Alternate History

International Court of Implausibility (Columbus: First Contact Map Game)

41,227pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

How this works.

One: If you think that a player is being implausible and the mods have not spotted, it you must bring your case here.

Two: For the case to be valid, you must inform the Accused (politely) and a Mod. You must also provide

a) A quote of the implausible event

b) The reason why. Try to get sources in there.

Three: It may be that the Accused decides you are right, and may then go back and change their turn. If they do, the case ends there, and there will be no more said.

Four: If they do not, then they must present a defence (trying to get sources in there)

Five: The entire playing community is then called to read all statements as people, not countries and decide whether the Accused is guilty.


If they are declared innocent, then there will be no more said.

If they are guilty then they will have a 'ICI ORDER' put next to their name.

Seven: In the event of another guilty conviction, they are thrown out of the game and the country is BLASTED BY ALIENS.

Sample Case

Case 000

I 'User1(hyperlink)' Accuse 'User2 (hyperlink)' of Implausibility.

The Offence: Quote

My Reasoning: dah dah dah dah dah

Defendant's Reasoning: Dah Dah Dah


Dah dah Dee Dah Dah


We Declare 'User2(hyperlink)' Guilty/Innocent


Case 001

I 'JoeyB98' Accuse ' Vir prudens non contraventum mingit ' of Implausibility.

The Offence: ' "'Expands eastward, crossing and conquering the Urals in 6 months, then Continues east and South."

My Reasoning: Russia was not even united in 1495, and the Muscovite princes had no idea what was out east. Russia didn't even BEGIN to expand that way until centuries later. As this is alternate history, and a map game at that, I believe there is no way Muscovy could "cross and conquer" the Urals in six months. In fact, in OTL the Ural were only CROSSED by Russians (not settled, not "conquered) in 1582. Although I can see a different royal perhaps making the process earlier, I do not think there is ant chance of this happening, even with our ASB game. Here is a link to the history of Russian expansion in this time period and beyond.

Defendant's Reasoning: While all the above points are true, the Urals were barely populated. Just one of the states armies could have pulled it off. When I say cross, I was only talking about the Urals, not farther on. Secondly, I apologize- I was not aware that Russia was disunited at this point, because Kiev, at least, had treated with the Byzantine Empire, becoming Eastern Orthodox. I assumed Kiev controlled all of Russia at this point. But if it didn't, WHY AM I CONTROLLING A BUNCH OF STATES WHICH DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER?? That is like controlling Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and calling them one country. More likely, Russia was at this point united, but under a very feudal system- in which case the Princes would still expand under the name of Russia! Another royal could and would do it! after all, it is not as if these aliens landed just now- they landed a long time ago and have thus changed history. This is not the same royal as in OTL, even though the game starts now, because strictly speaking the POD is whenever the aliens landed, and what are the chances of that particular sperm cell making it to the egg (To be blunt)? In fact, there is a possibility that some one has already united Russia! This is most certainly not implausible, it is very plausible! Maybe his heir was more aggressive, and decided to invade the Urals, with a united Russia! Frankly I do not see how this is ASB. Oh, BTW Vir Prudens Non Contraventum Mingit is only my signature, my user name is GunsnadGlory. Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 21:30, June 25, 2012 (UTC)



Case 002

I 'JoeyB98' Accuse 'DeanSims ' of Implausibility.

The Offence: ' "' Going along with the rest of Europe, France goes on step further and sends an exploration and colonial fleet across the Atlantic Ocean, they make landfall in two places very far away from the other, one in OTL Labrador/Quebec, and one in OTL Argentina. Settlements are established in these new lands and they are claimed for the King of France. They are called Quebec and Patagonia, although Patagonia will also be called New France by the people of France.."

My Reasoning: There is no way France could just launch a fleet into the Atlantic and have two colonies within a year. Sailing from France to Patagonia alone in period ships could take up to three years! Not to mention the fact that France is deep in the First Italian War and has no time or resources to "go along with the rest of Europe". Even if France suddenly became uber-interested in exploration, France, unlike England, Spain, or the KU, had no standing navy. France has traditionally been a continental power, and thus could not colonize so quickly, needing at least a couple of years to actually, you know, build some ships. My argument is not that France should not colonize, but that they can't just go and colonize Quebec (which is a BIG stretch alone) and Patagonia (which is pure ASB) in one year.

Defendants Reasoning:

They're not huge colonies, there mostly trading posts right now, nothing big. France was very strong in Europe in this time period, why couldn't they establish a few trading posts?


I did say they could cross the Atlantic. However I feel Patagonia is a bit extreme. How many ships would be needed, not to mention food, just to get there? Trade with who? Also bear in mind the morale factor. Quebec, okay, I would let it be, but.... David Rain (Sometimes...)

