WesWorld

If the consensus is that Perds is gone, I'd like India back.

Discuss and let me know your thoughts.

I have nothing against it, because you have played Bharat in the past

Nothing against it from me.

I think it's a very nice opportunity. We've had some very active players there, both "Perds" and his predecessor- who you might know... I'd be glad to see you back there.

I have no problem with Rocky taking over India again.

For my own clarification - are you asking for India, or are you asking for India *and* all its little suzerain puppets? And are you going to continue playing Peru as well?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
For my own clarification - are you asking for India, or are you asking for India *and* all its little suzerain puppets? And are you going to continue playing Peru as well?

I'd continue Peru as well. At current sim pace, it's hardly a burden.

I understand that Persia is tied at the hip with India right now. I think I'd have to take that on.

Hedjaz is the only other puppet I'm aware of. It's simple to deal with.

I don't have a problem with Rocky taking over India either.

Hrm.

I did not approve OOC of Perdy running both India and Persia back when that transition took place, and I do not think that it ought to be continued now. I'd suggest that we devolve Persia to NPC status, with India maintaining strong influence but not control on the Persian government.

I tried to get one last contact in to Perdy, and if I've not heard back by end of the weekend, then I'd say it's fine.

Why was he running both, then?

Edit: Am I correct in thinking that the Mods approved of Germany annexing Austria, and of the Netherlands gradually taking over Belgium? And China/Formosa, for that matter?

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Why was he running both, then?

Neither I nor anyone else wanted to make a big scene about vetoing it or anything. But as it seems we're changing players for India, I feel that now's an appropriate time to make that right.

I forgot Atlantis/Colombia in my list.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Why was he running both, then?

Edit: Am I correct in thinking that the Mods approved of Germany annexing Austria, and of the Netherlands gradually taking over Belgium? And China/Formosa, for that matter?

As Brock said, Persia was a rather confiused and complicated issue. I would say at this point Persia is thoroughly linked to India, and changing that would require a player to untangle themselves.

Austria was handled through the LoN, and none of the playerbase or Mods objected OOC, iirc.

Netherlands and Belgium was considered an internal issue, as they were both run by the same player.

Likewise, China and Formosa was handled between their respective players. I think Walter has something similar planned for Chosen and Japan at some point, too.

Colombia is nominally independant, but within Atlantis' sphere of influence, or somesuch. I'll let Wes clarify if needed.

No problems here. Would like to know about the final decision as soon as possible as Mexico had some planned deals with India starting 1942.

I've no objections, certainly if efforts to contact Peredor fail.

I'd agree that Persia and India should be seperated. Perdy had engineered the whole civil war storyline so India could effectively annex Persia and use that nation's factories etc. to further increase his own navy and get round various Treaty restrictions etc.
Saying that, how Rocky will untangle the fact that the Raj of India is now the head of state in Persia (by some weird mechanism) realistically in OOC terms and without further bloodshed IC will be in interesting to engineer but it will be a tricky job.

At this point, Persia and India appear to be in a "Personal Union" or thereabouts. I don't know that it's feasible to annex the two into one nation, certainly in the short term. Dissolving the personal union also seems tricky.

Rather than being told upfront how to proceed, I'd much prefer to have the flexibiilty to act however is most appropriate from here on out.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_IncAs Brock said, Persia was a rather confiused and complicated issue. I would say at this point Persia is thoroughly linked to India, and changing that would require a player to untangle themselves.

That may be, but if the Mods had issues with it, they should've stepped up and squashed it early.

Quoted

Netherlands and Belgium was considered an internal issue, as they were both run by the same player.

Likewise, China and Formosa was handled between their respective players. I think Walter has something similar planned for Chosen and Japan at some point, too.

Okay - so how do either of these cases differ from the current Persia/India one? One player handling two countries and deciding to join them. What am I missing? Why object to P/I and not those?

Hi folks,

my take on India:

1,.) Welcome back, Jason. The SAE Arctic Soccer Team is eager to challange their Indian friends again.

2.) On Persia:

a) That nation is currently linked to India by player action. That action has not been seriously challanged by other players, to the best of my knowledge, and there never was a moderator decision denying Perdi his story arc.

b) There have been other stories in the past that included NPC nations being annexed or brought under control of a player nation - as already mentioned above, though this list may not even be complete. None of these have been seriously challanged by moderators and I do not see how the current case differs from these examples and needs to be dealt with differently.

c) We have a standing, though unwritten rule, that whenever we have a player switch, the new player has to take written WW history as "given" and continue from there (treaties, alliances, laid down ships etc.). The only case I can remember where we departed that path was when howard was kicked out, but I do not see how India's case is in the same ball park. So for me, any new player taking over India has to handle Persia as under his control until he sets up a story line which separates the two countries again.

So clearly, currently India is controlling Persia IC and there is no need to take OOC action to seperate the two. It will be up to Jason to decide how he proceeds.

Well, I haven't heard from Perdy and don't expect to; so like I said, I'm fine with Rocky taking command of India. [SIZE=1]I still don't think that Persia needs to ipso facto follow, however; but since there seems to be little concurrence on that issue, I'll let it be so long as they remain separate countries. No sense fighting a lost battle.[/SIZE]

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
At this point, Persia and India appear to be in a "Personal Union" or thereabouts. I don't know that it's feasible to annex the two into one nation, certainly in the short term. Dissolving the personal union also seems tricky.

Mmm, not tricky, but possibly bloody. In all of Perdy's news reports post-war, the current Persian government (which was the pro-Indian faction) was getting pretty upset at India's meddling in their business; particularly the incident where India told Persia to prepare for war with Britain. Given that it's highly likely that the Indians assassinated the Persian shah and started the Civil War, the Persians have some pretty good reasons to thumb their noses at India, particularly if they found a strong Western patron like Britain who'd support them against India.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Quoted

Netherlands and Belgium was considered an internal issue, as they were both run by the same player.

Likewise, China and Formosa was handled between their respective players. I think Walter has something similar planned for Chosen and Japan at some point, too.

Okay - so how do either of these cases differ from the current Persia/India one? One player handling two countries and deciding to join them. What am I missing? Why object to P/I and not those?

I was not present for China+Formosa and have seen no posts stating that they were joined, so I don't actually know what happened there. I've seen nothing in years regarding Chosen and Japan, so I'd consider that case on an individual basis when and if it comes up.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The only case I can remember where we departed that path was when howard was kicked out

Don't think we threw out any of Howard's history so much as shoveled dirt over it and ignored it. We did, however, throw out some of Fyrwulf's last actions in Brazil (given that his acceptance as Brazil's player was, er... tenuous).

Howard received a lot of flak while he was doing what he did. This is not the case for Perdi. So we can leave our shovels at home, there is nothing to ignore.

And unlike Fyrwulf, Perdy was never challenged for taking actions in the name of India. He was officially nominated instead. So no need to rewind any of his actions.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Howard received a lot of flak while he was doing what he did. This is not the case for Perdi. So we can leave our shovels at home, there is nothing to ignore.

Nobody suggested that we should, unless I missed something...