BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Velax on October 13, 2011, 02:57:00 AM
-
Without going into detail about the players and realm involved, recently there occurred what appeared to be a "friendly" rebellion.
1. The ruler moved out of the capital.
2. One turn later, the duke of the capital declared a rebellion.
3. The duke sent a message to rulers of surrounding realms saying the rebellion "was not a hostile one".
4. Three hours after the rebellion started, minutes after turn change, the ruler gave in to the rebels and was autobanned. The rebels didn't take the capital, the ruler specifically gave in.
5. The former ruler immediately started travelling back to the capital.
6. Within two turns the former ruler was unbanned and rejoined the realm.
I don't know why someone would do this rather than just step down, but it seems pretty clearly to be a rebellion planned with the involvement of the ruler. Does this go against any rules of the game? Should it be reported?
-
No specific rule that I am aware of, though it seems strange and against the spirit of the game.
-
Was the government system changed after the rebellion?
-
It wasn't.
In this specific case, what (it looks like) they were trying to do does make at least some IC sense...That said, while I'm not aware of any rules against using a rebellion this way, it may be against the spirit of the thing.
-
It wasn't.
In this specific case, what (it looks like) they were trying to do does make at least some IC sense...That said, while I'm not aware of any rules against using a rebellion this way, it may be against the spirit of the thing.
It makes VERY little sense to rebel against a Ruler, but then allow him back in. If they wanted to replace him, and he was willing to go along with it, then stepping down would be the appropriate action.
-
I'm sure you can guess who the ruler was I'm talking about and you know how hated that family is. Invading the realm just to get rid of him was likely. Possibly the rebellion was designed to convince other realms that the ruler had been utterly rejected and get those other realms off their back. If that's the case, though, letting him back in one day later seems incredibly stupid.
-
Yeah, letting him back in right away made the whole thing sort of pointless (I, for one, was looking forward to seeing them try to pull it off so they could lay low for a while and do something interesting later :/ ) But I don't see it being against the rules unless, as De-Legro said, they were trying to take advantage of the switch-government mechanic, which they didn't. But...is this one of those things where 'clearly the mechanics were not meant to be used that way don't do it'? I really don't know >_<
-
Which realm are we talking about here?
-
Which realm are we talking about here?
I'm guessing Cathay.
-
Hmmm... I vaguely remember Tom being hardline about there not being any such thing as a "friendly rebellion". Then again, that might have been in the days where friendly secessions were a serious offense. If ever.
-
What about rebellions to catch catch rebels? For example, the leader of the rebellion is secretly an agent of the ruler but calls a rebellion to root out those who would want to rebel.
-
What about rebellions to catch catch rebels? For example, the leader of the rebellion is secretly an agent of the ruler but calls a rebellion to root out those who would want to rebel.
In such a case you wouldn't expect the ruler to give up to the rebels though would you.
-
I will note that according the OOC's from the (new) Ruler, this was an attempt to change the government system and name of the realm. What I didn't know was that they were letting Optimus back in immediately (i.e. I wasn't sure if Optimus had just been backstabbed or not).
That...Sounds very fishy.
-
For me it's simply abuse of the game mechanics. A lot worse than strategic secessions. Especially because the "rebellion" allowed the same people to stay in power. Though I guess if the whole realm supported this...
-
For me it's simply abuse of the game mechanics. A lot worse than strategic secessions. Especially because the "rebellion" allowed the same people to stay in power. Though I guess if the whole realm supported this...
Then it wasn't really a rebellion at all, was it? That's my problem with it. If they rebelled to make use of mechanics, its a cop out. Its hard to see how they think they can survive when they know precisely why they're doomed and do nothing about it? In line with the families involved though. Keeps things interesting ;D
Finn.
-
Then it wasn't really a rebellion at all, was it? That's my problem with it. If they rebelled to make use of mechanics, its a cop out. Its hard to see how they think they can survive when they know precisely why they're doomed and do nothing about it? In line with the families involved though. Keeps things interesting ;D
Finn.
Yah I agree. Don't we have some sort of guideline that the game mechanic sets the rules? Ok. The mechanic is called a "rebellion:" it must be used as a rebellion.
But really this should be put in front of the magistrates and the people involved need to defend themselves.
-
Is it in the plans to allow some way to change the government system without a rebellion?
I remember once there was a theocracy where the Ruler was not religious. He wanted nothing to do with theocracy - but there was no IC way he could do it, so the realm remained a "theocracy of nothing".
That is much more against the spirit of the game than a friendly rebellion.
-
Is it in the plans to allow some way to change the government system without a rebellion?
I remember once there was a theocracy where the Ruler was not religious. He wanted nothing to do with theocracy - but there was no IC way he could do it, so the realm remained a "theocracy of nothing".
That is much more against the spirit of the game than a friendly rebellion.
In that case it's up to the realm to find a more pious ruler! I'm sure the player knew what he was starting when he became leader of a theocratic realm?
-
It should not be possible to have a "friendly" rebellion. A rebellion is, by it's very definition, an armed resistance to the current government. An attempt to undermine and overthrow the lawful authority of the realm by force of arms, and replace it with your own.
