Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby EEL123 » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:51 am

Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:However, since RP has to be agreed upon by all parties involved, that is just how things are, according to Moderation.
I just reckon that the rules should be changed. If you give consent to RP, you give implicit consent to the consequences to that RP, regardless of whether you like them or not (unless they are manifestly ridiculous in the eyes of moderation).
House of Razama
EEL123
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Razamid Caliphate (Kafuristan)

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby Amazeroth » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:58 pm

PaleRider wrote:Since there is no objection Zardugal hereby is now legitimate owner of Vascania and Squibble and Indrala and Deltaria shall retroactively split the Luthori Dovani holding


No. Since the RP wasn't brought to a conclusive end, it's void, and things return retroactively to the status quo ante.

SelucianCrusader wrote:With that said, I'd love if moderation would one day intervene to break up Luthori's unjustified colonial empire and share pieces of it with other nations.


Well, Luthori was pretty smart at acquiring it. If anything were to happen in that direction, and enforced by moderation, colonies would be completely abandoned.

EEL123 wrote:To digress, how did Luthori amass its huge empire in the first place?


Buying it off other nations, claiming it first, and, although I'm not sure if I remember that part correctly, occasionally warring for them. All of it legally though, at least at the time.

EEL123 wrote:And if you will permit me one more point, I reckon that, more broadly, there are issues with colonial transfers. Why the hell does it require unanimous consent? That's utterly unrealistic.


But that is how RP works - it has to be done with consent by all the players.

EEL123 wrote:I just reckon that the rules should be changed. If you give consent to RP, you give implicit consent to the consequences to that RP, regardless of whether you like them or not (unless they are manifestly ridiculous in the eyes of moderation).


That depends on what was agreed when consent was given. It is clear that if a specific outcome was determined, any RP that doesn't end there would be illegal. It is also clear that when two countries consent to war, willfully leaving the outcome open, they consent to all the realistic consequences.
However, that alone doesn't say anything about cases were consent is given to RP, but the outcome of the RP is neglected (as opposed to willfully left open). Usually, in such cases, if there is no specific fault with one party, you'd have to look at what they would have hypothetically agreed to. And you can be pretty sure that Luthori wouldn't have agreed to RP if there was a chance of it losing its colonies. At least that never happened in the past.



However, I do see your point. That rule could be changed, and it should be changed.

So the following rules will apply come December:

1. Considering colonial transfers, the rules revert back to their last status in the Pax Cynica - trading colonies off requires only a 2/3rd majority, and will no longer be seen as an act of RP, as far as the rules for consensual RP are concerned.

2. Considering military RP. From now on, countries going to war with each other have to consider the following. Before RP starts, there has to be an OOC agreement between the countries about possible or necessary consequences of the RP. It also has to have a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be interpreted in in-game terms (ie does it mean that the country is fighting as normal, surrenders, or is the RP void, or at least part of the RP).
This OOC agreement has to be voted on in the same bill that serves as the declaration of war, or in a bill made prior to the DoW, but in the same game month, and has to be accepted by a 2/3rd majority of the countries players (not parties).
If no such agreement happens, the RP will be void from day one. If a specific player is responsible for such RPs at least twice, he'll be subject to moderation sanctions.

3. Considering internal RP. From now on, there is no longer need for unanimous consent. RP bills will be binding without consent, as long as they are accepted by the necessary majorities. When deciding if absolute or 2/3rd majority is used, players are to go with usual difference between constitutional and normal laws, first by comparison with the constitutional laws of the game mechanics, and if that comes to no avail, by choosing the majority that would be most likely needed in the real world, respectively in the real-world countries or political systems that come most closely to the in-game one.
The system still comes first, though, which means that RP law cannot contradict law set by the game mechanics. So if you want to change a country from monarchy to republic, for example, you can't do it by RP law alone. Likewise, if an RP law needs a specific law situation that is described via game mechanics (for example an RP law regulating paramilitaries), it is only valid if the game mechanics describe the specific situations (in the same examples, the game mechanics must allow paramilitaries).
The RP laws will be enforced just as game mechanics already are by moderation, if parties go against them. However, while a party usually has to know which game mechanic laws are active, there is no duty to know all the RP law passed in a country, as long as it is not documented in a debate bill clearly recognisable as just that (for example OOC: Current RP laws, or something like that).

4. Realising that this new system has a great potential for abuse, cases were players think that an abuse has occurred can and should be brought before moderation. The following lists are easily recognisable abuses of, and exceptions to the rule, but are in no way exclusive.

