Kabrinskia, Astrum, and other such stuff of the North Western Astroist states.

[Penchant]

I'm sorry, but a group of players OOC organizing to, say, mass-immigrate, found a new realm, make hyper-active armies, or something like that, not due to IC motivations of their characters, but because they dislike what a certain realm, to them, represents (essentially OOCly), and then kill off that realm they don't like is practically the textbook definition of exclusive clanning.

Where is the exclusion? Just because you are looking for hyper-active people doesn't mean you won't allow less active people in just because they aren't as active.

[Vellos]

Where is the exclusion? Just because you are looking for hyper-active people doesn't mean you won't allow less active people in just because they aren't as active.

You're excluding the realm you're trying to destroy.

Which is fine if your characters were excluding other characters because of some IC hatred*– it's not fine if you are all on IRC and chatting about your plan to kill Keplerstan, then a player with characters in Keplerstan hears about it, and you exclude him– or, especially, exclude one of his other characters.

* Yes, I'm aware that this could be faked. Obviously IC politics can cloak OOC hatred. It's a finicky judgment call. But plotting out the demise of a realm OOC with a group of players who want it gone because they dislike how those players play together is by definition exclusive of the targeted players. You can't use IC means as an expression of your OOC will to prove "the right way to play" BM. IMHO, there is no right way to play BM.

[Jim]

Keep doing what yer doing if its pissing people off in Bm you can be sure you are doing the right thing...

http://youtu.be/_Gqwi7Y96sk

[Poliorketes]

You're excluding the realm you're trying to destroy.

Which is fine if your characters were excluding other characters because of some IC hatred*– it's not fine if you are all on IRC and chatting about your plan to kill Keplerstan, then a player with characters in Keplerstan hears about it, and you exclude him– or, especially, exclude one of his other characters.

Oh, please! Hundreds of messages complaining about how 'bad' (or too well) the Aurvandil nobles play? While not cheating, they can play wherever way they want!

And honestly, I hope they continue playing (and destroying everything in they path) for a long time! ... And I say this while one of my characters is fighting against them.

They are hyper-actives, hyper-organised? GOOD FOR THEM! If they enjoy the game this way...

And don't be wrong, THEY DON'T EXCLUDE YOU BY DESTROYING 'YOUR' REALM!... They only... 'shake things' a bit. Hey! this is BATTLEMASTER!!! So if they battle better than most... well, better yourself or enjoy begin bested!  8)

Really, I think you don't understand the EXCLUDING thing... the meaning.

[Eldargard]

You're excluding the realm you're trying to destroy.

Which is fine if your characters were excluding other characters because of some IC hatred*– it's not fine if you are all on IRC and chatting about your plan to kill Keplerstan, then a player with characters in Keplerstan hears about it, and you exclude him– or, especially, exclude one of his other characters.

* Yes, I'm aware that this could be faked. Obviously IC politics can cloak OOC hatred. It's a finicky judgment call. But plotting out the demise of a realm OOC with a group of players who want it gone because they dislike how those players play together is by definition exclusive of the targeted players. You can't use IC means as an expression of your OOC will to prove "the right way to play" BM. IMHO, there is no right way to play BM.

I am not sure I completely agree. I a character dislikes  BadLand but does not feel his country, PoliticsLand is capable of defeating BadLand, I see no reason why they can not create GoodLand, try to convince other characters who dislike BadLand to join, optimize the GoodLand to be a war machine by rewarding Characters who get things done and attacking BadLand. Not sure what the problem is.

I can see a problem with the following:
Having your character suddenly hate BadLand without being able to reasonably role play a reason.
Using out of game communication channels instead of coordinating in game at any stage of the process.
Excluding characters without being able to reasonably role play a reason.
Disbanding GoodLand arbitrarily.

I am sure there are other bad ideas that could be added to the above list. I do not think, however, that creating GoodLand in the way described HAS to involve any of these bad ideas.

Furthermore, the idea of never having OOC thoughts/feelings/opinions influence your character makes no sense to me.  I made an OOC decision to make one of my characters a Priest and created role plays to make the player decision fit the character and existing story. I decided OOC to restructure a religion and created role plays to support that decision. We do that all the time. The problem is having your character act drastically contrary to existing storyline. Just my opinion...

[Anaris]

Oh, please! Hundreds of messages complaining about how 'bad' (or too well) the Aurvandil nobles play? While not cheating, they can play wherever way they want!

And honestly, I hope they continue playing (and destroying everything in they path) for a long time! ... And I say this while one of my characters is fighting against them.

They are hyper-actives, hyper-organised? GOOD FOR THEM! If they enjoy the game this way...

