Casus Belli System

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

This actually sounds pretty good. I support it.

[Eleatic 1033]

Oren has issued an Embargo on Malinor, denying you access to their centers of trade.

 

+1.

[calculusdesola 1658]

34 votes and counting.  I want to hear from more of the community on this.

 

Keep on voting and discussing.  The current rules are ridiculous.  Let's make something happen, folks.

 

 

+1 from me. The only thing I'd suggest is adding the killing of authority figures (Orenian Royalty + Council Members, Dwarven Council members, Elven Sohaer and Okarirs, Orcish Rex, Targoth, High Shaman and Wargoths) in another's territory with the permission, condonance, or order of another authority figure (as said above).

Also with a Casus Belli system I don't think there's really any need for a Warclaim Team.

 

That's a good observation.  I don't see it being necessary either, really.  Just GMs needed to double check they're all followed.  Halfling GMs, preferably.

[Cat Evocation 3728]

Honestly why isn't this a thing? I love the whole idea and its neatly written. The idea to push for more role play based war claims and preventing the useless and trolly asshat war claims is the best way to handle the situation rather than slamming a massive wall on one of the servers -MAIN- role play branches, War and national changes. Very good read +1.

[blindmind 350]

As lofty as this reads, I fail to see the system behind it. I can see its value in roleplay to a limited extent. The reason I say this is because its definitions are entirely subjective, which has always been the greatest, immutable flaw of the server and its community.

 

I see the idea would be to erect a world council which would enforce the ideals set by the document, but I cannot see that holding much sway over world politics unless some supernatural force exerts its will over the nations and their war machines. The most I can see this offering is a list by which to tabulate the innumerable slights between nations as one nation steam rolls another. A world council cannot succeed so long as power is not balanced and politics are so easily manipulated (the greatest and worst thing about them).

 

Much like the actual UN, a world council serves as a courtesy that isn't always extended. Unless a force outside of mortals' control is able to moderate what happens, this would be at the mercy of very unstable roleplay.

 

If we had an OOC team managing this, I would not have much faith in it. My concerns might be assuaged if the Devs were to oversee this and act on what they feel appropriate, as they tend to be far away enough to be indifferent and have the long-term in mind. In this case, I'd like to see a proper "black and white" system written out that objectively details what constitutes war, when its valid, how often it can be waged, its costs, the methods by which it can be declared, how it is determined that war has ended in victory or defeat, etc.

 

What we have here are a nicely written set of terms, justifications, and foggy limitations. To put this simply, if I lead a nation, I would use this. If I managed a minecraft server filled with people separated by culture and disparate perspectives, I would not.  

[calculusdesola 1658]

As lofty as this reads, I fail to see the system behind it. I can see its value in roleplay to a limited extent. The reason I say this is because its definitions are entirely subjective, which has always been the greatest, immutable flaw of the server and its community.

 

I see the idea would be to erect a world council which would enforce the ideals set by the document, but I cannot see that holding much sway over world politics unless some supernatural force exerts its will over the nations and their war machines. The most I can see this offering is a list by which to tabulate the innumerable slights between nations as one nation steam rolls another. A world council cannot succeed so long as power is not balanced and politics are so easily manipulated (the greatest and worst thing about them).

 

Much like the actual UN, a world council serves as a courtesy that isn't always extended. Unless a force outside of mortals' control is able to moderate what happens, this would be at the mercy of very unstable roleplay.

 

If we had an OOC team managing this, I would not have much faith in it. My concerns might be assuaged if the Devs were to oversee this and act on what they feel appropriate, as they tend to be far away enough to be indifferent and have the long-term in mind. In this case, I'd like to see a proper "black and white" system written out that objectively details what constitutes war, when its valid, how often it can be waged, its costs, the methods by which it can be declared, how it is determined that war has ended in victory or defeat, etc.

 

What we have here are a nicely written set of terms, justifications, and foggy limitations. To put this simply, if I lead a nation, I would use this. If I managed a minecraft server filled with people separated by culture and disparate perspectives, I would not.  

 

I won't argue that the system Aetosion and I have proposed is subjective, but it's not exactly self serving.  It was crafted, revised and posted with terms favorable to any or all parties reviewing it, not just my own (in fact I'd go so far as to say if I solely had devised this and not Aetosion, things would be much more biased - I have no shame in admitting that, that is simply LOTC).  That said, the relevance of subjectivity is, in my opinion, debatable.

