Jump to content

arockstar28


argonian
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MailC3p said:

 first it was a coup, now it's a raid?? 

 

plus, even if you want to phase it as a external raid, the raid cap when not at war is 20, you all brought 40, external or internal, it was illegal.

 

Huh? Raids are uncapped all the time. Coup rules also don't exist, so the distinction is moot.

76d8ee531b658bf8fd2a07539b6eefb5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

 

Internal conflict is a term that expressly applies to warclaims -- there's no basis to apply the same provisions to raid rules for convenient interpretation. As a war wasn't even declared at this point, Acre just did smart diplomacy and carried out the first strike. They would have absolutely succeeded in this RP plan (Hugh has spoken to several other NLs IRP for this purpose).

 

Acre could bring the entirety of Norland, Orcs, and Nevaehlen, and there's no reason raid rules should prohibit this.

 

Far, far more arbitrary to stretch internal conflict warclaim rules (reminder: Brothers' War) to a raid.

 

Carrying out the first strike is exactly the initiation of that internal conflict (precedent: Sedan war). Is Acre not a subregion of Oren? That being said, that already covers the point about internal conflict rules on mercenaries, etc.

 

Internal conflict rules are not being stretched at all. Brother's war was a claimant war, after the previous NLs designated Lion as the rightful ruler. The side that won the Brother's war objectively had more Orenian in their composition of the rally anyway. The regions are representative of those who roleplay on the tile, hell, even any subregion of Oren. 3/4 of the people present do not actively RP in Oren.

 

It is in very bad faith to attempt to rule lawyer a rally that was only minutely representative of Orenian composition, the rest from malicious intentions from other human nations. We have to look at what is pragmatic, which is -- you cannot let active members of other nations nor mercenary groups not within that nation determine the internal politics and and region management of said nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, itdontmatta said:

I really apologize for not explaining the ruling well enough. I understand a lot of you are frustrated with the ruling, but we cannot encourage bad sportsmanship in roleplay. (I'm also unapologetically apologetic for my cope & seethe joke, it's just a prank guys cmon)

 

What I mean by that is adding people to regions to ensure that they are eligible to fight in the conflict. Internal conflict is internal for a reason. Over 30+ people were added to the oren_acre region within the past day or two, and most of them were coincidentally at this raid. I don't care what the nitty gritty of the rule says. This raid didn't sound right, and I could not let it go through. Had it gone through, this event would've been used as justification to make people eligible in any potential internal conflict / warclaim.

 

I'll keep this thread open, and I'll do my best to respond accordingly.

 

 

 

The issue is that this is going back on the precedent of the two previous Orenian coups. Savoy's rally wasn't told to leave after they marched to Oren, and half the server online participated in the skirmish of the Brother's War.

 

The Acreans were called to Vienne for trial, nor has any warclaim been posted in lieu of this trial. Through smart diplomacy and actual roleplay with other communities, Acre has secured help in ending the incident before a war ever began. Internal conflict rules are expressly listed under warclaims.

 

Allegations of 'bad sportsmanship' don't really make any sense. Oren has made enemies of other nations, who in turn supported an anti-Orenian faction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose my confusion here, is how the rules will dictate rp going forward. If Acre doesn't wish to be a part of Oren any longer, are we going to be forced into an "internal conflict" even if many of us don't want to be under Oren irply? As far as I know, the raid was icly charged in that Gustaf lead his Acre folk along with people we picked up irp over the past few days to try and put a stop to Orenian Tyranny. There was absolutely zero ooc influence in any of our decisions, we simply gathered the people who were rallying for Acre icly, and set out to fight for our rights as a people. All in all I think that staff team is considering this from an entirely too ooc stretch. At the end of the day, us people of Acre just want to be left alone by all the ooc and ic bureaucracy of Oren. Seems odd that the staff team would be so vehemently against us trying to make any actions that would allow us to have autonomy irp. Not to be rude to the staff team, but I think you should let us do what our characters would do in such a situation, not force us to make decisions that go against their better judgement.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my character marched out today over something they believed in, I don't want to have to metagame my actions. I want to fight for my character's cause, and PK if we lose. This isn't about tiles or pixel power, this is about roleplay. It just sucks to have everything my character has grown towards completely stifled over so many people trying to make it an OOC thing. Don't really care about the war rules or the raid rules or this and that and commands and status and etc. etc. etc. Just let me roleplay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MailC3p said:

 

still can't have external help with internal wars.

 

and yeah, your point? all of Royalists where Orenians, people who had RP'd and fought for Oren for months before the brothers war, then you had the Imperalists who, despite the outside help, still got smashed in battles, that is, in my opinion, why no one complained because it wasn't 2/3'rd of the rally, when Alex TP'd all the unallowed peoples out, Acre had 9 guys left.



I am sorry but I believe this needs some clarification. During Easter sunday when this entire ordeal went down you can not claim that all of the Royalists were Orenians and that the Imperialists were made of outside help. Both sides had Orenians and both sides had outsiders joined in to be completely honest as it was placed together at the very last minute by staff to give an option compared to existing RP situation that was in conflict at the given time. Keep in mind the brother's war had an actual warclaim / coup posted at the time of the conflict.

I am not speaking to this matter as I was not present nor have full details of any of it -- but this is an awful example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have examined the thread and have decided some people need to read the rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Chennster said:

We have to look at what is pragmatic, which is -- you cannot let active members of other nations nor mercenary groups not within that nation determine the internal politics and and region management of said nation.

 

Also, huh? Wasn't this exactly what Savoy did in the Aster Revolution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chennster said:

Carrying out the first strike is exactly the initiation of that internal conflict (precedent: Sedan war). Is Acre not a subregion of Oren? That being said, that already covers the point about internal conflict rules on mercenaries, etc.

No idea what you mean with Sedan here. "Internal conflict" as a war goal concept didn't exist during the Sedan War, so I dunno how you can say the first raid started something that didn't yet exist. It was actually that very war that made it glaringly obvious that internal conflicts were totally unaddressed. They had to come up with stuff on the fly to let the war go ahead, and the war goal rewrites that came with internal conflict ones only came waaaaay later.

 

The first raid is down as the first battle on the Wiki, sure, but Wiki historiography has literally nothing to do with war rules. I can't point at the Wiki and say that a raid I won should count as a WC just because it's listed as a battle.

 

1 hour ago, Chennster said:

Internal conflict rules are not being stretched at all. Brother's war was a claimant war, after the previous NLs designated Lion as the rightful ruler.

A claimant who lived within the nation--the closest war goal here would be "Revolution", which explicitly refers to claimants, and is classified as internal conflict.

 

1 hour ago, Chennster said:

The side that won the Brother's war objectively had more Orenian in their composition of the rally anyway. The regions are representative of those who roleplay on the tile, hell, even any subregion of Oren. 3/4 of the people present do not actively RP in Oren.

Doesn't change the fact that it was still let happen. It's not like they knew who'd win.

 

1 hour ago, Chennster said:

It is in very bad faith to attempt to rule lawyer a rally that was only minutely representative of Orenian composition, the rest from malicious intentions from other human nations. We have to look at what is pragmatic, which is -- you cannot let active members of other nations nor mercenary groups not within that nation determine the internal politics and and region management of said nation.

If letting foreigners raid in unlimited numbers is bad, then the rules should reflect that. It's not fair to expect people to play by rules that aren't there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be helpful to look at this, for a moment, from the Moderator perspective. This was a situation with no easy answer. As the roleplay heated up in Oren and Acre in the hour or so prior to the voided attack on the palace, we quickly realized that there were no real rules for what was currently going on. There were several rules that were close to the current situation, but those rules were rhombuses trying to fit in a square hole. They didn't, in a strict sense, exactly apply (and we try to be strict in rules when dealing with PvP in order for there to be a sense of fairness). Even worse, those rules conflicted with each other.

 

On the one hand, this was clearly an internal conflict (the vassal Acre rebelling against the nation Oren). Should we look towards the Internal Conflict rules which state, quite specifically, that "no allies or mercenaries may be involved?" That seemed the right answer initially, but it also wasn't completely as those rules are meant for a declared war, which had not occurred as of yet.

 

On the other hand, this was clearly a raid (a bunch of outside entities which were admitted allies of the vassal Acre garnered through RP going to attack the nation Oren). Should we look towards the Raid rules for "an attack by five or more players of an outside group on a nation, settlement, or lair?" That seemed the right answer too, except the person who was clearly leading the raid (and made the modreq for it) was not a member of an outside group and was continually trying to add all the members of the raid to the various regions in Oren he had control of in an attempt to make them legit in the eyes of an upcoming Internal Conflict declaration.

