Militia increase in Mt. Black Nastrond

[Vellos]

Indeed, a lock would keep the militia in place.

And, honestly, as we've discovered that public verdicts weren't actually being announced publicly, I'm inclined to offer leniency here especially, as much of LE might not have known there was any verdict at all, or at least not details.

[Fury]

A verdict has been reached, and IG enforcement actions have been made.

Maybe the magistratum should avoid resolutions that are not intended to be immediately implemented? 

There may be a misunderstanding here. The only IG enforcement action available to Magistrates is to give a private/public warning (which apparently doesn't work) or a 1 day/ 2 day/ 3 day lock.

The Magistrate vote succeeded for only a public warning - this is the IG enforcement action that is meant. Whether the player concerned disbands the militia or not is solely by his own graciousness. He is not compelled to do so nor can we force that.

I suggested that he disband the militia and whether he does so or not only affected the voting. Now that voting is over, the case is closed and we do not revisit cases to bring up another voting or punishment. One case, one time vote.

In short, punishment (a public warning) has been meted out.
The player concerned doesn't have to do anything.

[Vellos]

There may be a misunderstanding here. The only IG enforcement action available to Magistrates is to give a private/public warning (which apparently doesn't work) or a 1 day/ 2 day/ 3 day lock.

The Magistrate vote succeeded for only a public warning - this is the IG enforcement action that is meant. Whether the player concerned disbands the militia or not is solely by his own graciousness. He is not compelled to do so nor can we force that.

I suggested that he disband the militia and whether he does so or not only affected the voting. Now that voting is over, the case is closed and we do not revisit cases to bring up another voting or punishment. One case, one time vote.

In short, punishment (a public warning) has been meted out.
The player concerned doesn't have to do anything.

The above is the personal opinion of one Magistrate, and as such should not be considered reflective of the Magistrates collectively.

Were the player in question to not disband the militia as asked, the Magistrates would collectively review the situation. But, crucially, exactly what we would do is not yet determined.

[fodder]

couldn't you (or dev) have just spawned a big chunk of monster/undead and get them to fade after a battle?

[Indirik]

Tom could, if he wanted. But then again, Tom could just do some sql-fu and delete the militia straight out of the databse if he wanted.

[Anaris]

In fact, deleting the militia would be vastly easier.

Despite what bizarrely persistent rumor would have you believe (and despite how fun it would be), there really is no "spawn massive amounts of monsters here!" button.

[Draco Tanos]

Yet?

[Indirik]

Maybe we'll put it in after the code rewrite is done.

[Sacha]

@Bardic_Nerd

The people from DF who are joining Summerdale are there because one player from Summerdale advertised first BM, and then the realm he plays in. He advertised it and that is the sole reason why so many new players in Summerdale. Saying that it is not fair because you didn't think of it first is really poor logic. You should try to advertise Libero Empire somewhere else...who knows, you may get a ton of new players and there is a ton of other forums to promote the game. In the end BM wins as we get a lot of new players. 

Please no. The shadow of clandom is looming over BM already and you're suggesting opening the floodgates. One of the reason I like BM is because it doesn't have clans running the whole game... not yet at least. 100 new players are worthless if all they do is clan up and take over a corner of the map to run their own private BM game.

[Foundation]

But, 100 new players can learn not to do that if the existing players are fun and friendly.  Never forget that.  If existing players care little about new players, then who would not prefer to play with people they already know?

[Arrakis]

I've joined Summerdale with the motive to give the new players a hand (and cause it was boring where i played before) and i can attest that so far they are doing real good, and the older players are really helpful, too. they rp a bit, do some scouting and stuff. once a big battle happens i think they will stick around. no sign of clanning so far.

[Foundation]

Keep up the good work.  Welcoming new players is an essential part of BM.

[Fury]

The above is the personal opinion of one Magistrate, and as such should not be considered reflective of the Magistrates collectively.

Were the player in question to not disband the militia as asked, the Magistrates would collectively review the situation. But, crucially, exactly what we would do is not yet determined.

To review is to go outside the scope of the Magistrate function. There is and never has been any clause to review for failure to comply. If it happens again, then file a new case. Any further action on cases closed needs to be referred to everyone-knows-who. All case have been and are settled as-is.

Since the militia is already being strengthened let's look for a double whammy or even triple.  Just lock his account for 3 days every 3 days until a new lord takes over to disband the militia.

I'm calling punishing a player again and again until he complies a Magistrate abuse. Now that's got to be a first. Our verdict did not and does not hinge on future compliance by the player.  Of course, I'll admit - this could be a clever way to increase magisterial powers.

Crucially, what we would do if the militia was not disbanded was not raised in discussion during the verdict (any verdict in any case) because it was never going to be a point of contention once the case was closed. Wait - must have been my opinion again.

[De-Legro]

To review is to go outside the scope of the Magistrate function. There is and never has been any clause to review for failure to comply. If it happens again, then file a new case. Any further action on cases closed needs to be referred to everyone-knows-who. All case have been and are settled as-is.

Since the militia is already being strengthened let's look for a double whammy or even triple.  Just lock his account for 3 days every 3 days until a new lord takes over to disband the militia.

I'm calling punishing a player again and again until he complies a Magistrate abuse. Now that's got to be a first. Our verdict did not and does not hinge on future compliance by the player.  Of course, I'll admit - this could be a clever way to increase magisterial powers.

Crucially, what we would do if the militia was not disbanded was not raised in discussion during the verdict (any verdict in any case) because it was never going to be a point of contention once the case was closed. Wait - must have been my opinion again.

Please stop presenting your interpretation as fact. I'm not saying you are wrong, simply that there is no precedent to imply that either point of view is correct. The Magistrate system has in no way been functional long enough to make broad statements about how to handle compliance issues.

[Geronus]

Please stop presenting your interpretation as fact. I'm not saying you are wrong, simply that there is no precedent to imply that either point of view is correct. The Magistrate system has in no way been functional long enough to make broad statements about how to handle compliance issues.

Agreed, there is no consensus on this yet. And it should be discussed in the Backroom, not here.