BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: Eirikr on September 05, 2013, 05:00:46 AM
-
In the interest of keeping what is essentially a tangent out of the actual Magistrates case, I've put this in the Q&A section.
In the interests of timely resolution of the case. Other people shouldn't be penalized and have their case resolution delayed for a week or more because of this person's actions.
If he messes up again, he will get warned and muted again, and then he can argue his case with the Magistrates via PM. Or not, as he chooses.
Is there no way to either limit his account's access to the Courthouse only or just temporarily return his rights?
I think Tom is right that he earned it and shouldn't be let off from that by committing another offense. You don't release a prisoner because they commit a crime in jail. (Overblown example, but I'm low on creativity tonight.)
-
I think a temporary lift for the period of the case so he can give his side wouldn't be unfair, it could just be reinstated afterward (unless there's a limit in the system this forum uses I'm unaware of) and a close watch kept on him during this time to keep him from offending again.
To use your example Eirikr, when I prisoner commits a crime while incarcerated he's typically tried at a courthouse and kept under guard.
-
He had 65 warning points. That muted him (above 60)
Reducing him to 55 allows him to post everywhere again, and he does.
1 warning point is automatically removed every day.
Let's say the case takes 6 days. He'll be down to 49 at the end.
Even if you add back the 10 points, he'll be at 59 - not muted.
So he can post now, and once the case is done.
So yes, this does effectively negate the moderator actions of the past month.
-
Is there no way to either limit his account's access to the Courthouse
No.
(Or at least not simply.)
-
Actually, we do let prisoners out for cases. Thing called "posting bail."
-
Actually, we do let prisoners out for cases. Thing called "posting bail."
And if they abuse their freedom, then bail can be revoked, and they can go right the hell back into jail for even longer than before.
-
He had 65 warning points. That muted him (above 60)
Reducing him to 55 allows him to post everywhere again, and he does.
1 warning point is automatically removed every day.
Let's say the case takes 6 days. He'll be down to 49 at the end.
Even if you add back the 10 points, he'll be at 59 - not muted.
So he can post now, and once the case is done.
So yes, this does effectively negate the moderator actions of the past month.
But if justified, moderators can give him 15 points, putting him at 64, which is one less than what he started with.
-
Is there no way to either limit his account's access to the Courthouse only or just temporarily return his rights?
No.
(Or at least not simply.)
What about asking him to refrain from posting outside of the courthouse?
-
No.
(Or at least not simply.)
I know there are member ranks for the forums. Maybe create a limited access probation level? Not sure if that is outside the level of 'simple', though.
He had 65 warning points. That muted him (above 60)
Reducing him to 55 allows him to post everywhere again, and he does.
1 warning point is automatically removed every day.
Let's say the case takes 6 days. He'll be down to 49 at the end.
Even if you add back the 10 points, he'll be at 59 - not muted.
So he can post now, and once the case is done.
So yes, this does effectively negate the moderator actions of the past month.
You reminded me of a point I meant to make: Magistrates cases often take a week or more to resolve anyway. Perhaps this is a more simple case, but it could be argued that serving his time may not even impede the case. (This would be more relevant in the future as it seems it's already been reversed.)
To use your example Eirikr, when I prisoner commits a crime while incarcerated he's typically tried at a courthouse and kept under guard.
Expertly crafted caveat to my example. +10.
-
I know there are member ranks for the forums. Maybe create a limited access probation level? Not sure if that is outside the level of 'simple', though.
It is.
We're not going to go to the trouble of creating a special one-off set of permissions for Kai just because he habitually posts mean-spirited jibes and other types of distinctly undesirable posts on the forum, and insults people passive-aggressively in-game enough that he gets a Magistrates case opened for him.
Personally, I'd rather just let him make his case in PM, and have the Magistrates post whatever parts they think are inoffensive enough to not cause trouble on the case. But I'm happy to let Indirik's solution stand, as long as Kai doesn't abuse the clemency he's been given here.
-
We're not going to go to the trouble of creating a special one-off set of permissions for Kai...
While I hope you don't have to use it again, I'd imagine that it wouldn't be a one-off. I think it's a bit optimistic to expect this only ever to happen with one player. It could be another tool to use; as Tom said in the potential forum rules thread, players may have legitimate appeals to mod action, this would be a good last stand level for those people.
Of course, I'm still in support of full bans if it gets out of hand.
-
This is the kind of busy work I wish you wouldn't waste your time on. If the person is only just above the limit, drop it to 59 (or 55 or whatever). Who cares. This takes care of almost all cases because it is difficult to get more warn points without being able to post. If somehow someone managed to accrue 200 mod points and have a magistrate case opened, deal with it when it happens. It's so difficult to write this without insulting someone, the question is so silly.
-
This is a ridiculous conversation. Let him speak and then mute him again.
-
It's so difficult to write this without insulting someone, the question is so silly.
That may be your problem right there. Is it so difficult to divorce the core question (Should moderator sentences be suspended for participants in a Magistrates case?) from your own situation and write a non-aggressive, non-insulting post? Honestly, I would find it difficult to make this topic insulting at all without specifically naming names. (Of course, this is also subjective, anyone can get upset at anything.)
-
In the future, I think I'd prefer to just have them make their case via PM to be reposted at our own discretion, particularly in light of how this one has been going.
In other words, if they've been an !@#$%^& everywhere else, there's absolutely no reason to assume that they won't be the same in a Magistrate case, which we clearly don't need. Leave the mute on, just let us know they've been muted so we can contact them directly to get their side of the story.
-
In the future, I think I'd prefer to just have them make their case via PM to be reposted at our own discretion, particularly in light of how this one has been going.
In other words, if they've been an !@#$%^& everywhere else, there's absolutely no reason to assume that they won't be the same in a Magistrate case, which we clearly don't need. Leave the mute on, just let us know they've been muted so we can contact them directly to get their side of the story.
So a player is accused of insulting someone, and the person judging the case just called the accused an !@#$%^&. Do the powers that be make exceptions to the 'no insults' rule? What if somebody really dislikes the other person and finds him super annoying, do you let it slide?
No, we don't. Why would we? If he is insulting and breaking the Social Contract, does it matter why he does it? No, it doesn't. The Social Contract is absolute. It says "Do not insult or harass other players", and not "don't insult others unless you think you have a good reason".
What if he just said "someone" is being an !@#$%^&, but didn't technically say his name?
Then maybe you should have done so privately with him, rather than your passive aggressive "teenager-on-Facebook insulting someone without mentioning them by name" bull!@#$.
If you're getting constant warnings from the Mods and now Magistrate cases against you, have you ever stopped to think maybe you're the one in the wrong, rather than everyone else? What's that saying? "If everyone you meet is an !@#$%^&, then you're the !@#$%^&."
Ok, but a lot of people seem to dislike Kevin.
So?
It doesn't matter.
There is absolutely no justification for breaking the Social Contract. All this is just side-tracking the actual issue. Stop arguing as if you were in a court of law, you aren't.
Did he break the Social Contract? Yes or no. That is the ONLY thing that needs answering, everything else is utterly and completely irrelevant.
Don't you want to know the context?
No, we don't. Why would we? If he is insulting and breaking the Social Contract, does it matter why he does it? No, it doesn't. The Social Contract is absolute. It says "Do not insult or harass other players", and not "don't insult others unless you think you have a good reason".
Maybe Geronus had a good reason for calling Kevin an !@#$%^&, right?
Tom is absolutely right. The only item of any relevance to this case raised so far is the original complaint, which is unequivocally a violation of the Social Contract. Nothing anyone else has said has any bearing on that.
Please keep the rest of your posts to the subject at hand. I will likely delete anything off topic from this point forward.
-
Don't you want to know the context?
No, I don't.
If you steal my wallet, I don't care if you did it out of greed, hunger, desparation or because you lost a bet. I'm missing a wallet and you're a thief and that's all there is to say about it.
What if he just said "someone" is being an !@#$%^&, but didn't technically say his name?
Bring a case. Well, since he said it on the forum, there is a handy "report" link you can click.
-
There seem to be a lot of people aggressively going after Kai/Kevin for a so-called "insult" that was actually pretty tame. I wouldn't even call it an insult. It was a criticism of a peer's gameplay. Sure it was OOC, but it was related to the game, not the person. All the bleeding hearts who said he was "belittling" and "insulting" and whatever else they said, where are they when Moderators and Magistrates (the people running this game and this forum) insult and belittle a player by calling him an !@#$%^&? And even worse, because he can't defend himself because they silenced him. I guess I'm the only person to whom this looks like a personal vendetta. It looks like (some) people who hold positions of trust are bringing a trumped up case against someone because they don't like him.
Then maybe you should have done so privately with him, rather than your passive aggressive "teenager-on-Facebook insulting someone without mentioning them by name" bull!@#$.
If you're getting constant warnings from the Mods and now Magistrate cases against you, have you ever stopped to think maybe you're the one in the wrong, rather than everyone else? What's that saying? "If everyone you meet is an !@#$%^&, then you're the !@#$%^&."
In the future, I think I'd prefer to just have them make their case via PM to be reposted at our own discretion, particularly in light of how this one has been going.
In other words, if they've been an !@#$%^& everywhere else, there's absolutely no reason to assume that they won't be the same in a Magistrate case, which we clearly don't need. Leave the mute on, just let us know they've been muted so we can contact them directly to get their side of the story.
-
If you steal my wallet, I don't care if you did it out of greed, hunger, desparation or because you lost a bet. I'm missing a wallet and you're a thief and that's all there is to say about it.
I understand. My point is, don't accuse someone of stealing your wallet, and then you steal their wallet.
Bring a case. Well, since he said it on the forum, there is a handy "report" link you can click.
Personally I don't have a problem with people speaking plainly. I don't like phony outrage, but that's not against the rules.
-
There seem to be a lot of people aggressively going after Kai/Kevin for a so-called "insult" that was actually pretty tame.
And what you should be taking away from many of the posts responding to yours is that we disagree on this point. We think it was not that tame an insult. Furthermore, we know that Kai has a history of being belittling, derogatory, and insulting to other players, OOC.
All the bleeding hearts who said he was "belittling" and "insulting" and whatever else they said, where are they when Moderators and Magistrates (the people running this game and this forum) insult and belittle a player by calling him an !@#$%^&? And even worse, because he can't defend himself because they silenced him. I guess I'm the only person to whom this looks like a personal vendetta. It looks like (some) people who hold positions of trust are bringing a trumped up case against someone because they don't like him.
First of all, if you read the post Geronus made, he wasn't talking directly about Kai. He was talking about future "people who have been an !@#$%^& everywhere else, then had a Magistrates case raised against them."
Second of all, there's a big difference between saying to someone, "You are an !@#$%^&," and describing someone's behaviour as being that of an !@#$%^&. In this case, though perhaps his wording was injudicious, I saw him as using "being an !@#$%^&" as shorthand for "being rude, insulting, demeaning, belittling, and in various other ways making the people around him miserable."
Finally, if you honestly think that Geronus's words rise to the level that deserve some sort of punishment, then report them to the moderators. Or open a Magistrates case against him. Bitching and moaning, whether on the forum, on IRC, in the game, in private emails or forum messages, or anywhere else but in an official report is just pointless whining. If you see anyone, anywhere in the BattleMaster community, doing something that you think is wrong, and you don't bring it to the proper authorities, by the proper channels, you have no right to complain about those authorities doing nothing about that behaviour.
-
Personally I don't have a problem with people speaking plainly.
Do you accept that there are rules against being rude and insulting, even when you personally would deem that "speaking plainly"?
Or do you think that everyone should have the same values as you, and just accept being belittled and verbally abused?
I don't like phony outrage, but that's not against the rules.
Do you accept that there exists real outrage, even when it's outrage over something you don't have a problem with?
-
I understand. My point is, don't accuse someone of stealing your wallet, and then you steal their wallet.
That's not a point. If I steal your wallet out of revenge, you are still a thief. All I changed was that I'm now a thief, too. But it changes absolutely nothing at all about the first theft.
-
Do you accept that there are rules against being rude and insulting, even when you personally would deem that "speaking plainly"?
[...]
Do you accept that there exists real outrage, even when it's outrage over something you don't have a problem with?
Yes and yes. People are allowed to disagree with me, but we're not talking about that, are we. Kevin's messages are the issue, and while reasonable people can disagree about whether he broke the rules or not, when (some of) his accusers insult him in more egregious terms, either they're being disingenuous about their outrage, OR they don't hold themselves to the same standard that they hold other people. Either way it's problematic when they're also "the keepers" of the rules, because it looks like they're abusing their position.
That's not a point. If I steal your wallet out of revenge, you are still a thief. All I changed was that I'm now a thief, too. But it changes absolutely nothing at all about the first theft.
Yes, I understood your point the first time and I agree.
-
As Anaris said, I was not referring to Kai specifically. I was making a general point. If someone has enough points to get muted on the forum, presumably it's because they've been unfriendly, rude, insulting, whatever - and probably not just once.
-
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5071.msg119080.html#msg119080 (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5071.msg119080.html#msg119080)
This is precisely why we've removed the word "!@#$%^&" from the proposed rules of conduct.
-
And what you should be taking away from many of the posts responding to yours is that we disagree on this point. We think it was not that tame an insult.
So...you're saying everybody agrees with me? :P Anaris, you keep trying to convince me that my opinion's not universally shared, as if you think I thought otherwise. This is, however, a forum where people debate and discuss ideas.
Furthermore, we know that Kai has a history of being belittling, derogatory, and insulting to other players, OOC.
That might be relevant for deciding on a penalty, but not for deciding whether or not his remarks were insulting.
First of all, if you read the post Geronus made, he wasn't talking directly about Kai. He was talking about future "people who have been an !@#$%^& everywhere else, then had a Magistrates case raised against them."
Sure he was, just like Kevin was talking about some "future people who are terrible at the game and argue with both chars etc. etc."
Second of all, there's a big difference between saying to someone, "You are an !@#$%^&," and describing someone's behaviour as being that of an !@#$%^&. In this case, though perhaps his wording was injudicious, I saw him as using "being an !@#$%^&" as shorthand for "being rude, insulting, demeaning, belittling, and in various other ways making the people around him miserable."
I totally agree. But I think it's dishonest to excuse Geronus and while condemning Kevin.
Finally, if you honestly think that Geronus's words rise to the level that deserve some sort of punishment, then report them to the moderators. Or open a Magistrates case against him.
Like I said, I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble, I'm pointing out the apparent double-standard here.
-
As Anaris said, I was not referring to Kai specifically. I was making a general point. If someone has enough points to get muted on the forum, presumably it's because they've been unfriendly, rude, insulting, whatever - and not probably not just once.
Am I really the only person that sees the irony in this, or are you guys messing with me?
