Shattered Kingdoms

I think some people are arguing for the sake of arguing. I think things are fine as is personally. A change could be cool too. I think we're trying to fix something that's not broken, and ignoring the more important issue of maintaining a sufficient player base.

First of all, thank you for giving reasons but let me start with this.



No, that verbiage was not used in place of an argument. Through out my posts I made arguments, those were responses to specific things. You did attempt to slander me by claiming I was using logical fallacies to invalidate what you were saying, when in fact they were completely off base from what was being discussed. You were “not forthright” about your intentions and/or motivations and still haven’t been clear about it. Until this post, your responses to me have been nothing more then flowery rhetoric which is a propagandistic tool. And I see appealing to emotion and rhetoric in place of actual arguments to persuade in a discussion as unethical. I’m sorry if you don’t like it but calling you out on your actions is not an attack nor is it abuse. It simply is you being exposed for what you were doing. Again, it was not an attack, if you don’t like it then be fair, up front, and discuss the issues rather then hiding behind sound bites.



Just because a cabal is secret and that is assuming every member decides to be secret, there are still ways to make contact. Just like how to induct while maintaining secrecy is left up to the creativity of the leader, so is it left up to the creativity of the seeker. Just one example would be for a tribunal member to let the other members know that he seeks a meeting with a Druid. This kind of request would most likely work its way back to the Druids especially in the light of dual membership. Now I believe that giving cabals the ABILITY to be secret is very important, but I highly doubt every member will be unknown. I fully expect some players to play a character devoted to ideals and a patriot which would lead to them openly expounding their allegiances to both. Again you must remember that secrecy is a CHOICE, it isn’t forced.



I’ve played SK since ’97 and remember very well when cabals were much more secret and exclusive. I completely disagree that cabals at those times offered less to the game-world as a whole. In fact, once symbol powers were removed religions became a very small part of the political movings (comparatively) of the SK world. Cabals on the other hand have always been the major mover for RP on SK and grew in that capacity until CRS (at which point many players stopped playing cabal members). I would also debate your point about this being a reason for CRS being implemented, partly because it is based on the faulty assumption addressed above, but it isn’t relevant to the topic at hand. If you don’t believe me about cabal’s roles or impact I suggest you ask others that have played extensively during that time. Ultimately, what you state here as fact is more your opinion that I disagree with and believe I have the backing of most players that played extensively in that period.



First, yes a cabal member or members could attack a city, but I’m not suggesting that they would be able to do so in absolute anonymity in regards to the characters. I’m suggesting that the characters in question would be able to do so without revealing their allegiances. In other words if they attack they are still outlaws, but they aren’t exposed as a member of XYZ. At least not directly, there is nothing stopping a person from putting 2 and 2 together and figuring out that character is a member of XYZ, they just lack the absolute proof.

Again, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this, yes one cabal member could hide his identity from another member but that is his choice. And if you CHOOSE to look at it like it is harder for one member to talk with another as members without using the cabal channel you CHOOSE to see it that way. With the cabal robe skill a member could easily put one on to speak with another member, I don’t see that as very difficult. But if a member decides he doesn’t wish to protect is identity as a member then it is no different then it is now.

And yes, the suggestion is to ALLOW for secrecy because without it IC and OOC means can destroy all secrecy a cabal is striving for. I really don’t see the problem since it isn’t really an inconvenience, doesn’t impede RP, is a choice, and offers a greater range of RP.



Look if you don’t wish to be accused of propagandistic rhetoric then I would avoid using it like in the above quote.



I can say with absolute certainty that while I was an Imm there was plenty of “visible roleplay”, if you don’t see it then that is your fault. Although, I will agree that more RP is always a good thing…well as long as it isn’t Allicat (sp?) style RP. Again you state secret cabals obstruct this, but that just isn’t the case. By allowing cabals to be secret they can dip their fingers into many more pies to a much greater effect. That is something that currently isn’t possible. And once again you are claiming things without using rational arguments to back them. I’ve pointed out many reasons why secret cabals will increase RP, you just claim they will interfere. Let me put it simply, a cabal will wish to further its agenda and by being secret, its members can work more openly and directly toward those goals because they aren’t known members.



Just couldn’t resist the insubstantial flowery rhetoric could you? Once again you are stating something in a way to tug at the heart strings without having a logical basis. In this case the idea that a tribunal would be host to multiple cabals, which might have opposing agendas is somehow fantasy. If cabal members have the ability to be completely secret, the tribunal couldn’t prevent a current member from joining. And because cabals would wish to increase their influence they would try and recruit and/or place members in tribunals. The reasoning for this is the same as that behind a free market economy; people/organization will work in their own best interests. This also works to the benefit of tribunals most of the time and to the benefit of greater RP all the time. I’m not saying Adepts will infiltrate the Peacekeepers but it is possible that the Talons will have Adepts and Hammer members in their ranks. To believe this is a fantasy seems like a naive belief that one might hold onto because they don’t like the idea of dual membership.



The propaganda machine at work again. There is a huge difference from not being able to define collusion and choosing not to, so that the spirit isn’t circumvented. And I’m sure the Imms are glad you are looking out for their feels about what they will take grief for, but I can attest from personal experience that Imms will take grief no matter what they do. It is a fact of being an Imm and even if the rules for collusion were cold hard fact and the violator blatently broke it, the Imms would still take grief. All in all this is an extremely weak argument for the above reason and because it is not up to us to decide what is right for the Imms and what isn’t.

