Clan in Fontan and Aurvandil

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Ah, but why does it matter? Because it's unfair? I feel like we're going in circles here.

We were told by multiple people, including Tom, that there is a clan, and to stop speculating whether there is a clan, because there is... repeatedly.

A clan not in charge of Aurvandil I might add, and a clan that has no influence over what Aurvandil does, or who is elected, or when we do things, how we do them, the roleplays we make, the way we define and roleplay our realm. A relatively benign clan then, as far as Aurvandil is concerned, who the most they can be faulted with is high levels of activity, as for Fontan, well I can't comment as far as that, but I will protest actions taken against Aurvandil as a whole over this.

[Geronus]

If you're worried about a Clan in Aurvandil, this would either dissipate it, or give you chance to analyse who goes where and see to what extent it is actually clanning, and not just like mindedness in realms, it's a situation that could well resolve itself for Aurvandil, so I'd like for us not be forcibly split up, when we're on the verge of it anyway. That and, Mendicant has made a point of declaring these new realms won't be allies or friends of Aurvandil, and they will be fully independent, so we won't have a group of realms working together either.

We already have a reasonable idea of who is involved. This particular group has migrated through more than one realm over a fairly lengthy stretch of time. We don't really need to observe this phenomenon again to know what we're looking for.

Plus, quite importantly, it gives original Aurvandilan's like myself a chance to try and resolve this "problem" ourselves and not seeing the work we've done ruined because of some players from other realms.

It will dissipate the Clan/s or expose them, and if there isn't a clan then that won't be a problem, without blanket punishing a lot of players who aren't clanners anyway.

While there is always a chance that some people who aren't in the clan will get deported, by and large we have a profile of what we are looking for. Whatever happens, it is not going to 'ruin' Aurvandil. You'll still have plenty of nobles, and your victory over Madina.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

We already have a reasonable idea of who is involved. This particular group has migrated through more than one realm over a fairly lengthy stretch of time. We don't really need to observe this phenomenon again to know what we're looking for.

While there is always a chance that some people who aren't in the clan will get deported, by and large we have a profile of what we are looking for. Whatever happens, it is not going to 'ruin' Aurvandil. You'll still have plenty of nobles, and your victory over Madina.

Well, so long as Aurvandil isn't targeted at large, fine.

[^ban^]

From this point forward any posts discussing the existence or non-existence of a clan will be deleted.

This is not a point of contention. You have been warned.

[GoldPanda]

YES

Please don't shout. 

Why is it unfair then? What's stopping you and me from grabbing some active players and starting our own clan?

I believe it's fine for Tom to issue an edict saying "no more clans!" and start deporting nobles. However, we shouldn't act as if the clanners have deliberately and willfully violated the Social Contract, not when Tom's last known policy is "clans are fine as long as they do not exclude people". I have not seen any evidence that they have been excluding people, despite a few players loudly claiming that they have done so.

And I believe the argument that "it's unfair because this is a friendly game between friends" does not hold water. Games between friends, involving more than 2 opposing players, can still be competitive. I know most of you have played Diplomacy. I have certainly been ganged up on by friends in games before. If anything, the onus is on the losing parties to not be jerks about it. It's a lot easier to be a gracious winner than a gracious loser.

Again, just my opinion.

[Chenier]

There has also been no public posted evidence at the request of the ACCUSER whom also PICKED THE MAGISTRATES and is bias in this issue, as much as it may black mark the players, there names should be posted no trail can be had without evidence

Who the magistrates are is public knowledge. They were chosen prior to this case arising, on standards that weren't influenced by this case. We are not given any secret instructions to act or speak a certain way. We aren't puppets. Hell, some of us, such as I, often disagree and engage in heated debates with Tom on these forums.

The reasons for not divulging the evidence is to protect reputations. Being accused of a crime is, to the public, the same as being found guilty of it. We try to limit this. We also try to protect sources and keep private information private, so that the investigations don't hinder players involved.

I thought Magistrates would discuss things within themselves. I don't think letting random people voice their opinions is productive. Why not maybe invite a couple people who are involved with the matter?

It's hard to tell those who are involved from those who aren't prior to discussions. These forums also only offer limited filter options: it's just not possible to put a filter that would only allow "those who have ever had a character in either Fontant or Aurvandil". Public is therefore the best compromise.

[Dante Silverfire]

Please don't shout. 

Why is it unfair then? What's stopping you and me from grabbing some active players and starting our own clan?

I believe it's fine for Tom to issue an edict saying "no more clans!" and start deporting nobles. However, we shouldn't act as if the clanners have deliberately and willfully violated the Social Contract, not when Tom's last known policy is "clans are fine as long as they do not exclude people". I have not seen any evidence that they have been excluding people, despite a few players loudly claiming that they have done so.

And I believe the argument that "it's unfair because this is a friendly game between friends" does not hold water. Games between friends, involving more than 2 opposing players, can still be competitive. I know most of you have played Diplomacy. I have certainly been ganged up on by friends in games before. If anything, the onus is on the losing parties to not be jerks about it. It's a lot easier to be a gracious winner than a gracious loser.

