Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class

[Indirik]

Sounds like you answered your own question.

[Chenier]

Sounds like you answered your own question.

Not really.

I don't think there was an official policy developed as to how we should handled this. So far, most cases had a pretty clearly dominant verdict choice.

Vellos has concluded we would go with a 3-day lock. "Most votes" method would say that we go with a 3-day lock. "Average of votes" method would say we go with a 2-day lock.

No method is perfect. Working with averages encourages people to vote for extremes to better sway in the direction they want. But working with "most votes" only, you can get someone declared innocent if 3 people vote for innocence, while 2 call for warning only, 2 for 1-day lock, 2 for 2-day lock, and 2 more for three-day lock (for a total of 8 people calling for guilty against 3 for innocent).

It can obviously be two-step as well, which I think we have assumed thus far, which means that you first tally the total innocent votes and count them against the total guilty votes, and then stop considering the innocent votes for the sanction decision if a guilty verdict was decided.

Just seems to me like we should have a clearer protocol as to how we decide sanctions in cases where we don't all vote for the same thing.

[Vellos]

We've had I think two or three cases where the verdict was decided but the sentence was debated– in each instance we've gone with whichever sentence had the most support, AFAIK.

[Penchant]

But working with "most votes" only, you can get someone declared innocent if 3 people vote for innocence, while 2 call for warning only, 2 for 1-day lock, 2 for 2-day lock, and 2 more for three-day lock (for a total of 8 people calling for guilty against 3 for innocent).

Guilty and not guilty is its own vote. After that you would decide he sentence, with those opposed either voting for least punishment or not allowed to vote on sentence (would be decided on a policy basis beforehand.) Also, I suggest not choosing an official policy on which method. In the case of this one I suggest the most votes but if 4 voted for 1 day and 5 voted or 3 day, I would suggest going two days. Also,

4 people voted for a 3-day lock, but 5 people voted for a lesser punishment, for an average of 2,1111 day lock.

Statistics can be flipped anyway you want. I could also say that 7 out of nine magistrates believed a punishment of 2-3 days was suitable with a clear majority deciding that 3 days was more suitable and thus is the obvious choice.

[Lefanis]

Magistrates can vote on their own case which is stupid beyond belief.

Egamma is not a magistrate.

No guidelines for punishments.

The magistrates are a new system, where precedents are still being worked out. Besides, we aren't trying to create a penal code like lawyers, we're just trying to ensure the game can be fun for everyone.

No requirement for defence.

Didn't you get a message alerting you that a case had been filed? The magistrates came to a judgement quickly because of the nature of the case and the clear evidence presented.

[Kai]

Sorry it replied with my note draft.

I don't believe this is fair at all.

What is more important than IR is the social contract that, "We expect you to play the game as you would play a board game with good friends, and to value fair play above any victory or power." Please ask yourself if this is how you deal with someone who breaks the rules in a board game. If you said yes I don't think you would have good friends so I guess you've never experienced this.

I don't deny that this was a violation of IR. But you cannot pretend that all violation of IR is the same. It is not. I slipped for one sentence. The reason there are no other obvious IR cases in the courtroom is because most of the players of this game have a little maturity and aren't mentally ill, anal retentive players who are turned on by rules. I have seen bigger IR violations than this (right to attend tournaments, sirion) responded to with an IC reminder + apology, with no harm done to anyone. The punishment is completely disproportionate in this case.

It also seems that the magistrate system is terrible. The case was put forward by a magistrate with a player in the same realm. Apparently he is allowed to then influence the discussion and vote. This is stupid beyond belief because of conflict of interest. Hes a Global Mod so this isn't relevant to this case. It still shouldn't happen though. Obviously he fervently denies this but I bet there will be a smirk on his face at finally taking down the Margrave of Oritolon, who he has argued with so many times, and which he just had to point out in the title. It is obvious this opportunity gave him an erection.

