| Summary: | Deliberate use of a bug for IC gain. |
| Violation: | Social Contract, §2 Fair Play |
| World: | Dwilight |
| Complainer: | Michael (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=26012) |
| About: | Orris (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=25893) |
This is that weird one with the message:
"Summerdale has taken control of Mt. Black Nastrond. The region used to belong to Summerdale."
Is it at all possible that he switched the region to Summerdale himself before the takeover was successful, thus keeping the lordship, but due to a bug the takeover continued and then "succeeded". Positive I've seen something like that happen before.
That would have made him a member of Summerdale, right? I'm fairly sure that he never showed up on the member list.While I didn't notice him being gone from the realm at the time, the character list for Libero shows him as being a member for 0 days, so presumably he was. How closely have you looked at the member list the past two days or so?
While I didn't notice him being gone from the realm at the time, the character list for Libero shows him as being a member for 0 days, so presumably he was. How closely have you looked at the member list the past two days or so?I think I would have noticed. I do know that after the takeover, none of the realm messages were sent to him. Maybe his time in the realm reset without him ever actually leaving.
Should the region lord be expected to simply step down from his lordship position because a bug occurred? This causes a penalty of honor and prestige to the lord for doing so, as this makes him look weak IC wise. I would say absolutely not. What can the region lord do without being accused of bug abuse? Does he simply have to sit in his region and wait to be banned from the new realm because of his misfortune?His two choices were not to either step down or undo all our takeover work. He could have done nothing, or asked a developer/admin for advice. Given the circumstances, he made the worst choice, and that choice happened to give him a significant advantage. I don't see how expecting him to step down or do nothing is any less reasonable than that.
The dev policy and the social contract don't contradict.
We don't fix it and flip the region back.
We do punish exploitation of the bug.
This is an obvious exploitation of a bug.
I am of the same opinion.
This bug presented to unwarranted prejudice to the lord in order to warrant him switching back to undo intended game behavior.
Therefore, it's a case of taking advantage of a bug to gain personal advantages.
I did check, from the day we noticed he was lord, and he was never listed as a noble of Summerdale under the "Character List". I also checked his player page where it listed Libero Empire as his character's realm.
But if the devs don't revert the consequences of bugs . . . then as long as he didn't try to cause the bug in the first place, he pretty much has to just go with the results of it, and do what makes sense IC: in this case, he just has to accept that he's lord of the region, even if it's obviously a bug that the election didn't stop when the region was TOed. And at that point . . . it becomes an IC question of should I a) join the enemy realm, b) just step down, or c) take the region back to my own realm?
But if the devs don't revert the consequences of bugs . . . then as long as he didn't try to cause the bug in the first place, he pretty much has to just go with the results of it, and do what makes sense IC: in this case, he just has to accept that he's lord of the region, even if it's obviously a bug that the election didn't stop when the region was TOed. And at that point . . . it becomes an IC question of should I a) join the enemy realm, b) just step down, or c) take the region back to my own realm?
How is this a bug exploit?
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that whoever this lord is will be punished simply because he took a legitimate in game action to respond to the *effects* of the bug.
From my understanding this was the sequence of events:
1. Summerdale takes over a region.
2. The region lord remains region lord (bug).
3. The region lord decides to switch his region back to that of his realm. (accused bug exploit)
The problem that I have with this is that the region lord cannot be expected to do anything different from an IC sense of things. It is SMA for him to have his region serve whichever Duke he wishes. If he is lord he can choose his Duke, and thus his realm. A bug occurred, and kept him as lord of the region, that is not his fault. Both he and Summerdale ahve the choice of responding to the situation as they wish.
Should the region lord be expected to simply step down from his lordship position because a bug occurred? This causes a penalty of honor and prestige to the lord for doing so, as this makes him look weak IC wise. I would say absolutely not. What can the region lord do without being accused of bug abuse? Does he simply have to sit in his region and wait to be banned from the new realm because of his misfortune?
If he waits 2 months, and remains region lord by permission of the new realm, if he then decides to change back to his old realm via his rights as lord is this a bug abuse? (It has been repeatedly stated, that time involved in certain things does not change whether something is an abuse or not, so both cases would be the same perception.)
You are not a Magistrate, nor an accuser, nor a defendant, nor a witness, in this case, or, AFAIK, in the Aurvandil/Fontan case.
Why do you constantly interject?
