Some questions about claims

[albatrosinus]

In Mikuni-Hulstria, there is a lot of debate about a lot of houses claiming some stuff.

I. Perhaps the most RP debated and controversial issue, but the less controversial in terms of game mechanics, the Rothingren-Traugotts' claim on the Throne of Mikuni-Hulstria. There should be no problem with that, because the Rothingren-Traugotts used to hold what used to be known as Greater Hulstria only a century ago.

II. Another claim (but nobody cares about it), is my claim over the lands of Beluzia and Rutania. In fact, I've been roleplaying as the House that formerly ruled over the island of Bailon, and once held the lands of Beluzia under personal union. However, this house was purely invented by Beluz players when Beluzia was seeking to join the Culturally Protected nations.

III. Finally, a claim accepted by all players but probably the most controversial in terms of game mechanics, is the Claim made by the Imperial House (Yukio-Labsburg) on Mikuni's former territories, including our former colonies that had been set free.

So, from a moderator's point of view, which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't?

[Farsun]

They are RP claims, they don't matter in theory, as long as players give them RP backing. Moderation doesn't necessarily have anything to say with this if I remember correctly.

You can't claim colonies, because they don't exist.

[Aquinas]

As Farsun says, the claims of royal houses are a RP matter, and so Moderation steers well clear of getting involved there.

The colonies have been ruled to be "independent countries without players, and can only be interacted with in a manner that would not be considered godmodding if it was applied to interaction with another country". Therefore, whilst a royal house might perhaps claim a right to the throne of a former colony, it could not push that claim to practical effect.