| Summary: | Accusations of cheating |
| Violation: | Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating, abuses or violati |
| World: | Far East |
| Complainer: | George Dion (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=30856) |
| About: | David . D (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=26536) |
From the Social Contract posted on the Wiki:
Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating, abuses or violations of this contract without proof or evidence.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Social_Contract (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Social_Contract)
I would say that the reported incident is a fairly clear cut violation of this clause. More to the point, even if the players making the accusations actually do have evidence, airing it to the entire realm in OOC discussion is not the appropriate course of action. The evidence, if any, should be submitted to the Titans for investigation. However, right now I'm not sure about whether this applies to the second player. It looks like he was quoting from someone else, then stating his opinion concerning the allegations, rather than making any accusations himself. It would be the original message he quoted that would be problematic from the standpoint of the social contract.
As to Nathan's question, I don't know that a separate case is needed just yet. Certainly the ruling can be applied to more than one person if that is deemed appropriate.
I agree with the above. The Social Contract is quite clear, no public accusations without substantial proof.
... the secession of Colasan, and then Ozrat was planned by friends for ages in advance, and then all the titles and appointments were given to certain players the moment they joined, and were reserved until they joined.
That is not actually what it says. The qualifier of 'substantial' is not present, which is not an insignificant difference. In other words, there is nothing wrong with a public accusation of cheating so long as it is supported by proof or evidence. This fact should not be overlooked by us.
Clan Notice (2 days, 11 hours ago)
There has been a complaint to the GameMasters about a group of players who seem to be running a clan in the way that they attempt to control a realm through it.
My official position has always been that clans are fine, excluding or taking the fun away from other players is not.
I think you know who you are, so please examine your playing style and make sure that your clan doesn't get its fun at the cost of other players.
I hope we can leave it at that and I don't need to take any serious actions. If I have to waste my precious time on investigating this complaint and doing in-depth checks on the clan activities, I'll be quite angry by the time the results are in. None of us want that.
-- Tom
Well i don't think any of them would really understand what Tom means by that.Discussions about what is and what is not "clanning", and at what point it crosses the line into bad territory, are something that should be handled under a different thread. This case/thread is about specific accusations of cheating. It shouldn't be derailed by tangential issues.
What is fun? (to start with)
Wheres the line?
Don't they automatically receive a notification on their player page about it?
They do, but he has not yet posted for whatever reason.
Summary: Accusations of cheatingI do not see accusations of cheating in the letters made available thus far. More like indirect accusations of abuse and/or a lack of fair play.
And I think it's worth noting that the one of the accusers in this particular case has a reputation for having a... questionable view on how to play fairly. David D. is a lead figure of the old 'Saxon' block known for exploiting loopholes in the game code and accusing the GMs of deliberately screwing with their realms.Background information can be useful. It could be ironic in this case but 'exploiting loopholes' could also be seen as 'playing within the laws as set by the game'. It can be a point of view. I was around when that happened.
In other words, there is nothing wrong with a public accusation of cheating so long as it is supported by proof or evidence. This fact should not be overlooked by us.Agreed. That said, the evidence would be almost impossible to produce.
the secession of Colasan, and then Ozrat was planned by friends for ages in advance, and then all the titles and appointments were given to certain players the moment they joined, and were reserved until they joined.Nothing wrong with this. Successful secessions/rebellions/colonies usually need prior planning including but not limited to distribution of titles. Don't like it? It can be handled in-game and in-character. OOC planning & communication? Sometimes these things can't be helped because:
[...] this case is not about whether or not Toupellon was involved in any OOC shenanigans (it wasn't...)It is nearly impossible to prove. Either way.
Considering the purpose of the Social Contract (to create a specific atmosphere in game), I find it strange that it does not simply blanket ban public accusations of cheating altogether.Public accusations, with or without proof probably does more harm than good. 'Public' would also need to be defined. I favour inclusive over exclusive. Rulers channel (for example) would normally be 'private' from an IG perspective but would be public from an OOC perspective as they are considered other players whom you would be accusing in front of.