Any kind of agreement like "Let's make sure no one is in the capital except for the five 'rebels', then we'll call the rebellion, I'll immediately give in, and then you can unban me." is, IMO, a blatant abuse of game mechanics.
-
Was the government system changed after the rebellion?
If the ruler gives in an steps down, then it is not possible to change the government style. This often bites people attempting to abuse the rebellion mechanics.
-
...this was an attempt to change the ... name of the realm.
Also not possible. (As I believe Bedwyr knows.) It is currently not possible to change the name of an existing realm in any other way than to send an email to Tom and politely ask him to change it for you. He probably won't. But you can try.
-
For me it's simply abuse of the game mechanics. A lot worse than strategic secessions. Especially because the "rebellion" allowed the same people to stay in power. Though I guess if the whole realm supported this...
If the ruler gives in an steps down, then it is not possible to change the government style. This often bites people attempting to abuse the rebellion mechanics.
Indeed. The rebellion has to at least succeed by force of arms and not by abdication for the government system to be changed. Kind of a pain when true rebels know they would win and then the ruler abdicates just to spite them.
-
In that case it's up to the realm to find a more pious ruler! I'm sure the player knew what he was starting when he became leader of a theocratic realm?
Ok, for the pious members of the realm, but what about the ruler? What is his "correct" attitude?
Should people not strive to become leader of realms because they do not suit their style? On the contrary, this should increase their desire to rule and make things go their way!
-
Fair point.
However, if the rule is that only rebellions can change government style, we should abide by that. The issue could be discussed, but staging a fake rebellion to circumvent mechanics is cheating.
So perhaps we should be discussing why rebellions are required to do so, instead?
-
I will note that according the OOC's from the (new) Ruler, this was an attempt to change the government system and name of the realm. What I didn't know was that they were letting Optimus back in immediately (i.e. I wasn't sure if Optimus had just been backstabbed or not).
That...Sounds very fishy.
Originally I thought that this was supposed to be more of a "staged" rebellion than a friendly one (for realm saving reasons discussed up-thread), but...if they've actually said that their intention was to use the mechanic to switch government styles then it sort of leaves a bad taste. Whether or not that was their sole intention, or just something incidental they decided to try, I'd be interested in hearing the whole story from them.
-
But what are you supposed to do if the realm wants to change government style and has majority support for it?
Rebellion is currently the only way so to call that abuse is a little far fetched in my opinion when there are no other options.
Like not being able to pay at the subway because their machines are broke and then getting a fine for not paying.
-
But what are you supposed to do if the realm wants to change government style and has majority support for it?
Rebellion is currently the only way so to call that abuse is a little far fetched in my opinion when there are no other options.
Like not being able to pay at the subway because their machines are broke and then getting a fine for not paying.
But did the realm want to change the system? Or only the top few?
-
But did the realm want to change the system? Or only the top few?
Supposedly, the whole realm was behind it. I only have an OOC from the new Ruler as evidence for that, though.
It's entirely possible that this will become fairly moot soon. The response on the island has been fairly disgusted, especially since they appointed a Zurralius to the Council. Way, way too many Soliferum connections for everyone's peace of mind.
-
But what are you supposed to do if the realm wants to change government style and has majority support for it?
Well, here's a suggestion: Let the realm descend into anarchy by failing to elect a ruler. That should be proof right there that no one in the realm wants the current government to continue. Then when anarchy sets in, have someone claim rulership and reform the government.
Rebellion is currently the only way...
This is incorrect.
-
But did the realm want to change the system? Or only the top few?
Well, that's part of the problem. If the bottom few want to change things, they can rebel. But if the top few want to change things, they can rebel.... against themselves? This doesn't make much sense if you think of it as rebellion against the ruler.
But still, they are rebelling of a sort, not against the ruler but against the guardians of tradition of the realm (churches, judges, minor nobility, etc).
I think it makes RP sense that a ruler would use the troops at his command to rally the army and overthrow the established order. The current mechanics also works that way. The Ruler is autobanned, but by the lawyers of the realm; as soon as those are kicked out, the ban is lifted.
-
Well, here's a suggestion: Let the realm descend into anarchy by failing to elect a ruler. That should be proof right there that no one in the realm wants the current government to continue. Then when anarchy sets in, have someone claim rulership and reform the government.
This is incorrect.
Ok, so it's possible, but I would argue that rebelling is more fun, more immersive, and not unbalancing to the game.
-
I think it makes RP sense that a ruler would use the troops at his command to rally the army and overthrow the established order.
Wut? The ruler is the "established order".
-
I would argue that rebelling is more fun, more immersive, and not unbalancing to the game.
I would argue that allowing the realm to descend into anarchy is the more appropriate way of doing it, from both an RP perspective and a game mechanics perspective.
Don't like the current government? Then refuse to serve in it. If no one serves in the government, then it de facto no longer exists. Then you can just set up whatever government you want in the power vacuum created by the disappearance of the previous government.
Claiming leadership and then asking your buddy to "grab your sword and come kick me out" is ridiculous.
-
Wut? The ruler is the "established order".
Then why isn't he able to change the government system?
