| Summary: | Torture Reports as Message Forwarding |
| Violation: | 2.4: exploitation of bugs |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | Lyman Stone (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=10403) |
| About: | Haktoo (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=22357) |
Needless to say, I will be recusing myself from this case.
The GM did not disagree concerning my assessment of what the demand was;Nor did he agree. Rather, it seems to me that the GM simply declined to discuss the matter with you in an OOC fashion. Which, given the nature of your accusations to him, seems perfectly reasonable.
But to demand a torture report for the explicit purpose of getting 100% proof (and it is ONLY 100% proof because of OOC understandings by players) is clearly an attempt to "get around" the game mechanics that prevent message forwarding.
We accept them as valid because we, as players, know they are, and because the coding to make them ambiguous seems like it would be quite difficult and complex.All it would require, really, is that the character not be given a scribe note link or the torture report. If that link is taken away, then only the judge performing the torture would get the text. Therefore there would be no incontrovertible proof that the messages delivered by the judge were 100% accurate. Quite simple.
When arguing on the basis of whether certain other features offer a scribe note or not, it should be considered how easy or hard transmitting such information without a game link would be. Odds are ease of manipulation and sharing played a great role in these design decisions.This is incorrect.
In game talking tortures are supposed to provide information that are accurate to the side who performs the torture.The fact it is a person in pain makes it so that in game a certain number of messages is forwarded and not all of them.
Rp talking on the other hand even if the message for which this whole cased started will appear in the torture report could actually mean nothing at all as another one could easily follow (that does NOT appear in the report) that is altered.Also pain can alter the truth if you wish :P
I do not find it as an abuse in terms of game mechanics and rp talking (only because it's this particular Continent we're talking about) there are so many ways to actually ignore the torture report .
A few points I would like to bring forth to the discussion would be:
*Scout reports are not 100% accurate as far as CS goes, but are able to be shared anyways. Copy/pasting such information in letters to such level of precision would be impossible.
*Secret police reports are short and easy to copy/paste. The text is short and there is no special formating required.
*Torture reports are lengthy and a hell of a pain to copy/paste. Copy/pasting these letters without breaking the formating and without spamming 100 letters would be impossible.
When arguing on the basis of whether certain other features offer a scribe note or not, it should be considered how easy or hard transmitting such information without a game link would be. Odds are ease of manipulation and sharing played a great role in these design decisions.
On what grounds?
SMA reports go to the titans, however, and not to us. Are we competent to debate the respect or not of SMA?
Clarification:
Did a Magistrate seriously just imply that preventing meta-gaming is not their job?
Even if police reports are scribe-linkable they are also not 100% accurate (by the way comment).
As Tom has stated before, secret police reports do not generate a scribe note because it is 100% intentional that there is no way to share the information in a 100% verifiable accurate manner.
100% accurate and verifiable manner, you would not get a scribe note link.
If it was intentional that you cannot share the information with other players in a 100% accurate and verifiable manner, you would not get a scribe note link.Sounds like it's the way it's meant to be, if there's a link it can be shared.
Firstly, it seems unlikely the Zuma will be able to defend themselves here without taking on a mortal form and thereby revealing their mortal identity. We will most likely have to proceed without their input but I think there is already enough information to act upon.
SMA reports go to the titans, however, and not to us. Are we competent to debate the respect or not of SMA?
Why yes, I did.
....The closest we get is the clause you are referencing about exploiting bugs; this is not the same as meta-gaming, which is a *far* broader term. You can also fairly argue that the very idea of 'Fair Play' precludes meta-gaming, however I'm not sold on that.
....
EDIT: Just to clarify, some forms of meta-gaming, such as the exploitation of bugs to gain a material advantage in the game, are *clearly* against the spirit of Fair Play. In my opinion this is not one of them.
This seems silly.
Titans handle very severe issues like multis... and comparatively very low-level immersion issues like SMA. So Magistrates handle... only the awkward middle?
