Mendicant Cheating

[DamnTaffer]

... I'm a poor student without a card.

He is just a poor boy from a poor family! Spare him his battlemaster from these monstrosities!

I think you're underestimating the percentage of BM players who are poor students.

I suspect it would deny access to at least 50% of the player base.

[Chenier]

My point was that what you describe looked like clanning, and clanning is not right, whether it uses OOG means of communication or not.

Also, requiring a group of people to log in on IRC would violate the activity IR.

There are plenty of rules to prevent bad behaviour, and taken together they take care of the vast majority of actually objectionable cases.

"Requirement" can be left up to debate. Because people can make an army of people that log in to IRC only, by organizing it all on IRC and never once mentionning any hints to IRC or OOG communication IG.

OOG communication as a torture-proof means of organizing (be it armies, rebellions, elections, or whatever) is more what I want to put the focus on.

[Tom]

It was my understanding that using OOG communications that avoid leaks through torture was against the rules, but the recent messages don't all seem to support this.

People in this thread still don't understand the difference between "we allow/support this" and "we can't do anything about it anyways, so *shrug*".

So I'm out of here, because as long as people don't get that difference, we are arguing about entirely different things.

[Chenier]

People in this thread still don't understand the difference between "we allow/support this" and "we can't do anything about it anyways, so *shrug*".

So I'm out of here, because as long as people don't get that difference, we are arguing about entirely different things.

Is there really "nothing that can be done about it anyways"? There may be no easy means to catch all violations... but then again, a bunch of multiers have gotten away with it for a very long time before revealing themselves or getting caught. And as others pointed out, there are other rules we are just as hard to apply, such as strategic secessions or capital moves, because of how they depend on intent and there arent many things harder than policing intent...

Of course, BM doesn't and won't have some police force to go look up every IRC channel and msn logs. But looking through message logs (when founded accusations are made) would actually make this rule easier to police than some of our other rules, so I just don't see why on this case we say "we won't even try", while on others we do.

[DamnTaffer]

People in this thread still don't understand the difference between "we allow/support this" and "we can't do anything about it anyways, so *shrug*".

So I'm out of here, because as long as people don't get that difference, we are arguing about entirely different things.

How about, We can't stop you but please don't do it?

[Geronus]

Also, on the "I know it when I see it" thing:

Magistrates cases have failed to identify that alleged phenomenon ever actually cropping up. Everybody has radically different definitions of what they know only when they see it.

Which is why there is a group of us, and why we are required to come to consensus before we rule. I'm quite certain Tom set things up that way on purpose with exactly what you just said in mind.

Ten pairs of eyes is better than one.

[Vellos]

Which is why there is a group of us, and why we are required to come to consensus before we rule. I'm quite certain Tom set things up that way on purpose with exactly what you just said in mind.

Ten pairs of eyes is better than one.

But my point is that the "I know it when I see it" is just a way of saying, "I will give no advance guidance that Magistrates could refer to." Which is a way of saying, "I will give no guidance to players until they are in a Magistrates case."

Also: it is costless to prohibit something we think is bad for the game (OOG communication substituting for IG communication). Enforcing it may be impossible, but we lose nothing by at least clearly stating IT IS BAD. Saying, "Nothing I can do" and shrugging our shoulders is a worthless response, Tom. Not to get all over-epic in here, but I hope you don't respond that way to RL problems in, say, developing nations. That's not a position of pragmatism but of apathy. Pragmatically, yeah, we can't police this all the time. But we can still do the minimum of at least publicly saying what the majority of players who have chimed in here have stated to be their belief about the pre-existing rule: you have to communicate IG for IC actions. No, we can't perfectly enforce that, and it'd be a worthless crusade to try and hunt down people who do it.

But that doesn't mean we should abandon the position that, yes, that behavior is bad for the game and, no, it is not "allowed." It is against the rules. Admittedly they're rules we can't enforce, but insofar as any social norms or mores matter, we think its a good norm to have. Is that really so crazy a position?

[Vellos]

My point was that what you describe looked like clanning, and clanning is not right, whether it uses OOG means of communication or not.

Also, requiring a group of people to log in on IRC would violate the activity IR.

There are plenty of rules to prevent bad behaviour, and taken together they take care of the vast majority of actually objectionable cases.

And my point is that all OOG communication which substitutes for rather than complements IG communication is exclusive, fun-ruining clanning. And I think that this point is patently obvious.

[DamnTaffer]

And my point is that all OOG communication which substitutes for rather than complements IG communication is exclusive, fun-ruining clanning. And I think that this point is patently obvious.

Wrong

[Vellos]

Wrong

Thank you for your careful reasoning.

[Vellos]

Wrong

Would you care to share some examples of OOG communication used on a broad scale which replaced IG communication that are not clanning? Maybe share some personal anecdotes?

[vonGenf]

And my point is that all OOG communication which substitutes for rather than complements IG communication is exclusive, fun-ruining clanning. And I think that this point is patently obvious.

Bolded part is already against the rules, which seems to be both your and my point. I tend to agree with you, but at the same time I agree with Tom: rules should be kept few, and adding extra unenforceable rules is not useful. We all think clanning is wrong, so that's the rule. It's already hard enough to enforce.

What Wolfsong originally described looks a whole lot like abusive clanning to me. Using OOG communication is only a small part of what is wrong with his hypothetical scheme.

[Anaris]

Also: it is costless to prohibit something we think is bad for the game (OOG communication substituting for IG communication).

Except that I don't think that that, categorically, is bad for the game.

That's the whole point, Vellos. The "I'll know it when I see it" is "I'll know when I see it whether a particular case is bad for the game or not."

I've seen lots of OOG communication that supplemented, complemented, or replaced IG communication that was incidental, casual, and in no way bad for the game.

I DO NOT want to institute a new rule that will make players think that we'll be checking up on them or that someone might rat them out for perfectly innocent, innocuous acts that, if they were actually brought up before the Magistrates without an explicit rule like that, would be ruled just fine in an instant. (Well, maybe not an instant, given the way the Magistrates seem to operate...)

[DamnTaffer]

Would you care to share some examples of OOG communication used on a broad scale which replaced IG communication that are not clanning? Maybe share some personal anecdotes?

The IRC. And nice accusation :)

[Vellos]

Except that I don't think that that, categorically, is bad for the game.

That's the whole point, Vellos. The "I'll know it when I see it" is "I'll know when I see it whether a particular case is bad for the game or not."

I've seen lots of OOG communication that supplemented, complemented, or replaced IG communication that was incidental, casual, and in no way bad for the game.

I DO NOT want to institute a new rule that will make players think that we'll be checking up on them or that someone might rat them out for perfectly innocent, innocuous acts that, if they were actually brought up before the Magistrates without an explicit rule like that, would be ruled just fine in an instant. (Well, maybe not an instant, given the way the Magistrates seem to operate...)

Want to give some details of incidents where OOG communication replaced IG communication in a way that wasn't bad for the game?

The Magistrates are more than capable of saying, "Yeah, this def wasn't malicious and didn't actually hurt anyone: nbd." We've done it before and we can do it again; it's not hard. That's the point of having a non-robot as a Magistrate.

But refusing to make a rule because someone somewhere might hypothetically have an easily dismissable Magistrates case brought against them is just silly.