Rogue Judges

[Gustav Kuriga]

That's the point, if a group is politically powerful, you can't just do something as blatantly obvious as banning them.

[Tom]

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.

Nonsense. You can still ban Sir Trouble and his gang. If they have enough followers to protest you out of office, then good for them and bad for you and they likely won't get the bans become active - which IS the proper reaction of the game.

But if they are troublemakers and don't represent the majority of nobles, or need to do some more scheming and buying of votes, then time will run out on them.

It's a one-day-delay. It only means the bans go into effect slightly later.

[Tom]

Oh, also - if I were the judge in a tricky situation, I would ban them over time, starting with one where you can find a reasonably good reason and the chance that they can rally others to their course is minimal. Then the next one, then the next...

[Scarlett]

The 'real' damage that the Judge did to the realm was done gradually - quietly, over time. Passing on news. Making the occasional reasonable-sounding but completely wrong-headed suggestion. 'Forgetting' to put food on the market ... for weeks.

A 1-day delay isn't going to lessen the damage a spy can do. Most of that damage isn't a game mechanic, anyway. It's just good old fashioned treason.

[Vellos]

Oh, also - if I were the judge in a tricky situation, I would ban them over time, starting with one where you can find a reasonably good reason and the chance that they can rally others to their course is minimal. Then the next one, then the next...

Erasmus did this in Terran. Didn't turn out well for him, despite his having a much bigger power base and less clear evidence of treason apparently. Banning all at once is a much better strategy.

Nonsense. You can still ban Sir Trouble and his gang. If they have enough followers to protest you out of office, then good for them and bad for you and they likely won't get the bans become active - which IS the proper reaction of the game.

Why? In a feudal system, dissent should cause mass chaos, loss of positions, and a period of reconstruction. Bloodless changes in power were not the norm, especially in instances where changes were forced by large-scale disagreement. It seems far more medieval to me that total chaos would ensue.

(on a sidenote: can banned nobles join rebellions?)

[Scarlett]

Bloodless changes in power were not the norm,

Neither were powerful bureaucrats.

The power structure in the middle ages had two key ingredients: it was local and it was personal (rather than national). In BM you do often see elected Judges as counterweights to the Crown but this was not something you'd see in a medieval government -- a council member might very well be able to pull strings and work against the crown but it would be in a much more Game of Thrones Small Council type of way and not in a 'I have actual specific power over these things that the King does not have.'

Also, "loss of position" in the middle ages meant "loss of life" or "you've been conquered" for landed nobility. The idea of a Count suddenly not being a Count even though he was still around is a BM convention, not a historical convention. In fact you had the opposite problem -- if the guy was alive, even if he was a drooling idiot, you'd have a paralyzed government. "Anarchy" did not exist in the middle ages anywhere near the scale it does in BM.

[Sonya]

Greetings.

I know i am late to the conversation, and yes many things have been said about team-base game, pvp, sandbox, etc.

I also play the game in a way that if i am permitted then is legal, Jesus, i can send orders to my general just because i can do so, but there are things that is called common sense.

We have to remember the game we are playing, we are into a medieval game, and we have to act upon it, not circumventing the game mechanic, a real judge couldn't a ban a noble, he would have to find proof and have a trial, then declared guilty then deserve the ban.

The Rulers were the only with the authority to banish a noble from the realm (something like "Begone !"#&%)$!"#&%/)** off my sight") and still they need to deserve it, these are the detail we need to fix, to everyone to do their job.

Delays, cold down, etc does not apply. here a judge doesn't have the self authority to band a noble, A "NOBLE"  i wish to see how the judge roleplay this idea:

A lone man (judge) kicking out the realm 20 nobles and their men (more than 1,000 warriors) i wish to see that!

We must think away to make this work IC, that magic wand that disown nobles must disappear, each band must have the majority of the council approbation, it doesn't matter if the judge mark for band the entire realm(including himself) he need the approbation of the council.

And remember my motto, keep everything IC!

[BardicNerd]

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.

I think my problem is that I'm not sure that's a good analogy.  If he did everything in character, then a much better analogy would be a stab in Diplomacy.  Kicking over the table would probably be a more appropriate analogy for hacking the server.  Spying, treason, and politics are part of BM, and I think it's valid for someone engaged in such things to think that so long as they did everything IC, if the mechanics allow them to use a position they've been given to massively screw over the realm they've been betraying, that it's kosher.

Obviously, you didn't intend for it to be seen this way -- but I think it is very understandable that someone would see it this way.

