Aurvandil's War Machine

[Ramiel]

And if anyone has any evidence that communication on those forums is meaningful influencing the IC game experience, without there being reasonable IC corollaries, to the detriment of other players, they should bring it up before the Magistrates.

Or this forum, for that matter, would be included in that.

Which brings the point that was already made, we all use things that are not specifically the battlemaster messaging service to talk about IC things. For instance I might text someone when I have no net access for a period of time and ask them to pretty much take over the army I am the Marshal of. Does that directly lead to detriment of other players experience? Shouldnt think so... it just means real life happens and that occasionally the damn winds round here take out phone lines, power lines etc and instead of everyone then having a rubbish experience and wondering what is going on, things continue as normal and no one gets killed by the army of Daimons stomping through the army because they stayed without orders. Etc. The only thing I can see clans/cliques doing that breaks the rules is positions and exclusions of positions. Otherwise what is there to moan about?

If your army aint doing as well as the enemy army, then start giving more orders and punishing those (within the IR's!) that go against orders/ignore orders.

And damn Vellos... this forum is most definitely on the list!

[Indirik]

Then there is IM services like MSN and Yahoo Messenger (anyone actually still use that?)

Back in the heyday of Perdan and the Great War on EC, we did a lot of military planning via MSN. On top of that, the messages flew hot and heavy IG, as well. Our 20+ member military council was hyperactive, with members available to handle all turn changes.

But, again, that kind of thing is not forbidden. You can use OOG forums, IRC, IM, e-mail, etc., to discuss the game. The key point still remains that those who are not part of that cannot be excluded from opportunities to participate in the realm and the activities of the game in the realm. If all your military planning is done OOG via a private forum, or an IRC chat room, and people not in those venues are excluded from participating, then you are in violation of the social contract, whether you're a "clan" or not.

Can this stuff be gamed by simply lying about what you're doing? Probably, if you're the sort to lie about what you're doing. But if you're caught, you can expect to be treated with extreme prejudice.

[Vellos]

But, again, that kind of thing is not forbidden. You can use OOG forums, IRC, IM, e-mail, etc., to discuss the game. The key point still remains that those who are not part of that cannot be excluded from opportunities to participate in the realm and the activities of the game in the realm. If all your military planning is done OOG via a private forum, or an IRC chat room, and people not in those venues are excluded from participating, then you are in violation of the social contract, whether you're a "clan" or not.

Hm, I was under the impression that you could plan OOC, but you had to eventually bring all effective content IC?

That is, you're welcome to debate strategy on IRC or send messages IRC, but if you want your character to act in any way predicated on them, it must occur IC, IG. I believe this rule was developed in the context of torturing and spying: conversations via MSN that would happen IG would create lots of messages, thus upping the chance of a torture to reveal militarily sensitive info.

IMHO, it's almost never advisable to do any planning or discussion of IG actions OOG. Retroactive talking, like on this forum, is fine, but planning should be IG. But the rules on this aren't very clear.

Yet another good Magistrates case.

Regarding clans, I would think that positions would be the main issue. To the degree it can be demonstrated that they have an OOC clique that is not operating IGly and is making IC decisions OOG, it would be punishable, IMHO. Position apportionment would be the clearest place to observe this phenomenon; but then again many clans probably prefer more autocratic governments with less frequent position rotations.

[GoldPanda]

I do not believe that's provable and thereby enforceable.

How do you prove that there has been planning out-of-game?

[Vellos]

I do not believe that's provable and thereby enforceable.

How do you prove that there has been planning out-of-game?

No, not easy to enforce. It can be provable: if you see lots of people acting in coordination, Tom can check their messages (someone please correct me ASAP if I'm wrong). If he sees that they're not sending messages that explain their actions, but still engaging in non-random activity... OOG coordination.

[Indirik]

Hm, I was under the impression that you could plan OOC, but you had to eventually bring all effective content IC?

That is, you're welcome to debate strategy on IRC or send messages IRC, but if you want your character to act in any way predicated on them, it must occur IC, IG. I believe this rule was developed in the context of torturing and spying: conversations via MSN that would happen IG would create lots of messages, thus upping the chance of a torture to reveal militarily sensitive info.

All orders must be passed IG/IC. You can't punish someone IG for things done OOG, or for not doing things IG that are discussed OOG, etc., etc.

Beyond that, I agree, that things may not quite be clear. Yes, things should be brought back into the game. You need to give the people IG a chance to participate.

Tom can check their messages (someone please correct me ASAP if I'm wrong).

Tom has direct DB access. He can get to anything that passes through the game. He, of course, has admin tools that make things easier than using SQL-fu all the time, though.

[Regulus Blackmore]

All orders must be passed IG/IC. You can't punish someone IG for things done OOG, or for not doing things IG that are discussed OOG, etc., etc.

I disagree, because according to that, you can organizate a rebellion OOG, and joining the underground at the same time. 20 nobles joining the underground, being at the capital and starting a rebellion at the same time is not fair play, in my opinion. The ruler would go mad, because he checked the underground a few hours before, because there were a lot of untrusted nobles sitting and rallyiing in the capital, but "nobody" was there.

I am against OOG talkings about strategies, because you will use them IG. I could arrest and torture the Generl of my enemies, but I couldn´t find any kind of information with him, except for the orders he gave to the MArshals... but .... he talked with the MArshals about the plans for tmorrow ( OOG obviously ) because the player behind the General will use that OOG conversation IG.