-
Then why isn't he able to change the government system?
The ruler can change many aspects of the government system, including the way council positions are selected, how long they serve, who gets to vote, etc., the titles for the positions, and how region lords are selected.
At this moment in time, there is no established game mechanism to the basic underlying government. This may change in the future. But it almost certainly will not be as easy as selecting a new form from a drop-down box and continuing on your way. It would probably cause significant upheaval and unrest in the realm.
-
Well, here's a suggestion: Let the realm descend into anarchy by failing to elect a ruler. That should be proof right there that no one in the realm wants the current government to continue. Then when anarchy sets in, have someone claim rulership and reform the government.
This is incorrect.
Interesting. I didn't think about that. Although I don't know how easy it would be to pull off, especially in larger realms. It might lead to someone at the bottom offering himself, voting for himself and getting elected on one vote and the rest then rebelling against him.
If he then steps down, then they are right back where they started. If not, then they get their government change :p
-
Well, here's a suggestion: Let the realm descend into anarchy by failing to elect a ruler. That should be proof right there that no one in the realm wants the current government to continue. Then when anarchy sets in, have someone claim rulership and reform the government.
Would it not be easier to allow the ruler to change the government type, immediately triggering a rebellion? He would be the rebelling force leader, the milita if any would be the loyal force automatically, and it would work like a normal rebellion when there is no ruler.
It would make sense IC for the ruler of the current regime to violently reform the estate, ending the old government and starting a new one (like a coup for example).
-
He would be the rebelling force leader, the milita if any would be the loyal force automatically, and it would work like a normal rebellion when there is no ruler.
In a normal rebellion when there is no ruler, the rebels win instantly with no period of anarchy—and thus no opportunity to change the government.
-
In a normal rebellion when there is no ruler, the rebels win instantly with no period of anarchy—and thus no opportunity to change the government.
We had in Caergoth a King who auto-paused and elections, during which a rebellion started. It took 3 days, like a normal rebellion, and after it succeeded the elections continued, having the rebellious new King ruled very briefly.
Though that was not intended what I am suggesting is not way too unlike it.
-
Would it not be easier to allow the ruler to change the government type, immediately triggering a rebellion? He would be the rebelling force leader, the milita if any would be the loyal force automatically, and it would work like a normal rebellion when there is no ruler.
It would make sense IC for the ruler of the current regime to violently reform the estate, ending the old government and starting a new one (like a coup for example).
This is a really good idea. :)
-
This may change in the future. But it almost certainly will not be as easy as selecting a new form from a drop-down box and continuing on your way. It would probably cause significant upheaval and unrest in the realm.
Sure, that's all I ask. It should not be trivial.
-
To be fair Cathay is kind of "bugged" as a realm at the moment - it has no Capital actually. When Anacan left there was no longer a Capital city. This still remains true even after the rebellion.
I have a character in Cathay, but at the moment I'm undecided if this was just a poorly planned attempt to change goverment systems, or a deliberate abuse of the game mechanics. I'm leaning towards the former - with 7 nobles left it's hard to not have the entire government in on any change to the Realm that doesn't make the whole thing fishy. To be fair, Cathay went from huge to. . . a few regions, it's not surprising the last few nobles might contemplate changing the entire Realm as its no longer really the Realm it was previously.
This however, does not mean that the way they tried to change governments was appropriate, given the game mechanics. Just that their desire to change is understandable.
-
To be fair Cathay is kind of "bugged" as a realm at the moment - it has no Capital actually. When Anacan left there was no longer a Capital city. This still remains true even after the rebellion.
That's not a bug. There will be no capital until they build a new one, by moving it to their last remaining city. This is the way it works.
-
To be fair Cathay is kind of "bugged" as a realm at the moment - it has no Capital actually. When Anacan left there was no longer a Capital city. This still remains true even after the rebellion.
Azros is the capital listed in the Realm List.
-
Yea, the Rebellion was planned and given the blessing of Optimus, in which case, yea, it would have been smarter for him to just step down, but whatever. I think the idea was that they'd be able to change the name of the realm, which they couldn't otherwise? I don't know. I don't think the players were very well versed in what they were doing.
I don't exactly know where the line is between Toupellon's planned secession and the most rebellion in Cathay, but I do know that there isn't much of one. Both were planned with the blessing/knowledge of the ruler, both were coordinated awkwardly well. Anatole even said today "Fair elections? I laugh at that, for none that I know that minted the crown of Cathay took part to them." Boycotting an election (which the ruler won with a paultry 14% of the vote) just to rebel against his rule a few days later seems similarly contrived. Especially when Erandi heard IC at least a month prior that Colasan was planning to secede anyway. Maybe this is a point that should be raised IC, but if Anatole was so interested in Cathay's future and dedicated to her, then why did he and all the other ruling Dukes (save Optimus) run away from Cathay? Why not win the election and, if Optimus was really that despised, banish/exile him...
Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game? I mean, yea, the guy plays many of his characters alike, but it seems everyone is judging Optimus based on Conan when the player has clearly defined IC that they weren't close nor very well related. Seems to me like an abuse to me that pretty much the whole continent is content to not only let slide, but support. Discouraging. I'd hate for Erandi (honorable, well spoken) to be judged off of Carlos (dubious, indignant, near-illiterate...). I'm pretty sure many of us have characters we play differently, and I would hate for the next character I bring around to be judged off of whatever my former character(s) did...
