OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[GeneralHankerchief]

The only thing I remember, offhand, was pevergreen's avatar of Michail breaking his Komnenodoukai oath and becoming an unaligned Senator. His vassal, Hypatios, reswore with the Komnenodoukai. (I forget exactly who, will check that out in a minute.)

-edit- Hypatios, as Elite Ferret, is now sworn to Ioannis Kantakouzinos. Michail broke his oath to Lisas Attelaiatas and, IIRC, did not swear another one.

All splits were amiable.

[Smowz]

I would like to raise a point on the Charter Amendments that have been proposed by Ignoramus.

They both seem very IC types of proposals that would usually be termed as Edicts. Edicts that seem at the present moment in time to be desperately out of favour, presumably because players are rather sick of opening up an edict for debate, gather votes for it only for players to wantonly break them.

Plus of course Edicts are only in place for the duration of a term as I understand it, making them less powerful than they were before (as if they had any true power anyway given that if the Megas and the Basileus disagree with them they might as well have failed the vote). The problem that has been highlighted before that there have been no punishments listed for the breaking of such edicts and players have lacked the power or the strength (or perhaps the courage) to stand up for their edicts.

However, I feel that the Charter, rather exists as a rule set of sorts, to help the playability of the the actual game of LotR (or indeed any other game that may spring from it, such as WotB etc.). Anyone who breaks these rules are to be punished at the discretion of the moderator rather than in game consequences. This creates as uncomfortable situation as far as the second Charter Amendment that Igno has proposed - a player becomes a head of house and then forgets/refuses to make an oath to the basilues whoever that may be at the time. What would happen then? Well seemingly that player would be punished by Tincow (unfairly imo).

I hope there is a point in there somewhere, I wonder if that is going to be the future of the senatorial sessions? Whereby we get some interesting IC debates, but ultimately we get endless tinkering (in this case pointless and somewhat cosmetic) with the charter.

[rossahh]

You've got a point there, Smowz. I especially agree with your point that the Charter is more a set of rules on how to play LotR.

[AussieGiant]

As far as I understand things, CA's are IC longer term standing points that players should adhere to. They can be broken just like Edicts.

The rules are entirely separate from CA's.

CA's are used to change the rules because they require 2/3 majority to pass and are therefore a far stronger mandate than Edicts. This is regarded as a necessary level of agreement in order to change the rules.

I actually don't know where the find the currently active CA's and Edicts which is a little strange.

TC will be able to outline things far better than me, but both rossahh and Smowz statements are not entirely accurate in my view.

It is also very important that everyone understands these things as they are the foundation for common comprehension levels.

[Smowz]

As far as I understand things, CA's are IC longer term standing points that players should adhere to. They can be broken just like Edicts.

The rules are entirely separate from CA's.

CA's are used to change the rules because they require 2/3 majority to pass and are therefore a far stronger mandate than Edicts. This is regarded as a necessary level of agreement in order to change the rules.

I actually don't know where the find the currently active CA's and Edicts which is a little strange.

It is also very important that everyone understands these things as they are the foundation for common comprehension levels.

Perhaps then I need some clarification on what a Charter amendment is. My impression was that a Charter amendment was to be a rule change or addition to the rule set. That once passed all players were to adhere to or face the consequences as decided by the moderator of this game.

I find your statement here contradictory - you say the rules are enterely seperate from CA's but then go on to say that they are in fact used to change the rules.

All the charter amendments seems to be placed in the Game rules by TC (who does a really super job btw). So therefore surely all the Charter amendments are going to be subject to the following:

The following rules are binding on all players of LotR, and they will be enforced.

1. Do not violate the LotR Game Rules. Edicts may be freely violated, but Rules may not.

So again, we have a situation whereby if the second CA passes - a house leader is required by the rules to swear alliegience to the Basilues or face punishment by the moderator.

I would like to think that they are meant as you said AussieGiant at the beginning that this particular CA is a IC longer term standpoint like an edict that lasts longer(say for Ioannis Komenus' reign). In which case this needs to be clarified.

[AussieGiant]

I find your statement here contradictory - you say the rules are enterely seperate from CA's but then go on to say that they are in fact used to change the rules.

This is not a contradiction.

