Author Topic: Sanguis Astroism  (Read 1016298 times)

Gustav Kuriga

  • Guest
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3690: February 06, 2014, 10:35:34 PM »
So "I want to be Regent" is supposed to equate to "I want to destroy the church"? Especially after Brance repeatedly badgered Enoch about his intentions until Enoch finally admitted that yes, he did want to be Regent.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Some rank in a secret society of which only 5 people are aware? How is that supposed to be a mitigating factor?
That is a very valid point, to which there is no good answer. Secret plots are part of the game. I'm not saying that people shouldn't plot, and seek to overthrow their enemies. Betrayals can be the spice that makes things yummy. But when your character does a Face-Heel Turn, you should expect that there will be a high percentage of players whom you betrayed that will be very angry and hurt by what you did. The greater the magnitude of betrayal, the worse it will be. I don't understand how you could have done this without expecting that you would make a LOT of players very angry.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have plotted the downfall of SA. That's fine. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have succeeded at destroying SA. That's fine, too. SA was rapidly heading toward the point where a diaspora was inevitable. The religion was headed toward a fracturing. It's been obvious for a couple of years that it was never going to be able to maintain the iron grip it had. The theocracies could not project their power to the south strongly enough to keep them in line. And once Luria united and became a strong, singular entity that had a strong SA presence, the splintering was inevitable.

But it's not about the end result, anyway. It's about the specific manner in which it happened. It's almost like you purposely picked the singularly most humiliating, offensive, and denigrating way in which to do it. How could yo not think that you would really piss off a lot of people?

I honestly don't see how everyone is so upset. As has been said before, the SA charter was used in spite of gameplay mechanics that encouraged a more dictatorial hold of religion. It isn't the fault of Jonsu's player that they used the gameplay mechanics as they were intended.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3691: February 06, 2014, 10:42:15 PM »
pcw27, frankly, I find this offensive.

The question of whether OJ Simpson is or is not a murderer rests in the hard facts of the matter: Was he the person who wielded the weapon that slew his wife?

The facts of this matter are not in doubt: we know that Enoch promoted Jonsu, then demoted himself, and that Jonsu had persuaded him to do this.

What you find to be in doubt is whether that is an abuse, and that rests not in some murky unknowable territory where everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's, but in a relatively cut-and-dried and logical analysis of the situation.

Did either Enoch or Jonsu exploit a known bug in the game code? No.

Did either Enoch or Jonsu exploit a bug in the game code that was not previously known? No.

Did either Enoch or Jonsu break one or more of the Rules and Policies laid down by Tom? No.

Has Jonsu, in fact, done anything since gaining power that would, in and of itself (that is, ignoring the fact that it is Jonsu doing it), ruin the fun of those in SA? I don't have hard evidence on this, but I'm strongly inclined to say "No" again, because if she had, I bet I would have heard about it.

You see, pcw27, the definition of an abuse is not "some action that really upsets me or ruins my fun in the game." You have to actually define what is being abused.

I recognize that the actions taken here upset a great many people, and the dev team is, in fact, discussing what we might be able to do to prevent something like this from happening again without some clear way for the "true" faithful to kick out the pretender and get things back to whatever they consider normal. But that's a long way from saying that this was an abuse that needs to be punished.

You came to concluded that the action was fine. I suspect that if a magistrate case had been opened, the opposite verdict would have been reached.

I don't care what the GMs say, I've often held their applications and interpretations of the rules to be arbitrary and illogical. The GMs can repeat that this action was fine as many times as they want, it'd still be a social contract violation in my eyes.

You may consider that it was intended that religion leaders have total power, but I do not consider it normal intended behavior that an enemy of a religion can come infiltrate it and replace the whole religion leadership with people bent on its destruction.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

pcw27

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3692: February 06, 2014, 10:51:10 PM »
What about OOC information abuse?

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3693: February 06, 2014, 10:56:26 PM »
You may consider that it was intended that religion leaders have total power, but I do not consider it normal intended behavior that an enemy of a religion can come infiltrate it and replace the whole religion leadership with people bent on its destruction.

Well, guess what? If enemies of a religion are really good at infiltrating, they can do that over and over again, and there's absolutely nothing abusive about it.

The key to all of this was Enoch becoming Regent, despite the fact that he wanted to damage SA. There is absolutely no reason why that couldn't happen again—with a guild, a religion, or a realm. The main difference with a realm is that because realms are the first-class grouping unit in the game, there are a fair number of safeguards against one person being able to tear them down in a short period of time. As I've said, the dev team has begun discussions of what kinds of safeguards would be appropriate to add to guilds and religions.

However, I don't believe any significant "tearing down" has actually taken place. Has it?
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3694: February 06, 2014, 10:58:19 PM »
What about OOC information abuse?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If you want to accuse a specific person of a specific infraction, then please do so.

In fact, if you want to accuse a specific person of a specific infraction, then make a Titan report. That's what the Titans are for. Coming on the forums and declaring, "John Smith is an abuser, and I don't care what anyone else says!" is itself a Social Contract violation. Thus, I must firmly instruct you to cease doing so immediately, and take any such accusations to the proper channels.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

pcw27

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3695: February 06, 2014, 11:00:33 PM »

However, I don't believe any significant "tearing down" has actually taken place. Has it?

No but Justin has repeatedly threatened to just tank the whole religion as a response to all the player backlash.

pcw27

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3696: February 06, 2014, 11:01:53 PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If you want to accuse a specific person of a specific infraction, then please do so.

In fact, if you want to accuse a specific person of a specific infraction, then make a Titan report. That's what the Titans are for. Coming on the forums and declaring, "John Smith is an abuser, and I don't care what anyone else says!" is itself a Social Contract violation. Thus, I must firmly instruct you to cease doing so immediately, and take any such accusations to the proper channels.

I mentioned it on this thread. I assume the matter had already been considered and there was no point in submitting a titan report.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 11:04:04 PM by pcw27 »

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3697: February 06, 2014, 11:04:31 PM »
I mentioned it on this thread. I assume the matter had already been considered.

"I mentioned it on this thread" is not a Titan report.

If you want the Titans to take up a case, you need to make a Titan report.

The Titans and Magistrates do not simply take up matters that no one reports. This has been made clear a number of times over the several years they have been in operation.

The best rule of thumb is: If you do not have personal knowledge of a Titan report being filed for a specific incident, and you want that incident to be investigated, file a report yourself.

Furthermore, whether or not a Titan report has been filed, you are still expected to abide by the Social Contract provision banning public accusations of cheating or abuses without evidence.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 11:06:56 PM by Anaris »
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Daycryn

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3698: February 06, 2014, 11:07:42 PM »
One thing I found a bit odd was how Jonsu re-joined the religion. Well and good. But she had been excommunicated and convicted of heresy, so one of the Elders on at the time kicked her out.

She came back.

A different Elder (me I think) kicked her out again.

She came back again.

Then Enoch promoted her, demoted himself, and that was it. So basically this all hinged on whether players were online at the time to kick her out again, whether she was on again to rejoin again, and who would be exhausted or unlucky enough first. I'm pretty sure none of that is "gameplay mechanics as they were intended."
Lokenth, Warrior of Arcaea, former Adventurer
Adamir, Lord of Luria Nova

pcw27

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3699: February 06, 2014, 11:12:29 PM »
"I mentioned it on this thread" is not a Titan report.

If you want the Titans to take up a case, you need to make a Titan report.

The Titans and Magistrates do not simply take up matters that no one reports. This has been made clear a number of times over the several years they have been in operation.

The best rule of thumb is: If you do not have personal knowledge of a Titan report being filed for a specific incident, and you want that incident to be investigated, file a report yourself.

Furthermore, whether or not a Titan report has been filed, you are still expected to abide by the Social Contract provision banning public accusations of cheating or abuses without evidence.

I am asking was this already considered in the previous case? Are you trying to tell me the answer is no?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 11:16:21 PM by pcw27 »

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3700: February 06, 2014, 11:14:52 PM »
Well, guess what? If enemies of a religion are really good at infiltrating, they can do that over and over again, and there's absolutely nothing abusive about it.

The key to all of this was Enoch becoming Regent, despite the fact that he wanted to damage SA. There is absolutely no reason why that couldn't happen again—with a guild, a religion, or a realm. The main difference with a realm is that because realms are the first-class grouping unit in the game, there are a fair number of safeguards against one person being able to tear them down in a short period of time. As I've said, the dev team has begun discussions of what kinds of safeguards would be appropriate to add to guilds and religions.

