The Council of Wyrms

[Cainehill]

I would like to suggest that Prop 50 is thrown out, as a proposition that was never announced here - bad precedent to set, even if a decent proposition.

[Wish]

puffyn said:
Following the rejection of Prop 49 and the logic behind it, Mictlan will continue the war against Man unless ordered to stop by some future proposition.

However, we have come up with a compromise proposal that salvages much of the idea of Prop 49 as it relates to wyrms going rogue in the future, and also spells out the legal position of Man and Mictlan, so we encourage you to vote on the new and exciting <a href="http://yarnspinners.improbable.org/Wyrms/index.php?title=Proposition50">Proposition 50.</a>

cainehill, you mean like in the above quote, which you managed to past after at some point?

the council cannot be held responsible for your own irresponsibility.

[djo]

Hello everyone,

Effectively immediately, I'll be changing email addresses. My username is the same, but I'll be at gmail.com instead of earthlink.net. The old one will work for a while, but not forever.

If you need to contact me and don't have my address, just PM me through this forum.

Thanks!

[shovah]

Could anyone take over in this game for me/find some-one to do so, due to windows bloody xp i currently cant get dominions working.

[RonD]

Can you elaborate on the problem? Maybe someone can help. Dom2 seems like a pretty benign program that shouldn't cause trouble.

[shovah]

Read the technical/hardware issues sticky.

[Ygorl]

Hopefully we'll have a new Ermor player by next Saturday... Otherwise, I think it would be better to turn them AI than to let them sit stagnant? (Burden of Time, anyone? )

Also, Ygorl is trumpeting his successes in battle against Mictlan on the Yarnspinners page. Might be worthwhile reading for anyone out there hoping to scoop up the odd unique summon (though, of course, there will be no mention of Mannish casualties... I'll leave that to Apep )

[Wish]

whats the rule when a large sneaking army takes out patrolling forces, thus putting them in siege of the castle of the province?

I know the province is clearly contested (by the charter,) but am I right in thinking attacking within the castle would cause roguehood, since it is an active move to take the province without council ruling?

[Ygorl]

I think we talked about this a while back, and the consensus was that if sneakers were discovered, beat their discoverers, and as a result took over a province or contested a castle, there was nothing illegal about that - so, since a contested province may be contested by either party, it's legal to then siege and take the castle.
I might be wrong, though.

[Wish]

its certainly a loophole to the "no stealth attacks without council approval" portion of the charter. how would his attacking my castle work towards his attackability under prop 39?