Even if police reports are scribe-linkable they are also not 100% accurate (by the way comment).The accuracy of the content of the scribe note is not the issue with the lack of a scribe note link for secret police reports. The issue is that the game intentionally does not allow a ruler to have a 100% guaranteed accurate way for the ruler to report the results of the secret police to other players. The ruler character cannot provide a scribe note link and say "See, I'm not lying, and the game itself will back me up." The report is intentionally not scribe noted so that there is guaranteed to be an element of mistrust involved. You can /never/ be 100% certain that the character is telling you the truth about what the game told him. Assuming that the game even told him, because he may not even have used the SP, but fabricated the entire thing.
I can definitely see an argument to be made that SMA reports should be handled by the Magistrates, and the ability to force-deport as a resolution in those cases be an option.I agree that the Magistrates should be able to handle SMA issue. I don't see any particular reason why not. I mean, I know why they can't at the moment, but I don't see any reason the system couldn't be changed to let them. Maybe once enough cases have been tried, and Tom is happy with the results, it will be.
irstly, it seems unlikely the Zuma will be able to defend themselves here without taking on a mortal form and thereby revealing their mortal identity.The Zuma GM has actually created a forum account specifically for anonymous posting as the Zuma GA without revealing his identity.
The question I was raising is why it is acceptable for a character to operate on the assumption that torture reports are 100% always accurate...
Our characters would request scout reports whether or not they were known to be 100% accurate (and in fact they are not 100% accurate. maybe 90%. if you count misdirections, maybe even less). But "torture reports" are purely an OOC convenience to add a fun feature to the game.
What about those situations where a character demands a scout report to verify the presence of a noble in a region? i.e. after an assassination attempt or other infiltrator sabotage. Or a looting. We, as players, know that scout reports regarding the presence of a noble can't be faked. Is it therefore acceptable to demand a scout report to verify the presence, because we know it can't be faked? Or in those cases should we be forced to accept the player's word for it, since that can be faked?
What about those situations where a character demands a scout report to verify the presence of a noble in a region? i.e. after an assassination attempt or other infiltrator sabotage. Or a looting. We, as players, know that scout reports regarding the presence of a noble can't be faked. Is it therefore acceptable to demand a scout report to verify the presence, because we know it can't be faked? Or in those cases should we be forced to accept the player's word for it, since that can be faked?
And, after all, as far as our characters should be concerned, your character telling mine that Kepler was in Kepler City is just as accurate as a scribe report showing it. Why should I trust a scout report that you had your scribe write out by hand any more than I would trust you to dictate the exact same list of names to your scribe? It seems to me that by your reasoning in this case, the very act of demanding *anything* as a scribe note is indicative of metagaming, since the only point of demanding a scribe note is that we, as players, know OOC that they are guaranteed 100% accurate.
In theory, I don't like 100% reliable information in the game, period. In practice, it's utterly necessary to keep people from just going OOC, as I saw happen far too often in games like Utopia, where third party software became standard because people need reliable information.
It has, in fact, always been my understanding (especially given the basic unreliability of scout reports; I forget, do they perfectly report infil presences?
advy and priest movement also seems to complicate the issue) that scribe notes were purely an OOC convenience for players. The idea that these are actually some type of formalized document (that this is ACTUALLY what our characters are looking at) seems quite novel to me, and a major alteration to existing game custom.
Scribe notes ARE necessary, they keep a modicum of sanity to a game and forestall people going OOC for information. PLAYERS need reliable information to feel comfortable in the game. But CHARACTERS do not need that same level of certainty. And when CHARACTERS operate with a certainty only achievable due to understandings they could never have, but players do have, it seems like clear metagaming to me.
Even if the verdict is not ultimately decided against the Zuma GM (and I understand fully that the lack of the case's falling under a specific sub-heading renders that practically inevitable) I do request that the verdict still take note of this issue somehow, and reflect what several Magistrates have said: that even if this type of behavior is not explicitly forbidden, it's still pretty !@#$ty, especially from a GM on an SMA island.