However, I don't believe any significant "tearing down" has actually taken place. Has it?

If someone got himself elected judge and banned the whole realm at once, I'd consider that to be in violation of the social contract as well. Just like rulers, back in the day, using OOC bans to get rid of people they couldn't otherwise deal with.

It's not because someone got an IG power through legitimate means that they can use this power with impunity.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3701: February 06, 2014, 11:20:34 PM »
If someone got himself elected judge and banned the whole realm at once, I'd consider that to be in violation of the social contract as well. Just like rulers, back in the day, using OOC bans to get rid of people they couldn't otherwise deal with.

It's not because someone got an IG power through legitimate means that they can use this power with impunity.

It wouldn't be though. I happened not that long ago on FEI where a realm was having fraction issues. One of the small factions got a candidate made judge (appointed I think) and they then started banning those opposed to them, which was pretty much everyone.
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3702: February 06, 2014, 11:25:06 PM »
One thing I found a bit odd was how Jonsu re-joined the religion. Well and good. But she had been excommunicated and convicted of heresy, so one of the Elders on at the time kicked her out.

She came back.

A different Elder (me I think) kicked her out again.

She came back again.

Then Enoch promoted her, demoted himself, and that was it. So basically this all hinged on whether players were online at the time to kick her out again, whether she was on again to rejoin again, and who would be exhausted or unlucky enough first. I'm pretty sure none of that is "gameplay mechanics as they were intended."

This is the first time I have heard this stated as more than speculation of a click war (or at least, that's what it sounded like to me on previous mentions).

I think that there may be a legitimate case to be made that this part of the whole thing was an abuse. If you believe that to be the case, then please make a Titan report.

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any way the code can prevent something like this from happening. If there had been a "guild ban" feature applied to Jonsu, or there were limits in place to prevent her from joining and rejoining within a short period of time, all Justin would have needed to do is make sure that he and Enoch's player were online at the same time, so that Enoch could remove the ban, Jonsu could join, and Enoch could promote her.

Once you have handed over the highest position in a guild to someone with a desire to harm it, not only do I not believe there is anything the game can do to prevent damage entirely, I do not think there is anything it should do. That's what's called "getting outplayed." Yeah, it sucks when it happens. I've been outplayed a time or two myself, and I was really upset. But that doesn't mean that anything the people who outplayed me did was wrong, or against any kind of rule.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3703: February 06, 2014, 11:26:19 PM »
It wouldn't be though. I happened not that long ago on FEI where a realm was having fraction issues. One of the small factions got a candidate made judge (appointed I think) and they then started banning those opposed to them, which was pretty much everyone.

Didn't Tom have to adjust how the whole judge ban thing works because of that abuse?

Also, why on earth did elders let Enoch become an elder in the first place? You should all have only put people you trust with a such high position.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 11:28:33 PM by Lapallanch »

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3704: February 06, 2014, 11:29:45 PM »
If someone got himself elected judge and banned the whole realm at once, I'd consider that to be in violation of the social contract as well. Just like rulers, back in the day, using OOC bans to get rid of people they couldn't otherwise deal with.

It's not because someone got an IG power through legitimate means that they can use this power with impunity.

And frankly, if Jonsu had immediately gone about dismantling Sanguis Astroism, you and I would be having a very different conversation, and I don't think you'd dislike my side of it nearly so much.

There's a huge difference between "the most hated person in Groupname has, through long-laid plans and dark machinations, taken it over" and "the most hated person in Groupname took it over specifically for the purpose of destroying it, and wrecked everything before anyone had the chance to stop him."

It seems to me like far too many people are acting like the latter has happened, when in actuality, it's the former.

Yes, Jonsu could destroy SA. But she hasn't. Hell, Enoch could have just destroyed SA himself by demoting all the elder priests! But he didn't do that, either.

Taking power, then kicking out the people likely to be a threat to you, is a perfectly sensible IC thing to do.
Taking power, then kicking out everyone and pouring gasoline on the whole thing, then tossing a match behind you as you walk away, is griefing.

But that's not what happened here, now, is it?
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan