Shattered Kingdoms

I gave examples on why it doesn’t work and those have nothing to do with my feelings, my creativity, or what I think it would mean for me personally. Just to reiterate, if a leader of an organization is required to take orders from another, that person effectively isn’t the leader but middle management. Because he has to take orders, the one giving him the orders then leads both organizations.



This is a perfect example of a conflict of interest. I’m not talking about an IC conflict of interest but an OOC conflict. By allowing a player to take command of two organizations they effectively become one organization. For all practical purposes, this defeats the purpose of having separate organizations to act as nations’ governments.



I don’t see how this situation could ever happen. The goal of the FBI agent to take down the gang, but if they become leader they haven’t fulfilled their duty. Therefore, if that situation ever developed it would mean that someone involved in the sting ran into a conflict of interests and choose against the FBI.



Granted you might find examples where it could be viable for a dual member to justify it IC. But IC conflicts of interest are not my major focus here; it is the OOC conflict of interest. And turning down a position of leadership because of dual membership doesn’t have to give away outside allegiances. There are just as many creative ways to turn it down as there are creative ways to justify taking it. Hell, all one has to say is I don’t want the responsibility.

Lei Kung

Look, it isn’t just about IC conflicts of interest but OOC conflicts of interests. This mud emphasizes RP but players are still not allowed to play a good deep elf. Good deep elves aren’t allowed because it harms the atmosphere that is strived for, not because people lack the ability to RP it. That reasoning is along the same lines as why leaders shouldn’t be dual members; among other reasons.



When will people stop using this argument to blanket whatever they want to do. I already covered this weak argument but will rehash it again. You can’t be a good deep elf, you can’t be a sprite priest, you can’t good necromancer, and there are a number of things that say “you can’t do that”. The theory avoiding the “you can’t do that” has limits to its application.

And again its not about IC conflicts of interest. If it was I would be against dual membership because any character that is a dual member runs the risk of such conflicts, even if they are the lowest man on the totem-pole. The organizations exist separately for a reason. Allowing effective merging by having a leader of one required to take orders from another or leading both destroys that reason. Hence, it is an OOC concern that I’m looking at.

Lei Kung

I don't understand this point of view at all. First off, many people are drawn to leadership because they are natural leaders. Secondly, leaders might not have the direct access to as many powers as their underlings, but indirectly they have access to a much greater number (especially under the redistribution suggestion). Lastly and most importantly, this stance is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.



Why would the leaders need anything more then a greater ability to rein in their members? By being a leader they have indirect access to all the powers all their members have. The leaders might have less direct powers but a much greater range of indirect powers. In fact, I believe that the leaders through their access to these powers indirectly, are more powerful then an individual dual member.

Lei Kung

This I totally agree with. To keep from going on a diatribe, suffice it to say, I find no valid justification to limit the martial arts to the good alignments or why the martial arts (aka those skills) should be underutilized by being limited to a cabal.

Lei Kung

I see you've decided to mass post us all into submission. I didn't read much of what you said, unfortunately, because I'm relatively certain it's the same argument rehashed into longer posts.

I didn't reply to the post earlier because I was with family for the holiday weekend. I read and replied when I got the chance. I didn't "mass" post to submit anyone that is an unethical tactic I wouldn't use. And I believe these posts are shorter then most of my replies, just more in a row.

These posts were written in response to you (most of them) but not for you. They were written for all that are interested in the concept of Dual Membership and the ideas floating around it. Hence, you reading them or not is inconsequential to me. Your justification for not doing so is just as inconsequential except to maybe yourself (unless there are others out there that can't live without knowing what you are doing all the time...it's possible).

Lei Kung

You don't really want to get started, Lei Kung, because I will derail this thread and make you look like an idiot faster than you can say "Wow, I wish I hadn't started myself on gameplay".

