Anti-Clan Policy Discussion

[egamma]

What about a dozen realm members from, say, Beluterra, deciding IC to abandon their realm and migrate to one specific realm on another island? Would that be legitimate IC action--basically a cross-island invasion--or would that be considered 'clanning', even if it's all planned entirely IC? For example, when the War Islands sunk, there was a plan in Toren to have everyone move to Morek. Would that be considered clanning?

[Tom]

I'm against any kind of being nice and hoping people will change their ways. That means keeping an eye on them and pretty soon we will have a full-time job of watching clans.

No, here's what I think we need:

   
• A clear anti-clan policy with explanations why
• A place where clans who want to play the game and accept the rules can register themselves and their members. This is voluntary (of course, we can't force anyone), and is basically a demonstration of good faith
• If we discover clan activities, we can check the clan register. If we find a matching clan, they will get a warning. We reward good faith with the benefit of doubt. If we don't find a matching clan, we will break them up, right there. If they whine, they can get the !@#$ out.

I've really had it with people who destroy the community and other players' fun in order to compensate their ego problems by feeling cool and powerful. There is one and only one practical difficulty I see and that is clearly identifying these people.

[GoldPanda]

No offense, but I personally consider this of poor taste. Not a crime, nor something that should be punished, but certainly something I would try to avoid. It makes one think all those characters are extensions of the player, without individual goals, dealing with extensions of the other players.

I don't see how this goes into OOC friendships. It's not as if I go drinking with those players after work.

Not every family has "the crazy" swimming in their gene pool. If one of my chars have had pleasant dealings with Joe Bob on one island, and pleasant dealings with Jane Bob on another island, he's more likely to trust John Bob on a third island. I certainly don't see it as meta-gaming.

It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated risk. He's no worse off than trusting the other complete strangers on the island he's just arrived at.

[Kellaine]

I don't see how this goes into OOC friendships. It's not as if I go drinking with those players after work.

Not every family has "the crazy" swimming in their gene pool. If one of my chars have had pleasant dealings with Joe Bob on one island, and pleasant dealings with Jane Bob on another island, he's more likely to trust John Bob on a third island. I certainly don't see it as meta-gaming.

It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated risk. He's no worse off than trusting the other complete strangers on the island he's just arrived at.

OOC Friendship I do not see a problem with unless is a large group of them taking over a realm. as in the case of Fontan. where 16 characters played by 11 players. destroying the fun for the rest of the realm they goto.

[JPierreD]

You should also clarify OOC friendships because the quote you talked about that player is not ooc friends with them but know the family will return the favor if he helped them. (Also not one character helped a family, and the family returned the favor on a different continent)

Nope, I am talking about entirely made IC friendships too. When you treat a family not as a collective of members, but as a single entity, as the player behind it.

I don't see how this goes into OOC friendships. It's not as if I go drinking with those players after work.

I don't see any problem with players going to drink with other players after work. It is not something that should be punished. The point is not the relation outside the game, but the one inside it.

Not every family has "the crazy" swimming in their gene pool.

Not referring only to crazy characters, though they are one possible kind. Some are more social, and want to make friends, some want approval and recognition from those above, some want to be the ones in command and won't accept orders, some want to take advantage of others at any opportunity, some are religious zealots and want to spread their faith, some don't care about politics and only want to win their war, some don't care about war and only do about politics, some just want to serve their ideal of a realm (here there are many possibilities), some are very paranoid and/or scheming, some want to put forward pacifist/lenient policies, some want to go for aggressive ones. And so on and on.

If all those kinds of characters can trust all those kinds of characters from another family then something definitely is wrong, wouldn't you think?

If one of my chars have had pleasant dealings with Joe Bob on one island, and pleasant dealings with Jane Bob on another island, he's more likely to trust John Bob on a third island. I certainly don't see it as meta-gaming.

Generally in my family unless Char McChar has met Brother McKepler himself, instead of him being a friend or acquaintance of one of his relatives, he won't go to Kepler McKepler and treat him as someone he knows. With exceptions to the very good friends, who might be close to the family (and usually not /all/ of it), my characters don't know who my other characters have met. And if they do, their relationship with them will depend on what their relationship with the relative was like.

But this is how I play, and what I think, and in no way a rule or the likes.

It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated risk. He's no worse off than trusting the other complete strangers on the island he's just arrived at.

Honestly? I think it's the contrary, it's a lack of risk, a way to play it safe. But if that's the way you like it, good for you. I just don't like the tendency that creates to close doors for new players.

   

• A place where clans who want to play the game and accept the rules can register themselves and their members. This is voluntary (of course, we can't force anyone), and is basically a demonstration of good faith

You had suggested something like this before, but was not that well received. Right now I agree it might be a very good idea. Would it imply in opening a new war-like island?

OOC Friendship I do not see a problem with unless is a large group of them taking over a realm.

As with everything it's more of a linear than a binary value. Not just clan/not-clan.

[Geronus]

I'm against any kind of being nice and hoping people will change their ways. That means keeping an eye on them and pretty soon we will have a full-time job of watching clans.

No, here's what I think we need:

   
• A clear anti-clan policy with explanations why
• A place where clans who want to play the game and accept the rules can register themselves and their members. This is voluntary (of course, we can't force anyone), and is basically a demonstration of good faith
• If we discover clan activities, we can check the clan register. If we find a matching clan, they will get a warning. We reward good faith with the benefit of doubt. If we don't find a matching clan, we will break them up, right there. If they whine, they can get the !@#$ out.

I've really had it with people who destroy the community and other players' fun in order to compensate their ego problems by feeling cool and powerful. There is one and only one practical difficulty I see and that is clearly identifying these people.

Wait, so now we want to formalize them? I don't know that I like that. It says, in some way, that clanning is normal, that it is ok, that it can be acceptable. I don't think it's any of those things, at least not in this game. I don't like the concept of them as applied to BM, and I don't want to encourage them.

I have a question. Are we, as I suspect we are, engaging in this discussion based purely on the actions of one particular clan within the game? Or is this behavior more widespread than I am aware of?

[Sonya]

Subject:

The anti-clan Thing is not so clear, since of course the game start as a team(clan) oriented game, that's why we cant forbid the team play of the game. But we have to protect the integrity of the game itself with fair play, and equal to everyone, so everyone can have fun playing BM, since you can't win the game, but have fun on it.

I have given my opinion many times about small groups taking over realms, but since the Mailing List is gone i suppose i say it again:

"There is no way that an small group can take over a realm".

Reason:

Simple, the current players aren't blind, and normally one or two of these people start complain about the realm and protest, etc. and in the end they end leaving or banned. Unless of course the realm is around 20 nobles and they win the rebellion, since they have half of population, but 90% of the time i see them banned.

Also, the other realms aren't blind, the in-game politics is a must, and if a realm notices something fishy with other realm, then he ask his allies for support and they all join against  it, is not too bad if 4 realms want to make a wasteland of another.

As well, if they really want to take over a realm and the continent, a new formed realm would be more beneficial, because everyone is new, instead of a long standing realm with a stable council and 10-20 players who knows each other for years. But still  new realms are formed mostly by the same old realm with different names(recycled) or conquered by other bigger realm (buffer) where those realms have old players on power.

And, it takes tines to some one to get decorations to be ranked up in a high position, and even so older nobles who didn't receive merits with same time on service, will notice and will complain, and will be made noticeable and most likely this newly ranked noble get stabbed in the back (or something).

What we can't do:

We cant forbid players to join the game, it doesn't matter if is a entire neighborhood into a realm, i would be happy to see new players on the game, in the last couple years BM have been a recycling of realms forming and going, with the same people, with the same realm structure, etc. etc.

What we must do:

Most of us have more than 5 year on this, is our job to control this in each one of our realms, i'm not saying that we become the BM Inquisition, we have just to open our eyes because these kind of activities are easy to notice. there is always some one who points a hint:

"why that man was duke before me, i have claim of the city and i have served longer" i saw that on Epollyn today.

"That man is younger than me, and now is vice-marshal" a running Fontan´s issue.

There are many things that can alert you, of something strange, of course, is not wrong but is strange. that is the time when we have to check the character, as stated before if they are not alone they will have companions that support him, then again who is and where he/she came from, etc.


Uh oh.. is lunch time... well, i continue later, but in resume, there are ways to solve things with unnecessary rants or divine intervention, we cant control who joins or leaves realm, their class, their unit, etc. But we can check on their behavior.



Peace

[Gustav Kuriga]

16 characters from 11 players isn't a small group though...

[Vellos]

Disclaimer: I have not read the entire thread.

I see people saying, "What if you randomly find yourself always on the same side as somebody else?"

Two examples come to mind that I've noted recently:
1. Myself and Perth - we know each other OOCly (I introduced him to BM), we usually end up "on the same side," and even in many of the same realms, but we have never done OOC coordination that was not ICly motivated and replicated, and we have always gone out of our way to include others

2. Bellators and Anaris' - Not to pick on these players, but they're always on the same side. Or consider Cheniers and Lefanis': they're always opposed.

So: are these "clanning" concerns? As far as I can tell, most of you say "no."

But I find myself compelled to scream "HELL YES!"

Frankly, if you always find yourself with the same players' characters as your characters' enemies, and the same players' characters as your characters' friends, you should make a new character who will take the opposite side. Implicit clans based on long gameplay within BM are just as bad as explicit clans based on long relationships outside of BM. Long-term BM players have a duty to the game on the whole to actively break down clannish behavior within the game.

What does that mean? That means I try with all of my characters to stir up trouble for Perth. So far it hasn't worked very well; we can't force idiotic RP just to break OOC clans maybe. But we can still try to limit these things.

If experienced players would be more proactive in ensuring an open playing environment (not always playing in the same set of realms, making new characters in former enemies' realms, becoming allies of long-term foes), finding REAL clans would be FAR easier.

And to that end, I would suggest that all that is necessary to find a clan is to find a very high correlation between their patterns of immigration and character creation. From there, you have a baseline measure of OOC coordination (you cannot ICly coordinate a character's creation outside of pregnancy RPs maybe, but those are rare and could easily be found by devs or magistrates if a case was raised; you can ICly coordinate immigration, but, in my experience, it seems rare, and mostly revolves around Beluaterran cycles). Then you start with the biggest clusters, look and see if they have below-average message traffic simultaneous with either high levels of cross-continental gold-funneling, or voting correlations, or suspicious gold transfers...

The task is not theoretically difficult. Its difficulty arises in the amount of data analysis required compared to the amount of time available for devs and magistrates.

[Geronus]

I don't think we need to go that far. I prefer "we'll know it when we see it". Violations of this policy should be rare - it should not be sweeping in nature. I know of only one group of people in this game whose behavior has led to this discussion. Until they came along, we never needed a policy. It is my great hope that once they've either changed their ways or left the game, we will never need one again. Because of this, whatever policy is put down ought to be in very general terms, with perhaps only the consequences discussed in much detail.

[Vellos]

I don't think we need to go that far. I prefer "we'll know it when we see it". Violations of this policy should be rare - it should not be sweeping in nature. I know of only one group of people in this game whose behavior has led to this discussion. Until they came along, we never needed a policy. It is my great hope that once they've either changed their ways or left the game, we will never need one again. Because of this, whatever policy is put down ought to be in very general terms, with perhaps only the consequences discussed in much detail.

My point was that I think even common BM behavior is destructive, and if long-term players would act less clannish, finding real clans would be waaaaay simpler. If we all took a moment to look around our realms at people in them, and ask ourselves, "Of the people I have interacted with in more than 3 separate BM settings, how many of them have been allies/enemies every time?" And then we worked to change that? It'd make spotting real clans easier.

[Tom]

This is rapidly going off-topic. Please return to the topic, thank you.

[Penchant]

I don't see how its off-topic, they are trying to define clans better.

[Geronus]

I'm against any kind of hard limit such as "x players who know each other". There are many families, people from the same school, etc. who play the game with no negative impact.

A concur. No effort to define precise hard criteria by which to identify a clan is going to come up with something perfect. I prefer the below definition, which I think clearly defines in simple terms the reason why we want to discourage clans.

For me, a "clan" (or whatever other word you want to use) is not just people who know each other, but who also actively collaborate and who play as a group more than as individuals.

The reason this is detrimental to the game is that the second point removes internal politics from the game, and social dynamics is a much larger part of BattleMaster than strategy and war gaming. It turns BattleMaster into something it is not.

Let that be the measuring stick. I am fine with Tom's suggested resolution of deportation, though I will point out that making sure that they don't simply take over some other realm after a couple weeks when they can all emigrate again is going to require more active monitoring.

[Tom]

Please keep in mind that I added to it that it needs to be a somewhat large group, so make it clear that we're not worried about 3 friends playing together.