Posted by Truzenzuzex(VIP) on September 8, 2000 at 10:45:14:
In Reply to: A few things posted by Imbrogno(VIP) on September 8, 2000 at 08:22:48:
> "Intrusion" has been defined many different ways. When I was an Elder under Quintius he said numerous times that if a baron stood at the stern guard for several ticks without attacking it he was to be made wanted for intrusion. If you're entering the cabal you're doing one of two things, attacking the stern guard or intruding.
Agreed, for the most part. When I was Elder and Lord I also had no problems flagging for simply stepping into the Hall, unless it was a Baron, and if the Baron came in to just chit chat or stand there for lots of time, flag flag flag. However, given that there is the specific exemption from that rule for retrieving barons, and given that fighting there to defend or take it back is part of that process, it seems absurd to me that a flag for attacking an arbiter there would be even considered, let alone allowed. I'm glad Stoltrop wasn't around when these guys were Arbiters, as a thief I wanted the initial attack to blackjack and so flee and return to blackjack was a staple.
>
> Fuath was being a good arbiter.
Yes and no. Read on.
>He didn't flag until he found out the whole story and he took the word of his Lord in the manner that he should have, as law.
I dont know what you mean "until he found out the whole story." He _was_ the whole story. Unless I misread the log, it was fuath who the baron attacked and so fuath knew the whole story the whole time. Obviously he didn't think it was against the law at the time it occurred (and by his refusal to respond to the barons questions at the end I suspect he still thinks it was not breaking the law) and so it was not a question of his getting the whole story, it was his having mentioned it to grislan and grislan making up new law and forcing fuath to do it. Which brings us to the next point...
>Grislan said place the flag, Fuath placed the flag.
I dont ever remember a higher up telling someone to place a flag, or forcing another arbiter to place a flag. On the contrary, it is almost always a question of should a flag be removed, or not placed at all. As you said, if it's your case, you decide. Fuath had already decided not to place a flag -- he didn't see a crime in the first place, as I also would not have when I was an arbiter. I'm not even convinced that a Lord or Elder _can_ force somenoe to place a flag. It seems like it's against the code for arbiters. You place a flag when you believe it's warranted -- the whole 99% stuff rule. If someone else learns of something and wants to flag, that's their prerogative.
>The baron's arguments were largely without value. He said "If Grislan wanted to make me wanted, he should've done it." It wasn't his case, he just consulted on it. I said numerous times to lower arbiters "It's your warrant, place the flag".
There was no warrant. There was no case. Fuath said it had happened in the past. Am I missing something?
>You do this because the arbiter whose case it is is better equipped to explain, if he so chooses. An arbiter need only tell you why you're being wanted, he doesn't need to explain every minute detail to you, especially if you're a baron. Fuath did that. He needn't be compelled to explain his ideas to anybody. If I had been him I would've ignored you from the get-go, it gets boring talking to people when they won't talk back.
>
> Whether or not the flag was just, I don't know. It's all a very gray area when intrusion is the reason for the flag, but since Grislan, a Lord, said it was just, it was just.
And, of course, this is why I made the subject name of this post what I did. :P