Shattered Kingdoms

Excuse me? Pissing match?

You've totally misunderstood what was going on, LK. Perhaps you were having a pissing match, I just disagreed with your ideas. So, apparently, do most other folks, which is why we should keep things simple.

We can end up with something as wide-reaching as you suggest, LK. It's possible, even if all your ideas won't be put into effect. But starting out simple is a huge key. We don't need five hundred points, we need two.

Goals
1. Address player group inactivity w/o destroying established group RP

This is the number one goal of duel membership. Ive got to say limiting leadership from other groups will in my mind hinder a lot of people from taking the roll because most people will already have dual membership by the time the first leadership swap comes along so they will have to step out of an organization to take it. Limiting dual leadership is a different argument. There are many potential long running problems with dual leadership which run against the IC feel of the mud and will likely be motivated more by OOC feelings of people.

Cabals with CRS removed will become more secret. They where before CRS secret. I see no reason why a member should be able to maintain full anonymity and have full use of all their powers. It should be a trade off like many things in the game. As stated by D some cabals are by nature more secret than others. Why should some cabals be given a greater boon than others. It is a good idea to be able to remove the cabal tag from the who list will help to stop people using OOC info against someone trying to maintain anonymity. To limit the use of OOC info is a good thing because players have proven themselves untrustworthy in the past.

Bare bones:
3. Create an atmosphere for tribunals to fully represent their nation’s governance, which must include some form of kingdom warfare.

This needs to be done with or with out dual membership. I fail to see your reasons for lumping it together with dual membership other than it will improve the feel of SK and make the dual membership proposal more enticing.

I have a question for Amadeo and everyone else who supports dual leadership using the argument "We get an OOC 'You can't do that.' and it's against the spirit of the game".

When for example in the already discussed hypothetical(but rather possible) situation of a Druid/CoN leader, who attempts to destroy CoN/necromancy from inside, Tatali0n(who as a former immortal knows things better I guess) said that eventually the patron will stop the RP with a "You can't do that" attitude, what is the difference? Actually, if you get the "You can't do that" in the beginning instead of the end you'll save yourself from all the wasted effort and RP that will lead to nothing.

Some things are meant to remain static in SK I think, and to achieve that there must be restrictions. And putting these restrictions at the beginning instead of the end you save yourself from wasted efforts and endless QQ about immortal favoritism afterwards. Imagine someone actually rolling a griffon necromancer for example, GMing him after hours of efforts and then an immortal appearing and telling him that he should delete because that combo wasn't meant to happen. That's the reason that if you choose griffon as a race you are not allowed to choose certain alignments/classes afterwards.

You know, I'd be all for a certain cabal's not needing to scream stuff in prelude to doing their stuff.

DA, the difference is that if you go too far, it's against the ooc spirit of the game if you allow someone to destroy a cabal/tribunal in actuality, whereas it's not if the change simply allows something that would be common sense IC and would not of itself hurt the game or players itself.

A zealot Hammer/GoA leader will do the same as well. An MC/Talon the same.

Generally, the combos that can be against the ooc spirit of the game are too many, without actually counting the impossible combos due to aura restrictions(like Adept/Keeper or Hammer/MC or empire legion or whatever the Empire's tribunal is named).

Should the immortals spend their time spying on leaders and see if their conflicting plans somehow hurt the ooc spirit of the game? And then spend even more time hearing endless QQing about these "restrictions" afterwards that make no sense IC? IMO they have much better things to do with their time.

Because of the spirit of the game you can't have a griffon necromancer for example. These are restrictions that are there from the beginning.

Same restrictions should apply to leaders if dual leadership is to be allowed(which I am against for other reasons as well that I've explained in the other thread). And then you'll see that the combo possibilities are not that many to actually bother with after all.

Anyway, I want to see an answer from Amadeo and the other supporters of the "ooc you can't do that" argument.

Perhaps the list of combinations you would play would be so limited, but I can see heaps and heaps of combinations, even unorthodox ones, that would work.

Having dual leaders is not against the spirit of the game. It does not, in and of itself, hurt the game. In fact, you can essentially have the same thing right now, by being a spy for one cabal that joins another instead to rot them from inside. If they became the leader of the cabal, what then? It's never happened that a cabal has been destroyed in such a way so far, though I'm certain there's spy RP going down. Hard coding leaders to be in two organisations would lead to the same amount of trouble.

As I said, the only way to say whether you're right or I'm right is to implement the change.

You can't have a griffon necromancer because there's no way to justify that RP-wise. Griffons are naturally good creatures, it's fire and water stuck together.

Tribunals and cabals are essentially what their leaders mold them to be - factions totally change based on who's leading them. Look at ANY faction, and you'll see that the general goals, demeanor, and standards of a faction change based on who's leading them. That's why you'll see the taboos of one regime become the accepted norm of the next regime.

The leader a cabal + a trib at once would certainly impose his views down on both organizations, or perhaps prioritize one of the other, but I don't see that as a problem.

What I think you're forgetting is that all immortal actions are not OOC.

If the Druids take over the CoN, AND try to change its fundamental nature, it's reasonable for the necromancers to ICly eliminate such "leaders". Things like this already happen. Once, when the Peacekeepers effectively surrendered Exile to the MC, the immortals had the NPC ruler choose another leader.

That said, smaller distortions will get by. But that's part of the goal of dual membership, that it will change group roleplay. If you like the status quo, then why have dual membership at all?