Deliberate use of a bug for IC gain.

[BardicNerd]

I am of the same opinion.

This bug presented to unwarranted prejudice to the lord in order to warrant him switching back to undo intended game behavior.

Therefore, it's a case of taking advantage of a bug to gain personal advantages.

But if the devs don't revert the consequences of bugs . . . then as long as he didn't try to cause the bug in the first place, he pretty much has to just go with the results of it, and do what makes sense IC: in this case, he just has to accept that he's lord of the region, even if it's obviously a bug that the election didn't stop when the region was TOed.  And at that point . . . it becomes an IC question of should I a) join the enemy realm, b) just step down, or c) take the region back to my own realm?

[Chenier]

I did check, from the day we noticed he was lord, and he was never listed as a noble of Summerdale under the "Character List".  I also checked his player page where it listed Libero Empire as his character's realm.

The new estates are buggy, don't rely too much on any lists it creates.

But if the devs don't revert the consequences of bugs . . . then as long as he didn't try to cause the bug in the first place, he pretty much has to just go with the results of it, and do what makes sense IC: in this case, he just has to accept that he's lord of the region, even if it's obviously a bug that the election didn't stop when the region was TOed.  And at that point . . . it becomes an IC question of should I a) join the enemy realm, b) just step down, or c) take the region back to my own realm?

Imo, he should have either stayed in his new realm, or stepped down and rejoined his old realm.

Neither of these options would have caused his unwarranted prejudice. Which would have been the only way to justify using option c for self-gain.

You can gain from bugs, but you shouldn't seek out gains when bugs make them possible.

[Broose]

Even if they did for whatever reason 'have' to choose either stepping down or changing allegiance, that's the enemy realm losing a region + 3000 CS of militia vs. they lose a few points of H/P. No player with the interest of fair play at mind would make the decision they did.

But if the devs don't revert the consequences of bugs . . . then as long as he didn't try to cause the bug in the first place, he pretty much has to just go with the results of it, and do what makes sense IC: in this case, he just has to accept that he's lord of the region, even if it's obviously a bug that the election didn't stop when the region was TOed.  And at that point . . . it becomes an IC question of should I a) join the enemy realm, b) just step down, or c) take the region back to my own realm?

The player didn't have to accept that they're the lord. They could have made any kind of IC excuse to -not- exploit the bug. "Oh, I'm not the lord anymore, that information is outdated." "Everyone's just confused after the takeover." etc. And any excuse would probably make more sense than them just straight up taking the region back to Libero, instantly, and convincing an army of militia who just came from our capital to come work for the enemy. They didn't do what made the most sense IG, they did what made the least sense.

[Vellos]

How is this a bug exploit?

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that whoever this lord is will be punished simply because he took a legitimate in game action to respond to the *effects* of the bug.

From my understanding this was the sequence of events:

1. Summerdale takes over a region.

2. The region lord remains region lord (bug).

3. The region lord decides to switch his region back to that of his realm. (accused bug exploit)

The problem that I have with this is that the region lord cannot be expected to do anything different from an IC sense of things. It is SMA for him to have his region serve whichever Duke he wishes. If he is lord he can choose his Duke, and thus his realm. A bug occurred, and kept him as lord of the region, that is not his fault. Both he and Summerdale ahve the choice of responding to the situation as they wish.

Should the region lord be expected to simply step down from his lordship position because a bug occurred? This causes a penalty of honor and prestige to the lord for doing so, as this makes him look weak IC wise. I would say absolutely not. What can the region lord do without being accused of bug abuse? Does he simply have to sit in his region and wait to be banned from the new realm because of his misfortune?

If he waits 2 months, and remains region lord by permission of the new realm, if he then decides to change back to his old realm via his rights as lord is this a bug abuse? (It has been repeatedly stated, that time involved in certain things does not change whether something is an abuse or not, so both cases would be the same perception.)

You are not a Magistrate, nor an accuser, nor a defendant, nor a witness, in this case, or, AFAIK, in the Aurvandil/Fontan case.

Why do you constantly interject?

