BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Tom on April 15, 2011, 01:04:08 PM
-
While on the train a few days ago, I had a revelation that I think is important to share. Please discuss this and let me know your toughts.
How does a community solve its problems and conflicts?
That came up in my mind. One of the basic tenets of BM is "play like you'd play a board game with friends". So how do friends solve issues coming up during play? Questions like "is this move legal?" come up all the time in friendly games.
The general answer is:
Through discussion and by consensus.
At least that's my experience. If you play with friends, and you aren't sure that your move is legal, or someone else made a move that you don't think is legal, you'll bring it up, everyone will contribute their opinion, and a consensus is reached rather quickly. Often not the one that is closest to the rules, but the one that allows the game to proceed best for everyone.
And I think that's what our Titan system is lacking and is why we're having so much trouble having it accepted by the playerbase. We're trying to tell them to behave like friends, but we're lording over them unlike friends.
Now - Reality Check - we have way too many players for the system that works with five friends to work. Which is where simple solutions come in. One game - Munchkin - has this rather nice solution to rules-discussion problems: The player who owns the game decides.
Now mix this all and here is what you get - as a rough sketch - and what I think might work a lot better than what we currently have:
- Complaints should be open and public, with explicit notification to the one being accused of anything (though we may allow for complaints to be made anonymous, the complaint itself should be public)
- A forum topic is automatically created and players pointed towards it. The accused can post his view, anyone else who wants to add something to the discussion, can.
- The goal of the discussion should be to come to a consensus solution. As such, it should be strictly moderated. Such a discussion has a very narrow and specific topic and should remain strictly on topic.
- A Titan will make the final decision, basing it on the consensus and the discussion, so that a clear verdict exists in the end.
This would, I believe, make the job easier for the Titans, it would allow the accused his opportunity to present his points, and make everything seem a lot less arbitrary - by which I mean that I am certain we never were arbitrary, but that it sometimes looks like it because the players never see what's going on behind the scenes.
And it would cut down on abuse dramatically.
-
While I understand where you're coming from with this Tom, I can't say I entirely agree. I mean, in a perfect world, such a system would be fantastic. However, democracy or mob rule simply cannot work in a structured environment.
If it's based on consensus, what's to stop someone from getting friends to swarm a complaint thread and drown out rational thought? And if the Titan goes against the consensus because it's blatantly wrong/biased, you're back to square one.
-
This will be an excellent way to encourage OOC factions, start flame-wars, and strip away the power of anonymity. Especially having complaints public: comparatively few of my Titan complaints have been against my allies. Not because I am trying to gain an OOC advantage, but because I closely scrutinize my enemies, and so am just more likely to notice something. Allowing a place for players to argue the merits and demerits will cause both sides to become entrenched, and increase the perception that Titans are not neutral.
-
Is the current Titans system working so bad? I thought the overall organization of the thing was working well, even with few exceptions.
I also don't understand why this proposal would it cut down abuses so much, especially because those who are active on the forum frequently may very well not be a relevant sample of the player base.
-
I strongly agree with Vellos.
The existing system may not be perfect, but for the sake of maintaining civility in the community, the complaint system must be anonymous. Allowing Titan decisions to be affected by community consensus will amplify the feeling of persecution in the defendant and generate bad blood between players. One of the good things about the titans as they are is that they are nameless and faceless. Sure, sometimes people are going to accuse their decisions of being arbitrary, but that's an inevitable consequence of having an opaque process where the definition of an infraction is intentionally left vague.
I have a couple possible suggestions:
1. Instead of making it an open forum, instead randomly select a small council of players via a system similar to the one currently used for judging vulgarity. Players would receive an in-game link and be allowed to accept or decline the responsibility. Upon accepting they would either be granted access to a closed forum that others could not view or some kind of private in-game message group for the duration of the discussion. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other. I would also say that the identity of the accused should be hidden unless it must be revealed as a relevant fact to preserve impartiality. Furthermore, if possible the jury pool should be drawn from families who do not play on the island that the complaint originated from. This injects an element of the community into the decision, but limits participation to a reasonable number of people. It also preserves a level of confidentiality that I think is necessary in order to avoid flame wars and OOC grudges between players. The identities of this 'jury of your peers' should remain anonymous after the decision to prevent the afore-mentioned bad blood.
2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule. I know Tom that you don't like this idea, but I believe that much of the hue and cry over Titan decisions stems from the fact that it can be very difficult to determine how a given rule applies in certain situations. The player base lacks guidance on this, and because there are no clear examples of what's an infraction versus what isn't, it lends an air of arbitrariness to the Titan decision making process. The fact is, you just don't know. Granted, this could lead to the sort of rules-lawyering you hate, but it would also reduce the arbitrariness of the process.
-
I have already made my views known to Tom, but I will summarize them again here:
I believe that a system such as Tom proposes would not, ultimately, be significantly more effective than the Titan system, provided the Titan system makes a few changes. Some of these changes are already underway—for instance, the Titans can now request feedback/ask questions of either the reporter or the reportee.
Ultimately, I think what is needed is some sort of system whereby a "Titan pool" is maintained, with "potential Titans" selected based on some criterion (perhaps trust medals, for instance, though not necessarily that) and added to the pool. A certain number of "potential Titans" would be active each month (or quarter, or whatever). These would be determined based on a rating system that allows players to state whether they feel a particular Titan decision was fair—active Titans rated low would be returned to the pool, replaced by higher-rated or new members of the pool.
This would allow a much greater fraction of the playerbase to understand the Titan system, and thereby give them greater investment in both the Titan system and the game itself.
-
I strongly support Arnis's suggestion. One criteria that might be considered in selecting Titan's is experience in the game. The longer one has been exposed to the game, the better one's understanding of the game becomes. Another is level of activity. I know Tom might object to this but getting things resolved effeciently would suggest need for a high level of interaction. Selection criteria that can be manipulated, ie Medals, should be avoided.
Roland
-
I strongly agree with Vellos.
The existing system may not be perfect, but for the sake of maintaining civility in the community, the complaint system must be anonymous. Allowing Titan decisions to be affected by community consensus will amplify the feeling of persecution in the defendant and generate bad blood between players. One of the good things about the titans as they are is that they are nameless and faceless. Sure, sometimes people are going to accuse their decisions of being arbitrary, but that's an inevitable consequence of having an opaque process where the definition of an infraction is intentionally left vague.
I have a couple possible suggestions:
1. Instead of making it an open forum, instead randomly select a small council of players via a system similar to the one currently used for judging vulgarity. Players would receive an in-game link and be allowed to accept or decline the responsibility. Upon accepting they would either be granted access to a closed forum that others could not view or some kind of private in-game message group for the duration of the discussion. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other. I would also say that the identity of the accused should be hidden unless it must be revealed as a relevant fact to preserve impartiality. Furthermore, if possible the jury pool should be drawn from families who do not play on the island that the complaint originated from. This injects an element of the community into the decision, but limits participation to a reasonable number of people. It also preserves a level of confidentiality that I think is necessary in order to avoid flame wars and OOC grudges between players. The identities of this 'jury of your peers' should remain anonymous after the decision to prevent the afore-mentioned bad blood.
2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule. I know Tom that you don't like this idea, but I believe that much of the hue and cry over Titan decisions stems from the fact that it can be very difficult to determine how a given rule applies in certain situations. The player base lacks guidance on this, and because there are no clear examples of what's an infraction versus what isn't, it lends an air of arbitrariness to the Titan decision making process. The fact is, you just don't know. Granted, this could lead to the sort of rules-lawyering you hate, but it would also reduce the arbitrariness of the process.
I do not want a pool of random players to have access to my messages, if that's what you mean. Some players would abuse of this knowledge, and some players would abuse of this fact to spam reports on people they want to spy upon.
-
I do not want a pool of random players to have access to my messages, if that's what you mean. Some players would abuse of this knowledge, and some players would abuse of this fact to spam reports on people they want to spy upon.
Such abuse would be painfully obvious to all the other players involved, and would certainly result in the culprit being not only banned from ever being a judge again, but probably from the game as well.
-
1. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other.
2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule.
The second point is a very good one: posting precedent would be extremely valuable. When playing a game with friends, I often reference previous cases of rule disputes, and how they were managed (if anybody has ever played the game "Diplomacy," you know what I mean). Access to precedent would be enormously helpful and valuable.
The first point I am skeptical about, because I NEVER want to see minority or dissenting opinions. IMHO, this is the great strength of the Titans: they have no dissenting opinions. They are THE TITANS. If a forum discussion of some kind creates even an informal "dissenting opinion," it will tend to politicize the institution (see: US Supreme Court). Now, sometimes those lone dissents are valuable (see: Plessy v. Fergusson), but, in BM, we're not dealing with fundamental civil liberties. We're dealing with game harmony. One of the most annoying things to in many games is when the GMs/DMs/Moderators have internal disagreement or confusion about how the game should be run. Even if the Titans do not have internal disagreement, having some kind of forum discussion would seem likely to create the presence of "dissenting opinions." Such opinions have no value for the BM community, other than to instill reduced faith in the Titans.
These would be determined based on a rating system that allows players to state whether they feel a particular Titan decision was fair—active Titans rated low would be returned to the pool, replaced by higher-rated or new members of the pool.
Tim, I liked your idea for the most part. But rating Titans is just silly. Consider, for example, a recent example. Let's imagine for a moment that Averoth has some kind of complaint against it, and the Titans rule against Averoth (this is a HYPOTHETICAL). Who is most likely to "respond" to any rating system? Why, obviously, the defendants. It's a voluntary response bias, and it is NOT a good way to take a sample.
Moreover, judging Titans will encourage Titans to kiss butt. Same thing with US Supreme Court justices: being life-long positions, they don't need to appease anyone. They can be neutral. If Titans have to balance the claims of justice and popularity of the decision, justice will tend to lose out. Moreover, rating Titans implies some reduced anonymity for Titans: another thing I absolutely oppose.
Titans should be anonymous, unified, and independent.
I like the idea of a rotating Titan pool based on time in-game and medals (I had assumed something similar was how it already worked). That would be a big improvement, as the Titans would be less mysterious, but still neutral. I like the idea of posting precedent from Titan decisions; that seems like a good way to offer guides to behavior.
But anything that weakens the Titan system, divides it, increases OOC factionalism, or strips away its independence and anonymity, I simply think is foolish.
-
While I am not sure if discussing every Titan decision in a forum is optimal, I think I understand the spirit of it. It would do us good to have players know what has been decided by the Titans and why. Communication of Titan decisions will help us trust the Titans more.
-
Actually, just thought of something:
One fair way to do this could be: your chance of being a Titan is determined by your medal count, with each medal increasing your chance by X%. Players get chances to rank decisions. If a decision you participated in (so a decision made during your tenure) gets below a certain "threshold" of feedback, nothing happens. But, if your decision gets above that threshold, you get, say, a trust medal, thus increasing your chance next time around, without reducing anonymity.
Still has the problem of populist decisions, of course, but maybe somebody else will come up with a solution for that.
-
Tim, I liked your idea for the most part. But rating Titans is just silly. Consider, for example, a recent example. Let's imagine for a moment that Averoth has some kind of complaint against it, and the Titans rule against Averoth (this is a HYPOTHETICAL). Who is most likely to "respond" to any rating system? Why, obviously, the defendants. It's a voluntary response bias, and it is NOT a good way to take a sample.
That's definitely the weakest part of the system. In my defense, I didn't come up with it, I've just been asked to implement it ;)
It's possible that it would be better to, say, have the rest of the "Titan pool" rate the decisions instead, I'm not sure. However we do it, I, at least, plan to set it up so we can watch the ratings for a while before we actually start using them for anything.
Moreover, judging Titans will encourage Titans to kiss butt. Same thing with US Supreme Court justices: being life-long positions, they don't need to appease anyone. They can be neutral. If Titans have to balance the claims of justice and popularity of the decision, justice will tend to lose out. Moreover, rating Titans implies some reduced anonymity for Titans: another thing I absolutely oppose.
First: I don't agree that rating will encourage sucking up. Especially if the burden of rating is shifted from the reporter/reportee to the other Titans and potential Titans, it will, above all, be a measure of how fair any particular decision was. Furthermore, in no version of the Titan system, past, present, or future, can any single Titan do anything final.
Which leads to...Second: there is no reduced anonymity: the rating is done on the issue itself, and all the Titans who concurred with the final verdict get it applied to them. There is no need even for the other potential Titans to know who actually acted on it unless the people who did it say so themselves.
Timothy Collett
-
It's possible that it would be better to, say, have the rest of the "Titan pool" rate the decisions instead, I'm not sure. However we do it, I, at least, plan to set it up so we can watch the ratings for a while before we actually start using them for anything.
This would be a good plan. Having potential Titans judge current Titans would:
1. Further increase awareness of the Titan system
2. Supply precedent for other Titan cases
3. Prevent "ratings abuse" by defendants
-
Well, I like to vote. I do not mind lending a hand when it comes to vulgar messages in game...
So instead of random people allowed to debate or discuss...
Instead of open floor forum...
Make it into a private vote... a random jury of peers are able to select from options given, they can add a line or two of why they choose this... and submit.
If not enough players submit during the first round, those who did not loose the chance and it is given to others. That prevents the system from waiting on people out of town.
The end result and comments come to the titans, and they are able to take the guilty/innocent verdict and apply the appropriate action.
:)
-
I guess I dislike voting because it changes the Titans from a judicial body to an executive one. I don't like the idea of deferring the actual judicial power down from the Titans; just maybe changing the composition of the Titans.
-
Are there enough players not on any given island to act as an increased pool for Titans as has been suggested above? I think the vulgarity assessment process works pretty nicely.
If there is a call for Titan intervention on, for example EI, and three random players who don't play on EI (but perhaps do meet some other criteria) were selected to contemplate the issue, then pass on their recommendations to the Titans for that island, that might mitigate the likelyhood of abuse, while still exposing more players to the judicial process from the pleasant end.
-
It would be extremely hard for a random sampling of players not familiar with a situation to make a decision on an issue. If you don't play on AT, how could you decide whether or not, say, a secession from Carelia was a strategic secession? All you have to go on is what the complainant gives you. Or should the random players be given access to the realm's messages? How do you deal with the potential loss of privacy to the other characters/players if that were to happen? Unlike Anaris, I don't have so much faith in random players keeping the confidentiality of the information gained, or the ability of other Titans to notice that it is potentially being abused.
I do like the potential for a broader Titan pool, though. It should really help move things along.
-
Unlike Anaris, I don't have so much faith in random players keeping the confidentiality of the information gained, or the ability of other Titans to notice that it is potentially being abused.
I wasn't especially saying that I thought random players would be able to keep confidentiality: only that any deliberate abuse should be pretty easy to recognize and come down on like a ton of bricks.
I, too, think that the better idea is just to expand the Titans.
-
Precedents would be extremely helpful. Even for IR's, it's really nice to know that (for instance) offering incentives (as opposed to threatening disincentives) is allowed. There are other things of that nature that would make life easier.
Expanding the Titan pool, especially by people with medal counts, would be very handy. Another idea would be to let people vote for those they think would be trustworthy with those with high medal counts being weighted...
-
I like where this topic is going 8) I will contemplate an answer and edit this reply soon-ish.
-
This is a very complex subject.
What I think is necessary:
1. Anonymity, for both plaintiffs and the Titans themselves. If a rating system is to be implemented, I suggest granting the Titans special aliases for their Titan roles. The true identities of the Titans should be known only to Tom, but the community could conceivably come to know and recognize certain prominent Titans by their aliases. Or they could remain totally homogeneous, known only collectively, and ratings could be assigned behind the scenes instead.
2. A system of recording precedent. Be this resource known only to the Titans or available to the community at large, precedent is a valuable tool for decision making. If available to the community, it could have the beneficial effect of reducing unintentional infractions. Granted, there is always the chance of rules lawyering, but everyone should have their day in court so to speak. Like real-life judicial systems, the rules (or rather, how they are interpreted) would be organic. They would grow and change with the community. People *should* have the opportunity to disagree with decisions and make their arguments known, and the Titans *should* have the opportunity to reassess precedent and deviate from it, provided they publish the reasoning behind their decisions.
2a. A system of appeals. This could be solely Tom, who would function as a sort of Supreme Court, or the case could go to an entirely different group of Titans. If the two groups disagree, Tom could again be the final arbiter.
3. A diverse pool of Titans. This could be based on the medal system, but I would hesitate to base such an important function on such an arbitrary rating system. Then again, I have trouble thinking of a better way to do it, so perhaps that would acceptable, with a decision-rating system to compensate.
Just thoughts, anyway.
-
I don't like where this discussion is going. Not at all.
The Titans are not a court system. And I will not approve any changes that turn them into one. Court systems work in the real world because of a large number of circumstances that we don't have in this game.
The Titans are not superior to the players. The only one who is superior to anyone in this game is me, simply by the fact that it's my server and ultimately I can do whatever I want with it.
Any changes to the Titan system need to be in the direction of simplicity. These are volunteers doing an unpaid job. They are not willing to jump through any hoops, nor should they have to.
The system suffers from being intransparent. Anyone who thinks that's news hasn't been here for the past years. Almost all complaints against Titans and the system in general are due to judgements coming out of nowhere for the accused, with no prior information or warning, no way to check what the complaint was or how the verdict was reached.
Ignoring point #1, there is a reason why courts are open and public.
A few good points were made that I agree with. Specifically that pseudonymity for the Titans would be a good thing, if only to protect them from bad blood.
I am less certain regarding anonymity for the one making a complaint. But I'm willing to give it a try, keeping it as an option or so.
I'm not willing to entertain this "let's turn it into a proper court" discussion. That is not going to happen, end of story. Forget about "appeals" and such nonsense. Hello, people, do you even realize what you're talking about? This is a game, damnit!
-
Tom, unless my memory is quite faulty, you already approved suggestions to allow appeals to Titan decisions, by a different set of Titans. (I can dig up the dev list emails if you want.)
And while I can understand your antipathy toward courts and your desire not to make the Titans look more like them...what most of the replies have basically been saying is (as far as I read them), "We don't think that the Titan system needs to be replaced with an open discussion on complaints. We just think it needs to be improved."
-
All the replies so far are basically saying "we want a court of law system".
And I'm saying that is not going to happen. It's one of those solutions that sound simple and good - until you actually implement it. And, don't forget that we've heard from about 10 people, but we have 1000 players. I am taking into account the many complaints about the Titan system that were voiced over the years, many of them by different people and repeatedly.
And, quite honestly, I'm trying to bring more of the community spirit back that made this game great, and which has in parts been lost. In part because we've thrown up so much bureaucracy.
I'd even want to bring it down even further, but that's too radical for the moment. The spirit should be: You have a problem with anyone, bring it up, talk about it, a solution will be found.
And we need a lot more of the "talk about it" spirit and a lot less of the "snitch" / "rat someone out" spirit that the current Titan system unfortunately conveys.
Now think about it from that point for a while.
-
This is Tom's game. Tom's rules.
In real life I would hate that but this is a game that I choose to play.
When people fail to adhere to the 'play as you would with friends' guidance then authoritarianism in the game is fine by me.
-
Personally I've never had any problems with the way the system is setup now (like the scientific peer review) especially since you can ask for feedback now. And I can't recall if it's still this way but only allowing Titans for continents they don't have a character on removes the dickish qualities of peer review problems of competing interests.
Then again, I've only rarely had problems playing with others. =)
-
I'd even want to bring it down even further, but that's too radical for the moment. The spirit should be: You have a problem with anyone, bring it up, talk about it, a solution will be found.
And we need a lot more of the "talk about it" spirit and a lot less of the "snitch" / "rat someone out" spirit that the current Titan system unfortunately conveys.
Unfortunately, BM is just too big and diverse for consensus-based enforcement of the rules. There are inherent adversarial qualities to the game (political and military conflict), and relatively few of its players know each other in real life. Not everyone will willingly adhere to the spirit of the game as conceived of by Tom. Some people just want to win, and are perfectly willing to abuse game mechanics and use OOC methods (like multi-accounting) to do so. Others want to role-play elves, pirates, ninjas or stranger things. Some people cannot escape their modern mindsets and conceptions of peasants (especially adventurers) as some sort of noble proletariat. Or shake the conviction that democracy is the best form of government.
Consensus will *never* be had in a community of this size. Every decision made will *always* make some people unhappy. This is inevitable. In SA that has all of 75 full members, that's exactly what happens. No matter what the Elders do, someone finds fault with it. And that's only 75 people! The only realistic way to mitigate this is to build a system that is both transparent and impartial, so that players can at least respect the process. Anything less will retain an arbitrary quality that is at the heart of complaints about the current Titan system, or so I believe. People get upset about the Titans because the process is so opaque. No one knows who might be under investigation and when. No one knows exactly what might get you lightning bolted. The whole process reeks of arbitrariness.
Personally, I feel that the current system is better than the originally proposed changes. I cannot imagine arguments over the rules being hashed out in this forum. One need only look at the 'Averoth OOC conflicts with GM' thread to see what the likely result of such a policy would be:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,394.0.html
Someone has to enforce the rules. If that makes them unpopular, so be it. However, I feel that a non-transparent and arbitrary system that is authoritarian in nature would still be better than hashing these things out via forum discussion. At least under the current method, the punishment comes down hard and fast and is then over. People's feathers may be ruffled for a time, but they will get over it (usually). If these things get debated in an open forum, everyone will get all kinds of worked up. Ugly things will be said, accusations will fly, and bad blood will abound. People will get much more entrenched in their positions, and feel that much more aggrieved when the ruling goes against them.
-
The suggestions that even mentioned a forum mentioned a closed forum being used by those not even affected by the decision in question, unlike your example, which is an open forum.
If it isn't done like this already, I would suggest having a group of 3 or 4 Titans look over serious/confusing cases. Not as a court, mind you, just to look at a particular issue from multiple viewpoints. It is harder to say an arbitrary decision was made when three different people all agreed on it. Now this would only be for major stuff or confusing cases (such as ones affecting a whole realm or characters in multiple realms), not for more routine stuff just affecting one person.
-
The main issue I see with public postings of submitted issues and the lack of anonymity of those who report the issues is that there will then be a witch hunt.
Say Gustav there (sorry Gustav, just your name was above mine :P ) was under a Marshal or General who started to order him when to log in, what types of units to recruit, and what class/subclass he is to be for their war effort. Gustav files a complaint, the Titans realize that it's not kosher with the rules. They smack the General/Marshal.
