Your View: Coups and Regions

[Sky 0]

 

 

Basically, this is instead of causing a storm about how the past was handled and moves onto how we should handle things in the future. We should learn from what has happened, adapt from it and propose ideas to solve such things. Personally I have a couple ideas, but as of making this I am somewhat loopy from health problems, the joys of life am I right? So the simple questions give are here;

 

First off, how do you think coups should be done? What rules should be implemented? Should there be separate region rules for coups, or should region rules encompass over this too? We should have a separate rule section for coups under war in my opinion that works with the server, so here is your chance to give us what you think should be done!

 

Finally, how should region rules be handled? What rules should be in place for members and owners? In terms of every day to day, should they be different depending on war-state or be completely the same every day? We should honestly have a separate rule section for regions so here is your chance to tell us what you think should be done here, too!

Lets make this **** official staff/community/player your view and actually get something put into ******* stone, and no poll because I am going to be going through every post with other GMs (you other gms hit me up fam) and get a beautiful document written.

 

I look forward to your responses!

 

#RideTheSky2k17 #Skymin2k17 #Sky4Admin2k17

[monkeypoacher 8055]

Region owners shouldn't dictate who owns what in roleplay.

 

Anyone should be able to interact with a region if they roleplay it properly.

 

Locks can be pried off in roleplay and items stolen in roleplay.

 

Leaders can be considered legitimate and illegitimate in character, and they can assert their dominance through in-character violence.

 

Circumstances in-character should not change because a global moderator decided to add and remove players from their permissions to interact with an area and remove locks from it.

[L0rdLawyer 2272]

No coups that aren't pure rp based. If they are rp based, do a planned weekday skirmish.

Screw regions, let rp take control. If I want to burn down your house, I should be able to do it. 

[jyecarson 124]

2 minutes ago, Oodles said:

Region owners shouldn't dictate who owns what in roleplay.

 

Anyone should be able to interact with a region if they roleplay it properly.

 

Locks can be pried off in roleplay and items stolen in roleplay.

 

Leaders can be considered legitimate and illegitimate in character, and they can assert their dominance through in-character violence.

 

Circumstances in-character should not change because a global moderator decided to add and remove players from their permissions to interact with an area and remove locks from it.

This ^

[Jygg 330]

I think that for coups, everyone should get slaughtered at a wedding while a catchy song is played and the Stauntons send their regards.
 

 

[Flapman 625]

Tbh just use the primary region owner system. It prevents a lot of ooc intrigue and salt.

[Draeris 3124]

Whereas I agree with @Oodles and @Niccum , the RP precedent is very hard to specify.

 

Reflecting on the Courland fiasco, it became overly apparent that there was a mutual disagreement towards each other's RP ability to occupy and control the region partially. Considering how conflict is usually OOCly driven arrangements could essentially not make sense in RP, or are simply ignored/disputed/fabricated due to this OOC drive.

 

In conflict the parties usually don't give each other a lot of space or the benefit of the doubt, only when they lose or have to defend their victory the RP context and justification matters. To apply a common sense principle in these situations would not function as a lot of times both parties wouldn't be fully open to that, or at least wouldn't put common sense above their own interests (if they are in a way justifiable). 

 

In my own experience high profile coup d'etats are very emotional and messy, and fuel the exact sentiments that would undermine the functionality of this future rule/precedent. To again refer to @Niccum's idea in context of the Courland coup d'etat; me holding Riga with Carnatian forces doesn't matter when the opposing party disputes the existence of your character. One could reason then, that  'the character shouldn't be able to hold anything in the first place'. While in my case that was proven untrue, this argument alone can make very complex and stressful situations; especially when the coups are done by relatives and children. By the time the GM's look through all the chatlogs, witness accounts and forum posts to make a ruling on that accusation alone a week if not weeks would've already passed. In the case of Courland, it was uncertain who would 'win' the ruling for at least 2 weeks. Of course in those 2 weeks my community's momentum died, and Vege's lads got even more disheartened. We both had to wait for that ruling to get anything done, either from irresponsibility or inability to use the disputed land. 