-
Am I really the only person that sees the irony in this, or are you guys messing with me?
We aren't. Let's be plain here, Kai has been one of the most offensive people on this forum for the past month or so, and has accumulated a ton of moderation points, from 5 different moderators. So it's not like one or two people are out to get him. I don't know him personally and I don't even care. For all I know, he could be smart, friendly and helping elderly ladies cross the street all day. What matters to me is his behaviour in the game and on the forum. And if someone else with a different name behaves the same way next month, he'll get the same treatment.
Does that make more sense to you?
-
We aren't. Let's be plain here, Kai has been one of the most offensive people on this forum for the past month or so, and has accumulated a ton of moderation points, from 5 different moderators. So it's not like one or two people are out to get him. I don't know him personally and I don't even care. For all I know, he could be smart, friendly and helping elderly ladies cross the street all day. What matters to me is his behaviour in the game and on the forum. And if someone else with a different name behaves the same way next month, he'll get the same treatment.
Does that make more sense to you?
Sure it does. I don't know him either, but yes, he seems like a kid who doesn't play nice with others, based on what little I've seen. I probably wouldn't even chime in on this case, except it seemed like there were several people with positions of authority against one, and the one can't defend himself. Also, I don't know what else he did to piss people off, but I thought the OOC messages specifically for this case were pretty mild...obnoxious and bitchy yes, but not worthy of a federal case IMO. But like I said, I don't know what else he's done.
-
I thought the OOC messages specifically for this case were pretty mild...obnoxious and bitchy yes, but not worthy of a federal case IMO. But like I said, I don't know what else he's done.
Nor does it matter. The particular messages for the case are judged because someone thought they were worthy of a case. That's how our system works: Nobody does anything unless someone calls for help, i.e. brings a case.
-
Nor does it matter. The particular messages for the case are judged because someone thought they were worthy of a case. That's how our system works: Nobody does anything unless someone calls for help, i.e. brings a case.
I'm just throwing in my 2 shillings worth like everyone else. I thought that was the point of the forum.
-
Sure it does. I don't know him either, but yes, he seems like a kid who doesn't play nice with others, based on what little I've seen. I probably wouldn't even chime in on this case, except it seemed like there were several people with positions of authority against one, and the one can't defend himself. Also, I don't know what else he did to piss people off, but I thought the OOC messages specifically for this case were pretty mild...obnoxious and bitchy yes, but not worthy of a federal case IMO. But like I said, I don't know what else he's done.
One thing it seems you haven't been paying attention to, is that he can defend himself. If you read the thread with the actual case, you would have seen: As Tom was writing the above note, I was in the process of dropping his warning level...
Which has not changed, he still can talk. Kai has been posting, he simply hasn't been on in the last few days. As to the issue of referring to violators that were muted on the forums as acting like an !@#$%^&, I do not approve of it but I am not going to condemn it either at this time.
The moderators made the poor choice, which is certainly partially my fault, of making the rule for not allowing insults and such, "Don't be an !@#$%^&. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users," which implies those whose who break that rule are being an !@#$%^&, which may or may not be true, the issue being leaders give an example and when we implicitly say they are being !@#$%^&s, then members of the forum will see it ok to say those who break that rule are being !@#$%^&s.
Two other things I would like state. One, stating he is being an !@#$%^&, does not mean he is one simply that he is acting like one at the present time, which is certainly what Geronus's post sounds like. Otherwise, he would have just said why let an !@#$%^& post in the Magistrates board and cause more trouble, but instead he said that if they had been an !@#$%^& elsewhere, why let the issue get worse by letting them post again for their Magistrates Case.
I am definitely for the policy because it takes several big issues in a short span of time or issues happening frequently in order to be muted, showing they are having issues following the rules, and Magistrates can become very heated making it even more likely for the player to have issues following the rules. I see nothing wrong with someone who keeps having issues following the rules have to send their defence to the Magistrates via PM who can then decide if it is necessary and/or appropriate to be posted in the thread. They can still defend themselves, but have to do a little bit more work because they keep having issues following the rules.
-
stating he is being an !@#$%^&, does not mean he is one simply that he is acting like one at the present time,
Thought I must say that the subtle difference between "he is an !@#$%^&" and "he is being an !@#$%^&" is very easy to miss, especially for non-native speakers.
-
One thing it seems you haven't been paying attention to, is that he can defend himself. If you read the thread with the actual case, you would have seen: Which has not changed, he still can talk. Kai has been posting, he simply hasn't been on in the last few days.
I did see that, and I saw Kai's rebuttal. There was still a power imbalance IMO and at some point Kai asked for others who were not moderators to chime in. I probably would've stayed out of it if he hadn't asked.
As to the issue of referring to violators that were muted on the forums as acting like an !@#$%^&, I do not approve of it but I am not going to condemn it either at this time.
The moderators made the poor choice, which is certainly partially my fault, of making the rule for not allowing insults and such, "Don't be an !@#$%^&. No insulting or derogatory behavior toward other players or forum users," which implies those whose who break that rule are being an !@#$%^&, which may or may not be true, the issue being leaders give an example and when we implicitly say they are being !@#$%^&s, then members of the forum will see it ok to say those who break that rule are being !@#$%^&s.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if not for the appearance of a double-standard. There is quite a bit of similarity between Kai's OOC msgs and Geronus's commentary. They both were about "some people", and we know who "some people" are in both cases. But Velax was much more to-the-point when he said, "What's that saying? 'If everybody you meet is an !@#$%^&, then you're the !@#$%^&.'" It's clearly personal, but he used "scare quotes" so it's like "I didn't call him an !@#$%^&, I'm just quoting."
Two other things I would like state. One, stating he is being an !@#$%^&, does not mean he is one simply that he is acting like one at the present time, which is certainly what Geronus's post sounds like.
Yes, you can argue that they were attacking Kevin's !@#$%^& behaviour, not Kevin as a person. But then you should also look at Kevin's OOC msg through the same lens: He was attacking his team mate's game play decisions, not calling him a bad person.
-
I did see that, and I saw Kai's rebuttal. There was still a power imbalance IMO and at some point Kai asked for others who were not moderators to chime in. I probably would've stayed out of it if he hadn't asked.
You keep talking about a power imbalance, as if it were something that had any bearing on the case. It doesn't. The Magistrates vote based on their own interpretations of the rules and the facts of the case, not based on whether their "old boys' club buddies" agree with them and slap them on the back the whole way.
The moderators, devs, and Magistrates are frequent posters on this forum because we all have an interest in ensuring that this game is and remains as fun and fair a place as we can reasonably make it.
That means making sure that when players are creating a toxic atmosphere–like Kai has been on the forum for a while now, and was in the game with his OOC comments–they are appropriately chastised for it, and they don't get to use a case against them as another venue for insulting and belittling people.
-
You keep talking about a power imbalance, as if it were something that had any bearing on the case. It doesn't. The Magistrates vote based on their own interpretations of the rules and the facts of the case, not based on whether their "old boys' club buddies" agree with them and slap them on the back the whole way.
It affects the fairness of the process. If you're going to have a procedure under the guise of ensuring fairness, you might as well try to make it actually fair. In this case, one side was being argued more than the other, and by some of the same people who are judging the case. Presumably the Magistrates should at least consider both sides of the argument when making a decision, and they shouldn't be making the complainant's case for him. Whoever submitted the complaint should be the one making the case that he was insulted.
Second thing: You all said that the only thing that matters is: were the 2 OOC msgs insulting, yes/no. He was not allowed to try to put his msgs in context, because you and others said, the context doesn't matter. At the same time, you and others have repeatedly cited Kai's supposed history of pissing people off. So you can put it in context (your context) but he can't, because the Mods/Mags threatened to delete anything they considered irrelevant.
and they don't get to use a case against them as another venue for insulting and belittling people.
Apparenlty Mods/Mags do get to use it as a venue for insulting and belittling people. E.g.:
Then maybe you should have done so privately with him, rather than your passive aggressive "teenager-on-Facebook insulting someone without mentioning them by name" bull!@#$.
If you're getting constant warnings from the Mods and now Magistrate cases against you, have you ever stopped to think maybe you're the one in the wrong, rather than everyone else? What's that saying? "If everyone you meet is an !@#$%^&, then you're the !@#$%^&."
-
Buffalkill, you are completely and utterly in the wrong here. Kai has repeatedly abused the mods and other players on this forum with sardonic comments. He has trolled several threads on which there was a serious discussion going on, and I personally will be glad if he gets muted again. As someone who on bad days tends to hide barbs at others within an argument, I know what to look for when seeing if someone is trying to insult, especially if they are trying to be clever about it.
I myself have been punished by the mods on occasion, including one point where I could not post for several days. I have much, much more reason to have been crying wolf towards the mods than you do, but I don't because I realize they are just doing what they are supposed to.
-
I know Gustav, I'm getting used to being wrong. ;) If he's abused people in the forum in the past, then punish him for those abuses. But as Tom said, this case is about the 2 OOC msgs, not whatever happened in the past. If he's found "guilty", then by all means look at his record for determining his punishment, but not for deciding his guilt or innocence.
-
Which is pretty much exactly what's happening.
-
If you're going to have a procedure under the guise of ensuring fairness, you might as well try to make it actually fair.
Magistrate cases are not about fairness. They are about justice in the matter of violations of the Inalienable Rights and the Social contract.
In this case, one side was being argued more than the other, and by some of the same people who are judging the case.
That's how the Magistrates work. In fact, they have a private board that not even I can see where they discuss the case amongst themselves. They are judge, jury, and executioners.
Presumably the Magistrates should at least consider both sides of the argument when making a decision, and they shouldn't be making the complainant's case for him. Whoever submitted the complaint should be the one making the case that he was insulted.
I submitted the case, but I was not the one insulted. I saw my fellow player being insulted OOC, in violation of the Social Contract, and I submitted a Case. The Courthouse Rules (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html) clearly state:
You can, and in fact are encouraged to, bring cases even if you are not affected. If you see someone violating the right of another player, do speak up on behalf of that other player. He may not dare to or know how.
So no, I should not be making the case. I submitted the evidence, and it's up to the Magistrates to decide if the evidence proves a violation of the Social Contract or IR's.
And, as for Geronus and whether he insulted Kai or not:
Any complaints about Magistrates or their behavior have to go through e-mail to tom@battlemaster.org and absolutely nowhere else.
Moderators aren't supposed to moderate the magistrates in the Courthouse board.
-
Which is pretty much exactly what's happening.
It doesn't look like it.
-
It doesn't look like it.
Yes it does. Please quit seemingly trying to prove that people are out to get Kai, and read the thread. Tom is absolutely right. The only item of any relevance to this case raised so far is the original complaint, which is unequivocally a violation of the Social Contract. Nothing anyone else has said has any bearing on that.
Please keep the rest of your posts to the subject at hand. I will likely delete anything off topic from this point forward.
-
Magistrate cases are not about fairness. They are about justice in the matter of violations of the Inalienable Rights and the Social contract.
After this is finished, you'll have explain to me how fairness and justice are mutually exclusive.
That's how the Magistrates work. In fact, they have a private board that not even I can see where they discuss the case amongst themselves. They are judge, jury, and executioners.
Point?
I submitted the case, but I was not the one insulted. I saw my fellow player being insulted OOC, in violation of the Social Contract, and I submitted a Case. The Courthouse Rules (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html) clearly state:
So no, I should not be making the case. I submitted the evidence, and it's up to the Magistrates to decide if the evidence proves a violation of the Social Contract or IR's.
You don't have to be the insulted party, but if you're the one making the complaint, you should at least be able to justify your complaint, instead of just kicking it to the Magistrates to look after it for you. It's already well known that the Mods have animosity towards Kai, but if the "insulted player" didn't see fit to make a complaint, and so far hasn't contributed to this discussion, then maybe he wasn't as insulted as you claim he was.
Tom said, "Nobody does anything unless someone calls for help." Well, the insulted player did not call for help. You did, because you saw an opportunity to exploit a provision in the rules to bring a case against someone you dislike.
And, as for Geronus and whether he insulted Kai or not:
Moderators aren't supposed to moderate the magistrates in the Courthouse board.
Point?
-
Yes it does. Please quit seemingly trying to prove that people are out to get Kai, and read the thread.
Actually Penchant, I didn't truly believe the Moderators were out to get Kai until I read the thread, and now every posting I read from "the ruling class" strengthens that believe.
Addendum: Precious few postings have focused on the 2 OOC msgs, while most of you are focusing on how much of an !@#$%^& Kai is.
-
After this is finished, you'll have explain to me how fairness and justice are mutually exclusive.
Who said they were? Or to ask the real question, who said they were mutually inclusive? Just because you can have fairness coupled with justice on the forums, doesn't mean that they will be.
-
It affects the fairness of the process. If you're going to have a procedure under the guise of ensuring fairness, you might as well try to make it actually fair. In this case, one side was being argued more than the other, and by some of the same people who are judging the case.
It doesn't matter who's making arguments, what matters is the arguments themselves. If they're good arguments, they'll carry weight with us. If they're not, they won't. And if many more people are arguing one way than the other, that probably says something about the relative strength of each side's argument. Sometimes we need to make our opinions clear in order to direct the discussion into areas that are useful to our deliberations.
Presumably the Magistrates should at least consider both sides of the argument when making a decision, and they shouldn't be making the complainant's case for him. Whoever submitted the complaint should be the one making the case that he was insulted.
We do. This case seems one-sided because it is. Do you honestly believe that the messages in question were not intended as insults? That's really the only argument that would possibly win the case for Kai, and it is not one that is particularly easy to make. If you feel strongly about it, then I invite you to make your argument in the case thread, and we'll consider it.
-
Second thing: You all said that the only thing that matters is: were the 2 OOC msgs insulting, yes/no. He was not allowed to try to put his msgs in context, because you and others said, the context doesn't matter. At the same time, you and others have repeatedly cited Kai's supposed history of pissing people off. So you can put it in context (your context) but he can't, because the Mods/Mags threatened to delete anything they considered irrelevant.
Fair point, that.
Here's why I consider these two different things, but that doesn't mean I disagree. You do have a point there.
So why? One is putting the actual infraction into a context. But even doing so, it doesn't make it a non-infraction. i.e. my example of explaining why you stole my wallet - it might be interesting to a historian or a psychologist, but to the police it shouldn't matter.
The other is the background of the offender, and that does. In every court I know, it does matter if you're a first-time offender with a clean record so far, or a repeat offender. It matters because people make mistakes, and as a society we accept that, but at the same time we don't want evil people to use "sorry, didn't mean it" as a get-out-of-jail-free card all the time.
And that's why for BattleMaster I even created a rule that says "everyone is entitled to one warning". So this context is to check if Kai has had his warning already, or if he's a first-time offender.
