Clan in Fontan and Aurvandil

[Gustav Kuriga]

This is a good point, however since it has not yet occurred in these cases I'm not sure it can be applied. So long as the clanners aren't actively excluding others from gameplay or denying them the ability to act then I don't believe they are violating the fair play terms of the contract. I've stated in more detail my arguments in the last post of the third page.

Also, I have seen protestation used in the past on my own characters. (having it succeed)

The only reason this case doesn't say Clan in Fontan, Aurvandil, AND, Arcachon is because Arcachon is dead. It was the same people, so I feel it actually does apply.

[Dante Silverfire]

The only reason this case doesn't say Clan in Fontan, Aurvandil, AND, Arcachon is because Arcachon is dead. It was the same people, so I feel it actually does apply.

I think that is a fair statement if we are making a clear statement as to what is allowed about clanning in general, however it is my understanding that this case is judging the current actions of this clan. It is quite possible that the clan was in the past going against the fair conduct of our game, however, if they have since changed in their actions they do not deserve to be punished and are not currently denigrating the game.

Society allows criminals to be rehabilitated and accepted back into society. If they have changed their ways and are now operating within the limits of the social contract they should not be punished for those past actions.

[Velax]

Perhaps, but the clanners are not being judged on whether or not they've been "rehabilitated". They're being judged based on whether or not they violated the Social Contract. On whether or not they have committed a crime, as it were. In that instance, past actions most certainly are relevant.

[Tom]

I agree with Velax. We are looking for clan behavior, and past actions are evidence of consistency in both the people involved and their approach to the game. I would have added the Archachon events had I remembered them. Many of you here are more familiar with in-game events than I am, as I do mostly development.

[Lorgan]

I've come into contact with supposed Saxons myself even though not in the cases highlighted here. In Thalmarkin, at one point we had 8 out of 40 nobles who supported eachother blindly from the get-go. I think originally 6 were "Saxons" and maybe 2 were driven into their arms by mutual hatred of my character.
Either way, we tried to make it work, their leader was an old general of ours (who really helped us survive during the 4th invasion) and lord of our 2nd richest region. They took some independence, created their own army without much communication which then caused quite some conflict. Anyway it didn't work out. We had some huge discussions, quite some protests but in the end we banned them.
Now you can say what you want about how they operate, and if it is acceptable that such new characters immediately support eachother without question, but it was great fun from where I was sitting. We've always had our portion of slumbering internal strife in Thalmarkin but this was right in the open, very vocal and really, a great pass-time until we were ready for war.

Had they managed to take over the realm - which I doubt was their intention - I would probably have been thrown out  along with a couple others and that would've sucked because I love that realm, everything about it and everyone in it. But I would've just gone to another realm and vowed to destroy them... which would have been great fun as well, win or lose.

My point is, there is nothing wrong with clanning, not even with a clan TO in my opinion, as long as it happens IC and you don't exclude people. If there is a case opened against you in the magistrates you should look at these two criteria and see if you're really doing everything by the books because if you aren't, you may be having lots of fun, but you are keeping others in your own realm, or outside of it from sharing in that fun.
The more the merrier goes the saying after all.

[Kellaine]

My point is, there is nothing wrong with clanning, not even with a clan TO in my opinion, as long as it happens IC and you don't exclude people. If there is a case opened against you in the magistrates you should look at these two criteria and see if you're really doing everything by the books because if you aren't, you may be having lots of fun, but you are keeping others in your own realm, or outside of it from sharing in that fun.
The more the merrier goes the saying after all.

The problem in Fontan is they are not doing it all IC. and they are excluding people. Fontan is a Democracy and the perfect place for clanning openly and IC, but they are not. 

[DamnTaffer]

Perhaps it would be helpful to remove the specifics from consideration. Forget the names Fontan and Aurvandil.

Is the behavior that has been described by Tom and Indirik a violation of the social contract, specifically the fair play clause?

Technically, that's the only thing that matters at the moment.

