BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => Case Archives => Magistrates Case Archive => Topic started by: BattleMaster Server on January 18, 2013, 04:25:51 AM

Title: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: BattleMaster Server on January 18, 2013, 04:25:51 AM
Summary:Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Violation:Choosing your class
World:Colonies
Complainer:Eric Henson (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=23524)
About:Actrial (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=18625)

Full Complaint Text:
Letter from Actrial Erendegard   (11 hours, 44 minutes ago)

Message sent to everyone in your realm (25 recipients)

I would like to ask priests to become a soldier again because we need every noble possible.

Actrial Erendegard

Margrave of Oritolon
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: egamma on January 18, 2013, 04:26:26 AM
If this isn't a rights violation, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Indirik on January 18, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
This should be the posterchild for rapid resolution.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Chenier on January 18, 2013, 04:50:17 AM
Quote from: egamma on January 18, 2013, 04:26:26 AM
If this isn't a rights violation, I don't know what is.

Let the voting begin?
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Fleugs on January 18, 2013, 10:55:34 PM
What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Chenier on January 18, 2013, 11:02:16 PM
Quote from: Fleugs on January 18, 2013, 10:55:34 PM
What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.

There's a huge difference between "we need more soldiers" and "we need less priests". The request is essentially the latter.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Geronus on January 18, 2013, 11:05:43 PM
Quote from: Fleugs on January 18, 2013, 10:55:34 PM
What? To me he is just asking for more nobles capable of commanding a unit. He isn't ordering it or implying repercussion if priests do not class (back) to soldier. I don't think it is forbidden to ask for more soldiers, even if you chose to target only one class to pose that question to.

A request from a person in power is considered the same thing as an order for the purpose of the IRs. It doesn't matter whether there's an explicit "or else" attached to the request or not. It is still a violation of the IRs.

For anyone reading this thread, the best policy when it comes to the class and unit type IRs is to stay far, far away from them. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances. Any request, no matter how innocent it seems, that directly suggests that someone change to a certain class or recruit a certain type of unit is guaranteed to result in punishment if it is reported.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Fleugs on January 18, 2013, 11:17:21 PM
Hardly a person in power. Margrave of the capital. Not even duke, not even a council member. Has really no power except from kicking someone from his estate, should he chose to "punish" people not classing back. The inalienable rights say you have the right to choose your class. To me, this message, which was a simple letter - not a order or request - still allows people to remain priest. Just that they happen to need more nobles with a sword. Perhaps the character despises priests and favours warriors?

I understand that the argument is to stay as far away from the inalienable rights as you can, but it would be shortsighted to punish or be done with this sort of case as a clear violation. What would be a clear violation would be an order, or, if you want, check my family history. You can find it there twice.

Someone just has to point out to this player that priests have merit too. As long as he does not impose or threaten with punishment on priests refusing to become warrior he has not explicitly violated the inalienable rights. The "evidence" for this case is really weak, based on a one-sentence letter.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Alpha on January 18, 2013, 11:20:09 PM
I would agree that this action would be an obvious abuse of power if he had actually held a position of authority. A Margrave doesn't, by the nature of his position, hold any great power. The situation might be different if he consistently issues orders that are followed, and I don't know if that is the case or not.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Indirik on January 18, 2013, 11:21:59 PM
Quote from: Fleugs on January 18, 2013, 11:17:21 PM
Hardly a person in power. Margrave of the capital. Not even duke, not even a council member. Has really no power except from kicking someone from his estate, should he chose to "punish" people not classing back. The inalienable rights say you have the right to choose your class. To me, this message, which was a simple letter - not a order or request - still allows people to remain priest. Just that they happen to need more nobles with a sword. Perhaps the character despises priests and favours warriors?
Not a request? He flat out said "I would like to ask...".

Also, this *has* to be acted on. If not, you're opening up a HUGE loophole: All you have to do in order to be able to bypass the IRs is have someone who is "not in a position of power" send the "not an order or request" and you're in the clear.

But just because this is a clear violation doesn't mean the guy has to be bolted and locked for three days. A one-day lock and public reminder of the IRs should be fine.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Geronus on January 18, 2013, 11:25:42 PM
Ahem. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances.

"When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders."

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable)

Do not, under any circumstances, ever order, ask, or suggest that a specific player or players change class or recruit a specific unit type. Since the message in question clearly violated that precept, there is nothing to discuss.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Chenier on January 18, 2013, 11:29:02 PM
As Geronus said. It doesn't need to be labelled as an order, nothing needs to be threatened as a consequence. This has been established for a very long time.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Dante Silverfire on January 19, 2013, 11:46:45 AM
Quote from: Indirik on January 18, 2013, 11:21:59 PM
Also, this *has* to be acted on. If not, you're opening up a HUGE loophole: All you have to do in order to be able to bypass the IRs is have someone who is "not in a position of power" send the "not an order or request" and you're in the clear.

I think this is the key point.

This is a VERY CLEAR violation. I see absolutely no defense for this not violating the IR's in any way. He requested that someone change class. For the purposes of IR's requests are the same as orders.

