Rogue Judges

[Bedwyr]

Then someone needs to write a feature request for the bugtracker, or else it will be forgotten.

http://bugs.battlemaster.org/view.php?id=7439

Done.  One thing to note (which I think is all to the good) is this would open up all sorts of other intrigue if, for instance, the Judge bans a traitor, then the traitor frantically tries to get the Judge assassinated or captured or what have you to keep the ban from going into effect.

[egamma]

That's a very silly distinction. Regardless of whether you play "on a team" or not the game is still Player v. Player because you are playing and competing against other human beings. The "PvP' label is meant to distinguish games in which you play against other people from games in which you play against a computer AI.

The point I was trying to make was that the judge was playing against his team, instead of with his team.

[Zakilevo]

Why not make rulers approve of bans made by judges? Like what rulers have to do to make treaties go into effect. Make rulers click an approve button to make the bans go into effect or something.

[Ender]

Why not make rulers approve of bans made by judges? Like what rulers have to do to make treaties go into effect. Make rulers click an approve button to make the bans go into effect or something.

On the most basic level, that cripples the Judge's authority. In some realms, where the leader is the be all end all of power, that would work fine, but in realms where a balance is maintained between ruler and judge, that balance would be destroyed by effectively taking the one measure of power a Judge has and putting it entirely in the Ruler's hands.

Even in the most dictatorial realm, the Judge keeps the balance gameplay wise and prevents the Ruler from having supreme power over all aspects of the realm's law. I think it should stay that way.

[Tom]

Why not make rulers approve of bans made by judges?

For a moment I thought "good joke". Then I realized you were serious.

[Stabbity]

For a moment I thought "good joke". Then I realized you were serious.

Burn.

[Draco Tanos]

I mean in the game. We're purposely not realistic.

Because as a ruler, I'm personally too busy at times to handle the day to day.  Same with why rulers appoint ambassadors.

Honestly, I'd prefer to see the strong/balanced/weak government options be available and come into play.  LET some people choose to play in an absolute tyranny.  Let others play in a completely balanced democracy.  Let others play in a Republic where the true power rests with the banker! 

*shrugs*  I like options.

[Zakilevo]

Because as a ruler, I'm personally too busy at times to handle the day to day.  Same with why rulers appoint ambassadors.

Honestly, I'd prefer to see the strong/balanced/weak government options be available and come into play.  LET some people choose to play in an absolute tyranny.  Let others play in a completely balanced democracy.  Let others play in a Republic where the true power rests with the banker! 

*shrugs*  I like options.

Isn't the whole government system rework still to do?

[Draco Tanos]

I thought I read it was cancelled?  Dunno.  Tend to hear conflicting things on the forums at times.

[Scarlett]

It makes more sense that a rogue Judge could do damage in some realms than in others. In a Republic or a Democracy, for instance, it's closer to a Supreme Court justice or attorney general being rogue. In a traditional feudal kingdom, less so.

[Zakilevo]

For a moment I thought "good joke". Then I realized you were serious.

Ouch 

[egamma]

I thought I read it was cancelled?  Dunno.  Tend to hear conflicting things on the forums at times.

I'm pretty sure it's cancelled. What you see on the bugtracker, in terms of feature requests, is what you can expect to see accomplished in the next 6 months or so. Some of those feature requests have been there for years, and the new dev team project manager (Azerax aka Scott) seems to be pretty well focused on getting those out the door (which is a very good thing--I would like to see the bug tracker have 10 items instead of 104.)

[Draco Tanos]

Was there any particular reason it was cancelled?

[vonGenf]

Erm, no. If the developer of the game calls it an abuse and an exploit, and has to actually change the mechanics of the game to prevent this happening again, I'd say there most certainly is something wrong.

Tom didn't forbid banning. He made it cost an hour because he felt it was overpowered. I agree with that, it makes sense. It doesn't change that judges can ban people because of a personal agenda. You may think they are on your team, but there will be cases when they disagree. And you don't have the right to call them idiots when they do.

[vonGenf]

The point I was trying to make was that the judge was playing against his team, instead of with his team.

You're trying to decide which team he is on. You don't have the right to do that. He does.