I have seen a few instances where Judges of realms have been secretly working for / spying for another realm, and when found out have banned as many nobles as they could get their hands on before leaving the realm. Most recently this happened in Cathay on FEI, where the Judge was found to be a spy for an enemy realm and apparently banned half a dozen or more nobles before leaving.
This has always seemed rather lame and almost an abuse to me, as really, once a noble has been discovered as a traitor, who is going to listen to them, Judge or not? Who's going to enforce these bans issued by a traitor? What are other people's opinions on this?
Rulers should have a big red button to brand someone a traitor which forces the person to lose all the titles or something. Well at least government titles.
Part of the game. Protest the Judge out of his office and lift the bans. The tools are already there to handle with it. People shouldn't be too worried about keeping a clean family history.
Rulers used to have something like, called Question Nobility. It was removed due to repeated abuse.
Quote from: Telrunya on October 06, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
Part of the game. Protest the Judge out of his office and lift the bans. The tools are already there to handle with it. People shouldn't be too worried about keeping a clean family history.
Unless something has changed, banished nobles cannot protest. So protesting out a rogue judge becomes difficult.
And protests don't feel very medieval.
This particular abuse will no longer be possible. From today on, banning will always take an hour of time and there are other safeguards, too.
Quote from: Tom on October 06, 2012, 09:19:03 PM
This particular abuse will no longer be possible. From today on, banning will always take an hour of time and there are other safeguards, too.
Wonderful. Wouldn't it be better to make it two hours though?
Quote from: Tom on October 06, 2012, 09:19:03 PM
This particular abuse will no longer be possible. From today on, banning will always take an hour of time and there are other safeguards, too.
That's still 12+8 bans if the judge times it right..unless the other safeguards prevent it.
Cathay's Judge banned 17 people in one turn.
I thought it always used to take an hour from when I was Judge. I guess not.
Quote from: LilWolf on October 06, 2012, 10:28:30 PM
That's still 12+8 bans if the judge times it right..unless the other safeguards prevent it.
I have played a priest judge, as have many others. That would enable up to 16 banishments at a time if my pool is full. Still seems... Off.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on October 07, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
I have played a priest judge, as have many others. That would enable up to 16 banishments at a time if my pool is full. Still seems... Off.
Yeah. Generally when you legitimately need to ban some people it's 1-3 at most. Even 3 is pushing it. I'd bet 90% of the time it's just 1 noble.
There really isn't a legit reason for banning 5+ nobles per turn, much less 10+.
You could have the 1 hour limit and also just hard cap it at 1 or 2 nobles per turn.
Unless you won a rebellion ;) You should be able to ban all the rebels at once.
That's a single button push after a rebellion, no?
Quote from: Draco Tanos on October 07, 2012, 01:30:48 AM
That's a single button push after a rebellion, no?
Can't remember but I believe there is an option to banish the members of a rebellion. Is it a single button?
Pretty sure there's an option to banish all rebels after a failed rebellion en masse rather than individually.
I was wondering what was going on over there. Who was the judge working for exactly? Or was it just a rogue judge who had his own agenda?
I know in all my years a-judgin' that I've only ever needed to ban maybe two people at once. I can also safely say that as a Judge I typically had a decent hour pool to work with. To prevent this kind of abuse, 1 hour may be a little low, but if it was raised I'd still make a few bans possible with a full hour pool.
I'd actually prefer not to discuss who Cathay thinks the Judge was working for because there is a lot of supposition and piecing together of circumstantial evidence such that having a blatant OOC conversation about it would ruin some of it. In other words, while Galiard is certain he's right and the fact that the Judge banned everybody ever certainly made him appear right, it's still subjective and should stay that way.
I've only seen this happen twice, though coincidentally the other time was fairly recently on Dwilight. I don't think it ever would've occurred to me to do it when I was Judge, or to ask someone else to do it, mostly because I can't translate it into RP terms. I recognize that for game balance reasons, the Judge is often a counter-weight to the Crown, but I can't think of any medieval precedent where someone other than the King could banish anybody unless the King was somehow removed from power. This is just one of those areas where medieval-y stuff takes a back seat to the game and that's fine, but it ends up feeling very 'gamey.' Maybe that's why it's easy to call it abuse. It isn't cheating, after all; we empower Judges to ban people and we empower people to protest judges, so why care how they exercise it at all?
Because it does affect the feel of the game and because as much as I enjoy both pulling one over on the enemy and having a good scheme pulled over on me, this kind of thing is just sour. Up until it happened I would've taken my hat off to the Judge for having been a foreign agent for a while and getting away with it even though Galiard wants to wear his intestines as a hat. I can ICly explain away a high-level functionary causing some administrative damage to the realm. I can't explain away soldiers in the Royal army suddenly turning on each other and fighting because of a bureaucrat.
As an alternative suggestion, what about keeping the current delay of 1 day in place for new judges to ban people, but removing it for new judges to lift existing bans?
Quote from: Scarlett on October 07, 2012, 02:15:38 AM
I'd actually prefer not to discuss who Cathay thinks the Judge was working for because there is a lot of supposition and piecing together of circumstantial evidence such that having a blatant OOC conversation about it would ruin some of it. In other words, while Galiard is certain he's right and the fact that the Judge banned everybody ever certainly made him appear right, it's still subjective and should stay that way.
Fair enough! I'll just wait for something to trickle down the grapevine in game.
Quote from: Zakilevo on October 06, 2012, 09:36:29 PM
Wonderful. Wouldn't it be better to make it two hours though?
No, we must balance abuse protection against just making things suck for everyone.
Okay I feel like I should clarify somethings. First I really am out of state, my family happens to live in the land the internet forgot, at least since I had been there. In addition to WiFi the town now has standing volunteer fire department no longer sharing the same building as the local sheriff's office.
That aside I see this game as a sandbox, we have the mechanics we work in, but this game is driven by player content. If I am playing a judge turned traitor or a puritanical judge gone rogue, it makes sense I would make use of my powers even in one last blow to the realm. The fact that an infiltrator was used to try and wound me was to force me to leave my position without being able to do anything. The infiltrator failed and having a lot of gold I used it to take down a realm. Now understanding the game mechanics is no crime, and I have kept all my stuff in game. I know there are some unhappy players because I just did the equivalent of putting up a for sale sign on a house, and selling it away while a family still lived there. But it was done all in game and when the natural in game answers failed to remove me, the infiltrator failed and the protests were not great enough to unseat me, I responded with my in game ability to hammer blow the realm.
I don't mind being called a douchebag for what I did. I would feel hurt to if I was on the other end of this. But restricting the sandbox is a bad idea. The emergent content that will arise from this is going to make for a really interesting game. When you talk to your friends about games, and this game you can talk about how an entire island now has to deal with the ramifications of a realm disappearing. Its not gamey, no one ultimately wins from what I did. It set people back, and helped others but certainly its not a game ender.
I hope this clarifies some things.
I'm not sure how calling it a sandbox really justifies being an !@#$%^& and attempting to wreck the experience of a couple of dozen people with a power you shouldn't really have and isn't vaguely realistic (as banning nearly a whole realm is certainly not what the Judge's power is meant to be for). It is indeed unfortunate that game mechanics have to be changed to prevent idiots abusing the system, but I guess it's the same reason we have locks on doors.
Quote from: ScooterMcCabe on October 07, 2012, 05:02:47 AM
Okay I feel like I should clarify somethings. First I really am out of state, my family happens to live in the land the internet forgot, at least since I had been there. In addition to WiFi the town now has standing volunteer fire department no longer sharing the same building as the local sheriff's office.
That aside I see this game as a sandbox, we have the mechanics we work in, but this game is driven by player content. If I am playing a judge turned traitor or a puritanical judge gone rogue, it makes sense I would make use of my powers even in one last blow to the realm. The fact that an infiltrator was used to try and wound me was to force me to leave my position without being able to do anything. The infiltrator failed and having a lot of gold I used it to take down a realm. Now understanding the game mechanics is no crime, and I have kept all my stuff in game. I know there are some unhappy players because I just did the equivalent of putting up a for sale sign on a house, and selling it away while a family still lived there. But it was done all in game and when the natural in game answers failed to remove me, the infiltrator failed and the protests were not great enough to unseat me, I responded with my in game ability to hammer blow the realm.
