OOC Thread and Chatroom

[mini]

They don't have to. Anything that contradicts the rules are against the rules. Since the rules aren't followed, it should be obvious that edicts that contradict them are invalid.
it not against the rules to contradict edicts, because it isnt stated :)






This is a non sequiteur if I ever saw one. That you have no benefit from the creation of the house does not mean that you're incapable of proposing something that is against the rules.
I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.



What you would vote for doesn't mean a thing since such an edict would be invalid. It's not a personal thing, it's just the rules.
Again, there is no legal point stating a contradictionary edict is invalid.



As I've already said, you're dead wrong. The * only marks which rules you can modify through a Charter Amendment and which you cannot. That's it. It doesn't mean you get to ignore the others, with or without an edict.
Again, the Senate (and congressional Session) IS A DEMOCRACY. Which means you can put anything you want to the vote. And since there is nothing in the constitution (in the rules) that say that edicts which contradict the rules are invalid, this issue can be put to the vote.

1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.

2) Stop accusing me of breaking the rules. I have done nothing IC which gives you the right to accuse me of such a thing. Beyond some sound advie to Mooks, I have done nothing wrong here. So I appreciate you ceasing your personal assaults, thankyouverymuch.

3) Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.

4) keep the game a little bit dynamic ffs. Otherwise we might go play chess instead for some real excitement.

[The Celtic Viking]

1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.

As far as something being allowed if it's not forbidden, that's true. However, creating a house without a sponsoring praetor is forbidden in the rules. Edicts that contradict the rules are automatically invalid because they would break the rules.

What you're saying here is "unless the rules say we can't break the rules, we can break the rules". That is ridiculous.

I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.

Calling me names now, are you? That's... great. No, seriously, just stop that. It does no good.

As for the rest, I suggest you read what I said once more, because you'd then perhaps note that I haven't accused you of breaking any rule.

Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.

*Yawn*

The historic Romans' laws are completely irrelevant here. The game's rules are the ones we are obliged to follow, and if you want them to be more according to the historic laws, then you must make Charter Amendments first, and they must then be seconded and be voted for by the senate.

[The Celtic Viking]

And now you edit out your personal attack against me and replace it with a plea for me to stop making personal attacks against you (something which I've never done)?

That's rich.

[mini]

And now you edit out your personal attack against me and replace it with a plea for me to stop making personal attacks against you (something which I've never done)?

That's rich.

as far as i can see, the nitwit is still standing there :)

[SwissBarbar]

I can't believe you still are arguing

[mini]

it will require navarro's intervenance, since he's GM

I hope I can have a word with him before he decides.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

This is hillarious. I suggest we all step back and take a breath. Then, re-read the posts and take another breath, to get all the emotion out. Then, let's talk about this logically and calmly.

[/Bean\]

Oh great, while I've been contructing a long speech to combat TCM's riduculous lying, you two have been callign each other names...that's really mature.

-This legally proves I am not really stressy

[Iskander 3.1]

Excellent speech, TCM.

[mini]

Excellent speech, TCM.

second.

[GeneralHankerchief]

[/Bean\]

Excellent speech, TCM.

No..

Yes!

[Iskander 3.1]

Also an excellent speech, Bean...of course, Sextus Cornelius must form his own opinions...

[mini]

As far as something being allowed if it's not forbidden, that's true. However, creating a house without a sponsoring praetor is forbidden in the rules. Edicts that contradict the rules are automatically invalid because they would break the rules.

What you're saying here is "unless the rules say we can't break the rules, we can break the rules". That is ridiculous.

Again, there is nothign which says that edicst cannot contradict rules.


Calling me names now, are you? That's... great. No, seriously, just stop that. It does no good.

As for the rest, I suggest you read what I said once more, because you'd then perhaps note that I haven't accused you of breaking any rule.

actually you have

*Yawn*

The historic Romans' laws are completely irrelevant here. The game's rules are the ones we are obliged to follow, and if you want them to be more according to the historic laws, then you must make Charter Amendments first, and they must then be seconded and be voted for by the senate.

[/B]

THE SPIRIT of the game is the most important. The spirit of this game is a roman republic, therefore we should act like it in spirit. The Roman Senate was a democracy with first true Law. What I have advised Mooks to do, acts within the law and withing the spirit of the game. If you seriously want this game to be rigid and static, by all means, everybody declare that this is not allowed and i'll go find myself another game.