Accusations of abuse and general harassment

[GoldPanda]

... Anyway, I would like to request an explanation from Aaron, on how he planned on making me "lose badly" by "escalating" his repeated messages. So far his clarification is not making much sense to me.

[GoldPanda]

I will be traveling tomorrow, but I'll be back in two days to answer any further questions.

[Chenier]

IMO, we shouldn't totally disregard the IC things. We do have to ask why the IC assignments were given.

IC reasons do exist: as both Yangfan has said, and as I postulated.

BUT, the messages perplex me about whether the IC things were actually motivated ICly.

Example: If I OOC message someone and say, "I'm banning your character because of XYZ you said on the forum," but then the character also happens to be breaking some realm law, the ban is STILL a violation of the SC: because the existence of IC reasons is not sufficient.

IMHO, and I know I'm in a minority on this, players with negative OOC history have to walk on tip-toes around each other and go out of their way to play nice. As best I can tell, Aaron was doing this: making a new character playing in a new realm in a new crowd. Yangfan decided to haze the new guy to get him to go away, because he didn't OOCly trust him based on an OOC belief about spy networks that he regards as "fuzzy" in regards to their IC/OOCness. To me, that's wrong. And here's why:

If the alleged spy network was "bad," then a Magistrates case could have been filed. If its "unsportsmanslike" or not playing with friends, Magistrates can address it. Seriously– I'd love to have somebody bring up a case about a multi-continental secretive spy/patronage ring. It'd give me an AWESOME chance to soapbox about clanning again. But such a case did not appear. Such a case having not appeared, the existence of the spying activity, and especially its negative moral character, must be ignored for a ruling. Because, IMHO, if such a multi-continental secretive network did exist, it would be next to impossible for it to be acceptable within the Social Contract. Accusing someone of such a network IS accusing them of cheating, and then predicating your treatment of their characters on your (unproven) beliefs about their (possible) behavior that (may be) cheating is inappropriate.

Ultimately, it seems a mild violation to me. I don't see either party here as having done anything particularly egregious; just some ruffled feathers– but, to me, again, it still appears that Yangfan is the one who acted inappropriately first (I won't address the "escalation" thing here), in that it does not appear to me most likely that his choice of orders for Remi was really about IC family vendettas. It seems like it was about a semi-OOC alleged spy ring. And yes, the lines between IC and OOC get fuzzy here: but it's woefully insufficient to say, "I can think of an IC reason I might have done it!"

Even the IC message to Celestial Fury is a thinly veiled discussion of game mechanics, IMHO.

I disagree. OOC doesn't excuse IC. If my character plans a rebellion, and people catch on to it. I can't save myself by sending OOC slurs to everyone, and then whining i'm being  banned for OOC reasons on top of the IC ones. If there are legitimate IC reasons to persecute someone, the existence of OOC reaons doesn't make the IC reaons any less legitimate. It just adds a potential additional burden of proof, no more.

Spying is something that we must assume as done IC, until proven otherwise. It also has direct IC consequences. And is viewed by the majority as being dishonorable. Characters would therefore have plenty of IC reasons to dislike characters or families suspected of doing it a lot.

Playing in any given realm is not an IR. If you go to a realm where your family is disliked, you must accept the risk that you'll be banned on sight or otherwise marginalized or mistreated.

[Fury]

I don't care if it's public or private. That honestly doesn't mean much to me as to whether it's right or wrong. I could privately say someone is a stupid ass nigger, and just because it's private doesn't mean it isn't harassment.

In the same way that using an opportunity to mouth off to someone and just because it's thinly veiled as an example doesn't mean it isn't harassment?

The facts are what I stated: no public accusations - if there is, point it out. If there's harassment in the private statements go ahead and quote the relevant sentences in its context.

[Anaris]

One point that's puzzled me in all this:

If Aaron is supposedly this grand spymaster, controlling a web of spies across multiple continents and bringing in information from all corners without any trace...

...why the hell would he create a character himself in a realm to spy in it? Openly, announcing himself to the realm? And if he's spying, who's he reporting to?

Furthermore, just by being in the realm and army, he can see quite a lot of info that could be highly militarily useful. If you really thought he was spying on you right now, why not just get him banned?

[Fury]

There's no way to stop spying and it's not against the rules as long as no cheating is involved which isn't the case here and there aren't accusations of it either. Usually characters in suspect in one form of another are given limited roles until their loyalty can be assessed. The part of the Social Contract that would relate to this is:

Always give newcomers the benefit of the doubt.

Does this mean that they can be integrated into the realm right away without a cooling off period? Would it infringe on the rules if their roles were limited?