Since the IR's are violated they need to be enforced. His position is irrelevant. Even if he was just a knight it'd be a violation and should be acted upon.

I don't think a harsh punishment is necessary perhaps but the IR's are there to protect players. Protecting the players needs to be the primary motivation of the Magistrates in this case and every case. Not ruling this as a violation means that players in this case are harmed, and it opens up harm for all future ones.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Vellos on January 19, 2013, 06:22:41 PM
A verdict has been reached, and necessary IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:

"The Magistrates find that the player of Actrial did violate the Inalienable Rights in requesting that nobles change class away from the priest class. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances. When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders.

Magistrates voted 9-0 in favor of the guilty verdict, with 1 in favor of a warning, 1 in favor of a 1-day lock, 3 in favor of a 2-day lock, and 4 in favor of a 3-day lock. A 3-day lock has been applied."

This thread will remain open for questions for a brief period.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Chenier on January 19, 2013, 07:10:04 PM
When we decide a verdict, do we go with the most popular one, or an average?

4 people voted for a 3-day lock, but 5 people voted for a lesser punishment, for an average of 2,1111 day lock.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Indirik on January 19, 2013, 07:14:10 PM
Sounds like you answered your own question.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Chenier on January 19, 2013, 07:59:33 PM
Quote from: Indirik on January 19, 2013, 07:14:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Vellos on January 19, 2013, 08:33:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Penchant on January 19, 2013, 08:52:36 PM
Quote from: Chénier on January 19, 2013, 07:59:33 PM
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,
Quote from: Chénier on January 19, 2013, 07:10:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Lefanis on January 20, 2013, 06:27:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 06:11:18 AM
Magistrates can vote on their own case which is stupid beyond belief.
Egamma is not a magistrate.

Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 06:11:18 AM
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.

Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 06:11:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Kai on January 20, 2013, 07:29:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Geronus on January 20, 2013, 09:49:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 07:29:57 AM
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.

Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 07:29:57 AM
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.

Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 07:29:57 AM
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.

Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 07:29:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Tom on January 20, 2013, 12:17:50 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 20, 2013, 07:29:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Jim on January 21, 2013, 02:21:19 AM
I believe Kai has a point.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Penchant on January 21, 2013, 02:28:15 AM
Quote from: T-Rex Messiah on January 21, 2013, 02:21:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Jim on January 21, 2013, 02:41:43 AM
Quote from: Penchant on January 21, 2013, 02:28:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Penchant on January 21, 2013, 02:44:45 AM
Quote from: T-Rex Messiah on January 21, 2013, 02:41:43 AM
All of it.
If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Jim on January 21, 2013, 02:45:43 AM
Quote from: Penchant on January 21, 2013, 02:44:45 AM
If you think everything Kai said is right, I am pretty sure you didn't read Indirik or Tom's posts.

Slow down.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Anaris on January 21, 2013, 02:47:02 AM
Quote from: Penchant on January 21, 2013, 02:44:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Jim on January 21, 2013, 02:47:33 AM
Quote from: Anaris on January 21, 2013, 02:47:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Anaris on January 21, 2013, 02:48:45 AM
Thank you for confirming that, my memory on these things is not always reliable :)

With that, though, I fear you lose a great deal of credibility in any specific disagreement with a punishment for violation of the IRs.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Chenier on January 21, 2013, 03:21:58 AM
A lock for a few days isn't the end of the world. As far as I know, you don't lose your position or anything as a result. Far harsher punishments for far less have been given before the Magistrate system came to be.

Quote from: T-Rex Messiah on January 21, 2013, 02:47:33 AM
This is correct.

You agree to play by the IRs when you created your account. They aren't really negotiable.

As for their interpretation, we go with what was historically done, as I think most of us, if not all, have been playing enough years to see quite a few violations, both up close and afar.

As for the length, well... the message was a very clear-cut violation. If you look up other cases, where doubt was present, they have dragged on far longer, too long according to many.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Indirik on January 21, 2013, 04:08:39 AM
I encourage everyone to speak their mind whenever they want or feel the need. Just do it politely.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Geronus on January 21, 2013, 08:40:46 AM
This thread has served its purpose and so I am locking it. The Magistrates enforce the Rules as they understand them. Please note that for most of us, the Rules have been around longer than we have. We interpret them based on the precedents that we have all seen as long time players. If you disagree, take it up directly with Tom. He's the one who wrote the rules.

If anyone has feedback about the Magistrate system in particular or the rules in general, please open a new thread in the Courthouse Q & A board.
Title: Re: Margrave of Capital asks all priests to change class
Post by: Vellos on January 21, 2013, 04:29:28 PM
Verdict reposted here.

A verdict has been reached, and necessary IG enforcement actions have been taken. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:

"The Magistrates find that the player of Actrial did violate the Inalienable Rights in requesting that nobles change class away from the priest class. There are no grey areas or extenuating circumstances. When it comes to inalienable rights, "requests" are the same as orders.

Magistrates voted 9-0 in favor of the guilty verdict, with 1 in favor of a warning, 1 in favor of a 1-day lock, 3 in favor of a 2-day lock, and 4 in favor of a 3-day lock. A 3-day lock has been applied."

This thread is now locked.