The rules are the rules, Charter Amendments are the mechanism by which the rules are changed once the game has started.

The rules were created at the start of the game and there were no CA's required.

If you were to check out CA's from KotR you would find most of them being IC issues and very few of them involving changes to the rules.

An Edict requires over half the influence in the vote. It lasts for the term of the Megas.

A CA requires 2/3 of the influence in the vote and stays in affect until it is counter by another CA or its time limit expires.

CA's are far more powerful.

I think the issue here is that for the most part all CA's in this game have involved rule changes and not "Normal" IC laws, which I am familiar with in playing the previous game.

TC's description of Edicts and Amendments is clear, however the example he gives for Amendments relates to rules only. I believe this is not accurate.

-EDIT-

Check any of the Diet sessions from KotR. CA's are in all the time and they rarely had anything to do with the rules...there were 18 Diet sessions in the end I believe.

CA's were usually very important pieces of IC legislation that had wide ranging impact on the game but IC for the most part. TC has used CA's as the exclusive method of changing the rules once the game has began as it is the best way to do so.

Igno has used CA's in this instance to try and enforce this consistently and if passed would be adhered to IC or players would face IC reprisals. There will be very few instances of GM intervention given then new rule set that passed at the last Magnaura session.

[_Tristan_]

I do not quit agree with you AG on the CA thing.

From my point of view, CA are almost strictly OOC which is demonstrated by the way they are incorporated into the rules.

Once they are rules, they are no breaking them IC because sanctions should be OOC. This is made perfectly clear in the quote of Tincow by Smowz, which can be summarized so "Break any Edict but do not break the Rules (and the CA that become part of said rules once voted).

Otherwise if we simply had to adhere to CA or face IC complications, Methodios' life would have been much easier and we would be at war with almost half of Christendom but for CA 2.1.

I think we are missing one type of legislation in the game some sort of self-reconducting or long-lasting Edict (something which would have prevented us from having to propose at each Senate session an Edict against extermination).

[Smowz]

Right okay,

So really the Charter Amendments are not adaptions to the rules that are to be enforced by TC, they are much like edicts that are to be enforced in character within the game itself.

Sorry I was unclear on the matter, of course I was not a part of the previous KotR or the WoTB games. I found it somewhat baffling how in the senatorial session we were voting on a charter amendment which was an important rule change and then we change to get more IC ones like the interesting ones Ignoramus has suggested. As you have said in this game in particular the lines have become blurred.

My mind is somewhat at rest, though I hope you can see how it may be confusing for a first timer like me!!!

Consider myself over the head.

[Ituralde]

I'm back. Or rather my family is gone!

I see where your problems are coming from Tristan and that the distinction between sections of the Charter that deal with IC concerns and OOC concerns (what you call rules) is difficult, but that's the way it has been handled in the past. That's why some CAs would be labeled OOC CAs to clarify that they adress OOC mechanics that deal with the foundations of the game.

Normal CAs are exactly what you want, a long-term and stronger Edict. Edicts only last for one Senate Session and can not go against the Charter. CAs last until they are revoked and can change or contradict the Charter. Breaking normal CAs is absolutely doable IC and should lead to IC consequences.

While trying to explain this and also while thinking about it this is probably one of the core reasons why we had problems before and maybe will have again. The question becomes once again, what are IC rules, what is OOC rules and what falls somewhere in-between.

That's why I hardly ever reference the Charter in an IC context. It's just too confusing for me.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[_Tristan_]

One question : Ignoramus has granted the Privy Seal to Andronikos (Woad&fangs) but Aleksios' will granted it to Makedonios (PK's avatar).

So shall we consider that part of his will as invalid (so I can't see a reason why it should be) or shall we strike it out of Andronikos' retinue ?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I think Igno used this Basileus' power:

(7) Twice per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any Senator to themselves or any other Senator. This power cannot be used on any Senator who is in a state of War with the Basileus.

Also.. perhaps we could call IC CA's differently? Charter Edicts?

[_Tristan_]

I think Igno used this Basileus' power:

If that's the case, that's a bit lame, taking the fact that PK is away into consideration.

It also would be nice to know if that is considered a use of that power to keep track of the number of times it has been used.

[Rowan]

Also.. perhaps we could call IC CA's differently? Charter Edicts?

