War system questions

[daal]

No one is "out-to-get" the TB in this discussion, and no one wants this mud to be "safe-mud-smurf-la-di-do-mud", or somesuch; this discussion is here because of the blatant flaw in the current TB role, where TB and various non-affiliated players assume that it is reasonable for TB to hunt Andoran allies in Andor, or RE allies in the 2R, based on a CoL warrant, and that those same players assume that the LW or RE should give permission to the TB to hunt their allies who are wanted by the CoL because of out-dated treaties.

Maybe it's time to stop complaining on the forums, and, perhaps, certain clans should void their current agreements with the thiefbane and renegotiate?

[Vampa]

I don't need to see the treaty, Thiefbane already has every treaty with every nation catalogued. They have them by date, updates by date, dates signed, dates re-signed (in cases where they went unchanged but they wanted to be sure everyone still felt the same).

You may want to contact the Thiefbane, they may be able to help you get your bearings.

[Kaan]

That aside, clans shouldn't be promoting vigilantism or the use of mercenaries if they want to retain any semblance of authority in their sovereignty or jurisdiction. Some clans, historically, have utilized Player Run Clans (such as the Andoran Cavalry, Whitebridge Militia, Baerlon Town Watch, and Amadician Army) in the past and included them in their treaties with other nations and the Thiefbane. They've used those PRC's to become feeders for the clan itself, in some cases, as well.

This would be at the discretion of the clans involved, considering it has to do with reputation. I would not expect a neutral Imm. to be involved in this policy making. Of course, what imms do is your prerogative and I am simply trying to understand the imperative guidelines which we are being given.

[Kaan]

I don't need to see the treaty, Thiefbane already has every treaty with every nation catalogued. They have them by date, updates by date, dates signed, dates re-signed (in cases where they went unchanged but they wanted to be sure everyone still felt the same).
You may want to contact the Thiefbane, they may be able to help you get your bearings.

TB acted within the current treaties, hence my statement of how am I wrong across the board about treaties and such? Again, please clarify.

Edit: again, the discussion isn't about whether TB broke a treaty. The discussion is about what the role of TB should be within the evolving environment of the mud. We are asking for general imm and player feedback and are not trying to force changes to the current treaties. Currently, there is a general understanding that the Immortals do not want the TB status to be influenced or changed. If this is not true, then can you please clarify.

[Ragyn]

Seems to me this is something clans will need to hash out themselves as we go forward. Should they remedy their treaty with Thiefbane, so that during war-time their usual "hunting rights" are revoked or tweaked in some fashion - maybe even make compromises to ensure that the Thiefbane perhaps only hunt the wanteds from for example Andor during war time etc.

These just seems like small issues that will be hashed out as we go forward, this is the first war we've seen with this new system - it only creates opportunities for more diplomacy etc in the future.

[Vampa]

That aside, clans shouldn't be promoting vigilantism or the use of mercenaries if they want to retain any semblance of authority in their sovereignty or jurisdiction. Some clans, historically, have utilized Player Run Clans (such as the Andoran Cavalry, Whitebridge Militia, Baerlon Town Watch, and Amadician Army) in the past and included them in their treaties with other nations and the Thiefbane. They've used those PRC's to become feeders for the clan itself, in some cases, as well.

This would be at the discretion of the clans involved, considering it has to do with reputation. I would not expect a neutral Imm. to be involved in this policy making. Of course, what imms do is your prerogative and I am simply trying to understand the imperative guidelines which we are being given.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. It is entirely the choice of the clan, and their reputation is what is at stake, among other things. The clan will make the choices, no rogue members will. We are arbiters in this, you are the participants. However, we've spent months setting the stage for this, making sure treaties, laws, and clan guidelines were updated as much as we can. All at each clan's discretion. Inactive clans, such as yours, that are now showing signs of life again need to catch up.

[Vampa]

I don't need to see the treaty, Thiefbane already has every treaty with every nation catalogued. They have them by date, updates by date, dates signed, dates re-signed (in cases where they went unchanged but they wanted to be sure everyone still felt the same).
You may want to contact the Thiefbane, they may be able to help you get your bearings.

TB acted within the current treaties, hence my statement of how am I wrong across the board about treaties and such? Again, please clarify.

Edit: again, the discussion isn't about whether TB broke a treaty. The discussion is about what the role of TB should be within the evolving environment of the mud. We are asking for general imm and player feedback and are not trying to force changes to the current treaties. Currently, there is a general understanding that the Immortals do not want the TB status to be influenced or changed. If this is not true, then can you please clarify.

It is evolving. I don't know where you get the understanding that we don't want TB status to change. That is the Thiefbane's choice, not ours. As with all clans, they lead, we follow. They choose, we enforce their choices. If the choices aren't viable for any number of reasons, we tell them to take a different approach.

I can't fully understand which side of the fence you are on because you seem to be arguing against yourself between posts. I may come across the same way, to you. If you have further questions, message me privately perhaps?

[Kaan]

It is evolving. I don't know where you get the understanding that we don't want TB status to change. That is the Thiefbane's choice, not ours. As with all clans, they lead, we follow. They choose, we enforce their choices. If the choices aren't viable for any number of reasons, we tell them to take a different approach.

I can't fully understand which side of the fence you are on because you seem to be arguing against yourself between posts. I may come across the same way, to you. If you have further questions, message me privately perhaps?

Will do. Thank you for the discussion.

[Rig]

Interesting idea, friend Brocas. It would be ideal if Fist and Talon had enough active members to do this, but as it is they don't. Maybe the recent activity will get some active again, who knows.

[Octavio]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. It is entirely the choice of the clan, and their reputation is what is at stake, among other things. The clan will make the choices, no rogue members will. We are arbiters in this, you are the participants. However, we've spent months setting the stage for this, making sure treaties, laws, and clan guidelines were updated as much as we can. All at each clan's discretion. Inactive clans, such as yours, that are now showing signs of life again need to catch up.

Isn't it possible that when you made sure everything was updated that those that did update did not understand the entire picture? It's very possible that now clans will want to rethink their initial decision.