Even if they did for whatever reason 'have' to choose either stepping down or changing allegiance, that's the enemy realm losing a region + 3000 CS of militia vs. they lose a few points of H/P. No player with the interest of fair play at mind would make the decision they did.
The player didn't have to accept that they're the lord. They could have made any kind of IC excuse to -not- exploit the bug. "Oh, I'm not the lord anymore, that information is outdated." "Everyone's just confused after the takeover." etc. And any excuse would probably make more sense than them just straight up taking the region back to Libero, instantly, and convincing an army of militia who just came from our capital to come work for the enemy. They didn't do what made the most sense IG, they did what made the least sense.
The first option - to do nothing - would result in the character being stranded in what was until then an enemy realm without any of the background and context (or even characterization) which precedes such treason.We never confirmed that he was actually in our realm -- in fact, from what I've gathered it seems he never was. I don't see anything about it on his family history, he wasn't on the character list, and he didn't receive any realm wide messages. Oh, and he was in a battle with our realm's forces at the mountain after the takeover but before the allegiance change.
As I see the case, the issue of bug exploitation is a given. However, I also believe there are circumstances that should be taken into account when considering punishment.
First: The development team has - so far as Delvin, Foundation, or myself are able to recall - never resolved issues of allegiance for any reason until the new estate hierarchy enforcement earlier this week.
Second: The region's allegiance was not changed for a full twelve hours after a bug report was filed, acknowledged, and fixed on the bug tracker.
Third: After the bug occurred, the character in question had only three paths. He could do nothing, step down, and change allegiance. Examining these three options, I believe there is reason for leniency.
The first option - to do nothing - would result in the character being stranded in what was until then an enemy realm without any of the background and context (or even characterization) which precedes such treason.
The second option - stepping down - would result in a loss of H/P for the character, effectively harming the character. Personally, I have trouble understanding how any expectation which requires a player to harm their own character as a result of development errors can be considered fair or reasonable.
The last option - to change allegiance - is then the only reliable action available to him which both maintains the character without harm and resolves the issue of the bug.
For these reasons I believe that exploitation of the bug was in fact encouraged by a combination of developer policy and the nature of the bug: circumstances which I feel should have significant weight in deciding appropriate punishment.
...and the Dev team (based upon policy) chose not to change the results of the bug.
We never confirmed that he was actually in our realm -- in fact, from what I've gathered it seems he never was. I don't see anything about it on his family history, he wasn't on the character list, and he didn't receive any realm wide messages. Oh, and he was in a battle with our realm's forces at the mountain after the takeover but before the allegiance change.
FWIW - I'm no Magistrate, but I think that Dante Silverfire, ^ban^, and BardicNerd's take on the situation is a reasonable read of the situation. We always tell people to "play through the bug". Sometimes that bug screws you, like when all our walls on Dwilight got dropped a level. We had 3 cities and a stronghold that had to have walls rebuilt, costing us multiple thousands of gold. Sometimes it's a windfall, like that militia payment bug that ended up giving the region lords 3K-4K extra gold in his pocket on tax day. But in all cases, you *have* to play through the bug. Unless it is some serious game-balance altering bug, Tom simply does not interfere or "fix" it.
You also combine this with the "RP cannot trump game mechanics" policy. If the game says the guy is the lord, then he is the lord, plain and simple. You must adjust your RP to comply with game mechanics, not the other way around. The player could have said "WTF, that makes no sense, I'm just gonna step down and go back to LE on my own". But as far as I can see, he is under no obligation to do so.
Abusing a bug for personal gain would be if the guy knew how to reproduce this and cause the situation to repeat itself, and willingly did so in order to exploit it. But a one-off situation that the game puts the guy in, through no action or fault of his own... I don't see how you can call playing through it to be exploiting a bug. Maybe not the smartest/friendliest action he could have taken. But I don't see it as outright, intentional abuse.
That would be part of the bug. Cleanup scripts would have silently 'corrected' his allegiance to your realm when they ran (haven't yet checked whether they did or not, but my guess is yes).
How does all of this fit in with the social contract? The player's actions suggest to me that they didn't care much at all about fair play.Personally, I'm not really too sure. Since the player did not intentionally trigger the bug in order to gain from the result, did he really exploit the bug? Or was he simply an innocent beneficiary of it?
Personally, I'm not really too sure. Since the player did not intentionally trigger the bug in order to gain from the result, did he really exploit the bug? Or was he simply an innocent beneficiary of it?
As I see the case, the issue of bug exploitation is a given. However, I also believe there are circumstances that should be taken into account when considering punishment.