That is nonesense, what we are debating is the happenings WITHIN those realms, otherwise we are arguing an abstract point of "Toms opinion of what is considered insufficient IG communication + Achivement = Clan" which is a terrifying precident. For example, summerdale recently got a lot of nobles, if they were to now amass a large CS and win some battles and there enemies decided they didn't like it would they be investigated for clanning?

Furthermore, Tom, your name has a lot of influence in this case, and your clearly bias, I would suggest your continued involvement taints any fairness this court could have. In the same way that a President speaking to the media suggesting a person is guilty of crime would bias a jury in the real world

[Dante Silverfire]

That is nonesense, what we are debating is the happenings WITHIN those realms, otherwise we are arguing an abstract point of "Toms opinion of what is considered insufficient IG communication + Achivement = Clan" which is a terrifying precident. For example, summerdale recently got a lot of nobles, if they were to now amass a large CS and win some battles and there enemies decided they didn't like it would they be investigated for clanning?

Furthermore, Tom, your name has a lot of influence in this case, and your clearly bias, I would suggest your continued involvement taints any fairness this court could have. In the same way that a President speaking to the media suggesting a person is guilty of crime would bias a jury in the real world

Not exactly. We are NOT debating whether there is a clan within those realms. That is a given and confirmed fact. We can debate the actions of clans though and that can apply to others not just the one in Fontan and Aurvandil.

[GoldPanda]

Referendum Results   (5 days, 14 hours ago)
The referendum "Vote for the Ruler" has ended. Here is the final tally:
88 votes for Aulus Severus
62 votes for Zadek
20 votes for Rowan
0 abstentions
40 votes were not cast

The winning choice therefore is Aulus Severus, with 88 votes. A simple majority was required, i.e. 1 vote.
Therefore, Aulus Severus of the Scipii, Chancellor of Fontan has been confirmed in office.
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
This is the monthly election for the position of Ruler (Chancellor).

All nobles of the realm will vote, each vote having the same weight.


Referendum Results   (5 days, 14 hours ago)
The referendum "Vote for the General" has ended. Here is the final tally:
88 votes for Lyzekiel
72 votes for Rhidhana
0 abstentions
44 votes were not cast

The winning choice therefore is Lyzekiel, with 88 votes. A simple majority was required, i.e. 1 vote.
Therefore, Lyzekiel de' Striguile, Minister of Defense of Fontan has been confirmed in office.
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
This is the monthly election for the position of General (Minister of Defense).

All nobles of the realm will vote, each vote having the same weight.


Referendum Results   (5 days, 14 hours ago)
The referendum "Vote for the Judge" has ended. Here is the final tally:
78 votes for Prandur
72 votes for Justin
4 abstentions
52 votes were not cast

The winning choice therefore is Prandur, with 78 votes. A simple majority was required, i.e. 1 vote.
All hail to the new Judge, Prandur TithOnanka, Supreme Justice of Fontan, Count of Braga. He received 37% of the valid votes cast. replaces Justin Azul (Lord).
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
This is the monthly election for the position of Judge (Supreme Justice).

All nobles of the realm will vote, each vote having the same weight.


Referendum Results   (5 days, 14 hours ago)
The referendum "Vote for the Banker" has ended. Here is the final tally:
116 votes for Brock
30 votes for Ariana
4 abstentions
56 votes were not cast

The winning choice therefore is Brock, with 116 votes. A simple majority was required, i.e. 1 vote.
Therefore, Brock Ketchum, Minister of Finance of Fontan has been confirmed in office.
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
This is the monthly election for the position of Banker (Minister of Finance).

All nobles of the realm will vote, each vote having the same weight.

I would agree that it's abusive if the clanners were vote-pooling. That does not appear to be the case here.

[GoldPanda]

The problem in Fontan is they are not doing it all IC. and they are excluding people. Fontan is a Democracy and the perfect place for clanning openly and IC, but they are not.

Please explain to me how they are "excluding people".

[Geronus]

That is nonesense, what we are debating is the happenings WITHIN those realms, otherwise we are arguing an abstract point of "Toms opinion of what is considered insufficient IG communication + Achivement = Clan" which is a terrifying precident. For example, summerdale recently got a lot of nobles, if they were to now amass a large CS and win some battles and there enemies decided they didn't like it would they be investigated for clanning?

