Anti-Clan Policy Discussion

[Vellos]

If larger groups are the concern, there's a simple expedient as long as they don't all stay in one realm all the time (that is; as long as they are around for a while, or have multiple characters): just look for correlations in arrival date, realm, and then subsequent changes in realm or second/third character locations. Find an above-normal correlation, look around. If folks is chatting about it negatively (and not just a "we lost the war" negativity) with the same incidence as a group with highly correlated loyalties... bingo. Clan.

[Charles]

I would like to point out that I got into this game because my friends were playing.  And I joined realms they were in.  I believe this is the best way we gain new players.  If we discourage people from inviting their friends to play, we will stop having new players.  When people enter the game because of a friend, they will clearly join the realm of the friend, because that friend is having fun in that realm-they want the same fun.

Occasionally we discussed what was going on.  If one of them was up for election I voted for them.  I do not believe we wrecked anyone's fun.  There were some people who left some of those realms because they did not like some of our political stances.  But show me a realm without some controversy. 

I have had success in associating with characters from the same family, but I have also had some unfortunate experiences where I forgot it was not the same character. 

As a side note, I don't think any of them are still playing.  I would also have been willing to register in a "clan".

[Anaris]

I would like to point out that I got into this game because my friends were playing.  And I joined realms they were in.  I believe this is the best way we gain new players.  If we discourage people from inviting their friends to play, we will stop having new players.  When people enter the game because of a friend, they will clearly join the realm of the friend, because that friend is having fun in that realm-they want the same fun.

I completely agree.

However, there is a big difference between joining as a bunch of friends, and playing as a clan.

I've seen several players spread BattleMaster to large numbers of their friends, bringing in enough new players in a relatively short time that they could have pretty easily formed a clan if they were so inclined. Most of them even joined the same realms.

But they played as separate people, interested in their own things, friendly with the original person (and each other), but not beholden to them.

That's the difference.

[Tom]

@Charles:

Re-read my definition of what I consider to be a "clan". Your case wouldn't qualify for any of the checks.

[Charles]

By their behaviour. The Dev Team does have the tools available to make such a call once a potential group has been pointed out to us. We don't do any kind of automated checking, which I think is fine because unless a group has a noticeable impact on the game so someone asks us to look into it, there isn't a problem.

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.

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.

There was a secret society that acted in this way in a realm I was in.  How would that be different?  They grouped together, attempted to have dukes, council members, etc. removed in order to have their own elected in their place.   
Is this not the purpose of a secret society?  To manipulate realms as a group.
As a side note, I found that secret society to be very frustrating in retrospect.  I would also support anti-clan policy, but in-game mechanics support the formation of "clans."

[Indirik]

It's not clanning because Secret Societies are an official, in-game mechanic. Secret societies are things that can be discovered, infiltrated, exposed, etc., all completely IC. Membership in it does not depend on an OOC relationship.

Now, it is perfectly possible for a clan to use a secret society, or for membership in a secret to be restricted based on OOG clan affiliation. That would also be against the Social Contract.

The difference is between OOG and IG. If promotion, membership, power, voting, etc. are based on OOG affiliation rather than IG affiliation, then chances are there's a clan involved.

[Chaotrance13]

There are three different matters we should differentiate:

1) Activity Levels:

Sorry, but this is basically you saying "Oh no! They are too many and too active, they should accommodate to our speed of playing!". Sorry, but they should not, if you want to play it slow and still win then go to the Colonies, in where there is only one turn per day, or advocate for a larger island with that pace. It makes as much sense that you have the same right to play at a slow pace than that you have the right to be extremely active. And this comes from someone who couldn't care less about the military aspect of the game.

If you don't have time to wage a war and win it then you should not be focusing on that, specially if you don't have enough nobles in your realm.

Where does it say you can tell me where I can and cannot play? For your information, before my PSU died I was on the game constantly, ready to issue orders or offer my point of view on a strategy. Now I've repaired my computer, I can do that again as I wish. I have plenty of time to wage war as I wish, and focus on it.

Either way, the Magistrates have ruled against the core group of players who prompted this discussion. As such, that matter is dealt with and doesn't really need to be referred to here. But what we may now need to consider is whether the ruling sets a precedent that should be encompassed in a policy like Tom has referred to.