The more related part of the Social Contract is:

Do not insult or harrass other players

It started of friendly enough, player of Remi sending an OOC msg to player of Enri as an OOC nod from one veteran to another that apparently wasn't reciprocated. I sense that the reason may be related to this:

There is a difference between obeying both the spirit and the letter of the rules, and skirting around the edges and rules-lawyering. Like, oh, say, claiming that you are not realm-merging because there was still that lone stronghold left out in the middle of nowhere, and then throwing its duke under the proverbial bus when he merged with a neighbor.

Was there a previous incident involving both characters here or just a general dislike of the way something was presumably done?

What next occured was that both didn't like how things were progressing OOC so both raised a notch until... well, here we are.

[Vellos]

Lyman/Vellos, I apologize if I am misinterpreting you, but are you saying that you believe what Aaron did was against the rules, and because I failed to report it, therefore it is inadmissible? I apologize if that's not what you meant, but that seems to me to be a rather arbitrary way to remove parts of a case from consideration.

I mean you've never given any evidence of the behavior. And if it were true, IMHO, that would be a magistrate case in itself. But lacking any evidence, you can't come into an OOC place and expect your assertion to hold any weight. The discussion of semi-OOC spying (and using cross-continental family ties definitely fits that bill given the presumption of world separation), in an OOC forum, is equivalent to you saying, "I have an OOC vendetta" over and over again unless and until you can provide evidence. Predicating IC actions on a form of spying you believe to be "unsportsmanlike," that is, not playing with friends, that is, a violation of the SC, that is, an OOCly negative act... is not okay.

IC is not your place to seek justice for OOC slights. It just isn't. And if you do, it's unfair play.

My OOC grumbles actually came after Enri's IC hatred. He learned about Thomas Solari's spying via IC means before I had any OOC knowledge of it happening. I suppose some of Enri's feelings could have rubbed off on me, but it definitely wasn't the other way around. Even if I did not object to it OOCly, Enri still would have done the exact same thing. It wasn't me thinking up an IC excuse after the fact.

Based on your comments here and in those messages, it appears pretty evident to me that Enri's feelings have rubbed off on you: and did so prior to Remi's arrival.

Enri is isolating Remi because there is zero trust there. I told Aaron that I disapproved of his actions, hoping that he would stop it if enough people expressed their disapproval to him. Those are two separate channels. I should not have to censor myself just because they happen to point in the same direction.

Yes, you should censor yourself. You cannot isolate a character because of your disapproval of a player. To me, it seems like that this is exactly what you have done– though I'll admit the case is very complex, and I'm hardly dead-set in that belief.

There's no way to stop spying and it's not against the rules as long as no cheating is involved which isn't the case here and there aren't accusations of it either. Usually characters in suspect in one form of another are given limited roles until their loyalty can be assessed. The part of the Social Contract that would relate to this is:
Does this mean that they can be integrated into the realm right away without a cooling off period? Would it infringe on the rules if their roles were limited?

The more related part of the Social Contract is:
It started of friendly enough, player of Remi sending an OOC msg to player of Enri as an OOC nod from one veteran to another that apparently wasn't reciprocated. I sense that the reason may be related to this:Was there a previous incident involving both characters here or just a general dislike of the way something was presumably done?

What next occured was that both didn't like how things were progressing OOC so both raised a notch until... well, here we are.

I.... agree with Fury. Holy crap.

Emphasis on the "There's no way to stop spying" part.

There isn't. Get over it. Spying is one of the few ways that lower-ranking nobles can get influence with very high-ranking nobles. It is a valuable in-game social leveler allowing less powerful players to gain a footing with more powerful players.

I disagree. OOC doesn't excuse IC. If my character plans a rebellion, and people catch on to it. I can't save myself by sending OOC slurs to everyone, and then whining i'm being  banned for OOC reasons on top of the IC ones. If there are legitimate IC reasons to persecute someone, the existence of OOC reaons doesn't make the IC reaons any less legitimate. It just adds a potential additional burden of proof, no more.

Spying is something that we must assume as done IC, until proven otherwise. It also has direct IC consequences. And is viewed by the majority as being dishonorable. Characters would therefore have plenty of IC reasons to dislike characters or families suspected of doing it a lot.

Playing in any given realm is not an IR. If you go to a realm where your family is disliked, you must accept the risk that you'll be banned on sight or otherwise marginalized or mistreated.

Question is one of chronology. If you have an OOC vendetta, it pre-exists, then you add in IC motivation– bad. If something is IC, THEN something OOC occurs, certainly you can continue to act on the IC actions.

My argument is that Yangfan's opinions about Aaron certainly pre-exist Remi's arrival in CE. That he has almost explicitly said in those messages that the orders for Remi are OOC motivated. He has never offered any evidence of the secretive, cross-continental spy and patronage network that he alleges.