I can't help but look at the whole stretch from Azros to Akanos with suspicion and, honestly, a little disdain.
Maybe I just don't know all the facts.
-
Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game?
Not in the slightest.
If someone has managed to piss off people badly enough, it's perfectly reasonable for them to come after his family, too. This is particularly true when various members of the family in question have been seen to act in a very similar manner.
Heck, I just had one character banned because of who she was related to, even though she has nothing but contempt for that particular family member—and OOC, I think it was totally justified, based on who was involved.
IC is a different matter, of course, which I handle IC and IG :)
-
Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game? I mean, yea, the guy plays many of his characters alike, but it seems everyone is judging Optimus based on Conan when the player has clearly defined IC that they weren't close nor very well related. Seems to me like an abuse to me that pretty much the whole continent is content to not only let slide, but support. Discouraging. I'd hate for Erandi (honorable, well spoken) to be judged off of Carlos (dubious, indignant, near-illiterate...). I'm pretty sure many of us have characters we play differently, and I would hate for the next character I bring around to be judged off of whatever my former character(s) did...
To tell me, or anyone else, that the way I or my characters think about a particular family is an abuse is pretty frigging ridiculous. I'm not going to bother going into reasons why the McGahee family is untrustworthy, hated, blah, blah, blah, but I will say that I'm entitled to think whatever the bloody hell I like about a character in this game and to be told that the way I think is against the rules of the game...the absurdity boggles the mind.
-
Interesting. I didn't think about that. Although I don't know how easy it would be to pull off, especially in larger realms. It might lead to someone at the bottom offering himself, voting for himself and getting elected on one vote and the rest then rebelling against him.
If he then steps down, then they are right back where they started. If not, then they get their government change :p
If a smartass elects himself into rulership, then you got a legitimate rebellion possibility right there. Why is rebelling against a twit any more difficult than rebelling against a legitimate ruler?
-
Not in the slightest.
If someone has managed to piss off people badly enough, it's perfectly reasonable for them to come after his family, too. This is particularly true when various members of the family in question have been seen to act in a very similar manner.
Perhaps I'm mistaken then. I could have sworn it was against the spirit of the game to ban someone from a realm based on what family they were from. If someone RPs that a particular character is not very well related to another character of the same family, that should be taken into account and respected. I'm not on the dev. team or anything, but that's just a rule I've been hearing and adhering to for a while.
To tell me, or anyone else, that the way I or my characters think about a particular family is an abuse is pretty frigging ridiculous. I'm not going to bother going into reasons why the McGahee family is untrustworthy, hated, blah, blah, blah, but I will say that I'm entitled to think whatever the bloody hell I like about a character in this game and to be told that the way I think is against the rules of the game...the absurdity boggles the mind.
I don't think I told you or your characters how to think. Your character can think whatever he likes, heck if I care. I think I said you have to judge each character off their merits. If Optimus has said something IC to piss your character off (can be super trivial if you like), then by all means hate the character. But if your character really hasn't had any interaction with Optimus (or Thain, or Jenred, or whoever given all the prominent families on FEI), then your character shouldn't be up in arms when they appear.
It'd be like if I hated everyone with the last name of Smith who walked around the street. There are many Smiths in this world, many of them are cool people, a few have managed to piss me off over the years... just speaking for myself, I'm not going to hate them all as a result (well, unless that's the way you/your characters work, then that's cool too, no worries man).
-
It'd be like if I hated everyone with the last name of Smith who walked around the street. There are many Smiths in this world, many of them are cool people, a few have managed to piss me off over the years... just speaking for myself, I'm not going to hate them all as a result (well, unless that's the way you/your characters work, then that's cool too, no worries man).
Our characters aren't Smiths and Joneses. They're scions of the most prominent, most famous, most impressive and important families in the world.
It's not like hating everyone with the last name Smith. It's much more like hating everyone with the last name Hilton, or Bieber, or Kennedy.
-
Not to mention there are a million Smiths in the world, most of whom aren't even vaguely related. How many McGahees are there? How many de Veres? How many Himouras? Big difference between hating someone who happens to share an extremely common last name and hating someone who's very obviously related and acts remarkably similar to the original person you disliked.
In any case, everyone in Kindara has a reason to dislike and distrust Optimus. He sent a trader to Kindara to threaten a duke and the general with "consequences" if they didn't sell him food. And this was when Cathay and Kindara were still close allies. Reason enough to think this McGahee is like all the rest and act accordingly.
-
I feel like this is drifting off-topic from friendly rebellions somewhat, but...>.<
Our characters are entitled to hate who they want, for whatever reason they want, but shouldn't we as players at least try to be a little mindful of the player behind that character and not take the IC hate to extremes? Yes, the player should certainly expect an amount of backlash if he does something to upset a lot of people, but we shouldn't take it too far where our families abuse his family so much that he can barely play. We're supposed to play as though we're playing with friends, that is a rule. And I take it to include not punishing our friends to the point where they can't have fun anymore. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, or that it happens a lot, but it does happen, and it doesn't end well, and maybe we should keep it in mind when playing out these grudges?
