Breach of SMA and IC/OOC seperation

[Blue Star]

Commoners are commoners

Nobles are nobles

Bastards are bastards

What really needs to be disputed in this is the judges ability to look at background of the character imprisoned. Is that a legitimate form for finding out the heritage and background of nobles and if so is that knowledge acquired considered OCC or is it IC obtained by the judge?

What do commoners do to get banned anyway? They make food, clean laundry, clean dishes, clean more, fill mug with ale/7UP, take care of horse, etc.. If they talk back it's simply off with their head....

[Chenier]

The game says the advy belongs to the family. I know the family name might now always appear, but there's no sticker on a family page saying "no, this character doesn't really belong here). And policy has always been that whatever the game says or displays is both true and common knowledge (wiki also being common knowledge).

I think the best policy in this case would be that all adventurers are widely known and recognized to be associated with the family that plays them. Given that you can pretty much do whatever you can to advies anyways, I don't feel that putting a restriction on punishing for family ties, when one can pretext anything else to cover the purpose, would be a good policy.

[Tom]

Game information is truth. Of course, how you roleplay that truth is entirely up to you. You can always deny it, Clinton-style. Then it means that there are persistant rumours that X is really a bastard of the Y family.

I don't think that using the family relation between characters is per se an SMA violation. This is a bit of a tricky area because while the family link is game-truth, the fact that these characters are played by the same player is not, that's OOC info, so even with the family link there, you are supposed to treat the characters as maybe related, but still different persons.

[Geronus]

The way I understood it, it was not acceptable to IC ban someone merely because they have another character in an enemy realm:

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/FAQ/Tom%27s_Position_on_Banning

If you have proof that they're channeling information, they by all means, but you can't just look at their family page and then ban them as a possible spy without proof. Of course, these guidelines appear to have been written with the case of two nobles in mind; I don't know if the same logic applies to Advies, whose available information is in any case very limited even about the realm they are in.

[egamma]

The way I understood it, it was not acceptable to IC ban someone merely because they have another character in an enemy realm:

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/FAQ/Tom%27s_Position_on_Banning

If you have proof that they're channeling information, they by all means, but you can't just look at their family page and then ban them as a possible spy without proof. Of course, these guidelines appear to have been written with the case of two nobles in mind; I don't know if the same logic applies to Advies, whose available information is in any case very limited even about the realm they are in.

This, as well as the position on atheism, should be added to the Social Contract or Government Rules. Wiki-reading has never been a requirement for playing the game.

[Tom]

No, they should not be added. Those documents should stay short. They are basically just clarifications of how the rules should be understood.

[DamnTaffer]

The way I understood it, it was not acceptable to IC ban someone merely because they have another character in an enemy realm:

Why not, it certainly has historical precidence?

[Anaris]

Why not, it certainly has historical precidence?

Are you sure?

I'd be interested in seeing an instance of being banished, upon pain of death simply because one had a relative—not even necessarily a brother or other immediate family member; remember, BattleMaster characters could be related quite distantly—who lived in a country that was, at the time, considered hostile.

[Draco Tanos]

If anything, many of those family members were usually propped up and encouraged to press their own claims to whatever lands the enemy family member held. 

[Chenier]

No, they should not be added. Those documents should stay short. They are basically just clarifications of how the rules should be understood.

Not to mention that this particular guideline creates a lot of confusion in itself. Many people take it to the extreme, thinking that one must have undeniable truth of spying to dare ban someone, when really it just means don't be an !@#$%^& and that having characters in different realms is perfectly fine and normal.

[Indirik]

I'd be interested in seeing an instance of being banished, upon pain of death simply because one had a relative—not even necessarily a brother or other immediate family member; remember, BattleMaster characters could be related quite distantly—who lived in a country that was, at the time, considered hostile.

Well, I can think of some more recent, modern examples, but not medieval ones. 

[Chenier]

Well, I can think of some more recent, modern examples, but not medieval ones. 

Only revolutions come to my mind, but that's still past our setting.