[Brant]

This isn't about what the devs will and won't do.   We can't say that not a single one of the Devs wouldn't have taken the time to fix it, despite what the policy is. The social contract doesn't say anything about playing it out IC when you're sure the Devs won't fix it.    It says, "Do not exploit bugs to gain in-game advantages. Bring them to the attention of the dev team so we can fix them. If you are not sure if something that seems odd is a bug or not, ask."  He should have waited for a Dev to fix it, per the social contract, or at least waited for a dev to say "we're not going to fix that" or "it's as fixed as I can get it, play from here".

Using this bug was not an IC decision,  my characters certainly don't move my mouse or click on links, we don't have a social contract for characters.  Does this mean anything goes as long as you can justify it IC?  The contract is for us as players, it's OOC. When a bug happens, especially one as blatant as this, I expect my fellow players to abide by the social contract regardless of what your character told you to do.  If you as a player are creative enough to justify being a lord of a region that's not part of your realm, I'd expect you to be creative enough to find an IC reason not to be.

[Dante Silverfire]

You are not a Magistrate, nor an accuser, nor a defendant, nor a witness, in this case, or, AFAIK, in the Aurvandil/Fontan case.

Why do you constantly interject?

If the purpose of the Magistrate cases being public was not to have public opinion on issues, then I am drastically misunderstanding the purpose of these cases being public.

I am a dedicated player of Battlemaster who even applied to be a Magistrate at one point. Because I was not chosen, am I any less a member of the community who wants to see positive things in our game?

I don't mind if I'm wrong, or my opinion is disagreed with, but if I'm not even allowed to share an opinion about something I feel affects the state of the game's ability to provide fun, then why is this forum section here? Magistrates have their own private forum, but this one is so others can share input.

I apologize for trying to help out the BM community.

I will say no more on any of these things then.

[BardicNerd]

Even if they did for whatever reason 'have' to choose either stepping down or changing allegiance, that's the enemy realm losing a region + 3000 CS of militia vs. they lose a few points of H/P. No player with the interest of fair play at mind would make the decision they did.

The player didn't have to accept that they're the lord. They could have made any kind of IC excuse to -not- exploit the bug. "Oh, I'm not the lord anymore, that information is outdated." "Everyone's just confused after the takeover." etc. And any excuse would probably make more sense than them just straight up taking the region back to Libero, instantly, and convincing an army of militia who just came from our capital to come work for the enemy. They didn't do what made the most sense IG, they did what made the least sense.

Oh, I agree with you -- I think it wasn't particularly honorable, and a bit silly to see the region switch back like that.

However, what I'm trying to get at is that the stated positions of the devs and Tom DON'T support this.  Since what the games tells you can NEVER trump RP, then since the game told him he was lord, obviously he was.  And if they don't revert bugs, then he just has to play on from being lord of the region, even if it's a bug that he is.

I don't agree with this, but it seems to be what the devs have suggested (at least, what logically follows from what they said), and how they have often handled things in the past.

[Lorgan]

OOC ban seems in place for OOC dick behaviour in my opinion.

[ChrisVCB]

He must have known the effect a switch would have. Taking over the region is not what gets me... but we dropped 3.5k of CS, which at the least he has wiped out. Worse still - if theyve switched then that effectively puts us 7k down - 3.5k we lose & 3.5k they gain. For small realms thats enough to change the course of a war, and completely undoes the good work we achieved so far.

Obviously its been said that the devs wont undo the consequences of the bug, and I have no argument with that.
But I think if this action was cynical then the 'seriousness' of it needs to be kept in mind... we're not just talking the loss of a region here, but a deliberate attempt to change the course of a war through a bug.

[^ban^]

As I see the case, the issue of bug exploitation is a given. However, I also believe there are circumstances that should be taken into account when considering punishment.

First: The development team has - so far as Delvin, Foundation, or myself are able to recall - never resolved issues of allegiance for any reason until the new estate hierarchy enforcement earlier this week.

Second: The region's allegiance was not changed for a full twelve hours after a bug report was filed, acknowledged, and fixed on the bug tracker.

Third: After the bug occurred, the character in question had only three paths. He could do nothing, step down, and change allegiance. Examining these three options, I believe there is reason for leniency.

The first option - to do nothing - would result in the character being stranded in what was until then an enemy realm without any of the background and context (or even characterization) which precedes such treason.

The second option - stepping down - would result in a loss of H/P for the character, effectively harming the character. Personally, I have trouble understanding how any expectation which requires a player to harm their own character as a result of development errors can be considered fair or reasonable.

