Shattered Kingdoms

To be frank, the judgement in a case like this would be simple. If it were artfully done and good for the storyline of the game, if it had the support of the immortal patrons concerned, more power to the lot of them. Have a blast. SK is bigger than us all, and it'll all come good in the end.

If it were not artfully done, if it were judged to be bad for the game, if they failed to solicit the necessary support for their plans from the imm patrons concerned, they'd be blocked. Then the world can QQ if the world likes. But tell it to someone that cares.

This is exactly the sort of thing these organisations need immortal oversight to monitor and ajudicate. And I've yet to meet anybody in an imm slot that couldn't take a hard decision for the greater good, or didn't have shoulders broad enough to take a little bit of QQ from a particular interest group amongst the playerbase as a result.

Sorry mate. I think we're going to have to beg to differ on this score. I understand your arguments and where you're coming from, but I simply disagree with the base tenents of your position.

I “had better not”? What, are you going to make a post, maybe use curse words or even call me names? I’m unimpressed. This seems to be a very silly attempt at intimidation. If you want to make some kind of point with me, well reasoned arguments or questions will get you much farther.

I did not implicate you or anyone in my complementing of Tatali0n. Why can’t I just point out that I’m impressed with Tatali0n’s personal integrity in this instance? I didn’t point out anyone that has been operating in a less then honest manner because I wasn’t trying to make a negative post but a positive one. And I was thinking maybe those that have or would attempt to misrepresent their intentions might be inspired to be forthright instead.

I am curious why you puffed out your chest and acted like the internet tough guy over some comment that no reasonable person would link to you?



As I stated earlier my intention was to make a positive post and to show my respect for Tatali0n being up front about his intentions and motivations. I don’t see why anyone would take exception such an act. And I disagree that listing those I know or believe to be acting in a dishonest way to be a decent thing to do. At best it would derail this thread, act as an unnecessary personal attack, and diminish the respect I was trying to show Tatali0n.

By omitting names I do not convey even the slightest amount of slander upon anyone. A reasonable person would not believe that everyone disagreeing with me is guilty of such dishonesty nor would any reasonable person believe that I’m accusing all that disagree with me of such. And I hope that you aren’t trying to discredit me or my stance by implying that I was suggesting such about those that I disagree with.

Lei Kung

I disagree with LK. Therefore I'm a liar. Which means my first statement is a lie. So...actually, I agree with LK.

What's more, it's by now pretty well established that I'm Jardek's polite and well-mannered English alter-ego. So if you're complementing me, then by default, you're complementing him. So if any of the comments that followed implied offense, clearly none was intended.

So no harm, no foul

[aside]Unlike the bloody Ashes....[/aside]

[another aside]Not that I like or even understand the bloody game anyway. But loosing out to the Ozzies in any capacity has to be a design flaw in something [/another aside]

Quite a simple premise... they score more runs than we, (the English), did. Hence, they win.

No no no, Tat. You complement me. LK compliments me. You wacky English, you'd think that you'd be able to master your own language!

Rereading what I wrote this morning, I can say that I might have been more tactful in my response. It still looks to me like you were fingerpointing at someone though LK, and my response that you'd better not have been pointing the finger at me meant in essence that I'm not going to put up with you defaming me to get your point across. Yes, I realise that you weren't intending to defame anyone, I'm willing to take you at your word, but that's not the way it looked.

That's neither here nor there though. As I said, I'm sure I could have phrased myself better.

Back to the subject at hand, yeah, simple change over complicated change. And what's more, if the simple change just doesn't work for whatever reason (and I really, really don't think it just wouldn't work), it'd be easy to implement the big complicated one (or parts of it, anyway) over the top of it.

What has me rethinking the merits of dual membership is the experience I've had in a tribunal of late. Let me toss it out there, with the reminder that this is all IC stuff, and Gameplay isn't the place to discuss the circumstances in depth.

The tribunal fell into disorganization when a pretty good leader retired with little warning. The second was not willing to run the tribunal, and the character had no one he ICly considered reliable enough to pass leadership to. He passed leadership on anyway, and sure enough, the new leaders weren't ICly reliable. The tribunal came close to civil war, and leadership is still bouncing around.

Now these power struggles generated plenty of fun roleplay. And I've been thinking that such plots would be destroyed by dual membership. If you're the tribunal leader, and you have five fellow cabal members in your outfit, it's going to be pretty easy to pass leadership to someone "safe". Yawn.

But then other thoughts began to occur to me. I know a major civil war was OOCly intended. It didn't come to pass because, IMO, the leaders weren't quite experienced enough in the OOC herding of plots. Could more experienced players have brought us even more excitement? And now we may be seeing the same leadership vacancy problem again - but this time, without nearly so much fun. Maybe tribunal roleplay really is suffering from underpopulation.

I'm becoming glad I don't have to make the final choice.

Anything that gives possibility to game positions being limited to even fewer players is bad

I have no problem with duel leaders in itself what I have a problem with is duel leadership being passed on as a unit rather than two different things.
My weighted voting idea was a way I could see this being limited. How ever as was pointed out the system could be abused. If the vote was only taken when leader stepped down how ever the system would be harder to abuse and if a monthly hour count (baced on month before the vote) was added into before you could vote the system would be harder again to abuse.
Cabals and tribunals should not remerge because their goals are different one must defend its people the other its ideals. They could aligned behind a powerful leader who assumes both leadership roles. Once this happens I dont trust the player base enough to re sperate the two to follow their own goals again.

This thread is awesome long.

When we gona see it have an impact in game?