First: The development team has - so far as Delvin, Foundation, or myself are able to recall - never resolved issues of allegiance for any reason until the new estate hierarchy enforcement earlier this week.
Second: The region's allegiance was not changed for a full twelve hours after a bug report was filed, acknowledged, and fixed on the bug tracker.
Third: After the bug occurred, the character in question had only three paths. He could do nothing, step down, and change allegiance. Examining these three options, I believe there is reason for leniency.
The first option - to do nothing - would result in the character being stranded in what was until then an enemy realm without any of the background and context (or even characterization) which precedes such treason.
The second option - stepping down - would result in a loss of H/P for the character, effectively harming the character. Personally, I have trouble understanding how any expectation which requires a player to harm their own character as a result of development errors can be considered fair or reasonable.
The last option - to change allegiance - is then the only reliable action available to him which both maintains the character without harm and resolves the issue of the bug.
For these reasons I believe that exploitation of the bug was in fact encouraged by a combination of developer policy and the nature of the bug: circumstances which I feel should have significant weight in deciding appropriate punishment.
Personally, I'm not really too sure. Since the player did not intentionally trigger the bug in order to gain from the result, did he really exploit the bug? Or was he simply an innocent beneficiary of it?
Refer back, for example, to the various lords that found themselves the beneficiary of (on average) 4,000 extra gold in their weekly tax income. What should they have done with the gold? There is simply no way to just lose it. But if they spend it... is that exploiting a bug for personal gain?
Realistically, what did you want the guy to do? Step down and take a pretty hefty honor/prestige penalty for stepping down so soon after being elected? Really, that would probably have cost the guy 4 or more prestige, and at least a dozen honor.
Taking the region back may not have been the right thing to do, but I don't really see it as being abusive.
Referendum Results (1 day, 22 hours ago)
The referendum "Vote for lordship of Mt. Black Nastrond" has ended. Here is the final tally:
10 votes for Orris
0 abstentions
5 votes were not cast.
The winning choice is therefore Orris, with 10 votes. A simple majority was required (i.e., 1 votes).As the winner of this referendum, Orris is therefore proclaimed as the new Lord of Mt. Black Nastrond.
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
The region of Mt. Black Nastrond is currently without a local lord. In accordance with the realm's laws, the next lord will be chosen by a referendum among the lords of the realm.
By the logic that it is the responsibility of the player to know what is a bug and what is not then everyone who voted for him in the referendum should also be punished. Because that was also out of place and the root cause of all of this. Our collective lack of action caused a fellow player to be put into a "no-win" situation and caused strife with our fellow players in Summerdale.
I wasn't going to comment because I have an obvious bias here but this just keeps on coming up again and again.
The actions of this player are quite often related to "what I would do" in the same situation. I think that we need to be careful what a super active top 5% player would make of a situation does not necessarily translate into what a casual player would do. Let's not impose the viewpoint of the person who watches the forums and bugtracker daily onto someone who just plays the game because it's a game. Sure he's played it for a long time but that is no indication of how engaged he is to the community outside of the game.
On that note, I think that the Dev folks could have communicated to the player that he received his lordship as the result of a bug and that in the spirit of fair play it would be appropriate for him not to exploit the situation. As opposed to setting him up for a personal morality test that he wasn't aware was coming.
By the logic that it is the responsibility of the player to know what is a bug and what is not then everyone who voted for him in the referendum should also be punished. Because that was also out of place and the root cause of all of this. Our collective lack of action caused a fellow player to be put into a "no-win" situation and caused strife with our fellow players in Summerdale.
Did the Summerdale players even get a link to the referendum? My understanding was it was a Libero Empire referendum that failed to end when the region was TO'd. It doesn't take a player of 4 years to work out that a vote from the OLD realm shouldn't determine the Lord of a captured region.
If that was the case what exactly could the players of Summerdale do to prevent this outcome?
Stepping down = good behavior, willing to accept that bugs sometimes have costs and that he is just doing his part to bring things back to normal
Remaining in position = acceptable behavior, not trying to exploit a bug nor willing to make sacrifices to make it right. Bugs happen, he's just living with the result.
Changing allegiance (especially without feedback from the devs) = exploiting an unusual situation created by a bug in order to give his realm an unjustified advantage.