Again, just my opinion.

I'm in complete agreement with GoldPanda here.

I mean, I agree that a clan is present in these realms. That is what we are accepting as fact. What I don't agree with is that they are inherently harming the game OR breaking the Social Contract. Nothing is stopping us from getting the most active nobles on Atamara all together in a single realm and completely dominating if we wanted to. Would this be against the Social Contract? Woudl this even be considered a clan, since it consists purely of members who know each other from within the game. (Even if a few know each other outside).

 The question that really matters is IF you consider the above a clan, then you will end up considering any hyperactive highly cohesive groups of nobles to be clans for the purposes of any rulings on clans, even if they are not (and are proved not to be.)

This case seems very simple to me:

1. The clan isn't being exclusive as many have attested to being able to work with and join them.
2. Nothing in the Social Contract prohibits players from seeking to maximize their performance in the game in a military aspect. (So long as they aren't exploiting bugs or gaming the system, which there doesn't seem to be evidence to this effect) they should be fine.
3. When I play board games with friends, the understanding is that everyone is there to both have fun, and to try and win. Now, you can't attempt to win in BM as there is no "winning", however if they are seeking to have fun without denying it to others, by simply being a military powerhouse, what is the problem with that?

What I am worried about is a precedent that prohibits active players from playing together. I know it has been stated multiple times that the "manner" in which it is done makes a difference, but I don't believe it does in the end. I am quite sure that if I went around, got the Kinseys, the Cheniers, Anaris's, name X other highly other active families and we all decided to go and join a realm together and to do whatever it takes to win militarily that complaints would be made. Are we a clan? No. Are we a group of players working together in game, with legitimate IC reasons? Sure, we can be. Although it could be without them as well.

It would not be difficult to set up a realm like this. The reason that I haven't yet is simply because *I* personally wouldn't have as much fun playing in a hyper active realm that doesn't have to try to win battles. That doesn't mean that others won't have fun in that environment. That is why Battlemaster offers many different islands and realms for people to play in. But if we start making decisions saying who can or can't play together, I don't see the game benefiting. That is at least my humble opinion.

[Vellos]

I have certainly been ganged up on by friends in games before. If anything, the onus is on the losing parties to not be jerks about it. It's a lot easier to be a gracious winner than a gracious loser.

But when you played again, did the same friends gang you again?

And a third time?

And a fourth?

.... a fifth?

And when you ask them why, and they tell you that they like each other better and have a pre-existing agreement never to backstab and organizedly distribute who wins the game how many times (after they kill you).... what about then?

[Velax]

Nothing is stopping us from getting the most active nobles on Atamara all together in a single realm and completely dominating if we wanted to. Would this be against the Social Contract? Woudl this even be considered a clan, since it consists purely of members who know each other from within the game. (Even if a few know each other outside).

What I am worried about is a precedent that prohibits active players from playing together. I know it has been stated multiple times that the "manner" in which it is done makes a difference, but I don't believe it does in the end. I am quite sure that if I went around, got the Kinseys, the Cheniers, Anaris's, name X other highly other active families and we all decided to go and join a realm together and to do whatever it takes to win militarily that complaints would be made. Are we a clan? No. Are we a group of players working together in game, with legitimate IC reasons? Sure, we can be. Although it could be without them as well.

One major difference is that if you just assembled the most hyperactive families in BM in one place, there would still be disagreements. Both Chenier and Anaris might want to rule, and they will both run and they will both campaign (well, Chenier might not if IVF is any guide, but you get my point) and the votes would likely be split between them. There will be arguments and disagreements as to the best course of action. In fact, given the most hyperactive players are also probably those most involved in intra-realm politics, I'd not be surprised if there were more internal politics and arguments than in a normal realm.

By contrast, clans work together. For all intents and BM purposes, they are a hive mind. They don't fight with each other, they don't bicker, they don't campaign against each other (and no, NoblesseChevaleresque, posting more messages showing arguments in Aurvandil won't prove anything, as no one here has said the clan there involves every member of the realm). The degree to which they work together easily for a single purpose would be impossible, or at least very difficult, for any normal realm. And that is what gives them the unfair advantage over everyone else.

[Kellaine]

But when you played again, did the same friends gang you again?

And a third time?

And a fourth?

.... a fifth?

And when you ask them why, and they tell you that they like each other better and have a pre-existing agreement never to backstab and organizedly distribute who wins the game how many times (after they kill you).... what about then?

I have to agree here.

I also play magic the Gathering (card game) and if a player has a deck that can kill in 3 turns every time that deck usually gets banned in friendly games (non-tournament).  I have had my own decks banned for that reason as have others I know. Then there are times that we (the top rankings among us) play each other to test our best decks. We do this to keep the game enjoyable for everyone involved.

Those that do not do this usually find that no one will play with them.