 

But the legitimacy of the character is certainly not the only thing you can dispute: could rebel forces pass the Hanseatic RP border army to occupy Brawm territory? Could Arteh take Metz by just closing the gates, and could Orenian military even get to Metz with RP rebel forces spread through Lorraine? And what GM could even make a rational ruling about this; and wouldn't we enable bias to do more unfair damage? While involving all these RP factors would be ideal, I am unsure if they'd actually lessen the amount of bullshit that comes from coup d'etats. RP is inherently subjective and if you'd really want, you could dispute everything, and proving otherwise isn't always that easy. Though it is always worth the try. 

 

 

[AGP 3169]

1 hour ago, Oodles said:

Region owners shouldn't dictate who owns what in roleplay.

 

Anyone should be able to interact with a region if they roleplay it properly.

 

Locks can be pried off in roleplay and items stolen in roleplay.

 

Leaders can be considered legitimate and illegitimate in character, and they can assert their dominance through in-character violence.

 

Circumstances in-character should not change because a global moderator decided to add and remove players from their permissions to interact with an area and remove locks from it.

this; regions as ooc property causes loads of problems. we region off the land to prevent random griefing and landscarring, not to dictate who can rp in an area

[Pieman 1134]

2 hours ago, L0rdB0rd said:

No coups that aren't pure rp based. If they are rp based, do a planned weekday skirmish.

Screw regions, let rp take control. If I want to burn down your house, I should be able to do it. 

[Jistuma 1996]

Region owners should not have any say in who owns a town, they are an ooc means, and MANY times region owners are there only to add and remove players to the perms, and many times lose their IC positions, pk, move out, go inactive, etc, and still remain on the region owner list. I'm not going on this without proof, ker'nor had Tsuyose and DrunkenSnuggles as region owners even though they weren't involved with the town anymore for months. Though, _leric_ is also a region owner of ker'nor, he's the king, still that would not give him any permission to allow anything to happen in ker'nor because he's never there.

 

If Leric decided to just send 12 players to the town to make a take over from Jayce (current Prince), he should be breaking raid rules by doing that. On the other hand, if 12 citizens of ker'nor do a take over from Jayce (say for example the warhawkes rebel again) and it's done when there could be resistance (peek times I guess), then who rules ker'nor is changed. Yet, Jayce and Leric would not lose region ownership immediatly, though the warhawkes' leader would gain it.

 

Here comes a problem of... what happens next? Rebels took over ker'nor from the inside, they are holding it for now, how would they lose it again? If wood elves raided, would they be able to restore Jayce to power? It would have to be something alike to what the warhawkes did, but would Leo and Leric be able to send more than the raid limit because it's 'their land'? My opinion, no. If a retake happened again, it would have to be with raid limits, plus resistance of the town residents (those that are still around), and in peek times. Failed to do that two days after the take over, and a warclaim would be needed to retake the town.

 

About locks though. Besides public stuff (resident door, public doors, gatehouse, jail cells, etc), there should be at least a week for the removal of locks in the town (though the rebels could do what raids can do on the take over). Even if I believe that the public stuff might be kept, that's really just for convenience, because it's annoying to have to add everyone again, though I agree it's important to not allow enemies inside (resident door normally has permissions to what would be considered enemies.)

 

Back on point, what would allow a coup though? Simple, it has to be done by residents of that town, and any help from outside has to respect the raid rules.

 

Say a military order is stationed in a town, and it rebels, a coup can happen (like I said above). They would only be allowed to have 4-8 members from outside to help keep the town for the three days necessary. A single guard closes the gates and tries a takeover. I mean... alright? Raid rules stand, so that guard plus 4/8 outside help can try and keep the town, and every resident of that town plus 4/8 outside help can try and retake it. Even if the residents are outside the town and can't get back in, they would be able to join the attacking force to retake the town (since it's their home).