Even if the verdict is not ultimately decided against the Zuma GM (and I understand fully that the lack of the case's falling under a specific sub-heading renders that practically inevitable) I do request that the verdict still take note of this issue somehow, and reflect what several Magistrates have said: that even if this type of behavior is not explicitly forbidden, it's still pretty !@#$ty, especially from a GM on an SMA island.
That being said, is there a wiki page talking about the Courthouse? I can't find any, and sometimes I would really like to review our precise mandate.
...you mean like this one (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html)?
Yea, precisely. Why ain't that on the wiki?
(it really is too easy to sidetrack forum threads... :/ )
SMA, on the other hand, is there precisely to fight !@#$ty play.
I don't know, Chénier, why isn't it on the wiki? The thread is stickied on the main Courthouse board. I honestly cannot think of a more public and visible place for it to be.
SMA intends no such thing. SMA relates specifically and only to the roleplaying atmosphere of the island.
Full Complaint Text:
Summary:
GM player requested torture of a character, and a forwarded report, for the express purpose of having a 100% reliable copy of the message for viewing, thereby skirting the long-standing lack of a message-forwarding option, a lack which is intentional precisely because 100% certainty ought not be available in such cases.
Details:
An adventurer sent a forged message to Haktoo. The real message was viewable by 42 nobles, including the Zuma Ambassador, Garret Artemesia. He testified to the Zuma concerning the true message. The Zuma withdrew from attacking Terran shortly thereafter, and requested that Terran send someone to talk to Haktoo personally.
The portion of the message which seems concerning is the reference to the "proof letter" and the "torture report."
It is demanded SO THAT the forgery can be INCONTROVERTIBLY proved. That relationship is clear from the letter. I privately sent an OOC complaint to the GM. The reply I received was:
My complaint, and the reason for filing this complaint under 2.4, is that message forwarding has been repeatedly denied as a feature, because the general consensus has been that we should not be able to perfectly validate messages. Torture reports, normally, are not "arranged" issues: we don't organize tortures to prove message validity. We accept them as valid because we, as players, know they are, and because the coding to make them ambiguous seems like it would be quite difficult and complex.
But to demand a torture report for the explicit purpose of getting 100% proof (and it is ONLY 100% proof because of OOC understandings by players) is clearly an attempt to "get around" the game mechanics that prevent message forwarding. Such metagaming is, somewhat to my surprise, not prohibited in the social contract, but seems in violation of fair play, and like an obvious exploitation of a game mechanic in a way it was not intended to be used.
So some meta-gaming is just more meta-gamerish than other meta-gaming. Maybe we should create a scale, 1-9, ranking the relative severity of meta-gaming, and Magistrates only handle cases ranked 4-7, while Titans handle 8-9. A little bit of unfair play by GMs, hey, that's just BM being Gygaxian, right?
I get that we are titled Magistrates. But do we have to be so lawyerly? We admit that this is basically extremely poor form by the GM, you said it should be heaped with derision. And yet you're going to give it the rubber stamp of approval. Seriously? The Magistrates are a body for regulating a community. This is a case where the GM, according to you: "Do I approve of what the GM is doing here? No. I do not. I think it's pretty lame actually, mostly for the many reasons you've already spelled out. "
I get that we are titled Magistrates. But do we have to be so lawyerly? We admit that this is basically extremely poor form by the GM, you said it should be heaped with derision. And yet you're going to give it the rubber stamp of approval. Seriously? The Magistrates are a body for regulating a community. This is a case where the GM, according to you: "Do I approve of what the GM is doing here? No. I do not. I think it's pretty lame actually, mostly for the many reasons you've already spelled out. "
Yea, precisely. Why ain't that on the wiki?You have a wiki account. Instead of complaining that it's not there, why don't you go put it there?