As for the “you can’t do that here” argument, if you read my previous posts you would have seen that is already been answered. And you wonder why I say you either didn’t read or didn’t understand what I was saying. But to summarize it again; you can’t be an evil paladin, you can’t be a good deep elf, and you can’t be a sprite priest. There are many things you can’t do, that argument only applies in certain ways and collusion is an OOC factor that would be farther outside of that limit then wanting to RP a good deep elf.



Maybe a creative tribunal leader could figure it out from time to time but ultimately a smart dual member could keep himself hidden. If you truly believe there is a way, I would be interested. Also, if that leader was creative enough to somehow figure out a member of an opposed cabal, I would suggest it would be better to manipulate that member against that cabal until his usefulness has ended. Also, the value is not only in the possibility of an opposing cabal infiltrating said tribunal but of non-opposing cabals influencing said tribunal to do its bidding against other cabals. Ultimately, there are much greater opportunities for RP under this situation.




Obviously, Dulrik started this thread to hash out all that there is with dual membership. As this thread was started, it is specifically for that purpose.



The first point has been address through out my postings, Cannibal’s postings, and many others. If you read those and can’t see it that is an issue you have. Again, if you don’t like me pointing out that you just don’t understand then don’t ask me to repeat what has been said over and over. If you have a specific question or clarification on something the ask but be specific and make sure it hasn’t already been answered.

The second point seems obvious. The population problem be addressed, there would be increased tactical opportunities (from currently 7 to 35), and much greater opportunities for more RP and new types of RP to name a few. Again you are asking me to repeat myself from previous posts, why don’t you just read them rather then asking questions that have already been answered?

The third point isn’t something I can answer nor is it something you can answer nor anyone other the Dulrik. After all it is his time, blood, and sweat that will go into the coding and only he can answer if it is worth while. I can say this, I’ve never known Dulrik to shy away from hard work if he believe there is real value in it. So I ask you why even ask me a pointless question like this?



From everything you’ve said and your tone, I don’t believe you have an open mind at all. I think you say this so that you don’t seem to have an agenda but like all your other propagandistic rhetoric, it is extremely transparent.



I find it interesting that you used the tern “whole game-world” to make a point but now it isn’t about the whole game world but just about those in a small organization. It is about how the organization works and about how it interacts with other organizations and how it interacts with the SK world at large. If a tribunal can’t provide a suitable defense of it’s country then it isn’t fulfilling it’s purpose even if the members are enjoying it as is. That is just one example, and I believe it should be fairly obvious.



I understand what you are trying to suggest and I see that misses the point unless taken to the point of merging. It isn’t just about having fun in a small organization but to help the entire system work to fulfill their purposes. And no the justification for being against merging has nothing to do with having few but large organizations but to keep tribunals and cabals separate because they fulfill two different and separate functions. I would say it is more beneficial to have all the organizations be large because then more players are getting the benefits of the organizations. And I don’t see smaller organizations as having more RP opportunities then larger ones for the simple fact that in larger organizations there are more player to interact with. That offers more opportunities based on numbers and a greater range because of the extra opportunities.



Now you are calling me overly dramatic after I offered reasoning behind what I say and yet you don’t back up the claim against me. In other words you again use flowery rhetoric to support your view without logical backing. Ultimately, it doesn’t make sense to have channels shared. It would also be effectively a global channel, which Dulrik has been opposed to since before I came to SK (which was shortly after Beta). Also what happens if say the Peacekeepers have an alliance with the Talons but are at war with the Guardians who have an alliance with the Talons. And lastly, without alliance changing regularly it does blur the lines between tribunals because they no longer are the Peacekeepers but are the Peacekeepers and the whoever they are allied with.

Lei Kung

For all that is holy, Lei_Kung and Forsooth, learn about point form, these walls of text are too much. I don't even bother reading them anymore.

Holy [REDACTED], I think Lei_Kung killed 30 kittens with that post.

Oh, I think we're about done.

If Lei Kung (and others) believe that the days of secret cabals were great, and we can return to this greatness by making cabals even more secret, I can respect their enthusiasm, even if I disagree with the premises.

As for the rest, we really can't argue, since Lei can't bring himself to believe I'm serious either about valuing tribunals as they are, or about finding any anti-collusion rule offensive as a matter of RP. That's all right. I introduced my ideas, and I'm content to let them make their own way henceforth.

Do what now?

Well, one new idea did occur to me. Not only a way for a cabal to control and police a tribunal, but a suggestion to stop it as well.

Say this dual-wield proposal goes through. One possibility is that a tribunal captain and his lieutenant agree on what cabal to join. Failing this, one officer will retire eventually. Either way, one cabal will monopolize the tribunal leadership.

Already we have a unhealthy situation, where the tribunal can be used for one cabal's agenda. Further, this can go on indefinitely. All it takes is picking new officers from the ranks of the cabal.

This can lead to fairly effective tribunal policing in good-aligned countries. If new members must be principled or demonstrate a Fist/Hammer ability, it's pretty easy to stop new Druids or Harlequins from joining. An uncabaled leader might be concerned about turning away legitimate members, but a cabaled one can always invite his cabal friends.

To fix this, tribunal leaders must not be in a cabal AND must not be an Oathbreaker (former cabal member). This fix
1. discourages mixed loyalties in a tribunal leader
2. prevents the safe handoff of a tribunal to a trusted former cabal member.
3. forces a leader to accept some non-cabal members as eventual replacements

If we're going down the dual-wield path, such a roadguard would be very welcome to me.

When this is implemented, the leaders need to make precedent. I foresee a good opportunity for cabals to become more 'elite.'

I agree with that concession. The leaders of a tribunal should be pure tribunalists, if that makes sense.