Magistrate Notice: Any further off topic discussion will be deleted. Keep to the topic at hand.Some 'off topic discussion' providing background information on prior events could be relevant as extenuating circumstances.
Well, we obviously need to give him a few days. [...] We have to balance the need for timely resolution with our responsibility to ensure that the accused has an opportunity to defend himself.
I do not see accusations of cheating in the letters made available thus far. More like indirect accusations of abuse and/or a lack of fair play.This is the equivelant of plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "I can't hear you! Na na na!" There is a very clear accusation of violation of the Fair Play clause here. Made in public, possibly without evidence, which if true is undeniably a violation. I quote §2.5 of the Social Contract (emphasis mine): "Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating, abuses or violations of this contract without proof or evidence."
Background information can be useful. It could be ironic in this case but 'exploiting loopholes' could also be seen as 'playing within the laws as set by the game'. It can be a point of view. I was around when that happened.There is little relevant context to this, and no excuse. There was active and intentional exploitation of bugs in the game to further specific goals. As one of the people who investigated the issue, I can speak on this with authority.
That said, the evidence would be almost impossible to produce.In what way? For the Vanimedle player to make these claims without violation of the social Contract he must have evidence of absence. That is, he must have evidence that the secession in question was planned with little to no IC interaction, which is certainly provable (and also falsifiable).
Nothing wrong with this....unless the planning occured largely out of game, in which case it is a violation of the Fair Play clause. This is therefor a public accusation that the players involved were violating the Social Contract.
Public accusations, with or without proof probably does more harm than good.Irrelevant. As Magistrates it is our job to judge according to the current rules and policies: not to create our own.
Rulers channel (for example) would normally be 'private' from an IG perspective but would be public from an OOC perspective as they are considered other players whom you would be accusing in front of.To this I quote a portion of the Government rules: "Do not encourage or tolerate cheating and abuses of the game rules in your realm. If you learn of any cheating going on, immediately inform us privately or on the mailing list. If you are certain, then have your ruler use the OOC Ban function." As the rulers on the island, the players on the ruler channel have a responsibility to report violations and enforce the rules as well they can. To say that these players, who are already given this responbility, cannot discuss current situations amongst themselves is absurd.
Some 'off topic discussion' providing background information on prior events could be relevant as extenuating circumstances.We are not judging past action. We are judging only the one at hand. No extenuating circumstances ever validate violation of either the Inalienable Rights or the Social Contract. Please stop encouraging derailment of the thread.
We need David . D's input.I wholly agree.
I do not see accusations of cheating in the letters made available thus far. More like indirect accusations of abuse and/or a lack of fair play.Which, un-coincidentally, is also against the Social Contract.
Agreed. That said, the evidence would be almost impossible to produce.Irrelevant. You are not allowed to make public accusations without proof/evidence. The Social Contract doesn't say "Don't make public accusations without proof, unless that proof is impossible to obtain, in which case you are free to make all the baseless, unsubstantiated claims you want." It says "No accusations without proof".
To this I quote a portion of the Government rules: "Do not encourage or tolerate cheating and abuses of the game rules in your realm. If you learn of any cheating going on, immediately inform us privately or on the mailing list. If you are certain, then have your ruler use the OOC Ban function." As the rulers on the island, the players on the ruler channel have a responsibility to report violations and enforce the rules as well they can. To say that these players, who are already given this responbility, cannot discuss current situations amongst themselves is absurd.
In what way? For the Vanimedle player to make these claims without violation of the social Contract he must have evidence of absence. That is, he must have evidence that the secession in question was planned with little to no IC interaction, which is certainly provable (and also falsifiable).
All I know is that I see now a twisting of the very contract I am to adhere while playing the game. It is unfair that I brought my grievance to you and I see now new rules invented on the spot.
According to the social contract the player of Valdimelde was breaking rule 2.5.