Also, from the SC:

"Note that during roleplays, characters can be played as aggressive, as long as it is clear and obvious that the opposite character is the target, not the player behind him."

The right of characters to be aggressive is conditioned on the obviousness of the player's goodwill. To me, Yangfan's goodwill was not obvious. Thus, aggressive acts seem inappropriate. It is not clear that the character is the target. Again, in a case where you reasonably think your actions might be negatively received or believed to have OOC motivations, you must be exceptionally careful to demonstrate goodwill.

---

Also, I was 99% sure somewhere in the government rules there was a prohibition on banning someone because of their family, but I can't find it now. I wanted to look at the wording in order to respond to this thread, and also Velax' comment. But now I can't find the page for which I was searching. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

[Bedwyr]

I mean you've never given any evidence of the behavior. And if it were true, IMHO, that would be a magistrate case in itself. But lacking any evidence, you can't come into an OOC place and expect your assertion to hold any weight. The discussion of semi-OOC spying (and using cross-continental family ties definitely fits that bill given the presumption of world separation), in an OOC forum, is equivalent to you saying, "I have an OOC vendetta" over and over again unless and until you can provide evidence. Predicating IC actions on a form of spying you believe to be "unsportsmanlike," that is, not playing with friends, that is, a violation of the SC, that is, an OOCly negative act... is not okay.

The multi-continental family ties group is a known fact, if it's what I think it is.  And I kinda started it, mostly by sending out an all-call with the characters who were on good terms with Koli when he was preparing for a colony on Dwilight.  A number of people from Arcaea and a couple of other places arrived, and formed a good chunk of the core group of the colony (though by no means all of them).  When new people joined the group, one of the questions they often asked was "Hey, any other good realms?" and given the noble shortage across the game pretty much everyone would fall over themselves suggesting other realms they were in that needed people.  From things I've picked up, I think Solari picked up a lot of the pieces of this group after I had to bow out.  The "patronage" part is where it gets interesting, as (at least when I was around) it was a lot more "thank the gods we have someone actually interested in RPing and doing more than the usual things, get him whatever position he wants!" than "your cousin did me a good turn so here's a lordship".  I don't think any Ruler or Duke these days has any trouble understanding the ways the severe noble shortage have influenced the position-granting process.

But it was never done (again, when I was around, but I have no particular reason to believe otherwise) OOC.  The whole thing was done in character, with quite a lot of talk about it, some of the families formally associated (one of my plans that sadly had to get put on hold was an official Affiliated Families registry), and would have been fairly easy to see. if you knew what you were looking for, though I can quite understand that at any distance it would look a little weird.  The idea that a fair bit of spying would get done in it isn't hard to imagine.  But, the idea of it being clanning is rather silly, for precisely the reasons Yangfang pointed out (the recruiting newcomers issue).  Tried to get as many people into it as we could, because one of the things I found was that if someone had a couple of good realms, they tended to stick around a lot more.

Sorry for the long response, but this issue seems pretty crucial to the case.

Yes, you should censor yourself. You cannot isolate a character because of your disapproval of a player. To me, it seems like that this is exactly what you have done– though I'll admit the case is very complex, and I'm hardly dead-set in that belief.

But that's the kind of thing done to suspected spies on a regular basis.  Send them off monster hunting for a while away from the front and see what happens.  Especially if you have a decent counter-spy network set up and have them look for information that could be gotten just from being in an army without anything else.

Question is one of chronology. If you have an OOC vendetta, it pre-exists, then you add in IC motivation– bad. If something is IC, THEN something OOC occurs, certainly you can continue to act on the IC actions.

So we're now in the business of deciding whether the chicken or the egg came first and making decisions on it?  I would far, far, far rather go with something that isn't nearly that murky.

Also, from the SC:

"Note that during roleplays, characters can be played as aggressive, as long as it is clear and obvious that the opposite character is the target, not the player behind him."

The right of characters to be aggressive is conditioned on the obviousness of the player's goodwill. To me, Yangfan's goodwill was not obvious. Thus, aggressive acts seem inappropriate. It is not clear that the character is the target. Again, in a case where you reasonably think your actions might be negatively received or believed to have OOC motivations, you must be exceptionally careful to demonstrate goodwill.

But his character wasn't being aggressive.  Sending a new noble off monster hunting isn't aggressive, and it's not out of the ordinary.  He got a bit testy when said new noble questioned the orders (admittedly with some reason given the issues on where the liege precisely was), but this is the primary General of the largest realm in the largest war the continent has seen since the fall of Abington.  I can't even imagine how Damian would have reacted to a new noble pestering him for orders every day after he'd said "go monster hunting for a while".  I was so crazy-stressed while General of Abington that I later made a (mostly kept) promise to never, ever be General again, and Damian was a wreck.