 

No, a "world council" was not at all what the post suggested.  Merely a set of rules, a clause that nation and military leaders would sign and swear to follow and uphold - the latter, of course, will be argued in the fashion of "what's to stop them from breaking the rules".  Nothing.  Just as there was nothing to stop Napoleon from returning from Elba.  Still, I don't see it this herculean feat to keep these rules upheld by all parties because, again, they're not one sided - and I argue this as merely the one who posted them, rather than their creator (Aetosion).  I'd reckon confidently that this system could be upheld on account of OOC 'chillness' between nation leaders - there has been fire and ice in the past, but it all but settles the lion's share of the time.  It's not exactly a concept so incredibly intricate to understand, and massive amounts of checks and balances on a minecraft rp are redundant and a waste of time - I believe the vast majority of nation and military leaders will agree with me on this.  Now, of course - an outright removal of this 'consensual warclaim' BS is something I gravely support, but also something that has no chance of succeeding from what I've seen thus far, because of "Oren trolls" as is the nickname for any militant human RPers, whom, from what I've personally observed, are a majority amongst the server.  But I digress.  This system is a realistic alternative to such.

 

An OOC team, neither, was suggested, though it may assist if truly unbiased people like shiftnative were able to oversee it.

 

The "black and white" system you suggest, while cool to me, is incredibly advanced - far too advanced for a minecraft online roleplay fantasy server insofar as players (most in their teens) having a good time.  If you had to take most those into account based on minecraft's mechanics, wars would be incredibly and unrealistically rare, activity would decline amongst LOTC's majority, that is militant RPers of any race, and general server entertainment would decrease, by my own approximation, bearing in mind the aforementioned.

[Overland 349]

  I love this idea, it's worth giving it a shot. But might I suggest a few things? (Keep in mind I have never participated in a war other than being on the defence of an occasional raid.)

 

1. Could SupremacyOps' or Lago's (I forget who was the first one to suggest it) rules regarding instant acceptance of war-claims if the enemy raids their territory after the posting of the war claim be added. Apologies if that is already the case.

 

2. Might I suggest the removal of the following article, as I suspect it may be a bit more open for abuse than others. I feel it will have to be further defined to actually prevent loopholes, probably making it better to remove.

 

•Cultural - To defend significant cultural entities or practices from persecution of another state

(e.g. A response to serious defamation of religious artifacts dear to a nation by another nation’s government, or the undue persecution of nationals within another state)

[blindmind 350]

I won't argue that the system Aetosion and I have proposed is subjective, but it's not exactly self serving.  It was crafted, revised and posted with terms favorable to any or all parties reviewing it, not just my own (in fact I'd go so far as to say if I solely had devised this and not Aetosion, things would be much more biased - I have no shame in admitting that, that is simply LOTC).  That said, the relevance of subjectivity is, in my opinion, debatable.

 

No, a "world council" was not at all what the post suggested.  Merely a set of rules, a clause that nation and military leaders would sign and swear to follow and uphold - the latter, of course, will be argued in the fashion of "what's to stop them from breaking the rules".  Nothing.  Just as there was nothing to stop Napoleon from returning from Elba.  Still, I don't see it this herculean feat to keep these rules upheld by all parties because, again, they're not one sided - and I argue this as merely the one who posted them, rather than their creator (Aetosion).  I'd reckon confidently that this system could be upheld on account of OOC 'chillness' between nation leaders - there has been fire and ice in the past, but it all but settles the lion's share of the time.  It's not exactly a concept so incredibly intricate to understand, and massive amounts of checks and balances on a minecraft rp are redundant and a waste of time - I believe the vast majority of nation and military leaders will agree with me on this.  Now, of course - an outright removal of this 'consensual warclaim' BS is something I gravely support, but also something that has no chance of succeeding from what I've seen thus far, because of "Oren trolls" as is the nickname for any militant human RPers, whom, from what I've personally observed, are a majority amongst the server.  But I digress.  This system is a realistic alternative to such.

 

An OOC team, neither, was suggested, though it may assist if truly unbiased people like shiftnative were able to oversee it.

 

The "black and white" system you suggest, while cool to me, is incredibly advanced - far too advanced for a minecraft online roleplay fantasy server insofar as players (most in their teens) having a good time.  If you had to take most those into account based on minecraft's mechanics, wars would be incredibly and unrealistically rare, activity would decline amongst LOTC's majority, that is militant RPers of any race, and general server entertainment would decrease, by my own approximation, bearing in mind the aforementioned.

