OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[Privateerkev]

Woot! Things are speeding up and I fear Ignoramus has not chosen a good time to be away from the game!

I didn't choose that timing but it works out great for me IC. This morning was when I got the PM and I immediately posted it. Perhaps people will learn that the time to do something controversial is not when your about to go away from the internet for a few days...

Fake a PM? What kind of an animal would do such a thing?!

Thispm has been unanswered several times since the elections were concluding.

As Ramses said, do not take it personally. Your lucky the PM reached his inbox at all. Because he has run mafia games, Ig actually has more PM space than most people in this game. Maybe more than anyone now that Andres is gone. But, for some reason, his box is perpetually full. Luckily he now has a profile we can spam until he clears some space.

[OverKnight]

Ah, I've always wanted to say "Guards! Seize him!" in a PBM.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I don't know, I never tried. I didn't become a master of the console until M2TW.

If it doesn't work, there's another method. Teleport the avatar to an island and have them attack a hostile army. When they lose, they will be unable to retreat and they will die. If there isn't an island with a hostile army available to do the dirty dead, you can teleport a rebel stack to the spot, attack it, then teleport it back to its original position. If that doesn't work, there's always the old fashioned way. March the guy into battle with an army that has ranged units. Move the avatar into range of the archers, then have him turn around so that the arrows are hitting him from the rear. Then speed up the time.

Yes, I have used all of these methods at various points in time.

Thanks! Very useful hints!

[pevergreen]

I think he would have 500, like myself.

1000 for mods, or is it 2000. I cant remember.

[deguerra]

muhahahah. executive power for the world!

[AussieGiant]

Ah, I've always wanted to say "Guards! Seize him!" in a PBM.

I must say that was pretty satisfying to hear.

GH, well done on playing such an anoying character.

[Ferret]

Fake a PM? What kind of an animal would do such a thing?!

I echo PK:

I also urge all mafia players to read the green text in my sig

edit: come on, would you trust someone who looks like this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ituralde]

I'v come across an issue and would like to ask the involved factions OOC to help me shed some light on the situation.

There used to be a fort on the border between Yerevan and Tblisi. Now it is gone. The only ones that were allowed to move the garrison which was Turkoman Horse were Kagemusha and I. Now I know that I didn't move them and checking the save that Kagemusha uploaded they were still there then.
In fact it was there at the end of 1125-14 and was gone in 1126. I couldn't find anything about it in the Megas reports either. So if either Kagemusha or Privateerkev have done something with the garrison, just let me know.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[TinCow]

I'v come across an issue and would like to ask the involved factions OOC to help me shed some light on the situation.

There used to be a fort on the border between Yerevan and Tblisi. Now it is gone. The only ones that were allowed to move the garrison which was Turkoman Horse were Kagemusha and I. Now I know that I didn't move them and checking the save that Kagemusha uploaded they were still there then.
In fact it was there at the end of 1125-14 and was gone in 1126. I couldn't find anything about it in the Megas reports either. So if either Kagemusha or Privateerkev have done something with the garrison, just let me know.

Cheers!

Ituralde

This looks like PK's work, but it also could very well be legal. This is in your SOT post:

Owned Fort:N/A

The last time the SOT was changed was 08-25-2008 at 03:10, which is 4 hours after PK took the save and likely made this change. Did you have instructions about that fort before you made that edit? If not, then it was a legal move.

[Ituralde]

It's not my fort, since it is in the Yerevan region it belongs to Kagemusha. I know what his SoT says, but I don't know whether he has had any arrangements with PK about it. Since it is mentioned nowhere in the Megas thread I just wanted to ask the partys involved before I start pointing any fingers.

[TinCow]

Ah, that's different then.

[Kagemusha]

And my SOT says clearly that the garrisons of my forts are not to be moved by anyone other then me or Ituralde. If Makedonias gets cought now of breaking the rules, things get very interesting.

[AussieGiant]

This is not the direction I was hoping this game was going in.

[Kagemusha]

Me neither. And im going to propose some legistlation about garrisons in the next senate session, so things would be bit more clear and this kind of things would not happen.

[Dafuge]

I can assure that everything Makedonios has done is legal and checked with TinCow to my knowledge.

[Ramses II CP]

It's not my fort, since it is in the Yerevan region it belongs to Kagemusha. I know what his SoT says, but I don't know whether he has had any arrangements with PK about it. Since it is mentioned nowhere in the Megas thread I just wanted to ask the partys involved before I start pointing any fingers.

