Brother Malcolm Speaks

Lol because admin said so

We have these, they're called MDoAP's.

Lol because admin said so

So there is an actual rule against this.

We have these, they're called MDoAP's.

MDoAP's are voluntary, viceroyalties are coerced.

MDoAP's are voluntary, viceroyalties are coerced.

The last six months has me more convinced that that's debatable than ever.

You misunderstand the point of Viceroyalties -- at least from the Pacifican perspective. The point was to avoid the necessity of eternal or repeating war. You take an alliance and, rather than destroying it to such an extent that its nations can never recover, you help to rebuild the alliance in such a way that its members are no longer a threat regardless of their nation strength. Unfortunately it didn't always work out that way, as emotion and attatchment to inefficient systems got in the way.

Of course, other alliances may have used them in other ways. But if they were used to conquer alliances and prevent them from "escaping with their lives", no sane alliance would accept one.

Now, you actually could have viceroyalities back since you can give up ownership of the alliance in game. I am for being a viceroy again, good times.

If such a system is reimplemented, it could definitely make things interesting. The problem though Mogar, is making sure that such a viceroy doesn't simply wipe the entire alliance out.

So there is an actual rule against this.

Yes - it's against the ToS to force someone to give you an RL possession (access or ownership of alliance forums) in response to in-game situations.

Yes - it's against the ToS to force someone to give you an RL possession (access or ownership of alliance forums) in response to in-game situations.

Alliance forums are in game though. Just because they aren't literally in the game, doesn't mean they aren't a part of it. They are just separate from it.

If such a system is reimplemented, it could definitely make things interesting. The problem though Mogar, is making sure that such a viceroy doesn't simply wipe the entire alliance out.

Just control it for as long as they want, or even incorporate it into a federation.

You misunderstand the point of Viceroyalties -- at least from the Pacifican perspective. The point was to avoid the necessity of eternal or repeating war. You take an alliance and, rather than destroying it to such an extent that its nations can never recover, you help to rebuild the alliance in such a way that its members are no longer a threat regardless of their nation strength. Unfortunately it didn't always work out that way, as emotion and attatchment to inefficient systems got in the way.

Of course, other alliances may have used them in other ways. But if they were used to conquer alliances and prevent them from "escaping with their lives", no sane alliance would accept one.

Why not use them for both purposes?

The last six months has me more convinced that that's debatable than ever.

What do you mean?

Yes - it's against the ToS to force someone to give you an RL possession (access or ownership of alliance forums) in response to in-game situations.

I think the rule is you cannot force them to give you ownership; access is a different matter (ownership was, I believe, so as to ensure that the viceroy did have access to the entire forum and there wasn't some subsection that the gov was plotting revolution in)

Alliance forums are in game though. Just because they aren't literally in the game, doesn't mean they aren't a part of it. They are just separate from it.

Sweet is admin going to pay the bill for it? You can also do some scary !@#$ with admin access.

Alliance forums are in game though. Just because they aren't literally in the game, doesn't mean they aren't a part of it. They are just separate from it.

Alliance forums are an in-game concept, but are owned (and, importantly, paid for) by people who are not IC personas.

Alliance forums are an in-game concept, but are owned (and, importantly, paid for) by people who are not IC personas.

Wow, I never saw it that way. I still think they were a good idea.

I was a viceroy twice and in both situations it was at the very least an awkward experience that I never wanted to do again. I'm glad that it is no longer commmonplace and can completely understand why it is now banned.

The blog system won't let me rate this 0 stars and that makes me truly disappointed.

I've been a viceroy, it wasn't what it was cracked up to be. I actually tried to be helpful but it was like giving someone candy while you're sitting on them.

And admin banned them because he felt that forcing someone to give you access to their board was theft.

The main reason they were banned was that viceroy's generally require the alliance to hand over root access to their forum, which could be considered theft.

However, viceroys existed in a time before alliances were a real concept faithfully represented in the game itself. I dislike the idea of viceroys, but as a thought experiment, I wonder if there is something worthwhile perhaps to exploring what could be legally done instead.

Now that there is an in-game representation of alliances, there could be a more in-game-focused hand off the AA.

If an alliance was required to relinquish control of the AA itself, then board owner would not need to hand over root access. This would also be an interesting way to enforce draconian peace treaties, because non-compliance could result in immediate termination of the AA or expulsion of offending members.

A softer method of vice-royalty could be the forced signing of a MDMA (notice no optional clause), optionally backed by AA ownership (to enforce in-game compliance).

This would enforce in-game alignment, but still leave the out-of-game properties to act as they please.

Still not sure its a good idea, but that's certainly an option for how to reconstruct viceroys. In general, use of the in-game AA ownership concept might be an interesting twist to peace terms or even protectorates in the future.

I imagine a modern day Viceory would be Alliance Owner in-game and have some sort of adminship on the off site forums (instead of ownership). It'd be interesting if it came back but a pain to oversee from what I understand.