Recognised RP-law abuses:

- Making it impossible for other players to play in your nation
- Allowing only parties of a certain kind (not, however, to outlaw parties of a certain kind, if the ban is specific, justified by RP and the nation's history)
- Making laws that can't be revoked
- Making laws that can only be revoked by a higher majority that was needed to create that laws
- Making laws that would make current rule violations legal


Exceptions to the rule are:

- war declarations, as far as the OOC agreement is concerned (not the majorities needed to go to war - they themselves can be changed. Which means that you can have a country in which the HoS can declare war at will without regard for government or parliament, but you still need a 2/3rd majority of the players for the vote on the OOC agreement).
- RP rules that consider OOC stuff. They can only be binding for those who willfully subject themselves to them.
- Cultural protocols. They still remain in effect as they are.
- Similar to the protocols, RP rules that don't enforce rules, but rather determine the makeup of a country (apart from culture things like language, population, opinions, etc.), in short any laws that are no real laws, but descriptions of the country.


5. Considering nation-raiding. Nation raiding becomes a real threat under these new rules, because now it can do permanent damage to a nation again, by giving away a nations colonies (either by obtaining majorities to gift them, or to start a losing war). In order to prevent raids out of malice, based solely or for an overwhelming part on the dislike for a specific player or group of players, nation raids have to be sound RP wise. Which means that practices such as raiding without RP, or with unrealistic RP (creating a "Imperialist Party" in the enemy country and then voting for a release of the colonies), won't be tolerated, and will lead to the RP actions of an offending party to be void.


These new rules will be implented by December 1st. Until then, they are open for discussion, and ideas of how to recognise potential abuses that can be included in the list.
Eines Tages traf Karl der Große eine alte Frau.
"Guten Tag, alte Frau", sagte Karl der Große.
"Guten Tag, Karl der Große", sagte die alte Frau.
Solche und ähnliche Geschichten erzählt man sich über die Leutseligkeit Karls des Großen.
User avatar
Amazeroth
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Location: Central Europe

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby EEL123 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:06 am

I think that the rules are a little nebulous. Maybe phrasing them in smaller chunks (like in the Pax Cynica) would make them more comprehensible, especially for newer players.
House of Razama
EEL123
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Razamid Caliphate (Kafuristan)

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby Amazeroth » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:40 am

How would you rephrase them?
Eines Tages traf Karl der Große eine alte Frau.
"Guten Tag, alte Frau", sagte Karl der Große.
"Guten Tag, Karl der Große", sagte die alte Frau.
Solche und ähnliche Geschichten erzählt man sich über die Leutseligkeit Karls des Großen.
User avatar
Amazeroth
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Location: Central Europe

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby EEL123 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:49 am

I like lists. Numbers and lists. Instead of long strings of sentences stringing themselves into the next long string of strung-out sentences.
House of Razama
EEL123
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Razamid Caliphate (Kafuristan)

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby Amazeroth » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:54 am

I might like long sentences a bit too much, true. I'll see that it gets more structure.
Eines Tages traf Karl der Große eine alte Frau.
"Guten Tag, alte Frau", sagte Karl der Große.
"Guten Tag, Karl der Große", sagte die alte Frau.
Solche und ähnliche Geschichten erzählt man sich über die Leutseligkeit Karls des Großen.
User avatar
Amazeroth
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Location: Central Europe

Re: Settling the Botched War with Luthori

Postby EEL123 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:59 am

Say, for example:

1) The transfers of colonies will require a two-thirds majority in the legislature of the nation which possess the colonies in question.

2a) Prior to initiating role-play involving foreign hostilities, the belligerent nations must come to an OOC agreement with regards to:
- possible or necessary consequences of the role-play, and
- the manner in which the absence of one or more participants ought to be interpreted (for example, as a surrender or a continuation of hostilities).
2b) The OOC agreement must be accepted by a two-thirds majority of the players in the country concerned and must be contained in
- the bill which serves as the declaration of war, or
- a separate bill prior to the declaration of war.
2c) Role-play will be automatically considered void if an OOC agreement has not been reached prior to the initiation of hostilities.
2d) Individual players responsible for initiating hostilities without an OOC agreement on multiple occasions will be liable to suffer moderation sanctions.

3a) Role-play internal to a nation do not require unanimous consent. Role-play bills will be binding without the need for consent provided they are passed by the necessary legislative majority.
etc. etc. etc.
House of Razama
EEL123
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Razamid Caliphate (Kafuristan)

Previous

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests