*cries single tear for poor wee nomad*

None of these problems were the fault of the people (on both sides) that this plan (if indeed it was a plan) murdered in cold blood.

Do you want to set up a precedent where arranging mass murder is a valid way to become king?
How is it not the fault of our civ? We had an adoption system that made it very difficult for clan-less people to get in and replaced that with a shittier version. Also, the nomad refugees we experimented on was in fact done by our civ.

Unless you're going to deny that our civ isn't responsible for its own actions.

You do realize that i'm not advocating for any specific action, right? I was just bringing up a different topic of discussion so we could move away from the previous one since it was getting too heated.

Yes, setting a precedent that being disharmonious is bad. The question is, will we value the admin/diplo enough to risk it once we get more information? You might say no and that it's a terrible idea, but it's up to everyone to make that decision once we're more informed on how this happened anyways.
 
Yah know I've been spending some of my thinking power on the consequences of continuity in the Ymaryn.

We all know that it has given them a few advantages, see our techs, and is a general point of pride.

My thinking on the matter has made me compare them to our fellow civs. One was completely annihilated to be replaced by settled nomads, one fractured and then one half fractured again, one was subjugated by nomads we drove off. The Fracturing of the Original Lowlander civ was not caused by us, the Spirit Talkers being annihilated by actions we precipitated but their destruction was not intended, and the metal workers was an accidental consequence we also did not intend.

That all of these events happened around us is interesting to see. By our very presence things will precipitate, a rather simple idea that has a lot of ramifications. This also happens with our neighbors, see the series of events that have happened among them without our intervention of any kind. Seeing how little of a vacuum we are operating is kinda awe inspiring.

These two pieces have led me to a weird thought. If we manage to stand off all comers, stay stable and stay continuous, I think by laws of filtering we will end up evolving a natural hegemony/control of the entire planet. I am not advocating that we stay in our little corner or something to that effect when I say things like "stand off all comers", what I mean by that is expanding/building up martial/other required actions which don't invalidate the stability and continuity requirements. Essentially my view on it is that in order to survive long enough for control to happen it is logical that a civ is powerful enough to defend itself from all threats or conquer all threats.

The difference between the defend itself and the conquer all is where I spent a lot of time. I came to the conclusion that my previous thinking was operating on the assumption that we would only be defending ourselves. I'm not sure how well this will hold up as time goes by, but given past examples, and how much our continuity is setting up to give stacking advantages I figure it is a good chance.



How is it not the fault of our civ? We had an adoption system that made it very difficult for clan-less people to get in and replaced that with a shittier version. Also, the nomad refugees we experimented on was in fact done by our civ.

Unless you're going to deny that our civ isn't responsible for its own actions.

You do realize that i'm not advocating for any specific action, right? I was just bringing up a different topic of discussion so we could move away from the previous one since it was getting too heated.

Yes, setting a precedent that being disharmonious is bad. The question is, will we value the admin/diplo enough to risk it once we get more information? You might say no and that it's a terrible idea, but it's up to everyone to make that decision once we're more informed on how this happened anyways.
You two are talking past each other.

What DragonParadox meant with that phrase was that it is not the fault of the individual HK folks who our people murdered and not the fault of our warriors either for why this shit happened. That's the fault of the mastermind. He was not denying that we were at fault for our own actions to things like experimenting with the nomads.

As to you saying that there might be information that makes this guy less of an asshole, DragonParadox does not seem very accepting of it from my view and might be missing your point.

To be honest neither am I. If this was an intentional plan to attack them, there is litterally no evidence that could convince me to spare the mastermind from due punishment. If it is just stupidity, then why on earth should we elect such a dumbass to the throne?


E: I honestly need to go take a nap, which I am going to go do here in a second, so sorry if I am not being all that clear.
 
Last edited:
How is it not the fault of our civ? We had an adoption system that made it very difficult for clan-less people to get in and replaced that with a shittier version. Also, the nomad refugees we experimented on was in fact done by our civ.

Unless you're going to deny that our civ isn't responsible for its own actions.

You do realize that i'm not advocating for any specific action, right? I was just bringing up a different topic of discussion so we could move away from the previous one since it was getting too heated.

Yes, setting a precedent that being disharmonious is bad. The question is, will we value the admin/diplo enough to risk it once we get more information? You might say no and that it's a terrible idea, but it's up to everyone to make that decision once we're more informed on how this happened anyways.

Our civ? Do the villagers of the HK belong to our civ now? Did the warriors that got killed from being misinformed have some kind of responsibility for experimenting on nomands? Those people were murdered, according to you in some grand master plan because some sociopath bastard wanted to use their corpses as a ladder and you want to reward him for it.
 