I can't see how it is difficult to see it. Regardless I am in favour of needing the player's input on the matter, for it would only be fair. His input will only justify my accusation in this court, for he has no evidence whatsoever and his only intention was to upset players all over the server as well as spread ic discord.
His words had a tremendous effect both ic and ooc, lessening the trust of some players toward my character and the new realm I created and also initiating spammable ooc conversations. If this is not disruption of the game then I can't see what else is.
Those that can check my character's letters, will see that there was no ooc planning, instead the characters of James Harker, Jenred Bedwyr, Selene Octavius, Claude Finsternis, Guy de Bas Tyra and Taylin Indirik can provide evidence of the ic planning. Those were the players with whom I cooperated and I don't think that any of those had anything to do with ooc planning. I don't even know the players behind the characters and should it was ooc planning then the tons of ic letters and missives would a rather good pretention, wouldn't it?
This is the equivelant of plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "I can't hear you! Na na na!" There is a very clear accusation of violation of the Fair Play clause here. Made in public, possibly without evidence, which if true is undeniably a violation. I quote §2.5 of the Social Contract (emphasis mine): "Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating, abuses or violations of this contract without proof or evidence."
Which, un-coincidentally, is also against the Social Contract.I never said there wasn't, right? I'm saying it sounds more like an (indirect) accusation of abuse or fair play. It's not cheating. Not from a game play point of view. Which means the "Summary: Accusations of cheating" should simply be amended to "Summary: Public accusations without proof" and perhaps (below it) "Violation: Social Contract §2 Fair Play". It's not numbered as §2.5 but if it would it would be §2.4 but I think simply leaving it out would be easier.
There is little relevant context to this, and no excuse. There was active and intentional exploitation of bugs in the game to further specific goals. As one of the people who investigated the issue, I can speak on this with authority.As to the family gold issue (now "fixed"), come on Joe, you can't call game code that actually lets you do something a 'bug' just because it wasn't intended to let you do it. The game code wouldn't know it. And neither would the players. Unlss we're expected to be mind readers. To quote:
There is a certain viewpoint (not one that I agree with, mind you) that holds that if the game lets you do it, then it can't be an abuse of the game. I mean, if the game didn't want you to be able to use your family gold as an endless fountain of wealth, it wouldn't let you do it, right?
Irrelevant. As Magistrates it is our job to judge according to the current rules and policies: not to create our own.Not create. Clarify. See here:
I am happy to have one. If the rules are not clear or not good, and someone points that out, then we can improve the rules and/or their wording.
As the rulers on the island, the players on the ruler channel have a responsibility to report violations and enforce the rules as well they can. To say that these players, who are already given this responbility, cannot discuss current situations amongst themselves is absurd.I never said we couldn't discuss. Discuss all you like. Rulers' channel, in the whole realm, wherever. Just be sure it's worded as a discussion and be careful it doesn't cross over into accusations (which will be pretty easy to get into once the discussions heats up). However, the letters provided by the complainant from the accuser doesn't sound like a discussion. It was a letter sent to his own realm. If his letter is taken by itself it would definitely sound like an indirect accusation. But what if he was merely responding to someone else? Was it a small part of something else? (this could be extenuating circumstances) Of course if David D. isn't inclined to defend himself then we'll have to take his letter (and the accuracy of it) as standing by itself.
We are not judging past action. We are judging only the one at hand. No extenuating circumstances ever validate violation of either the Inalienable Rights or the Social Contract. Please stop encouraging derailment of the thread.Sure it can. But on the degree of the punishment.
Which, un-coincidentally, is also against the Social Contract.Right. But the proof could come later. As long as it's done before judgement is done. But my point was: any evidence would be almost impossible to produce. How are you going to provide the out-of-game communication that they supposedly used to plan? Or how would a player prove that no IC letters were sent? Unless someone bragged about it somewhere... ;)
Irrelevant. You are not allowed to make public accusations without proof/evidence. The Social Contract doesn't say "Don't make public accusations without proof, unless that proof is impossible to obtain, in which case you are free to make all the baseless, unsubstantiated claims you want." It says "No accusations without proof".
No proof/evidence? Then don't make accusations. Pretty simple, eh?
All I know is that I see now a twisting of the very contract I am to adhere while playing the game. It is unfair that I brought my grievance to you and I see now new rules invented on the spot.There are no new rules being invented on the spot. What you are seeing is discussion from both sides. This is needed to hash things out that we may all see things from ALL angles. It is said that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
I don't even know the players behind the characters and should it was ooc planning then the tons of ic letters and missives would a rather good pretention, wouldn't it?Yes, it would but you DON'T need to provide it nor does anyone else (even though 2 Devs have said there are) and David D. can't call on you to provide it. It is he that needs to provide the proof of what he says.
The consensus here seems to be that you [Anatole] are correct. If Vanimedle' doesn't have anything to add, we'll issue a ruling in a couple days.Sounds like it and agreed. Also, we can only take action on the accused in question and not anyone else like Don Smith, player of Optimus McGahee. His letter was only provided by Anatole as evidence to show how his reputation has been effected and secondly he is not the one being accused nor would he have been informed of the game to provide a defence. We're not going on a with-hunt here.
But my point was: any evidence would be almost impossible to produce.I know that was your point. It's a completely irrelevant point. The Social Contract very clearly says no accusations without proof. No proof? Then don't accuse. Full stop.
How are you going to provide the out-of-game communication that they supposedly used to plan?That's the accuser's problem, not mine. The difficulty of proving the accusations does not provide an exemption from the rules.
Or how would a player prove that no IC letters were sent? Unless someone bragged about it somewhere... ;)Proof that no IC letters were sent is not required. All that is required is proof that things were decided OOC. For example, a forum post/IRC log/MSN log/etc. from 6 months before the realm was formed that outlines exactly how the realm would be set up, and then when it is formed, it turns out exactly that way, then does it really matter how much was sent IC?
Agreed that it's been over a week, and we basically agreed that without any change in situation, the case was pretty straightforward.
Given that: What punishment is appropriate? Temporary account lock?
Indeed, I believe it was pretty much anonymous that 7 days was ample enough.
Should the fact that he didn't defend himself be ignored or counted against him?
Should the number of such accusations made be weighted it (I think I read he sent more accusations than the single one reported?)?
Moreover, the last case had no "real damages." It was quickly corrected and all players involved set it right. This case has real defamation of a realm that the complainant believes are causing real harm to reputation; I believe that claim to be credible. I am all for a harsher sentence.
He has not acknowledged any guilt, taken any responsibility, or even made a response, despite havign a query on his log-in page. Absolutely that should be held against him.
<Archachon messages here>
I'm not sure of that. In a real court you do have the right to remain silent, and it won't be held against you if you do. I would say that anyone accused has an opportunity to respond, and can try to clear his name that way. Not saying anything is not an admission of guilt, though.
Maybe he tried to create an account on the forums and had trouble with it so he figured it wasn't worth it. Who knows?
I'm reasonably sure he has an account on the forums, with which he attempted to defend his actions in Thulsoma a while back when people were talking about them in the Dwilight forum.
I'm reasonably sure he has an account on the forums, with which he attempted to defend his actions in Thulsoma a while back when people were talking about them in the Dwilight forum.
So he was part of the Thulsoma affair, and has failed to improve his knowledge/understanding of the social contract...? :o
Staying silent and court and not presenting oneself to court are two different things, though. As far as I know, one's a right, and the other is a kind of contempt of court. One is for not saying anything that could incriminate oneself, usually in order to get all the information first, while the other is an outright disregard for the judicial institution.
There has been a complaint about you, brought before the Magistrates to arbitrate. If you want to follow the discussion or respond to the complaint, follow this link:- that is an invitation, not a demand. The "if you want" phrase allows him to say "nope, don't want to".