I don't mind being called a douchebag for what I did. I would feel hurt to if I was on the other end of this. But restricting the sandbox is a bad idea. The emergent content that will arise from this is going to make for a really interesting game. When you talk to your friends about games, and this game you can talk about how an entire island now has to deal with the ramifications of a realm disappearing. Its not gamey, no one ultimately wins from what I did. It set people back, and helped others but certainly its not a game ender.
I hope this clarifies some things.
Uhhh... You sure clarified what kind of a person you are.
Because how I decide my in game character acts to a situation and how I want to play that character is an accurate reflection of me as a human being.
I remember orchestrating an attempt at it in Old Rancague many years ago; though that had rebellions mixed in. Wreaked some serious havoc. It was done again in Terran by Erasmus recently– though he only banned 8 people, not 17. In Erasmus' case, I thought it really added to the game, made the political situation far more exciting, and gave him a chance to really go out with a bang. I've seen similar instances maybe one or two other times. And didn't the character in question actually get successfully protested out of office? I thought he did when I looked up his profile...
While 17 does seem a bit much even to me, I'm inclined to think that allowing the judge the power to completely screw the whole realm seems pretty reasonable. Protesting him out is not impossible (again, I've seen a rogue judge doing large-scale bannings protested out at least once, maybe twice; it's been a long time since I did much of this kind of thing). When we say that the judge can be a check on the crown, IMHO, this is basically what that looks like. This is a check on the crown. Ruler starts a war the judge thinks is illegal? Brace for every region being lordless and the army falling into chaos.
Sure, it sucks that you elected/appointed an evil maniac as your judge, that you appointed someone into a position of power who wasn't trustworthy.
In terms of RP explanation, again, it seems simple to me. The bailiffs, local nobility, bureaucrats, etc, are used to taking orders from court officials. The judge essentiall has control of said officials. They spread the word that all these people are criminals and in cahoots against the ruler. Obviously the ruler organizes a resistance– but it's really just a question of information control, which is easy to accomplish in the middle ages.
Quote from: ScooterMcCabe on October 07, 2012, 05:02:47 AM
stuff
This isn't EVE online. Just because the game is sandboxy doesn't mean everything at your disposal is justified; as much is made clear in the social contract.
Edit: Though that's not to say that I disapprove. If the judge can do too much damage to a realm, that's for game mechanics to dictate, not individual players. Though you really can't be surprised when giving people a metric !@#$ton of busywork to work around leaves a sour taste in their mouths. Thankfully I'm not one of those people.
Quote from: Velax on October 07, 2012, 06:25:49 AM
I'm not sure how calling it a sandbox really justifies being an !@#$%^& and attempting to wreck the experience of a couple of dozen people with a power you shouldn't really have and isn't vaguely realistic (as banning nearly a whole realm is certainly not what the Judge's power is meant to be for).
I think you're confusing "wrecking everyone's experience" and "used the power at his character's disposal to achieve what his character wanted". As long as it was IC, there is nothing wrong with using game mechanics to achieve your goal, even if there are other people who find themselves at the wrong end of the stick. This is a PvP game.
Quote from: Velax on October 07, 2012, 06:25:49 AM
It is indeed unfortunate that game mechanics have to be changed to prevent idiots abusing the system, but I guess it's the same reason we have locks on doors.
That is an extremely unhelpful comment.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 07, 2012, 09:11:06 AM
I think you're confusing "wrecking everyone's experience" and "used the power at his character's disposal to achieve what his character wanted". As long as it was IC, there is nothing wrong with using game mechanics to achieve your goal, even if there are other people who find themselves at the wrong end of the stick. This is a PvP game.
The thing is, there wasn't very much
actual damage done. Most of the damage can be rectified through OOC busywork and workarounds, so really what the entire ploy amounted to was a pain in the ass for Scarlett. Backstabbing should be possible (to an extent) but the nature of the damage
and the method of causing it need to be IC. While the method obviously was, I'm of the opinion that the damage was mostly done to the players of the characters, not necessarily to the characters themselves.
First, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a 1 hour requirement on the judge making a ban. For the most part this prevents massive abuse while still allowing the political intrigue.
Second, I think a judge using their power to check the crown by banning out all of the crown's supporters for instance is a legitimate power play that can be made. Just as stealing half the realm's gold was a proper play that the old bankers could make.
Third, I think its perfectly reasonable for their to be intra-realm politics that actually have a real effect on the game. Political intrigue is my favorite part of this game and although some players want it to be realm vs realm as a team the whole time, I think this leads to an overall boring experience across the board. I'm not sure being a spy and then getting elected as judge is much of an honorable move, as I am against making a character go become a spy, but it is certainly explainable although I'm not sure how SMA it is. (So wouldn't like to see it on Dwilight).
There is one problem with the whole intra-realm conflict idea. You can do it to a certain extent but BM is trying to promote the idea of a realm as a team which has somewhat dwindled over the years.
And yes, banning an entire realm doesn't accomplish much but pissing off the players. They will just rejoin the realm and kick the judge out. It just resets everyone's number of days in the realm category.
Quote from: Zakilevo on October 07, 2012, 09:37:06 AM
And yes, banning an entire realm doesn't accomplish much but pissing off the players. They will just rejoin the realm and kick the judge out. It just resets everyone's number of days in the realm category.
Except if the judge's power play works in a legitimate manner. If he bans say 1/3rd the realm and keeps his friends, then it wasn't even abuse.
Quote from: Zakilevo on October 07, 2012, 09:37:06 AM
There is one problem with the whole intra-realm conflict idea. You can do it to a certain extent but BM is trying to promote the idea of a realm as a team which has somewhat dwindled over the years.
And the problem with that is its not as fun.
Here's the thing about sandbox and using the game mechanics to its max:
BattleMaster is a game designed to be played among friends. It's even in the social contract.
To me, one of the things that means is not being a rules lawyer. If you find a loophole in Monopoly that allows you some arcane maneuver that the game designers didn't think about and a creative interpretation of the rules allows you to, say, remove everyone's hotels, then in a competitive game, you will have a big argument about which interpretation is right and someone will win and then someone will call up the game designers so they can clarify the rules, etc. etc. etc. - but in a game with friends, everyone will look at each other for a brief moment, everyone will laugh at your creativity and then everyone will silently agree that that's crazy and not in the spirit of the game and go on playing with their hotels intact.
The thing about a sandbox is that it requires the game designers to think about EVERYTHING IN ADVANCE. And design absolutely everything in the game to perfection.
If BM would provide me with an income comparable to my profession, we could talk about that. As it doesn't, it is a hobby shared amongst friends and not a sandbox in this particular sense.
QuoteThe thing is, there wasn't very much actual damage done.
Every region lord lost his appointment. Every knight lost his estate. Our army attacked itself. Every noble will have to rejoin Cathay (not hard), travel to wherever their estate was and re-claim it (time-consuming) and get assigned to the army again, and they'll also have their 'time in realm' reset with respect to voting in elections (annoying).
Some of our newer players are confused and don't understand how this is possible. Probably because it makes no sense.
I didn't open a case with the Titans and I don't think Seperoth 'cheated' in the sense of 'the game clearly doesn't allow this and you found a way to do it.' I think he did something I would never in a hundred years think of to do if I were in his place. Game mechanics support game play. Game play for me is playing a medieval king. That's a pretty big system and it's full of avenues for plotting and doing damage to other people. What has happened does not make sense in the context of that system.
It's like spitting and refusing to shake hands at the end of a sports match. The dude already 'won' - he got away with his scheme. This move doesn't enhance the scheme at all - it just makes the whole thing sour.