Still, even with all that said, you do have a point. Background checking should be strictly limited to that one point: Did the offender already receive a warning for the same or a very similar behavior?
-
Actually Penchant, I didn't truly believe the Moderators were out to get Kai until I read the thread, and now every posting I read from "the ruling class" strengthens that believe.
I hear these phrases repeatedly - "ruling class", "old boys club", and so on - allegations that there are organized groups within the game with special privileges.
But nobody ever publishes a member list. All this is is creating a false "us vs. them" feeling. It's not fair unless you can prove that such a group even exists.
Trust me, the Magistrates, Titans, moderators, even the dev team, are far from being one entity. There's quite a bit of differing opinions and in-fighting.
-
Actually Penchant, I didn't truly believe the Moderators were out to get Kai until I read the thread, and now every posting I read from "the ruling class" strengthens that believe.
So in order to "fairly" find Kai guilty it has to be non-mods who find him so? Statements like "ruling class" or the "mods are out to get him" seem to distract from the real issue which is that Kai sent OOC messages that were very clearly unacceptable. Had I been in the realm at the time I certainly would have reported them- they are very clearly insulting and in my opinion quite offensive.
As as non-member of the supposed "ruling class" (lower class?) I have to say I'm really not seeing what your getting at here. Kai very clearly seems guilty and I would personally be surprised and suspect found play if most of the magistrates working on the case didn't immediately see what is staring at them right in the face. This isn't a court of law where we need lawyers for both sides; if someone is clearly in the wrong there is no requirement for a token magistrate to argue the impossible just because it "seems fair".
-
So why? One is putting the actual infraction into a context. But even doing so, it doesn't make it a non-infraction. i.e. my example of explaining why you stole my wallet - it might be interesting to a historian or a psychologist, but to the police it shouldn't matter.
The difference is that when it's a physical thing that's been stolen there's little or no doubt. In this case, whether or not the msgs were insulting is a subjective thing.
I remember a few weeks ago you posted somewhere (in response to a snarky posting from one of the Devs) that because you know each other you didn't feel insulted or offended by him. The implication being that context can make a difference when talking about apparent insults. So we all might have read the Dev's posting as an insult, but obviously the 2 of you didn't.
-
I hear these phrases repeatedly - "ruling class", "old boys club", and so on - allegations that there are organized groups within the game with special privileges.
But nobody ever publishes a member list. All this is is creating a false "us vs. them" feeling. It's not fair unless you can prove that such a group even exists.
Trust me, the Magistrates, Titans, moderators, even the dev team, are far from being one entity. There's quite a bit of differing opinions and in-fighting.
I used the term "ruling class", not as an epithet, but just to refer to the people who running things, and more specifically in this instance the moderators. "Old boys club" didn't come from me, it came from one of the Devs.
-
This isn't a court of law where we need lawyers for both sides; if someone is clearly in the wrong there is no requirement for a token magistrate to argue the impossible just because it "seems fair".
That's a very good way of putting it. Thanks, Meneldur :)
-
I used the term "ruling class", not as an epithet, but just to refer to the people who running things, and more specifically in this instance the moderators. "Old boys club" didn't come from me, it came from one of the Devs.
And it came to us from other players, who actually believe that there is some kind of dev/mod/Magistrate conspiracy against them. You'd be surprised (and depressed) how many such people there are, actually. :-\
-
It affects the fairness of the process. If you're going to have a procedure under the guise of ensuring fairness, you might as well try to make it actually fair. In this case, one side was being argued more than the other, and by some of the same people who are judging the case.
This is actually a problem common in American Media.
You may not appreciate this, but just because two arguments exist does not mean they are equally worthy of time. We aren't Fox News, and I'd rather we not try to be.
-
The difference is that when it's a physical thing that's been stolen there's little or no doubt. In this case, whether or not the msgs were insulting is a subjective thing.
Do you think they weren't?
-
This isn't a court of law where we need lawyers for both sides; if someone is clearly in the wrong there is no requirement for a token magistrate to argue the impossible just because it "seems fair".
Not a court of law? Then why am I wearing a robe and powdered wig? :P
Nobody said anything about lawyers. There are two sides to every story and listening to both sides being argued won't hurt anyone or cause the sky to come crashing down over BM. There could just be one person making these decisions behind the scenes, but presumably the purpose of the Magistrate forum is to ensure that both sides are heard.
-
There are two sides to every story and listening to both sides being argued won't hurt anyone or cause the sky to come crashing down over BM.
We heard it. His defense was basically, "He was just so bad, how could I not insult him?"
That's not a valid defense, so anything further was really pretty unnecessary.
There could just be one person making these decisions behind the scenes, but presumably the purpose of the Magistrate forum is to ensure that both sides are heard.
Sure. Heard. We heard him.
The purpose is not to make sure that both sides get equal time. As ^ban^ said, the idea that the two sides of every issue deserve equal time is an abhorrent fallacy propagated by far too much of Western media.
-
Do you think they weren't?
I've already said I don't they were insulting. The msg was directed at his realm mate's game play, not his inherent goodness as a person.
I understand that reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line between 'insult' and 'non-insult', but if the consensus is (seems to be) that calling someone an !@#$%^& is acceptable, I don't see how you can reconcile getting upset because Kai said that another player is "bad at the game".
If he had said, for example, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries," those would fighting words. :)
-
Actually Penchant, I didn't truly believe the Moderators were out to get Kai until I read the thread, and now every posting I read from "the ruling class" strengthens that believe.
Addendum: Precious few postings have focused on the 2 OOC msgs, while most of you are focusing on how much of an !@#$%^& Kai is.
15 out of the 41 reported posts in the past month are about Kai. Those reports were made by 12 different people. That means that 36% of reported posts in the past month are regarding Kai, and it's far more than just the moderators who believe that his posts cross the line. When about 10% of those posting to the forums have reported someone, that someone has a problem, not the moderators. And frankly, if you think we are being unfair, you can email Tom about it. This forum is about Magistrate cases, not moderator actions.
As for the 2 OOC messages, I'm not sure what else needs to be said. It's none of the concern of the Moderators, and like I said previously, the Magistrates have a private forum to discuss their takes on the 2 OOC messages.
-
This is actually a problem common in American Media.
You may not appreciate this, but just because two arguments exist does not mean they are equally worthy of time. We aren't Fox News, and I'd rather we not try to be.
I've heard a lot people talk !@#$ about Fox News before, but you're the first person to accuse them of being too 2-sided. :)
I'm not saying opposing arguments always have equal merit, just that when somebody's accused of wrong-doing, you should look at both sides of the story.
-
That's how the Magistrates work. In fact, they have a private board that not even I can see where they discuss the case amongst themselves. They are judge, jury, and executioners.
Point?
My point being, you don't know that both sides of the case aren't being argued. It could very well be the case that five of the magistrates are vigorously defending Kevin, but that they are going it in the private forum where they are supposed to do such arguing, rather than airing their judicial process in public.
I submitted the case, but I was not the one insulted. I saw my fellow player being insulted OOC, in violation of the Social Contract, and I submitted a Case. The Courthouse Rules (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html) clearly state:
So no, I should not be making the case. I submitted the evidence, and it's up to the Magistrates to decide if the evidence proves a violation of the Social Contract or IR's.
You don't have to be the insulted party, but if you're the one making the complaint, you should at least be able to justify your complaint, instead of just kicking it to the Magistrates to look after it for you.
