My particular bugbear though is that the current general is run by a player who still insists on issuing both realm wide and individual orders without in any way seeking to include marshals in that process, despite this having been addressed both IC and OOC. Such behaviour runs directly counter to the advice given in the manual on how to play a Government Position and this raises the spectre of power being abused to deliberately favour one group of players in Fontan at the expense of others.
These orders are issued on a turn-by-turn basis with very little explanation of a broader strategy and only characters of this particular group seem privy to any of the "special" orders relating to looting, which further adds to the impression of cliquishness.
I've played positions of authority and there are times when an order outside the usual feudal chains of command makes sense for IC reasons. The natural break on doing this regularly is the pushback IC from those holding the feudal rights which have been compromised. It's certainly not something that should be the norm.
Yes, this is annoying, but I don't see any reason that this breaks the Social Contract. I have played generals now and in the past and I know you can lead in many different ways. One way (although not good in the long run if you want to keep your position) is to just be highly controlling as the General and issue as many orders as you can in person. However, i think this is an IC decision and one that which can be opposed IC, instead of an OOC decision to exclude players. When I was a controlling General I was highly successful, but I also made enemies within my own realm. It sounds to me that this is exactly what is happening in Fontan, and so I don't see how this is an OOC or Social Contract issue at all. Protest the General, hold a rebellion, or do something to oppose his rule. Have the Marshal directly contradict the General and claim direct control over the army. Any of these are legit IC actions and promote the fun of the game.
The entire argument of this thread hinges upon whether the clanning activity which is occuring, is harmful to the game or breaks the Social Contract. I would argue that neither is occuring. (For reference, I have no character on East Island, and my only character on Dwilight has no personal stake on either side of the Aurvandal-Madina conflict). This clan, and for the purposes of this argument, I am assuming that there is in fact a clan, as the Dev Team suggests, is taking actions IC which have plenty of room for IC conflicts. From what I have heard, these clans are simply acting like any other like-minded body of nobles. However, they are bullying their realmmates in certain cases and trying to take control of a realm.
They are taking control through solely IC means, and have left open plenty of room for opposition or joining by non-clan members. Someone gets elected without sending a message to the whole realm? How does that say anything about them not campaigning for the position? The same thing happened in Coria, but I am 100% certain that there are hidden power blocs where the campaigning actually did occur. Sending a letter to the whole realm is usually pointless in most realms anyway. If you really want to get elected you have to privately contact those you want votes for, and those who can influence others to vote for you. Perhaps they just did this? Even if they get elected, you can oppose their actions. They invite others to join with them, so they aren't being exclusive.
With all of these things taken into mind, they aren't violating the Fair play part of the Social contract because none of their actions go against something that someone could do quite legitimately if they weren't part of the clan. I know for sure I have my own "pseudo clans" set up via other players that I have played with now in the game for years, and whose families trust mine and I trust theirs. Does that mean that we are breaking the social contract because long time of play has allowed us to work together more often than not? These relationships were built IC, but they are just as tight as if they were made OOC. Does my character need to know who to send gold to without having requests for gold? Absolutely not. However, I will sometimes send the letters asking anyway at random times.
Does it violate the fair play agreement to maximize one's realms resources? No. The game has the resources in place, and if characters wanted to they could convince others to help maximize those resources as much as possible. The fact that most players don't is just because they don't want to take the time to go through it. Tom stated himself that those who put more time into the game are more likely to do better in the game. Is there something wrong with that? No.
I think the point that the Magistrates need to focus on is whether a clan is being exclusive and preventing others from joining in their goals: If they refuse to allow others to join in on their plans or to oppose their plans through IC actions then they are violating the Fair Play part of the social contract. Otherwise, the whole military aspect seems perfectly legitimate to me.