Your posts are repetitive, boring, and reflect only your own lack of wit. It's lucky they don't reflect the majority, and the only thing I'm concerned about is that some imm reading this post wondering what players think will seize upon your many (and long) posts, and think that due to their bulk they somehow infer that you're right.

You clearly aren't, if you'll read the opening blurb about the mud - it looks as though you're playing the wrong game, as you clearly want it to tell us "you can't do that". Your ideas are flawed in many ways, as I have pointed out. We've all seen your opinion, and that will do.

Get started? What the hell are you talking about? Your post insinuated that I posted in the way I did to submit someone by unethical means rather then on the points. So I respond saying why I posted the way I did, to clear up any misconceptions and you take that as an invitation to a fight. I’m completely lost on how that works.

Unless you are taking exception to the part of my post where I point out that my postings aren’t specifically for you or that if you choose to read them it is inconsequential but both are true. Just because we are having a discussion, it still is for an audience larger then you and me. If you choose not to read a post that is fine, I just don’t see the point in announcing it. How this can be offensive to anyone is beyond me, but if you did, I don’t know what to say.

I’m sorry your opinion of my posts has changed. Earlier in this very thread you said “I generally find your posts insightful actually, Lei Kung, even if I don’t always agree with you”. But I don’t take your change of opinion on my posts too hard, after all who are you to me?

Attack me all you want, but those attacks don’t make you right and they sure as hell don’t make me wrong. I can only assume you decided to attack me unprovoked because it is your last recourse. If that isn’t the case then I’m lost on why you would resort to such but if you feel the need, have fun it is cheaper then therapy right?

Lei Kung

In general I do find your posts insightful and interesting. On this thread however, you seem to have hit the 'repeat songs' button on your CD player.

I understand your concerns, I just don't think they're valid. I've addressed them, and the arguments you give in return seem insubstantial. You and I obviously think that cabals and tribunals are different on a fundamental level. You think someone being in two organisations and leading one would be middle management, I think it would be a compromise between powerful figures. You think leading two organisations would be harmful to the atmosphere the game strives for, I think not allowing people to do so would be harmful to the atmosphere the game strives for, and I think it would hamstring a player's ability to RP, because suddenly ooc considerations have to be taken into account when being given an offer a person's character would leap at.

Your last point is even worse, you suggest that natural leaders will rise to the occasion and take leadership despite the huge lessening of actual ability this grants. Are you kidding? Almost all the capable leaders who play this game rise to the top, it's true, but if they get a choice between having a second-rate character in terms of real power, and leading a cabal come up, which do you think will be chosen? I know what I'll pick every single time, and it ain't leadership.

And four posts in a row, taking up over half a page, is considered mass posting in any language.

The "You can't do that" argument isn't without merit. We shouldn't be squashing perfectly good RP just to make it fit a mechanical system. That's one reason CRS was so annoying: Its elevation of a mere game mechanic over the established IC nature of cabals. Such rules are fundamentally different than forcing elves to be good and have emnity; the characterization of elves promotes RP.

But the question then becomes, is having one group being able to regularly command another group "perfectly good RP"? I claim the answer is no. Why? Because leaders ICly don't have the near-absolute powers they have OOCly.

Let's pretend the Talon tribunal leaders arbitrarily decide to surrender their country to the MC. They support the MC by regularly giving them pardons, and the MC's enemies, banishment. How long do you think the Council of Blossoms would put up with such leaders? How long could these leaders command the obedience of tribunal NPCs?

ICly, a disloyal faction leader could only do so much damage before being removed. OOCly, the only check is immortal intervention. Any players who make their displeasure known can be removed. Further, the leader can pack his faction with those who agree with him. With dual wield factions, that last should not be hard!

We could fix this by imposing more checks and balances on player leaders. If we take that approach, great! Otherwise, we have to take OOC action to discourage unfaithful leadership. I'd prefer to see that done as a simple rule, "Leaders can't join other organizations," than as regular immortal intervention. IMO, rule of OOC law encourages more RP creativity than rule of immortal.