Tom said, "Nobody does anything unless someone calls for help." Well, the insulted player did not call for help. You did, because you saw an opportunity to exploit a provision in the rules to bring a case against someone you dislike.
Look, I didn't even remember that Kai played the Endredgard family. You can believe that or not, but my reporting of his OOC messages had nothing to do with his forum posts. And when players are encouraged to make reports on behalf of other players, that's hardly "exploiting" the rules. If you see your neighbor being robbed, do you call the cops, or do you just say, "well, he can call the police himself if he wants to"?
Its our job as players to report posts; it's the Magistrates job to rule on them. My initial complaint submission provided the OOC messages and which provisions of the Social Contract I believed had been violated; there's nothing I care to add to the case, although when additional context was asked for I provided those posts.
And, as for Geronus and whether he insulted Kai or not:
Moderators aren't supposed to moderate the magistrates in the Courthouse board.
Point?
My point was that when someone asked by Geronus' posting with the word "!@#$%^&" wasn't moderated, I was letting you know that Moderators aren't supposed to moderate the Magistrates.
=====
It comes down to this. Nobody, including Kevin, has provided any evidence at all that I either falsified those OOC messages, or that those OOC messages weren't violations of the Social Contract. And that's all the case is about. Three simple questions: did Kevin write them, and if so, were they violations of the IRs or SC, and if they were, what is the punishment?
All this nonsense about who's out to get who is irrelevant. Those are the only three questions that the Magistrates have to consider.
-
I've heard a lot people talk !@#$ about Fox News before, but you're the first person to accuse them of being too 2-sided. :)
I'm not saying opposing arguments always have equal merit, just that when somebody's accused of wrong-doing, you should look at both sides of the story.
We are. So far, the consensus is that there isn't much merit to Kai's argument. If you want to change our minds, you need to address the points that egamma just raised:
It comes down to this. Nobody, including Kevin, has provided any evidence at all that I either falsified those OOC messages, or that those OOC messages weren't violations of the Social Contract. And that's all the case is about. Three simple questions: did Kevin write them, and if so, were they violations of the IRs or SC, and if they were, what is the punishment?
All this nonsense about who's out to get who is irrelevant. Those are the only three questions that the Magistrates have to consider.
I couldn't have said it better myself. At this point, specifically the bit about whether the messages were violations of the Social Contract is the only part that matters to the Magistrates since Kai has already admitted to writing them.
-
We are. So far, the consensus is that there isn't much merit to Kai's argument. If you want to change our minds, you need to address the points that egamma just raised:
It comes down to this. Nobody, including Kevin, has provided any evidence at all that I either falsified those OOC messages, or that those OOC messages weren't violations of the Social Contract. And that's all the case is about. Three simple questions: did Kevin write them, and if so, were they violations of the IRs or SC, and if they were, what is the punishment?
All this nonsense about who's out to get who is irrelevant. Those are the only three questions that the Magistrates have to consider.
I couldn't have said it better myself. At this point, specifically the bit about whether the messages were violations of the Social Contract is the only part that matters to the Magistrates since Kai has already admitted to writing them.
Like I said:
I've already said I don't they were insulting. The msg was directed at his realm mate's game play, not his inherent goodness as a person.
I understand that reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line between 'insult' and 'non-insult', but if the consensus is (seems to be) that calling someone an !@#$%^& is acceptable, I don't see how you can reconcile getting upset because Kai said that another player is "bad at the game".
If he had said, for example, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries," those would fighting words. :)
-
but if the consensus is (seems to be) that calling someone an !@#$%^& is acceptable,
No one ever said that. On the contrary, the rule proposes was do NOT be an !@#$%^&. Personally, I think there's a massive difference between a general statement like that and throwing that word at a specific person, but in the other topic the wording has already been changed simply because it might be misinterpreted, so the whole point is really moot.
-
Not a court of law? Then why am I wearing a robe and powdered wig? :P
Nobody said anything about lawyers. There are two sides to every story and listening to both sides being argued won't hurt anyone or cause the sky to come crashing down over BM. There could just be one person making these decisions behind the scenes, but presumably the purpose of the Magistrate forum is to ensure that both sides are heard.
But both sides were quite clearly heard; in fact Kai was unmuted specifically for that purpose, that he should be allowed to present his case. And that's exactly what he did- if you look at the thread in question Kai has several posts defending his point of view.
Sure, many Magistrates then disagreed with said posts but that doesn't mean he wasn't heard; in fact that is rather explicit proof that his argument was listened to and then rejected for being spurious. And no that's not unfair, that's exactly what the Magistrates are supposed to do; listen to both sides and then judge one of them to be spurious and the other to be valid.
So again I'm not fully understanding what your point is- what exactly did the Magistrates not do that you expected them to do?
-
No one ever said that. On the contrary, the rule proposes was do NOT be an !@#$%^&. Personally, I think there's a massive difference between a general statement like that and throwing that word at a specific person, but in the other topic the wording has already been changed simply because it might be misinterpreted, so the whole point is really moot.
I wasn't referring to that.
-
Not a court of law? Then why am I wearing a robe and powdered wig? :P
Nobody said anything about lawyers. There are two sides to every story and listening to both sides being argued won't hurt anyone or cause the sky to come crashing down over BM. There could just be one person making these decisions behind the scenes, but presumably the purpose of the Magistrate forum is to ensure that both sides are heard.
The main point of the Magistrates is, if I remember correctly, to provide more transparency into the decision making process then we had with the Titan system. To be honest the amount of time dedicated to discussions and "building" cases far exceeds what I recall being the intent. Most cases should be able to be summed up by 2-3 posts really. Part of the problem seems to be that to give the Magistrates enough time to make sure they have all had time to look at and consider the case (remember these are all volunteers) the verdict takes a while, and people post and argue over the facts until that verdict is posted.
-
The main point of the Magistrates is, if I remember correctly, to provide more transparency into the decision making process then we had with the Titan system. To be honest the amount of time dedicated to discussions and "building" cases far exceeds what I recall being the intent. Most cases should be able to be summed up by 2-3 posts really. Part of the problem seems to be that to give the Magistrates enough time to make sure they have all had time to look at and consider the case (remember these are all volunteers) the verdict takes a while, and people post and argue over the facts until that verdict is posted.
That is one reason I suggested the Titans/Magistrate reform should just be the original report and the magistrate verdict. Have those listed publicly (preferably in a link from the report page or otherwise integrated into the game, though the wiki would also be a fine spot). There can be a forum, with tight moderation, discussing cases, much like the Q&A forum now.
-
That is one reason I suggested the Titans/Magistrate reform should just be the original report and the magistrate verdict. Have those listed publicly (preferably in a link from the report page or otherwise integrated into the game, though the wiki would also be a fine spot). There can be a forum, with tight moderation, discussing cases, much like the Q&A forum now.
Makes a lot of sense, it is rare that magistrates require lengthy discussion from community to actually make a decision. More often the result is bickering rather then illuminating debate.
-
I know Gustav, I'm getting used to being wrong. ;) If he's abused people in the forum in the past, then punish him for those abuses. But as Tom said, this case is about the 2 OOC msgs, not whatever happened in the past. If he's found "guilty", then by all meanslook at his record for determining his punishment, but not for deciding his guilt or innocence.
I know I'm late to the party, but... using your own emphasis, he managed to get off of those [forum] abuses by being unmuted via the Magistrates case. I know we've traveled quite far from my original point, but the way I see it, the "legal" process has been disrupted in his favor, not otherwise.