For myself, if somebody says, "General Gooba of Kepler is in Kepler City" my first response isn't to go "Scribe report plz?" Or, if it is, that isn't so that I can test the veracity of the fact of his presence, but so that I can get the full details the initial reporter left out. And because I as a player enjoy the psychological certainty of a scout report, and sometimes that bleeds through (though I actually rarely look at scout reports).So you admit that you sometimes ask for scribe notes for the 100% OOC certainty that it gives you, the player. But you're here prosecuting a magistrates case against another player claiming that's what he did?
Even if the verdict is not ultimately decided against the Zuma GM (and I understand fully that the lack of the case's falling under a specific sub-heading renders that practically inevitable) I do request that the verdict still take note of this issue somehow, and reflect what several Magistrates have said: that even if this type of behavior is not explicitly forbidden, it's still pretty !@#$ty, especially from a GM on an SMA island.Absolutely not. That kind of thing is way outside the mandate of the Magistrates. They are here to rule on issues involving the Social Contract and Inalienable Rights only. They are not a Roleplay police, or some some board to be used to certify that a player is a nice guy. They are not here to certify that some player was being a dick.
The accuracy of the content of the scribe note is not the issue [...]It is a "by the way" comment in case others reading this believe those police reports word for word (fair warning to them).
Understanding that OOC I am already fully aware of the truth and am making this request from a purely IC perspective [...]Under other circumstances you would probably need to state how exactly you are aware. In this case it is not needed for me as torture reports (as with anything IG) is naturally translated to make sense IG and its existence would make requests for it perfectly natural as well.
So you admit that you sometimes ask for scribe notes for the 100% OOC certainty that it gives you, the player. But you're here prosecuting a magistrates case against another player claiming that's what he did?This seems pertinent.
...
The Zuma made the request, apparently because they believe the word of the judges scribe over the word of the judge.
Isn't that what the GM is saying, essentially?
I would object to that, IC, if I were Vellos.
And I'm very curious why the Zuma place more trust in non-noble humans, than on noble humans. Why the distinction?
You have a wiki account. Instead of complaining that it's not there, why don't you go put it there?
Has nobody seen the REAL problem with the request? Nobody?I would take scribe notes as official documents. Letters are just letters. Asking for an official document is asking for an official word rather than a personal word.
What's wrong with the request IC?
The Zuma made the request, apparently because they believe the word of the judges scribe over the word of the judge.
So you admit that you sometimes ask for scribe notes for the 100% OOC certainty that it gives you, the player. But you're here prosecuting a magistrates case against another player claiming that's what he did?
Vellos is so pro-activist bench! ;D
you know... the best thing to do is for the zuma to go out and capture a bunch random nobles and peasants (who might have witnessed whatever) and torture them all, rather than asking torture reports from foreign realms.
You'd have a similar problem, though. The GM would be accused of OOC interference and we'd be here arguing over the semantics of another case. Even if the nobles and peasants/adventurers gave permission for this to happen, someone would cry foul and demand it be stopped.
That's not quite true.
No one is complaining that torturing someone yields the truth. If you are a Judge and you witness the torture sessions, then you do get the truth.
What people are complaining about is the use of scribe notes as a mechanism between foreign governements to ensure that a foreign noble is not lying about what happened within these session.
To respect SMA, if the Zuma judge wanted to be 100% certain that the Terran judge did torture the adventurer and that the adventurer said a certain thing during the session, the Zuma judge should have to torture the Terran judge himself,
because torturing is the only way to get the truth and the Zuma know it.
The Zuma don't know IC that scribe notes can't be forged. That's a purely OOC mechanism. It's the transfer of scribe notes that's in question, not torture.
or being kidnapped during the night by a gargoyle or something (with player permission)... that's an interesting thought.
Edit: Either way though, this idea of alternate ways of procuring the information is probably off-topic and should be left for another time.
You'd have a similar problem, though. The GM would be accused of OOC interference and we'd be here arguing over the semantics of another case. Even if the nobles and peasants/adventurers gave permission for this to happen, someone would cry foul and demand it be stopped.
You need to replace "100% accurate" with "unforgable".