Shattered Kingdoms

Sorry, I've got to take umbrage here. Player organizations should be controlled and run by Immortals only.

Better yet, remove the cabals and give the abilities to the Trib. Or like, whomever said way back. Junk the cabals, give the tribs some abilites and add more classes, based off of the cabal abilities.

No, that would not be collusion. Collusion would be where the leader of one cabal works with the leader of a tribunal to keep membership exclusive or limit it significantly between the two of them. A leader trying to get a member in a tribunal has nothing to do with collusion. You know some people find that it is a good thing to know something about what they are talking about before they start talking.



I guess that depends on your definition of subjective. Tell me would this be subjective? A new leader takes over a cabal. There is a surge in induction into that cabal. At the same time a certain tribunal starts inducting members of that cabal at a higher then normal rate while at the same time inductions of others decrease. This is a fairly clear cut case of collusion but there could be further investigation, say into IPs and seeing if they are a "unofficial player group". That is just one way and the evidence doesn't even have to be this clear to warrant special attention. If that is what you call subjective then fine, but realize that get criminals locked away on much more circumstantial evidence.



I'm sure no matter how desperate they might get, you sucking anything for them would most likely be out of the question...or I would hope so. But again this comes down to what your definition of subjective is. Ultimately, it is all about preponderance of the evidence and credibility.



So now you use the fallacy of the slippery slope to try and make your point. I can only assume you've taken this over the deep end example because your arguments don't hold up. Trying to say that an Immortal watching for collusion some how equates to have to ask to get a person dual membership might be the definition of asinine.



Again you are over the top and making yourself look foolish. Of course player organizations should be run by players. They always have (at least since I've been around) and always should be. Oh but guess what, they should also be supervised by Immortals, just like they always have. So in other words you are making a straw-man argument that is so obvious it is insulting to all who read it. Come on man, at least use rational reasoning in your arguments, going over the deep end, making up fictional reasons for failure, or attacking non issues doesn't convince anyone of anything other then you are writing just to fill space.


Lei Kung

You quoted the wrong person above.

You have not proposed any rules other than general ones which give put immense leeway in the hands of immortals to decide whether or not two cabal/tribunal leaders are 'working together' or not. How many cabal/tribunal members both being in the same cabal/tribunal is too many? If the leader of the peacekeepers found out that three of his members were in the Hammer, would he be -forced- to uninduct them all regardless of RP because it is too unfair to have that many members of his tribunal in the same cabal? How about if he doesn't mind that many of his members are also a part of the hammer...should tribunal leaders be forced to restrict players from joining certain cabals?

What about if, as the leader of the Harlequin, I am able to recruit four members who all join the Talon secretly. Youma finds out, but I am able to blackmail him for cheating on his long lost wife and force him to keep my harlequin in his tribunal. Is this....cheating? Are the immortals now faced with the job of having to watch this roleplay, or would there be no exceptions to the rule - no more than 3 members of your cabal in one tribunal....?

Hard and fast rules need to be created on this topic, or immense immortal participation will be required, constant attention on who is in which cabal/tribunal, and even immortal attention as to which players know eachother will need to be taken into account.

Honestly, as the leader of the Harlequin - having every member of my cabal in a tribunal is a wet dream. I just think that immortals questioning me for 'colluding' with tribunal leaders is not a fair tradeoff for this advantage. More immortal control over cabals/tribunals is an awful idea.

Algon's one line on the subject:
Let's promote, for the first time, active cabal and tribunal roleplay before we try to complicate the system.

Exactly. More precisely, tribunals lose their identities and cease to exist. So what?



Are you serious?



The landscape of the game is changed all the time, and the efforts of many are undone and forgotten. It's a fact of an ever changing game. Out with the old, in with the new. Tribunals aren't any more sacred than the pre-CTF cabal areas (which I miss) or formerly uber, now useless weapons or a Cain Techt which was a legitimate levelling spot for mentor-level darkies.

If a merger is deemed the most straightforward and easily implemented option for player organization contraction, so be it. It'll work fine.

Peace,
Bux

I haven’t proposed any hard and fast rules for a few reasons. First, twinks like to take the rules and find ways around them, thus violating the spirit of the law. Second, I think it should be open to interpretation, our system of laws (the US that is) are set up for interpretation in many circumstances. Granted there are hard and fast laws like speed limits but the right to burn a flag is based off of the interpretation of the First Amendment. Lastly, I have faith in the immortal staff.



Again you are obviously missing the point. Collusion under these circumstances isn’t about numbers in a tribunal or cabal but about trying to circumvent the purpose leaders not belonging to multiple groups.