 

If the people or guardforce of a town think the leader is bad, they may be able to remove him by force. They would have more chance of keeping it because they could hold the weapons in town, though the residents might offer a fight.

 

If a family tries to assassinate a council and then take control of a town, they could. If the family isn't liked very much, they would be removed quickly because the residents may fight back, or even call outside assistance to then retake the town (though the outside assistance is limited by raid rules).

 

If a leader dies, and someone tries to claim legitimacy of a town, same thing. Though I would say they can only do it if they live in that area, or has power in that town (example: A duke can try and get control of a town if a mayor dies, or the king sends someone to take over the town, or the guard leader tries to gain control). They would, again, only be able to bring a raid limit amount of outside forces. If the town accepts it, they won't fight back, and it might or might not be a coup (depends if they are giving to the nation they belong to a middle finger).

 

tl;dr

Region owners have no power over coups.

Any resident or someone with power in a town (rp power) may try and start a coup.

They can only bring a raid limit amount of outside forces to help.

If they take control, they have to keep control for 3 days (counts only on peek times).

Outside forces may send raids (on peek times) to retake the town, residents that fight on their side do not count for the raid limit, all others do. i.e People that are inside the town (or live there) can fight with the raid and raise their numbers (also try and open gates, etc).

After a coup has failed, the people in control may remove the power/residency the rebels had in that town, or do any roleplay punishment they see fit.

If control is kept for 3 days, a warclaim is needed to retake the town.

[zaezae 1098]

Yeah, screw region owner power. Seriously, what ever happened "I'm just the guy that makes sure no one griefs."?

[Elindor 666]

Yeah I am very confused why OOC region perms even matter in RP. The whole matter seems to have fallen into chaos because of wars. But wars and raids are often done in a way that isn't appropriate to roleplay, which is why I have always hated it. If a group attacks a town and wants to claim it, they must now physically live in that town in order to defend it. You can't claim a region and then not be in it. That's preposterous.

So why does a coup even matter who has region perms!?! I simply do not understand how region ownership became such domination over roleplay. A roleplay leader is a roleplay leader. Region perms are OOC only.

 

Now with legitimacy of leadership based on some of the complications Jistuma has brought up, you would have to use democracy to decide. Not because the region's government is democratic, but because if the people have an interest in rebelling then their numbers need to be represented somehow. Even still, that all seems much more roleplay affecting, meanwhile the OOC region owner/s is mostly irrelevant.

 

So for the sake of the YourView, my view is that coups shouldn't have different rules to what already exists for wars and raids. It is an entirely RP matter, and the ideal coup is one in which a heavy rebel presence is enough to incite the leader to adhere to demands without the need for violence. You're demonstrating power, not winning at PVP.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

Outside of an OOC agreement between the two parties, I don't believe that 'coup rules' would be beneficial. They'd most likely result mainly in leaders being online less, or otherwise increases ooc paranoia.

 

The existence of a coup system would likely lead to late-night attacks and things changing as cheaply and easily as possible - the same issues that taking a city without a warclaim cause.

 

However, I do think that staff intervention for coups to legitimize (or to not do so) is justified. A strict set of 'rules' for a coup would be abused, but a case-by-case (since, in all fairness, they don't happen that often) judgement by the staff would help alleviate problems. A Coup should be a rare and built-up roleplay event. A set of rules that just say 'you need to do this, this, and this to coup a city' would likely become little more than route for enemies to take a city, but without a warclaim. It'd lead only to the increase in 'ooc blacklists' some groups put onto players.

[Mj. 697]

The problem with all u ppl yelling "fight at ___ times on ___ days" that's not a coup that just becomes another wc. Coups are secretive and sudden 

[Supremacy 3361]

I feel like if the MAJORITY of the players from a region support you— that's sufficient. If you're not the majority-leader, then you're raiding.