 

You seem to undermine your first paragraph by referencing Napoleon. This would imply that the rules set out by the document are, in fact, subjective. What may have been wrong for everyone else was clearly right in the eyes of Napoleon. As for the second and third paragraphs, regarding a team of overseers, I was piggy-backing off of other comments you have made outside of the OP. I tend to read the thread as a whole before I post. None of this, however, changes the fact that what the OP shows is not actually any kind of system that would moderate wars in a minecraft server.

 

The bureaucracy of the "black and white" system is a necessary evil. It would be in place for the benefit of those who enjoy war too much and those who don't appreciate it at all. From my own experience, I know that the server would not notice the waning activity of all the players upon which the server apparently hinges. I've seen this argument before and I think its kind of silly. Wars and military-focused roleplay, in its current form, were barely around when the server started rolling. If anything, it was a distant flash-in-the-pan seen in quiet guilds that nobody really bothered with. I would liken it to the flavor of the month that lasted a bit longer than a month. If all these people were to stop doing what they're doing, or leave entirely, their roleplay would be replaced by something else.

 

Besides, wars should be rare and they should be important. Frequent wars betray their significance and undermine the entirety of roleplay behind them. Otherwise, war feels like a skirmish between two gangs looking for a scrap in the crappy part of the city. It just happens, you live with it, you forget, and worry more about your rent check. Life goes on as though your war never happened. 

[zaezae 1098]

Where exactly are these war rp's happening at. Only out of curiosity, but nearly one hundred percent of RP I see when I travel between pointy ears and the hoomans is just RP...

[Vanir 693]

+1, absolutely.

[calculusdesola 1658]

 

You seem to undermine your first paragraph by referencing Napoleon. This would imply that the rules set out by the document are, in fact, subjective. What may have been wrong for everyone else was clearly right in the eyes of Napoleon. As for the second and third paragraphs, regarding a team of overseers, I was piggy-backing off of other comments you have made outside of the OP. I tend to read the thread as a whole before I post. None of this, however, changes the fact that what the OP shows is not actually any kind of system that would moderate wars in a minecraft server.

 

The bureaucracy of the "black and white" system is a necessary evil. It would be in place for the benefit of those who enjoy war too much and those who don't appreciate it at all. From my own experience, I know that the server would not notice the waning activity of all the players upon which the server apparently hinges. I've seen this argument before and I think its kind of silly. Wars and military-focused roleplay, in its current form, were barely around when the server started rolling. If anything, it was a distant flash-in-the-pan seen in quiet guilds that nobody really bothered with. I would liken it to the flavor of the month that lasted a bit longer than a month. If all these people were to stop doing what they're doing, or leave entirely, their roleplay would be replaced by something else.

 

Besides, wars should be rare and they should be important. Frequent wars betray their significance and undermine the entirety of roleplay behind them. Otherwise, war feels like a skirmish between two gangs looking for a scrap in the crappy part of the city. It just happens, you live with it, you forget, and worry more about your rent check. Life goes on as though your war never happened. 

 

From the sound of it, it doesn't appear as though you engage in military RP, much less lead any form of government(s) on the server.  I'm not denying much of anything you're saying nor downplaying your points, but if it doesn't concern you (and wouldn't bother you to begin with - these rules would give wars roleplay significance) - why throw stones?  To me, this sounds like nostalgic Aegisian rhetoric of people who don't really play on the server, though I don't intend to patronize.

 

I, personally, have been leading the Orenian militaristic effort over the past 4 months.  Mirtok and some other leaders of the former Bloc nations have thrown their support around this - people we engaged offensively back in those days.  If I did not believe this system could give true spice to wars and gear them into something the nations of LOTC could maintain via simple cordiality, I would not have posted it on Aetosion's behalf.

 

Calculating the wishes of the server administration combined with various other OOC forces, not much choice is given to the militants of Athera, who - to hell with what it was like in Aegis 3 years ago - make up a very large, if not the largest, and very important slice of the LOTC playerbase today, here and now.  You have the current, disgustingly outdated and unrealistic system where war claims require OOC consent and nations are free to lead forays against your people (a theoretical neutral, peaceful, magical academy, for instance) as much as they want and then promptly decline any retaliatory warclaims and hide as much as they like (or have the administration do so for them); you have, ideally for the militant RPers, a complete removal of the consentual warclaim rule and have those who consistently make a whine about what they call "faction PVPers" simply fortify themselves and take it in roleplay, as any militant RPer would and by god, just tolerate the gung ho RP of those they exasperate time and time again are not tolerant; you have this system favorable to any parties, militant or not, which attempts rather well to establish some IC rules that nation leaders can agree to follow with or without a sole, unbiased OOC monitoring party (such as shiftnative) and, based on its reception by people I have actually warred against, does appear to be within ease of reach; you then have the theoretical system you suggest, which would need to be laid down on paper before I could offer any constructive criticism beyond "I believe that would be /too/ realistic to the point of boredom for those directly involved".