Another point of contention you hold is that Kai wrote his negative (currently an undisputed adjective) OOC messages about the other players' gameplay... Can that not be an insult? If I offer to tie your shoes for you, is it not an insult to your intelligence? It should say something that it was quite difficult for me not to use the word "insult" to describe those messages; I had to actively edit myself.
What makes Kai's messages (and thereby, defenses) harder to swallow is that there is no way to "win" BattleMaster. Essentially, by definition, you cannot be "good" nor "bad" at it. I'm even quite certain that's one of the major selling points of the game. Yes, you can win or lose battles or wars, but there are many IG, IC, non-insulting ways to remove someone who seems to be hurting your realm.
-
So again I'm not fully understanding what your point is- what exactly did the Magistrates not do that you expected them to do?
I think this tangent has run its course. No point really. At some juncture I casually mentioned that this case doesn't really concern me, but since Kai asked for someone who's not a Moderator to chime in, and since at that point it was something like 5 against 1, I decided to give my opinion. 50 posts later, now it's 10 against 1, and I'm the 1. Chalk it up to a lesson in staying on topic.
-
Another point of contention you hold is that Kai wrote his negative (currently an undisputed adjective) OOC messages about the other players' gameplay... Can that not be an insult?
That argument arose when I pointed out that 2 forum users insulted Kai by calling him an '!@#$%^&' on this thread, and a few people were falling all over themselves to excuse it by saying that they weren't really calling him an !@#$%^&, it was just shorthand for saying that he was behaving like an !@#$%^&. Whatever. And then also I had argued that BattleMaster is a team sport, and as a member of a team you ought to be able to criticize your teammates. Kai didn't say, for example, "You're too stupid to play BM" or "You suck because you're from country X," or anything like that. He was expressing his frustration with his teammate.
What makes Kai's messages (and thereby, defenses) harder to swallow is that there is no way to "win" BattleMaster. Essentially, by definition, you cannot be "good" nor "bad" at it. I'm even quite certain that's one of the major selling points of the game. Yes, you can win or lose battles or wars, but there are many IG, IC, non-insulting ways to remove someone who seems to be hurting your realm.
I don't think it's relevant. There's no end to BM as there is in, say, a football game. So what? We're not talking about whether or not his critique was well-founded, as all of the "prosecutors" have strenuously pointed out to me, no matter whether I needed to hear it or not. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with his critique, he should be allowed say it, and his realm mates are allowed to refute it if they disagree.
-
That argument arose when I pointed out that 2 forum users insulted Kai by calling him an '!@#$%^&' on this thread, and a few people were falling all over themselves to excuse it by saying that they weren't really calling him an !@#$%^&, it was just shorthand for saying that he was behaving like an !@#$%^&. Whatever. And then also I had argued that BattleMaster is a team sport, and as a member of a team you ought to be able to criticize your teammates. Kai didn't say, for example, "You're too stupid to play BM" or "You suck because you're from country X," or anything like that. He was expressing his frustration with his teammate.
I don't think it's relevant. There's no end to BM as there is in, say, a football game. So what? We're not talking about whether or not his critique was well-founded, as all of the "prosecutors" have strenuously pointed out to me, no matter whether I needed to hear it or not. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with his critique, he should be allowed say it, and his realm mates are allowed to refute it if they disagree.
A critique would be something along the lines of, you made a mistake in this circumstance because of factors x y z. If I told someone on my football team they were a bad player, apart from being "unhelpful" criticism I would most likely just be told to stop being a jerk. If criticism is insulting or offensive then they should not be able to say it, and should probably think hard about how to improve their communications so that the criticism is received in way that will lead to positive outcomes.
-
If I told someone on my football team they were a bad player, apart from being "unhelpful" criticism I would most likely just be told to stop being a jerk.
...at which point you would of course accuse them of throwing a temper tantrum. Because that's such a valid critique of their gameplay...
-
A critique would be something along the lines of, you made a mistake in this circumstance because of factors x y z. If I told someone on my football team they were a bad player, apart from being "unhelpful" criticism I would most likely just be told to stop being a jerk. If criticism is insulting or offensive then they should not be able to say it, and should probably think hard about how to improve their communications so that the criticism is received in way that will lead to positive outcomes.
...at which point you would of course accuse them of throwing a temper tantrum. Because that's such a valid critique of their gameplay...
A tantrum? Yes, that's what this appears to be. Without being in that realm, I can't say whether it was helpful or not, nor does it matter. It appears there was a power struggle going on, but again that's really for the players in that realm to worry about, not me. If the other player was offended, he's kept it to himself. If he was a newbie who subsequently quit the game as a result, I might be more inclined to throw the book at Kai. Since the player is a Royal Marshall, I doubt he cried himself to sleep that night. I know that the usual suspects would probably jump in here and say that the player's rank, and whether or not he cried, is irrelevant, so I just saved you the trouble.
-
Before I say anything else, I want to thank Buffalkill for holding in there with his thoughts. Though it may be hard to tell, I'm detecting genuine concern, not stubbornness. (Sorry, I didn't know how to say that in a more polite way.) I'm sure it's taking a massive amount of patience and time. He is raising good points, but there are also good counters. He doesn't have to defend or answer anything in this thread, but he is taking time to do so. This deserves recognition, whether or not you agree with him.
That argument arose when I pointed out that 2 forum users insulted Kai by calling him an '!@#$%^&' on this thread, and a few people were falling all over themselves to excuse it by saying that they weren't really calling him an !@#$%^&, it was just shorthand for saying that he was behaving like an !@#$%^&. Whatever.
I'll give you this one, as Tom already has. I understand the distinction, but it is still not the correct way to go about this. Fair trial or not, a level of respect should be maintained for all involved. It's too late for this case, but may it be a lesson for the future.
That said, you dodged the main point I was getting at. Not only can I not see how those two different lines of logic are connected (that is, criticizing gameplay to pointing out poor word choice), I still do not see why it isn't an insult. Criticism can still be insulting, true or not. It's in the delivery; in this case, the delivery was exceptionally poor and frankly, unnecessary given the ways IC to deal with it. People make mistakes, part of the beauty of BM is that anyone, at any time, can screw up that perfect plan you've been cooking for months or years. Talk to my good friend Merlin: He's probably the one I've seen hit that wall the most, and I still kick myself for screwing up his last one, despite it playing out according to my character.
And then also I had argued that BattleMaster is a team sport, and as a member of a team you ought to be able to criticize your teammates. Kai didn't say, for example, "You're too stupid to play BM" or "You suck because you're from country X," or anything like that. He was expressing his frustration with his teammate.
Yes, feel free to criticize your teammates... in character. Bringing it OOC is completely unnecessary. Regardless of if it is the character or player that is limited in strategic capability, there are plenty of ways to just deal with it. You're right, he didn't say anything as you quote here... But he comes shockingly close to "You're too stupid to play BM". Must it be so painfully obvious before it is considered insulting? He indicated, in no uncertain terms, that the other player "love[d] power and position" and "throws tantrums". I don't think I've ever heard a single person on the planet Earth use the word "tantrum" unless they were trying to incense the other person. (It's like telling an angry person to calm down. Only ever makes it worse.) To me, the "love power and position" is a particularly odd choice for plain criticism... Aren't power and position the only actual forms of progression in the game?
I'll grant you that this could be considered circumstantial evidence; there's a measure of interpretation. Unfortunately for Kai, the interpretation is both necessary and intuitively followed.