 

In the end, absent the current guidance of the moderator admin (who was coming but couldn't yet get on to get the full understanding of what was happening), the moderation managers had to make a decision. We found the whole thing to be extremely suspect, with the raiders seeming to try and sidestep their way past various rules, threading the needle extremely carefully in order to have their cake and eat it too, we managers involved in the conflict chose to let the "raid" go forward in the interest of RP without clear guidance on an exact ruling. When itdontmatta came on, he decided that the instance was too suspect (with about twenty outsiders being added to various sub-regions of Oren in the last week, about half of them in the hour before the raid) to let it continue and voided the encounter.

 

Honestly, looking back on it, I think either decision could have been correct in isolation. However, coupled with the fact that the defenders chose to go the CRP route with approximately 75 people involved, voiding it was by far the less soul draining option for all involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a worthwhile cause to try to prevent people here just for the fight because honestly it's getting kinda boring seeing the same exact faces every war who should have no involvement in the conflict, but I think there should be a different approach to  combat this, as I think some people have some valid concerns that there are good reasons for outside support to step in.

 

Edited by Twodiks
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xarkly said:

 

Also, huh? Wasn't this exactly what Savoy did in the Aster Revolution?

 

Using Savoy as a rule lawyering point is honestly giving it too much worth. These were completely different situations. Savoy through Lion practically vassalized as Nectorist's retinue (I don't see haense or bvale doing the same), while most of Savoy's population was just disgruntled Orenians after Kosher/KP. Publius eventually disputed this vassalization in his successing reign, proving it did happen under Lion, but even considering that as the largest factor in the Aster Revolution is wholly untrue. You misproportionately forget the amount of support of the Empire's nobles/vassals that were in favor of Nectorist. Add the overnight bans, discord bombs, leaving of leadership, etc., and this becomes a way different situation.

 

Do you not remember administration preventing the rally from even entering the city? The only reason they were allowed in later was because the entire Orenian leadership quit or got banned. Can't equate it.

 

The Acre situation, while not being claimant RP (already making it a much different comparison) cannot and should not rely on a legion of foreign mercenaries to rebel and get their land independent. Not to mention that people from nation leadership are going on groups of alternate chars to avoid the rules that prohibited them from doing the very same lol

Let's also not forget that administration allowing foreign mercenaries during the Brothers' War was something we contested, and definitely was against the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Burnsider said:

I love Nooblius43


I mostly agree with your analysis, except a big part is missing: If your rules are missing out on massive potential loopholes or worse yet explicitly conflict with each other, they are terrible rules and that needs to be addressed. As well, there were a ton of assumptions being made about the veracity of RP based on the region membership thing, but there are no rules against that, and in fact its almost encouraged; how else are you supposed to prepare for an impending war when you're a smaller group going against a massive nation. 

 

Maybe instead of citing bad faith behavior of a group you didn't have time to investigate, I feel like the best move would have just been own up to the fact the rules were shit and try to fix situation. I looked at list of people, yes there were quite a few people who were a stretch to be there but from what I've heard and seen so far it seems like a lot more preparation was done than mods assumed and a lot of people were there with valid RP.

Maybe I'm just salty because I explicitly warned that a situation like this would happened and I was ignored- what did you expect with uncapped raids across board? Why did you approve a rule like that? What situation WAS the intended outcome of uncapped raids if not this sort of spontaneous attack?

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Nooblius said:

As well, there were a ton of assumptions being made about the veracity of RP based on the region membership thing, but there are no rules against that, and in fact its almost encouraged; how else are you supposed to prepare for an impending war when you're a smaller group going against a massive nation. 

 

What do you mean by this? You can't really "allow" veracity of RP when it's done in bad faith. Leaders of other nations and 3rd party mercs going on separate personas to establish "RP" for the sake of it, to bypass the internal conflict rule and bypass blame to their nation, while being hastily added to the region last-minute, really isn't verifying it was done in good faith. Having internal wars be solely internal pretty much addresses your last point. A rebellion that successfully makes land independent should reflect having a force that can successfully secede itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...