Mocking the Magistrate decision

[BattleMaster Server]

Summary:	Mocking the Magistrate decision
Violation:	Social Contract/Magistrate Decision
World:	Dwilight
Complainer:	Dorjan Vidakovic
About:	Orris

Full Complaint Text:
In regards to the decision made against Orris about the abuse of a bug few weeks ago (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2294.0.html), I have observed that the player didn't really abide to the decision to the fullest.
 

 
Below is the list of Summerdale's militia that is still present:
 

 
Hunters of Nifel (militia) Libero Empire 90 Archers 850  dug in
 
Valldir's Steel Rain (militia) Libero Empire 60 Archers 600  dug in
 
Steel Rain (militia) Libero Empire 50 Archers 500  dug in
 
Steel Rain (militia) Libero Empire 35 Archers 400  dug in
 
Deleus Dawn (militia) Libero Empire 20 Infantry 350  dug in
 

 
This militia has been there for the last 10 days (and that is around 50% of the total militia value, not just some backlogs)  which pretty much says that no militia was disbanded for the duration of 10 days. In the meantime Orris managed to recruit himself 130 mixed infantry. This obviously points that he doesn't really care if the militia is disbanded, since he obviously had gold and time to get himself a new unit, and didn't use that gold in accordance to the Magistrates request. This, then, mocks your decision and intelligence for the player doesn't seem to give a damn whether he is playing fairly or not. This entire case leaves a very bad taste for me and all the players of Summerdale, so please do something about this.

[Sacha]

That does seem like he's not exactly rushing to fulfill his end of the deal. He's had plenty of time, and from the look of it plenty of gold to disband the militia. Perhaps we need to give him a stern reminder of sorts...

[Velax]

Not that I agree with what Orris is doing, but do the Magistrates have the power to make enforceable requirements of players that go beyond warnings and account locking?

[Lefanis]

I'd like to hear what Orris has to say, but I agree that more than enough time has been given to disband the militia, and it would be a bad precedent to allow the flouting of a magistrate decision.

[Indirik]

@velax: the exact full scope of the Magistrates authority in handing out decisions has not been defined. Anything that requires actual manipulation of the game requires Tom's action, or at least permission for one of the devs to do on his authority.

[Chenier]

I was convinced that he was of foul intent when he shut down the RCs. This just removes the last ounces of doubt I had...

[Tom]

Not that I agree with what Orris is doing, but do the Magistrates have the power to make enforceable requirements of players that go beyond warnings and account locking?

They can lock an account, so it follows they can make deals of the "if you do X, we won't lock your account" kind. And, of course, it also follows that someone who agrees and then doesn't hold up his end should be locked for at least twice as long - but I'm not sure if the player in this case explicitly agreed. But even then, not doing X should result in the lock that was originally passed over. IMHO.

[Vellos]

I'm inclined to think we should go ahead and slab on a lock. It was never the intention of the Magistrate ruling that he should get off scot-free.

And as we now know, the "announce publicly" feature doesn't actually work... so he never even really got reprimanded in any meaningful sense.

[Darksun]

I'm inclined to think we should go ahead and slab on a lock. It was never the intention of the Magistrate ruling that he should get off scot-free.

And as we now know, the "announce publicly" feature doesn't actually work... so he never even really got reprimanded in any meaningful sense.

I, for one, don't think he got off scot-free. His integrity as a player has been brought into question publicly, and he was found in breach. The intended punishment was a public shaming that couldn't occur because (of all ironies) another bug. Every time one of his characters appears in a realm now, they will carry this stigma. That's a pretty high price to pay already.

All that aside, what's the end game scenario here? Continue to lock the account until he complies? What if he just quits? What happens when the lock causes him to lose a lordship? Will the next Lord of Mt. Black be forced to abide by this ruling as well?

If that's the case then we are seriously heading down a rabbit hole here that will have serious ramifications on the player base. On top of that, about 1300 Summerdalian men are about to attack Mt. Black. After this battle the militia issue is more or less moot, is it not?

[Indirik]

IMO, the ruling in this case was a bit... well, not quite ridiculous, but close. If Tom didn't agree to immediately remove the militia himself (which I don't think he would agree to do), then the guy should just have had his lordship yanked, a public warning, and we all get on with the game. Otherwise we just end up with the situation we have: It's not getting done fast enough, and we have other players working as fast as they can to essentially nullify the judgment by dropping even more LE militia.

I think the ball was dropped on this one by the original ruling.

[Chenier]

It's the official policy that devs don't undo bugs unless it's game-breaking, so I'm not quite comfortable with magistrates ordering people to undo bugs themselves.

Which is why I am of the opinion that a lock is in order. There's no way to undo the harm he did, so there's no point in trying. If the devs don't, why would we?

He did something bad, and never bothered to do any compensations to nullify the advantages he got (instead, he tried to maximize the gains of it), and as such, needs to be reprimanded. The time to be "fair" by doing stuff like disbanding the militia is over, as that militia gave them enough time to stuff the region with a ton of other nobles' militia.

[Arrakis]

I, for one, don't think he got off scot-free. His integrity as a player has been brought into question publicly, and he was found in breach. The intended punishment was a public shaming that couldn't occur because (of all ironies) another bug. Every time one of his characters appears in a realm now, they will carry this stigma. That's a pretty high price to pay already.

And on the others side you have some 30ish new players, all imported from Bay12 forums, who are witnessing first hand how the game can suck. Technically this was a minor bug, but due to his actions he made it a major bug and turned the war for 360 degrees. The mountain is crucial, and if Summerdale got to keep, and they should since they won it fairly, they'd have a relatively easy position to defend from. But now, with Moreks interference although that is an IC event and don't wanna drag it here, the mountains are practically unbreakable, and all that is so because of one player who exploited a bug and showed no respect to act according to Magistrate decisions. Lame.

[Lorgan]

I remember a whole realm got turned rogue once on FEI. Not saying the same should happen to LE... but I wouldn't mind for the way they've been playing.

[JPierreD]

I think this of very poor taste, for it is /not/ how friends playing a board game together would behave. While I think the region should have been turned back to Summerdale back then, booting the transgressor from the Lordship, it seems Tom and the Dev team disagree. I personally don't see any problem in making a Summerdalian the Lord of the region, and letting him change allegiance back to the region.

If not that, at least give him a proper punishment. It must suck hard to be on Summerdale's position.

[ChrisVCB]

I think this of very poor taste, for it is /not/ how friends playing a board game together would behave.

This, absolutely this.

It must suck hard to be on Summerdale's position.

Especially now there's 20k of enemy CS jammed into that one region. I know thats an IC development, but it still makes it suck all the harder.