Well Hi There, I'm Coming To Kill You.

grep · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:50 pm **Posts:** 5522

If there are so few people that dealing with problematic people is problematic, what are you saying about what's left?

If playcount should some day reach the triple digits that D and others advocate and ask for, then it seems logical to think about what kind of playstyle and rules would be able to sustain such diversity and activity.

Do recall though that a tribunal is not the government of a kingdom. Even tribunal leaders don't set precedents nor direct the flow of history.

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

Styles wrote:

There just aren't enough players who want to take on this kind of responsibility to make punishing leaders for the actions of followers a worthwhile course of action for overall MUD health. It's enough of a headache being a tribunal leader as it is. If I could get punished for what other people do, perhaps even if I'm unaware of what's happening or offline at the time of any punishable incident, I would simply never induct anyone into my tribunal and just run a one-man defense force. That, or run the Black Hand where you really have no oath or definite responsibility because it is assumed the entire government is corrupt and evil.

If the leader(s) of a tribunal is not removing and/or using tarnish to deal with characters that refuse to honor their oath and/or defend their kingdom, the staff needs to do it for them or change the leadership.

I am not suggesting that a leader should get punished immediately for the failings of their membership. However, if the leadership fails to address the issue in a timely fashion then they need to be removed and/or punished in some way.

archaicsmurf · **Posted:** Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:07 pm

Dual factioning complicates that.

grep · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:50 pm **Posts:** 5522

Your alts aren't aware of their status as second-class lifeforms. Joining a faction should still be serious business.

Styles · **Posted:** Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:12 pm

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

If leadership is not removing and/or using tarnish on characters that refuse to honor their oath and/or defend their kingdom, the staff needs to do it for them or change the leadership. I am not suggesting that a leader gets immediately punished for the failings of their membership. However, if the leadership fails to address the issue in a timely fashion then they need to be removed.

As long as the leader is aware and has a chance to do something, that's fine. I'm pretty sure this is already the case though. I am not aware of rampant tribunal member misbehavior.

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

archaicsmurf wrote:

Dual factioning complicates that.

That is what happens when you serve two masters. You are not required nor guaranteed the right to join two factions or maintain membership in both indefinitely. If there is a conflict between the two factions, make a choice and live with it.

grep · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:50 pm **Posts:** 5522

According to the rules, joining any faction already obligates you to two masters. The first one is your alignment. Just sayin'.

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

grep wrote:

According to the rules, joining any faction already obligates you to two masters. The first one is your alignment. Just sayin'.

Then choose wisely. Joining and/or maintaining membership in a faction is not a guarantee or a right on SK.

grep · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:50 pm **Posts:** 5522

I'm agreeing with you.

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

grep wrote:

I'm agreeing with you.

No! I do not accept your agreement. I demand conflict and drama.

Shattered Kingdoms

Well Hi There, I'm Coming To Kill You.

Who is online