Rogue Judges

[mikm]

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

There is nothing wrong with treason in game.

[Velax]

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.

I really don't think you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. This wasn't an instance of a Judge disagreeing with a Ruler's decision and deciding to punish everyone for it, this was the Judge actively working for an enemy realm and deciding to do the most damage possible when found out. The damage a rogue Judge can do in this situation was ridiculously out of proportion to what would be reasonably expected. The fact that the creator of the game has referred to this as abuse and an exploit really blows any argument you've made out of the water.

And "idiot" is the kindest thing I've heard this guy called in the last couple of days.

[vonGenf]

I really don't think you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. This wasn't an instance of a Judge disagreeing with a Ruler's decision and deciding to punish everyone for it,

That would have been wrong. You don't take your anger on a whole realm because you disagree with just one of them. You only damage a realm if it is an IC goal of your character to damage that realm.

Which it seems it was:

this was the Judge actively working for an enemy realm and deciding to do the most damage possible when found out.

I'm basing myself on your assertions to say it was right. You're saying yourself he was working for another realm! A spy was named Judge, and you thought the realm wouldn't suffer from it?

The damage a rogue Judge can do in this situation was ridiculously out of proportion to what would be reasonably expected.

What exactly did you expect? That he sends you an OOC message saying "Hey guys, turns out I'm a spy, I'm going to leave now without doing too much damage, but please act as if I'd done damage proportionally to what you reasonably expect"?

[Velax]

This particular abuse will no longer be possible. From today on, banning will always take an hour of time and there are other safeguards, too.

Note that he was exploiting a hole in the game mechanics that we've since fixed.

vonGenf's arguments = wrong.

[Lefanis]

Reminded me of this, when the nobles of Svunnetland got banned. 

Banned from Svunnetland by Fakhir.
Reason: Your face makes me puke!.

Banning the entire realm does take it too far, yet I see nothing wrong in banning large groups of nobles,  its even necessary in many occasions... The one hour restriction seems reasonable, but I would be against any greater restrictions. I don't think there would have been anything wrong if this  judge had simply banned some key nobles to further his IC agenda, I think it's cool for a turncoat to ban a few key dukes and lords here and there, to create chaos.

[Eldargard]

I think that the player in question was acting in character and that, in principle, there was nothing wrong with what he did.

From an in character perspective, a Judge, to my knowledge, builds the infrastructure needed to do his job. That includes banning people. By the time this infrastructure is in place a variety of minor nobles and officials have rightfully been given orders to follow this guy’s instructions. These officials should not, in my opinion, suddenly stop obeying the judge just because some of the nobles of the realm call him a traitor. If he lays out a ban for half the realm these officials will do their best to see it enforced as long as he is the resident judge. Once some mechanic is used to remove the Judge from office then the these officials will rightfully stop taking orders. That is when the time comes to fix the damage done.

At the same time I like the time restriction Tom put in place. It is logical but does not completely remove all power from the judge. I still do not see the players actions as abuse though. When I play a game amongst friends I am often set back by their actions. I seldom howl about how unfair it was and seek for the non-existent master of games to come and set it all right. No rules were broken and everything was done with an in character motive and it all seems very believable to me.

EDIT: Perhaps I misunderstood… Did he ban EVERYONE from the realm then leave in an attempt to destroy the kingdom? THAT would be abuse of mechanics in my opinion. Banning many of the nobles, especially key nobles, seems perfectly ok to me though…

[Tom]

Banning the entire realm does take it too far, yet I see nothing wrong in banning large groups of nobles,  its even necessary in many occasions... The one hour restriction seems reasonable, but I would be against any greater restrictions. I don't think there would have been anything wrong if this  judge had simply banned some key nobles to further his IC agenda, I think it's cool for a turncoat to ban a few key dukes and lords here and there, to create chaos.

Exactly.

Basically, in a real-world scenario, someone further down the chain of command would have questioned his sanity and thrown the papers out, or asked the ruler for his opinion or something.