Perhaps the magistrates should have a tool, as well, to be able to contact them, to be able to tell them things like "the judgement against you is about to close. If you wish to make a statement, now is the time".I think that would be hand-holding. He was informed, he was provided a direct link to the forum thread, from that point on it's his decision if he wants to join in or not.
- Even if you are in contempt of court, this shouldn't influence the judgement on the actual case. Being in contempt is not the same as being guilty.
Oh, and another thing I noticed. You can’t demand David comes onto the Forum to defend himself, nor can you in any way hold it against nor damn him for not doing so.
The Game Rules and the InAlienable Rights state without regard for circumstance that no one can be forced to be active OOC, and there is no clause there that gives either this Forum Jury nor even the Titans themselves the sovereign right to overrule that.
So trying to place the argument that him not coming onto the Forum is grounds against him .. actually .. hits on the fundamental and most unyielding set of conditions for the Game.
Just thought it’d point that out.
And you know since this “Jury” seems to be made up players who have all had provable issue with David or his characters at some point it’s a biased farce anyway, and in a real life Jury it would be dropped and the whole thing considered untouchable.
Geronus, Chénier, Indirik, Sacha - issues with the character of Haruka in Thulsoma on Dwilight.
^ban^ issues with the character of the popularly hated Xaphan in Norland on Atamara.
Bedwyr, Lefanis and of course Anatole himself who is directly involved in this whole dispute with Farnese in Arcachon and Druhtinaz priorly in Toupellon on F.E.I.
That’s what David was addressing, perhaps not in the most tactile way admittedly [...] Now as David put it the problem was the massive lack of substance to the whole affair. It seemed like an entirely contrived effort from the point of view of spectators and even those involved, as he as a player was, as they were forced into the new realm or left watching it happen.Underlined mine. Which is the issue here. If you don't know for sure, don't say it. If you do, you need to provide the proof.
Now from a “Judicial” point of view (since apparently the righteous intent of the independent and arbitrary Dispensers of Justice Committee is throbbing so heartily amongst the few who speak up here) If you really wanted to >prove< his ‘claims’ were for cheating you need to say where he specifically said “They’re cheating”. Which he didn’t do. What he pointed out was that characters who joined the realm seemingly from no where and entirely different realms got appointments with no explanation or anything. Nothing was done to explain the situation really.I'm sure you've seen in my first post what I pointed out:
I do not see accusations of cheating in the letters made available thus far. More like indirect accusations of abuse and/or a lack of fair play.This should be reflected in the verdict and the original charges amended.
He raised this problem IC also, thats a fact that has been neglected to be mentioned here. And the suggestion he sent more than the two messages published is a lie. The OOC chatter in Arcachon died pretty quickly.Background information is important but the main focus will be on the OOC public accusation and it only takes one accusation.
Just look at Dwilight without them. They roleplayed the whole Saxon thing nigh to death. Perhaps David simply expects the same amount of effort to be put in by those making even bigger waves in terms of Continent Power and political upheaval on a Roleplaying continent. Quite honestly, so do I.We are not judging on the merits of the accused as a player. Amount of effort to be put in depends on the individual players. They can play on their own time and pace, and I'd say effort.
Enough people in Arcachon seemed to think the situation was odd or disappointing, and those players are those who characters who regularly seem to argue with one another. Says a lot about OOC reactions between players when it comes to light it’s not just the reaction of >one< player who can easily be targeted.Then bring it to the attention of the Titans/Magistrates/Tom. But you don't light a public accusation without proof that can inflame others. Which is why the rule is there.
Otherwise all you’re saying is “Don’t ever voice an opinion OOC” …. Unless of course it’s on the Forum in which case, apparently, you can be as trumped up, egotistical, insultingly dismissive, purposefully confrontational and quite plainly predictably hostile to anyone, anywhere, and get away with it. Thumbs up for the Community.Sure you can voice an opinion but you can't make a public accusation without proof. We can surely tell the difference. A discussion will differ from an accusation in the wording.