Now, let's say his name is published. The Judge is good friends with the General/Marshal and decides to persecute him. Oh, he won't say it's because of the complaint, but that will be the root cause. And judges don't *need* reasons to punish, right? But Gustav wouldn't have been targeted if his name wasn't put out there. He gets fined. He gets banned. He gets a bounty placed on his head.
All because he lacked the protections currently given.
While it's all well and good to wish that such things would never happen, there are vindictive people out there and unless they mention their reasons in the game... There's no way for the Titans or staff to know what's truly going on. And if such persecution starts to happen, it's only a matter of time before people are afraid to report such violations of BattleMaster's most sacred tenants.
-
Oh, don't worry about using my name as an example. It just makes me feel cooler.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out that just because I pointed out the open/closed forum difference does not mean I recommend a closed forum. I just don't like it when people use irrelevant examples.
-
Unfortunately, BM is just too big and diverse for consensus-based enforcement of the rules. There are inherent adversarial qualities to the game (political and military conflict), and relatively few of its players know each other in real life. Not everyone will willingly adhere to the spirit of the game as conceived of by Tom. Some people just want to win, and are perfectly willing to abuse game mechanics and use OOC methods (like multi-accounting) to do so. Others want to role-play elves, pirates, ninjas or stranger things. Some people cannot escape their modern mindsets and conceptions of peasants (especially adventurers) as some sort of noble proletariat. Or shake the conviction that democracy is the best form of government.
Consensus will *never* be had in a community of this size. Every decision made will *always* make some people unhappy. This is inevitable.
I agree to that completely. And still I think and open discussion will give us more force. Right now, many of the people who want to play ninjas will get a reprimand, and largely shrug it off. Because it comes from nowhere, has no context, it's just a message.
Remember that I said "consensus", I never said "equal votes". If someone goes about insulting another players' (not characters'!) mum for three pages, the consensus would clearly be that that's not ok, even if the accused recruits 20 of his friends to chime in "nah, just fine". My hope is that this consensus, with many different voices, would have more force than a single out-of-nowhere Titan reprimand.
-
Remember that I said "consensus", I never said "equal votes". If someone goes about insulting another players' (not characters'!) mum for three pages, the consensus would clearly be that that's not ok, even if the accused recruits 20 of his friends to chime in "nah, just fine". My hope is that this consensus, with many different voices, would have more force than a single out-of-nowhere Titan reprimand.
You have a point, but I am concerned about what will happen with cases that are not so cut and dry where opinion is split and emotions are high. Especially in cases where there is an accusation of abuse of some kind - strategic capital moves or violations of the IR. Furthermore, the person on the receiving end of the above process may well try to defend themselves only to get shouted down. They're going to end up feeling persecuted. It could indeed turn into a witch hunt of sorts, as someone else said. Furthermore, you run the risk of discovering that the community would prefer a different sort of game. You might find, for example, that more people support the idea of allowing someone to role-play a ninja than not, or that majority opinion interprets the IR differently than you do. If something like that happened the resulting decision would just make more people angry and lead the accused player to feel vindicated in spite of Titan punishment.
I just think there's a real Pandora's box possibility here. I think the current system would be better than dragging these things out into a public forum. Do I think the current system is more than a little arbitrary? Yes. Would I ever complain about it though? No. Do you know why? Because I have a hard time seeing myself on the wrong end of a Titan decision, and if it ever did happen it would be my mistake and that's that. Live, learn and get over it. I have to wonder whether the people who complain about the current system are really attacking it because they don't agree with The Rules and/or cannot play by them. Since the Titans are the vehicle through which enforcement of The Rules get handed down, attacking them is tantamount to saying "I don't agree with The Rules (or at least with how they are applied)". The proposed system takes this basic position and gives it a public forum.
I can understand the urge to try to bring these people into the open and watch the weight of the community crash down on them, but it could easily go the other way.
-
You have a point, but I am concerned about what will happen with cases that are not so cut and dry where opinion is split and emotions are high. Especially in cases where there is an accusation of abuse of some kind - strategic capital moves or violations of the IR. Furthermore, the person on the receiving end of the above process may well try to defend themselves only to get shouted down. They're going to end up feeling persecuted. It could indeed turn into a witch hunt of sorts, as someone else said.
I just think there's a real Pandora's box possibility here. I think the current system would be better than dragging these things out into a public forum.
I completely agree. If there are abuses, I think that only those involved with it need to be aware of it.
-
I would vote (if voting is allowed) to Anaris' proposal, which balances some current problems that might happen among Titans while not changing basic structure.
Silent complaints were always understood by me as a means to not disturb game atmosphere wile some eventual process takes place.
We already, in my opinion, have problems that too much OOC discussions "sucks life" out of game, where large majority of potential disputes can be brought in-game, but many players, when they become upset in-character, run to ooc domain.
of course, some issues related to titans cannot be solved in game, but public discussion would possibly turn it into typical chat forum flame, and almost everything interesting would be pulled out of game. not to mention the fact that final outcome of such discussion would directly influence many in-game destinies.
in-game political wars could easily become ooc forum wars. we already have tendency that many players who feel urge to enter in-game discussions do not make effort to learn to express in-game, but talk mostly ooc for many months, whole assemblies of players who get used to conduct say 80% of discussions ooc in all occassions where somthing funny could be developed. that degrades game, clearly.
i am saying all that not to blame any single player, but out of my belief it could have been improved much with adequate policy.
instead of encouraging such discussions, transparency could be improved if cases would be announced afterwards in special forum place.
to not anger tom, these would NOT resemble court cases. court cases means public which is allowed to attend discussions, so announcing cases after decision would be more dissimilar from courts than public discussions would.
purpose of such announcements would be to enable better understanding of how rules are to be applied to everyone interested, and even clear signs of Titan mistakes would not hurt such system, but would enable everyone to be better in future
-
You have a point, but I am concerned about what will happen with cases that are not so cut and dry where opinion is split and emotions are high. Especially in cases where there is an accusation of abuse of some kind
These are where we have the greatest chances to make something better. Right now, there is a ruling and then - the discussions continue unchanged. Usually, those who got smacked will come up with a bull!@#$ explanation, from "the Titans are out to get us" to "make it less obvious next time". Anything but a simple "ok, we did wrong".
In cases with split opinions, one of two things can happen.
One, a consensus emerges. I have hopes that this could happen quite often.
Two, the "owner of the game" takes the final word, and explains why. Discussion can continue to clear up remaining confusions. Most importantly, discussions continued will show if everyone agrees, and if not what follow-up actions are required to get everyone on the same track again.
-
Well, I do hear you and there are some good points in there.
How about we simply test it? It would require only two relatively simple changes:
- post Titans complaints to the accused as an informative message, anonymous of course
- add a "take this complaing public" button available to the complainer and the accused, so either can decide if he wants to try his case in a public forum
In case of 2, a message would be posted into the forum, anonymously, containing the complaint. A note would be added for the Titans so they can easily check the discussion. The judgement would still be made in the current Titan system, but the public discussion may show us whose fears and hopes are right or wrong.
-
OK Tom. You have convinced me to an extent that this is not a terrible idea, if only because then the reasoning behind every decision would be publicly known. I agree with you on the benefits of this, but I feel it could be achieved by simply announcing decisions on the forums after they're made and permitting comment after the fact.
There are a few particulars that I think should still be carefully considered. I can't say I like the idea of the accuser's identity being made public, or for that matter the defendant's. When possible, the description of events should be generalized. Of course in some cases it will be obvious, and if either party wants to go public in the ensuing discussion, I can't say I care, but then that's their choice. I also assume that cases will be screened beforehand by the Titans to prevent merit-less cases from making it onto the forums.
I still think this has the potential to blow up in everyone's face, but who knows. Maybe six months from now we'll all be wondering why we didn't do it this way sooner.
EDIT:
Posted this before I saw Tom's second post. I very much like those ideas.
-
The main issue I see with public postings of submitted issues and the lack of anonymity of those who report the issues is that there will then be a witch hunt.
Say Gustav there (sorry Gustav, just your name was above mine :P ) was under a Marshal or General who started to order him when to log in, what types of units to recruit, and what class/subclass he is to be for their war effort. Gustav files a complaint, the Titans realize that it's not kosher with the rules. They smack the General/Marshal.
Now, let's say his name is published. The Judge is good friends with the General/Marshal and decides to persecute him. Oh, he won't say it's because of the complaint, but that will be the root cause. And judges don't *need* reasons to punish, right? But Gustav wouldn't have been targeted if his name wasn't put out there. He gets fined. He gets banned. He gets a bounty placed on his head.
All because he lacked the protections currently given.
While it's all well and good to wish that such things would never happen, there are vindictive people out there and unless they mention their reasons in the game... There's no way for the Titans or staff to know what's truly going on. And if such persecution starts to happen, it's only a matter of time before people are afraid to report such violations of BattleMaster's most sacred tenants.
This is what will happen. Heck, I consider myself a good RPer and yet, if I were the judge, I'm not 100% sure I could separate my own motivations. Whereas, if I just was ignorant, I'd be fine.
Well, I do hear you and there are some good points in there.
How about we simply test it? It would require only two relatively simple changes:
- post Titans complaints to the accused as an informative message, anonymous of course
- add a "take this complaing public" button available to the complainer and the accused, so either can decide if he wants to try his case in a public forum
In case of 2, a message would be posted into the forum, anonymously, containing the complaint. A note would be added for the Titans so they can easily check the discussion. The judgement would still be made in the current Titan system, but the public discussion may show us whose fears and hopes are right or wrong.
Please, please, please no. Writing styles are easily recognizable. I already have to disguise my writing style when trying to forge letters, don't make me do it for Titan complaints too. Why would I hold that anonymity so near and dear? See Draco's comment. Because I just don't think most human beings are systematically and reliably capable of separating motivations in those situations. If you know that someone has engaged in an OOC action against a player (perhaps one you were friends with) and, say, you disagree with the Titans' ruling, then it is very difficult to separate your mental states.
Regarding the second point: even worse. Lets say I file a complaint against someone. I don't want them to have a chance to throw me to the court of public opinion. Because, frankly, when I file a complaint, I don't file it only when I KNOW something is wrong. I file it when I have probable cause. But in the court of public opinion, my referral of their behavior to the Titans will be interpreted as an attack on the defendant.
To restate, when I complain to the Titans, it is usually in the mood of, "Is this wrong?" It will be interpreted by the mob (and lets face it, we BM players are a mob) as me saying "This is wrong!" It will be interpreted as an attack.
I just cannot see how reducing the independence and neutrality of the system can possibly help. Expanding the Titan pool and posting precedent would be effective and valuable tools, and confront the root issue of misunderstandings about the nature of the Titans and of The Rules. Increased consensus building and reduction of independence and neutrality seems more likely to confuse the function of the Titans and further obfuscate The Rules as they become increasingly a subject of public opinion.
-
Please, please, please no. Writing styles are easily recognizable. I already have to disguise my writing style when trying to forge letters, don't make me do it for Titan complaints too. Why would I hold that anonymity so near and dear? See Draco's comment. Because I just don't think most human beings are systematically and reliably capable of separating motivations in those situations. If you know that someone has engaged in an OOC action against a player (perhaps one you were friends with) and, say, you disagree with the Titans' ruling, then it is very difficult to separate your mental states.
Ditto. And even with good English skills, it's very easy to notice first-language patterns in those who speak it as a second language. And I believe the proposed system has the potential to turn into Titan/witch-hunting
-
Ditto. And even with good English skills, it's very easy to notice first-language patterns in those who speak it as a second language. And I believe the proposed system has the potential to turn into Titan/witch-hunting
Oh come on, people don't pay that much attention to writing. Simply leave out some of the characteristic rhetorical questions (or whatever you may do a lot) and the signatory on the end of a message and walla: you could be anyone.