Last edited:
How is it not the fault of our civ? We had an adoption system that made it very difficult for clan-less people to get in and replaced that with a shittier version. Also, the nomad refugees we experimented on was in fact done by our civ.
I should point out here that the clan-less people were a new development that was a result of our new clan laws:
While some of these events were more blatant than others, the chiefs soon found themselves scrambling to control all these new forms of "legal" corruption that were springing up. An early patch to force a longer waiting period before switching clans to avoid the most ludicrous abuses ended up producing an accidental group of people who for one reason or another were de facto outside the clans. The king was all for simply going "Okay, this was a silly idea!" when word came north that someone had done something catastrophically stupid.
 
Our civ? Do the villagers of the HK belong to our civ now? Did the warriors that got killed from being misinformed have some kind of responsibility for experimenting on nomands? Those people were murdered, according to you in some grand master plan because some sociopath bastard wanted to use their corpses as a ladder and you want to reward him for it.
You said the people, so I assumed you were talking about our civ...as that's their name. Sorry for the miscommunication, but it's an easy mistake to make. Next time specify that you meant the HK.
 
stop trying to provoke a fight.
I'm not "provoking a fight" as you so charmingly misrepresented it, I'm trying to keep veekie from compounding an already bad mistake for the sake of his ego while confronting him about his bad faith debating at the same time. And yes, I am allowed to point out the spin and outright lies he uses; that's the entire point of a debate.
 
I'm not "provoking a fight" as you so charmingly misrepresented it, I'm trying to keep veekie from compounding an already bad mistake for the sake of his ego while confronting him about his bad faith debating at the same time. And yes, I am allowed to point out the spin and outright lies he uses; that's the entire point of a debate.
Well-structured debates typically try to avoid ad hominem attacks.
 
I'm not "provoking a fight" as you so charmingly misrepresented it, I'm trying to keep veekie from compounding an already bad mistake for the sake of his ego while confronting him about his bad faith debating at the same time. And yes, I am allowed to point out the spin and outright lies he uses; that's the entire point of a debate.
Never really cared about being right. In this case it was explicitly intended as a stopgap as a prelude to changing to Geographical or Occupational by allowing for a few generations so that the chiefs actually understand the issues up for debate, as stated in the last vote phase, the consequences were within acceptable bounds and gave an opportunity to set precedents. A Stability -1 drop is minor, and being treated as minor, particularly allowing for a well timed Restore Order to flush things out. The problem is not knowing(and nobody really noticed) that Martial Over Cap meant that Stability events will cause people to send war missions at random people.

This is in order to facilitate future planning, and we have worked through potential future outcomes in a productive discussion.
If you want to do ego contests, fine, you win. It's boring to exchange those arguments.
If you want to figure out what comes next, what social precedents are being set, how this provokes trait evolutions or how this may influence mythology or sociology, then cool, we can do something useful.
 
Last edited:
Geographical or Occupational by allowing for a few generations
And here's where I have a problem with you. You keep on saying that things are working as planned when this system was explicitly and automatically going to be tossed in less than a generation and we lost Stab at the same time, leaving us in an explicitly worse position than when we started. It's not working as planned! It was a terrible idea with literally no upsides! And that is entirely independent of the border incident.
 
When it says "dissolve the clans", does that mean that people lose their clan when they come to Valleyhome entirely, and then they are sorted based on where they end up living or what they do depending on if we pick geographical or occupational?

If we switch to geographical or occupational will we be rolling it out nation wide or is it still city limited?

If we go geographical would each district have a chief, with that chief representing and pushing for that Districts interests?
-If they do how do people vote for that chief?
-How do these district chiefs compare in authority to a chief from somewhere outside Valleyhome, on the scale from village chief to province chief?

If we go occupational, how do we organize the layers of chiefs needed for each occupation?
-Is it there is a sub chief for a certain number of farmers, let's say 100, then those Century sub chiefs vote on a representative higher chief etc etc up the chain until we get to a farmer chief that represents all farmers of Valleyhome?
-How does this Valleyhome Farmer Chief compare in authority to the Farmer Chief for the whole nation and the province advisors?

Dissolving was perhaps the wrong word, in that it would be more "Inside the city limits clan affiliation has no administrative power and another system takes over". For the People living long term in the city this would result in de facto having no clan over time, but they could still theoretically claim their ancestors affiliation or just use the normal adoption mechanisms if they moved outside the city limits.

Geographical would have started off with the district chiefs (similar to clan heads and village chiefs) being selected via the pseudo-meritocratic but mostly nepotistic methods already in play, but the process would be much more noticeably unfair to the population. District leaders would be equivalent to clan leaders or village chiefs.

Occupational would sort out the number of layers based on population, meaning that it would also partially be a geographic division. And yes, those lower down in the hierarchy would vote on who to move higher up the hierarchy, until eventually you would have a Valleyhome Mason Chief, who might be second only to the overall Mason Chief in terms of representing masons in the kingdom.
 
And here's where I have a problem with you. You keep on saying that things are working as planned when this system was explicitly and automatically going to be tossed in less than a generation and we lost Stab at the same time, leaving us in an explicitly worse position than when we started. It's not working as planned! It was a terrible idea with literally no upsides! And that is entirely independent of the border incident.
When people do something stupid or make a mistake they should be able to throw their hands up and say "Fuck! Sorry guys".

However just because we should do something doesn't mean everyone will. Not everyone can admit to mistakes easily.

So just leave it mate, it's not worth it.
 
Dissolving was perhaps the wrong word, in that it would be more "Inside the city limits clan affiliation has no administrative power and another system takes over". For the People living long term in the city this would result in de facto having no clan over time, but they could still theoretically claim their ancestors affiliation or just use the normal adoption mechanisms if they moved outside the city limits.
If you had used a less misleading name than dissolving, that is what I would have voted for. -__-
 
"Occupational would sort out the number of layers based on population, meaning that it would also partially be a geographic division. And yes, those lower down in the hierarchy would vote on who to move higher up the hierarchy, until eventually you would have a Valleyhome Mason Chief, who might be second only to the overall Mason Chief in terms of representing masons in the kingdom."

This is my favorite.
 
And here's where I have a problem with you. You keep on saying that things are working as planned when this system was explicitly and automatically going to be tossed in less than a generation and we lost Stab at the same time, leaving us in an explicitly worse position than when we started. It's not working as planned! It was a terrible idea with literally no upsides! And that is entirely independent of the border incident.
Its worse if statistics are the main concern, yes, a point of view which should be patently obvious I don't subscribe to except for staying within the margins of the upper and bottom ends, and have repeatedly explicitly pursued the stability loss option in order to advance society in desired directions..
I already stated I believed there was a risk of stability loss down the road, depending on the admin roll to implement things. But the gain here is that we now know about abuses possible in a city that isn't possible previously, and the chiefs will have that in mind when implementing the alternative solution down the road. The thing with the Clan adjustment is that it's highly revealing about the flaws of the system, while not as powerfully entrenching inequalities as Geographical could have before they were patched out.

In any event, you are due an apology from me, because I've been interpreting your discussion as arguing in bad faith, and responded according to that, rather than a basic difference in values, which is fair enough. I don't consider it a failure in any sense beyond "Man this is an inconvenient diplomatic incident" while you consider the loss in stability as a failure and the diplomatic incident event as compounding it to total disaster region.

People are difficult.
Dissolving was perhaps the wrong word, in that it would be more "Inside the city limits clan affiliation has no administrative power and another system takes over". For the People living long term in the city this would result in de facto having no clan over time, but they could still theoretically claim their ancestors affiliation or just use the normal adoption mechanisms if they moved outside the city limits.
Mmm, that colored reactions a bit I think.
The phrasing made it sound an order of magnitude more drastic than it was.
Geographical would have started off with the district chiefs (similar to clan heads and village chiefs) being selected via the pseudo-meritocratic but mostly nepotistic methods already in play, but the process would be much more noticeably unfair to the population. District leaders would be equivalent to clan leaders or village chiefs.
Largely as already elaborated upon, geographical tends to cement preexisting inequalities, as the only people who can change it are the ones already in power, who obviously are not going to change the lines to give themselves LESS power.
Occupational would sort out the number of layers based on population, meaning that it would also partially be a geographic division. And yes, those lower down in the hierarchy would vote on who to move higher up the hierarchy, until eventually you would have a Valleyhome Mason Chief, who might be second only to the overall Mason Chief in terms of representing masons in the kingdom.
And this would sound quite desirable if listed previously...but I suspect it wasn't for precisely that reason. How do we determine which trades are major enough to get their own chief, and which trades are umbrellaed anyway?

Do we have umbrellas?
A census is basically counting noses and marking down the results. Any state with even the most basic writing could technically do it.
Not quite that easy. It's technically possible, but making sense of a census, and tracking people as they move is far more complex than it sounds.
 
Last edited:
...I'm not sure what anyone considers the 'best option'.

Dissolving sounds nice until you consider the political shitstorm and long-term implications of large groups of people who don't have anyone officially looking after their interests. At the very least, I'd expect that to encourage corruption and organized crime.

Professional organizations also sound good, but guilds are one of the biggest culprits for stifling innovation ever. Good for stability though.
 
Last edited:
Professional organizations also sound good, but guilds are one of the biggest culprits for stifling innovation ever. Good for stability though.
Relatively speaking. In China, the Clans did it instead. Early start on gunpowder, magnetism, steel and paper, but the clans holding the technologies did the same or worse stifling as the Guilds did, so it their techs fell from grace when they did so. Same motivation: innovation = competition, shutting down the competition is easier than catching up to their stuff and nobody bloody wants to share instead.

But Love of Wisdom probably helps a bit there since people won't stop asking difficult questions.
 
Back
Top