Failure to abide by Magistrate Verdict, Round 3

[BattleMaster Server]

Summary:	Failure to abide by Magistrate Verdict, Round 3
Violation:	Clause 2: Fair Play (Original Judgement)
World:	East Continent
Complainer:	George Charles Lichty
About:	Caeranor Saegarus

Full Complaint Text:
Once more the player of Caeranor Saegarus has returned to the East Continent, this time bypassing the immigration waiting period by deleting the original character and creating a new one with the exact same name.

[Draco Tanos]

For Round 2 reference:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2476.0.html

[Foundation]

Can anyone post the link to the family?

[Chaotrance13]

http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=30651

The defendant is Joseph Lant again.

[Velax]

The link is in the original post.

[Foundation]

Haha, sorry, I'm using WAP2 so I didn't see the implicit links in the OP. :)

[Indirik]

From the previous case:

I also propose to prohibit them from re-forming within the same realm at a size of more than one third of the number of characters in those realms for the period of one year.

Emphasis is mine. Note that they are not prohibited from returning to EC. They are prohibited from reforming in the same realm in numbers more than one-third the total number of characters in the realm.

* He has not returned to the same realm. He was deported from Fontan, and is now in Perdan.
* His one character does not number more than one-third the total characters in the realm.

So, where's the violation? This is a spurious case that should be immediately rejected.

[Geronus]

Indeed, they are not banned from EC altogether.

[Draco Tanos]

From the previous case:
Emphasis is mine. Note that they are not prohibited from returning to EC. They are prohibited from reforming in the same realm in numbers more than one-third the total number of characters in the realm.

* He has not returned to the same realm. He was deported from Fontan, and is now in Perdan.
* His one character does not number more than one-third the total characters in the realm.

So, where's the violation? This is a spurious case that should be immediately rejected.

And here I thought the deportation was meant to be a punishment, especially for returning to Fontan the LAST TIME, and that circumventing it would be a wrong thing to do.  My bad, thinking the Magistrates' verdicts mattered and should be followed at least until the "cooldown" period ended, rather than deleting just to recreate the same character to get around it.

[Vellos]

And here I thought the deportation was meant to be a punishment, especially for returning to Fontan the LAST TIME, and that circumventing it would be a wrong thing to do.  My bad, thinking the Magistrates' verdicts mattered and should be followed at least until the "cooldown" period ended, rather than deleting just to recreate the same character to get around it.

You aren't helping your case.

More to the point, I will note that this is a character we have now had to deport twice. It is true that we don't ban them being in EC. But the character in question was deported, then deleted and re-made in Perdan immediately.

I have no beef with the character in Armonia, even though Armonia is a realm we've had concerns about in the past.

I am inclined to have concerns about the character in Perdan, however. Spontaneously deleting and then remaking your character to avoid Magistrate rulings does not seem okay. It's true we did not explicitly prohibit such a thing; but BM has never been a "letter of the law" community.

Alternatively, I can't help thinking, "Maybe I'd be okay with it if the character had a different name," in which case I wonder if maybe I'm not considering it very rationally. Or maybe we should be concerned about it, not as a question of thwarting the Magistrates, but as an abuse of game mechanics.

Meandering, I know; but, I would suggest the case is just a wee bit more complex.

[Indirik]

If he had returned to Fontan with a new character,  that would be violating the judgment. As written, however, there is nothing that forbids the player from playing in any other realm, on any island. The judgment simply was NOT violated here.

[Vellos]

If he had returned to Fontan with a new character,  that would be violating the judgment. As written, however, there is nothing that forbids the player from playing in any other realm, on any island. The judgment simply was NOT violated here.

I can see your point; my question now is less about violating the verdict per se and at least as much as about the character-deletionand recreation as a means. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that; but it still grates on me, and so I brought it up for consideration.

[DamnTaffer]

I can see your point; my question now is less about violating the verdict per se and at least as much as about the character-deletionand recreation as a means. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that; but it still grates on me, and so I brought it up for consideration.

When a character is deported, he spends several turns on a boat then has to sit in a realm for 2 weeks before he can go to a continent of his choice, not so bad if you want to play on the continent your sent on but if not... Its terrible.