If the supreme court of the USA were to declare, say, marriage illegal and all existing marriages null and void - do you really think that would have any effect except a media !@#$storm? Do you think, say, doctors at a hospital would deny the husband access to his dying wife by referencing that decision?

A computer doesn't understand the giggle test - but humans do. Since the computer in this game in large parts simulates the actions of all the thousands of minor people that we don't actually play, it necessarily has shortcomings. This was one of them.

[Tom]

When I play a game amongst friends I am often set back by their actions. I seldom howl about how unfair it was and seek for the non-existent master of games to come and set it all right. No rules were broken and everything was done with an in character motive and it all seems very believable to me.

AFAIK, kicking over the table when playing chess is not explicitly forbidden by the official chess rules - and yet I am quite sure that it would not be considered an allowed move.

And yes, he banned everyone that he could ban (a few characters in the realm were unbannable).

[vonGenf]

And yes, he banned everyone that he could ban (a few characters in the realm were unbannable).

Tom, with the new one hour by ban rule, would you consider it acceptable if he had done the exact same action but only banned 8 people because of time restriction?

[Tom]

Tom, with the new one hour by ban rule, would you consider it acceptable if he had done the exact same action but only banned 8 people because of time restriction?

There was more added than just the 1 hour, but I'm not detailling it because I want the next abuser to smack face first into it.

[vonGenf]

There was more added than just the 1 hour, but I'm not detailling it because I want the next abuser to smack face first into it.

Ok. I think it's legitimate that you add restrictions, by the way. I would much rather have the game tell me I can't do something than wake up the following morning and being called an idiot and a cheater because I pressed a button.

[Anaris]

I'm pretty sure it's cancelled.

It was not. It's just not on our list of Things That Are Going To Happen In The Next Few Months.

Eventually, a government rework of some sort is going to happen. Whether it will take the form we had planned a couple of years ago is anybody's guess at this point.

[Perth]

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

Not really. The Judge was accused of treason/being a spy. His team was the enemy realm which he had been helping. He was certainly working for his "team" by damaging the realm he was in.

[Vellos]

vonGenf's arguments = wrong.

Have you ever experienced a polite disagreement?

–

Regarding the day-long stay of bans when a new judge is elected– IMHO, that's unnecessary. Limits on the behavior have already been put in place. Can't we maybe see how those limits work (i.e. let another attempted mass-banning occur, and see what happens to the poor sot who tries it) before we add in new limitations? As noted, none of us think that there is an abuse involved in banning significant numbers of nobles– and I think we all recognize than any such action will almost invariably get you protested out of office. There's no reason to essentially put in place a complete auto-negation of mass-bans.

To clarify– we should limit the power of mass bans. We shouldn't make them a worthless strategy, or a nonexistent strategy. Putting a stay on bans will indeed ensure that no judge ever bans any politically powerful segment of nobles– because he knows that, not only will he be protested out of power, the bans aren't even going to go into effect.

[Anaris]

To clarify– we should limit the power of mass bans. We shouldn't make them a worthless strategy, or a nonexistent strategy. Putting a stay on bans will indeed ensure that no judge ever bans any politically powerful segment of nobles– because he knows that, not only will he be protested out of power, the bans aren't even going to go into effect.

I don't agree.

My understanding is that the only reason this is not true under the current system is because of an oversight in another abuse-prevention measure: Judges cannot access bans at all in their first day in office, either to place or lift them.

If not for that, the sequence of events now would be: Judge mass-bans, Judge is protested out of office, next turn new Judge is appointed, new Judge removes bans.

There's not really a significantly better chance, politically, of protesting out the Judge given an additional day. If you could have protested him out given two days, you could almost certainly have protested him out given one, provided everyone was active—y'know, allowing for OOC factors that shouldn't be determining the course of a realm's existence.

So the main thing gained by this is the assurance that you will not have a Judge who has banned the entire realm sitting happily in his position with everyone else banned, purely because not quite enough people were able to log in in time to see the damage and react to it.