Did the Summerdale players even get a link to the referendum? My understanding was it was a Libero Empire referendum that failed to end when the region was TO'd. It doesn't take a player of 4 years to work out that a vote from the OLD realm shouldn't determine the Lord of a captured region.It was a Libero Empire referendum. From what I've gathered, the lord was captured and escaped, which made him lose his position, and a referendum for the lordship started. The election ended and gave him the lordship -after- the takeover was finished. So no, Summerdale never saw the election, and the election should have been canceled after the TO was finished.
If that was the case what exactly could the players of Summerdale do to prevent this outcome?
Other than not drop 3.5k cs of troops into a region which they just took over and which had a lord of unknown trustworthiness? Nothing.What? How would that have prevented the bug from happening? And how were we supposed to know he had the buttons available to a lord? As far as we knew, it was just an error on the region page.
Other than not drop 3.5k cs of troops into a region which they just took over and which had a lord of unknown trustworthiness? Nothing.
What? How would that have prevented the bug from happening? And how were we supposed to know he had the buttons available to a lord? As far as we knew, it was just an error on the region page.
If Summerdale received a region from Libero automatically transfering without a takeover due to a bug, is it abusive because the rulers don't immediately exchange it back? No. Would you even expect them to do such a thing?That's not even the same situation. The region wasn't given to Libero automatically, the player's actions caused it to switch hands.
That's not even the same situation. The region wasn't given to Libero automatically, the player's actions caused it to switch hands.
Well, not dropping the militia would mean you'd have those troops instead of us . . . and while it might have just been a text bug or something, if it says the lord is someone . . . well, probably a good idea to check.
Any idiot
It was intended to express the fact that it should not have taken a genius to realise something was wrong, as opposed to a deliberate insult against a particular player. I suggest turning your sensitivity levels down a notch.
What happened is this:
Summerdale invaded the region, which belonged to Libero. Orris was at that time the lord. He was captured by Summerdale, losing the lordship. A referendum to elect a new lord was automatically generated. Orris escaped from prison, and entered the election. Summerdale completed the TO. One day later, there was a message that they had TOed it from themselves. The election was completed, and Orris elected (and apparently made a member of Summerdale), and installed as lord. Orris changed allegiance of the region.
My views as ruler of Libero: I think this is, at the least, somewhat suspect, and I honestly do not really approve . . . however, the real bug is not that he was able to change the allegiance of the region, but that the election successfully completed. When the election finished, I didn't actually think it made him lord, regardless of what it said . . . I was rather surprised when I saw the message that he had changed the region's allegiance.
In my opinion, it's less than honorable, but since he was lord, entirely legal for him to do . . . the bug was that he became lord in the first place, but he didn't try to exploit a bug to cause that. A bug may have created the situation of him being lord, but my understanding is that this doesn't make him any less lord (which I disagree with, personally, but I'm not a dev, so my opinion matters little).
Did you miss the part about Dev team's not inferring with bugs? That includes imposing or suggesting OUR interpretation of fair play to a player that has encountered a bug. Indeed until the region allegiance occurred how could the team even KNOW a issue of fair play was going to come up? Consider that this is a team that is already snowed under FIXING bugs and converting code over, and now it some how needs to find the resource to examine which players are affected by every bug that is reported and give them advice on how to handle it?
Also the Dev Team doesn't vet Magistrate cases. How exactly did the team "set him up" for anything?
Did the Summerdale players even get a link to the referendum? My understanding was it was a Libero Empire referendum that failed to end when the region was TO'd. It doesn't take a player of 4 years to work out that a vote from the OLD realm shouldn't determine the Lord of a captured region.
If that was the case what exactly could the players of Summerdale do to prevent this outcome?
Morton, it's not thinly veiled. I did accuse you of cheating, hence the Magistratum. You know or should know that your character is not supposed to be the lord of another realm's region, yet you chose to use that bug to gain as many IC benefits as you could manage. If you truly and honestly tell me you didn't know it was a bug for an election in Libero to appoint you to a lordship of a Summerdale region, you're not a cheater and I'll withdraw my accusation.This is the message he sent to me:
Out-of-Character from Orris Morton (2 hours, 13 minutes ago)
(shruggs) I thought it was an oversight on Summerdale's part which allowed me to do it. As I have found out, there may have been a bug which i was not aware of that allowed me to do it. But as far as cheating? Its an free online game that I enjoy for a few minutes each day. I Don't play it as seriously as some do. (<name removed>, for example) lol
Thomas Catterall
I closed the recruiting centers, and using the politics prompt, switched duchies back to Libero.