I didn't report it to the Titans because I can imagine this very thing years ago when I was a Titan and the level of headache-y conversation it would require. What outcome would I be asking for, exactly? If all the bans could've been lifted before they went into effect, that would've been good, but it's already too late for that and Titans don't usually do stuff like that. Tom already made a change to prevent this from happening again and I'm grateful for the speed with which this was addressed. I think it's worth considering to let a brand new judge lift a ban right away - the comments of 'oh you can protest a judge out of office' are true but the new judge cannot possibly take office fast enough to undo the damage:
Turn 1: Judge bans everybody
Turn 2: Everybody protests
Turn 3: Judge is protested out of office and new judge appointed (unless you have elections - fuggedaboutit)
New judge can't lift bans until turn 5 - too late.
I guess I know which of you I'd play monopoly with now.
Quote from: Scarlett on October 07, 2012, 03:04:24 PM
I think it's worth considering to let a brand new judge lift a ban right away -
The problem is that the delay is there for a reason, there are other abuses possible without one. It could be an idea to stay bans if the judge is removed from office to give his successor time to check on them. That would not be too difficult, simply adding 1 day grace period to all bannings that have not yet gone into effect.
Would that solve the issue?
It would definitely alleviate the issue considerably. It sounds like a balancing act, and given that, a one day delay for a Judge that has been removed would help quite a lot.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 07, 2012, 09:11:06 AM
This is a PvP game.
Wrong. This is an RvR game--Realm versus Realm. Let's review the homepage:
QuoteBattleMaster is a team-oriented browsergame merging strategy and roleplaying.
...
you are a member of a team from the start, and don't have to start out on your own.
There's plenty of other quotes I can provide, but Battlemaster is
not intended to be PvP.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 07, 2012, 09:11:06 AM
I think you're confusing "wrecking everyone's experience" and "used the power at his character's disposal to achieve what his character wanted". As long as it was IC, there is nothing wrong with using game mechanics to achieve your goal, even if there are other people who find themselves at the wrong end of the stick.
Erm, no. If the developer of the game calls it an abuse and an exploit, and has to actually
change the mechanics of the game to prevent this happening again, I'd say there most certainly is something wrong.
The Thulsoma clanners abusing family gold to rack up thousands (tens of thousands?) of gold used existing game mechanics, too. Are you claiming there was nothing wrong with that either, because they "used game mechanics to achieve their goal"?
As Tom has already said, no game developer can foresee every possible way someone will use the mechanics of the game. To an extent he has to rely on the good nature of the players to not take advantage of a mechanic and use it in a way that was obviously not intended. Unfortunately there will always be those players who willfully ignore what the tiniest modicum of decency, common sense and a sense of fair play would tell them is wrong and abuse mechanics to gain an advantage over everyone else.
Quote from: Tom on October 07, 2012, 06:43:22 PM
The problem is that the delay is there for a reason, there are other abuses possible without one. It could be an idea to stay bans if the judge is removed from office to give his successor time to check on them. That would not be too difficult, simply adding 1 day grace period to all bannings that have not yet gone into effect.
Would that solve the issue?
Yes, that would seem to make a great deal of sense, and still allows all the political intrigue you want assuming you can keep yourself in power.
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 07, 2012, 07:45:13 PM
Yes, that would seem to make a great deal of sense, and still allows all the political intrigue you want assuming you can keep yourself in power.
Then someone needs to write a feature request for the bugtracker, or else it will be forgotten.
Quote from: egamma on October 07, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Wrong. This is an RvR game--Realm versus Realm. Let's review the homepage:
Actually you're also wrong though.
This is a team oriented game but no where is it defined that this team means the "realm."
In fact, under the most current estate rules of the game, I would interpret team to mean "your liege and your vassals" as your team. This means that knights should obviously be on the team of their lord and whatever team their lord decides to place them on. All lords should be on the team of their duke, and whatever team their duke decides to place them on. All dukes should be on the team of their ruler, which effectively ties them to the realm. However, this system allows political intrigue to occur. No where does it say that each duke is on the team of the other dukes in the realm. The dukes can all compete against each other to be ruler, and thus enlarge their team while also not wanting to harm their realm as that is the team they'll inherit.
The same applies to knights. Each knight should primarily seek to impress their lord as they'd be competing against their fellow knights for the lord's support for a lordship of their own. This leads them to obviously want to support their lord but not necessarily anyone else in their realm.
The application applied to lords is the most interesting in that the lords bring all their knights to the team of their duke and while they want to show loyalty to their duke in order to curry favor, they should compete against the other lords for the chance at Dukedoms or higher lordships. But, they can also change dukes and thus change teams if they feel it improves their chances of "winning" in either gaining power or positioning themselves or their knights to greater influence. However, they risk creating a bad view of themselves if they abandon oaths easily.
The ruler is the only one whose team is their realm. They should thus seek to maintain their team by enlarging the realm and growing the power and strength of their team overall as it builds their own strength and maintains the good will of their people.
Why not allow the ruler to remove bans and fines the judge may have issued without his consent?
Quote from: mikm on October 07, 2012, 09:39:26 PM
Why not allow the ruler to remove bans and fines the judge may have issued without his consent?
Why even have a judge?
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on October 07, 2012, 09:48:31 PM
Why even have a judge?
For the same reason as historical monarchs: To alleviate the responsibilities of the Crown. It is delegation at its finest.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on October 07, 2012, 10:10:59 PM
For the same reason as historical monarchs: To alleviate the responsibilities of the Crown. It is delegation at its finest.
I mean in the game. We're purposely not realistic.
Quote from: egamma on October 07, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Wrong. This is an RvR game--Realm versus Realm. Let's review the homepage:
There's plenty of other quotes I can provide, but Battlemaster is not intended to be PvP.
That's a very silly distinction. Regardless of whether you play "on a team" or not the game is still Player v. Player because you are playing and competing against other human beings. The "PvP' label is meant to distinguish games in which you play against other people from games in which you play against a computer AI.
Hence many mainstream/commercial MMO games have "PvP" areas where players can fight/kill each other, but the core of the game is doing premade quests, etc. in which you fight AI enemies and such. Thus, the areas where you play against other human beings have to be labeled "PvP". Battlemaster is always a PvP game pretty much unless you're off clearing off some monsters or undead or something.
Quote from: Tom on October 07, 2012, 09:11:58 PM
Then someone needs to write a feature request for the bugtracker, or else it will be forgotten.
http://bugs.battlemaster.org/view.php?id=7439
Done. One thing to note (which I think is all to the good) is this would open up all sorts of other intrigue if, for instance, the Judge bans a traitor, then the traitor frantically tries to get the Judge assassinated or captured or what have you to keep the ban from going into effect.
Quote from: Perth on October 07, 2012, 10:19:57 PM
That's a very silly distinction. Regardless of whether you play "on a team" or not the game is still Player v. Player because you are playing and competing against other human beings. The "PvP' label is meant to distinguish games in which you play against other people from games in which you play against a computer AI.
The point I was trying to make was that the judge was playing against his team, instead of with his team.
Why not make rulers approve of bans made by judges? Like what rulers have to do to make treaties go into effect. Make rulers click an approve button to make the bans go into effect or something.
QuoteWhy not make rulers approve of bans made by judges? Like what rulers have to do to make treaties go into effect. Make rulers click an approve button to make the bans go into effect or something.
On the most basic level, that cripples the Judge's authority. In some realms, where the leader is the be all end all of power, that would work fine, but in realms where a balance is maintained between ruler and judge, that balance would be destroyed by effectively taking the one measure of power a Judge has and putting it entirely in the Ruler's hands.
Even in the most dictatorial realm, the Judge keeps the balance gameplay wise and prevents the Ruler from having supreme power over all aspects of the realm's law. I think it should stay that way.
Quote from: Zakilevo on October 07, 2012, 11:37:27 PM
Why not make rulers approve of bans made by judges?
For a moment I thought "good joke". Then I realized you were serious.
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 12:08:48 AM
For a moment I thought "good joke". Then I realized you were serious.
Burn.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on October 07, 2012, 10:12:17 PM
I mean in the game. We're purposely not realistic.
Because as a ruler, I'm personally too busy at times to handle the day to day. Same with why rulers appoint ambassadors.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see the strong/balanced/weak government options be available and come into play. LET some people choose to play in an absolute tyranny. Let others play in a completely balanced democracy. Let others play in a Republic where the true power rests with the banker!
