Messages

31

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: Strategic secession of Iato

« on: November 07, 2013, 01:02:26 AM »

By one guy. With practically no income, and a city that can barely support any infrastructure. Yeah, that's unbalancing.

Did you secede an entire city just to create a realm for one single noble? Or are others going to be joining him? I find it next to impossible to believe that it's going to remain one guy for the rest of the war, that no other noble in Riombara has any plans to join, so this argument can really be dropped unless that is in fact the case.

Frankly, what I see here is a circumstance where the action, whatever its intent, does in fact create a strategic advantage. It might be small now, but it's not the degree of advantage that concerns me. If we get into questions of degree we'll be arguing from now until next year. The fact is, it does benefit Riombara at Enweil's expense. Having been in Riombara as recently as a year ago, I am well aware that there has been a plan in the works to recreate IVF for a long time now, but nothing says that couldn't be done after the war with Enweil was concluded. To me intent is less important than the result. Riombara has created a client state that vastly shortens the supply line to the front lines for any and all nobles that eventually join the new realm. Whether that's a horde or a handful and whether they have decent infrastructure at first or not doesn't really matter much to me; I'm more concerned that it happened at all, particularly since both noble population and infrastructure are subject to improvement as time goes on. The advantage now exists and it can only grow larger unless Enweil is able to reconquer the city relatively quickly.

I don't like the idea of judging on intent in this case because it's too easy to manipulate. If you know what the parameters are, you simply invent an intent to disguise the objective of gaining a strategic advantage. I know for a fact that's not what happened here, but a ruling to the effect that the intent absolves the perpetrator of any infraction simply opens the door to future abuse, as Chenier has pointed out. Riombara could easily have waited to take this step, and I believe that they should have.

32

BM General Discussion / Re: What prevents game to be competitive... i.e. to be a game.

« on: October 15, 2013, 08:26:45 PM »

See also: Hrok Stefanovic of Luria Nova. Some of the most influential members of Luria have or have had massive loans and debts owed to him, and the man almost single handedly funded the first half of the realm's war against D'Hara -- and made a profit. Had I more time to put into playing him, I have absolutely no doubt that he could be one of the most influential (and therefore powerful) people on Dwilight... all by leveraging his position as Banker.

You don't need to be the Banker to do any of this. The only way I even see the Banker position being slightly connected to this strategy is if you're obtaining the money to lend out by stealing it using that option Bankers have to cook the books. The rest of it is all simply good RP and political savvy. Any rich Duke could do the same thing.

You do have access to some extra information as the Banker that it sounds like you actually bother to use, but I have some doubts as to whether that really made much of a difference here. Information is power, but only if you are active enough as a player to make use of it. But then again, if you're that active you'll likely be powerful anyway - that's how the game works.

33

Beluaterra / Re: Hemaism dying

« on: October 04, 2013, 09:16:15 PM »

Hemasim (and, from what I understand, Sint as well) is dying of apathy. Thal and OG are just administering the mercy killing.

34

Dwilight / Re: Great Dwilight War:Astrum defeats Asylon and Farronite forces.

« on: October 04, 2013, 09:12:43 PM »

Bah!

Astrumites; such uncivilized barbarians.

If you're that desperate for a response, try begging 

35

BM General Discussion / Re: Local Mods

« on: September 29, 2013, 04:10:14 PM »

I guess that depends on their workload, which will probably take some time to gauge now that the locals just reopened.

36

BM General Discussion / Re: What prevents game to be competitive... i.e. to be a game.

« on: September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM »

Your assertions might be more persuasive if you gave some examples. You also don't offer very many suggestions about how to fix the problems you have identified.

1. You are generalizing too much here I think, and are definitely in need of examples. RTOs are far from impossible. As for the rest of your argument about state-backed religions versus religions that don't have state support, shouldn't a religion that enjoys the backing of one or more realms (with all of the influence and assets that realms can provide in service of said religion) have an advantage over one that doesn't? I mean that just seems logical. If not, what specific changes would you propose to alter that state of affairs?

2. Replacing Dukes isn't easy, but it is certainly possible. Having an infiltrator stab him and then banning him before he gets better is the easiest way by far. Again, what specific changes would propose to address this issue?

3. There can certainly be costs for betrayal and such not, it's just that they are not measurable by game enforced statistics like honor and prestige. If the ruler of realm A backstabs realm B, he risks damage to his reputation and trustworthiness as it is perceived by other characters, as well as the reputation of his realm. This can have real costs in the form of fewer allies and greater diplomatic vulnerability. These political impacts cannot be measured but they are quite real. Experienced or natural rulers can do such things and get away with it at times, but that is due to their skill, not because their actions are inherently free of consequences.

