The Council of Wyrms - Page 126

Wish · #**1251** June 26th, 2006, 01:26 PM

"that voted in favor of this proposition." Ermor voted AGAINST the proposition.

though he has a prop up, currently, to rectify his no vote, so maybe in the future it will be legal, I'm not sure the effect will be retroactive.

Its not a grievance, its just how the law is written. Masterblaster, LISTEN TO THE LAW! Of course it is up to the attacked nation to pen up a prop to recognize you as rogue, otherwise you two can work it out on your own, and you need not be declared rogue.

mistakes have been made and rectified in the past -- or they can result in being rogue, like they did for machaka.

Ygorl · #**1252** June 26th, 2006, 03:43 PM

The effect would not be retroactive, but I don't think it matters for this case. As I read it, the "that voted in favor of this proposition" clause refers to "Ulm or any Pretenderate or Nation" - that is, 39ers are allowed to attack *anyone* who attacks Ulm or any other 39er. Of course, if the nation you're attacking is ruled by a Wyrm who is himself a 39er, you leave yourself open to attacks by other 39ers. Ermor, however, is not a 39er (yet?) so I'm not on the "open season" list.

I wasn't serious about the grievance bit, just some friendly ribbing...

Folket · #**1253** June 26th, 2006, 05:50 PM

I have read the chapter closly and have arrived at an unexpected conclusion.

Anyone is allowed to attack a province with a fort under siege.

"Any attack by any nation upon a province (or a group of provinces) controlled by another nation must first be cleared by the Council. You may state your case before the Council, and you should try to be as persuasive as possible."

"Provinces with one player owning a fort and another player owning the province remain contested until one nation controls both. Either side can commit any forces in such situations until ownership becomes clear."

Since noone is controlling the province you are free to attack it. I think this is a misstake from when the charter was first written.

I think I will put up a proposition to remove that loophole from the rules later, and return the provinces that belongs to Vanheim.

Ygorl · #**1254** June 26th, 2006, 06:09 PM

I don't think that's a clear loophole... The way I read the charter, and the way I think people have been understanding it, is that a province that is contested is controlled by both players, and so either can commit forces - but a third party cannot attack that province, unless that third party has a right to attack one or the other controlling nations.

So, I don't think anything needs fixing, there. Of course, y'all might disagree...

PashaDawg · #**1255** June 26th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Ygorl said:
The effect would not be retroactive, but I don't think it matters for this case. As I read it, the "that voted in favor of this proposition" clause refers to "Ulm or any Pretenderate or Nation" - that is, 39ers are allowed to attack *anyone* who attacks Ulm or any other 39er. Of course, if the nation you're attacking is ruled by a Wyrm who is himself a 39er, you leave yourself open to attacks by other 39ers. Ermor, however, is not a 39er (yet?) so I'm not on the "open season" list.

I think Ygorl's interpretation of Prop 39 is correct. Also, I don't think a proposal can have a retroactive effect unless it explicitly provides.

Pasha

Wish · #**1256** June 26th, 2006, 10:25 PM

yeah it does read that way, on further investigation. I totally read it wrong.

Folket · #**1257** June 27th, 2006, 06:14 PM

Well, if it is as you say, you attack a province control among other by vanheim and you should be decleared rouge.

Ygorl · #**1258** June 27th, 2006, 07:30 PM

An interesting interpretation of the law, and one I hadn't thought of. In that case, the right to make war (granted by a proposition) would extend only to provinces controlled *exclusively* by the allowed opponent(s). In which case, one could become immune to attack (at least in castled provinces) by getting a buddy to keep a scout besieging each of your provinces. You'd lose half your income, true, but that might be better than losing your castles...

I don't think that makes as much sense, though; more sensible to me is that the right to make war not be susceptible to such tricks. If I'm allowed to attack you, I'm allowed to attack you in any province where you've got a presence, regardless of anyone else who might be around. This also seems in the spirit of the charter, which explicitly allows for a contested province, no matter how it became contested, to fall to either party (and the people of Man are rejoicing at the return of their long-lost land...

)

As far as more mundane administration goes, I've received turns from everyone except Aby, Mari, Pyth, T'ien, and Van. It's probably at least as hard to write the abbreviations as it is to write out the full names... Just a random comment on life, for your amusement. Or non-amusement.
Also, I like the name of the vehicle "Mercury Villager". Makes me think there should be a "Honda Peasant" and a "Ford Serf". I also like how there are bottles of juice that say things like "TROPICAL TWIST FURY flavored" - because there's no such thing as tropical twist fury, only flavors that imitate it.
Yeah...

Ygorl · #**1259** June 27th, 2006, 10:43 PM

I'm having an issue with Puffyn's turn... If we can't resolve it by early tomorrow morning, I'll have to delay hosting of this turn until Sunday. Sorry, folks.

puffyn · #**1260** June 27th, 2006, 11:01 PM

It's not my fault. Well, I guess it is, but I've resent the turn and hopefully it'll work.