The last option - to change allegiance - is then the only reliable action available to him which both maintains the character without harm and resolves the issue of the bug.

For these reasons I believe that exploitation of the bug was in fact encouraged by a combination of developer policy and the nature of the bug: circumstances which I feel should have significant weight in deciding appropriate punishment.

[Broose]

The first option - to do nothing - would result in the character being stranded in what was until then an enemy realm without any of the background and context (or even characterization) which precedes such treason.

We never confirmed that he was actually in our realm -- in fact, from what I've gathered it seems he never was. I don't see anything about it on his family history, he wasn't on the character list, and he didn't receive any realm wide messages. Oh, and he was in a battle with our realm's forces at the mountain after the takeover but before the allegiance change.

[Dante Silverfire]

As I see the case, the issue of bug exploitation is a given. However, I also believe there are circumstances that should be taken into account when considering punishment.

First: The development team has - so far as Delvin, Foundation, or myself are able to recall - never resolved issues of allegiance for any reason until the new estate hierarchy enforcement earlier this week.

Second: The region's allegiance was not changed for a full twelve hours after a bug report was filed, acknowledged, and fixed on the bug tracker.

Third: After the bug occurred, the character in question had only three paths. He could do nothing, step down, and change allegiance. Examining these three options, I believe there is reason for leniency.

The first option - to do nothing - would result in the character being stranded in what was until then an enemy realm without any of the background and context (or even characterization) which precedes such treason.

The second option - stepping down - would result in a loss of H/P for the character, effectively harming the character. Personally, I have trouble understanding how any expectation which requires a player to harm their own character as a result of development errors can be considered fair or reasonable.

The last option - to change allegiance - is then the only reliable action available to him which both maintains the character without harm and resolves the issue of the bug.

For these reasons I believe that exploitation of the bug was in fact encouraged by a combination of developer policy and the nature of the bug: circumstances which I feel should have significant weight in deciding appropriate punishment.

This was the only point I was trying to make, and pretty much agree with everything written here. The bug was reported, fixed, and the Dev team (based upon policy) chose not to change the results of the bug. The player then has to choose from the above three options.

[^ban^]

...and the Dev team (based upon policy) chose not to change the results of the bug.

I did not say that, nor did any other developer in this thread so far as I can see. What I said is that it was reasonable to assume (and in fact, nearly guaranteed) that there would be no manual fix given our historical policies. The development team made no decision regarding this issue before the character in question changed allegiance.

[Indirik]

FWIW - I'm no Magistrate, but I think that Dante Silverfire, ^ban^, and BardicNerd's take on the situation is a reasonable read of the situation. We always tell people to "play through the bug". Sometimes that bug screws you, like when all our walls on Dwilight got dropped a level. We had 3 cities and a stronghold that had to have walls rebuilt, costing us multiple thousands of gold. Sometimes it's a windfall, like that militia payment bug that ended up giving the region lords 3K-4K extra gold in his pocket on tax day. But in all cases, you *have* to play through the bug. Unless it is some serious game-balance altering bug, Tom simply does not interfere or "fix" it.

You also combine this with the "RP cannot trump game mechanics" policy. If the game says the guy is the lord, then he is the lord, plain and simple. You must adjust your RP to comply with game mechanics, not the other way around. The player could have said "WTF, that makes no sense, I'm just gonna step down and go back to LE on my own". But as far as I can see, he is under no obligation to do so.

Abusing a bug for personal gain would be if the guy knew how to reproduce this and cause the situation to repeat itself, and willingly did so in order to exploit it. But a one-off situation that the game puts the guy in, through no action or fault of his own... I don't see how you can call playing through it to be exploiting a bug. Maybe not the smartest/friendliest action he could have taken. But I don't see it as outright, intentional abuse.

[^ban^]

We never confirmed that he was actually in our realm -- in fact, from what I've gathered it seems he never was. I don't see anything about it on his family history, he wasn't on the character list, and he didn't receive any realm wide messages. Oh, and he was in a battle with our realm's forces at the mountain after the takeover but before the allegiance change.

That would be part of the bug. Cleanup scripts would have silently 'corrected' his allegiance to your realm when they ran (haven't yet checked whether they did or not, but my guess is yes).