[steelabjur@aol.com]

What reason did the Judge give for the bans? I mean, we know his reasons (he was a enemy spy who was found out and trying to do as much damage on the way out as he could) but what "official" IC reason did he state with the bans? As Tom mentioned, the system in place is meant to replicate dozens, if not hundreds, of living characters we do not play from commoners to lesser nobles who would be loyal to the realm, I think before we give him a pass as being totally IC with his actions we need to consider if his justification for the bans could pass through all those hands without one of these NPCs questioning it and bringing it to the attention of the ruler, a duke, or a lord for clarification. I mean, if in game a judge sent one of my characters an order to arrest any priests of the most prominent religion in the realm, you better believe I would contact my lord, duke, or the ruler to make sure it was kosher before I acted on it because, by and large, my characters like their heads remaining on their shoulders at all times. :p

[Scarlett]

The reason was 'supporting an insane King.'

The insane King had identified him as an enemy spy the day before the election for Judge.

[steelabjur@aol.com]

The reason was 'supporting an insane King.'

The insane King had identified him as an enemy spy the day before the election for Judge.

Yeah, that strains belief a bit. To go back to the example I gave about arresting priests, would anyone here find that a compelling reason to act on his orders as a loyal member of your realm?  A Judge's power is derived through the crown, not independent of it, royals are unbannable for a reason. Such obviously treasonous orders would be met by scorn and reported by any loyal member of the government, not followed through with.

[Ketchum]

(on a sidenote: can banned nobles join rebellions?)

Yes, banned nobles can join rebellions. My characters got banned by a fast finger Judge before, should I say, half Oritolon realm nobles in Colonies island got a ban from a Judge Katherine(a Judge who is found to be multi accounts later).

But the banned nobles need join the rebellions before your ban start kick in and active. Otherwise you become rogue, and no rogue nobles can rebel against rogue realm.

[Velax]

Have you ever experienced a polite disagreement?

Not when it comes to abusers and exploiters. You should remember that, Vellos.

It baffles me that people are supporting this action. It is very obviously against the intended spirit of the game, as repeatedly stated by the game's creator. It is not in any way vaguely realistic, neither within a medieval setting (no lawmaker had this much power) nor within any definition of common sense (how many bureaucrats would be required to enact the bans on 17 nobles, including region lords, Duke and the Banker? How many of those would be completely fine with doing so, despite the fact that the King had just declared the one giving them the orders as a traitor?).

The only possible justification I can see for this is that the game mechanics allowed you to do it. So apparently our morals and sense of fair play should be defined solely by what the game allows us to do, with no actual input from our own selves. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

[BardicNerd]

The only possible justification I can see for this is that the game mechanics allowed you to do it. So apparently our morals and sense of fair play should be defined solely by what the game allows us to do, with no actual input from our own selves. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

I tend to agree, however, Tom's dictate that 'mechanics trump RP' suggests that mechanics should play the most important part, rather than 'what makes sense.'

Note that rulers used to be able to mechanically strip someone of all their titles and such.  They can't anymore.  So since we have to work within the mechanics given by the game, the framework we are given is that people do not just follow what the ruler says is true when the ruler declares someone a traitor -- and that such words may in fact just be that, words.

The mechanics of the situation -- which in BM equals the reality of the situation, for better or for worse -- is that the judge has considerable power, and that people listen to them so long as they are still judge, and that if the ruler says they are a traitor -- well, maybe it's just politics, and maybe the judge is in the right, because the judge is the one who can ban someone as a traitor, after all, not the ruler.

In BM, a ruler only has as much power as the players let them get away with.  Mechanics wise, the judge is probably more powerful.  So in BM's version of reality . . . this is realistic.

So, yes, while Tom has now stated that it is against the spirit of the game (though I am not sure I understand or agree with his reasoning), I think that it is easy to see why before he made that statement, one might have thought this was a fine thing, and have a reasonable and civil discussion about it (though it is the time of year in America when civil discussion gets thrown out the window, so . . . we're doing better than that, I think).

[Bedwyr]

I would just like to put it on record that this is exactly what one deserves for trusting a Leonidas.  Execute first, ask questions later.

As for the RP explanation...Yes, I am glad Tom has made some changes, and as long as this is somewhat limited I don't expect anything further to cause this level of chaos, but consider, for a moment, the implications of having the second most powerful noble in your realm working, for weeks and months, to completely undermine the realm.  That would be absolutely devastating if done correctly, and arranging for the King's messengers to be suborned, assassinated, or discredited as a contingency plan makes perfect sense to me.  I can think of half a dozen reasonably plausible ways to account for what happened, assuming significant amounts of money and influence, which Seperoth certainly would have had.  Whether he had the brains for them or not I will not comment on OOC (my opening remark was a purely Jenredian response, for those uncertain).

I agree that this is an extreme example, but not nearly as extreme as the Thulsoman exploits, and I don't think it's fair at all to make accusations of anything other than taking something a bit far.  I myself was unaware that a new Judge couldn't unban people in the event of a mass and immediate protest to remove the previous Judge, and since that particular loophole has been closed, 'ware to those who piss off their Judges.