatsoever, the Basileus is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, TinCow will determine which Senators receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per Senator. Senators can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Senator, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a Senator who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5).

As you can see, the Charter does not mention anything about the right of Senators to conquer a given province. The Charter does not forbid that a Senator must have the permission of the Basileus before conquering a certain settlement.

Therefor, I think that an Edict which states that the approval of the Basileus is required before a certain Senator can conquer a certain province, is not illegal. Thus, Edict 1.9 can be rephrased as follows:

No Senator is allowed to conquer the settlement of Durazzo without the explicit previous permission of the Basileus. The Basileus is free to grant the Senator of his choice the military or financially means necessary for a succesful conquest.

This Edict does not violate the Charter and has the same effect as the original Edict 1.9 b would have had. Once the settlement of Durazzo has been conquered conform Edict 1.9, it will belong to the Senator who is considered the conqueror following rule 2.2 of the Charter.

Can I ask one of my esteemed colleagues to propose this rewritten edict 1.9?

[_Tristan_]

As I said earlier, or to some of you, I am more a military man than a politician and thus liable to errors in drafting legislation.

I hope this shall find your whole support.

Edict 1.9c : No Senator is allowed to conquer the settlement of Durazzo without the explicit previous permission of the Basileus. The Basileus is free to grant the Senator of his choice the military or financially means necessary for a successful conquest. The village is to be occupied, no harm shall be done to its civilian population once all resistance is dealt with. (OOC : Occupy, no sacking, no exterminating)

[Andres]

I second Edict 1.9 (c) , as rephrased.

[Privateerkev]

I second Edict 1.9

[The Lemongate]

Bah... take the damned village and be done with it since you will simply not hear any sense.

Traitor!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Now I must wonder, why just Durazzo?

Why only this province and not all the others? Hmmm?

[Privateerkev]

Strator Khristophoros Diogenis already made this clear. Durazzo is the only nearby village. A village can be taken by just a general because there are no gates to batter down. Since a general can move freely by himself, an Edict was needed to prevent a general from taking the province without the Emperor's permission. With all other settlements, the Emperor can make sure they are not taken by simply denying troops to the army. Which would make it impossible to bash down the gates. Only the Emperor and the Caesar have legal armies. Everyone else only has troops with the express permission of the Emperor.

[00jebus]

*staying quiet uptil now, the still boyish figure coughs loudly, drawing attention to himself, more accidentaly than on purpose, heads shift to look at him, thinking on his feet but slightly red-faced he says*


I must agree with Monomachos..... why argue over what is, currently, a backwater?
I could understand the arguments over Antioch, and I would certantly understand if this debate was over who will gain Ragusa or.... Venice itself, but its not, some backwater village in some province that saw its best days long ago, is that really what the magnaura should debate about?

So long as someone in the empire controls it, its people are worth protecting and the village developing. it could be my youthful idealism speaking here, but other than that, why would it matter?

With that aside, I'd like to draw attention to the Turks, who pose the greatest threat to roman security, what should our policy be to that confedaration of barbarians?

I for one, feel we should not attack them.... yet
but rather shift our forces eastward whenever we can, so that the empire may retake Antollia as soon as she is able.

*He looks rather pleased with his quick thinking as he retakes his seat*

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh, it's very simple Lisas...

This province is being argued about because that way, certain senators will be able to snatch the province from those who claimed it. Everything else is a smokescreen for their real intentions.

Those with blind ambition have forsaken cooperation and reason and have decided to go with rivalry, greed, and legislating politics. But fear not, because surely they do this for the good of the Empire, and the unity of our people.

With such ravenous desire and naked avarice over a small assembly of huts, one questions how bloodthirsty some senators will be over real provinces.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Patriarchal Representative:

My Lords, it appears that His Eminence Nicholas III has just completed a second Proclamation for this year. While this is highly unusual and will generally not be repeated, it appears as if His Eminence is issuing a challenge to all of the rulers of the Empire's cities.

[The Lemongate]

I fully support the Patriarch's request, and should I ever come into the possession of a settlement, I will strive to complete these structures, even should an other senator complete them first. There is no reason to deprive our people of their houses of faith and of the food that keeps our armies strong.

[Privateerkev]

I am saddened that the Patriarch even had to make this request. Giving our people places of worship and food should just be something we all do.

[The Lemongate]

Though we all agree about our faith, not everyone is as proactive as you or I in upholding it, Comes. We might have certain theological differences, but at least, I believe we can agree on the importance of the Church.

The Patriarch was right in reminding every senator of our obligations to the Church.

[Privateerkev]

Yes but he shouldn't have to remind us. This is something that we should have been focusing on anyways.

So while I am glad the Patriarch spoke out, I wish we never put him in the position where he felt he had to speak out.

[The Lemongate]

True, I have to agree.

[pevergreen]

Michail rises

"Friends, Oaths will be sworn in time, I am sure. There has been a rather large disruption in the Magnaura, let us give some time to restoring order"