Attravere asks, "Qualcuno mi capisce?" (Anyone understand me?)
"Don't be offended, your plan is good, contingencies don't hurt, though, do they?"
What does the Code speak to about this situation?
What does the Code say about what, specifically?
((The justification for harvesting vis nominally "belonging" to another covenant. I'm aware of the possible inquorate state the covenant was in. I'm just trying to figure out if they're doing anything based on a legal rationale.
Int 2, Code of Hermes 3 with a specialty of tribunal procedures.))
Under Stonehenge Tribunal law, all vis sources belong to the Tribunal, and harvest rights are granted to individual covenants by the Tribunal. Rights are generally assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis, though other factors may weigh in (proximity, mundane land ownership, etc). In the event of contested sources, resolution essentially boils down to how the Tribunal decides to vote. In your case, though, because GF for a time could not qualify to be recognised as a covenant, it was completely ineligible to enjoy harvesting rights from the Tribunal.
Legally, not only can they defend the vis with force, but you can also be charged with attempting to deprive a magus of his power. Poaching is treated quite harshly in Stonehenge, as Goliard takes it as a personal insult when others do not observe proper protocol.
This tells me nothing other than what I already knew.
I said "belonging" perhaps assigned would've been a better word.
I said the covenant was possibly inquorate. Was it found to have been in quorate, or just assumed to have been, including an assumption Sophronia made on her own.
Who is currently granted the rights to collect from the this vis source? Or has it fallen into a contested state?
In that case, the Code says nothing on the matter, because there is no precedent.
Sophronia has no idea whether the covenant status was officially revoked between Tribunals.
"Do we notify them that they are tresspassing? We haven't made it official, yet. Should we?"
(OOC y'all have until 7pm PDT to make any more preparations; thread will proceed to the next dawn at that time. I want to start the Tribunal threads by tomorrow morning.)
Continuing to speak in Italian and pointedly glancing at the crows and the stone cottage, Attravere replies, "Prendo nessuna offesa. Non rivelando la mano ad un nemico, sarebbe saggio." (No offense taken. Not revealing our hand to a foe would be wise.)
Attravere draws out his wax tablet and writes this out for Cygna to read.
"As long as the plan I'd mentioned at the covenant goes well then where we set our camp tonight shouldn't really matter. They may offer certamen to claim the vis. I hadn't planned for us to be around to find out once we'd acquired it. It may be unavoidable however."
Then after wiping that off and seeming a bit smug he'll etch,
"Though I do have an offer for Desidarius if all goes well."
This was edited after I responded a couple of times...
If there's no legal recourse (or loophole) to be had here, for us, then Sophronia will withdraw and advise the others of the legality of their actions. IMO, you're providing few options. On one hand if we don't contest it they have a stronger claim, but if we do attempt to contest it, we're possibly committing a crime.
Yup, it's one of the drawbacks of living in the boondocks of Europe.
(From what I understood there hadn't been a tribunal at which we were deemed inquorate. If we fell inquorate between tribunals it was a very vague thing, but being opportunistic other covenants placed their own bids on the vis sources we had registered for and began claiming them. I figured we'd argue that because we were never deemed inquorate at a tribunal then the vis source harvesting rights were never relinquished by our covenant. I don't know that our covenant was actually ever provably below quorum. Liliana has always been accounted for, Lamentus was only lost to us this year and Maribus passed away only after multiple members had fully joined. This post seems particularly useful towards whether we ever fell below the 3-magi minimum. Additionally Justinius, Aislynn and Leona simply haven't been accounted for - that does not mean they are no longer members of the covenant. I don't know if there is some clause on how long a magus must be missing before they're no longer deemed a member of a covenant, but that could be problematic. I'm no Code(OfHermes)Monkey.)
Just confirming- Stonehenge did not make quorum in 1215, nor in 1207. The last Tribunal was almost two score past.
Which also means those of you native to this Tribunal have never been formally presented as magi 
umm...eep?
I -think- Attravere was presented at Harco, but I'm not sure on that.
((Are you referring to Phessalia marrying the King of Winter and depriving us of the Winter King's Gift, or am I overlooking one of the threads somewhere?))
Ah. I thought I remembered reading something like that, but couldn't find it when I went to find it again. At least we (hopefully) don't have to deal with the Skinless again. That would suck. Wonder how Cygna's spont Creo Salis is?
I've never liked Phessalia.