Shattered Kingdoms

LOL

I wanted to take a break from typing but this is too funny. Hmmm how could I respond to the attack and show the irony without adding to the paradox?

Too funny.

I'm not going to do any more with the first part of your post, aside from pointing out that a lot of what you've written is pretty blatant hypocrisy.



What's looking at being changed? Oh, that you can't be in one organisation at a time! Sorry, you're clearly wrong. If you change something for the better and in doing so clearly violate an underlying principle of the mud, even if in another area you're improving it, you're still violating an underlying principle of the mud. Why do I say that? Because Dulrik doesn't have to change it that way. It'd be a choice to violate that principle or not to, and you saying "No no, you have it worse than that at the moment so you can't say that is bad" is like saying that it's okay to give someone herpes if you cure them of AIDS at the same time, even though the herpes wasn't a necessary part of the cure.

Deep-elves can be necromancers, and they're elves, so your comparison is not only irrelevant, it's also totally wrong. Why would it be irrelevant anyway? Because saying "Good can't be evil so the mud is saying you can't do that" is not the same as saying "You're preventing something that's actually possible within the realms of completely reasonable RP, and will likely come up a hundred times in the first year, because occasionally a person will lead two organisations with a common goal and you think that's like merging cabals and tribunals back together.



Nothing further.



Incorrect. Stop comparing your future to now. Start comparing it to the other possible futures that other possible changes may have. Compared to Forsooth/Tat/my proposition, your future violates the underlying principle.



The hypothetical dictated that it was within your reasonable RP. You shouldn't have to manufacture a false reason that doesn't comply with your character's RP and makes no sense, just because LK said you can't.



Another inaccurate comparison. You cannot compare perpetrating a gory rape scene on an unwilling player to the proposed change. It steps outside the boundaries of the game, and is why it's mentioned in the ToS. The change we are talking about is entirely within the game and not abhorrent at all. You want to talk about asinine? That comparison was asinine.

I am saying, I do not believe it is possible to create a merger as you're suggesting. It's not possible. You might have the same goal for both a tribunal and a cabal, and I think that's a noble thing that happens anyway when like-minded people take several organisations. As I've said time and time again, by necessity cabals and tribunals have different RPs because of their different functions and attract different kinds of players. Without actually removing one and giving their commands to the other, pooling the playerbase in that way, you are not merging anything, you are just giving two things (at best) a common goal.

If I play in future, I cannot say whether or not I'd attempt such a thing. It would depend on the kind of character I play and the opportunities that present themselves. It's possible, and I see nothing wrong with the fact that it's a possibility.



Obviously this is because you, as an individual, rely on immortal intervention too much. If someone's doing something that the playerbase doesn't like and won't do (for example joining X cabal and Y tribunal because otherwise you won't get inducted into either), said leader will quickly end up with an empty cabal/tribunal, and either change their mind or move on. That's exactly why it won't happen, and that's exactly why cabal and tribunal leaders right now don't do equally psychotic things that'd leave them with an empty organisation.



The bolded part of the response is exactly why cabals and tribunals cannot 'merge'. The rest of what you've said, about what's in the cabal or tribunal's best interests... Who are you to say what is and is not in the best interests of a cabal or tribunal? What is your opinion compared to that of the actual leader? I'll tell you what - it's nothing at all, and you shouldn't be sitting there on your high horse trying to say what future cabal/tribunal leaders should or should not be able to RP.

Cabals and tribunals have had wildly varying goals from leader to leader, from timid isolationist to aggressive expansionist. If the leader of the Talons and the leader of the Hammer happens to be the same person, and that person decides that it's within the Talons' best interests to go off and help the Hammer in a crusade, then more power to them.

I think I'm not understanding, then, because then the anti-collusion rule won't prevent the behavior I think you're trying to stop.

Picture this: The only remaining Talon leader believes in an aggressive approach, and so has a preference for the Hammer. He lets it be known that any Hammer member willing to swear to Zhenshi's welfare is more than welcome. He seeks to convince one Hammer/Talon joint member to drop the Hammer and be his second. And he strives to minimize the role those who might be Druids, Harlequins, or worse. He accepts no more such members, and he watches those he has like a hawk, swooping on any reasonable excuse to purge.

That's a completely IC choice. Nor is there any deal with anyone. The leader is just choosing what he sees as the best path for Zhenshi. Nonetheless, the Talons and Hammer are likely to be welded together for a long time.

If we're going to have dual membership, I'm actually HOPING to see deliberate choices like this. If instead we see lots of ICly silly combinations because the powers are cool, then Salak will have been proved right. Dual membership will be a playground for power-players, rather than an advancement of roleplay. Nuts to that.

Hm.