-
Indirik:
In a one duchy Realm why must the Capital be "moved"? There is no option - a one duchy Realm, whether through loss of the other Duchy/Capital through war or succession should probably have the Capital declared automatically, as it's the only place left to have one. Plus it can be incredibly expensive to move, which is why Cathay hasn't had a Capital since Anacan left.
Also the text clearly indicates that scenarios like this are not planned for in the coding:
Capital Moved! (8 hours, 46 minutes ago)
Me'hoe Chan'gu'Con, King of Cathay, Duke of Azros has ordered the capital to be moved to Azros. There is considerable unrest among the population, especially in the old capital, Anacan. The troops are also irritated.
Anacan suffers unrest? Its not even part of the Realm anymore. . . and why are the troops upset? We finally ahve a Capital in the REalm. Havent been able to recruit for a long time.
-
I don't exactly know where the line is between Toupellon's planned secession and the most rebellion in Cathay, but I do know that there isn't much of one. Both were planned with the blessing/knowledge of the ruler, both were coordinated awkwardly well. Anatole even said today "Fair elections? I laugh at that, for none that I know that minted the crown of Cathay took part to them." Boycotting an election (which the ruler won with a paultry 14% of the vote) just to rebel against his rule a few days later seems similarly contrived. Especially when Erandi heard IC at least a month prior that Colasan was planning to secede anyway. Maybe this is a point that should be raised IC, but if Anatole was so interested in Cathay's future and dedicated to her, then why did he and all the other ruling Dukes (save Optimus) run away from Cathay? Why not win the election and, if Optimus was really that despised, banish/exile him...
There's a difference between OOC maneuvering and IC maneuvering. Even if the election were boycotted (which it wasn't, to my knowledge, Anatole's primary plan was to take the throne and fix things that way), maneuvering to get himself a better IC justification to secede is fairly standard politicking.
Also, I don't know why everyone is hating the McGahee family. Isn't that clearly against the rules of the game? I mean, yea, the guy plays many of his characters alike, but it seems everyone is judging Optimus based on Conan when the player has clearly defined IC that they weren't close nor very well related. Seems to me like an abuse to me that pretty much the whole continent is content to not only let slide, but support. Discouraging. I'd hate for Erandi (honorable, well spoken) to be judged off of Carlos (dubious, indignant, near-illiterate...). I'm pretty sure many of us have characters we play differently, and I would hate for the next character I bring around to be judged off of whatever my former character(s) did...
As I and others have said in-game...It's not just that he's a McGahee. It's that he's acting like Conan, and also in political opposition to some important groups. There's a McGahee in Zonasa, for instance, that Jenred's had quite civil conversations with and has put down on his list of "people I can probably work with". Optimus' little emissary threatening Kindara if they didn't sell him food brought back bad memories, making his first act as Duke in Azros to tear down the Order of the Elders temple reminded everyone of the religious purges, and (as relayed to Jenred, at least) his pushes to move Cathay more toward the southern sphere rather than the northern sphere made him significant enemies both within and out of Cathay. The fact that's he's a McGahee is convenient, but I assure you that had he acted differently (hell, even if the only difference had been making pacts with Jenred) then things would be very, very different right now.
-
I feel like this is drifting off-topic from friendly rebellions somewhat, but...>.<
Our characters are entitled to hate who they want, for whatever reason they want, but shouldn't we as players at least try to be a little mindful of the player behind that character and not take the IC hate to extremes? Yes, the player should certainly expect an amount of backlash if he does something to upset a lot of people, but we shouldn't take it too far where our families abuse his family so much that he can barely play. We're supposed to play as though we're playing with friends, that is a rule. And I take it to include not punishing our friends to the point where they can't have fun anymore. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, or that it happens a lot, but it does happen, and it doesn't end well, and maybe we should keep it in mind when playing out these grudges?
This is important. Tom has said very firmly that you cannot ban someone just because of their family (unless you get extreme edge cases where several family members have all been traitors to the realm, with the only example that I saw him agree qualified being a case where four characters from the same family with only slightly different names joined the same realm, got banned/killed in death duels/betrayed the realm in single-digit months and kept sending more).
It's the difference between a strike against someone and an instant-fail condition, I suppose. The first is fine (even encouraged, I think the family aspect of the game is somewhat underutilized), the second isn't.
-
This is important. Tom has said very firmly that you cannot ban someone just because of their family (unless you get extreme edge cases where several family members have all been traitors to the realm, with the only example that I saw him agree qualified being a case where four characters from the same family with only slightly different names joined the same realm, got banned/killed in death duels/betrayed the realm in single-digit months and kept sending more).
It's the difference between a strike against someone and an instant-fail condition, I suppose. The first is fine (even encouraged, I think the family aspect of the game is somewhat underutilized), the second isn't.
I'd like you to find a quote on that.
I remember him saying that you can't ban someone just because he had another character in an enemy realm, but that he saw no issue with banning someone of a family you have real issues with. After all, family was everything back then.
