Hereditary leader is RPed by a Party -- WTF???

[Vidoja]

Hello dear moderators and normal users!
Please hear me out what I will say, and answer if you can to what I ask.

It all started when me, the Rightful Radical Party (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... rtyid=8475), and my main character, Vojislav Krkljus, decided to go to a formal visit to Lodamun. There, some problems began, because there are two PARTIES that don't want me there. BUT, that is all dandy and fine, what can I do, that is how they are. But one of them, the United Republics Party (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=11631) posted a few posts (to which you'll find links below) regarding their hereditary leader, "Divine Majesty Matt Diggory" not wanting my "Vojislav Krkljus" there.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1768 - Third post from below (there are multiple instances of this post: here, in the Lodamun paper and in the Telamon paper, but they are all the same)
http://classic.particracy.net/viewnatio ... ationid=19 - There is multiple mentioning of their hereditary leader in the messages of the Lodamese Union country page (I found this link by logging into my old inactive party in Lodamun)
I explained to him that it is all OK to literally hate me if he wants, and use one of his ministers (or party officials) for announcing this, but that he cannot speak for the hereditary leader, because neither is he his party member nor any hereditary leader should favor a party and let them speak trough him. That is literally RPing another ones character (even though this character isn't anyones). This was all said to him. His reply was:

From my messages: He is my character and I can RP him however I like. You may complain to the mods, but it will not affect how I RP my character in my country.

After investigating a little I found out that he maybe had part in thinking up the name of the hereditary leader, so hence forth him thinking of the hereditary leader as "his character". I have a long and rich experience of RPing in Particracy and this never was allowed, neither is this logic. Why are there any presidential elections if this is allowed? Why don't we just say the hereditary leader is ours and decide what he likes of dislikes, what he thinks and doesn't think, which country he likes which not, ... It just doesn't go that way.
Am I right on this?
If so, could you [the Mods] try to explain this to him. It would be gladly appreciated.

[JosephJ]

I'm afraid you're not. Convention's always been that the party that put a non-partisan head of state in place in the first place has control over that character.

[Vidoja]

Actually, it was another party that proposed monarchy in Lodamun.
The bill:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=259215

I must say, that I have never heard that's the convention. Lets change it . Just kidding. But I must admit, it sounds verry illogical to me.

[Darvian]

Actually, it was another party that proposed monarchy in Lodamun.
The bill:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=259215

I must say, that I have never heard that's the convention. Lets change it . Just kidding. But I must admit, it sounds verry illogical to me.

Let me try to do a better job of clearing things up for you in a different approach.

1: The monarchy was established later here: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=256770 (which passed, the URP proposed it.)
2: Here we have proof that Matt Diggory is the U.R.P's character. http://classic.particracy.net/viewnews. ... sid=221302
3: The laws of the land of Lodamun which must be respected which dictates Foreign Embassies must be approved by the Foreign Ministry, which is headed by the Minister John Stevenson of the R.N.P.

So while it may not appear that the monarch is U.R.P's it is in fact as far as I can tell. So the issue of him claiming to represent someone he isn't, isn't accurate from my judgeship. In order to facilitate a meeting you'd be best served by working this out with the players in Lodamun as opposed to the moderators; we can clarify things but, we certainly can't force Lodamun to let you in. Fair enough analysis?

[Vidoja]

Actually, it was another party that proposed monarchy in Lodamun.
The bill:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=259215

I must say, that I have never heard that's the convention. Lets change it . Just kidding. But I must admit, it sounds verry illogical to me.

Let me try to do a better job of clearing things up for you in a different approach.

1: The monarchy was established later here: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=256770 (which passed, the URP proposed it.)
2: Here we have proof that Matt Diggory is the U.R.P's character. http://classic.particracy.net/viewnews. ... sid=221302
3: The laws of the land of Lodamun which must be respected which dictates Foreign Embassies must be approved by the Foreign Ministry, which is headed by the Minister John Stevenson of the R.N.P.