So we go from,

If you are a member of a cabal (tribunal), you may not join a tribunal (cabal).

to,

If you are a member of a cabal (tribunal), you may also join a tribunal (cabal).
If you are both a member and a leader of a cabal (tribunal), you may not join a tribunal (cabal).

So, technically, it's in everyone's best interest to not lead anything, ever. Roger that.

The way I see the dual membership working is sort of like being a student (tribunal) that is also in an honor society (cabal). While you have certain obligations as a student you also have those of obligations of the Honor society. Now the part about which is more important is based on the rp of the character, but woud see it as you the student have a stronger obligation to work towards completing your education, while the honor society is important as well it should not take precedence over the role as student.

The same scenario for leadership. If you are the leader of a honor society and there are others that are in it, being students as well, your objectives as a leader in the honor society are going to greatly weigh on the opinions of your members and thus you will hold some sway in the student body. The problem of one student/society leader being in the other but not being the leader could be that his superior supposedly order him to do something with the student/society that he is leader of. While that could be a problem its one that happens in the real world so I would think it would be a matter of RP on how to determine the outcome of these kind of situations.

Finally the dual leadership. This again depends greatly on the Rp of the people involved. If the groups that the individual is in have greatly conflicting objectives it will cause tension and problems for those involved. It can be done, not everyone will like it but that is how it works with anything. I don't think it will cause a merger that people seem to be against. It will be more of a steering of both groups in the same direction. Again there are going to be problems, just as real people don't always get along or see eye to eye about what should be done. It will be so with the dual leadership.

Thank you for your time

There is no hypocrisy on my part. And until you offer actual proof, not conjecture, please stop slandering me.

I agree with this statement in so far as the logical statement. But this statement is irrelevant to the argument in which you apply it. Leaders currently cannot join more then one organization and this is not a violation of said underlying principle. The changes suggested do not change this status for the leaders. Then to claim something unchanging then changes is a logical impossibility.

Granted, Dulrik can change things as he sees fit. But if XYZ doesn’t violate said policy now, leaving it unchanged and the policy doesn’t change, it logically can’t then change how it applies itself to the policy. To claim such would be like saying, if we allow griffon paladins then not allowing people to mentor all the way up to grandmaster is a violation. But if griffons can’t be paladins then not mentoring up to grandmaster is fine. As you can see one does not impact the status of the other, to claim such isn’t reasonable. Yes dual membership will affect cabals and tribunals, but that does not dictate that leaders not being allowed dual membership is any kind of violation of said policy.

I would hope you knew what I meant and if you did it is a waste of time to split this hair. So we don’t waste each other’s time, I will agree not to pick on the totally irrelevant if you will.

You don’t like my first example fine. Let’s use the one above, griffons can’t be paladins. And there are tons of other examples showing where the mud says “you can’t do that”. You can keep attacking every example I throw up and I can keep thowing more up. Ultimately, you don’t show how or why it is a violation of said policy, but I have shown how that policy doesn’t apply.


Totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Because it was about the “you can’t do that” policy there is no better starting point then looking at the way things currently are. I have shown why the proposal I advance does not violate this policy. Just because you keep claiming it does or make arguments that sound good but don’t actually touch the heart of the point, does not change that my point stands. In fact you can call me names, attempt to change the focus of the argument, and repeat yourself but none of that will make what I’m advancing violate said policy.

I understand and accept that the hypothetical was meant to be within the context of reasonable RP. I also said nothing about “manufacturing” reasons contrary to yoru character’s RP. All I was stating is if you turn down an invite there are countless reasons you might do such a thing. It would be unreasonable for someone to make the jump in belief that you are then a leader of an organization by simply turning down an invite. If one chooses to give alternate reasons that is up to them. And there is nothing saying those reasons would be false or even outside of the character’s RP. My only point was to show that turning down an invitation does not allow a reasonable person to assume they are a leader of anything.


Here you are flat out wrong. I’m the one that wrote the TOS and there was a rape RP that the victim claimed was unwanted. The rape RP, which was logged, was fitting the event RP that was happening but for legal reasons the TOS was developed. In other words such RPs as fitting they might be are prohibited not because the RP steps outside the boundaries of the game, but because such things hurt the game and its playability. This is why I choose this incident as an example. The RP of one taking over two organizations might be fitting RP, but it negatively impacts the goals and playability of the game.

Are you saying if a leader takes control of both a cabal and a tribunal they can’t then direct the two organizations as one? Are you claiming they can’t induct and un-induct members so that effectively there is only one set of membership? Are you claiming that a leader could not unduly direct a cabal to the wishes of a tribunal or vice versa? I don’t see how anyone could claim it isn’t possible for such a leader to do these things because it would be completely within their power. Since this is possible the question then is should that be allowed? I say no because it is the same as allowing a merger and as we know that is something to be avoided.