*shrugs* I like options.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on October 08, 2012, 12:39:16 AM
Because as a ruler, I'm personally too busy at times to handle the day to day. Same with why rulers appoint ambassadors.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see the strong/balanced/weak government options be available and come into play. LET some people choose to play in an absolute tyranny. Let others play in a completely balanced democracy. Let others play in a Republic where the true power rests with the banker!
*shrugs* I like options.
Isn't the whole government system rework still to do?
I thought I read it was cancelled? Dunno. Tend to hear conflicting things on the forums at times. :P
It makes more sense that a rogue Judge could do damage in some realms than in others. In a Republic or a Democracy, for instance, it's closer to a Supreme Court justice or attorney general being rogue. In a traditional feudal kingdom, less so.
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 12:08:48 AM
For a moment I thought "good joke". Then I realized you were serious.
Ouch :'(
Quote from: Draco Tanos on October 08, 2012, 12:54:26 AM
I thought I read it was cancelled? Dunno. Tend to hear conflicting things on the forums at times. :P
I'm pretty sure it's cancelled. What you see on the bugtracker, in terms of feature requests, is what you can expect to see accomplished in the next 6 months or so. Some of those feature requests have been there for
years, and the new dev team project manager (Azerax aka Scott) seems to be pretty well focused on getting those out the door (which is a very good thing--I would like to see the bug tracker have 10 items instead of 104.)
Was there any particular reason it was cancelled?
Quote from: Velax on October 07, 2012, 07:37:06 PM
Erm, no. If the developer of the game calls it an abuse and an exploit, and has to actually change the mechanics of the game to prevent this happening again, I'd say there most certainly is something wrong.
Tom didn't forbid banning. He made it cost an hour because he felt it was overpowered. I agree with that, it makes sense. It doesn't change that judges can ban people because of a personal agenda. You may think they are on your team, but there will be cases when they disagree. And you don't have the right to call them idiots when they do.
Quote from: egamma on October 07, 2012, 11:24:44 PM
The point I was trying to make was that the judge was playing against his team, instead of with his team.
You're trying to decide which team he is on. You don't have the right to do that. He does.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 08, 2012, 08:41:15 AM
You're trying to decide which team he is on. You don't have the right to do that. He does.
There is nothing wrong with treason in game.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 08, 2012, 08:40:19 AM
You may think they are on your team, but there will be cases when they disagree. And you don't have the right to call them idiots when they do.
I really don't think you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. This wasn't an instance of a Judge disagreeing with a Ruler's decision and deciding to punish everyone for it, this was the Judge actively working for an enemy realm and deciding to do the most damage possible when found out. The damage a rogue Judge can do in this situation was ridiculously out of proportion to what would be reasonably expected. The fact that the creator of the game has referred to this as abuse and an exploit really blows any argument you've made out of the water.
And "idiot" is the kindest thing I've heard this guy called in the last couple of days.
Quote from: Velax on October 08, 2012, 12:01:20 PM
I really don't think you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. This wasn't an instance of a Judge disagreeing with a Ruler's decision and deciding to punish everyone for it,
That would have been wrong. You don't take your anger on a whole realm because you disagree with just one of them. You only damage a realm if it is an IC goal of your character to damage that realm.
Which it seems it was:
Quote from: Velax on October 08, 2012, 12:01:20 PMthis was the Judge actively working for an enemy realm and deciding to do the most damage possible when found out.
I'm basing myself on your assertions to say it was right. You're saying yourself
he was working for another realm! A spy was named Judge, and you thought the realm wouldn't suffer from it?
Quote from: Velax on October 08, 2012, 12:01:20 PM
The damage a rogue Judge can do in this situation was ridiculously out of proportion to what would be reasonably expected.
What exactly did you expect? That he sends you an OOC message saying "Hey guys, turns out I'm a spy, I'm going to leave now without doing too much damage, but please act as if I'd done damage proportionally to what you reasonably expect"?
Quote from: Tom on October 06, 2012, 09:19:03 PM
This particular abuse will no longer be possible. From today on, banning will always take an hour of time and there are other safeguards, too.
Quote from: Tom on October 07, 2012, 10:18:40 AM
Note that he was exploiting a hole in the game mechanics that we've since fixed.
vonGenf's arguments = wrong.
Reminded me of this, when the nobles of Svunnetland got banned.
QuoteBanned from Svunnetland by Fakhir.
Reason: Your face makes me puke!.
Banning the entire realm does take it too far, yet I see nothing wrong in banning large groups of nobles, its even necessary in many occasions... The one hour restriction seems reasonable, but I would be against any greater restrictions. I don't think there would have been anything wrong if this judge had simply banned some key nobles to further his IC agenda, I think it's cool for a turncoat to ban a few key dukes and lords here and there, to create chaos.
I think that the player in question was acting in character and that, in principle, there was nothing wrong with what he did.
From an in character perspective, a Judge, to my knowledge, builds the infrastructure needed to do his job. That includes banning people. By the time this infrastructure is in place a variety of minor nobles and officials have rightfully been given orders to follow this guy's instructions. These officials should not, in my opinion, suddenly stop obeying the judge just because some of the nobles of the realm call him a traitor. If he lays out a ban for half the realm these officials will do their best to see it enforced as long as he is the resident judge. Once some mechanic is used to remove the Judge from office then the these officials will rightfully stop taking orders. That is when the time comes to fix the damage done.
At the same time I like the time restriction Tom put in place. It is logical but does not completely remove all power from the judge. I still do not see the players actions as abuse though. When I play a game amongst friends I am often set back by their actions. I seldom howl about how unfair it was and seek for the non-existent master of games to come and set it all right. No rules were broken and everything was done with an in character motive and it all seems very believable to me.
EDIT: Perhaps I misunderstood... Did he ban EVERYONE from the realm then leave in an attempt to destroy the kingdom? THAT would be abuse of mechanics in my opinion. Banning many of the nobles, especially key nobles, seems perfectly ok to me though...
Quote from: Lefanis on October 08, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
Banning the entire realm does take it too far, yet I see nothing wrong in banning large groups of nobles, its even necessary in many occasions... The one hour restriction seems reasonable, but I would be against any greater restrictions. I don't think there would have been anything wrong if this judge had simply banned some key nobles to further his IC agenda, I think it's cool for a turncoat to ban a few key dukes and lords here and there, to create chaos.
Exactly.
Basically, in a real-world scenario, someone further down the chain of command would have questioned his sanity and thrown the papers out, or asked the ruler for his opinion or something.
If the supreme court of the USA were to declare, say, marriage illegal and all existing marriages null and void - do you really think that would have any effect except a media !@#$storm? Do you think, say, doctors at a hospital would deny the husband access to his dying wife by referencing that decision?
A computer doesn't understand the giggle test - but humans do. Since the computer in this game in large parts simulates the actions of all the thousands of minor people that we don't actually play, it necessarily has shortcomings. This was one of them.
Quote from: Unwin on October 08, 2012, 12:47:04 PM
When I play a game amongst friends I am often set back by their actions. I seldom howl about how unfair it was and seek for the non-existent master of games to come and set it all right. No rules were broken and everything was done with an in character motive and it all seems very believable to me.
AFAIK, kicking over the table when playing chess is not explicitly forbidden by the official chess rules - and yet I am quite sure that it would not be considered an allowed move.
And yes, he banned everyone that he could ban (a few characters in the realm were unbannable).
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 01:22:51 PM
And yes, he banned everyone that he could ban (a few characters in the realm were unbannable).
Tom, with the new one hour by ban rule, would you consider it acceptable if he had done the exact same action but only banned 8 people because of time restriction?
Quote from: vonGenf on October 08, 2012, 01:27:50 PM
Tom, with the new one hour by ban rule, would you consider it acceptable if he had done the exact same action but only banned 8 people because of time restriction?
There was more added than just the 1 hour, but I'm not detailling it because I want the next abuser to smack face first into it.
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 03:35:56 PM
There was more added than just the 1 hour, but I'm not detailling it because I want the next abuser to smack face first into it.
Ok. I think it's legitimate that you add restrictions, by the way. I would much rather have the game tell me I can't do something than wake up the following morning and being called an idiot and a cheater because I pressed a button.
Quote from: egamma on October 08, 2012, 05:45:15 AM
I'm pretty sure it's cancelled.
It was not. It's just not on our list of Things That Are Going To Happen In The Next Few Months.
Eventually, a government rework of some sort is going to happen. Whether it will take the form we had planned a couple of years ago is anybody's guess at this point.
Quote from: egamma on October 07, 2012, 11:24:44 PM
The point I was trying to make was that the judge was playing against his team, instead of with his team.
Not really. The Judge was accused of treason/being a spy. His team was the enemy realm which he had been helping. He was certainly working for his "team" by damaging the realm he was in.
Quote from: Velax on October 08, 2012, 12:31:56 PM
vonGenf's arguments = wrong.
Have you ever experienced a polite disagreement?
–
Regarding the day-long stay of bans when a new judge is elected– IMHO, that's unnecessary. Limits on the behavior have already been put in place. Can't we maybe see how those limits work (i.e. let another attempted mass-banning occur, and see what happens to the poor sot who tries it) before we add in new limitations? As noted, none of us think that there is an abuse involved in banning significant numbers of nobles– and I think we all recognize than any such action will almost invariably get you protested out of office. There's no reason to essentially put in place a complete auto-negation of mass-bans.
To clarify– we should limit the power of mass bans. We shouldn't make them a worthless strategy, or a nonexistent strategy. Putting a stay on bans will indeed ensure that no judge ever bans any politically powerful segment of nobles– because he knows that, not only will he be protested out of power, the bans aren't even going to go into effect.
Quote from: Vellos on October 08, 2012, 07:27:19 PM
To clarify– we should limit the power of mass bans. We shouldn't make them a worthless strategy, or a nonexistent strategy. Putting a stay on bans will indeed ensure that no judge ever bans any politically powerful segment of nobles– because he knows that, not only will he be protested out of power, the bans aren't even going to go into effect.
I don't agree.
My understanding is that the only reason this is not true under the current system is because of an oversight in another abuse-prevention measure: Judges cannot access bans at all in their first day in office, either to place or lift them.
If not for that, the sequence of events now would be: Judge mass-bans, Judge is protested out of office, next turn new Judge is appointed, new Judge removes bans.
There's not really a significantly better chance, politically, of protesting out the Judge given an additional day. If you could have protested him out given two days, you could almost certainly have protested him out given one, provided everyone was active—y'know,
allowing for OOC factors that shouldn't be determining the course of a realm's existence.
So the main thing gained by this is the assurance that you will not have a Judge who has banned the entire realm sitting happily in his position with everyone else banned, purely because not quite enough people were able to log in in time to see the damage and react to it.
That's the point, if a group is politically powerful, you can't just do something as blatantly obvious as banning them.
Quote from: Vellos on October 08, 2012, 07:27:19 PM
To clarify– we should limit the power of mass bans. We shouldn't make them a worthless strategy, or a nonexistent strategy. Putting a stay on bans will indeed ensure that no judge ever bans any politically powerful segment of nobles– because he knows that, not only will he be protested out of power, the bans aren't even going to go into effect.
Nonsense. You can still ban Sir Trouble and his gang. If they have enough followers to protest you out of office, then good for them and bad for you and they likely won't get the bans become active - which IS the proper reaction of the game.
But if they are troublemakers and don't represent the majority of nobles, or need to do some more scheming and buying of votes, then time will run out on them.
It's a one-day-delay. It only means the bans go into effect slightly later.
Oh, also - if I were the judge in a tricky situation, I would ban them over time, starting with one where you can find a reasonably good reason and the chance that they can rally others to their course is minimal. Then the next one, then the next...
The 'real' damage that the Judge did to the realm was done gradually - quietly, over time. Passing on news. Making the occasional reasonable-sounding but completely wrong-headed suggestion. 'Forgetting' to put food on the market ... for weeks.
A 1-day delay isn't going to lessen the damage a spy can do. Most of that damage isn't a game mechanic, anyway. It's just good old fashioned treason.
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 08:59:58 PM
Oh, also - if I were the judge in a tricky situation, I would ban them over time, starting with one where you can find a reasonably good reason and the chance that they can rally others to their course is minimal. Then the next one, then the next...
Erasmus did this in Terran. Didn't turn out well for him, despite his having a much bigger power base and less clear evidence of treason apparently. Banning all at once is a much better strategy.
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 08:58:33 PM
Nonsense. You can still ban Sir Trouble and his gang. If they have enough followers to protest you out of office, then good for them and bad for you and they likely won't get the bans become active - which IS the proper reaction of the game.
Why? In a feudal system, dissent
should cause mass chaos, loss of positions, and a period of reconstruction. Bloodless changes in power were not the norm, especially in instances where changes were forced by large-scale disagreement. It seems far more medieval to me that total chaos would ensue.
(on a sidenote: can banned nobles join rebellions?)
QuoteBloodless changes in power were not the norm,
Neither were powerful bureaucrats.
The power structure in the middle ages had two key ingredients: it was local and it was personal (rather than national). In BM you do often see elected Judges as counterweights to the Crown but this was not something you'd see in a medieval government -- a council member might very well be able to pull strings and work against the crown but it would be in a much more Game of Thrones Small Council type of way and not in a 'I have actual specific power over these things that the King does not have.'
Also, "loss of position" in the middle ages meant "loss of life" or "you've been conquered" for landed nobility. The idea of a Count suddenly not being a Count even though he was still around is a BM convention, not a historical convention. In fact you had the opposite problem -- if the guy was alive, even if he was a drooling idiot, you'd have a paralyzed government. "Anarchy" did not exist in the middle ages anywhere near the scale it does in BM.
Greetings.
I know i am late to the conversation, and yes many things have been said about team-base game, pvp, sandbox, etc.
I also play the game in a way that if i am permitted then is legal, Jesus, i can send orders to my general just because i can do so, but there are things that is called common sense.
We have to remember the game we are playing, we are into a medieval game, and we have to act upon it, not circumventing the game mechanic, a real judge couldn't a ban a noble, he would have to find proof and have a trial, then declared guilty then deserve the ban.
The Rulers were the only with the authority to banish a noble from the realm (something like "Begone !"#&%)$!"#&%/)** off my sight") and still they need to deserve it, these are the detail we need to fix, to everyone to do their job.
Delays, cold down, etc does not apply. here a judge doesn't have the self authority to band a noble, A "NOBLE" i wish to see how the judge roleplay this idea:
QuoteA lone man (judge) kicking out the realm 20 nobles and their men (more than 1,000 warriors) i wish to see that!
We must think away to make this work IC, that magic wand that disown nobles must disappear, each band must have the majority of the council approbation, it doesn't matter if the judge mark for band the entire realm(including himself) he need the approbation of the council.
And remember my motto, keep everything IC!
Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2012, 01:22:51 PM
AFAIK, kicking over the table when playing chess is not explicitly forbidden by the official chess rules - and yet I am quite sure that it would not be considered an allowed move.
I think my problem is that I'm not sure that's a good analogy. If he did everything in character, then a much better analogy would be a stab in Diplomacy. Kicking over the table would probably be a more appropriate analogy for hacking the server. Spying, treason, and politics are part of BM, and I think it's valid for someone engaged in such things to think that so long as they did everything IC, if the mechanics allow them to use a position they've been given to massively screw over the realm they've been betraying, that it's kosher.
Obviously, you didn't intend for it to be seen this way -- but I think it is very understandable that someone would see it this way.
What reason did the Judge give for the bans? I mean, we know his reasons (he was a enemy spy who was found out and trying to do as much damage on the way out as he could) but what "official" IC reason did he state with the bans? As Tom mentioned, the system in place is meant to replicate dozens, if not hundreds, of living characters we do not play from commoners to lesser nobles who would be loyal to the realm, I think before we give him a pass as being totally IC with his actions we need to consider if his justification for the bans could pass through all those hands without one of these NPCs questioning it and bringing it to the attention of the ruler, a duke, or a lord for clarification. I mean, if in game a judge sent one of my characters an order to arrest any priests of the most prominent religion in the realm, you better believe I would contact my lord, duke, or the ruler to make sure it was kosher before I acted on it because, by and large, my characters like their heads remaining on their shoulders at all times. :p
The reason was 'supporting an insane King.'
The insane King had identified him as an enemy spy the day before the election for Judge.
Quote from: Scarlett on October 09, 2012, 01:06:22 AM
The reason was 'supporting an insane King.'
The insane King had identified him as an enemy spy the day before the election for Judge.
Yeah, that strains belief a bit. To go back to the example I gave about arresting priests, would anyone here find that a compelling reason to act on his orders as a loyal member of your realm? A Judge's power is derived through the crown, not independent of it, royals are unbannable for a reason. Such obviously treasonous orders would be met by scorn and reported by any loyal member of the government, not followed through with.
Quote from: Vellos on October 08, 2012, 10:03:40 PM
(on a sidenote: can banned nobles join rebellions?)
Yes, banned nobles can join rebellions. My characters got banned by a fast finger Judge before, should I say, half Oritolon realm nobles in Colonies island got a ban from a Judge Katherine(a Judge who is found to be multi accounts later).
But the banned nobles need join the rebellions before your ban start kick in and active. Otherwise you become rogue, and no rogue nobles can rebel against rogue realm.
Quote from: Vellos on October 08, 2012, 07:27:19 PM
Have you ever experienced a polite disagreement?
Not when it comes to abusers and exploiters. You should remember that, Vellos.
It baffles me that people are supporting this action. It is very obviously against the intended spirit of the game, as repeatedly stated by the game's creator. It is not in any way vaguely realistic, neither within a medieval setting (no lawmaker had this much power) nor within any definition of common sense (how many bureaucrats would be required to enact the bans on 17 nobles, including region lords, Duke and the Banker? How many of those would be completely fine with doing so, despite the fact that the King
had just declared the one giving them the orders as a traitor?).
The only possible justification I can see for this is that the game mechanics allowed you to do it. So apparently our morals and sense of fair play should be defined solely by what the game allows us to do, with no actual input from our own selves. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: Velax on October 09, 2012, 04:43:29 AM
The only possible justification I can see for this is that the game mechanics allowed you to do it. So apparently our morals and sense of fair play should be defined solely by what the game allows us to do, with no actual input from our own selves. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
I tend to agree, however, Tom's dictate that 'mechanics trump RP' suggests that mechanics should play the most important part, rather than 'what makes sense.'
Note that rulers used to be able to mechanically strip someone of all their titles and such. They can't anymore. So since we have to work within the mechanics given by the game, the framework we are given is that people
do not just follow what the ruler says is true when the ruler declares someone a traitor -- and that such words may in fact just be that, words.
The mechanics of the situation -- which in BM equals the reality of the situation, for better or for worse -- is that the judge has considerable power, and that people listen to them so long as they are still judge, and that if the ruler says they are a traitor -- well, maybe it's just politics, and maybe the judge is in the right, because the judge is the one who can ban someone as a traitor, after all, not the ruler.
In BM, a ruler only has as much power as the players let them get away with. Mechanics wise, the judge is probably more powerful. So in BM's version of reality . . . this is realistic.
So, yes, while Tom has now stated that it is against the spirit of the game (though I am not sure I understand or agree with his reasoning), I think that it is easy to see why before he made that statement, one might have thought this was a fine thing, and have a reasonable and civil discussion about it (though it is the time of year in America when civil discussion gets thrown out the window, so . . . we're doing better than that, I think).
I would just like to put it on record that this is exactly what one deserves for trusting a Leonidas. Execute first, ask questions later.
As for the RP explanation...Yes, I am glad Tom has made some changes, and as long as this is somewhat limited I don't expect anything further to cause this level of chaos, but consider, for a moment, the implications of having the second most powerful noble in your realm working, for weeks and months, to completely undermine the realm. That would be absolutely devastating if done correctly, and arranging for the King's messengers to be suborned, assassinated, or discredited as a contingency plan makes perfect sense to me. I can think of half a dozen reasonably plausible ways to account for what happened, assuming significant amounts of money and influence, which Seperoth certainly would have had. Whether he had the brains for them or not I will not comment on OOC (my opening remark was a purely Jenredian response, for those uncertain).
I agree that this is an extreme example, but not nearly as extreme as the Thulsoman exploits, and I don't think it's fair at all to make accusations of anything other than taking something a bit far. I myself was unaware that a new Judge couldn't unban people in the event of a mass and immediate protest to remove the previous Judge, and since that particular loophole has been closed, 'ware to those who piss off their Judges.
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 09, 2012, 05:30:21 AM
I would just like to put it on record that this is exactly what one deserves for trusting a Leonidas. Execute first, ask questions later.
As for the RP explanation...Yes, I am glad Tom has made some changes, and as long as this is somewhat limited I don't expect anything further to cause this level of chaos, but consider, for a moment, the implications of having the second most powerful noble in your realm working, for weeks and months, to completely undermine the realm. That would be absolutely devastating if done correctly, and arranging for the King's messengers to be suborned, assassinated, or discredited as a contingency plan makes perfect sense to me. I can think of half a dozen reasonably plausible ways to account for what happened, assuming significant amounts of money and influence, which Seperoth certainly would have had. Whether he had the brains for them or not I will not comment on OOC (my opening remark was a purely Jenredian response, for those uncertain).
I agree that this is an extreme example, but not nearly as extreme as the Thulsoman exploits, and I don't think it's fair at all to make accusations of anything other than taking something a bit far. I myself was unaware that a new Judge couldn't unban people in the event of a mass and immediate protest to remove the previous Judge, and since that particular loophole has been closed, 'ware to those who piss off their Judges.
+1
Said what I wanted to say much better.
Quote from: Scarlett on October 08, 2012, 10:24:12 PM
Neither were powerful bureaucrats.
The power structure in the middle ages had two key ingredients: it was local and it was personal (rather than national). In BM you do often see elected Judges as counterweights to the Crown but this was not something you'd see in a medieval government -- a council member might very well be able to pull strings and work against the crown but it would be in a much more Game of Thrones Small Council type of way and not in a 'I have actual specific power over these things that the King does not have.'
Also, "loss of position" in the middle ages meant "loss of life" or "you've been conquered" for landed nobility. The idea of a Count suddenly not being a Count even though he was still around is a BM convention, not a historical convention. In fact you had the opposite problem -- if the guy was alive, even if he was a drooling idiot, you'd have a paralyzed government. "Anarchy" did not exist in the middle ages anywhere near the scale it does in BM.
See above.
It's not about technical or specific legal power. It's about the ease of forging it, ESPECIALLY when the King is running a TO off in an enemy mountain territory in the dead of winter. Hell, it's entirely plausible he could have told all the minor nobles, via various and sundry underhanded techniques and information networks he built up over a long time, that all the elite nobles murdered the king in Haul. Now, maybe he didn't– but the idea that no IC explanation could exist is just silly.
(that said– I do think that what should happen in that case is something along the lines of all banned nobles automatically joining a rebel underground, from which they can then launch a rebellion– this would be a realistic response. The only way the judge could have that power is if he plausibly convinced minor nobles the king was illegitimate/dead. Reconvincing them otherwise should not be a given, so booting the ruler to replace the judge seems reasonable)
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 09, 2012, 05:30:21 AM
As for the RP explanation...Yes, I am glad Tom has made some changes, and as long as this is somewhat limited I don't expect anything further to cause this level of chaos, but consider, for a moment, the implications of having the second most powerful noble in your realm working, for weeks and months, to completely undermine the realm. That would be absolutely devastating if done correctly, and arranging for the King's messengers to be suborned, assassinated, or discredited as a contingency plan makes perfect sense to me. I can think of half a dozen reasonably plausible ways to account for what happened, assuming significant amounts of money and influence, which Seperoth certainly would have had. Whether he had the brains for them or not I will not comment on OOC
None of this happened. None of it was RPed. He can't retroactively say, "Oh,
yeah, I was
totally doing all that. I was assassinating and bribing messengers and stuff, and totally RPed it all." Because he didn't. Everyone got the message where the King declared the Judge a traitor. Everyone got it. And if Seperoth managed to assassinate the King's messengers sent to the bureaucrats responsible for enacting bans, it certainly wasn't RPed.
So, sure. You can RP ways this might be vaguely realistic. You can come up with a bull!@#$ RP justification for
anything if you stretch things far enough. But none of this was RPed.
Quote from: Velax on October 09, 2012, 07:14:25 AM
None of this happened. None of it was RPed. He can't retroactively say, "Oh, yeah, I was totally doing all that. I was assassinating and bribing messengers and stuff, and totally RPed it all." Because he didn't. Everyone got the message where the King declared the Judge a traitor. Everyone got it. And if Seperoth managed to assassinate the King's messengers sent to the bureaucrats responsible for enacting bans, it certainly wasn't RPed.
So, sure. You can RP ways this might be vaguely realistic. You can come up with a bull!@#$ RP justification for anything if you stretch things far enough. But none of this was RPed.
Lets not forget that the reason given IC for the bans was that these nobles support the King, in other words, it would be obvious treason to carry them out. Even if the King wasn't present, the level and depth of corruption required to pull it off would be enormous, as would the bribes.
Quote from: BardicNerd on October 09, 2012, 05:01:33 AM
I tend to agree, however, Tom's dictate that 'mechanics trump RP' suggests that mechanics should play the most important part, rather than 'what makes sense.'
You are misquoting me there. That word was said in the context of making it clear that if I roleplay that I am in A, but the game shows me in B, then I am in B. If I roleplay my men as cavalry, but the battle report shows me commanding archers, then I am commanding archers. Roleplay can not change the reality of the game, only fill in the blanks.
Quote from: Tom on October 09, 2012, 10:27:34 AM
You are misquoting me there. That word was said in the context of making it clear that if I roleplay that I am in A, but the game shows me in B, then I am in B. If I roleplay my men as cavalry, but the battle report shows me commanding archers, then I am commanding archers. Roleplay can not change the reality of the game, only fill in the blanks.
When the game mechanic tells you that nobles have been banned, you can fill in the blanks by thinking of a way in which it would make sense for them to be banned, but you cannot create a RP that results in the bans not being carried out. Because they have been carried out. I'm not sure how you were misquoted here....
Because game mechanics are true, but not always right. That's what "abusing a bug" or "using an exploit" means - you found a way in which the game mechanics work in a specific way that they really shouldn't.
Quote from: Tom on October 09, 2012, 12:23:05 PM
Because game mechanics are true, but not always right. That's what "abusing a bug" or "using an exploit" means - you found a way in which the game mechanics work in a specific way that they really shouldn't.
Except we are always told to play through the bug, which suggests that the bug
is "right" from an RP perspective.
Quote from: Vellos on October 09, 2012, 05:26:36 PM
Except we are always told to play through the bug, which suggests that the bug is "right" from an RP perspective.
First: You are trying to get an ironclad letter-of-the-law rule, rather than accepting the "apply common sense" part.
Second: You are conflating
experiencing a bug with
abusing a bug.
Third: Where was this concern with "game mechanics trumps RP" when Oradrikkon was swearing up and down that he had received messages that everyone knew he could not, in fact, have received?
QuoteIt's not about technical or specific legal power. It's about the ease of forging it, ESPECIALLY when the King is running a TO off in an enemy mountain territory in the dead of winter
Really, Vellos? "I have this formal paper from the King disbanding the realm. Please see to it. Oh, he's not available."
There is no RP to support that. It's un-possible.
Quote from: Tom on October 09, 2012, 12:23:05 PM
Because game mechanics are true, but not always right. That's what "abusing a bug" or "using an exploit" means - you found a way in which the game mechanics work in a specific way that they really shouldn't.
Sure -- but until you specifically say that game mechanics shouldn't work in a certain way, other people might sometimes assume that they should indeed work the way that they always have. Some things that turn out to be abuses can in fact seem reasonable to many people. . . .
I don't think there's any doubt Seperoth thought it was reasonable. I don't think he was sitting there cackling away trying to screw over other players rather than just doing whatever he could in character. The very reasonable argument has been made that, well, this hasn't come up enough in the past to be addressed specifically, and that's true.
But this isn't EVE. A modicum of consideration for whether something ought to be possible for your character is not a lot to ask. That's the source of frustration: you shouldn't have to wait for every single potential abuse to come up and legislate against it. You should spend ten seconds thinking about who your character is and what they could feasibly get away with.
Quote from: Vellos on October 09, 2012, 05:26:36 PM
Except we are always told to play through the bug, which suggests that the bug is "right" from an RP perspective.
Maybe, but the real reason is that in a game as complex and interconnected as BM there really isn't a good way to undo the damage of bugs.
Quote from: BardicNerd on October 09, 2012, 06:06:38 PM
Sure -- but until you specifically say that game mechanics shouldn't work in a certain way, other people might sometimes assume that they should indeed work the way that they always have. Some things that turn out to be abuses can in fact seem reasonable to many people. . . .
Some, yes.
But some things simply don't pass the giggle test. And banning the entire realm certainly doesn't.
Quote from: Tom on October 09, 2012, 06:23:36 PM
And banning the entire realm certainly doesn't.
To you.
To me it seems easy to explain and eminently plausible. You can auto-ban large groups of rebels in an open rebellion– couldn't Seperoth (and yes, I'm aware he didn't actually do this) have argued they were a conspiracy against the legitimate rulers, namely, himself, and whichever foreign power he was supposedly working with?
QuoteYou can auto-ban large groups of rebels in an open rebellion– couldn't Seperoth (and yes, I'm aware he didn't actually do this) have argued they were a conspiracy against the legitimate rulers, namely, himself, and whichever foreign power he was supposedly working with?
'Giggle test' seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I don't see why any of you are aguing over the RP factor, here.
A judge can ban people because they wore the wrong colored hat on the wrong day.
While judges banning half the realm feels wrong in my guts, the RP justification the guy uses (or doesn't) is completely irrelevant as far as the social contract is concerned.
Quote from: Scarlett on October 09, 2012, 11:39:01 PM
'Giggle test' seems pretty unambiguous to me.
Except, to me (and apparently others), it does pass the "giggle test." So it's ambiguous.
Quote from: Vellos on October 10, 2012, 12:28:32 AM
Except, to me (and apparently others), it does pass the "giggle test." So it's ambiguous.
he banned every noble he could. Removing a large group of nobles is understandable but removing all but 3 ,I believe it was, is unreasonable. In a realm with 20 nobles trying to ban more than 10 is pushing it in my mind.
Quote from: Penchant on October 10, 2012, 02:46:00 AM
he banned every noble he could. Removing a large group of nobles is understandable but removing all but 3 ,I believe it was, is unreasonable. In a realm with 20 nobles trying to ban more than 10 is pushing it in my mind.
For the sake of focusing on the concept instead of this particular case, I'd like to point out that the same happened in Minas Leon somewhat recently, on AT.
The reason this would not have crossed my mind as an abuse is precisely because it has happened before. Many times.
Quote from: Indirik on October 10, 2012, 03:27:07 AM
The reason this would not have crossed my mind as an abuse is precisely because it has happened before. Many times.
Feels wrong every time, though.
Can an exiled judge still ban people?
This could be a solution... remove an exiled judge's ability to ban nobles, without stripping him of his powers. Perhaps also suspending impending bans?
Doesn't let the ruler choose a new judge, and still weighs heavily on the ruler's h/p. Allows rebels and traitors to act without fear of reprimand.
Basically, allows the realm to fall into chaos, without letting one man unilaterally destroy a realm.
exile is so useless...
Quote from: Zaki on October 10, 2012, 04:14:53 AM
exile is so useless...
It would make it a tiny bit less useless, without turning it into a cure-all. Or indeed, a cure-anything. It would prevent the judge from turning the realm into a ghost realm by himself, while not quite giving the ruler any powers to get rid of him.
Quote from: Tom on October 09, 2012, 06:23:36 PM
Some, yes.
But some things simply don't pass the giggle test. And banning the entire realm certainly doesn't.
Banning the entire realm and having it
work doesn't pass the giggle test. Banning the entire realm, getting immediately protested out, and having the bans revoked sounds perfectly reasonable to me, which is why I think the changes are excellent. And if the Judge is
not immediately protested out for banning the entire realm, that says to me that he has done his groundwork.
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 10, 2012, 04:54:07 AM
Banning the entire realm and having it work doesn't pass the giggle test. Banning the entire realm, getting immediately protested out, and having the bans revoked sounds perfectly reasonable to me, which is why I think the changes are excellent. And if the Judge is not immediately protested out for banning the entire realm, that says to me that he has done his groundwork.
Is that what was implemented. I hadn't understood this to be the case, personally, nor did I find where Tom says so.
What I did see is 1 hour per ban, plus a special surprise for the "abuser" (unknown effect past unkown limit). Theretically, one could ban up to 24 nobles in less than an hour (stacking hours as a priest and changing class right before turn change), or more reasonnably 18 nobles in as much time. Of course, such a measure wouldn't have the same impact in, say, Falkirian Freestate as it would in Aurvandil, but that's still a lot of people over very little time.
Plus the secret restriction, of course.
If banned nobles will be able to protect within the first 24 hours as you suggest, please quote me the message, as I must have missed it.
Quote from: Chénier on October 10, 2012, 05:02:03 AM
Is that what was implemented. I hadn't understood this to be the case, personally, nor did I find where Tom says so.
You missed the adding a stay to the effect of bans of Judges removed from positions.
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 10, 2012, 05:02:47 AM
You missed the adding a stay to the effect of bans of Judges removed from positions.
Could you reword that, I don't understand what you mean.
"Bans will no longer stick once you protest the judge out" is what I make of it. Which wouldn't seem as much of a consolation since banned nobles can't protect the judge out.
Quote from: Tom on October 07, 2012, 06:43:22 PM
The problem is that the delay is there for a reason, there are other abuses possible without one. It could be an idea to stay bans if the judge is removed from office to give his successor time to check on them. That would not be too difficult, simply adding 1 day grace period to all bannings that have not yet gone into effect.
Would that solve the issue?
Here you go Dominic.
Quote from: Chénier on October 10, 2012, 05:06:21 AM
Could you reword that, I don't understand what you mean.
"Bans will no longer stick once you protest the judge out" is what I make of it. Which wouldn't seem as much of a consolation since banned nobles can't protect the judge out.
Bans don't go into effect for three turns at the soonest, I believe you can still protest up to that point, yes?
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 10, 2012, 04:54:07 AM
And if the Judge is not immediately protested out for banning the entire realm, that says to me that he has done his groundwork.
Considering how banishment prevents you from protesting, maybe not. All he needs to do is just banish everyone immediately.
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 10, 2012, 05:58:02 AM
Bans don't go into effect for three turns at the soonest, I believe you can still protest up to that point, yes?
I don't think so, no.
Quote from: Bedwyr on October 10, 2012, 05:56:48 AM
Here you go Dominic.
If my above statement is correct, then the quoted solution changes nothing to it. If the judge bans 20 nobles in half an hour, out of a realm of 25-30, odds are the remaining few wouldn't be able to protect him out of office. In a bigger realm, that'd be 8 more bans a turn later. The dekay after replacing the judge before bans go in effect is moot if there's no way to get rid of said judge.
Not counting the special restriction that we know nothing about, mind you.
I just wanted to point out that, from an in-character perspective, he did not ban 'the entire realm.' he only banned 17 on the most influential nobles - the player characters. There are supposed to be, as I understand it, to be a vast array of minor nobility / officials behind the scenes. The whole thing seems a bit less dramatic, in my opinion, if this is kept in mind. When it comes down to it, the minor nobility / officials are probably used to senseless banns and even mass bans for the sole purpose of advancing a single nobles political agenda. I am not convinced that, from the perspective of the officials enacting a ban by the order of a legitimate judge, this would clearly be a laughable order.
I also believe that the king sending letters to the 20 most influential nobles of the realm, declaring the Judge a traitor and spy, would have had much impact of the minor nobility / officials of the realm. In my mind, it is doubtful that they ever received the message aside from hearsay. Besides, there is often talk of traitor and spies so why give this latest rumor much thought. It is just another day at the job. Now, if the king had protested the Judge, and thus officially alerting the minor nobility / officials and all the influential nobles he had sent messages to had protested the judge, these minor nobles / officials would have been officially notified and they would have stopped taking orders from the evil man. As far as I can tell, this never happened.
As far as I am concerned the minor nobility / officials had received rumors one day and official orders the next. Orders banning a small portion of nobility, albeit a majority of influential nobles. I am sure that these guys probably thought, "Wow. Look at this. It looks like there are some serious power struggles going on again. I wonder who will be filling the void this time around?"
At the same time, I do not feel that the position of Judge was ever meant to be a tool for enemies to use to do massive damage to the realm. I think that it is perfectly plausible but not what was intended. I like the measures Tom mentioned but I am not sure about the grace period. It seems unnecessary to me and reduces the impact of a crazy/traitorous Judges too much I think. When a crazy Judge or Traitor Judge does this kind of thing it should really be an inconvenience...
With the easy out:
Judge: Ban them... or as many as my hours/restrictions allow!
Officials: Done. They have three days.
Remaining Influential Nobles: The guy just banned me and is a traitor. We protest!
Officials: If you guys say so. He is no longer Judge.
Influential Nobles: Jimmy! You are Judge now!
Jimmy Judge: I hereby revert all your bans. I also ban the traitor!
Influential Nobles: Yeah!!!
Without it:
Judge: Ban them... or as many as my hours/restrictions allow!
Officials: Done. They have three days.
Remaining Influential Nobles: The guy just banned me and is a traitor. We protest!
Officials: If you guys say so. He is no longer Judge.
Remaining Influential Nobles: Jimmy! You are Judge now!
Jimmy Judge: In five days, I hereby revert all your bans. I just need to sort out the logistical mess Traitor left behind.
Ruler: I exile you traitor!!!
Jimmy Judge: Everything is in order now. I ban you Traitor (If you are still around)
Influential Nobles: Grumble... Finally I can Join the realm again... Man this was a pain...
I can not say that all the details are right and I am assuming that remaining nobles would be capable of protesting the guy out of office. It is the general idea I am going after anyways. Once again, I do not think that the Judge should be used as a tool of war but I do think that a ban should be a hurdle to overcome. I am cool either way though. I simply can not believe that this is something that has come up so often! I would never have thought of it if not for this thread. Not that I ever would do such a thing...
You can't ban exiles, Unwin, nor can banned nobles protest, so if he banned enough nobles in one swing he could be virtually immune to those efforts depending on the size of the realm. The banned nobles could immediately join in rebellion and likely have enough members to throw the council out of office, but that presents its own problems in both an IC and OOC sense.
Moreover, in this specific case, the bans were done for "supporting the insane king" (that was the specific reason he gave for the bans as mentioned earlier in the thread). I agree with your point that it would be the lesser nobility that actually carried out the bans, which makes this particular instance make even less sense from an IC perspective. Are we to assume that the entire network of nobles below the influential PCs suddenly turned traitor, from the man-at-arms they hire soldiers from to the clerks that exchange their bonds, all suddenly decided that supporting the king was a ban worthy offense? As Tom said, it doesn't pass the giggle test.
I feel the main issue is in checks and balances, the Judge is the most powerful noble in a realm and the other positions have few options in the way of checking and dealing with him if they feel he's abusing his authority.
It is clear that I do not understand the game fully enough to make a contribution of value regarding this topic. I can not say if the games mechanics are up to the task of repairing the damage done in such a scenario. I look forward to seeing how things work out in the future!
If you ban a noble, his court is also non-grata.
In other words, if you ban everyone, you really are banning pretty much everyone. Their estates will be empty and realm efficiency will suffer.
As for rebellions, they weren't meant to be used this way ("I'm not rebelling against the king, I'm rebelling against the judge! I'll step down right after!"). The short time frame and impossibility to recruit once banned also makes this "solution" quite impracticable.