All OOC:
> First off I am as tired of this as anybody, I am hung in the balance of
> retiring or seeing this through to a fair conclusion.
Well, all I can say to this is that, since this is an in-game problem, I
hope you are talking about an IC conclusion above - the character retiring
from the regiment rather than the player retiring from the game?
> Frankly, I imagine
> CdC's and especially BDP's career to be too tarnished to have much future
> success now the boot is being put in.
Depends what CdC's (given) motives were and what he intends to do about it
now that it's hit the fan. Currently no-one has a clue about this since
there has yet to be any IC reaction from CdC. Did CdC seek to deliberately
overturn regimental protocol and go against the wishes of his Colonel in
this? Or, when the new troop command orders came in in the middle of a
campaign, did he think that a squadron was going to be left without a
commander at a critical time and purchase it, not realising that GlV had
also put in a purchase order which would now not take precedence over that
of CdC? Having learned the truth, will CdC immediately offer to resign so
that protocol can be restored? Will he admit his error but ask his
performance over the Summer be taken into account, offer restitution to GlV,
and request that his Majority be confirmed? Or will he take the line which
BDP has currently adopted and try to brazen it out, in the full knowledge
that there are various steps which might be taken to make his future life
difficult if he does so? Your character - your choice. There are no means in
rules terms to force a character to resign a rank.
> I am asking for Greg's intervention on this matter that is way out of
hand.
Why? Other PCs making it hot for CdC is a roleplaying issue rather than
rules related.
> Greg, please read to the end as I believe I have shown two instances where
> rules have been abused or breached - and not by CdC! Also my considered
> opinion on the best conclusion is written at the end of this post.
I've found the correspondance relating this. Mark (PldE) and I originally
proposed to Greg that
Month 1: PldE resigns as Lt.Col. AdM buys the vacancy. PldE rejoins the
regiment (admitted by AdM as new CO) and buys up to Major (cash for the
purchase of this and the subaltern's and captain's commissions to be
provided by AdM).
Month 2: AdM buys the Colonelcy. PldE buys the Lt.Colonelcy (cash again
provided by AdM).
I think you will agree, Mark, that the above conforms strictly to the house
rules?
Greg agreed, but opinioned that it was all a bit complicated and, since he
had the facility (in terms of the game code) to allow AdM to buy the Lt.Col
and Col positions through PldE, why didn't he just do that instead?
The above arrangement _is_ clearly outlined in the 'Welcome to the Dragoons'
document AdM issued to DG members as soon as he became Colonel, of course.
> >Sorry, AdM was never in receipt of the regimental memo (no longer being
in
> >the regiment). All I had was an (OOC) message from Tracy(CAT), including
the
> >the regimental structure "she had ordered".
>
> Another conspiracy?? ;-)
No, just that Tracey answered OOC to the message AdM submitted to the press,
since she was still trying to determine what had gone wrong.
> Is it perhaps like the one where a character in favour with the GM may
> break the rules leapfrogging _two ranks_ at once. Don't the rules
> regarding promotion relate to what our characters understand as Military
> Regulations?
'Military Regulations', as you put it, were not compromised - see above. I
really don't see what you hope to achieve by pursuing this - especially
given the length of time you have been aware of it. Do you really consider
this to be a valid response to a character making in-game life difficult for
your PC?
> He didn't have an objection that's true, I expected GlV to have got the
> rank, I personally thought Kirsten deserved it as it goes, but in
> retrospect I now believe from this nonsense that "all is fair in love and
> war" :-)
CdC's response is entirely up to you - see above.
> If you stop to think for a moment Paul, how could it have been CdC's screw
up?
I meant that CdC's BR order had the effect of screwing up CAT's desired
regimental reorganisation.
> [I don't honestly know, but I won't take the blame unless Greg forces me
to
> - at which point I may have to consider if I am still playing in an
> unbiased role play environment and wish to continue, a very sad day for
me]
It is only CdC, not his player, who is being blamed for anything here.
> >In a RP context, wouldn't you say that a
> >captain of three months flouting regimental protocol by leapfrogging over
> >the heads four more senior captains (who _had_ followed regimental
protocol)
> >to snatch the majority earmarked for a fifth, and then going onto ignore
> >directives from his CO regarding this would be bound to raise just such a
> >stink?
>
> I cannot comment. At least until I have _double leapfrogged_ to CO. =)
See above re the mechanics of this. The crucial difference is that the
leapfrogged character in this case, PldE, was directly involved and quite
happy for the action to take place. If CdC and BDP had previously squared
with all those characters they proposed to leapfrog, their would have been
no in-game consequences for their actions either.
> >See above. Applications to NPCs have to be announced specifically _so_
PCs
> >can throw in counter-influences if they want to (which IC suggests an
> >'applications pending' list at army HQ or some such).
>
> Sorry Paul, but you are wrong again, allow me to remind you of the rules:
>
> 2.6 Announcements
>
> Certain things must be announced in advance to allow other players to use
> influence on them if they wish. They are:
>
> Applications for important posts which will (or may) be appointed by an
> NPC. Applications for aides to people, adjutants (and brigade majors), and
> fencing instructors need not be announced: all others must be.
Depends how you interpret 'aides to people'. I've always thought of it as
'aides to people rather than NPCs'. If your own interpretation is deemed to
be correct, then of course AdM would not dream of using influence against
CdC's application.
> If all official IC statements and accusations against BDP and CdC are
> dropped and the matter of the curious conspiracy surrounding CAT and AdM
> forgotten for good I would consider this to be the best solution.
Sorry, but I don't see that CAT and AdM have a case to answer. The rules
regarding their actions were just accellerated for the sake of continuity
rather than broken - see above. And I certainly don't see any cause for
valid IC criticisms of CdC and BDP to be dropped.
-Paul