I don't mean it's that easy but seriously, only a few people who play very closely with you will probably be reading your messages thoroughly and even those people will never be sure. Diverting attention is a great way to change the human thinking process. For example if you already assume it's not a person you know, you may point out a similarity in their writing to someone you do know, but in the end you will "find" things that are different: even if they were written by the same guy/gal.
Perhaps we should disguise names instead of conceal them?
-
I pretty much agree with the sentiment that bringing things to a public forum for public contribution is a bad idea.
Remember that I said "consensus", I never said "equal votes". If someone goes about insulting another players' (not characters'!) mum for three pages, the consensus would clearly be that that's not ok, even if the accused recruits 20 of his friends to chime in "nah, just fine". My hope is that this consensus, with many different voices, would have more force than a single out-of-nowhere Titan reprimand.
Then why the need for public discussion of things? If the need is to merely make people understand why what they are doing is wrong, I don't see why the Titans cannot provide such information in their Titan decision... the addition of precedent cases being added to the Wiki (and cited in decisions) I think would be great help.
-
Or, throw your message through google translate to some language, have it converted back again and post. I've not tested that but with the inherent mistakes automatic translators make you should end up with something different to what you started with :) Might just need to check that it is still on topic though.
-
Oh come on, people don't pay that much attention to writing.
Yes, they do. I've had a number of characters either forge or deal with potentially forged letters, and I do note when someone's writing style changes. It's also one of the tell-tale signs for multis if they all have the same writing style, so I keep an eye out for that as well (though the better multis disguise that).
-
Yes, they do. I've had a number of characters either forge or deal with potentially forged letters, and I do note when someone's writing style changes. It's also one of the tell-tale signs for multis if they all have the same writing style, so I keep an eye out for that as well (though the better multis disguise that).
I agree fully. It's even more so obvious for non-native English speakers. They consistently write the same way and always make the same small mistakes, etc. It's pretty easy to identify them.
-
As long as the complaints are reworded to summarize the situation, I see no problem with Tom's suggested *experiment*. I agree that the accuser's identity should be protected, and I believe that as much as possible, scenarios should be generalized.
-
Then why the need for public discussion of things? If the need is to merely make people understand why what they are doing is wrong, I don't see why the Titans cannot provide such information in their Titan decision... the addition of precedent cases being added to the Wiki (and cited in decisions) I think would be great help.
In the vast majority of Titan cases where the decision was reversed later, it was because someone did contribute new information or a new POV that the Titans did not have at the time they made their call.
-
I think you all have done us a great service in showing on of the worst flaws of the current system.
In a community, in a game with friends, nobody would be afraid to step up and say "I'm not sure that's kosher".
And I refuse to bow down to that false spirits of fear and mistrust. I want to change it back to a spirit of playing a game together. That's what this is all about. Part the entire thing is that it should be ok to bring a case that turns out to require no action. There is "no merit" as in "your complaint was bull!@#$ from the go" and then there's "it turned out that everything is fine, but thanks for pointing out what could have been a problem".
Many board games contain a rule that certain things may be checked if there is doubt. So if my friend asks me from across the table "don't you already have six cards?", there are two outcomes: a) I don't, I show him that I don't, he says "ok, all good" and it is - or b) it turns out I do, I'll say "oops, my bad" and again everything is fine.
Can you even imagine your friend pressing a secret button at which point a hooded, invisible figure will count your cards without you knowing it, and if you made a mistake, will pop up and smack you down? Of course you can't, that's not an atmosphere you'd want to play in.
The current system creates fear and uncertainty. Two great demotivators. We can remove or reduce both of them, by being more open. If Titan decisions were public - including the ones that didn't justify any action - then all the fearmongering going on in the game would go away. People could be corrected with links to the evidence if they made the kind of bull!@#$ claims we hear so often.
I do agree that we do not at this time have the right spirit, and that there would be some witchhunting and general badness. But we have to start somewhere if we want to set the spirit right. So, unless you have a better starting point...
-
These are where we have the greatest chances to make something better. Right now, there is a ruling and then - the discussions continue unchanged. Usually, those who got smacked will come up with a bull!@#$ explanation, from "the Titans are out to get us" to "make it less obvious next time". Anything but a simple "ok, we did wrong".
This has convinced me that it's worth it to at least give your idea a try, Tom, because you're absolutely right.
How about we simply test it? It would require only two relatively simple changes:
- post Titans complaints to the accused as an informative message, anonymous of course
- add a "take this complaing public" button available to the complainer and the accused, so either can decide if he wants to try his case in a public forum
In case of 2, a message would be posted into the forum, anonymously, containing the complaint. A note would be added for the Titans so they can easily check the discussion. The judgement would still be made in the current Titan system, but the public discussion may show us whose fears and hopes are right or wrong.
This shouldn't be that difficult to code up. I'll add it to my Titan Overhaul list.
I do think we should do something about the problems of recognizing people by writing styles, however.
-
I do think we should do something about the problems of recognizing people by writing styles, however.
Why not have a Titan simply write a summary of each complaint instead of posting the complaint verbatim? That way you can also whitewash names and places. I grant that you that oftentimes someone is going to drop names in the course of the discussion, but there's no reason not to at least try and keep it generalized so that the case is considered on its merits as much as possible without the politics that come attached to specific realms and characters.
-
I think you all have done us a great service in showing on of the worst flaws of the current system.
In a community, in a game with friends, nobody would be afraid to step up and say "I'm not sure that's kosher".
And I refuse to bow down to that false spirits of fear and mistrust. I want to change it back to a spirit of playing a game together. That's what this is all about. Part the entire thing is that it should be ok to bring a case that turns out to require no action. There is "no merit" as in "your complaint was bull!@#$ from the go" and then there's "it turned out that everything is fine, but thanks for pointing out what could have been a problem".
Many board games contain a rule that certain things may be checked if there is doubt. So if my friend asks me from across the table "don't you already have six cards?", there are two outcomes: a) I don't, I show him that I don't, he says "ok, all good" and it is - or b) it turns out I do, I'll say "oops, my bad" and again everything is fine.
Can you even imagine your friend pressing a secret button at which point a hooded, invisible figure will count your cards without you knowing it, and if you made a mistake, will pop up and smack you down? Of course you can't, that's not an atmosphere you'd want to play in.
The current system creates fear and uncertainty. Two great demotivators. We can remove or reduce both of them, by being more open. If Titan decisions were public - including the ones that didn't justify any action - then all the fearmongering going on in the game would go away. People could be corrected with links to the evidence if they made the kind of bull!@#$ claims we hear so often.
I do agree that we do not at this time have the right spirit, and that there would be some witchhunting and general badness. But we have to start somewhere if we want to set the spirit right. So, unless you have a better starting point...
Tom, there is one, and really just one, huge and fundamental problem with what you're saying.
We aren't all friends.
And, when we are, that just might be a problem (see: Averoth).
This is especially obvious in the case of multi-cheating. Almost every Titan report I have ever filed has been about multi-cheaters. I have been wrong several times. I have also been right several times. However, when I report a multi, I'm not asking a friend how many cards are in his hand. I'm asking him IF HE EXISTS. That is, I'm not asking for confirmation on a minor point (do people report "minor" issues to the Titans?).
I simply cannot imagine reporting potential multis to a system that will supply those potential multis with the identity of their accuser. Multi-cheaters have already demonstrated an unwillingness to play by the roles and, provided a target, there is ample reason to believe they will make more multis to "get back" at their accuser.
On a sidenote, regarding language recognition: all the people offering "work-arounds," are you SERIOUS? Do you people live in corrupt countries where you have to hide your accent and slip judges large denomination bills to get a fair decision, and that's why those suggestions sound reasonable to you? To contact the moderators I should have to run my complaint through a translation machine TWICE, in order to produce errors, and therefore probably weakening my argument? That is completely preposterous. Institutionalized deception is not beneficial.
-
Compromise, maybe? have reports available to the public, but erase any identifying data? That's what some institutions do with released "sensitive" information.
-
On a sidenote, regarding language recognition: all the people offering "work-arounds," are you SERIOUS?
You point out that multi's would probably get back at people for accusations, and then ask that? Really? You can't see the connection between those two ideas?
-
Though actually, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I do not see the point of including accusations of multi-cheating in this new system. Only Tom and/or maybe the devs have the proper tools to investigate whether or not someone is multi-cheating, and there is no need to discuss those particular infractions. Someone either *is* or *is not* multi-cheating - it is the clearest, most cut and dry case of abuse there is. There's no questions of interpretation. Those accusations might as well remain under the current system. I assume the new system would be more for things like strategic capital moves or violations of the IR where there can be a question as to whether or not a particular action constitutes a violation of the rule.
-
You point out that multi's would probably get back at people for accusations, and then ask that? Really? You can't see the connection between those two ideas?
Errr... perhaps you could explain?
I think making the names of their accusers available to multi-cheaters is a bad idea. I also think requiring work-arounds like translation machines is foolish, when you could just protect anonymity in the first place, by not revealing the accuser. What is the connection (and I assume contradiction) you are pointing out?
-
Though actually, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I do not see the point of including accusations of multi-cheating in this new system. Only Tom and/or maybe the devs have the proper tools to investigate whether or not someone is multi-cheating, and there is no need to discuss those particular infractions. Someone either *is* or *is not* multi-cheating - it is the clearest, most cut and dry case of abuse there is. There's no questions of interpretation. Those accusations might as well remain under the current system. I assume the new system would be more for things like strategic capital moves or violations of the IR where there can be a question as to whether or not a particular action constitutes a violation of the rule.
Perhaps I am in the minority on this, but I don't see the difference. Someone did or did not do a strategic capital move. Now, maybe the distinction is slightly more difficult, but it's still a simple question of whether they did it or not, and discussion may still be necessary (family members sharing a computer might display similar verbal styles, log times, playing locations, and IPs) for either.
-
The current system creates fear and uncertainty. Two great demotivators. We can remove or reduce both of them, by being more open. If Titan decisions were public - including the ones that didn't justify any action - then all the fearmongering going on in the game would go away. People could be corrected with links to the evidence if they made the kind of bull!@#$ claims we hear so often.
I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.
I agree with Vellos that reports should still be anonymous. The names of the accusers should be removed before being posted.
-
Errr... perhaps you could explain?
I think making the names of their accusers available to multi-cheaters is a bad idea. I also think requiring work-arounds like translation machines is foolish, when you could just protect anonymity in the first place, by not revealing the accuser. What is the connection (and I assume contradiction) you are pointing out?
Not revealing the name but leaving a distinctive writing style doesn't protect anonymity. Translation machines would indeed be silly, but posting the full complaint would be a problem (especially since often the information someone would have would be limited to a small number of people, i.e. I could file a complaint with information that only Jenred or maybe three, four other people on the Far East would have access to all of). It'd be simple enough to post a simple version of the complaint that has:
1. The person/people involved.
2. The rule that may have been violated in specific (this capital was moved, that order was given, etc).
Person who makes the complaint could write up this basic summary when reporting easily enough.
-
I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.
Are you sure of this? Isn't there the concrete risk people will just end up saying "yes but in the decision of 24/03/2011 the move of morek's capital was not sanctioned, so that's why I am doing it, as the conditions are the same!" and so on..
