Charter amendment for section 9.H


  • Count

    So while reading up on npc realms earlier, I noticed some language that slipped through from the last server, as well as something contradicting the commonly held belief that npc builds count towards rank advancement.

    The offending section says:

    h. NPC realms may be founded at any non-claimed location within the map borders, and are subject to any border conflict rules as normal.

    These realms must follow all other rules that regulate the claiming and expanding of land. NPC realms may show up on the official Conclave maps. NPC realms may not count directly towards rank ascensions, with the exception of the ascension to Emperor, where lore must be provided that justifies the NPC realm's inclusion in the 'Empire.'"

    I propose two bills, perhaps one if everyone seems in agreement.

    The first is to update the language by changing the word "conclave" to "server" as we no longer have a conclave. Also in this first proposal would be the removal of "with the exception of the ascension to Emperor, where lore must be provided that justifies the NPC realm's inclusion in the 'Empire.'" As this is in reference to when ranks were tied to a realm, rather than a player, and is no longer relevant, (npc realms cannot be annexed at all now).

    The second proposal, that could be tied in, is to basically remove the entire second half: "NPC realms may not count directly towards rank ascensions, with the exception of the ascension to Emperor, where lore must be provided that justifies the NPC realm's inclusion in the 'Empire.'"

    This actively changes the law as it is currently written, to match the general consensus most of us already believed. But if anyone disagrees with including the work done at cobuilds to rank advancement, then it should be put to its own vote apart from the old language issues.

    Please discuss.


  • Baron

    I agree with you, it's seems to be a bit of an anachronism and something that just slipped the net.


  • Duke

    This does seem to make sense. I think that it needs to be added that for co-builds you should only count work that has been substantially completed by the claiming party, or where a work is so large that all parties can share equal claim (such as the work on the canal in Isara)


Log in to reply
 

10
Online

228
Users

1.1k
Topics

5.1k
Posts