The Magistrate system is not representative of the player base. It only consisting of the most overeager cancerous no-fun players selected by a few guys on the basis of being yes-men. The people who jump at the chance to have the power to judge over their fellow players are not the ones you are looking for. Perhaps look for trust medals and recruit on an invite basis.

There are no guidelines for punishments. This is a serious oversight. Apparently a one sentence violation of IR warrants the harshest punishment below a ban. I expect this precedent to mean a two sentence violation gives bans. If this was retroactive like a quarter of all players would be banned.

There is also no guidelines on defence, making the process completely one sided. Sure I could have replied here but there was never clarity on whether it would even be looked at and what the timeframe is on the case voting etc. I suggest that it should be recommended to make a statement in the thread within 3 days and that the magistrates must make a response to that.

[Geronus]

I don't believe this is fair at all.

What is more important than IR is the social contract that, "We expect you to play the game as you would play a board game with good friends, and to value fair play above any victory or power." Please ask yourself if this is how you deal with someone who breaks the rules in a board game. If you said yes I don't think you would have good friends so I guess you've never experienced this.

Perhaps the punishment is disproportionate, perhaps not. As you can see from Chenier's post, there was a significant split in the voting. The three-day lock was chosen by a plurality, not a majority. It is something we will probably discuss further, though for this case, the judgment stands.

The Magistrate system is not representative of the player base. Perhaps look for trust medals and recruit on an invite basis.

Trust medals were considered in the selection process, and I suspect that if you were to check you would find that all of the Magistrates have a significant number of them. We are, after all, all veteran players.

There are no guidelines for punishments. This is a serious oversight.

Which is intentional. Tom's vision for the Magistrates is for them to find their own way for the most part. Please keep in mind that this system is relatively new.

There is also no guidelines on defence, making the process completely one sided. Sure I could have replied here but there was never clarity on whether it would even be looked at and what the timeframe is on the case voting etc. I suggest that it should be recommended to make a statement in the thread within 3 days and that the magistrates must make a response to that.

...Why wouldn't it be looked at? We are here, in this thread, discussing the case, so we are obviously reading it. If you'd bothered to look at it before the verdict, you'd have seen that, but clearly you didn't. Your suggestion has merit however, so I will ask Tom if we can add that information to the notification.

Please note that I've chosen not to quote the more overheated parts of your reply. You raise some important questions, but I strongly suggest you revisit what you wrote and tone it down some.

[Tom]

I don't believe this is fair at all.

It is not uncommon for the losing side of a discussion, case or even dice roll to believe the process was unfair. The vitriol contained in your response alone makes me doubt your points are entirely rational and unbiased.

Yes, there is not much of a system behind all of this. BM is a game, not a court of law. This is about a game, not about throwing someone into a cell for years. The process should reflect that.

So far, most complaints against Magistrate cases were that they took too long. Complaints that they are judging too quickly have been rare. In light of that, and given the fact that every rule is another opportunity for rules-lawyers to abuse the process, I will not make an official statement regarding any timeframes, except in vague terms such as "appropriate".
Don't forget that any judgement can also be overturned if new evidence suddenly appears. But we can't wait forever for that to happen.

As for magistrate selection, it is obvious you are oblivious to the way the magistrates were chosen. You might want to read up on that and then reconsider your statement.

[Jim]

I believe Kai has a point.

[Penchant]

I believe Kai has a point.

What do you agree with within Kai's post? The only thing Kai might have a point is setting a minimum trial length so the defendant has time to respond, IMO.

[Jim]

What do you agree with within Kai's post? The only thing Kai might have a point is setting a minimum trial length so the defendant has time to respond, IMO.

All of it.

[Penchant]

All of it.

If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.

[Jim]

If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.

Slow down.

[Anaris]

If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.

IIRC, T-Rex Messiah has, in the past, expressed his disagreement with significant portions of the IRs and the way they are enforced.

[Jim]

IIRC, T-Rex Messiah has, in the past, expressed his disagreement with significant portions of the IRs and the way they are enforced.

This is incorrect.