I still believe that if someone that plays bm with a spirit such as the one Tom looks forward to find ends up suffering a "questionable" titans decision he will just shrug and move on. Perhaps he would feel bad, but if he likes bm and is playing between friends, sometimes things are just not as you figured they would be. Like planning a nice strategy in a boardgame only to discover rules are blurry about it and the majority thinks it should be not allowed. Disappointing? yes. Destroying your game experience? only if you're a moron.
Yes it would be nicer to have an explanation from the titans, yes it would be nicer to be allowed to explain why, in your opinion, what you did was right and so on. But do we really think that those openly blaming titans would be those contributing to these potential discussion in a civil and respectful manner? To rephrase, isn't this open discussion matter going to truly improve the decisions only on a handful of issues, whereas in the majority the debate on the forum will completely be pointless, with the accused irremovable from his opinions and at the end the decision made by someone higher in hierarchy (tom or whoever)?
I have no idea how many wrong titans decisions there have been during bm history, but I truly have the feeling that whoever is complaining about the inadequacy of the titans system and believes his own game experience to be seriously damaged by unjust titans decisions to be playing without the spirit Tom wants. And it's likely that these people are hardly going to be convinced by the community through a discussion so that at the end they could say "ok then I am wrong". Clearly I am generalizing here, but a turnover of a system like the one proposed here must take in consideration the sheer number of issues that will be modified relevantly.
To summarize, is it a good idea to potentially create a ton of flames, arguments and discussions just to provide the accused with the feeling it was not out of the blue but there are shared reasons behind the decision? Ethically speaking, the answer would be yes, but I really can't possibly see someone accepting the arguments of the community in a civil fashion to be so much disappointed if he had received the titans decision out of the blue. And, actually, perhaps it's less frustrating to live with a single out of the blue titans decision than with the potential blame of an entire army of community members.
-
Are you sure of this? Isn't there the concrete risk people will just end up saying "yes but in the decision of 24/03/2011 the move of morek's capital was not sanctioned, so that's why I am doing it, as the conditions are the same!" and so on..
That is true. It does invite a bit of rules lawyering.
But it also provides:
1) An opportunity for people to look and see "If I do this, I'll get in trouble" and "OK, I can do it this way and be OK".
2) It will provide some idea on about how many titan actions there really are.
3) It will remove some of the generalized fear of "OMGZ! The Titans are bolt-happy!"
-
Perhaps I am in the minority on this, but I don't see the difference. Someone did or did not do a strategic capital move. Now, maybe the distinction is slightly more difficult, but it's still a simple question of whether they did it or not, and discussion may still be necessary (family members sharing a computer might display similar verbal styles, log times, playing locations, and IPs) for either.
The difference is that there is absolutely no gray area on multi-cheating. If you personally control more than one account, you are in violation of The Rule. End of story. There is absolutely no way that you can control more than one account and not be cheating. HOWEVER, if you move a capital during wartime, you are not automatically guilty of breaking the rule about strategic capital moves. CONTEXT matters in that case, i.e. was it moved closer of further away from the front lines? If the realm is fighting on more than one front and the move brings it closer to one enemy but further from another, is it still a violation? What about if it is being moved for historical reasons, i.e. it was the original capital of the realm, recently reclaimed from Evilstan? Or if the move places it in a more central location in the realm that helps with administration? These points may be legitimately debatable, and the answers could change depending on the context. The players who decided to move the capital may believe that they are not violating the rules, even if it is eventually decided that they are. These types of cases are worthy of bringing into a forum and discussing, and publishing the results will benefit the community.
With multi-cheating however, there is NO context that can justify it. The only question to be resolved is whether or not a player does, in fact, control more than one account. And since only Tom or maybe the devs can really determine that with any kind of confidence, I do not see why cases of multi-cheating need to be discussed publicly. The accusation alone will tarnish reputations and lead to bad blood, even if the defendants are absolved. I firmly believe that such complaints should continue to be handled under the current system.
-
Though actually, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I do not see the point of including accusations of multi-cheating in this new system. Only Tom and/or maybe the devs have the proper tools to investigate whether or not someone is multi-cheating, and there is no need to discuss those particular infractions. Someone either *is* or *is not* multi-cheating - it is the clearest, most cut and dry case of abuse there is. There's no questions of interpretation.
Excellent point. Yes, multi-cheating is a mechanical abuse that only needs one thing to be resolved: Gathering the facts.
-
I have no idea how many wrong titans decisions there have been during bm history,
And that, right there, is the problem.
Without that information being available, we can never correct the people who claim whatever nonsense they want to claim in order to make other people afraid of the Titans.
Guys, you obviously aren't, and you trust the system. But do you really know how the 980 players who've not contributed to this discussion feel?
-
Well, there is no Battlemaster rulebook, and as far as I recall, Tom is against writing one. The problem is that, without rules, it's hard to know if something is within or against the rules. I understand why Tom refuses to have rules, and the annoyance of "rules lawyers". And this discussion has already taken place...
-
There are rules, they just are a very high level in most cases instead of being massively specific which does allow for ruler lawyers. However you will ALWAYS suffer from "Rules Layers" it matters not if the rules are written down are implied or are simply developed by the collective from previous rulings and punishments. The only way to avoid rules lawyers would probably be to have a completely free form game with no restrictions, which of course invites its own problems.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies
-
And that, right there, is the problem.
Without that information being available, we can never correct the people who claim whatever nonsense they want to claim in order to make other people afraid of the Titans.
So publicly post Titan decisions on the forum in a page titled "Titan Decisions" or "Titan Precedent."
This is not complicated. People are confused? Free up information. The system doesn't need to be fundamentally rewritten if comparatively simple fixes (like posting precedents in a centralized place and expanding the Titan pool) address the issue.
-
Not revealing the name but leaving a distinctive writing style doesn't protect anonymity. Translation machines would indeed be silly, but posting the full complaint would be a problem (especially since often the information someone would have would be limited to a small number of people, i.e. I could file a complaint with information that only Jenred or maybe three, four other people on the Far East would have access to all of). It'd be simple enough to post a simple version of the complaint that has:
1. The person/people involved.
2. The rule that may have been violated in specific (this capital was moved, that order was given, etc).
Person who makes the complaint could write up this basic summary when reporting easily enough.
This is exactly what I would suggest doing.
What I was arguing against was the idea that writing styles are something the complainant should be reasonably expected to "cover up." I shouldn't be expected to do that.
A summary produced by the Titans would be entirely reasonable.
-
I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.
I agree with Vellos that reports should still be anonymous. The names of the accusers should be removed before being posted.
This seems too much to me. Again, I don't think Titan decisions should be a subject of open deliberation and discussion. They're just there. Get the final decisions together, archive'em, and have'em available for reference later. No need for prolonged discussion.
And about posting the initial complaint and protecting anonymity... see Bedwyr and I's side-discussion. You cannot post the complaint and protect anonymity in a community as small as BM.
-
A summary produced by the Titans would be entirely reasonable.
No, it is not. It is putting more burden on volunteers who are under no obgliation to shoulder it.
-
And about posting the initial complaint and protecting anonymity... see Bedwyr and I's side-discussion. You cannot post the complaint and protect anonymity in a community as small as BM.
Erm, has everyone missed me posting that anonymity isn't the goal, but getting rid of the atmosphere that requires it is?
-
That might not be possible. Already there are players who hate other players for various reasons. It could very well be possible that the majority of players have no likes or dislikes toward other people, but how many of them actually care anyway?
As Vellos has said, the fact is, not all of us are friends. And honestly, we probably never will be. My random and capricious attitude online annoys a lot of people, there are some people I don't like because, well, there are a lot of reasons why we like and dislike other people.
There is a huge obstacle in making these complaints public in that, unlike a community where we each see each others' faces and can see the reactions and feelings, it is much harder to see how our words and actions affect others online. It is also harder to care, and I am perhaps one of the worst at this, being very indifferent pretty much all the time. Seeing a complaint against me, I don't know what my gut reaction would be at seeing the name. It could be "Oh, I saw that coming" if it's someone I know has beef with me. Or it could be "Wow, so that was his/her opinion of me all along?" if it was someone I liked. It's an unpredictable course, really. It can just as easily reinforce enmities and break "friendships" as mollify hostilities and create understanding. But it is very questionable which way the trend would go.
-
Now compare this with the status quo where you are hit with a Titan punishment out of the blue.
Among the most common reactions we've seen is trying to find the "snitch".
-
Maybe an initial test of this "public Titan system" could be made on a continent without prior warning to set a baseline. Right now there is no actual data on how the players would react to such changes, I think, unless there was something else in place before the Titans.
Testing it for efficacy in this way might be a bit risky though. If it works, then great. If not, then some public relations stuff with the players might be required, before making a lot of modifications, or dropping it.
-
Now compare this with the status quo where you are hit with a Titan punishment out of the blue.
Among the most common reactions we've seen is trying to find the "snitch".
And you think TELLING people who the snitch is will solve that problem?
No, it will just get the snitch ostracized. Maybe not explicitly, since that would get another Titan report... but it'll happen.
As I've said, that's what I would do: that person probably would not get a position for a looooong time under my watch? Why? I wouldn't intentionally oppose them based on their Titan reports, but i don't trust myself to perfectly separate IC and OOC. It's like if the enemy general contacts you OOC and tells you all their plans for the next 3 turns, and you are a general too: sure, you won't IC act on it... but how can you separate it? I don't think most people are capable of doing that. I know I'm not.
-
And you think TELLING people who the snitch is will solve that problem?
Telling them that he's not a snitch will.
Being open with people can do wonderful things. One of them is change their perception.
their Titan reports, but i don't trust myself to perfectly separate IC and OOC. It's like if the enemy general contacts you OOC and tells you all their plans for the next 3 turns, and you are a general too: sure, you won't IC act on it... but how can you separate it? I don't think most people are capable of doing that. I know I'm not.
But currently, people are singled out for being suspected of having filed a report. Plus if we can get it into players' heads that this really isn't a big deal, that should help. Except in the case of multis, but then again in that case they're gone when we're done with them.
-
But currently, people are singled out for being suspected of having filed a report.
I'm going to assume you've personally witnessed someone discriminated against because they are suspected of having filed a report, and can demonstrate that discrimination was more severe than they would have faced had they been identified for certain.
If you can't support such a claim... frankly, that's a silly argument. People are already discriminated against, so let's make it worse?
Plus if we can get it into players' heads that this really isn't a big deal, that should help. Except in the case of multis, but then again in that case they're gone when we're done with them.
Minor issue, but you're often not done with them. Every time I've ever reported multis, they've ended up getting removed in "waves," as I guess the Titans are usually conservative: rather let a few multis remain and "wait and see" than accidentally remove real players. But that's a minor point.
However, a larger point: you want reporting to the Titans to not be a big deal?
Never gonna happen. One, they're called Titans. That's a big deal. Two, few people go to the effort of bringing small issues to the Titans. Small issues are resolved at a lower levels. Titans are a last resort for most of us: it can't be resolved any other way, so you contact the Titans.
If you're seriously suggesting we should stop community conflict resolution and bring any issue to the Titans... that seems like a big workload for them.
-
I think the whole point is to let a little light into the system, so to speak, in order to put to rest some of the more noxious and paranoid accusations about Titan 'interference' and partiality. Get rid of the absolute secrecy of the current system and make its workings more transparent to demonstrate to the community that the Titans are not malicious or capricious. Along the way, we all benefit from the publication of Titan decisions *with* their reasoning. This is something that I think will prove to be a huge benefit of the proposed changes.