Or OOC ones Rules Amendments. In any case I don't think it makes any sense that TC's CA that got rid of the Private Armies is at rule level equal to Igno's loyalty-CA. One is part of the OOC framework that makes this game possible, the other is purely IC. (And if I ever get to be a top bun I'll "forget" to swear loyalty just to make my point.)

And I think he used Basileus' Power #19:

(19) The two offices of Lord High Chancellor and Lord High Steward, as well as the Privy Seal, can be assigned by the Basileus to any Senator. Only one of them may be assigned to each general, and each adds +1 to that Senator's Stat Influence. If the Basileus chooses to keep these retinue himself, he does not receive the Stat Influence bonus. (Added by CA 3.1.)

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Perhaps he used that power indeed.

And I agree with you. The CA's proposed by TC are not equal to the ones Igno proposed. One of them are OOC and others IC ones.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Could some one correct me..
What will the new rules tell about the ships? Can everybody board and take command of the fleet that is not in the port?
And can everyone merge his fleet with another one(assuming that there are no avatars on it)?
And finally, is it possible to merge with a fleet where are agents on it(no avatars but just agents)? Agents belong to Megas and this is why I asked this.

[AussieGiant]

I recommend EVERYONE checks these types of threads out from KotR.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92210

This is an example of what I am talking about.

Not one of those CA' is OOC....there are about 18 voting polls from the last game and I'd say there are about 2 or 3 CA's which related to OOC rules. ALL the rest are IC CA's which if passed go into permanent effect and will lead to IC issues just like Edicts.

There should be no confusion here gentlemen. There are certainly OOC CA's in which the mechanism of a CA is used to have the rules changed. This is done because of the stringent nature of getting a CA passed AND the fact that CA's are PERMANENT until countered, removed or their timing expired (if there was a timing part of the CA). This characteristic is an IC consideration that also works OOC when applied of the rules of the game.

In essence it works well in both instances.

CA's have been traditionally IC. The issue with this game was the new rule set which had to be substantially altered in order to get this game workable. There was an unprecedented amount of CA's which related to OOC Rules. This is not the normal use of a CA though.

CA's are IC for the most part. The only thing you need to do is determine whether a CA is an IC issue or an OOC issue...it should not be too hard to work out.

In future TC can certainly ensure that OOC CA's are marked accordingly.

In this situation Igno is using CA's as they are designed. He wants a blanket, ongoing rule that all of you must abide by OR face IC issues. Swearing fealty and recruiting. If he used an edict he would have to re submit these every Megas term. He doesn't want to do this so he is using a CA to avoid this.

This is why CA's and Edicts are distinguished in the powers of the various ranks. They are different.

Hope this clarifies everything a little more.

[Rowan]

AG, Thanks for the clarification. It makes me feel a lot better about all this. Being one of the newbie players I don't have the experience from the previous games to draw on and, frankly speaking, the tone of this game has been one of rules lawyering and OOC punishments :(

And in the same vein, I think we should have a separate mechanism for rule changes because character influence shouldn't play part in those votes. Luckily the changes this far have had a fairly universal acceptance so this hasn't been an issue.

[AussieGiant]

Glad to be of help Rowan.

And yes, this game has had a rough start but I hope now we can settle down into a far more IC driven game where we stay IC for the most part.

When TC updates the rule changes then we can see in one thread how everything will be handled.

To TC when he gets on...where can we view all CA's that are in affect?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Now, could someone help me with my questions too.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Could some one correct me..
What will the new rules tell about the ships? Can everybody board and take command of the fleet that is not in the port?
And can everyone merge his fleet with another one(assuming that there are no avatars on it)?
And finally, is it possible to merge with a fleet where are agents on it(no avatars but just agents)? Agents belong to Megas and this is why I asked this.

[Ramses II CP]

As I understand it, yes, you can board any ship that isn't at a dock owned by another House. Since those ships then become yours, you can merge them with any fleet you come across (Not at the docks of another House or containing another avatar) and thus take control of those ships as well.

Agents do not defend an army stack from being taken so I would take for granted that they won't defend a stack of ships from being taken either.

