There seems to be 3 issues geting mixed up in the forum
1) the petision to have the king removed
2) IC discusion based on how people liked him as king and such...
3) was banishing his second ok IC
I feel these are 3 very diffrent issues. The pettision is at least in part an ooc mechnic and it is not asking to allow a story line/war/battle/ palace revolt.
Based on the full text of the pettition and the posts by the primarys in this forum I do not see how I can vote any way other than to reject the pettion.
Below is my reasoning........
While IC reasons have been given, based on the forum posts by the principles this petition is clearly based on RL issues not IC ones.
GG is a Kingdom, one without a magna carta or parliament. There was no IC requirement other then general good politics for the king to discuss the issue with anyone. The King ordered his second in command (the first of his vassals) to attack. Instead of attacking the person chose to try to be neutral due to RL friendships.
RL does sometimes effect game play, people have work, school etc and can not always make it to a scene. But that was not the case here. This was an in character decision to ignore if not betray ones king based on an out of character reason. Of course there should be consequences for such a betrayal. and banishment is a very reasonable one.
Next lets address the 2 IC reasons given:
1) The king was betrayed so obviously he should not be king.
This is idiotic, no kingdom, organization, country has existed that was not betrayed at some time. Just because there is a (or a group of) spy/turn coat, sell out, etc does not immediately mean the leadership should be replaced. And to advocate such is a case shows the extreme reach people are going to here.
2) Many reasons were listed why individuals do not like the kings leadership style or decisions. The petitioner uses this dislike to claim the king does not care for the land or people.
Again this does not make since. Unless you accept the argument that the only way you can love your country is to obey whatever is the most popular opinion at any given time. I understand many leaders have followed this style. but I personally disagree with it. in my mind a leader must do what they feel is best for the country even if popular opinion is against it.
Finally: it should be noted that this is not a petion to allow Girdo and his "powerful backer" to plot and Role play towards a palace revolt or to allow people to make a mass exodus from GG to show there disappointment. It is at least in part an Out of character attempt to remove someone from power who rightfully exiled a commander who abandoned his troops and country by making an IC decision based on ooc feelings about another player.
If Girdo truly has the support he claims he should have petitioned to for a fight/battle to take over GG himself, or for a story line where he and his supporters flee to necro and act as government in exile while they plot to retake GG form a king gone mad. Or he could have filed the petition before the fight and he was exiled.
Grido did not do any of these things. The raw facts as posted by the primarys are He betrays his king and country by not responding to a call for battled and was punished for this action. Now he is pissed that he got punished IC and wants the person who punished him IC to be removed via a OOC mechanism to me this makes no sense in terms of role play. Grido did not take action prior to the attack to take control of the kingdom or Stop the war, he has not taken action after the attack to request IC story line for a palace revolt or battle. Instead he has asked for the person that banished him to be bannished and all of his access be restored.