Unless you and I have different definitions of "extreme". The criteria, to me, always was something concrete and reasonable, as opposed to something so generic that it could apply to any newbie family.
-
I'd like you to find a quote on that.
I'll see if I can, now to remember if it was on the forum or the d-list...
-
I'll see if I can, now to remember if it was on the forum or the d-list...
Is the d-list available once more somewhere, or is it still gone?
I think I vaguely recall the message you are talking about, and I think it's the same I was talking about. I cannot recall either, though.
-
I remember him saying that you can't ban someone just because he had another character in an enemy realm, but that he saw no issue with banning someone of a family you have real issues with. After all, family was everything back then.
Believe it or not, I think Chénier is right :o ;D
-
You lie!
-
It's on the wiki (if we're remembering the same line) http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/FAQ/Tom%27s_Position_on_Banning
And it does seem to only be referring to banning nobles for having family in an enemy realm, though there is a line in there:
Any policy of "immediate ban" is absolutely not within the spirit of the game.
...that when taken out of context does sound like a general no-instant-ban rule. Unless...it was meant to be general in the first place? o.o
-
Believe it or not, I think Chénier is right :o ;D
It happens every now and then.
...that when taken out of context does sound like a general no-instant-ban rule. Unless...it was meant to be general in the first place? o.o
But if you look at the context, it says that it is "a kind of paranoia that can easily turn perfectly innocent and good players away from the game", and the two following line are all about fear of spying and people playing in enemy realms.
In other words, that sentence about intant-bans appears to be about these, and therefore reinforces what was said earlier in that message instead of adding new elements to it: don't ban someone just because he has another character in an enemy realm, as having another character in that enemy realm doesn't necessarily make him a spy for the enemy. Give him a chance.
It does not, imo, say you can't instant ban people no matter what. When a Lefanis joined a realm I was judge of, after all of the years in which all the characters of his family grieved those of mine, I banned him within a minute of him doing so (I was online when he joined). This, imo, is perfectly legitimate. After all, he should have expected it, and would have been wholly able to avoid it.
After all, "Tom's position on banning" just rewords and emphasizes of what was *already* there for judges, in the ban help page: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Help:Bans , and does say things like "Give people a warning or a fine on their first offense, unless it was really serious".
From all the text available about banning, the way I see it is as follows: The judge must ask himself *why* he is banning the person. If that reason isn't because he's inactive, failed to follow an order, was a random noble from an enemy realm, has a character in an enemy realm, or isn't about the person at all, then it's all good. As long as you don't ban for any of these points, and understand that banning is a serious act that requires serious reasons, then everything is fair game.
-
Indeed, I agree that, in context, that line is probably referring only to banning characters who have family in enemy realms. What I meant was that particular line is probably what some people (myself included) were remembering when they thought there was rule about giving new characters a chance.
Still, doesn't instant-ban sort of say "screw character interaction, I don't even want to play with you"? It seems kind of harsh to me, I'd be interested in your opinion on that :/
-
Honestly, to avoid this bull!@#$, all he had to do was come up with a new family name and no one would know it was the same guy. But no, he specifically created a family with the exact same name as the one that tore the Far East apart, then decides to create two characters in the Far East (as opposed to any other continent), then plays at least one of those characters very similar to how the old character was. He deserves whatever he gets.
-
Indeed, I agree that, in context, that line is probably referring only to banning characters who have family in enemy realms. What I meant was that particular line is probably what some people (myself included) were remembering when they thought there was rule about giving new characters a chance.
Still, doesn't instant-ban sort of say "screw character interaction, I don't even want to play with you"? It seems kind of harsh to me, I'd be interested in your opinion on that :/
It's harsh. Sometimes, harsh things are justified, though. After all, execution is harsh, and there are no rules about it.
Sometimes, you've just had enough of that "interaction" already.
-
No argument that the McGahee family wouldn't have trouble if they weren't called the McGahee family :p The same could be said for any notorious family.
It's harsh. Sometimes, harsh things are justified, though. After all, execution is harsh, and there are no rules about it.
Sometimes, you've just had enough of that "interaction" already.
Execution can only happen after that specific character actually does something wrong, though. Immediately banning a character for something someone related to him has done wrong is not really the same thing. I can understand the part about just having had enough though, if character after character after character is there to torment you.
-
No argument that the McGahee family wouldn't have trouble if they weren't called the McGahee family :p The same could be said for any notorious family.
Execution can only happen after that specific character actually does something wrong, though. Immediately banning a character for something someone related to him has done wrong is not really the same thing. I can understand the part about just having had enough though, if character after character after character is there to torment you.
I wasn't saying it was the same thing, just that it was also harsh, and that the game does allow for some harshness.
You can only be banned when you do something wrong yourself or when you are part of that realm. Usually, when a realm dislikes you enough to instant ban you, you should have had an idea you had it coming and could therefore have easily avoided it by not joining said realm.
-
Honestly, to avoid this bull!@#$, all he had to do was come up with a new family name and no one would know it was the same guy. But no, he specifically created a family with the exact same name as the one that tore the Far East apart, then decides to create two characters in the Far East (as opposed to any other continent), then plays at least one of those characters very similar to how the old character was. He deserves whatever he gets.