It is not nonsense. Tom has identified that a behavior is taking place. This is not arguable because it's not an opinion. What we are being asked is to rule on whether the behavior that has been identified is a violation of the fair play clause of the social contract. If you wish to make the case that it is not, I invite you to do so and we will consider what you have to say. Arguments that no such activity is occurring are pointless. Tom says it is. Tom has the tools to know. No one else here outside of the Dev team does. You may choose to believe that they are not, but you're not in a position to know for sure one way or the other, are you? You might not be engaged in any such activity, but the fact is that you have no way of knowing whether that is true for every single one of your realm mates.

At this point, and I will say this to everyone, what we are interested in and looking for is your opinion as to whether the identified behavior is a violation of the social contract. No other contributions are necessary or desired, nor will they in all likelihood have any impact on our deliberations. If you want to know what it meant by behavior, please read the text of the complaint (first post) in full.

Furthermore, Tom, your name has a lot of influence in this case, and your clearly bias, I would suggest your continued involvement taints any fairness this court could have. In the same way that a President speaking to the media suggesting a person is guilty of crime would bias a jury in the real world

Tom does not participate in the deliberations of the Magistrates beyond answering questions that are posed to him. He does not argue any given case one way or another and obviously will abide by whatever decision we reach. What more would you ask of him?

[DamnTaffer]

Tom does not participate in the deliberations of the Magistrates beyond answering questions that are posed to him. He does not argue any given case one way or another and obviously will abide by whatever decision we reach. What more would you ask of him?

That he do nothing BUT answer the questions with only the facts.

Not exactly. We are NOT debating whether there is a clan within those realms. That is a given and confirmed fact. We can debate the actions of clans though and that can apply to others not just the one in Fontan and Aurvandil.

It is not a given nor confirmed fact, but an assumption extrapolated from fact which is different... But that is neither here nor there

So in that case this magistates case is a blanket case which will effect ALL suspected clans in battlemaster, using only 1 of the clans as an example, which assuming there are more clans in this game means that they will not be able to defend there actions and any clan based gaming within battlemaster, regardless of if it is benign or not will be treated the same?

[Draco Tanos]

Tom can, frankly, do whatever he wants.  If he wanted to ban all of Fronen's players tomorrow he could.  If he wanted to ban all of Westmoor's the next day, there's nothing to stop him.  Why?  Because it's his game and his word is law.  The fact that he even allows things like the Magistrates says a lot about his character.

As for the Clan, it has been established by the Devs and Tom that it does exist.  Therefore as far as BattleMaster is concerned, it's the Gospel Truth and not a point of contention.

[Geronus]

That he do nothing BUT answer the questions with only the facts.

This is basically what he does already, in every case that comes before us. The Magistrates have full independence of thought and decision-making.

So in that case this magistates case is a blanket case which will effect ALL suspected clans in battlemaster, using only 1 of the clans as an example, which assuming there are more clans in this game means that they will not be able to defend there actions and any clan based gaming within battlemaster, regardless of if it is benign or not will be treated the same?

It will potentially set a precedent, yes, though how broad that precedent is remains to be seen. Personally I favor a narrow interpretation, if in fact we rule in favor of the complainant at all.

This case has been a long time coming, and there is only one group in the game that I am aware of that has prompted Tom to begin this conversation, both here and in the anti-clan policy thread in the General Discussion forum. Therefore I think it's in everyone's best interest if the ruling is narrowly constructed. Magistrate cases should be rare, and for the most part players should be able to play the game without worrying constantly about being reported. It is my hope that this case remains the only one of its kind once it is settled one way or another.

[Vellos]

And I for my part am very interested in setting a precedent that gives clear, broad guidance for what to do next time because, unlike Geronus, I am not optimistic about whether or not we will have this problem again.

So there, dissent among the Magistrates. Now somebody was saying something about biases. Anybody got any ideas about what biases Geronus and I may have?