[Indirik]

I disagree, because according to that, you can organizate a rebellion OOG, and joining the underground at the same time. 20 nobles joining the underground, being at the capital and starting a rebellion at the same time is not fair play, in my opinion. The ruler would go mad, because he checked the underground a few hours before, because there were a lot of untrusted nobles sitting and rallyiing in the capital, but "nobody" was there.

Does any serious, well-organized rebellion consist of people sitting around in the underground for weeks, waiting for just the right moment to rebel? I could be wrong on this one, never having organized a rebellion myself, but I understand from people that have done it, that the most successful rebellion pretty much consist of what you describe: Lots of people joining the underground as close to the last minute as possible so that they aren't discovered. It also prevents the ruler from catching on to the rebellion, since quite a few rulers have spies in the underground anyway. They would know when the rebellion limit was getting close.

Also, secret police can only be used once per turn. So the ruler could, at most, have checked only one person.

[Chenier]

You can coordinate IC without using OOG means to join the underground at the last minute. After all, you usually have a good idea of who's not happy with the boss.

[Geronus]

That leaves lots of room for people to still exclude players from positions and  only give to clan members by making up excuses on why those nobles deserved those positions. I believe OOC clans in any shape or form in unfair play. You have a large group of friends that can coordinate outside of battlemaster and be much more efficient then normal players in the game.

Maybe so, but it's basically impossible to regulate what goes on outside the game. There are no tools we can use to monitor how players talk to each other when they aren't using BM as the messaging tool. And besides, where exactly do you draw the line on this sort of thing? My roommate plays BM. Does that make us a clan because it gives us an unfair advantage over others who can't shout at each other from across the hall? We can't outlaw having RL friends that you play the game with. I contend that it all comes down to the actions you actually take IG. If you're exclusionary, then we have a problem. But if the clan is willing to work with other players and give everyone a fair shot at participation in the realm, what is there that we can really complain about? I think it's been made clear that Tom feels that clans are against the spirit of the game, but outlawing them entirely is fraught with problems.

[Creed]

Maybe so, but it's basically impossible to regulate what goes on outside the game. There are no tools we can use to monitor how players talk to each other when they aren't using BM as the messaging tool. And besides, where exactly do you draw the line on this sort of thing? My roommate plays BM. Does that make us a clan because it gives us an unfair advantage over others who can't shout at each other from across the hall? We can't outlaw having RL friends that you play the game with. I contend that it all comes down to the actions you actually take IG. If you're exclusionary, then we have a problem. But if the clan is willing to work with other players and give everyone a fair shot at participation in the realm, what is there that we can really complain about? I think it's been made clear that Tom feels that clans are against the spirit of the game, but outlawing them entirely is fraught with problems.

I have not problem with friend's play together but when you have 10 or 15 people that are working together and planing OOC this this makes the game unfair for the rest. I mean 2 or 3 people is fine.  It is just when you get into the higher numbers it just makes the game one sided. I just hope something can be in place to make it more fair for us normal players against clans. I mean I think it is great that a large number of people wish to play together and they are having fun but for the people playing against them it is not fun because they never stood a chance. Claning in my opinion is a lot like multi accounting.

[Velax]

I agree with Creed. Any decent clan is going to steamroll any realm they face, all else being equal. Not much fun for the other side. But I also realise there's virtually no way you could actually police this sort of thing.

[Ramiel]

I have not problem with friend's play together but when you have 10 or 15 people that are working together and planing OOC this this makes the game unfair for the rest. I mean 2 or 3 people is fine.  It is just when you get into the higher numbers it just makes the game one sided. I just hope something can be in place to make it more fair for us normal players against clans. I mean I think it is great that a large number of people wish to play together and they are having fun but for the people playing against them it is not fun because they never stood a chance. Claning in my opinion is a lot like multi accounting.

But here is the difference, Aurvandil is sending everything IC through the Battlemaster Message System (or I assume so since they are still alive) thus it is not planning anything OOC its all Ingame.

The only difference is they happen to be following orders whereas some other realms have great difficulty in getting their military units to move.

[Ramiel]

I mean lets face it, the only objections to clanning are:

1. If its exclusive.
2. The fact they co-ordinate extremely well. Which is broken down into: If its down Out of Game, punish them. If its done ingame, its not fair they are still are a clan so punish them!

or at least that is how number 2 is starting to look like to me.

I mean if its done ingame, its fair enough - especially if they are INclusive or not exclusive. Fair play to them and there should be no hard feelings.

[Anaris]

I mean lets face it, the only objections to clanning are:

1. If its exclusive.
2. The fact they co-ordinate extremely well. Which is broken down into: If its down Out of Game, punish them. If its done ingame, its not fair they are still are a clan so punish them!

or at least that is how number 2 is starting to look like to me.

I mean if its done ingame, its fair enough - especially if they are INclusive or not exclusive. Fair play to them and there should be no hard feelings.

The other big problem with a clan is not exactly how well they coordinate, but rather how consistently they move together.

If you've got 20-30 people who can all be counted on to move no more than an hour before the turn, every turn, that will more or less guarantee you can win a war against any single realm in BattleMaster.  Heck, even just that many people who can be counted on to move to the right region every turn could probably do that for you.

Most realms can't manage that these days by pulling from the general BattleMaster population.