I have come to think this really is a good idea - we just need to hammer out some of the details like what level of anonymity to retain within the system.
Tom has objected to the idea of making the Titans responsible for drafting summaries of each complaint, but I do think it's a really bad idea to publish them verbatim with the accuser's name attached, not to mention all the specifics of who/what/where/when. This is the kind of thing that will lead to massive flaming on the forums. Since it is entirely possible to decide upon the merits of a case without knowing names and places (other than by generic pseudonym, like Kepler of Keplerstan), I think it is hugely important to try to focus the debate on the meaning of a rule and whether, *in general*, a reported action violates it. If you include specifics like realm and character, you run an enormous risk of derailing the debate into a flame war between players.
The idea of expanding the pool of Titans has been mentioned. If Titan workload is a concern, would adding Titans compensate for adding in the extra duty of drafting a summary of each complaint headed to the forum? I do not think we can implement this system without in some way summarizing complaints.
-
Would it help the process if one or more persons took on the task of summarizing the issues brought to the Titans, posted these summaries, and published the results perhaps with the the rational for the decision without including any identifiers? This could minimize the issue of potential retaliation by concealing the writing style of individuals. It would also make things more transparent to the individual players who would be able to read the decisions and rational. I have done a lot of writing and editing at my job and have a bit of time on my hands as I near retirement I would be willing to take a stab at the task if it is thought to be a good idea.
Roland
-
As would I. Such volunteers wouldn't even have to be Titans themselves, though they would have to have access to the original complaint obviously.
-
I'm not sure if anyone has asked thus far... but Tom - what is the current volume of Titan complaints? Are we talking one a week or several a day? Median time to resolution? I'm not sure that everyone understands the workload here and that's why suggestions that would increase the bureaucracy and workload of the volunteers continues to surface.
Regardless, this is a very interesting discussion and vital to the game's future. I didn't see this topic until today, so perhaps this is newsworthy and should be posted to the login page so that all players have a chance to contribute?
-
Tom has objected to the idea of making the Titans responsible for drafting summaries of each complaint, but I do think it's a really bad idea to publish them verbatim with the accuser's name attached, not to mention all the specifics of who/what/where/when. This is the kind of thing that will lead to massive flaming on the forums. Since it is entirely possible to decide upon the merits of a case without knowing names and places (other than by generic pseudonym, like Kepler of Keplerstan), I think it is hugely important to try to focus the debate on the meaning of a rule and whether, *in general*, a reported action violates it. If you include specifics like realm and character, you run an enormous risk of derailing the debate into a flame war between players.
Erm, we are dealing out punishments, like removal from office or locking people out of the game for a day or three.
How do you intend to keep that secret anyways? If the Titans publish a decision with a "removal from office" result, even perfectly anonymized (which is very, very hard to do), how long would it take until players connect the dots and all the names are out there?
The identity of the accuser is the only thing you have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping secret. And even that won't be easy.
-
I'm not sure if anyone has asked thus far... but Tom - what is the current volume of Titan complaints? Are we talking one a week or several a day?
I've not done any statistics, but my purely personal, subjective, gut-feeling number is about 2 a week. Sometimes more, sometimes less. More than two at the same day is a very rare occurance, and then it's mostly several people complaining about the same event.
-
And how many times is the complaint worthy of something more than "That wasn't nice; please don't do it again"?
-
I, personally, am in favor opening things up as Tom suggests. I am also not really concerned with ensuring any kind of anonymity. I know that a lot of people are concerned with the potential for backlash for reporting. However, I do not totally agree.
To start with, knowing that my report will public and identifiable will make me more cautious when initiating complaints. I will want to be certain that my complaint really is justifiable and be sure to word my complaint in a manner that is respectful and less likely to incur the wrath of others.
Also, I believe that players attempting to punish those who report issues will, in the end, be the ones who suffer. Lets say I report a concern, it is decided that someone did in fact do something bad and the individual reprimanded then chooses to take it out on my characters. Even worse, lets say that this becomes a pattern for a particular player. In the long run I could see other players refusing to work with or trust the offending player. I could even see this person being removed from play.
In the end I think that concerns being brought up in a polite, open manner will often lead to "My Bad!" or, "Oh, that's why you did what you did, I withdraw my complaint!"
-
To start with, knowing that my report will public and identifiable will make me more cautious when initiating complaints. I will want to be certain that my complaint really is justifiable and be sure to word my complaint in a manner that is respectful and less likely to incur the wrath of others.
That is not a benefit.
-
I agree with Vellos. People should be willing to report stuff that they are not sure is a violation. It might be a violation. So when things that are not a violation are reported, the Titans will let people know that it's not, and the reporters will learn. And, it might really be a violation after all.
-
Shortly after submitting this I had a feeling that I had not made that point clear. I can only speak as to how I might conduct myself, but I would never shy away from reporting a possible breach of the rules. However, before doing so I would take a second to consider if this is really something worth reporting or if I am simply being a poor sport. Additionally, if I were not sure if what I was perceiving was really against the spirit of the game or if it only appeared so from my perspective, I would be sure to approach it in a friendly, considerate manner - as I would if I thought a friend was not following the rules of a boardgame we were playing. I feel that anonymity sometimes emboldens people in negative ways and makes the more willing to approach situations in aggressive and inconsiderate manners or even bring up issues that, if thought about for a moment, would clearly not be something you would attack a friend over.
-
I feel that anonymity sometimes emboldens people in negative ways and makes the more willing to approach situations in aggressive and inconsiderate manners or even bring up issues that, if thought about for a moment, would clearly not be something you would attack a friend over.
Two things: First, a Titans report is not an attack. It is a notification of the Titans that there may be a possible rules violation that needs investigated.
Second, keep in mind that the Titans are players of the game, just like you and me. The Titans are not some autonomous script that randomly locks accounts whenever they are reported for a possible violation. It is their purpose to stop and think about these things, and investigate them. They are not going to take any reporter at face value, I would hope. They should be as fully capable of reasoned deduction as any player on the forum. Which means that even if someone posts a spurious complaint, the Titans should realize that "Archers are horrible. Infantry are the only /real/ soldiers." is not a breach of the IR and should act accordingly.
-
I give. Either my original point is off by a mile or I can not effectively express it. I was never suggesting that that a Titan complaint was meant to be any kind of attack, only that when things are not going my way I may be tempted to complain to the Titans about some perceived wrong doing. I also understand that all these cases are reviewed by real people who need to sift the real issues from the non-issues. I guess I was trying to suggest the the number of non-issues might decrease if anonymity were removed. Like I said, either I have no real point here or I can not express it well enough.
-
No, I think I got you and you're right. And that's pretty close to what I've been saying all along.
-
But... that makes no sense at all.
You think reporting to the Titans should be like asking a player how many cards are in his hands, but you want to put obstacles in the way of reporting people to the Titans, so that only severe issues will be reported?
That makes no sense.
-
But... that makes no sense at all.
You think reporting to the Titans should be like asking a player how many cards are in his hands, but you want to put obstacles in the way of reporting people to the Titans, so that only severe issues will be reported?
That makes no sense.
That is not my interpretation of what is being said. To me they are simply saying it might make people pause and consider, do I really think they have done anything wrong, or am I just pissy that they thwarted my plans. A second factor would be the way the complaint was worded. If you know that the text is going to be posted, you might not let your obvious anger/hatred spill over into what should be a objective report.
-
This may sound wierd but I'd like to have the ability to ask the Titans before something takes place, or just to keep them in the loop.
Like "Hey, X happened, s'okay to say Y?"
If the Rulers worked with the Titans a lot of malarky could be cut out at the nub and Titan actions could be done either OOC or IC. I'm a big fan of IC resolutions and while there may not be cases where it can be worked out, there's probably some cases in which in can be.
Of course, I'm a dirty hippy with a beard, so I even think that we should have mediators, so if someone thinks they are hard done by they can ask for a mediator (preferably from another continent), who can take a boo at the situation and say "X sounds like a fair punishment" or "Yeah, that's a little harsh for a first time offense", or even "No, that Titan let !@#$ slide on this." Like how we do for nobles who write, and if the punishment doesn't fit the crime then it can be discussed as to what a better punishment might be.
That was there is something like an appeals court, so it would start being mad conspiracy time in order for someone to shake their fist and yell "personal vendetta".
-
This may sound wierd but I'd like to have the ability to ask the Titans before something takes place, or just to keep them in the loop.
Like "Hey, X happened, s'okay to say Y?"
If the Rulers worked with the Titans a lot of malarky could be cut out at the nub and Titan actions could be done either OOC or IC. I'm a big fan of IC resolutions and while there may not be cases where it can be worked out, there's probably some cases in which in can be.
Of course, I'm a dirty hippy with a beard, so I even think that we should have mediators, so if someone thinks they are hard done by they can ask for a mediator (preferably from another continent), who can take a boo at the situation and say "X sounds like a fair punishment" or "Yeah, that's a little harsh for a first time offense", or even "No, that Titan let !@#$ slide on this." Like how we do for nobles who write, and if the punishment doesn't fit the crime then it can be discussed as to what a better punishment might be.
That was there is something like an appeals court, so it would start being mad conspiracy time in order for someone to shake their fist and yell "personal vendetta".
I would say the only problem here would be ensuring the Titans had the resources to respond promptly. As I understand it no Titan makes a decision on their own, so to give such advise they would need to have the time to discuss the matter, collect all the background context and then provide the answer. In many cases this process may be too long to be useful.
-
Well, I've never been involved with the Titans in any way. Did not know they had a Quorum, but I don't see the need to do more then police multis and stop huge douche-baggery. I mean if we self-police we'll all be a lot better off.
Some people won't self-police, but if 90% of us do and take it seriously that douchebags should not be rewarded they will always be outnumbered nine to one and that should work too. I don't see what the push is to change the system unless there is something inherently broken about it, not when we can add fun things with the same amount of time and effort.
-
Well, I've never been involved with the Titans in any way. Did not know they had a Quorum, but I don't see the need to do more then police multis and stop huge douche-baggery. I mean if we self-police we'll all be a lot better off.
Some people won't self-police, but if 90% of us do and take it seriously that douchebags should not be rewarded they will always be outnumbered nine to one and that should work too. I don't see what the push is to change the system unless there is something inherently broken about it, not when we can add fun things with the same amount of time and effort.
I think Multi investigations rely largely on Tom. Titans deal with things like the SMA and the inalienable rights. If we could self police reliably, there would have never been a reason to form the titans.
-
I think Indirik said something like this a few pages ago. Why not post the evidence that led the Titans to make their decision to the forum? Include any dialogue they(titans) may have had together. Preserves the anonymity of the person who complained and titans. Then the community has the opportunity to see for themselves that the decision taken was the fairest and best.
-
Such abuse would be painfully obvious to all the other players involved, and would certainly result in the culprit being not only banned from ever being a judge again, but probably from the game as well.
But the damage would be done.
Also, it would not need to be very obvious at all. I know of many influential players who keep OOC contact with other influential players. It'd be easy to share these letters and act on them while pretexting something else.
-
Erm, has everyone missed me posting that anonymity isn't the goal, but getting rid of the atmosphere that requires it is?
It's a large community, it can't be helped. You just can't have the same atmosphere with over a thousand people than with under a dozen.