This whole Forum seems to ruin the basic nature of Battlemaster : Playing– >The Game<. BM. Ran fine for years without this ridiculous amount of OOCism and the Forum just gives more avenues to bring the personalities of the players out rather than the Game being ran through the characters, with the occasional OOC comment here and there within realms. No one lamented the lack of OOC elements before the Forum compared to the masses who simply enjoyed the game for what it was IC.What you may not know is that in the backroom (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,37.0.html) (accessible only to Magistrates) there is a push for comments devoid of judgement by the Magistrates in an open court until verdict has been made. I know that we will remember that the courtroom part of the forum should be considered separate from how we usually are in the other parts of the forum.
And you know since this “Jury” seems to be made up players who have all had provable issue with David or his characters at some point it’s a biased farce anyway, and in a real life Jury it would be dropped and the whole thing considered untouchable.Except that this is not a Jury system but a Magistrate system. Personal issues will not matter as long as the judgement is sound and stands on its own, holding up to scrutiny by everyone.
You have nothing to fear from someone making idle comment, and little grounds to construe it into being a full on allegation of “cheating”.If 'idle comment' is the defence being presented than we will take it into account on whether it is or not although this has been raised late into the discussion and the poll on the verdict has likely been reached.
You can’t demand David comes onto the Forum to defend himself, nor can you in any way hold it against nor damn him for not doing so.No, but we can pass judgement in default. The onus will be on him to present his case, his letters, etc. Barring which, we can only rule on what has been presented.
Not true.
I have a parking ticket. If I fail to pay my fine in advance and fail to appear in court, I am presumed guilty and have an additional fine.
That's why I just put a check in the mail.
This is such a huge !@#$ storm. A lot of people not knowing the whole story and throwing around accusations.
I suggest court cases are closed from the public in the future - it should be private cases dealt with those involved; outside interaction should have no say in the matter.
...stuff...No proof? Then don't make accusations. You make accusations, then dish out the proof, or you broke the rules.
And yet what did you have with Toupellon but a lack of roleplay, a lack of IC explanation or depth or anything.What you had in Toupellon was a lot of stuff that your character wasn't involved in. Just because you aren't involved in it doesn't mean it's not being done IC. Because, believe it or not, there are things going on on FEI that your character knows nothing about.
I mean the other realms didn’t even address the issue with War.Because war is the only possible response? Maybe the other realms involved *wanted* Cathay and OW broken up. Maybe the majority of people in OW *wanted* it torn apart, because they were all mostly disgusted with the craphole it had become.
Lets look at a counter claim shall we?
“Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in videogames, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie.”
If there’s no roleplay and little in the way of IC storytelling then surely this mass succession in F.E.I. to create a superstate is “maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations”.
And yet what did you have with Toupellon but a lack of roleplay, a lack of IC explanation or depth or anything. I mean the other realms didn’t even address the issue with War. Ignoring the >massive< oathbreaking and geo-political powershifts, which if it was an SMA continent would be nigh inexcusable from an IC perspective, and yet loads of realms were simply cowed into signing Peace with the new realm out of, I expect, a mix of shock and a fear of standing up for themselves for fear of being entirely destroyed. Though is seems Cathay is to be the exception.
Anatole's purpose was to create a new realm, having the element of surprise along with the support of people who have grown to be fed up with both OW and Cathay. What did anyone expect me to do? Shout it throughout the Far East? Hey guys, I'm planning to secede and spread chaos throughout the midnorthern Far East, nearly destroying two realms that have existed for years in the process. Yeah, I just wanted you to know before I do anything that I am also planning to appoint certain people who aided in the process in goverment seats, in case you confused that with ooc favouritism.
Gee, that argument really works! Excellent roleplaying basis and I can really see now the substance that David and some others mention. How could I not see that before? Let us also change the social contract to: Surprises are prohibited, when you want to do anything please inform all the people who will badmouth you if you don't. Everyone is invited to the party, we have cookies.