That is nonesense, what we are debating is the happenings WITHIN those realms, otherwise we are arguing an abstract point of "Toms opinion of what is considered insufficient IG communication + Achivement = Clan" which is a terrifying precident. For example, summerdale recently got a lot of nobles, if they were to now amass a large CS and win some battles and there enemies decided they didn't like it would they be investigated for clanning?
It is not nonsense. Tom has identified that a behavior is taking place. This is not arguable because it's not an opinion. What we are being asked is to rule on whether the behavior that has been identified is a violation of the fair play clause of the social contract. If you wish to make the case that it is not, I invite you to do so and we will consider what you have to say. Arguments that no such activity is occurring are pointless. Tom says it is. Tom has the tools to know. No one else here outside of the Dev team does. You may choose to believe that they are not, but you're not in a position to know for sure one way or the other, are you? You might not be engaged in any such activity, but the fact is that you have no way of knowing whether that is true for every single one of your realm mates.
At this point, and I will say this to everyone, what we are interested in and looking for is your opinion as to whether the identified behavior is a violation of the social contract. No other contributions are necessary or desired, nor will they in all likelihood have any impact on our deliberations. If you want to know what it meant by behavior, please read the text of the complaint (first post) in full.
Furthermore, Tom, your name has a lot of influence in this case, and your clearly bias, I would suggest your continued involvement taints any fairness this court could have. In the same way that a President speaking to the media suggesting a person is guilty of crime would bias a jury in the real world
Tom does not participate in the deliberations of the Magistrates beyond answering questions that are posed to him. He does not argue any given case one way or another and obviously will abide by whatever decision we reach. What more would you ask of him?