So while it may not appear that the monarch is U.R.P's it is in fact as far as I can tell. So the issue of him claiming to represent someone he isn't, isn't accurate from my judgeship. In order to facilitate a meeting you'd be best served by working this out with the players in Lodamun as opposed to the moderators; we can clarify things but, we certainly can't force Lodamun to let you in. Fair enough analysis?

Nor did I want that. I am already in, no worries. I just wanted to know whether he can do that. I was very very clear: I think he can do whatever he wants with his ministers but he mustn't RP the monarch. The last sentence was very irritating to me as it seems you have misunderstood this whole thing: I do not want help from the RL mods in the RP world, why jump to that conclusion? It is very very illogical to me still. Monarchs are not affiliated with political parties -- its just the way it is. They are hereditary, not elected. Btw, the "1:" bill shows establishing a Republic, and anti-Monarchism as far as I know politics.

[Vidoja]

More ideas:

The Matt Diggory that was in those elections is not neccessarily the same Matt Diggory which is the DM. There a lot of John Smiths too, you know.
Where is the bracket (United Republics Party) after his name?

[Darvian]

Nor did I want that.

Then why did you make a thread in a forum called Game Moderation about it? Regardless, you got it.

I am already in, no worries. I just wanted to know whether he can do that.

Yes, he can.

I was very very clear: I think he can do whatever he wants with his ministers but he mustn't RP the monarch. The last sentence was very irritating to me as it seems you have misunderstood this whole thing: I do not want help from the RL mods in the RP world, why jump to that conclusion?

Perhaps because you posted it in the Game Moderators forum which usually implies you require some form of moderator opinion which is what you original sought.

It is very very illogical to me still. Monarchs are not affiliated with political parties -- its just the way it is. They are hereditary, not elected.

I do not nor have I ever played a monarch so, I can't speak to that. Though I know other nations would disagree with your analysis there especially a monarch being tied to a political party. Some nations don't, some do. It's their option.

The Matt Diggory that was in those elections is not neccessarily the same Matt Diggory which is the DM. There a lot of John Smiths too, you know.
Where is the bracket (United Republics Party) after his name?

This is assuredly not an issue for anyone other than U.R.P. Perhaps you ought ask him.

[Mr.Yankees]

I will make a quick comment on this thread as I am heading out. I will further comment later.

I will first like to point out that there was never an agreement as to who would control the Monarch. So, no one controls it as far as I am concerned. But let's put that aside. The sole fact that the Monarch is irrelevant (aka. symbolic) says it all. However, YankeeHater is granting himself powers that come out of nowhere. But let's also leave that aside as that's a matter for us to discuss.

Look, the point I am trying to make is that per our laws visitors do not need anyone's permission. So, if Vidoja RP's this through (a visit to Lodamun---let me be clear that this is not a state visit), his character cannot be touched. As I am always reminded by everyone, the game mechanics come first. Now, YankeeHater has "detained" Vidoja's character without his permission, I assume. That may be something the moderators may want to take a look at.

Vidoja, I do get what you are saying and I agree with you. I had never seen a monarch being role played by a party unless an agreement between the players had been set up first.

I am leaving now. I will come back to this if necessary.

[Cold]

Monarchies are not affiliated with any political party. However, that does not change the fact that monarchs are characters, and if said character is owned by a player, they are allowed to roleplay them. Yankee-Hater created Matt Diggory, and can therefore use the character in roleplay as he could any other character he created. For instance, if I succeed in putting my character, Konrad von Barovia, on the Voronan throne, making him the hereditary monarch, I can still control him and his descendants.

Most monarchs are controlled by single parties, with consent from the other parties in the country. But in cases with disagreement between parties, the creator has the final say. Or the person who was given control of the characters by the creator.

[Vidoja]

Monarchs controlled by parties -- aren't we supposed to play this game the most realistic can get? I think there is disagreement in Lodamun about how you can control a Monarch just like that, and I think that it at least has to go to Parliament for it to decide whether the specified party can or cannot control DM Diggory.

If all said is so, why don't all monarchs have the (X Party) bracket link after them, if they are controlled by parties. I mean, that would be logical according to your logic.