Your hypothetical about one realm being allied to two realms at war with each other is actually impossible I believe. When the two realms try to go to war they will not be able to unless one of them first lowers their alliance with the realm that's allied to both of them.

4. Personally I prefer the current system where governments are flexible to an extent. It allows for greater customization to fit with your realm's culture.

5. Again, I enjoy elections. For one thing, they provide for a way to generate turnover in positions of power, which is good for the game from an OOC perspective. For another, they offer opportunities to generate debate and fight political battles, which are also good for the game. Elections will never replace plotting, intrigue and rebellions either. I've been in Republics that experienced secessions and rebellions.

6. I don't really have a strong opinion about government positions. I think they're OK the way they are, even if General and Banker are more or less ceremonial in terms of the game options they permit. They're really just titles that give you authority for the most part, though you do get a bit of extra information and a couple of seldom-used buttons.

37

BM General Discussion / Re: stopping ForumMaster from destroying BattleMaster

« on: September 26, 2013, 06:25:19 PM »

I too have lost interest in the game lately. I can't say for sure that the forum is the direct cause of that, but I can tell you that the forum often used to provide me with motivation/inspiration to be more active in the game.

Energy is not the simple zero sum game that egamma keeps relating it back to. Energy in this context isn't a limited commodity, and it can feed on itself to create more. When I used to visit the local boards, I would read about things going on in other places that sounded really great, and I would get other players' perspectives on things that were happening that my characters were involved in. Reading about these things made me want to play the game more, not less, which led to me spending more time on both the forum and the game in a self-reinforcing cycle. Other people's interest in the game made me interested the game.

Again, I will not say definitively that the closure of the local boards is the only factor in why I suddenly find myself logging in, at best, once every couple days (I also have been traveling an absurd amount for work). That said, the correlation is there, and since they've been gone I've simply found that I no longer have as much interest as I did before, so that even when I have abundant free time I just don't bother to log in. Sure, I could make a conscious effort to try to make interesting things happen in the game to renew my own interest, but that involves a significant expenditure of energy. It used to be that the game itself or the forum gave me energy, made me want to play. Now it's the other way around. I have to spend energy to motivate myself to try to make things happen. It's not sustainable for me.

38

Questions & Answers / Re: OOC comments insulting another player Case

« on: September 09, 2013, 03:32:22 PM »

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.

39

Questions & Answers / Re: OOC comments insulting another player Case

« on: September 09, 2013, 02:26:30 PM »

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?

40

Questions & Answers / Re: OOC comments insulting another player Case

« on: September 09, 2013, 06:39:07 AM »

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.

41

Questions & Answers / Re: OOC comments insulting another player Case

« on: September 08, 2013, 01:30:33 AM »

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.

42

Questions & Answers / Re: OOC comments insulting another player Case

« on: September 07, 2013, 06:20:04 PM »

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.

43

Magistrates Case Archive / Re: OOC comments insulting another player

« on: September 07, 2013, 06:11:20 PM »

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.

44

BM General Discussion / Re: Proposed New Forum Rules of Conduct

« on: September 01, 2013, 03:54:46 PM »

Personally I find the authoritarian tone more off-putting than the occasional dickish comments that I read. We're adults playing a game among peers, not kids being supervised by the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.

I agree completely, but apparently some people are unable to keep things in perspective, hence why we're having this whole discussion about the forum and better moderation in the first place.

That said, I'm not really arguing that "Don't be an !@#$%^&" is hands down the best way to write that rule, but I don't have the same problem with it that you do. It would not bother me to see it changed.

45

BM General Discussion / Re: Proposed New Forum Rules of Conduct

« on: September 01, 2013, 07:24:03 AM »

The opening sets the tone and what that opening suggests is crude and tactless. Start instead with something important and firm, then head forward with a subtle joke to show that although you're a firm boss you're not an uncaring tyrant, then go back to standard firm stuff, then end with "P.S. don't be an !@#$%^&," if you're really intent on including that line.

Or just copy whatever rules Google or some other big company has. They probably spent ten million dollars developing theirs, so it's probably good!

Considering the chain of events thus far, I don't think that being direct is a problem. Some people apparently really hate the forum. Therefore, using direct language to state what won't be tolerated seems like a good plan. I mean, if the Mods are going to be strict they might as well set that expectation right off the bat and not try to stick any frills on it. Some people might find that reassuring.

Look, no matter what the rules say, someone is inevitably going to get pissed at the Mods and accuse them of being unfair, tyrants, etc.. It happened with the Titans, it happened with the Magistrates, and it will happen with the Mods too eventually. Such is the curse of power. There will always be someone who is unhappy. You might as well just be clear that there will be no nonsense, and then no one can claim that you weren't honest about how strict you were going to be.