Heh, interestingly enough you just referred to it as 'my fort' in the Megas thread. Obviously the SoT should have priority over casual comments, but Kag's SoT was updated on the 26th, which would've been well after PK's first run at the save. What did it say before?

[TinCow]

Assuming this was done by PK (I have learned my lesson and will wait for a response before reacting) there is no need for legislation. It will be dealt with OOC as a rule violation in the manner I indicated before. First time is a warning. Further occurrances result in penalties. Knowing PK, I have no doubt that he will happily rebuild your fort and restore you unit if it was in fact his error.

[Kagemusha]

My SOT was last edited when i private army was available to me. The fort commands were there well before the elections were over.

[Rowan]

So your fort commands have not changed?

[Kagemusha]

Not since they were first posted bit after Itu gave me Yerevan. Hopefully this is just honest mistake of PK.

[AussieGiant]

Her yee her yee I gavel in LotR Court session #45.

Item on the docket today:

"Fort issues in the Yerevan region."

The court would like to hear the defense and prosecution cases by 04:00 Friday the 28th.

Observing proceedings will the District A-G and various judges from the First Circuit.

Also in the stands will be numerous Queen's Council Lawyers from the United Kingdom and Australia.


----------------


TC. Please know I'm not having a go at you.

But we need to sort this out fairly soon. There is no way in hell I would be Megas because I'd simply vet everything through you...that's not the way it should be.

If I don't do that, I'm leaving myself open to a multitude of issues, either perceived or otherwise.

In this particular case, what is plausible to me is that an interpretation was made, actions taken and all this will occur via PM behind the scene's.

I'm pretty sure PK is not going to come out, admit error and correct the issue. If he does who is to say it was intentional or not.

I have no solution at the moment and my attitude is not going to contribute to solving this so I'll shut myself down and watch some more.

[Ramses II CP]

I think I see what PK saw, which is that the units inside Yerevan's fort can't be moved according to your SoT, but they can be disbanded. So I'm guessing he did that, and that caused the fort to go poof. Highly recommended that you add a line specifically preventing disbandment to your SoT.

[_Tristan_]

Knowing PK, the King of loopholes, I'm sure this is it...

[Rowan]

I think we are still at the rules shakedown period. People are looking at the rules, finding new inconsistencies and loopholes, poking at things and sometimes braking them. When the game goes on we build the interpretations and precedents and things will calm down. Hopefully.

[AussieGiant]

and at what point does this become "Last of the Lawyers"?

if people want to be anal about things when the "meaning" and intention is disregarded at will then it's certainly starting to be frustrating.

I'm sure the defence council is comfortable in making their case that: "Well you weren't specific enough in your wording sir."

At which point the answer could quite comfortably be; "Why don't you shove your 'wording' up your fundamental orifice! You knew what the idea was."

And so it goes ad-nauseam, ad-infinitum...the best bit is...in the real world the lawyers just keep on charging by the minute. It's a vicious cycle and that is what I'm worried about.

[AussieGiant]

I think we are still at the rules shakedown period. People are looking at the rules, finding new inconsistencies and loopholes, poking at things and sometimes braking them. When the game goes on we build the interpretations and precedents and things will calm down. Hopefully.

I disagree with you there Rowan.

I'm surrounded by lawyers at work...if I felt motivated enough I'm sure I could scan through the whole rule set and still drive trucks through it that would blow people's mind.

More importantly I could drive whole planets through "other" peoples attempt in their own non-legal way, to write wording that tries to take into account the wording that TC has created, so they achieve, what they "think" they want to have happen.

My point is...it's not about how well TC has written things, because that will be written very well. It's what other people interpret about those words and what they write themselves that I would literally attack.

[TinCow]

I think I see what PK saw, which is that the units inside Yerevan's fort can't be moved according to your SoT, but they can be disbanded. So I'm guessing he did that, and that caused the fort to go poof. Highly recommended that you add a line specifically preventing disbandment to your SoT.

OOOOHHHHH... PK actually specifically asked me to make a ruling about "move" and "disband" in SOT language. I didn't know what he was talking about, but this must have been it. Here is the discussion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have "evil Megas" questions.

If someone's SOT post says, "Do not remove units from this army/settlement/fort" but does not say "do not disband," can I disband the units?

If someone's SOT post says, "Do not disband units from this army/settlement/fort" but does not say "do not remove," can I move the unit out of the army/settlement/fort and then disband it?

If someone's SOT post says, "Do not remove or disband any units from this army/settlement/fort," is that "loop-hole proof?"

While I see where you are going with this, I think there are limits on how much we should exploit SOT language. Still, I'm a friend to chaos and encourage PvP, so there's a balance in everything.

If a post says "do not remove" I would say there's a very strong argument that it covers disbanding as well. The word remove means to change the location of, but it can also mean to eliminate altogether (i.e. remove a threat). For reference, see definition #4:

Main Entry:
1re·move Listen to the pronunciation of 1remove
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈmüv\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
re·moved; re·mov·ing
Etymology:
Middle English remeven, removen, from Anglo-French remuver, removeir, from Latin removēre, from re- + movēre to move
Date:
14th century

transitive verb
1 a: to change the location, position, station, or residence of <remove soldiers to the front> b: to transfer (a legal proceeding) from one court to another
2: to move by lifting, pushing aside, or taking away or off <remove your hat>
3: to dismiss from office
4: to get rid of : eliminate <remove a tumor surgically>

So, I would say remove covers both movement and disbanding.

A post that specifically says only "do not disband" is different, though. Disband has a very specific connotation which is not broad enough to cover movement. However, a unit that starts a turn inside a settlement is under the control of the owner of that settlement. So, if you move the unit outside the city and then immediately disband it on the same turn, you're still disbanding a unit that was inside that city and that the person had control over. That said, "disband" still would allow you to move the unit out of the city... and once that unit starts a turn outside the city, it is no longer covered by that SOT post and you could do whatever you want with it, including disbanding. So, I think it would be perfectly fair for a "do not disband" order to move the units out of the city on one turn, then on the next turn just disband them (or keep them, if that's what you want to do).

If this fort situation is what PK was referring to in his question, then he did ask me about it and I gave him permission because he was able to find a perfectly reasonable (IMO) hole in the language used in the SOT post. I am open to having a discussion about how much the Megas can exploit language in the SOT post, but in this particular case I may have given PK specific permission to do what he did.

[Privateerkev]

I certainly did do it using the rules as I read them.

(4) The Megas Logothetes cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the Megas Logothetes may do freely.

Sorry, but to me, "do not move" does not mean "do not disband." I will accept "do not remove" as meaning "do not disband." Or "leave 2 units" when there are only 2.

"Do not move" means... do not move.

We're encouraged to find loopholes in the SOT.

The Megas has full disband powers unless he is specifically forbidden in the SOT. He can disband every single unit in the Empire in one turn if the SOT doesn't stop him. Therefore, it is the player's responsibility to protect their units from disbanding.

An airtight SOT post would be "Do not move or disband." If you want to be redundant, say "do not remove or disband."

So, as I see it, I didn't break an OOC rule. If I did, TC can let me know and I'll forever treat "do not move" as "do not disband." Though, I did talk to TC when I started my term and asked him his opinion on SOT language. So while the move in question was not done with his express permission, it was done with the aid of his advice. In fact, he's the one who told me to treat "do not remove" just like "do not disband" since removing something can be seen as getting rid of it. An example he used was "removing a tumor."

I await judgment.

*edit*

nevermind, TC just posted.

[TinCow]

Based on that, I can find nothing wrong with what PK did. If there is general consensus that the SOT posts need to be more strictly obeyed and not subjected to loopholing of language, that can be changed. Let's talk about this on a general scale though, not on an attack-PK level, since what he did was vetted by me first.

I have noticed that while the rules are making for a very interesting and enjoyable game, they can also be extremely onerous to implement. I am very eager to hear suggestions on how to improve the rules to make the game more user friendly.

[AussieGiant]

*ding ding*

So there you have it ladies and gents.

Court adjourned ruling will be posted shortly.

--------------------

Please use a Dictionary's for any future queries on the meaning of words.

Please keep in mind the type of dictionary you use as the definitions of these words can vary.

If you are not using the same dictionary as someone else please ensure you PM each other to ratify the language or words used to give meaning to the words you wish to write.

That took me 7 minutes...I'll bill you all accordingly.

Someone let me know if I’m starting to become a pain in the arse.

*EDIT*

I say this because I'd be perfectly able to interpret things in a different way, clear it through TC and then have you all try and guess my "perfectly" reasonable definition of various words ina SOT and anywhere else for that matter.

There is NO one "right" way to define just about anything...the current "version" outlined by PK is HIS current version as vetted by TC. That is until I for example make my case, have it vetted and reach a slightly different definition.

As an example: Take any constitution written for any country and investigate the "different" interpretations of the same words over the course of time!! Sometime there is a pretty substantial impact, to say the least.