 

This goes to anyone reading the thread - just consider for a moment the perspective of those on the other side of the fence.  We who do military RP, irrespective of our nation or our character's race, despite being a very large and contribute portion of the server, are consistently told we are scum, that we are intolerant "faction PVPers who need to go back to darkage/otc/some other degenerate pvp server" and that we're only on the server to carry such out with an intentional dismay against peaceful, "tolerant", multiracial, magical RP groups.  

 

These are nothing more than insults product of those shedding OOC tears for their loss of pixels on a minecraft server.  All those insults are practically crammed down our throats, all the while we are told we must be tolerant of those who refuse to tolerate us.  This brews unrest amongst the militant RPers who will then target such people who repeatedly OOCly insult and demonize them.  It's a never ending cycle, but, in my opinion, it requires two things to break: for one, a system like this, and secondly, perhaps more relevantly, a look through, say, my perspective from folks like, for instance, the leaders of the Raine Academy or some other neutral RP group.  Read the OP and you'll see that I can and do see through your perspectives - now it's time for you to look through mine.  Let's pass this system through.  Enough of this double standard.  LOTC is not by default an exclusive order of peaceful, magical fairy tale RPers who believe they should receive priority amongst all other groups - LOTC is a conglomeration of many groups with many different RP interests and mannerisms.  Tolerate none or tolerate all.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

Where exactly are these war rp's happening at. Only out of curiosity, but nearly one hundred percent of RP I see when I travel between pointy ears and the hoomans is just RP...

 

Militant RP is not restricted merely to high elves nor humans; the dwarves have it, the Teutons have it, the orcs have it.  More relevantly, the Empire is gung ho from the core.  It has been for the past 3 months.  Saying hello to people on the road or popping into a tavern doesn't count as really engaging yourself into a nation's roleplay.  Read the inner human roleplay or Empire subforums and then seek one of the many militant groups out.  Simple as owt.

 

[zaezae 1098]

I literally know that. I read through human RP /all the time/.

 

I was merely asking because, for as visible that real war is, war on LOTC is just so invisible from my perspective. Playing a darkie, I actually looked for it in Oren (it's where I decided to try for funzies) and I simply could not find any solider doing soilderly things. Found it surprising. I mean, I suppose you could count character's that are obviously soldiers, but if they aren't doing war-things, then it's just normal erray-day RP. 

 

I understand your frustration with insults, but everyday RP can frame war in a realistic and adult sort of way. Defeat becomes just a wee bit more tragic if 'innocent' lives are ruined by a savage war. So like...maybe not describe non-war RP as magical fairy tales. It sounded like an insult when I first read over it.

 

I voted yes and I like war and conflict. 

[blindmind 350]

 

-snip-

 

Take a breather, man.

 

Anyway, I feel like you're dancing around very specific scenarios without mentioning them and associating my arguments with those scenarios. Ironically, I've taken part in a bunch of wars myself, solely on the side of Oren. I only play humans, and I've been in favor of PvP default since the beginning (though that is irrelevant). That said, I still disagree with this. 

 

This document, as it is written, doesn't actually offer anything we can work with. Everything else is pretty off-topic.

 

Also, be careful about using the "this doesn't concern you" argument. For one, war is a global concern assuming I never even set foot on a battlefield. For two, the argument will be turned against you by all the people "[hiding] as much as they like." Its a double-standard, much like the majority of this thread. Regarding this, the post I'm quoting now has been seen countless times in the past, but with the word "militant" replaced with "magic" or "peaceful." By the sound of it, you're through the looking-glass now, Alice.

[Rhia 936]

+1

 

This is the idea I am supporting in the GM thread but I have one issue... How to pick an Unbias GM? All Gms are seen as bias. We need a foolproof way to have this handled. 

[hellfiazz 879]

You don't need unbiased GMs for most cases. The claimant gives their casus belli and then the warclaim goes through. If the defender disputes, claimant clarifies how their casus belli is legitimate. If there is a further dispute, then a GM can get involved. As for preventing bias, either have a GM who's not a member of either faction on their main character, or just have two GMs who have mains in factions that are unaffiliated with one another. If there is a clear display of bias, then a leader of either side could call for a 2nd/3rd opinion with an unaffiliated main, but they don't get to choose exactly who to avoid GM shopping.