I don't think it's relevant. There's no end to BM as there is in, say, a football game. So what? We're not talking about whether or not his critique was well-founded, as all of the "prosecutors" have strenuously pointed out to me, no matter whether I needed to hear it or not. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with his critique, he should be allowed say it, and his realm mates are allowed to refute it if they disagree.
Ah, but it is. The Social Contract and Inalienable Rights were created (please correct me if I'm wrong) to help shape a friendly atmosphere for casual players. That atmosphere is further centered around a game that nobody can win and everybody is equal, to a large extent. The objective is not, never has been, and never will be to conquer an entire continent or to win wars. The objective is to create a simulation of a medieval world, rife with interactions both good and bad from your character's perspective. As a direct result, Kai's character could have and should have protested the Royal Marshal, sent letters (legitimately) criticizing the poor orders and giving new ones, or started a family feud. I'm sure you can come up with even more of your own options. We're seeing only a small slice of time here, but this looks to me like a single (perhaps not even key) mistake... hardly worth the response. (That said, I also agree the two-character approach was poor, but it did go through the proper channels and does not break any rules (whether Kai feels it should or not).
He has chosen to go OOC with his comments, circumventing the wide swath of opportunities to actually play the game or resolve this in a reasonable manner.
Now, do I believe he should be crucified for this alone? Not really, no. The nail in the coffin is that he is utterly unapologetic and sees absolutely nothing wrong with his approach. He makes it crystal clear that a warning or any kind of light punitive action would be absolutely meaningless.
EDIT: WOW, that yellow is obnoxious!
-
Yellow stuff.
I appreciate your saying so. At the end of the day we're all trying to make the game fun.
That said, you dodged the main point I was getting at. Not only can I not see how those two different lines of logic are connected (that is, criticizing gameplay to pointing out poor word choice), I still do not see why it isn't an insult. Criticism can still be insulting, true or not. It's in the delivery; in this case, the delivery was exceptionally poor and frankly, unnecessary given the ways IC to deal with it. People make mistakes, part of the beauty of BM is that anyone, at any time, can screw up that perfect plan you've been cooking for months or years. Talk to my good friend Merlin: He's probably the one I've seen hit that wall the most, and I still kick myself for screwing up his last one, despite it playing out according to my character.
Yes, to answer your question it's possible for criticism to also be insulting. In this case, I don't think the OOC msgs were offensive or damaging enough so as to require punitive intervention from above. I think the game is best served when interventions from above are rare and reserved for the most serious instances. I can think of a few quick examples: e.g. attacking someone's RL race, religion, nationality, family, intelligence etc. There may also be a case to be made for intervening when it's a pattern of offences even though they're relatively minor, but that's not the case that's being made here.
-
If I told someone on my football team they were a bad player, apart from being "unhelpful" criticism I would most likely just be told to stop being a jerk.
An option that is available to Kai's realm mates. If they think his comments are unhelpful or that he's being a jerk, they can hit 'Reply' and say so. In the football analogy, yes you might be told to stop being a jerk, but I doubt it would require the league officials to get involved.
and should probably think hard about how to improve their communications so that the criticism is received in way that will lead to positive outcomes.
No argument there! :)
-
An option that is available to Kai's realm mates. If they think his comments are unhelpful or that he's being a jerk, they can hit 'Reply' and say so. In the football analogy, yes you might be told to stop being a jerk, but I doubt it would require the league officials to get involved.
And given his recent forum behavior and general attitude, do you really believe that would have solved the issue, and not, say, caused even more insults to fly back and forth, resulting in a realm-wide flame war without end?
-
And given his recent forum behavior and general attitude, do you really believe that would have solved the issue, and not, say, caused even more insults to fly back and forth, resulting in a realm-wide flame war without end?
And, ultimately, more magistrates cases and more severe punishments.
-
And given his recent forum behavior and general attitude, do you really believe that would have solved the issue, and not, say, caused even more insults to fly back and forth, resulting in a realm-wide flame war without end?
I dunno. I think it's a waste of time trying to pre-empt hypothetical insults that might happen in the future. Much easier to deal with them when they come up.
-
I dunno. I think it's a waste of time trying to pre-empt hypothetical insults that might happen in the future. Much easier to deal with them when they come up.
But they did... That's why this topic (not the case, but the q&a) came to be; here was debate over him serving the sentence for the insults that did come up.
If you find a leaky pipe, you look for more leaks or signs they may develop and tape them up immediately.
-
An option that is available to Kai's realm mates. If they think his comments are unhelpful or that he's being a jerk, they can hit 'Reply' and say so.
Did you not see that this actually happened? When Wade (the player at whom the first insult was directed) asked Keven to stop, Keven replied with the second insult accusing Wade of throwing a tantrum. Admittedly, this is a bit difficult to see from the wall of messages that egamma posted here: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5097.msg118944.html#msg118944
Out-of-Character from Actrial Erendegard  (2 days, 21 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (24 recipients)
What is it about people who
- love power and position
- are bad at the game
- argue with both characters
Kevin Lee
Out-of-Character from Ceasar Magdalen (2 days, 9 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (24 recipients)
Mature Kevin, very mature of you. Keep your insults in game please.
Wade Harlaine
Out-of-Character from Actrial Erendegard  (2 days, 7 hours ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (24 recipients)
- and then throw a tantrum while refusing to admit they are terrible at the game
Kevin Lee
-
But they did... That's why this topic (not the case, but the q&a) came to be; here was debate over him serving the sentence for the insults that did come up.
If you find a leaky pipe, you look for more leaks or signs they may develop and tape them up immediately.
I know. He asked me (rhetorically I believe) what would've happened if Kai's realm mates had simply dealt with his rudeness internally instead of bringing a Magistrate case, specifically whether I thought that doing so would've led to more insults. The obvious answer is...maybe.
-
The obvious answer is...maybe.
:)
-
Did you not see that this actually happened? When Wade (the player at whom the first insult was directed) asked Keven to stop, Keven replied with the second insult accusing Wade of throwing a tantrum. Admittedly, this is a bit difficult to see from the wall of messages that egamma posted here: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5097.msg118944.html#msg118944 (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5097.msg118944.html#msg118944)
I did see it, and I think Wade handled it. Kevin looks like a kid throwing a tantrum and wanting to have the last word, and Wade looks like the bigger man. I guess I'm just not as fazed when I see somebody having a hissy fit. It doesn't look like Wade was fazed either. That's a sign of a good leader. ;)
-
If he was a newbie who subsequently quit the game as a result, I might be more inclined to throw the book at Kai.
Sorry, but that's not the right way to think about it. A violation is a violation is a violation, regardless of what the reaction (or non-reaction) of the insulted person might me.
Hypothetical: Let's say Bob smashes Joe's window. Is the degree of punishment that Bob deserves dependent on whether Joe decides to move or not? No, the degree of punishment (throwing the book) depends entirely on the offense, and not on the reaction of the victim.
Before I say anything else, I want to thank Buffalkill for holding in there with his thoughts. Though it may be hard to tell, I'm detecting genuine concern, not stubbornness. (Sorry, I didn't know how to say that in a more polite way.) I'm sure it's taking a massive amount of patience and time. He is raising good points, but there are also good counters. He doesn't have to defend or answer anything in this thread, but he is taking time to do so. This deserves recognition, whether or not you agree with him.
And I've got to agree with Eirikr here--I may not agree with you on most of these points, but it has been a polite and intellectual conversation, and although I hope I don't ever get a case brought against me, but if I do, I hope you'll defend me as well as you've defended Kai. :D