[Ituralde]

AG, Thanks for the clarification. It makes me feel a lot better about all this. Being one of the newbie players I don't have the experience from the previous games to draw on and, frankly speaking, the tone of this game has been one of rules lawyering and OOC punishments :(

And in the same vein, I think we should have a separate mechanism for rule changes because character influence shouldn't play part in those votes. Luckily the changes this far have had a fairly universal acceptance so this hasn't been an issue.

I think the special part of making OOC CAs was that people were supposed to vote on them OOC and there were no weighed votes, meaning everybody's vote counted the same for the purpose of these rule changing CAs.

I agree that there has been entirely too much focus on rules lawyering and OOC punishment. I am confident that this will get less and less the more comfortable we all get with the rules and in the meantime don't hesitate to ask, that's what this thread is for.

[TinCow]

I see where the confusion is coming from on the enforcement of game rules and CAs. I don't have an easy solution to that except to say just try and trust me to handle it properly. I am going to do my best to keep all conflict resolution IC in every possible case. Any CA which is by nature an IC piece of legislation can almost certainly be resolved in an IC manner. If so, I will not be using any 'mod' powers to uphold the law and the players will have to use the various IC means to do it. I will simply use my judgment to determine what is IC and what is OOC on a case-by-case basis as problems arise.

In the particular situation of the CA being discussed, since it is fully IC I would not use 'mod' powers to enforce it. I reserve the right to do that for rule violations which threaten to 'break' the game, but I doubt there will be many IC CAs which would pose that problem.

Please note that the entire 'code of conduct' thing is in force in spirit only. I need to re-write a bunch of stuff, including that, due to the recent rule changes and discussions we have had. You don't need to creep around on tip-toes for fear of getting spanked by me for breaking a rule. Do your best to follow the rules and ask questions when you need to. All problems will be resolved IC if possible. If it's not possible, warnings will be given before any more extensive action will be taken. I sincerely believe it is likely that there will never be another case where I have to issue an OOC punishment for a rule violation.

To TC when he gets on...where can we view all CA's that are in affect?

All rules that have been modified by CAs have a notation after them in the rule set. It will say (Modified by CA X.Y) or something after the text.

[Cecil XIX]

Beg your pardon GH, but I believe you've calculated the influence wrong, as per Tincow's post here.

Off the top of my head, Ioannis's authority, and thus his influence, is three, Nevuolos is the Megas so his influence is 2, Methodios being the Caesar gives him stat influence for a total of 2, and Armatos got rid of some bad retinue/traits and now has an influence of 3. (Huzzah)

I actually kept my own tally, although I wasn't as thorough as I would have been if I had wanted to base the results off it. Still, to the best of my knowledge it's accurate for the above, the Comes and Strators, and Apionnas.

CA E3.1
For - Apionnas (1), Armatos (3), Klimis (1), Ioannis (3), Zigavinos (1), Andronikos (1): 10/20
Against - Theophylaktos (1), Aleksios(1), Tiverios(1), Nevoulos (2), Methodios (2): 7/10

CA E3.2
For - Apionnas (1), Armatos (3), Klimis (1), Ioannis (3), Aleksios (1), Zigavinos (1), Andronikos (1): 11/20
Against - Theophylaktos (1), Tiverios (1), Nevoulos (2), Methodios (2): 6/10

[Smowz]

This ones a nailbiter all right. If Cecils figures are correct it means neither pass....

The senators all get their calculators out!!!

[Rowan]

I forgot to vote

[_Tristan_]

Beg your pardon GH, but I believe you've calculated the influence wrong, as per Tincow's post here.

I think Cecil got the calculations right.

[Ignoramus]

You also forget that woad& fangs and AussieGiant get +1 to their influence due to holding the Privy Seal and being Lord High Chancellor respectively.

Edit: And the traits that Ioannis has do add up to 4 authority, it's just that the stat bar only shows 3.

[ULC]

You also forget that woad& fangs and AussieGiant get +1 to their influence due to holding the Privy Seal and being Lord High Chancellor respectively.

Edit: And the traits that Ioannis has do add up to 4 authority, it's just that the stat bar only shows 3.

Yes, but was the transfer not in effect AFTER the session began? If so, then it doesn't count.

[Rowan]

Here we go again

[_Tristan_]

Plus the fact that the Privy Seal may not have been Ignoramus to give (per Aleksios' will)