Titan System Revalation

[Geronus]

Perhaps I am in the minority on this, but I don't see the difference. Someone did or did not do a strategic capital move. Now, maybe the distinction is slightly more difficult, but it's still a simple question of whether they did it or not, and discussion may still be necessary (family members sharing a computer might display similar verbal styles, log times, playing locations, and IPs) for either.

The difference is that there is absolutely no gray area on multi-cheating. If you personally control more than one account, you are in violation of The Rule. End of story. There is absolutely no way that you can control more than one account and not be cheating. HOWEVER, if you move a capital during wartime, you are not automatically guilty of breaking the rule about strategic capital moves. CONTEXT matters in that case, i.e. was it moved closer of further away from the front lines? If the realm is fighting on more than one front and the move brings it closer to one enemy but further from another, is it still a violation? What about if it is being moved for historical reasons, i.e. it was the original capital of the realm, recently reclaimed from Evilstan? Or if the move places it in a more central location in the realm that helps with administration? These points may be legitimately debatable, and the answers could change depending on the context. The players who decided to move the capital may believe that they are not violating the rules, even if it is eventually decided that they are. These types of cases are worthy of bringing into a forum and discussing, and publishing the results will benefit the community.

With multi-cheating however, there is NO context that can justify it. The only question to be resolved is whether or not a player does, in fact, control more than one account. And since only Tom or maybe the devs can really determine that with any kind of confidence, I do not see why cases of multi-cheating need to be discussed publicly. The accusation alone will tarnish reputations and lead to bad blood, even if the defendants are absolved. I firmly believe that such complaints should continue to be handled under the current system.

[Tom]

Though actually, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I do not see the point of including accusations of multi-cheating in this new system. Only Tom and/or maybe the devs have the proper tools to investigate whether or not someone is multi-cheating, and there is no need to discuss those particular infractions. Someone either *is* or *is not* multi-cheating - it is the clearest, most cut and dry case of abuse there is. There's no questions of interpretation.

Excellent point. Yes, multi-cheating is a mechanical abuse that only needs one thing to be resolved: Gathering the facts.

[Tom]

I have no idea how many wrong titans decisions there have been during bm history,

And that, right there, is the problem.

Without that information being available, we can never correct the people who claim whatever nonsense they want to claim in order to make other people afraid of the Titans.

Guys, you obviously aren't, and you trust the system. But do you really know how the 980 players who've not contributed to this discussion feel?

[Gloria]

Well, there is no Battlemaster rulebook, and as far as I recall, Tom is against writing one.  The problem is that, without rules, it's hard to know if something is within or against the rules.  I understand why Tom refuses to have rules, and the annoyance of "rules lawyers".  And this discussion has already taken place...

[De-Legro]

There are rules, they just are a very high level in most cases instead of being massively specific which does allow for ruler lawyers. However you will ALWAYS suffer from "Rules Layers" it matters not if the rules are written down are implied or are simply developed by the collective from previous rulings and punishments. The only way to avoid rules lawyers would probably be to have a completely free form game with no restrictions, which of course invites its own problems.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies

[Vellos]

And that, right there, is the problem.

Without that information being available, we can never correct the people who claim whatever nonsense they want to claim in order to make other people afraid of the Titans.

So publicly post Titan decisions on the forum in a page titled "Titan Decisions" or "Titan Precedent."

This is not complicated. People are confused? Free up information. The system doesn't need to be fundamentally rewritten if comparatively simple fixes (like posting precedents in a centralized place and expanding the Titan pool) address the issue.

[Vellos]

Not revealing the name but leaving a distinctive writing style doesn't protect anonymity.  Translation machines would indeed be silly, but posting the full complaint would be a problem (especially since often the information someone would have would be limited to a small number of people, i.e. I could file a complaint with information that only Jenred or maybe three, four other people on the Far East would have access to all of).  It'd be simple enough to post a simple version of the complaint that has:

1. The person/people involved.
2. The rule that may have been violated in specific (this capital was moved, that order was given, etc).