Chris: I think that would just make the situation worse at this point. I want to win because we earned it, not through bugs or concessions.And what if they don't want to win through bugs either? You've lost the militia. If they disband it then they don't gain from it.
One thing which does have me a little unhappy is the thinly veiled accusation that I cheated.Which is why we have this system for player disputes. What do you think is the best course of action now for you as a player? To see this trial to its conclusion? Did you see this? (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2294.msg50497.html#msg50497)
Good point. A cheater wouldn't do that, as it measn losing the RCs.
I don't understand.
To me, this makes his course of action worse, not better. He sabotaged a region that he shouldn't have been able to.
To me, this makes his course of action worse, not better. He sabotaged a region that he shouldn't have been able to.
Perhaps.
However, I think the point Tom was trying to make, was that if he took down the RC's, while still intending to bring the region back to his own realm, he was just doing what the other realm would have done if they thought the region would have been reclaimed. If he just took the region back, his realm would be in a much stronger position by having the RC's to recruit from.
I personally don't necessarily see the connection but think this is the argument being made.
Intention to exploit the bug to maximum effect would have let the RCs standing.
If the realm lost the region, I'm inclined to believe it will lose it again. Therefore, sacking the centres means that when the other realm undos the bug by reclaiming the region, they'll be left with a region without RCs instead of one with.
If you are trying to say that he sacked the centres to lessen the impact of the bug, I'm not buying it. It just doesn't make any sense. "I'll take this region away from the other realm in a way I never should have been able to, but hey, it'll all good because I'm also closing the centres despite keeping the militia".
I just can't believe in any scenario that would have these acts committed out of good will, at least not without reprimendable negligence. This makes the acts even worse and more clear-cut to my eyes.
Not unless you believe the region will fall to the same enemy again soon.
What are the odds being forced to read through five pages of people calling you a cheater might be considered sufficient punishment for this? I'm a fairly new player and you hardliners intimidate the crap out of me with this sometimes. I could see myself making this same mistake, for the same reasons ("Oh, they didn't appoint a Lord so I guess I'm still Lord?"). Taking a heavy hand to him after dragging him through the mud isn't gonna help your retention issues.Which is why I suggested a simple solution. The ball is in his court.
Which is why I suggested a simple solution. The ball is in his court.
So, I'm a bit confused. Would this be the binding solution from the magistrates or just your own personal test?Neither. He's suggesting the lord disband the militia to balance things out, as an act of good faith, I suppose.
If the realm lost the region, I'm inclined to believe it will lose it again. Therefore, sacking the centres means that when the other realm undos the bug by reclaiming the region, they'll be left with a region without RCs instead of one with.
What are the odds being forced to read through five pages of people calling you a cheater might be considered sufficient punishment for this? I'm a fairly new player and you hardliners intimidate the crap out of me with this sometimes. I could see myself making this same mistake, for the same reasons ("Oh, they didn't appoint a Lord so I guess I'm still Lord?"). Taking a heavy hand to him after dragging him through the mud isn't gonna help your retention issues.
What are the odds being forced to read through five pages of people calling you a cheater might be considered sufficient punishment for this? I'm a fairly new player and you hardliners intimidate the crap out of me with this sometimes. I could see myself making this same mistake, for the same reasons ("Oh, they didn't appoint a Lord so I guess I'm still Lord?"). Taking a heavy hand to him after dragging him through the mud isn't gonna help your retention issues.
You are overthinking this. I am arguing that someone who doesn't overthink it wouldn't go down that route.
His post suggested to me that he got rid of the RC's to hurt Summerdale, and only realized after that that he could switch the region back to Libero.
This is how I saw the situation. Summerdale had takem over the province But as an oversight had not installed a new Lord. so taking advantage of my position as lord, and (as I assumed an oversight by Summerdale) I closed the recruiting centers, and using the politics prompt, switched duchies back to Libero. I was unaware of any Bug as it is not my custom to read bug tracker data. I don't know where to find it, or probably wouldn't understand any technical data.
Yes, abandoning a lordship under the new system currently does not cost honor or prestige, and can be done from anywhere even while traveling. (just tested it, to be sure)[/li][/list]
So, I'm a bit confused. Would this be the binding solution from the magistrates or just your own personal test?This:
It will help to decide if this was a case of exploiting a bug or than choosing the lesser of 3 evils.Considering that the militia is (I assume) still being kept even after (especially after) he's commented in this thread makes it very clear.
We expect you to play the game as you would play a board game with good friends, and to value fair play above any victory or power.