Posted by A Guy on April 25, 2000 at 06:23:54:
In Reply to: I believe Imm's should not anath mortals. Very long. posted by Graatch(VIP) on April 24, 2000 at 13:41:26:
> I have spent some time of late thinking about the Empire cabal and the trend of Imm anath’ing.
> After more than a little consideration, I believe that Imms should not be anath’ing morts. Here
> are my reasons why, in no particular order.
>
> Empire, as a cabal, is really four smaller cabals. Unlike the other cabals, there is not just one
> person who can induct (and for empire anath as well), but rather there are five persons with that
> power. Granted, all positions are not always filled, but neither are other cabal leader positions
> and the imms of those cabals rarely step in even during the in-between leader times. Because of
> this, there are five times the sets of eyes and ears open for stories, information, whatever, which
> would let the sectleader/emperor know that someone is in need of anath’ing. The cabals have
> mortal leadership for a reason, and empire has more leaders than any other cabal. They should be
> doing whatever needs doing, that mortals can do. Mortals can anath, so they *should* be the
> ones who anath. The same has always been true for inducting, and should be equally applied
> here.
>
> There are those that say that imms are and should be anath’ing because they have access to
> perfect information and complete discovery of the truth regarding mortal action. This, to me, is
> really an argument *against* imm anath’ing of mortals. Making someone anathema is a radical
> alteration of the character, and should be solely based on the IC actions of the character. There is
> a reason things are not hard coded. People are people, not machines, and you should be able to
> expect reasonable outcomes with reasonable situations. Imms can snoop you using an ooc power
> that should not really be used to impose what other mortals can do to you given the proper
> circumstances.
>
> Lets remember that this is a cabal of powerhungry evil people with no care or concern for anyone
> but him or herself. In fact showing care or concern for anyone is a reason for anath’ing. So, while
> these people realize the benefit of law and order, they are not necessarily opposed to breaking
> any and all rules for their own benefit, given the right circumstances. For example, lets say you
> want to attack someone in town. If you take the precautions to ensure that nobody is there (lets
> say it is Seantryn or Udgaard or even Ofcol, the lesser traveled cities), and the only person who
> would know you attacked in town is the victim, then you should be able to do so. Assume for
> the moment that you were correct in thinking nobody was there, that nothing exists to impugn
> you other than the words of your hapless victim. Then no mortal leader is going to anath you and
> you should by all rights get away with it. Rightly so. Obviously, if there *was* someone there,
> duo’d, or simply hiding in a way you could not see, and they inform your sect leader or emperor,
> then you will certainly have to answer, or deal with it, and anath might be in your future. But
> that’s the risk you take. The risk you shouldn’t be taking (shouldn’t as in it should not be part of
> the game) is that some wizi imm just happens to be watching you. There is nothing you can do
> that will alert you to this, no way you can prepare or deal with it, and so the simple fact that they
> can use this ooc power means your play is limited, both in rp and in pk.
>
> Imms should let the mortals chosen as sectleaders/emperor deal with their people. If a citizen
> gets enough accusations against them for breaking imperial law, go ahead an anath. If they get
> even one and you just feel like it, go ahead. But when an Imm does it, and does it in such a
> manner as to exclude any mortal behavior which would have obviated that action, it defeats the
> purpose of roleplaying.
>
> Lastly, and in some respects most importantly, there is a seemingly basic notion of fairness
> involved when making such a radical, and generally speaking negative decision regarding a
> character. When someone opts to join the empire, they know (or should know) that getting
> anath’ed by your sectleader or emperor is not all that difficult or uncommon, and can be based on
> virtually nothing at all. But if they play the game right, appease their sectleader/emperor, show
> strength, etc, and choose to break the imperial law when they cannot by mortal means be caught,
> then they should not be anath’ed. (For that). There is, in this, a certain level of consistency. A
> certain amount of predictability that you, the player, can expect. But there is no consistency,
> no predictability, to imm snooping, and information sharing. There is no way to “play the
> game” with imms, is no way to “fool” them in the way that you can “fool” a mortal. Whether
> ib be through lying, a lack of witnesses, by destroying items which are evidence, etc. The imm
> need only check the imm logs and bam! that’s it.
>
> I am sure I am forgetting a few things, I had a whole host of reasons in my head this morning on
> the subway as I was thinking about it. However, I am sure that in the back and forth I expect this
> post to generate the thoughts will be fleshed out and brought to light. That is the best part of the
> forum, in my view.
>
> Also, for those of you who seem to thrive on asinine and insulting retorts... No, I don’t have an
> empire char who was just anath’d, nor have I even had a char in empire for over a year. I simply
> spent some time thinking about it due to the recent rash of anaths and posts.