Person who makes the complaint could write up this basic summary when reporting easily enough.

This is exactly what I would suggest doing.

What I was arguing against was the idea that writing styles are something the complainant should be reasonably expected to "cover up." I shouldn't be expected to do that.

A summary produced by the Titans would be entirely reasonable.

[Vellos]

I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.

I agree with Vellos that reports should still be anonymous. The names of the accusers should be removed before being posted.

This seems too much to me. Again, I don't think Titan decisions should be a subject of open deliberation and discussion. They're just there. Get the final decisions together, archive'em, and have'em available for reference later. No need for prolonged discussion.

And about posting the initial complaint and protecting anonymity... see Bedwyr and I's side-discussion. You cannot post the complaint and protect anonymity in a community as small as BM.

[Tom]

A summary produced by the Titans would be entirely reasonable.

No, it is not. It is putting more burden on volunteers who are under no obgliation to shoulder it.

[Tom]

And about posting the initial complaint and protecting anonymity... see Bedwyr and I's side-discussion. You cannot post the complaint and protect anonymity in a community as small as BM.

Erm, has everyone missed me posting that anonymity isn't the goal, but getting rid of the atmosphere that requires it is?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

That might not be possible. Already there are players who hate other players for various reasons. It could very well be possible that the majority of players have no likes or dislikes toward other people, but how many of them actually care anyway?

As Vellos has said, the fact is, not all of us are friends. And honestly, we probably never will be. My random and capricious attitude online annoys a lot of people, there are some people I don't like because, well, there are a lot of reasons why we like and dislike other people.

There is a huge obstacle in making these complaints public in that, unlike a community where we each see each others' faces and can see the reactions and feelings, it is much harder to see how our words and actions affect others online. It is also harder to care, and I am perhaps one of the worst at this, being very indifferent pretty much all the time. Seeing a complaint against me, I don't know what my gut reaction would be at seeing the name. It could be "Oh, I saw that coming" if it's someone I know has beef with me. Or it could be "Wow, so that was his/her opinion of me all along?" if it was someone I liked. It's an unpredictable course, really. It can just as easily reinforce enmities and break "friendships" as mollify hostilities and create understanding. But it is very questionable which way the trend would go.

[Tom]

Now compare this with the status quo where you are hit with a Titan punishment out of the blue.

Among the most common reactions we've seen is trying to find the "snitch".

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Maybe an initial test of this "public Titan system" could be made on a continent without prior warning to set a baseline. Right now there is no actual data on how the players would react to such changes, I think, unless there was something else in place before the Titans.

Testing it for efficacy in this way might be a bit risky though. If it works, then great. If not, then some public relations stuff with the players might be required, before making a lot of modifications, or dropping it.

[Vellos]

Now compare this with the status quo where you are hit with a Titan punishment out of the blue.

Among the most common reactions we've seen is trying to find the "snitch".

And you think TELLING people who the snitch is will solve that problem?

No, it will just get the snitch ostracized. Maybe not explicitly, since that would get another Titan report... but it'll happen.

As I've said, that's what I would do: that person probably would not get a position for a looooong time under my watch? Why? I wouldn't intentionally oppose them based on their Titan reports, but i don't trust myself to perfectly separate IC and OOC. It's like if the enemy general contacts you OOC and tells you all their plans for the next 3 turns, and you are a general too: sure, you won't IC act on it... but how can you separate it? I don't think most people are capable of doing that. I know I'm not.

[Tom]

And you think TELLING people who the snitch is will solve that problem?

Telling them that he's not a snitch will.

Being open with people can do wonderful things. One of them is change their perception.

their Titan reports, but i don't trust myself to perfectly separate IC and OOC. It's like if the enemy general contacts you OOC and tells you all their plans for the next 3 turns, and you are a general too: sure, you won't IC act on it... but how can you separate it? I don't think most people are capable of doing that. I know I'm not.

But currently, people are singled out for being suspected of having filed a report. Plus if we can get it into players' heads that this really isn't a big deal, that should help. Except in the case of multis, but then again in that case they're gone when we're done with them.