Again you are missing the point and it is beginning to seem as if you refuse to understand. Not only are you refusing to understand but you are making the assumption that it is about numbers which isn’t the case. And numbers might be an indicator in the evidence but is only one part of it. An example of another would be the representation of tribunal only member and dual member of other cabals then the one in question. That is just one example of a number of indicator/evidence.



I don’t see any benefit of hard and fast rules other then to twinks trying to circumvent the rules. In fact if the immortals do decide to have guidelines I would suggest not making them public.



Well that is your opinion on what is and isn’t a fair trade off. But if we are talking specificly about the Harlequins, I would rather have members in every tribunal rather then all in one…knowing the nature of the tribunal. Now you don’t want more immortal control over cabals. That is fine but you must realize that there isn’t more immortal control because all they are doing is enforcing the rules.

Lei Kung

Oh come on man. That's why I said let's assume. I never meant to imply that I believe that but to use it for an example. Dude I've always treated you with respect because you post in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Please treat me the same and don't take something like that out of context to represent me as some male chauvinist, that I'm not. Not only is that unfair but it is faulty to try and discredit me in such a way.

Also, I assume you've read my posts. Therefore, you know one of the goals I was working off of is that the inactivity issue is addressed without sacrificing the current roles of player organizations. My response was written with that in mind. To ask me to respond then ignore my premise is also an unfair tactic. If you wish to debate the premise then do that, don't try to run an end around just to support your cause.

Lei Kung

As I see it, the problem with the "collusion" rule is more that there's no reasonable basis for it - except to promote this vision of fragmented tribunals. What's the IC justification for this? Or what's the OOC justification for messing with player leadership?

Now if tribunals are covered by the oathbreaker flag, it's reasonable for immortals to control being kicked out for trivial reasons. But isn't that one of the things to go? And if we're serious about the "spirit" of the oathbreaker flag, isn't a spy that doesn't reveal his other loyalty on demand already an oathbreaker?

Yet this is the first I've heard that tribunal leaders will be REQUIRED to admit those they ICly don't deem worthy of membership, and to reject those they deem worthy. Restricting high office to members of a favored secret society is not only reasonable, but also has historical examples. Yet this rule is somehow supposed to be less OOC than merging cabals and tribunals? Nonsense.

If you're a big enough fan of fragmented tribunals not to care about the OOCness of the rule, I can understand that. But I don't see how a group with no common goals but "protect the city" (if that) and with little mutual trust is all that wonderful.

There is a completely reasonable reason for preventing collusion. I’m using that term as it appears in the law. Collusion is an extension of illegal monopolies which are illegal because it eliminates or reduces competition to such a degree that there effectively is no longer a free market (the concept our and now most economies are based on). The reason for preventing collusion in the context I’m using it, is for the same basic reason. Without making collusion illegal, two players could monopolize a cabal and tribunal thereby circumventing the spirit of dual membership and nullifying large parts of its purpose.

By the way it isn’t to promote “fragmented tribunals” but to add depth to the game. Look right now there is no real fear of spies or betrayal. Governments today have to deal with it and yet they thrive without total chaos. I understand the fear but the leaders of the tribunals have the power to deal with it. And those that have the ability to judge character and/or build loyalty will be extremely successful. Also remember a vast majority of the time it benefits cabals to have members in tribunal without disrupting their operations because otherwise they will lose their operative.



I don’t see the oathbreaker flag’s spirit being violated if it is removed from tribunals because it wouldn’t apply. If you are talking about the concept of characters not being able to leave one organization for another, well that is one of the reasons for this debate.



First off, I don’t see why anyone would be REQUIRED to admit or reject applicants because of any suggestion made. I think you might be taking what Algon has stated as some how correct. His examples and arguments are completely off base on what collusion is all about. Think about it like this, collusion in this case is about leaders “colluding” to monopolize a cabal and tribunal, it has nothing to do with numbers.

As for restricting the high office, you have a point about it happening in real life, but that is because there is no effective way to govern such a thing. And because such a thing isn’t governed we see things happen like Germany in WWII with the Nazis or with Sadam and the Baath party in the middle east (the Baath party expands well beyond the boarders of Iraq). As for it being more or less OOC then merging, I don’t see the connection. The are two completely different issues, the fact they both have an OOC element isn’t relevant.



As far as I’m concerned you have the goals all wrong. First, expanding tribunals’ roles beyond city protection is a goal. Second, fracturing tribunals isn’t a goal. But with the expanded roles of tribunals and cabals moving to the shadows, there is a way for a deeper RP that intertwines them. Tribunals don’t have to be fractured at all, so long as the tribunal leaders don’t stand for treason. I understand this change might be scary for some because it is a paradigm shift to focus SK more on tribunals, but I see it coming with great rewards.

Lei Kung