I've seen my lot of bad players. And players who weren't necessarily bad but that I couldn't stand the least bit.
Playing BM can be compared to many other games revolving large numbers of players more than to board games which have half a dozen at most, usually. If you play LARP, for example, are you going to quit playing if one of the hundred people is a total !@#$%^& who can never respect the rules joins up? If you know he is close enough to hear you, will you start an OOC convo with a friend because he IC can't hear you and would be disallowed to act on these noises? Or if you play paintball and you know that one of the guys in the other team often listens to your frequency even if it is again't the rules. It's hard to prove he's doing it, but you can probably guess it. Will you keep saying sensitive info on the radio about locations if this is the case? Or if you've never played that team before, would you risk "massacre" on faith of good will?
We have a large player base, and internet grants a good amount of anonymity. It simply cannot work like a board game with 5 like-minded people does. It doesn't require 20% of the player base being rotten for people to naturally desire anonymity. It only takes 1. Weeding 1 person out of 5 is one thing, weeding 1 person out of more than a thousand is quite another. And there are certainly more than 1 rotten players in the game.
-
But the damage would be done.
Not of the community shows it defends its values.
The real world has the same problem. You show up as witness in a crime case, you've surely made yourself an enemy or two. But we have a legal system that clearly says "if you mess with my witnesses, there will be hell to pay" and that works fairly well (except in cases of organized crime, etc.)
The world is not safe, playing in it means that sometimes, there are consequences. Same with BM. But if we keep the consequences in check so far that they don't make the game less fun, then all is well.
Don't look for a perfect solution. There is no such thing. There will be problems with anything, current or future. It's important to understand where the problems are, not try to eliminate them all.
-
It's a large community, it can't be helped. You just can't have the same atmosphere with over a thousand people than with under a dozen.
Nonsense.
I've been to a few pretty large real-life events, with thousands of people in them. Some have this "everyone for themselves" spirit, but others have the "we're a big family" spirit, even at that size.
Sure there are things that depend on size. Say, an all-hands gathering - that becomes rather unwieldy beyond a few dozen. But whether you treat your fellow players like friends or like dangerous criminals is not one of those things. And what bugs me about the Titan system is that we do treat them a lot like dangerous criminals. In that sense we set the mood. And then we're surprised they follow.
Some here claim that the Titan system needs anonymity and all kinds of protections because some players are !@#$%^&s.
I hold against that that the Titan system treats all players as potential !@#$%^&s, so it really isn't much of a surprise that some of them act like that.
The tone in a community is set at the top. We want players to be friendly, we need to treat them friendly. All of them and with a trusting attitude. Everyone should be considered a good player until he has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he isn't. But we need to set the assumption that players are well-meaning.
-
This may sound wierd but I'd like to have the ability to ask the Titans before something takes place, or just to keep them in the loop.
Like "Hey, X happened, s'okay to say Y?"
By opening the process like Tom suggests, this kind of thing would be as simple as a forum post. Something like "I am not really sure if this is a issue but I have been noticing.... Is this OK? Should this be happening? Does corrective action need to be taken or do I simply need to be educated?"
This does not even have to take the form of a full blown report to the Titans. Simply a discussion thread. If it turns out that this really is something to be concerned then one simply makes a refined post regarding the issue in the Titan's Forum. That is how I envision it at least.
A big part of this is moving from the mindset of catching evildoers and putting them in their place via Titan complaints to cooperatively discussing potential issues in an attempt to find a good resolution for the community as a whole. I definitely believe that issues, once brought to the Titan's Forum should be well moderated and guided. It should be established from the beginning that the goal is not placing blame and punishing wrong doers but discussing issues and coming up with cooperative solutions.
-
Excluding multis as has already been given...I think that could work. The topic about Perdan's capital move, for instance, has been quite civil and if we can keep things in that vein then that would seem to be the best way forward.
And, frankly, most of the IR violations I've seen have been people forgetting something or getting really into the game (either positively and negatively) and temporarily losing their mind ("Bwahahahah! We just destroyed their army, their capital is wide open, no one head to the tourney because we're going to finish this war right here right now! You don't want to miss it!!!")
-
I realize I'm way late to the conversation. I also realize that I've been away from the game for what I'm guessing is nearly 3 years. (Actually, just found the resignation email I sent- September 2008.) But I guess either we never fully had discussion on the subject back then or time away has given me some new thoughts and I figured I'd share them now.
1) Let me start by mentioning to those who don't know or remember, that I was one of the original Titans. I say this for two reasons. One, I hope it gives a little credibility knowing I've been on the "other side", but mostly I think it maybe points out a flaw we always (at least used to) have with the system. Unless things have changed, the Titans were always "anonymous" and their identities as players were kept secret. Some were a little more vocal than others and it was clear that they were a part of the group, but for the most part, there was never any official, public list stating who was a part of the team. Thus, any efforts at transparency within the system died a horrible death at its onset.
There was certainly good reason for such anonymity, especially during the project's infancy. Any action taken by a newly formed, untrusted body to police and harness rulebreaking was taken as an attack, or at least an affront, on a person or said person's character. So not knowing who it was who cast "judgment" on you was safer for the Titans, who feared unfair retribution. However, as I look back now, this certainly caused more harm than good. There is, and has always been, a strong emphasis on the fact that the Titans are not above other players. The players behind those accounts are not more important, more vital, and do not carry more authority than anyone else in the system. What they were, however, were individuals who were willing to volunteer their time and efforts, as well as being people Tom himself knew to be trustworthy.
But the opinion of the general populous never really swayed toward them. Mistrust and claims of "the Titans are out to get me" or "the Titans are only supporting their characters and their friends with unfair advantages" were prevalent and I doubt those have fully gone away. The biggest, most simple answer in terms of trust is this: Titans should not be anonymous. If you want transparency at the bottom and the entire system to be trustworthy, transparency must start at the top.
2) Titan actions have always seemingly come from out of nowhere. As Tom has mentioned, this needs to be curbed. Both accuser and accused should receive official in-game notifications at every step along the way. First, when a complaint is received, detailing the complaint itself. Second, when a complaint is accepted or rejected (along with rejection explanation to both players involved). Third, when a decision has been reached, again with explanation on the decision to both players. Transparency includes keeping people updated on progress, whether good or bad. It also allows the accuser to know whether their complaint is being dealt with in a timely fashion- something I know we had issues with from time to time early on.
3) Once a decision has been reached, both the accuser and the accused should receive a notification upon logging into the related characters and be given a series of followup options that must be addressed before playing said character again. Something as simple as "Accept Decision" or "Appeal Decision" with, once again, space to provide explanation/apology/affirmation/whatever. That "option" probably should not be optional either, now that I think about it. This provides space for feedback from the two players involved. It's a good initial gauge on how the situation was handled and also is a simple way to make sure both parties full acknowledge the decision instead of simply ignoring a "slap on the wrist".
4) Regarding transparency within the community, I don't think that having the playerbase be a part of making the decision is wise, for many of the reasons stated by others, but also because of expediency. If you open things up to discussion, they could drag on until the dawn of time if some of you get ahold of it- I still remember many of you quite well. ::)
Instead, what I would recommend is to have the final decision made public. This does two things. One, it establishes precedent for all to see and should encourage equal decisions for equal infractions across the board. As a result, players find out that everyone is being treated fairly and with no special treatment. The second thing this allows for is open discussion after the fact, so that both the Titans and the players can learn from the interaction and better move forward.
5) Multi-account accusations should be made into a separate option, plain and simple. Everyone has already excluded it from the other suggestions made, and it should probably be established by in-game mechanics that there's a difference too. Furthermore, if it doesn't bog down the servers too awfully much, it might be prudent to set some rolling multi-checks- both inter and intra-realm. (Say for instance, Colonies today could have a Lukon-Assassins check and also check inside each of those realms. Next day could have OT-Giblot, etc.) System could be automated, I'd imagine, fairly easily to alert the Titans when a relatively high match score turns up and they can take over from there. I know when I had the time on my hands as a Titan, I would occasionally do "random" checks on questionable accounts and was surprised how many hits I sometimes got. Automating as much of the checking process as possible should help with the time constraints and also will cut down on how many are floating out there.
6) If you want to have an "expanded pool" of trusted people to help the process, while also adding another layer to the community involvement, have a larger group simply in charge of expediting complaints. I spent some time briefly as an expediter with ChaCha and the whole job was to filter out questions, categorize them, and pass them along to the proper places. This idea could be used similarly here. For example, bring in a group of 20-30 people whose sole job is to filter out and accept or reject complaints. If, after 10 or more votes are cast, a (approve)- b (reject) > 0, it's passed along to the Titans. Likewise, if a (approve)- b (reject) < 0, the complaint is rejected and it never moves on to the Titans.
Oh, and... it's good to be back. :P
-
That's great input.
I agree on #3, that's a good thing.
I think - and this is a spontaneous thought, so sue me, or better, comment - we may find a middle ground.
We can have an open process, with a set body of Titans who decide. They aren't bound by the discussion, but they are strongly encouraged to take it into account. And they should not be anonymous. They can, I think, be pseudonomynous as in their forum identity doesn't have to reveal who they are in-game. Or they could have a second forum account. But it should be possible to have a name on the decisions.
-
And they should not be anonymous. They can, I think, be pseudonomynous as in their forum identity doesn't have to reveal who they are in-game. Or they could have a second forum account. But it should be possible to have a name on the decisions.
Give out a titans family name and I fear every accused will be trawling forum posts and family histories on the wiki dragging up a thousand reasons why titan X is unfit to judge on this or that matter for past realm/religion/guild Y opposition.
-
Give out a titans family name and I fear every accused will be trawling forum posts and family histories on the wiki dragging up a thousand reasons why titan X is unfit to judge on this or that matter for past realm/religion/guild Y opposition.
Which is why he just said they could be pseudonymous. You know, have a pseudonym. So you can tell the Titans apart, but you can't tell who they are IRL or IC.
-
Give out a titans family name and I fear every accused will be trawling forum posts and family histories on the wiki dragging up a thousand reasons why titan X is unfit to judge on this or that matter for past realm/religion/guild Y opposition.
Yes, that would happen.
It would quickly end when I come down on them like a ton of bricks.
-
Which is why he just said they could be pseudonymous. You know, have a pseudonym. So you can tell the Titans apart, but you can't tell who they are IRL or IC.
Wouldn't iot be fun to make a pseudonym of "Tom". Teehee.
But, more seriously, pseudonyms will do very little. In a game where a not insignificant number of players regularly study each others' writing habits in an attempt to mimic and forge each others' letters, and where we all read each other quite regularly IG and on the forum, I do not think a pseudonym will be any protection of identity.
-
Wouldn't iot be fun to make a pseudonym of "Tom". Teehee.
But, more seriously, pseudonyms will do very little. In a game where a not insignificant number of players regularly study each others' writing habits in an attempt to mimic and forge each others' letters, and where we all read each other quite regularly IG and on the forum, I do not think a pseudonym will be any protection of identity.
I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who can do this with any great degree of accuracy.
Not to mention the intersection of that set with the set of people who would care enough about any given Titan decision to make the effort.
And the intersection of those sets with the set of people who have actually come into close enough IC contact with the Titans in question to have a viable sample.
And all that is leaving aside the question of how long it would take them to go through all their correspondents who sound sort of similar to narrow it down.
-
Unless those people just assume the Titans are forum-active. Which deals with several of those intersections.