And don't be wrong, THEY DON'T EXCLUDE YOU BY DESTROYING 'YOUR' REALM!... They only... 'shake things' a bit. Hey! this is BATTLEMASTER!!! So if they battle better than most... well, better yourself or enjoy begin bested!  8)

Really, I think you don't understand the EXCLUDING thing... the meaning.

I think Poliorketes is right, Vellos.

I feel like lately you feel like it's your job to be the Clan Police—and not just that, but you feel like you have to expand the definition of clanning every other week or so. First you claim Outer Tilog is a clan, just because you couldn't grok the RP atmosphere there, and now this.

There is so much IC reason for people to want Aurvandil dead, I cannot see how a group formed for that purpose on Dwilight could reasonably be considered formed for purely OOC purposes. The realm's at war with pretty much the entire rest of the continent, for goodness' sake.

And no, Vellos, deciding that you want to destroy a particular group of IC characters for IC reasons—even if there are also OOC reasons for wishing to do so—is not exclusionary. If that were so, then anyone who bans a character for joining their realm from the enemy realm on suspicion of spying would be guilty of clanning. In fact, your definition of "exclusion" seems so broad that it would pretty much encompass anyone banning someone for any reason.

[Vellos]

Did none of you read what I posted?

Obviously there are IC reasons. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a realm dedicated to destroying Aurvandil. Nor am I saying any person with an OOC dislike for Aurvandil is necessarily a clanner.

You've all pointed out there are numerous IC reasons to dislike a realm– I agree. You're right. I said that myself.

What I'm saying is that if there were reasonable proof of a realm being founded based on OOC organization with the OOC purpose of destroying Aurvandil, especially with the earlier-suggested motive being due to a dislike of those players' (rather nebulously defined) "playing style," that would be exclusive clanning. I didn't say a realm based on IC motivations with an IC purpose of destroying Aurvandil is clanning. And I specified that, yes, it could be very hard to tell the difference.

You are correct, I do see myself as the clan police. One, it's every players right to bitch and complain about things they think are wrong. Two, I think that social exclusivity is a uniquely pernicious activity in a game which is fun mostly due to its social content. Three, I think I do have a different definition than many, thus it is doubly important to express it. Four, I wish to repeatedly expound my opinions in the hope that they will stick with someone.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Five, its just your opinion and in no way valuable or more important than the myriad of opinions splattered on this forum.

[Vellos]

Five, its just your opinion and in no way valuable or more important than the myriad of opinions splattered on this forum.

Right, because I clearly claimed that my word was divinely instituted law.* I'm expressing my opinion. Duh.

* Though, FWIW, if a clanning case came up in the Magistrates, it's also the perspective I would be likely to argue– but obviously I'm just one of many Magistrates, and we can't act alone.

[Indirik]

In order for it to be clan behavior against the rules, you have to demonstrate that it is excluding other players from taking part in it. I.e. "you can't be a lord/ruler/judge unless you're part of our OOC group".

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

The way I see it, if a load of players arranged out of character to join together, take control of a realm or otherwise form one with the specific intent of destroying Aurvandil is isn't necessarily clanning, and I don't actually care if it is since the definition of Clan in Battlemaster has been mutilated beyond reason, but what it is, is power gaming, similarly against the rules of the game.

If it's all done IC, for IC reasons, and not done OOC by players with an OOC grudge and intent for a specific consequence, then it is fine.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

In order for it to be clan behavior against the rules, you have to demonstrate that it is excluding other players from taking part in it. I.e. "you can't be a lord/ruler/judge unless you're part of our OOC group".

Begs the question why Aurvandil was punished for "clanning" then. Despite the lack of clans and complete lack of that behaviour.

[Solari]

Begs the question why Aurvandil was punished for "clanning" then. Despite the lack of clans and complete lack of that behaviour.

Some of those accusations were well founded, and don't need to (and won't) be discussed here. That the behavior largely seems to have stopped is commendable. Others are typical human behavior, and reflect an unease or envy more than specific, substantive accusations.

[Indirik]

Go read the Magistrates rulings. This really isn't the place to discuss them.

However, I was mainly adddressing Vellos' description of it being exlusive, not a be-all-end-all definition of clanning. There are too many people from too many backgrounds around here to come up with a concrete definition of such a nebulous term.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Some of those accusations were well founded, and don't need to (and won't) be discussed here. That the behavior largely seems to have stopped is commendable. Others are typical human behavior, and reflect an unease or envy more than specific, substantive accusations.

I'm sure there is a time and a place where they do need to be discussed, but it is somewhat relevant to look at the Magistrates precedent on "Clans/Clanning" if we're discussing what is and isn't allowed.


On an unrelated note, it's nice to see how Aurvandil has hijacked a thread specifically designed to discuss other realms and places in the stead of the Marrocidenian war thread.