Imperial Diet & Rules

[phonicsmonkey]

The Prinz.

Hear Hear! The rebel Zirn should not enrich himself at the expense of the Reich if he is not prepared to swear allegiance.

However, mein Kaiser, your statement seems to highlight a contradiction at the heart of our Charter, wherein your quoted 6.11 seems to contradict clause 3.4 which states:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

3.4 The acquisition and allocation of new settlements is determined by a multi-step process involving the Kaiser and the Diet. First, a settlement cannot legally be captured unless an edict was passed in the previous session authorizing it’s conquest. An edict can only authorize taking one settlement, each settlement requires it’s own edict. The session after a province is conquered, the Diet will automatically vote on granting the conqueror, which is defined as the General leading the army which first entered the settlement, the province as a fief to be held by him and his successors in perpetuity. This vote requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and should it not pass than the province passes to the King who may grant it as a fief to any avatar as soon as he sees fit. A noble who holds one or provinces in violation of this rule should be considered an outlaw, and have his property seized.

How are we to reconcile this? Is 3.4 to be considered repealed or should we continue to vote on the allocation of captured settlements in the way I had proposed to do with Innsbruck? I have no doubt in this case that the assembled Electors would vote to deny Genoa to the rebel, but it strikes me that in the future we may need to clarify this process.