That assumption would likely be wrong. But makes intuitive sense. And if they "found" a close "match," they might just decide the "accused Titan" was lying about their non-Titan status.
I suppose the issue could be reported to the Titans?
-
http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson208.html
Some people...can be rather vindictive and obsessive. Over a game. Strange but true. Ripley would be proud lol.
-
To be fair, the forum is a lot less confrontational then the old d-list.
I suspect the vast majority of the people who post here and could recognize who is who really wouldn't give a damn. If someone really wanted to do it, they could build a titan shortlist anyway. So what? Those who think the Titan's are "screwing them" already have their pet theories.
-
Wouldn't iot be fun to make a pseudonym of "Tom". Teehee.
But, more seriously, pseudonyms will do very little. In a game where a not insignificant number of players regularly study each others' writing habits in an attempt to mimic and forge each others' letters, and where we all read each other quite regularly IG and on the forum, I do not think a pseudonym will be any protection of identity.
I would be surprised if many or any of our player base can do this very well. There is a reason that the experts used in legal cases and by intelligence agencies spend considerable time learning the skill, and still have questionable accuracy in many cases.
-
I would be surprised if many or any of our player base can do this very well. There is a reason that the experts used in legal cases and by intelligence agencies spend considerable time learning the skill, and still have questionable accuracy in many cases.
The people have to prove that, among everyone living on this planet, the defendant is the one whose signature matches.
In BM, your population pool is much smaller. And the % of people coming from different countries is much greater, so there are much more obvious divergences noticeable. And as was said, most of those who would apply would likely be active elsewhere, and have therefore provided a great number of example messages to compare.
This makes it much more easier to compare and find similar. And beyond any reasonable doubt isn't a public opinion thing.
I doubt many will bother trying, though. But some people just have very obvious writing styles (for abusing the same expressions or constantly doing the same mistakes).
-
I do not really think it matters much if Titans are anonymous, pseudo or otherwise. In the end I think that any player attacking a Titan in revenge will do more harm to themselves that anyone else. Lacking anonymity forces the Titans to ensure they are being as neutral as possible and makes the whole process feel more open and friendly. Making the case and decision public will make it difficult for the parties involved to get away with in game revenge.
-
Lacking anonymity forces the Titans to ensure they are being as neutral as possible and makes the whole process feel more open and friendly.
I'm not so sure about that. Feel more open? Yes. More friendly? Meh....
More neutral? I don't think so. In fact, I would think that it would, in fact, cause more accusations of personal favoritism and realm favoritism. If it was known, for example, that there was a Titan that played in Keplerstan, then any decision that took action against Evilstani, or any character/player in Evilstani, then any such decision could be viewed as biased based on the fact that "The Titans play in Keplerstan". This would be even more likely if there were a few players in Evilstani trying to play fast and loose with the rules.
And even if it wasn't true, observational bias would play hell with anything like that. Players would see what they want to see. And they would be vocal in their assertions. And people who hear stuff like that believe what they choose to believe, rather than put in the time to do the research. That's the very foundation of most political systems: "Barrage them with bull!@#$, and eventually they'll start to believe you."
A pseudonymous system would be much better.
-
You are are probably right. I do tend to be a bit too optimistic. I just thought that if I was a Titan making a decision I would want to be sure to be as impartial as possible and explain my decision in a way that clearly demonstrated that effort. However, I do believe that you are correct in that people can twist things fit their view regardless of any efforts taken. I just may need to get my head out of the clouds!
-
I'm not so sure about that. Feel more open? Yes. More friendly? Meh....
More neutral? I don't think so. In fact, I would think that it would, in fact, cause more accusations of personal favoritism and realm favoritism. If it was known, for example, that there was a Titan that played in Keplerstan, then any decision that took action against Evilstani, or any character/player in Evilstani, then any such decision could be viewed as biased based on the fact that "The Titans play in Keplerstan". This would be even more likely if there were a few players in Evilstani trying to play fast and loose with the rules.
I thought one of the main 'rules' about being a Titan was that you can't be one on an island on which you have a character yourself?
-
That rule went out the window quite a long time ago. I'm pretty sure this was discussed on the DList quite some time ago. There is now a single Titan pool that rules on all cases. I would assume anyone involved in the case would recuse themselves from the discussion. It would probably be up to the other titans to ensure that this happens.
-
After following the anonymous/pseudonomynous discussion, and linking back to the original:
I think the Titans should be public. They shouldn't have to hide. On the contrary, being a Titan should be considered an honour.
And I will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who makes life for my Titans hard. And I mean that as in reversed onus of proof. You rip on my Titans, I'll rip you a new one. If you think that was unfair, you prove it to me.
-
System Summary
The whole proposal after giving it some thought and incorporating comments:
- We will have a new board on the forum, which is our "court".
- That board is open to all, but new topics can only be started through a page in the game which makes sure topics start with an identical format with all required information present. After a topic was started, replies are open for all. Also, this page makes sure the accused party is notified.
- Titans have moderator rights on this board.
- The identity of the Titans is public, as in you can look up in the members list who is a Titan.
- Discussions will follow a basic flow that goes from initial complaint, comments by whoever wants to comment, Titan decision and questions and clarifications if necessary.
- Titan decisions are final, the only one who can overturn them is me, and if you bug me with stuff you shouldn't, I'll become angry.
-
System Summary
The whole proposal after giving it some thought and incorporating comments:
- We will have a new board on the forum, which is our "court".
- That board is open to all, but new topics can only be started through a page in the game which makes sure topics start with an identical format with all required information present. After a topic was started, replies are open for all. Also, this page makes sure the accused party is notified.
- Titans have moderator rights on this board.
- The identity of the Titans is public, as in you can look up in the members list who is a Titan.
- Discussions will follow a basic flow that goes from initial complaint, comments by whoever wants to comment, Titan decision and questions and clarifications if necessary.
- Titan decisions are final, the only one who can overturn them is me, and if you bug me with stuff you shouldn't, I'll become angry.
Sounds good to me, Tom!
-
Sounds good to me, Tom!
I have my reservations about this, but I think the best idea is simply to test drive the new system and then evaluate it after having experienced it. I just hope the system will be open to tweaks if some elements turn out not be work as expected.
My main concern is that the lack of anonymity of the titans will lead to suspicion of favoritism and foul play, with the impression that realms who have titans among their ranks will be favored over those who don't (which is technically true, to a certain extent, as titans are almost guaranteed to participate on the forums while some realms might not have anyone at all to give their realm's PoV).
-
After following the anonymous/pseudonomynous discussion, and linking back to the original:
I think the Titans should be public. They shouldn't have to hide. On the contrary, being a Titan should be considered an honour.
And I will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who makes life for my Titans hard. And I mean that as in reversed onus of proof. You rip on my Titans, I'll rip you a new one. If you think that was unfair, you prove it to me.
I totally agree, if I was a Titan I would have no issue with people knowing that I was.
-
I have my reservations about this, but I think the best idea is simply to test drive the new system and then evaluate it after having experienced it. I just hope the system will be open to tweaks if some elements turn out not be work as expected.
My main concern is that the lack of anonymity of the titans will lead to suspicion of favoritism and foul play, with the impression that realms who have titans among their ranks will be favored over those who don't (which is technically true, to a certain extent, as titans are almost guaranteed to participate on the forums while some realms might not have anyone at all to give their realm's PoV).
I don't, in general, disagree with you on this.
The problem with this particular concern, however, is that there are already groups who feel this way—even though they have no actual evidence for who the Titans are.
There are groups who are utterly convinced that they are being unfairly targeted by Tom and the Titans right now, due to the supposed control of their enemies by "GMs".
I honestly can't see that making the Titans' names and deliberations public is likely to make that worse.
-
I don't, in general, disagree with you on this.
The problem with this particular concern, however, is that there are already groups who feel this way—even though they have no actual evidence for who the Titans are.
There are groups who are utterly convinced that they are being unfairly targeted by Tom and the Titans right now, due to the supposed control of their enemies by "GMs".
I honestly can't see that making the Titans' names and deliberations public is likely to make that worse.
Well, part of the risk is that there's no way to make the Titans anonymous again, without choosing a completely new batch.
I know I wouldn't make a good Titan--most of the matters I've brought to their attention have been rejected, so I'm a little too zealous and lack a little understanding of the rules, still.
-
Setting things in motion here:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html
Notice that there is not just a new name. The Magistrates will not be identical with the current Titans. I will choose new volunteers. Some of them may or may not be identical with current Titans. Most probably won't. The two systems will be running in parallel for a while, until I have a feeling which one is the better one.
There will be a call for volunteers on that board soon. Please don't bug me with "I want to be a Magistrate" until then.
-
Setting things in motion here:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html
Notice that there is not just a new name. The Magistrates will not be identical with the current Titans. I will choose new volunteers. Some of them may or may not be identical with current Titans. Most probably won't. The two systems will be running in parallel for a while, until I have a feeling which one is the better one.
There will be a call for volunteers on that board soon. Please don't bug me with "I want to be a Magistrate" until then.
Might I suggest a section to hold locked, finished cases? It would build a bit of a precedent library that way future decisions can reference past decided cases as further evidence of certain things being allowed/disallowed, etc.
-
I'll improve things as we need them. There will probably need for an archive, but I'm not sure it will need a seperate board.
-
I'll improve things as we need them. There will probably need for an archive, but I'm not sure it will need a seperate board.
An archival board has the advantage of keeping old content from cluttering up the new and active stuff. It also makes searching for precedents much easier.
-
Yes, but a "commentary" would be much better if someone feels like doing it - a collection of precedents ordered by topic and with summaries. Like we have in real-world law. And I'm not sure how much it'll clutter. We will have to see. Anyways, an archive is always something we can add later.
-
Yes, but a "commentary" would be much better if someone feels like doing it - a collection of precedents ordered by topic and with summaries. Like we have in real-world law. And I'm not sure how much it'll clutter. We will have to see. Anyways, an archive is always something we can add later.
Use the wiki for an archive, with commentary.
-
Use the wiki for an archive, with commentary.
That's just replicating information that will already be saved. It isn't as though the threads will vanish without someone deleting them, so why replicate them?
-
Nobody is speaking about duplication. A good commentary reads something like "three warnings are generally considered to be a good standard until an OOC ban is issued, except in the case of very blatant offenses (see case 1, case 2 and case 3 as well as case 4 and case 5 for exceptions)".
In other words, it would sum up similar decisions and link to them for details.
-
Ok, but what is it linking to? The forum thread? Or contents of the thread replicated in some manner/form on the wiki?
As an index, I could see the wiki working, but for actual historical content of discussions and decisions it would seem to me to be most efficient to simply reference the relevant thread.
-
Nobody is speaking about duplication. A good commentary reads something like "three warnings are generally considered to be a good standard until an OOC ban is issued, except in the case of very blatant offenses (see case 1, case 2 and case 3 as well as case 4 and case 5 for exceptions)".
In other words, it would sum up similar decisions and link to them for details.
Will there be an easy way to sort through the archives by ruler violated. Say, to review every (or some) decisions made on the rule about recruiting whatever unit type you want?
-
This is where the Semantic Wiki (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Semantic_Wiki) can come in handy.
Links should, of course, point to the original sources, i.e. the forum postings. Though for proper semantic tagging it may be necessary to set up a summary page, I'm not sure.
-
I haven't given the semantic wiki much of a chance so far... I guess I'll start to familiarize myself with it.