I don't agree at all he should have come up with a new family name for his char/s if he wanted play in the FEI, as while agreeing it was kind of dumb to immediately have one begin acting/behaving/plotting just like Conan right from the off, I certainly don't think he should have needed attempt cover up his former chars pasts like they were all some kind of criminals, as doing that also means doing away with all the achievements, story lines etc they were involved with.
-
Yes, I think the point was more that if he didn't want to have the McGahee name held against him, he went about it very poorly.
-
I don't agree at all he should have come up with a new family name for his char/s if he wanted play in the FEI, as while agreeing it was kind of dumb to immediately have one begin acting/behaving/plotting just like Conan right from the off, I certainly don't think he should have needed attempt cover up his former chars pasts like they were all some kind of criminals, as doing that also means doing away with all the achievements, story lines etc they were involved with.
If a family has history on a given island, then all descendants of that family will be associated with the family history to some degree. If a player decides to undertake playing on an island where his family name is reviled, then that player must expect his character to be reviled to some degree. It is a factor that must be considered before making a character on an island where one has a family with strong history. To expect that other player's characters will simply ignore history is unreasonable.
In this particular case, I don't know what the expectation was. Optimus behaves like Conan, becomes king, deposed in shady rebellion, and then a Zurralius is appointed as judge. In the eyes of Alpha, and I'd wager many other older characters, this is Soliferum reborn. Alpha marked Optimus onto his enemy list when the Azros OftE's temple was burned, then Optimus really damaged Cathayan support in Kindara when Guldor made threats over food sales. Had his behavior been different the call to drive all MacGahee supporters from the south may not have been as strong as it is now.
-
You can only be banned when you do something wrong yourself or when you are part of that realm. Usually, when a realm dislikes you enough to instant ban you, you should have had an idea you had it coming and could therefore have easily avoided it by not joining said realm.
I agree if we're talking about an established character joining a realm that clearly hates him (like a deposed tyrant trying to join the realm he devoted his entire career to making miserable) but I can't agree that a new character from a family with bad apples should necessarily expect to banned on the spot :/ It's not you the realm dislikes so much they would ban you on the spot, it's that other guy related to you. That just doesn't sound right (save in those extreme examples that amount to harassment, in which case it might be better to talk to someone higher up the food chain)
-
I agree if we're talking about an established character joining a realm that clearly hates him (like a deposed tyrant trying to join the realm he devoted his entire career to making miserable) but I can't agree that a new character from a family with bad apples should necessarily expect to banned on the spot :/ It's not you the realm dislikes so much they would ban you on the spot, it's that other guy related to you. That just doesn't sound right (save in those extreme examples that amount to harassment, in which case it might be better to talk to someone higher up the food chain)
It's all context.
I tend to view it that if a family is established enough to be *that* hated, then that player is able to cope with the ban. Worse case scenario, he runs away and doesn't return to those lands. Or he can emigrate and come back in less than a month with the ban cleared for just 100 gold.
-
It's all context.
I tend to view it that if a family is established enough to be *that* hated, then that player is able to cope with the ban. Worse case scenario, he runs away and doesn't return to those lands. Or he can emigrate and come back in less than a month with the ban cleared for just 100 gold.
True enough :]
-
In a one duchy Realm why must the Capital be "moved"? There is no option - a one duchy Realm, whether through loss of the other Duchy/Capital through war or succession should probably have the Capital declared automatically, as it's the only place left to have one. Plus it can be incredibly expensive to move, which is why Cathay hasn't had a Capital since Anacan left.
I think the expense is part of the idea. It does a few things, like make losing your capital city a pretty damn big hit. If the capital automatically switched to the other city, then you could just keep on going with little disruption, other than the loss of the city, of course. And what if the city revolted from the TOing realm the next day? Would the capital switch back automatically, or would you be stuck with your capital somewhere else, in a potentially nasty spot?
Switching capitals is an expensive proposition. There is a lot of stuff to move, build, and people to hire in the new place. You don't get a free pass on that just because you lost your old capital. Yes, losing your capital is very expensive, dangerous, and potentially realm threatening. But that seems pretty much like how it should be, to me.
Also the text clearly indicates that scenarios like this are not planned for in the coding:
Capital Moved! (8 hours, 46 minutes ago)
Me'hoe Chan'gu'Con, King of Cathay, Duke of Azros has ordered the capital to be moved to Azros. There is considerable unrest among the population, especially in the old capital, Anacan. The troops are also irritated.
Anacan suffers unrest? Its not even part of the Realm anymore. . . and why are the troops upset? We finally ahve a Capital in the REalm. Havent been able to recruit for a long time.
Yeah, that's probably not the best situation, unrest in a foreign realm from it. Should probably be changed if the city is no longer in your possession.
But I do know that this is clearly intended, having to move it yourself. It happened to Riombara during the last invasion (or was that the 3rd invasion...?), and I clearly remember Tom stating that it was intended, and that you had to move it yourself. Rio was without a capital for quite a while before they could scrape up the money to move it. Tim probably rememkbers it better than me, he was the ruler.