I agree that cabals and tribunals are inherently different and insuring that difference is maintained is my goal. And no removing one to put into another is not the only way to effectively merge the two. If a leader can dictate membership is shared and the two organizations work in tandem, for all intents and purposes there is only one organization.

Alright, immortal intervention isn’t the ONLY way, that was an overstatement on my part. Although, the example you gave is extreme. If the leader via OOC means or enough IC popularity could put himself into such a position where he could merge two organizations. With enough player support (note this is not a majority, just enough to sustain the merger) there are only extreme measures to remove him such as PK into deletion (which flirts with harassment depending on cause) or immortal intervention or some other I don’t see at the moment.

Just because two organizations are meant to serve different functions does not mean that a person with the power will respect that.

It isn’t me that is saying what is or isn’t in the best interests of a cabal or tribunal. The nature of the cabal or tribunal and its state at the given time are what dictates what is in its best interests. If the leader wants to violate the spirit of a cabal to suit a tribunal, then he is not acting in the cabal’s best interest and vice versa. This is not to say leaders don’t have a wide berth in directing the course of a given organization but they have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of said organization and being a dual member introduces a conflict.


Could we avoid attacking one another and try to keep this a civil discussion? More importantly, I haven’t once said how any cabal or tribunal should be RPed. I am saying that a merger is to be avoided and that allowing leaders dual membership allows for mergers effectively. I am also saying there are instances where conflicts between any organizations occur through no fault of the leader. To claim I am saying anything else is false.


I will agree goals will vary greatly from leader to leader but ultimately, a cabal is based on certain ideals and a tribunal is based on what is best for that country. And I agree that your example is just as plausible as mine. But if it can be shown imperically (for whatever reason) that an effectively merged cabal and tribunals interests conflict one of the organizations ideals will have to become submissive to the other.

Ultimately, a leader controlling both a cabal and tribunal can control inductions and directives of both so that for all intents and purposes a merger has happened. This violates the spirit of having separate organizations. It also reduces RP options, tactical options, and overall player options. Even though I have engaged in debate on whether these effective mergers are a good thing or not, I don’t believe its significantly relevant until Dulrik changes his mind and says he is open to the idea of mergers. I don’t mean to be speaking for Dulrik, I’m just working off my interpretation of his stance against merging.

Lei Kung

This is a very good example to use and there are two points I wish to make. First, we must understand that as the leader of a military organization he will have soldiers (PCs and NPCs) under his command that are unaffiliated. So, if he is inducting only members of the hammer he is acting on OOC knowledge. Second, it is perfectly reasonable for the leader to offer an open invitation to members of the hammer and actively seek out current members that belong to harmful cabals and un-induct them. This seems contrary at first but it really isn’t. As long as the leader doesn’t limit membership to one cabal to an undue degree there is no problem. When he does do this, whether he realizes it or not, he is acting on OOC information. Take for example, there are 10 members in the talons (leaders not included) and 8 of them are hammer members. In the hammer there are also 10 (leaders not included). This means 80% of both organizations are intertwined and effectively merged. This would indicate a high probability of either collusion or making IC decisions on OOC information. This can be said because only 20% or two members are unknown. It is highly unlikely that the leader would be turning away viable applicants knowing they are members of another organization if cabal secrecy is in place. Hence it is either collusion or using OOC info IC and both are illegal.

On the other hand maybe 40% of each organization is intertwined. Obviously, the hammer should have vastly more influence on the talons and vice versa. And the leader of the talons may have an open invitation for hammer members, but it is obvious that he is acting such that all his decisions are staying IC.

On another note, I don’t believe standards for military service should be very strict. Hence, denying someone the leader should have cause to believe the character in question is unfit. Hence, tribunals should be fairly large and to limit one’s tribunal in such a way would run contrary to most good judgement. Also, I don’t believe such an IC decision as above would be tactically smart. Now there is nothing saying a leader must be smart so that situation may well happen. But a smart leader would look to the loyalty of each member individually. And avoid putting known dual members in situations that would cause that character a conflict of interest. That way the tribunal leader would have access to greater numbers and a greater range of powers.

Lei Kung

Can we please make these posts shorter? They are becoming redundant, and I highly doubt that there is much new in any of them.

Honestly. This is almost a very lengthy and very glorified flame-war.

Keep it simple. You're not writing an English paper, you're trying to effectively communicate your points as quickly as possible.

Seconded. I stopped reading LK's post in reply to me the fifth time I heard him tell me that what I was saying was irrelevant, GG, LK, I'd stop talking to you altogether if it wasn't for the fact that apparently Dulrik listens to you and I am desperate keen for your ideas not to become reality.