-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Is it allowed to transfer provinces to other players by edit, even if they are currently not controlled by the nation giving them away? (Rebels or foreign occupation.)Aladar said:
Sir Dud said:
Condfirmed, I will also give you the IDs of the provinces that are going to be trasnfered Bob.
Thanks.Aladar said:
Note to Bob: Then the transfer of Hyderabad to Portugal from Scotland shouldn't be edited. It has to wait.
Aladar said:
What is this?
There are no such limits in the rules. Frankly I did not think I needed to argue about this.
In this case Scotland owns two provinces in India, one of which is reb controlled, and wants to transfer both of them to Portugal.
This is not a case of having ones provinces controlled by an enemy and thus a sneaky way to lower the war score. What stops me and Scotland to sign a document transferring ownership of those provinces? Nothing. It does not harm the game anything, there is nothing in the rules that says it is not allowed and is entirely realistic.
No, but we don't have all and every little possible detail in the rules, that's why we have a GM! What would you have said if I lingered on in the war, and transfered all provinces you controlled to a third part, thereby nullifying your WS? You say it's sneaky, but it's allowed to be sneaky.Daniel A said:
There's no rule against this idea, although most people here would say it's not allowed. Most players realise this and wont attempt doing it. Similar case with rebels.
You are free to let Hyderabad revolt away and take it then. Transfering a revolting provinses is in my view not allowed.
Why? I see no reason for that decicision. As I explicitly stated.
And you did not give any now.
Note that we do not transfer controlship, only ownership.
Norre gave a reason, but that reason is not applicable for this situation, when it is not controlled by another nation but by rebs and the nation is at peace.
The fact is that no applicable reason at all has been put forward.
The fact is that I have clearly pointed at this being so.
The fact is that the true reason for the motion put forward seems to be none other than to harm us. Had there been a real honorable reason present in the mind of those approving of the suggestion, then I am quite sure it would have been presented.
I take for granted that the decision will be changed.
And you did not give any now.
Note that we do not transfer controlship, only ownership.
Norre gave a reason, but that reason is not applicable for this situation, when it is not controlled by another nation but by rebs and the nation is at peace.
The fact is that no applicable reason at all has been put forward.
The fact is that I have clearly pointed at this being so.
The fact is that the true reason for the motion put forward seems to be none other than to harm us. Had there been a real honorable reason present in the mind of those approving of the suggestion, then I am quite sure it would have been presented.
I take for granted that the decision will be changed.
Stop being arrogant Daniel. Aladar is still GM here not you and as such he makes the final decision. And Norre makes a perfectly valid point, and so a blanket rule of "no province editting if they are not under you control" is a good idea as it gets rid of any opurtunity for exploits.
I take for granted you will accept the GMs ruling in this matter.Daniel A said:
We get to an area where our rules doesn't apply, where exploits are possible. The GM decides one thing, to make the game move on. You can have another opinion, and that's fully valid, since we don't have the rule for it. In the end Aladar is the GM, he decides. Move on.
Norrefeldt said:
There is no exploiting possibility involved in this case. As you well know.
I suggest you move on with your analysis of this issue. I have even assisted you in putting forward the correct question for you to answer to have any chance at all to arrive at a correct conclusion. Try it instead of hiding behind false arguments (as you are when you write: "where exploits are possible").
You seem to be a little slow. The case is not closed at all. No doubt Aladar will shortly post that he made the decision assuming me and Scotland somehow exploited something, tryig to gain an unfair advantage etc but that he has now understood that this was in fact not at all the case.
BTW, good that you say "sure" and thus will move on to the analysis of the problem. We are eagerly awaiting to hear your answer to the question presented.
BTW, good that you say "sure" and thus will move on to the analysis of the problem. We are eagerly awaiting to hear your answer to the question presented.
Guys calm down or DOW eachother ingame atleast.
I will however not change my ruling, as i see it as an exploit to transfer revolted provinses to other nations. Either deal with the rebels or loose the provinses the natural way.
I will however not change my ruling, as i see it as an exploit to transfer revolted provinses to other nations. Either deal with the rebels or loose the provinses the natural way.
And Daniel, change the attitude
You are not Aladar, and so cannot assume to speak for him, and it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop doing so. You disagree with the decision, let it go at that and stop acting so smug.
Daniel A said:
You are not Aladar, and so cannot assume to speak for him, and it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop doing so. You disagree with the decision, let it go at that and stop acting so smug.