calculusdesola

Excuse me please do not troll my raine academy application..

::OOC:: MC Name: vulcus Did you ever have a character with magic?: No. Are you aware the rules of Magic: Fully. Skype: vulcus860 ::IC:: Name: Lord Chaim von Rosenberg, House Patriarch Age: 41 Gender: Male Race: Human What would you like to learn?: Scholarly and mercantile subjects. Which Class(es) are you enrolling for?: Research, hopefully.

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 You have the current, disgustingly outdated and unrealistic system where war claims require OOC consent and nations are free to lead forays against your people (a theoretical neutral, peaceful, magical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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

I think what needs to happen is - all the people in the nation leaders chat sign a document or make an agreement to all the administrators, a clause, if you will. I don't like the idea of a warclaim team. It would become like the UN trying to prevent war almost, which is not the nature of this system - this system is designed to keep all sides happy but also give RP reasoning and standards to inevitable warfare between nations on the server that work against each other, often due to OOC reasons, another thing I hope to counter with this large proposition. There should be a sole GM, maybe a Halfling GM even, someone with no ties to any nations or groups who can become the "war monitoring GM" to ensure this set of rules is abided by all the nation leaders and military leaders (me). It might sound stupid on paper, but in practice, it'd be incredibly efficient - it's something we can and will achieve - it's not even that hard, at all, actually, I might add.

CASUS BELLI Ius Gentium: The Law of Nations ((All credits to Aetosion for making this.)) Section I: Casus belli: ius ad bellum The following constitute justifications for launching a concerted act of warfare on another nation or settlement. International: •Borders - Geopolitical or military encroachment upon sovereign territory (i.e. The claiming of land by a state within the borders of another) •Reconquest - To return to ownership of the aggressor land she previously held (i.e. The reclamation of land formerly held by a state now held by another) •Property - Significant theft or otherwise deprivation of property by another state (e.g. The theft of great quantities of a commodity or product like iron or gold) •Self-defense - In defense of a confirmed military attack from another state, or in an instance of situational necessity where no other recourse is available (i.e. A response to a significant armed attack or attacks by another state) •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) Intranational: •Independence - To declare independence from a regime incompatible with the citizenry (i.e. As a response to a state oppressing its citizens with unjust laws, undue persecution, or significant administrative impropriety, the secession or separation of one body from a nation) •Deposition - To depose a regime incompatible with the citizenry (i.e. As a response to a state oppressing its citizens with unjust laws, undue persecution, or significant administrative impropriety, the removal of the monarch and administrative body or the accompanying body of laws or both to be replaced by a new governing body or structure or both) •Just law - To fight a war within the provisions established by cultural, common-law, doctrinal, or legal rules within a state. (e.g. The use of arms to enforce the observance of national succession laws) Section I.II: Limitations on Warfare •Proportionality - The violence of the war of the aggressor state should be commensurate to the offenses of the other belligerent, and there must exist a positive proportionality between expected gains of the war and evils resultant of it. •Right Intention - War should only be declared for a right intention, the correcting of suffered wrongs, and not for the express gain of the aggressor. •As Last Resort - War should only be initiated in ultima ratio, as a last resort when legitimate diplomatic measures and mediation have failed to resolve the issue. Section II: Casus Belli: ius in bello When war is declared, certain principles must be upheld during its course, and certain improprieties must be most gravely avoided. •Malum in se - Atrocities committed not for the cause of warfare but instead with the intent for sadistic amusement* will result in judgement against the offenders by all parties. •Distinction - Distinction between combatants and noncombatants must be maintained. Innocents are not to be harmed. •Conduct - Soldiers are representatives of the nations from which they hail. If the soldiers of an army are exhibiting poor and unchivalrous conduct, their fatherland can only be assumed to be unfit to extend its influence. ((The purpose of this is to facilitate the staff’s aim, as described by Shiftnative, to discourage needless war, while creating an RP manner by which to determine whether or not wars are just or needless, preferable to creating purely OOC barriers against warclaims. In this system, warclaims would not be consensual but instead moderated by this set of rules and an enforcing party that need only ensure these rules are maintained by all sides, signed by everyone in the nation leader chat, more or less. Innocent settlements would not be victims of senseless aggression, while militant or imperialistic states could not hide from the consequences of their actions. Just humor me and look at this from a neutral perspective. The lion's share of everybody I talk to has said that the war rules are currently a disgrace. I know that we can do better. We cannot sit on this status quo and be afraid of changing the rules just because it might make people/RP types we don't like more happy and comfortable on the server. Let's take decisive action and make some changes here, for crying out loud. Feel free to suggest any changes, additions or criticism in your reply, but keep it civil and mature. Read the OP thoroughly before posting, I think you'll actually like what I am proposing. It's fair for all sides and I see no reason why we should not set something like this into the rules, and fast. 4.0 is here, it's time to get real and take initiative, OR we can crumble into nothing and lose a very large fraction of the playerbase. All credits to Aetosion for making this.))