Yes, but cross so quickly? At least Spain had the discretion to say they expected reply back "in a couple of years", not that they built a fleet, supplied it, and had two functioning colonies all within a year. That's BS. JoeyB98

There are like 20 people in both forts, colonists are slowly making them grow, but there not really colonies yet. I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!! DeanSims (User talk:DeanSims) 21:07, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

.... So you sail ALL the way around the world.... how do you get ships? Funding? One fort with 20 people tom control all of Patagonia? The local tribes (and they are there) would laugh and burn down the entire place... Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 21:30, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, you have a case in the next room, look up. I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!! DeanSims (User talk:DeanSims) 21:32, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

... And if you read my arguments, you'd see that my case is not really one, bro. Don't take it personally, and please don't insult me. I'm just saying that you should concentrate on moving those colonies to Quebec, because Patagonia is FAR OUT. Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 21:42, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

The most liberal possible outcome for this is the striking out of Patagonia and leaving Quebec. However, even Quebec is less than "iffy", for the reasons I have described above. JoeyB98

DO NOT CONTINUE THE EXPANSION OF PATAGONIA UNTIL THIS DISCUSSION IS COMPLETE. Not only is that disrespectful to this tribunal, it is also bad for you: You lose more when it is stricken out.

Course, it doesn't matter now. Dean just got whacked for a month by LG.

VERDICT: Guilty. Everyone bar the defendant agrees with JoeyB98.

CASE 003

I David Rain (Sometimes...) (talk) Accuse JoeyB98 of Implausibility.

The Offence:


Location of RoV


My Reasoning: He has had just nine years. Furthermore, his page states that the are two other 'cities' bar the capital. I don't know the size of the cities but this seems excessive. See the History of Canada.

Defendant's Reasoning:

I will make my argument in four main points.

Point 1: Map vs Reality

Throughout history, political maps have been made in one of two ways: Firstly, if no solid boundaries existed, the maps would be drawn based on where people lived. However, and the idea of "borders" came around, maps began to be drawn based on what each country CLAIMED, not where its people live. For example, the OTL map of Canada shows areas claimed by the Canadian government, even if no Canadians lived there.

Point 2: Sparse Population

You could, on horseback, cross Canada in far less than nine years. The point made by my expansion was that thousands of people were sent to Vinland to "claim the land", i.e. occupy as much land as sparsely as possible as to have a legitimate claim on it. While the British Canadian movement consisted of moving slowly, settling an area until no one else fit, my movement is more like one person per sq km. That (along with my lack of imagination for names) is the reason why there are only two cities, which is actually an argument for me, not for you.

Point 3: Obstacles

When the British colonized Canada, they ran into three main problems while expanding. The French, who were there first and had to be driven out in a long, hard war, the Americans, who invaded Canada several times (though without success), and the Natives, especially the Crow confederacy, who would presumably be kicked out by the aliens already. All these slowed the British but not the KU.

Point 4: Leniency of this Map Game

Some of you may want to take a look at the first ICI case, which I posted but no one seemed to care about. Based on Google Earth's measurements and the actual size of Muscovy at the time, that move consisted of expanding about 1700 km (1000 mi) in six months. And now, having ignored that, you complain when I try to be fairer, crossing the 3500 km (2000 mi) gap in over nine years.

My point is, it probably could have been done even ignoring point 4. This is a Map Game, not a history book. Just because it was done faster than in OTL doesn't mean it is impossible. For example: The Mayans didn't have boats bigger than swamp-rafts until contact with Europeans. We seem to be ignoring that with your 800 km jaunt across the Gulf of Mexico, in which any real-life Mayan sailor would starve or be lost at sea.

If you plan to be fair or impartial, this case could be thrown out the window based on point 4 alone. Let us see.


OK, can we fix that 'Discussion' sign? It is starting to get on my partially OCD nerves.

Secondly, Joey, the British expanded like that in 50 years, you cannot do that in nine.

Guns (talk) 14:48, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think that David's point is that half the area you occupied is not fit for human habitation without a space heater. Note how those weren't around back then. It's fine if you're claiming that, but also, When Muscovy invaded the Urals, they were sending explorers through and claiming them. Not actually settling.

Guns (talk) 07:10, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Aha, but they were marked as yours on the map....

And the fact that most of it is uninhabitable is exactly my point. If (say) 75% is uninhabitable, you don't need as many people to fill up all the "habitable" areas.

My point is that you are making assumptions using the map that the map has no proof to offer for. JoeyB98 (talk)

Well, yeah, because they are claimed. If this is all, then I feel this is very plausible... though frankly with just 10,000 people and most of them fighting to capture Iceland, etc, you MIGHT want to tone this down. The Royal Guns (talk) 14:09, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, these people were told to "claim all they saw", meaning that what is on the map is essentially everything that is explored, because all that was explored had a RoV flag. They didn't go south because of the aliens, so they mapped what they did explore and marked it as their possession. JoeyB98 (talk)


Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki