BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: Velax on December 02, 2012, 06:24:46 PM
-
I'm posting this here because a person has OOC accused me of violating the Inalienable Rights, which I do not believe I have. I'm heartily sick of people thinking the IRs allow them to do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want with no consequences, so I'm asking for opinions / a judgement on this.
My character - we'll call him Peter - is the ruler of realm X. Another character - let's say, John - has been in the realm for 57 days. During that time, John has done little beyond sitting in the capital. John has not recruited a unit, nor sent any messages to the realm, nor engaged with the realm at all. Peter has never seen John move out of the capital. Peter has sent multiple messages to John, asking him what his intentions are, asking him if he's going to actually engage with the realm, etc. John has not responded.
Eventually Peter had John banned, giving the following explanation:
More specifically, "John" has been banned for doing nothing but sitting in the capital for the last two months, draining X's gold. He has refused to recruit a unit, refused to respond to any messages and refused to contribute anything whatsoever to this realm. We do not tolerate such behavior.
A different player (not the player of Peter or John) then sent an OOC message stating this broke two Inalienable Rights:
"sitting in the capital for the last two months," -> activity is protected under inalienable rights.
"He has refused to recruit a unit," -> unit recruitment + class are also protected under inalienable rights.
"refused to respond to any messages and refused to contribute anything whatsoever to this realm." ->
How much someone contributes is both a matter of opinion, and also arguably connected to activity, and therefore protected under inalienable rights.
I would like some sort of judgement on this, please, as I am tired of these sorts of messages from people who do not understand the IRs properly.
-
Though not a magistrate, I've seen people banished for the same (and gladly cheered it on as well). In Westmoor, we had a similar problem with the Principe Family (excuse was training to become an infiltrator, but because they never participated in the army lacked the H/P to do so). Gold moochers aren't really appreciated in general.
-
From what has been posted here, there is absolutely nothing in this related to the IR.
The IR for activity protects how often you play, and when you play. You can play once a day, once every 7 days, or 9 times a day. You can log in an hour before the turn, 5 minutes after the turn, or use a random number generator to calculate how many milliseconds after 0400 GMT you will log in. The IR does NOT protect you from having to face the consequences of whatever actions you take, or do not take, when you play.
-
What was your character's rationale for banning this character from your realm? That's really what the IRs are about. The right to remain inactive does not mean you are protected from the action of other characters.
-
What was your character's rationale for banning this character from your realm? That's really what the IRs are about. The right to remain inactive does not mean you are protected from the action of other characters.
It's his first quote. From what has been posted here, there is absolutely nothing in this related to the IR.
The IR for activity protects how often you play, and when you play. You can play once a day, once every 7 days, or 9 times a day. You can log in an hour before the turn, 5 minutes after the turn, or use a random number generator to calculate how many milliseconds after 0400 GMT you will log in. The IR does NOT protect you from having to face the consequences of whatever actions you take, or do not take, when you play.
That's I thought to but when I went to the IR page on the wiki I couldn't find it, so do you know where that is said?
-
It's his first quote.
Was there a war going on where all hands were needed, but he refused to contribute?
Was he assigned to an army by his Lord, but refused to follow the marshal's orders?
Or was he "tested" because the ruler of the realm checks the capital region page for people who sit in it and tests them to be able to weed out the inactives?
Because if it's the latter, it's against the spirit of the IR.
-
Was there a war going on where all hands were needed, but he refused to contribute?
Yes. If "not responding in any way" can be deemed a refusal.
Was he assigned to an army by his Lord, but refused to follow the marshal's orders?
He was asked if he wanted to join an army, but never responded.
He was given multiple chances to engage with the realm and do something, but did nothing. For two months. He was sent repeated messages and ignored them all.
-
That's I thought to but when I went to the IR page on the wiki I couldn't find it, so do you know where that is said?
The wiki simply states the IRs, and does not give much amplification or extrapolation. The IR for activity states:
Playing at your own speed, timing and activity level, i.e. logging in as often or seldom as you like, at whatever times you like.
Nowhere does it say "You can do anything you want, or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result."
You are responsible for everything you do, and everything you don't do, as well. So long as efforts are made to compensate and allow for players who are not as active, then there should be no problems. Giving someone multiple chances over the course of two months to even respond to a letter from the king sure sounds to me like more than enough reason to ban the guy.
-
"He has refused to recruit a unit," -> unit recruitment + class are also protected under inalienable rights.
If the banned noble was a priest, then it would be an IR violation to order him to recruit a unit. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to order someone to recruit "A" unit, as long as you don't tell them to recruit infantry or archers or half-orc bards (Outer Tilog players, I want you to create a recruitment center called the half-orc bards).
-
Yes. If "not responding in any way" can be deemed a refusal.
Good. And, yes, it can.
-
The wiki simply states the IRs, and does not give much amplification or extrapolation. The IR for activity states:Nowhere does it say "You can do anything you want, or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result."
You are responsible for everything you do, and everything you don't do, as well. So long as efforts are made to compensate and allow for players who are not as active, then there should be no problems. Giving someone multiple chances over the course of two months to even respond to a letter from the king sure sounds to me like more than enough reason to ban the guy.
Your right, it doesn't say "You can do anything you want, or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result." But it does say "The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are. " So without the clarification people assume it. Is there anything wrong with me throwing what you said on the page for clarification?
-
I generally don't like editing the IR pages.
-
I generally don't like editing the IR pages.
Which is why I am asking specifically. It seems to me like a common misconception because it says of the whole "The basic rule is: Just shut up and stay 100 feet away from any and all inalienable rights, no matter how well-meaning you are. " Which makes it seem like something like punishing people for " or even do nothing at all if you don't want to, and suffer no consequences as a result" is a violation due to that whole stay 100 feet away.
-
From what you posted, that's a perfectly acceptable ban. The only reason I'm a bit cautious is because the story might sound differently from the other perspective, but assuming that everything you wrote is fact, there is nothing wrong with that ban at all.
The IRs are OOC fun-preservation tools. But you can still assume that the other person is playing the game. "Don't ban for inactivity" does not mean you can never ban anyone for not doing anything. It just means you have to make sure that the reason is not OOC inactivity.
People seem to think that IC inactivity also is protected, but it isn't.
-
Assuming you really have tried to contact him and he really isn't responding– sure, ban him for disobeying orders. Because that's what he did. If you banned him for not moving right before a late turn move or something that's a big no-no. But banning because he's sat around for 57 days despite multiple attempts to get him moving, i.e. he's disobeying orders he read, not just so inactive he hasn't seen them yet, then ban away.
-
@Tom,
Can I add to the IR page what you and Indirik have said for clarification? I would prefer it so that we have this happening much less. (This, as in accusations of breaking IR's by punishing them for IC not doing anything.)
-
This is a question related to activity but not directly related to Velax's case. So in D'hara we have a Midland Council and a Chairman of the Council. The Midland Council is a message group, so the Chairman position exists only by the players, doesn't exist according to any game mechanic's so no mechanics to stop, Ruler for instance, saying you no longer are chairman. So if the Chairman was asked to do something, didn't do it, says they were busy OOC, not in trouble, no big deal. So lets say they keep getting asked to do stuff and they consistently aren't getting it done due to OOC business. Let's say its something like order these people to do x, or tell me what you know about y before z so its ready before I need to have the letter sent to someone else. These are time sensitive things that if you don't do in time, you can't do, and the person is consistently not getting them done because they were busy OOC, could the ruler for instance fire them for not doing their job? Or is that a breach of IR's?
-
From what has been posted here, there is absolutely nothing in this related to the IR.
The IR for activity protects how often you play, and when you play. You can play once a day, once every 7 days, or 9 times a day. You can log in an hour before the turn, 5 minutes after the turn, or use a random number generator to calculate how many milliseconds after 0400 GMT you will log in. The IR does NOT protect you from having to face the consequences of whatever actions you take, or do not take, when you play.
This.
If the banned noble was a priest, then it would be an IR violation to order him to recruit a unit. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to order someone to recruit "A" unit, as long as you don't tell them to recruit infantry or archers or half-orc bards (Outer Tilog players, I want you to create a recruitment center called the half-orc bards).
And this.
Nothing protects you from doing nothing for a whole month. And as long as he's not telling you to change classes in order to be able to recruit a unit (only priests and advies cannot recruit), or telling you what kind of unit to recruit, it's fine.
-
@Tom,
Can I add to the IR page what you and Indirik have said for clarification? I would prefer it so that we have this happening much less. (This, as in accusations of breaking IR's by punishing them for IC not doing anything.)
The IR page is locked for a reason. But you can put it on the talk page.
-
John" has been banned for doing nothing but sitting in the capital for the last two months, draining X's gold. He has refused to recruit a unit, refused to respond to any messages and refused to contribute anything whatsoever to this realm. We do not tolerate such behavior.
Reading this made me thing the following:
First, A noble can not drain a countries gold. He is given it by being allowed to keep an estate. If he does not earn his keep, have his estate taken away. If his Lord refuses to do so, your beef is with the wrong person. Get the lord replaced. If the Duke will not do so, there are bigger issues here. I am not sure why a ban was needed at all...
-
Because when his estate gets taken away, he'll likely look towards other methods for income. Like spying. Honestly, banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make. That way when they inevitably join an enemy, when captured in battle they can finally just be executed.
-
Because when his estate gets taken away, he'll likely look towards other methods for income. Like spying. Honestly, banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make. That way when they inevitably join an enemy, when captured in battle they can finally just be executed.
No. A hundred times no. This is exactly the kind of attitude that's the problem.
Because when his estate gets taken away, he'll likely look towards other methods for income. Like spying.
Really?
If he was only looking for income, you don't think actually managing to please his Lord was the easiest way to do so?
If he really wants to spy, don't you think participating in the army would have been the smart move?
Honestly, banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make. That way when they inevitably join an enemy
Sure, it's inevitable now that you've banished him. It's your own damn fault though.
when captured in battle they can finally just be executed.
Is that your goal, executing characters you don't deem active enough for your taste? How nice.
-
Reading this made me thing the following:
First, A noble can not drain a countries gold. He is given it by being allowed to keep an estate. If he does not earn his keep, have his estate taken away. If his Lord refuses to do so, your beef is with the wrong person. Get the lord replaced. If the Duke will not do so, there are bigger issues here. I am not sure why a ban was needed at all...
This thread is about accused IR violations, not about whether you think the ban was IC justified.
-
First, A noble can not drain a countries gold. He is given it by being allowed to keep an estate. If he does not earn his keep, have his estate taken away. If his Lord refuses to do so, your beef is with the wrong person. Get the lord replaced. If the Duke will not do so, there are bigger issues here. I am not sure why a ban was needed at all...
Also, I understand that the estate was indeed taken away long before the ban was issued.
-
No. A hundred times no. This is exactly the kind of attitude that's the problem.
What? People taking gold to shove into family accounts so they can use it on other continents instead of a realm at war that needs every coin for the war effort?
Or wanting to purge those wastes of space? Because I'd rather see an estate empty and the gold going to a lord that will use it (either directly or by issuing it to other nobles) than someone who sits there and does nothing for the good of the realm. Not even RP? Please.
Really?
If he was only looking for income, you don't think actually managing to please his Lord was the easiest way to do so?
If he really wants to spy, don't you think participating in the army would have been the smart move?
It's an example, yes. And one I've not only seen happen, but I've had people take advantage of. Greed is a motivator when people don't think they're getting what they want.
Why should he please his lord when just sitting there gets him his gold. And he can keep retaking the estate too. Or just wait until right before taxes to do so. Lords cannot prohibit people from taking estates back.