-
I think the idea was that they'd be able to change the name of the realm, which they couldn't otherwise?
You cannot ever change the name of your realm. Ever. Not even if you win the rebellion.
(OK, there is one way: Send Tom an e-mail and beg for him to change it. This has worked for at least one realm. But you'd better have a *very* good reason. But there is no automated game mechanics way that suddenly enables a "Change the name of your realm" option.)
-
You cannot ever change the name of your realm. Ever. Not even if you win the rebellion.
There probably should be a way. Somehow.
-
There probably should be a way. Somehow.
There is :P
-
There probably should be a way. Somehow.
Secede, name new realm, go to war, destroy old realm. So long as its not a OOC plan and everyone just gives into the new realm, you are golden.
-
Secede, name new realm, go to war, destroy old realm. So long as its not a OOC plan and everyone just gives into the new realm, you are golden.
You forgot "Beg to Tom".
-
Secede, name new realm, go to war, destroy old realm. So long as its not a OOC plan and everyone just gives into the new realm, you are golden.
That would be a very blatant evasion of game mechanics. Tom does not want realm names changed as a rule.
-
That would be a very blatant evasion of game mechanics. Tom does not want realm names changed as a rule.
See-France, Spain, Portugal. Realm names do not change.
-
See-France, Spain, Portugal. Realm names do not change.
Except sometimes they do, for example Burma is now Myanmar.
-
Except sometimes they do, for example Burma is now Myanmar.
Modern ones do, now and then.
-
Except sometimes they do, for example Burma is now Myanmar.
According to Wikipedia, both names have actually been in use for centuries, with one as the literary name and the other as the spoken name.
-
According to Wikipedia, both names have actually been in use for centuries, with one as the literary name and the other as the spoken name.
They still changed their official name. Same story in Thailand (used to be called Siam.)
Realms should be able to change their name with like a 90% vote from the realm or something like that imho. Obviously there should be other impediments to changing a name also.
My main beef is that sometimes there are very good rp reasons to change a name.
-
A very long time ago, Tom said realms don't change name because that's a very modern thing to do.
-
A very long time ago, Tom said realms don't change name because that's a very modern thing to do.
Meh. I suppose I don't really care. It would just be kind of cool if we could change our name under very special circumstances.
Yeah maybe it wouldn't be medieval but I can definitely see it fitting right in to the BM brand of medieval if you know what I mean.
-
Meh. I suppose I don't really care. It would just be kind of cool if we could change our name under very special circumstances.
Yeah maybe it wouldn't be medieval but I can definitely see it fitting right in to the BM brand of medieval if you know what I mean.
"Very special circumstances" is exactly what many people in BM are after.
-
That's what you get in games like BattleMaster: Everyone wants to be special. Very few people are content to be the normal, run of the mill noble who just does exactly what's expected of him. Everyone wants to be the exception, or the special circumstance. So if you create something that can only happen rarely, and under special circumstances, then you're going to have 386 people all trying to be that exception, and have a perfectly reasonable (to them) explanation as to why they should be allowed to do it.
-
That's what you get in games like BattleMaster: Everyone wants to be special. Very few people are content to be the normal, run of the mill noble who just does exactly what's expected of him. Everyone wants to be the exception, or the special circumstance. So if you create something that can only happen rarely, and under special circumstances, then you're going to have 386 people all trying to be that exception, and have a perfectly reasonable (to them) explanation as to why they should be allowed to do it.
"But Llama meat is our realm's favorite dish, and we held a referendum and voted to change our name to Llama Meat!"
-
That's what you get in games like BattleMaster: Everyone wants to be special. Very few people are content to be the normal, run of the mill noble who just does exactly what's expected of him.
OK, reading that back a day later, it sounds a bit harsher than I intended.
It's perfectly reasonable that all the players want to play a character that is somehow different, or special. I didn't mean to imply that players should be content to play sheeple all the time. (Although, IMNSHO, the game does need a fair amount of characters that are played as sheeple just to keep things functional and not utter chaos. Most people facilitate this with "dump characters", or newer characters they are allowing to gain skill/honor/prestige while they focus on other, more developed characters.) All I meant was that you can't just say that something should be infrequent, or special, or "if you have a good reason". Because "special" or "with good reason" defines the majority of the situations and actions that most characters feel they are in and doing.
-
OK, reading that back a day later, it sounds a bit harsher than I intended.
It's perfectly reasonable that all the players want to play a character that is somehow different, or special. I didn't mean to imply that players should be content to play sheeple all the time. (Although, IMNSHO, the game does need a fair amount of characters that are played as sheeple just to keep things functional and not utter chaos. Most people facilitate this with "dump characters", or newer characters they are allowing to gain skill/honor/prestige while they focus on other, more developed characters.) All I meant was that you can't just say that something should be infrequent, or special, or "if you have a good reason". Because "special" or "with good reason" defines the majority of the situations and actions that most characters feel they are in and doing.
I knew what you meant, not sure if everyone else did.
-
Well, yeah,based on your "Llama Meat" comment, I figured you did. Just reading my comment back today, i can see how it could be misinterpreted.