Kinda dubious act to do but... The character has already been deported twice which if he had chosen to wait out the immigration coding limitations would mean that he was stuck on a continent he didn't want to play on for 6 WEEKS

[De-Legro]

When a character is deported, he spends several turns on a boat then has to sit in a realm for 2 weeks before he can go to a continent of his choice, not so bad if you want to play on the continent your sent on but if not... Its terrible.

Kinda dubious act to do but... The character has already been deported twice which if he had chosen to wait out the immigration coding limitations would mean that he was stuck on a continent he didn't want to play on for 6 WEEKS

Welcome to the life of a infiltrator :)

[Draco Tanos]

You aren't helping your case.

My only reason to make this "case" to the Magistrates was out of common courtesy and a sense of "civic duty" to keep them informed as to the goings on as per the punishments they have meted out. 

More to the point, I will note that this is a character we have now had to deport twice. It is true that we don't ban them being in EC. But the character in question was deported, then deleted and re-made in Perdan immediately.

I have no beef with the character in Armonia, even though Armonia is a realm we've had concerns about in the past.

I am inclined to have concerns about the character in Perdan, however. Spontaneously deleting and then remaking your character to avoid Magistrate rulings does not seem okay. It's true we did not explicitly prohibit such a thing; but BM has never been a "letter of the law" community.

Alternatively, I can't help thinking, "Maybe I'd be okay with it if the character had a different name," in which case I wonder if maybe I'm not considering it very rationally. Or maybe we should be concerned about it, not as a question of thwarting the Magistrates, but as an abuse of game mechanics.

Meandering, I know; but, I would suggest the case is just a wee bit more complex.

I can see your point; my question now is less about violating the verdict per se and at least as much as about the character-deletionand recreation as a means. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that; but it still grates on me, and so I brought it up for consideration.

This is my point and concern and virtually exactly what I said already.  A character was deported from Fontan as punishment and immediately returned to Fontan as soon as he was able to as per the game mechanics.  Now that Fontan is all but officially deceased, he deleted the character before the immigration "cooldown" was over and re-created the character with the same name on the East Continent to circumvent the mechanic.

The very act seems to be thumbing his nose at the Magistrates, their verdict, and the entire system. 

You're right though, there likely wouldn't have been nearly as much of an issue if he used another name.  Case in point:  No one cares about his other character.  It's the very fact that to get around the immigration period (a punishment period, frankly, as after all he DID ignore the verdict before) he simply deleted and recreated the same exact character so as to not have to wait.

When a character is deported, he spends several turns on a boat then has to sit in a realm for 2 weeks before he can go to a continent of his choice, not so bad if you want to play on the continent your sent on but if not... Its terrible.

Kinda dubious act to do but... The character has already been deported twice which if he had chosen to wait out the immigration coding limitations would mean that he was stuck on a continent he didn't want to play on for 6 WEEKS

While true, immigration wait is not fun, the second time was entirely of his own doing.  I can understand sympathy for the first deportation, but the second?  Not really.

Welcome to the life of a infiltrator :)

This is a very valid point.  Though more skilled infiltrators are far less likely to attempt to circumvent wait periods for the simply reason that those very skills are expensive and hard earned!  :)

Draco Tanos,

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members. That you are unhappy with the Magistrate actions doesn't mean you can insult them. These are players giving their free time to make the game better for everyone. Some respect would be appropriate.

Regards,
The BattleMaster Forum Team.

1.  My ire was not directed towards the Magistrates.  Even though they have taken those positions as VOLUNTEERS and should expect some abuse (what relatively public position is abuse free?  Be honest.), there was none directed at them.  At all.  Not a single insult.  I didn't call them slobs, tyrants, et al that others seem hint at in various posts.    On the contrary, as I stated, the entire purpose of this thread was to keep them informed that someone circumvented game mechanics and their punishment.  I believe they should certainly be kept informed as to the after effects of their verdicts.  If anything, I believe the Magistrates should have a little more enforcement power in the game. 
2.  The post, perhaps hot blooded, was more directed towards the NON-MAGISTRATE who dictates what should and should not be closed to them constantly.  While I, again, respect the Dev Team for the time they put into the game, I do not believe they should be going around telling a separate portion of the game staff what they should and should not do as if the final authority on the matter.  Either way, I still fail to see an "insult" in the post.