You're under the impression that moochers are always smart. They are not. On the contrary, when Westmoor was warring the Saxons in Fontan, we fed the moochers we had with false info... Which Fontan attempted to use. But yes, eventually we got tired of having to be too careful of what we said. They were banished after continually refusing to follow orders to recruit units or march towards the front. I've seen people banished from other realms for less and far more quickly. But we're a tolerant lot that gets tired of our tolerance being abused. :)
The only plus side is that many of them ended up being gold sponges in Nivemus and Fontan. I DID warn Nivemus about them though.
Sure, it's inevitable now that you've banished him. It's your own damn fault though.
No, they can go to allied realms. Or neutral realms. However, if a banishment is what it takes to give them a kick in the pants to actually play the game? It's a banishment well deserved.
Is that your goal, executing characters you don't deem active enough for your taste? How nice.
Nope, my goal is to execute people with no loyalties to their lords, their ruler, or anyone but themselves. At least PRETEND to have loyalties. But that pretending would require actually doing something other than sitting there and acquiring gold.
-
What? People taking gold to shove into family accounts so they can use it on other continents instead of a realm at war that needs every coin for the war effort?
Again, if they take your gold away, then you are justified in making them your enemies. Once you stopped giving them your gold, however, why do you care?
Or wanting to purge those wastes of space?
Space is not a finite ressource in BM, and intentionally so.
Because I'd rather see an estate empty and the gold going to a lord that will use it (either directly or by issuing it to other nobles) than someone who sits there and does nothing for the good of the realm. Not even RP? Please. (...)
Why should he please his lord when just sitting there gets him his gold. And he can keep retaking the estate too. Or just wait until right before taxes to do so. Lords cannot prohibit people from taking estates back.
Sure. If that happens. We are specifically talking about inactive people. People who are actively working against you or someone else in your realm? Go ahead and ban 'em.
You're under the impression that moochers are always smart. They are not. On the contrary, when Westmoor was warring the Saxons in Fontan, we fed the moochers we had with false info... Which Fontan attempted to use. But yes, eventually we got tired of having to be too careful of what we said. They were banished after continually refusing to follow orders to recruit units or march towards the front. I've seen people banished from other realms for less and far more quickly. But we're a tolerant lot that gets tired of our tolerance being abused. :)
So you thought these people were spies, you fed them false information, you saw your enemies use that information, but then you banned them because they refused to recruit a unit? Why on earth did you not banish them for, you know, being spies?
-
You are making something out of nothing. It is not required to have a good reason to ban someone, as long as the ban doesn't fall into the "banned you, but really had nothing to do with you" category. It is much less required to investigate or provide any kind of proof for banning someone.
Besides, if someone is staying in the capital, despite having been cut his income, ain't many reasons for him to bother continue doing that other than spying. Why even bother with an investigation? Perfectly legitimate, regardless of how you may or may not like the reasoning used and the logic behind it.
-
I agree that it is perfectly OK to Ban in such scenarios, and that the exact wording of the reason is not terribly important. Just expressing my thoughts based on what I read here. It seems obvious that the character was doing nothing that was requested and just sitting in the capitol. The fact that he was "draining the realm of gold' suggested that the most basic form of punishment, being kicked by his lord, was not attempted. It is just a matter of personal taste, but i would have preferred to try that before banning the insubordinate bastard (calling the character names, not the player).
-
Besides, if someone is staying in the capital, despite having been cut his income, ain't many reasons for him to bother continue doing that other than spying. Why even bother with an investigation? Perfectly legitimate, regardless of how you may or may not like the reasoning used and the logic behind it.
Of course you don't need an investigation to accuse someone of being a spy. I've never seen anyone violating the IRs for falsely accusing someone of being a spy either. That doesn't make it right to ban people for inactivity and then justify this by saying that they could have been spies.
What Draco Tanos is saying is basically that inactive characters should be banned because they could be spies. Well, guess what? Active characters can also be spies.
-
vonGenf, a judge can ban someone because they always ban someone on the first of the month. Get over it.
-
It bears remembering that if someone is actually inactive—ie, they're not logging in at all—they will autopause in 2 weeks.
Giving someone 2 months means they are logging in without any doubt.
-
Random banning is against the banning rules. When you ban someone, it must be for something related to them. You cannot have "random ban Tuesday" or other such nonsense. That doesn't mean you have to be truthful, but you can't just randomly ban people because "well, I had to ban *someone*, it's a full moon!"
-
The same guy (and the guy who commented on it) were banned from Cathay a while back for exactly the same thing.
This is a pretty easy rule to apply. The occasions when it comes up are not borderline cases. There really are no borderline cases. Any idiot can tell the difference between a player who meets the pretty low bar of IC activity and then gets busy RL here and there versus a player who is just not interested in having their character do anything with the realm. It's the second category that gets you and even if you also fit the first (you both don't participate AND sent an OOC message about how you're not around for whatever reason, even though it's been going on for months) it doesn't change anything.
I don't remember the last time I actually saw a ruler or judge get in hot water over this. It's the first thing you learn as a judge or a ruler and really you learned it well before then. It isn't subject to much interpretation or dispute or rules-lawyering.
I'd say 'why are we even here' but it does come up every so often, usually by people who haven't seen it come up before and think that IR is a passport to do whatever (or not do whatever) and get away with it.
-
Random banning is against the banning rules. When you ban someone, it must be for something related to them. You cannot have "random ban Tuesday" or other such nonsense. That doesn't mean you have to be truthful, but you can't just randomly ban people because "well, I had to ban *someone*, it's a full moon!"
Really?
I had thought for sure this actually WAS allowed. I've never been in a circumstance where it mattered, but I thought banning for ridiculously inane reasons was allowed.
-
I think it means you have to have a reason of some sort, Vellos. Even if it's be viewed as flimsy.
-
Of course you don't need an investigation to accuse someone of being a spy. I've never seen anyone violating the IRs for falsely accusing someone of being a spy either. That doesn't make it right to ban people for inactivity and then justify this by saying that they could have been spies.
What Draco Tanos is saying is basically that inactive characters should be banned because they could be spies. Well, guess what? Active characters can also be spies.
No, what Draco Tanos is saying is that characters who do nothing should be banished. Characters that are inactive will autopause.
-
No, what Draco Tanos is saying is that characters who do nothing should be banished. Characters that are inactive will autopause.
That's where I disagree. "Doing nothing" and "being inactive" is the same thing to me. If someone wants to have a character because he only wants to read what other people are posting, I don't care.
Now, I agree that judges should be allowed to ban people for flimsy reasons, even random reasons. I can even see a case where a power-mad character would do this just to intimidate others. It's fine.
But if you regularly scan the character lists to find inactive players, then devise some kind of tests to be able to ban them without violating the IR, apply such method, and then ban them, well you were already wrong in the first part of the sentence, however well-designed your test was.
You should not care about inactive players. They take nothing away from you.
-
You should not care about inactive players. They take nothing away from you.
Right. And this entire thread has been about inactive characters. If I play my character as a snob, and another character offends him by not responding to my characters letters for two months, then it's perfectly fine to ban that offending character.
-
That's where I disagree. "Doing nothing" and "being inactive" is the same thing to me.
Being inactive has a specific meaning in BattleMaster. If you want to communicate meaningfully with other people in BattleMaster, you're going to have to adopt the common conventions. It's like saying "I want to succeed, how do I do it?" and getting mad when people tell you how to get ahead in the game rather than how to change your duchy's allegiance.
If someone wants to have a character because he only wants to read what other people are posting, I don't care.
Nor do I. But if he gets multiple messages telling him, specifically, to do something, and he doesn't even respond, he shouldn't even be a little bit surprised when he gets banned.
You should not care about inactive players. They take nothing away from you.
That used to be mostly true. Now, it's not, because anyone inside the realm is getting their taxes in gold. This means they will not revert to the realm when they autopause.
Furthermore, you are again ignoring the difference between "not doing anything" and "inactive". If they are sitting there sending every penny to their family, that is most definitely taking something away from the realm. And just because they are not doing anything you can see does not mean they are not sending the realm's troop movements to the enemy every turn. They don't even need to be in an army to do that; they just have to look at the character list (for mobile) and the realm's region pages (for militia).
-
But if you regularly scan the character lists to find inactive players, then devise some kind of tests to be able to ban them without violating the IR, apply such method, and then ban them, well you were already wrong in the first part of the sentence, however well-designed your test was.
57 days of not responding to multiple letters from the King of your realm is a bannable offense right then and there. You have a right to play at your own speed. You do not have the right to thumb your nose at the hierarchy. I don't care if he's sitting in the capital or fighting in every battle, if you are a knight, and I am a King, and you don't respond to my letters over the course of two months, you'll be lucky if I don't set up a full plan to have you executed.
This IR I have always considered from this perspective: If the characters were real, and it's assumed that anyone can get too sick to do anything at any time (quite plausible given the state of medicine), there's no way to know if someone is sick, and we make the simplifying assumption that anyone who is that sick for two weeks is moved to a house of healing, then what would the proper response be? You wait two weeks to see if they get moved to the house of healing. If they don't, then they are willfully ignoring the King of the realm and thus deserve anything and everything that happens to them.
-
Right. And this entire thread has been about inactive characters. If I play my character as a snob, and another character offends him by not responding to my characters letters for two months, then it's perfectly fine to ban that offending character.
57 days of not responding to multiple letters from the King of your realm is a bannable offense right then and there. You have a right to play at your own speed. You do not have the right to thumb your nose at the hierarchy.
Yes, I agree. This is exactly what Velax has been doing, and I think it's fine. It seems perfectly in character to do so.
However, then I see people using this as justification for things like "banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make". Well, no it's not, and that violates the IR. The intent of it violates the IR, even if the execution of the ban follows the guidelines.
-
That used to be mostly true. Now, it's not, because anyone inside the realm is getting their taxes in gold. This means they will not revert to the realm when they autopause.
Furthermore, you are again ignoring the difference between "not doing anything" and "inactive". If they are sitting there sending every penny to their family, that is most definitely taking something away from the realm.
Taking someone's estate away is perfectly justified. Banning them is a different thing. There are no realm-wide shares either anymore.
-
However, then I see people using this as justification for things like "banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make". Well, no it's not, and that violates the IR. The intent of it violates the IR, even if the execution of the ban follows the guidelines.
Depends on your definition of "deadbeat". If "deadbeat" is "someone who doesn't respond to their Ruler writing a direct message" then yes, I would concur that "banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make".
-
Depends on your definition of "deadbeat". If "deadbeat" is "someone who doesn't respond to their Ruler writing a direct message" then yes, I would concur that "banishing deadbeats is the best move one can make".
I take deadbeat as a synonym for useless, incompetent, lazy.
-
@Vellos: I don't have a judge character to check right now, but I'm fairly certain the banning page has some language about "no random bans". So things like "it's Random Ban Tuesday, let's roll the dice and see who gets kicked out" are not kosher. When you ban someone, it should be about something they have/haven't done.
-
That's this page:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Help:Bans
-
Ahhh yes. Thank you. I knew it was somewhere...
-
Of course you don't need an investigation to accuse someone of being a spy. I've never seen anyone violating the IRs for falsely accusing someone of being a spy either. That doesn't make it right to ban people for inactivity and then justify this by saying that they could have been spies.
What Draco Tanos is saying is basically that inactive characters should be banned because they could be spies. Well, guess what? Active characters can also be spies.
Squatting a capital for a month is NOT inactivity. Missing every second turn is.
There's a distinction to make.