Talk:Royal House of Astonia

Auction

As the lands were declared by Astonia to Adina in source [1], they had the right to do what they pleased; which was done in an auction as attested in source [2]. While discord screenshots are generally not regarded as proof, there is no reason to believe Adina's action of putting it to auction was illegitimate under Adinan law, and the jurisdiction was not in Astonia's to determine whether the auction was illegal as the land was already passed to Adina. Therefore whoever had the passing of lands of Astonia was legal, so the edits made by User:MrJoCrafter were reverted. Specificlanguage (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Astonia is moving, its lands now belong to Adina." As this is a page about the royal house of Astonia, and not the nation of Astonia, this declaration of surrender does not apply. "there is no reason to believe Adina's action of putting it to auction was illegitimate under Adinan law" this is a page about Astonian tradition and royal law though. Adinan law doesn't apply. I at no point stated that imperator nor any adinan had any right to the throne, only the physical land itself. Also, removing "(Icenian/Bloomean/Adinan Occupying Regime)" from 7misun is also just inaccurate. In addition, validity of claims on this page should not be considered for Imperator, as he has a long history on this wiki of lying about my nations in general and me in particular. - MrJoCrafter (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

7minsun was the owner of the lands of Astonia in CC, and even if he had no rights to the 'throne' and the explanation of the means of coming to "power" are proven then no action is necessary. If anything, 7minsun as the de facto "king" of the land as in general. If you disregard anyone who rules over a land who is generally not the king, then you could basically erase w:Oliver Cromwell from history. I would also warn against using the term "Pretenders" as that gives a negative tone; a better term could be "Rulers of Non-Lineage" or something. While this is about the Royal House of Astonia, the Astonian tradition should definitely consider people who ruled over lands that *were* Astonia's, as that could factor into your culture, as if lands were critical to your culture in the first place. If you really care enough about 7minsun's nationality, that can be readded, it's essentially saying somebody like w:George I was the ruler of England despite the fact being from Hanover. Finally, Imperator has generally been giving good and valid edits and (as he wishes) replies to this thread with **good-natured** counterarguments; I assure you he's editing in good faith, and you should do the same with a more congenial tone. This action wasn't vandalism and instead of outright deleting you should contact the parties in question should you disagree before mindlessly editing a page. Specificlanguage (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Logic re: "Pretenders": people who claimed the throne or seized it without recognition from the official authority. Both Evann (declared by a foreign power) and 7misun ("given" throne by someone with no authority to delegate that) fall under that category. Misun qualifies as a pretender despite having de-facto control over Richland Lakes because this page is about the royal law, not the de-facto political situation, and as an unrecognized royal, he fits that category. And no, imperator has made many, many bad-faith edits and false or exaggerated claims about me and others on this wiki, e.g. claiming the aurum v astonia conflict was provoked by "astonian militarism" when that is objectively false, claiming astonia was a "haven for adinan monarchist radicals" which is laughable, and claiming that Arlington (also my nation) destroyed his house way, WAY back on First Light. - MrJoCrafter (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"pretender" still has a negative connotation and should be avoided per WP:NPOV (see in particular "Words to watch"). Tybug (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Foremostly I would like to address the specific allegations of false or exaggerated claims against me, this being the appropriate forum for doing so. The claim that I made the assertion that the Aurum-Astonia conflict was caused by "astonian militarism" is not borne out by the edit history of Adinan History. As of the 4th of March 2021, before you had made any amendments to the page, the only usage of the word "militarism" is stating the reason that the Astonian Treaty was signed- the original wording being that it "would be signed to contain the blatant militarism of the Astonian Emperor SinjoroJoCrafter." I believe this is an accurate paraphrasing of the reasoning given within the document itself (describing SinjoroJoCrafter as a "lit fuse that would go off at any second - if not kept in check"). It accurately portrays the intention of the parties to the treaty. However even if the use of "blatant" were to be construed as a non-neutral phrase in the article, its usage would nonetheless be borne out by the facts. Astonia had been party to very many conflicts during its existence that are attested to on the wiki- such as the secession from Adina, second war with Adina, pearl-on-sighting the entirety of SPQR, the fact that a tribunal in Icenia convicted for a killing based on denying Astonian titles within Icenian borders (can be verified through their discord but for brevity I have attached the verdict and some of the evidence). It is a reasonable exercise to determine that this does not constitute the general norm within nations and ergo the finding that it was militaristic is justified both in terms of explaining the reasoning of the parties to the Astonian Treaty but also in describing conduct which to an