| Besieging - Sunspear- Cenedil | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 30 2008, 04:31 PM (326 Views) | |
| Acheron | Oct 4 2008, 06:32 PM Post #11 |
|
I am having a bit of difficulty doing the research on this topic. "A call for an injunction" didnt seem to come to any conclusion, but perhaps I am missing the thread where you came up with the rule. My own personal opinion (which means jack shit since I wasn't a part of ammending the rules) is that B is a better option than A. I agree that the spirit of the change in besieging would have been to make sure people werent just easily circumventing the regular channels to get troops while they were besieged. Troops from allies are fine as long as they werent bought with the besieged players money. However, I still think that this leaves a ton of holes (just leave one alliance member who is away from all attackers as the "banker" who keeps all the money whenever anyone gets it and pays for troops whenever anyone else gets besieged, there are many other possibilities). However, I also agree with Bull that whatever rules were made should be followed. But since I can't find them, and I don't know how many players signed on to them, blah blah blah, I don't really know how they should affect the current situation. As I said, these are all my opinions and I only voiced them because Bull said he would be interested. I am not trying to make a power play or anyting, I can see the "retired" in my description lol. |
 |
 
|
| Cenedil | Oct 4 2008, 08:42 PM Post #12 |
|
Archeron, take it easy. We all value your opinion, especially since you back it up with reasons. The topic for change we are reffering to is in the help section and is labeled "A question on besieging important!". Read the article and tell us how you interpret them. (This is making me think of the constitution and how it is often interpreted differently.)
Edited by Cenedil, Oct 4 2008, 08:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 4 2008, 10:48 PM Post #13 |
Lord of Harrenhal
|
Since so many problems have arisen from it I am leaning towards simply abolishing besieging for the remainder of this season. I am not sure how it would effect the battles that are already sieges, however. Anyway, I'll just say again we should just wait and see how the council goes before working out a solution here. |
|
|
|
| Acheron | Oct 5 2008, 12:36 AM Post #14 |
|
K, found it. The White Bull is obviously correct about what the rule says and what it means for this battle. The problem with this particular case is that the rule in question is an amendment which was implemented by two players under the assumption that it would come under review if questioned further. Its not original so it is not as binding as a rule that started off the season, plus it was implemented in the middle of a battle. I assume that White Bull thinks that no troops should be tributed to a besieged player and that when they are under siege they can't get help from anyone. The evidence for this was besieged players giving their money to allies and getting troops at none of the additional cost. Athidoc and Cenedil's argument is that saying that absolutely no troops should be tributed is overkill. The problem was people using their allies as intermediaries to get the troops with their own cash. So the new rule should just get rid of that problem (my personal amendment would be that a besieged player cannot tribute anything to anyone else because he is trapped. Therefore, none of his funds can be used for new troops but he can still recieve help). After all, this is a GOT game we are playing and the battle of the whispering wood from that book shows that allies can help relieve their besieged allies. White Bull countered with the argument that the new rule was in effect before Cenedil attacked with the troops he had at his command and before he had been shipped others. Since he did not argue the rule before acting, he was allowing it to go into effect and he should be punished for his negligence. I believe Cenedil when he says that he would not have agreed to the rules if he had understood them correctly. Besides, he never actually agreed to them at all (except by keeping quiet) and he did eventually argue them (which the rule said was an option). Another important factor is that the actual besieging took place before the rule came into effect, so it might be considered to be using the old rules. And even if not, the rule would have been amended "mid battle" and changed, but by the same token the rule can be amended again. So idk. I do think that White Bull's move was very clever, and if the rule is amended again he should be able to take back his forces if he wishes. But this depends on how strong the besieging attack should be. Should it mean nothing coming in, or nothing coming out of the area? Maybe his version is right, but if people didn't actually want that rule then they should be able to make it the way they want it. In a democratic game like this, its tought to be a hard ass about changed rules that people arent sure they understood in the first place. But I think White Bull made another great point, namely that people should get punished for tactical errors and rewarded for clever moves like the one he made. That's why I wanted to make as few loopholes in the new rules as possible so that we CAN be hard asses about the rules. Its just that when you change them because people don't think they make sense, you are sort of obligated to change it to something that the same people DO think makes sense. |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 5 2008, 08:19 AM Post #15 |
|
Acheron - Thank you for your time I appreciate your toughts and insight. Since the rules were somewhat ambiguous, and I will still have a signifcant numerical advantage against Cenedil, I am willing to let him use the troops tributed by Chugman. I would like defenses to be posted in within the 6 day requirement for a siege, as with this being a 5 post batle since a capital is involved, it could be a long one (up to 25 days). I also think that nothing should be suspended for diplomacy. The battles will go on, and will be stopped if diplomacy works, but until then they should continue. We are getting close to the end, and I would really like to see us get there. So I will agree to this as long as the battles continue as of now. Edited by The White Bull, Oct 5 2008, 08:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Cenedil | Oct 5 2008, 05:40 PM Post #16 |
|
I am against the continuation of this battle for 2 reasons. 1. We have not come to an agreement on the rule. 2. what kind of sense does it make for the ruler of a city to be negotiating while his city is under attack right behind him? |
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 6 2008, 07:18 AM Post #17 |
|
Lord of Harrenhal
|
Actually I would say we have basically come to an agreement as the White Bull said that you could use the troops. As for your second point its up to you and the White Bull to decide. |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 6 2008, 07:35 AM Post #18 |
|
Negotiation while you are under attack makes all the sense in the world. Negotiations are rarely made when the playingfield is equal. I didn't call this grand council because I'm altruistic, but I figured it was worth talking out. |
|
|
|
| Acheron | Oct 6 2008, 10:45 AM Post #19 |
|
I agree with The White Bull. It is up to him whether the battle continues and it is up to you whether you attend the Grand Council. Since he conceded the point, the rule is not in question, and in future battles it can be either amended or kept as is. There should also be a starting point on where Cenedil's time begins/ends. Should it be when The White Bull made his concession at 9:19 10/5/08? |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 6 2008, 03:55 PM Post #20 |
|
I think that is too much time. Note that 4 days passed before Cenedil and his allies did anything. I don't think he should get them back just because the constitutionality of their move was brought into question. He had two days left when the question was raised, I believe he should get two days from 9:19 10/5/08. I am not negotiable on this point, as the longer he is able to stall the longer my forces are locked up. All he has to do is post defenses, and unless things have changed significantly I have a good idea of the way the Castle is set up from when Sunviper attacked it. Edited by The White Bull, Oct 6 2008, 04:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Battlefield · Next Topic » |
9:16 PM Dec 4