Also, I was 99% sure somewhere in the government rules there was a prohibition on banning someone because of their family, but I can't find it now. I wanted to look at the wording in order to respond to this thread, and also Velax' comment. But now I can't find the page for which I was searching. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

Yes, you can't ban someone just for their family.  Sending them off monster-hunting when they first show up because of their family is standard practice, especially if you don't have time to figure it out just at the moment.

[Solari]

I'm on the road, so pardon the brevity of my reply. In response to Yangfan's request, I'll clarify the comment on escalation. From my perspective, Yangfan was grinding a personal axe and privately making an ass of himself. I felt like my character was being put in a poorly constructed IC purgatory as a result. So, I endeavored to return the favor and make Enri's life as miserable as possible through protocol. Constantly requesting orders would just be the beginning. Next, I'd have started asking the marshals for orders and bringing in the rest of the chain of command. Then I'd change classes and wander to the front, just to cause some grief over my super secret spy plans. Stupid and childish? You bet. But warranted, IMHO, for someone who's awfully fond of accusing me of unsporting play—based entirely on an incorrect assumption of who I am or how I play—while dishing it out himself.

But I'd hardly enjoy it, and it would work against my own interets. I'd rather that this whole public spat result in a reboot, where I have a chance to play in a realm and with another player that I've rather liked from afar for awhile.

[Chenier]

I would interpret "newcommers" as being "new accounts", not "new characters in the realm", or at most as "new characters in the realm without any history of interest to those in the realm". In other words, you don't persecute someone just because he's new. Just because you don't know him well enough.

I would not, however, extend this to new nobles in the realm who come from established families and who have made their share of enemies over the years, if it is a result of their family's heritage.

Which isn't the case, here. He's not mistrusted because he is new. He is mistrusted because of his family's history.

[Chenier]

Also, I was 99% sure somewhere in the government rules there was a prohibition on banning someone because of their family, but I can't find it now. I wanted to look at the wording in order to respond to this thread, and also Velax' comment. But now I can't find the page for which I was searching. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

It's against a policy (hidden somewhere out of plain sight, I believe) to ban someone just because he also has a character in another realm. This may be what you are thinking about.

The othe restriction, off the top of my head, are: just because he came from an enemy realm, or just because you felt like banning someone randomly.

If he played a key role in that enemy realm, however, or if his family has a long history of doing rather nasty things, it's legitimate in my book.

[Telrunya]

Enemy Realm Banning

    Sun Oct 16 19:58:21 CEST 2005

Because this has come up and is going to come up again:

My official policy on characters in enemy realms, and especially on banning them is this:

Having a character in some other, even enemy, realm alone should not ever be enough cause for a ban.

Spying, of course, can be grounds for either an IC (if it's roleplayed) or even an OOC (if it is done OOC) ban.

There are some people who enjoy fighting themselves, and can perfectly well seperate their characters. There are many people who might not realize that there is something wrong with this. And, of course, there are the cases of shifting diplomacy, where the friend of yesterday is the enemy of tomorrow.

Give people a chance. Any policy of "immediate ban" is absolutely not within the spirit of the game. It is paranoia, and a kind of paranoia that can easily turn perfectly innocent and good players away from the game, so I don't want it.

If you have reasons to suspect that someone is channeling information to your enemy, by all means use the tools available (ban, fine, message groups, whatever).

Just having a character somewhere else _is fine_. The islands where this is undesired by the game already have a one-character limit, so it can't happen. If the game allows you to put two characters on the island, then the game also allows you to put them in enemy realms.

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

Is that the one you're looking for? Here's also the Ban page: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Help:Bans , which mentions not banning someone just because they joined from an enemy Realm.

[Vellos]

Yeah, that's it.

My point was that BM has a presumption that you shouldn't penalize people for their family. No, that's not even remotely SMA. Neither is giving female characters equality. We do it because it's essential for the game to be fun.

IMHO, yes, we should force players to trust players who have played other characters that their characters distrust.

[Penchant]

Yeah, that's it.

My point was that BM has a presumption that you shouldn't penalize people for their family. No, that's not even remotely SMA. Neither is giving female characters equality. We do it because it's essential for the game to be fun.

IMHO, yes, we should force players to trust players who have played other characters that their characters distrust.

But that's not what Tom's Position on it is. No immediate bans, but Enri had characters that the new Solari came to spy so he used his tools to start tests.

[Marlboro]

I'd rather that this whole public spat result in a reboot, where I have a chance to play in a realm and with another player that I've rather liked from afar for awhile.

Can this be in the ruling? Aaron and Yangfan are probably my two favorite players and seeing a Solari show up in CE was like Christmas. Finding out that they didn't get along at all was like the opposite of Christmas.

Mandate them to be friends. I need this, guys.