observer could fairly reasonable come within the bracket of militarism. In so far as the word blatant goes, it is also the case that the actions prior were conducted "without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious". The second claim of false or exaggerated edits is again truncated from its context. The article did not make the unqualified claim that Astonia was a "haven for adinan monarchist radicals" but rather that the creation of Arlington "gave rise to a concern that Astonia would be the new Antigua for radicals under SinjoroJoCrafter’s unstated influence". Stating that Adina had a concern would be accurate and is categorically not the same as stating the claim was factual. However there is some objective basis for the claim just by a cursory sweep of the wiki. Astonian currency was circulating in Moloka, a nation formed by the exiled monarchists of Adina and therefore it would be fair to say there was at least some association between the two groups. Moreover in discussion in the CivWiki discord it has been confirmed by the leader of Arlington that it was merely a nation formed to evade the constraints of the Treaty. Adina expected subversive actions from Arlington and these expectations are now confirmed in fact. Extending on from that were the requisite associations for the premise to also apply to monarchist radicals too. Nonetheless that does not need to be proven, for all the article claimed was that concerns existed. That statement neither gives legitimacy to those concerns, nor dismisses them and I believe met the objective standard of the wiki. In regards to the final claim of false or exaggerated edits, it is again, not the case in my opinion. It is the case that citing claims on the wiki is undoubtedly a burdensome activity at the best of times, and it must be remembered that this is the medium for a Minecraft server's historical documentation. Issues that can seem uncontroversial at the time can later prove to be controversial and then years later, sourcing these events is highly challenging. This applies to this edit, which has existed in its current form, unchallenged for some time. It is unfortunate that this is the case for the documentation relating to the raiding of the house. However, the raid was never linked directly to SinjoroJoCrafter, but rather to his civ nation of belonging. If as stated, my aim was to slander, the blame would be laid directly. Nonetheless in subsequent discussion regarding this edit, it was stated that the possibility of this raiding having occurred could not be ruled out. It seems somewhat unfair to condemn me on the basis that something might be wrong, as opposed to be actually wrong. The claim itself was undirected and so I fail to see how it slanders anyone directly. As for slandering nations, I'm not really sure what my vested interest to smear CivEx Arlington would be. The relevance was that the house in question was the Patriarch's house and therefore somewhat worthy of note in context of Orthodoxy. I hope this addresses some of the concerns stated regarding my objectivity and I will now move onto the specific facets of this article. I concur broadly with what has already been stated by the CivWiki administrator prior, however would just like to add a few things. My overriding concern when editing this page has been to preserve wherever possible the intended purpose of the article. To this end I am aware that the edit might be met with some reaction from yourself, so I ensured that throughout the process I corresponded with the Wiki team and that where I was making alterations they were fully evidenced. Moreover though I had potential disagreement about whether 7misun qualified as a pretender or not, I nonetheless preserved the original intent of the article by not altering that assessment of pretendership. Where things have been removed from the article it is because I believe they directly contradicted the sources. For example the claim that there was an occupation force backing 7misun is not necessarily borne out by the evidence. For one Adina washed its hands of Astonia after the auction, which it was given the land and groups for. We never maintained any bunkers or infrastructure in those areas, nor was there some sort of continuous presence. We administered the area like a bankruptcy liquidator would, not an occupying army. The interview claims that the area was entirely depopulated. Perhaps you can militarily occupy a depopulated area, but it stretches the natural usage of the word. The lack of enforcement of Incentives' claim was added because it is important context to have. The original declaration was not entirely serious in nature, and had it been, logically it would have been enforced in one of the conflicts Adina won. If the fact that it was never enforced was omitted, the reader would get a fundamentally different impression of the claim than was reality. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. ImperatorMendes (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The changes made by Royal House of Astonia/Sandbox should be implemented; as tybug suggested i have changed "pretenders" to "unrecognized members", and "illegitimate auction" to "unrecognized auction", but this page must convey that the auction undertaken by Adinan authorities was not legitimate in the eyes of the Royal Law, because that's what this page was about. The mention of the auction in Adina is unchanged because Adina really did partake an auction, despite having the consent of no native astonian authorities. However, for this page only the official opinion of the Royal House matters, and that's why the auction is described as "unrecognized"; that's why 7misun is in the "unrecognized members" category. - MrJoCrafter (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)