[Dante Silverfire]

One major difference is that if you just assembled the most hyperactive families in BM in one place, there would still be disagreements. Both Chenier and Anaris might want to rule, and they will both run and they will both campaign (well, Chenier might not if IVF is any guide, but you get my point) and the votes would likely be split between them. There will be arguments and disagreements as to the best course of action. In fact, given the most hyperactive players are also probably those most involved in intra-realm politics, I'd not be surprised if there were more internal politics and arguments than in a normal realm.

By contrast, clans work together. For all intents and BM purposes, they are a hive mind. They don't fight with each other, they don't bicker, they don't campaign against each other (and no, NoblesseChevaleresque, posting more messages showing arguments in Aurvandil won't prove anything, as no one here has said the clan there involves every member of the realm). The degree to which they work together easily for a single purpose would be impossible, or at least very difficult, for any normal realm. And that is what gives them the unfair advantage over everyone else.

Well I never claimed that they wouldn't have disagreements and that they may try and rule over others. However, when it came to the military fighting part of the game, they would win even if they have internal disagreements. IF they fight a war, they win. On the other hand, many of the hyperactive players realize that internal politics can be one of the more fun and engaging parts of the game then the external military conflicts and thus it is very possible that such families wouldn't be opposed to such a realm, because they'd certainly expand quickly which would allow for more internal politics.

I do see your point though. There are benefits to being in a clan. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of in-game family relationships my characters have built up over time which to someone who hasn't seen us play together for years (even if on different characters) would think that we were just blindly supporting each other. However, it happens just because you CAN count on that other person returning the favor or simply because you know they'll do a good job. If they disagree with you, so what? Your realm is progressing because you have fellow leaders you can count on. You want to play with those you can depend on and you know will work hard. These are aspects that a clan would share, the only difference is they built those relationships over years in another game.

I've probably said my piece though, and we'll just let the Magistrates judge my thoughts.

[Penchant]

But when you played again, did the same friends gang you again?

And a third time?

And a fourth?

.... a fifth?

And when you ask them why, and they tell you that they like each other better and have a pre-existing agreement never to backstab and organizedly distribute who wins the game how many times (after they kill you).... what about then?

I beleive his actual point was the "clanners" will fight each other despite being in a clan.

[Tom]

What I'm saying is, Tom, if I ignore the fact that they are in a clan, I can't tell the difference between how they're playing the game and how some of us are playing the game.

But we can. Some people on the dev team have been watching this group for a long time and are even more certain than I am that we are facing an OOG group that is acting intentionally, concentrated and outside the boundaries of "having some fun with friends". Or rather: They define "friends" as themselves and everyone else in the game is there to provide them with entertainment.

[Tom]

Tom's last known policy is "clans are fine as long as they do not exclude people".

You are misquoting me. The actual words in the FAQ are:

My position on clans is very simple. One, it is not illegal to have friends. Two, having fun with friends should not diminish the fun of everyone else.
If you want to play with and/or against friends, whether you call it a clan or not, that's fine with me. When whatever your group does wipes out the fun for other players, you'll feel my wrath. This mostly means that it is not ok to take over a realm for your clan. [...]

I think you'll find that basically we have had an anti-clan policy for years, it just wasn't put into the Social Contract or anything because it hadn't been necessary so far.

[GoldPanda]

And when you ask them why, and they tell you that they like each other better and have a pre-existing agreement never to backstab and organizedly distribute who wins the game how many times (after they kill you).... what about then?

Actually, there is one board game where I play in tournaments online and my friends only play casually. Our skill levels are different enough that they have to gang up on me, or else they have no chance of winning. But enough tooting my own horn.

... I get what you mean, but I believe it can be countered via in game means. From what I understand, the clanners' families are not exactly popular.

They were not able to save Thulsoma from the Astroists.

They helped Aurvandil defeat Madina, but only because Madina failed to get any meaningful support from their neighbors (mostly by being jerkwads to most of their neighbors throughout their entire history), and then spectacularly failed to defend their own choke-point, and then pretty much gave up and rolled over after their choke-point got breached once. Their own region lords were flipping left and right. It was disgraceful.

Westmoor is rallying for support against Fontan right now. If Fontan starts winning again, I'm sure Perdan and Caligus will intervene.

As I recall, there was a clan in Fontan during the last war against Sirion. They had their own guild and their own army.

If these clanners are so good and so organized, then why aren't they winning more often?

My position on clans is very simple. One, it is not illegal to have friends. Two, having fun with friends should not diminish the fun of everyone else.
If you want to play with and/or against friends, whether you call it a clan or not, that's fine with me. When whatever your group does wipes out the fun for other players, you'll feel my wrath. This mostly means that it is not ok to take over a realm for your clan. [...]

I count a clan "taking over a realm" for themselves as being exclusive, and thus abusive. I did not see that happening in Fontan, not when three of the four incumbents won their elections. Maybe they plan to do take over Fontan later. Maybe they took over Fontan a long time ago and I just didn't notice. But it certainly did not happen during the last election cycle.

We can't see all the information you and the Devs can see, Tom. I say do what you think is best, and thank you for at least listening to our input.