Rogue Judges

[Chenier]

I don't see why any of you are aguing over the RP factor, here.

A judge can ban people because they wore the wrong colored hat on the wrong day.

While judges banning half the realm feels wrong in my guts, the RP justification the guy uses (or doesn't) is completely irrelevant as far as the social contract is concerned.

[Vellos]

'Giggle test' seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Except, to me (and apparently others), it does pass the "giggle test." So it's ambiguous.

[Penchant]

Except, to me (and apparently others), it does pass the "giggle test." So it's ambiguous.

he banned every noble he could. Removing a large group of nobles is understandable but removing all but 3 ,I believe it was, is unreasonable. In a realm with 20 nobles trying to ban more than 10 is pushing it in my mind.

[Chenier]

he banned every noble he could. Removing a large group of nobles is understandable but removing all but 3 ,I believe it was, is unreasonable. In a realm with 20 nobles trying to ban more than 10 is pushing it in my mind.

For the sake of focusing on the concept instead of this particular case, I'd like to point out that the same happened in Minas Leon somewhat recently, on AT.

[Indirik]

The reason this would not have crossed my mind as an abuse is precisely because it has happened before. Many times.

[Chenier]

The reason this would not have crossed my mind as an abuse is precisely because it has happened before. Many times.

Feels wrong every time, though.

[Chenier]

Can an exiled judge still ban people?

This could be a solution... remove an exiled judge's ability to ban nobles, without stripping him of his powers. Perhaps also suspending impending bans?

Doesn't let the ruler choose a new judge, and still weighs heavily on the ruler's h/p. Allows rebels and traitors to act without fear of reprimand.

Basically, allows the realm to fall into chaos, without letting one man unilaterally destroy a realm.

[Zakilevo]

exile is so useless...

[Chenier]

exile is so useless...

It would make it a tiny bit less useless, without turning it into a cure-all. Or indeed, a cure-anything. It would prevent the judge from turning the realm into a ghost realm by himself, while not quite giving the ruler any powers to get rid of him.

[Bedwyr]

Some, yes.

But some things simply don't pass the giggle test. And banning the entire realm certainly doesn't.

Banning the entire realm and having it work doesn't pass the giggle test.  Banning the entire realm, getting immediately protested out, and having the bans revoked sounds perfectly reasonable to me, which is why I think the changes are excellent.  And if the Judge is not immediately protested out for banning the entire realm, that says to me that he has done his groundwork.

[Chenier]

Banning the entire realm and having it work doesn't pass the giggle test.  Banning the entire realm, getting immediately protested out, and having the bans revoked sounds perfectly reasonable to me, which is why I think the changes are excellent.  And if the Judge is not immediately protested out for banning the entire realm, that says to me that he has done his groundwork.

Is that what was implemented. I hadn't understood this to be the case, personally, nor did I find where Tom says so.

What I did see is 1 hour per ban, plus a special surprise for the "abuser" (unknown effect past unkown limit). Theretically, one could ban up to 24 nobles in less than an hour (stacking hours as a priest and changing class right before turn change), or more reasonnably 18 nobles in as much time. Of course, such a measure wouldn't have the same impact in, say, Falkirian Freestate as it would in Aurvandil, but that's still a lot of people over very little time.

Plus the secret restriction, of course.

If banned nobles will be able to protect within the first 24 hours as you suggest, please quote me the message, as I must have missed it.

[Bedwyr]

Is that what was implemented. I hadn't understood this to be the case, personally, nor did I find where Tom says so.

You missed the adding a stay to the effect of bans of Judges removed from positions.

[Chenier]

You missed the adding a stay to the effect of bans of Judges removed from positions.

Could you reword that, I don't understand what you mean.

"Bans will no longer stick once you protest the judge out" is what I make of it. Which wouldn't seem as much of a consolation since banned nobles can't protect the judge out.

[Bedwyr]

The problem is that the delay is there for a reason, there are other abuses possible without one. It could be an idea to stay bans if the judge is removed from office to give his successor time to check on them. That would not be too difficult, simply adding 1 day grace period to all bannings that have not yet gone into effect.

Would that solve the issue?

Here you go Dominic.

[Bedwyr]

Could you reword that, I don't understand what you mean.

"Bans will no longer stick once you protest the judge out" is what I make of it. Which wouldn't seem as much of a consolation since banned nobles can't protect the judge out.

Bans don't go into effect for three turns at the soonest, I believe you can still protest up to that point, yes?