Posts that do not provide evidence

[De-Legro]

Let me turn that around. What makes this particular form of exploitation so special that it warrants a rule? And if it's so special, why isn't the rule stronger?

This may be wrong, however it was what I understood at the time the rule was created.

The rule against exploits or playing counter to game mechanics in general is not explicit, but covered under "Play fairly, as with friends". This in itself allows for wide ranging interpretations. Many people would argue that, if we think in the frame of mind of our nobles things like strategic secession is logical, since nobles being aware of the recruitment limitation would seek to overcome it. If I recall correctly Tom's opinion was that nobles would NOT see their realm give up land and lose prestige for the sake of efficiency, that appearances were far more important. Thus a rule was born to cover the specific issue.

Why is it not stronger? Most of the rules in BM aren't. Part of this is no doubt tied up in Tom's love of social experiments. I believe another part is to prevent overly restrictive rules from being used to prevent fun and interesting play. This is tied up in the hybrid nature of the game. If it was only a strategy game without the strong RP element I believe things like strategic secession would indeed be outright banned. We want this game to be MORE then just a strategy game though, and so the rules must be flexible.

Finally, this is part of the "policies" These are things that have grown over time from discussions with Tom and messages covering specific events. Apart from Ethan trying to collect them and place them on the wiki, I don't believe anyone has tried to sit down and codify them as has been done for things like the Social Contract. They are like a informal series of precedents, and I think the ambiguity they present is in part because of their origins.

[Geronus]

You may well be right about their origin, but then as I understand it part of the Magistrates experiment was about lending more transparency to the process of adjudicating the rules. Part of that process in turn properly ought to be trying to reduce the amount of arbitrariness in how they are applied, as our open record of cases will quickly expose any arbitrariness in our decisions. That may necessitate interpreting things somewhat differently than they have been in the past; we may have already done this with respect to realm mergers. This is no different than what real judges do:  They interpret the law, a process which can effectively change it by changing how it is applied.

My arguments may be annoying to some people, but they're part of an honest effort to explore the scope and intent of the rule so that players' understanding of the rule and how it is applied will be increased. You can't have an open and transparent system of rules when 90% of the precedents and past interpretations of the rule are basically apocryphal. I mean we're practically ruling by anecdote here; someone will think they can recall something Tom said five years ago or a Titan case from four years ago and suddenly that becomes part of the basis of a ruling. If the Magistrates are going to do any good, then we need some leeway to tighten up the rules and precedents so that they're clearer and easier to understand for the 95% of the player base that doesn't have a decade-long store of memories of past cases, precedents and statements from Tom.

[De-Legro]

You may well be right about their origin, but then as I understand it part of the Magistrates experiment was about lending more transparency to the process of adjudicating the rules. Part of that process in turn properly ought to be trying to reduce the amount of arbitrariness in how they are applied, as our open record of cases will quickly expose any arbitrariness in our decisions. That may necessitate interpreting things somewhat differently than they have been in the past; we may have already done this with respect to realm mergers. This is no different than what real judges do:  They interpret the law, a process which can effectively change it by changing how it is applied.

My arguments may be annoying to some people, but they're part of an honest effort to explore the scope and intent of the rule so that players' understanding of the rule and how it is applied will be increased. You can't have an open and transparent system of rules when 90% of the precedents and past interpretations of the rule are basically apocryphal. I mean we're practically ruling by anecdote here; someone will think they can recall something Tom said five years ago or a Titan case from four years ago and suddenly that becomes part of the basis of a ruling. If the Magistrates are going to do any good, then we need some leeway to tighten up the rules and precedents so that they're clearer and easier to understand for the 95% of the player base that doesn't have a decade-long store of memories of past cases, precedents and statements from Tom.

Can't help you there, I certainly wouldn't go messing with the "Word of Tom" :) The main problem as I see it is you guys have no easy way during a case to get information from Tom regarding the full purpose of a rule. Thus if you start meddling with the rules we leave the path open for Tom to come and and disagree after a ruling.

There is always going to be a difference here between the role and powers of the magistrates and RL systems. Tom created the game and the rules, and locked away in his head is the way they are supposed to work.

[Tom]

you guys have no easy way during a case to get information from Tom regarding the full purpose of a rule.

There's e-mail...

[Penchant]

Can't help you there, I certainly wouldn't go messing with the "Word of Tom" :) The main problem as I see it is you guys have no easy way during a case to get information from Tom regarding the full purpose of a rule. Thus if you start meddling with the rules we leave the path open for Tom to come and and disagree after a ruling.

There is always going to be a difference here between the role and powers of the magistrates and RL systems. Tom created the game and the rules, and locked away in his head is the way they are supposed to work.

As is made evident by Tom's post, quoted below, there is no reason that the Magistrates can't ask Tom a question. I have done it at least once during a Magistrates Case. Tom might not be on the forums a ton but you can certainly send him an email (or forum PM which gets sent to his email).

There's e-mail...