Posted by Graatch(VIP) on May 12, 2000 at 14:00:16:
In Reply to: Re: Nope, nope, nope, nope.... How wrong you are. posted by Me again. on May 12, 2000 at 12:06:17:
> My point here is with a system that intricate it breaks down as soon as one person fails, also there simply aren't that many responsible players willing to take up leadership roles, be leaders and so on. There isn't a constant line of acceptable people to be sect leader. The Imms aren't going to let some chump who has a history of cheating, poor roleplay, and a negative PK ratio lead the Empire just because everyone else is worse.
>
What I think you failed to acknowledge is that if one person fails, the people/person two steps above can step in as well. But only when that fails. Obviously, yes, it's going to be a judgment call. But at least people know that it happens less often, and when there is some need for it; i.e. A sectleader isn't doing his job, and so the emperor should chew him out/anath him. But, the emperor isn't doing his job either you say. So... the Imms can anath the sectleader, and tell the emperor to do his job better or HE gets anath'd too. That takes what, ten minutes? Hell, lets say it takes two days, due to completely different logon periods. So what? We aren't playing the game for fifteen minutes. We are talking years here.
> >
> > See above. If an Emperor or sectleader isn't anathing enough, or being "mean" enough, then it's an imm's job to chew him out and/or anath him. Just like I described.
>
> So an Immortal sees someone fuck-up and they shouldn't do anything? Then the largest (numerically almost all the time) cabal can't act as quickly or easily to take care of problems? It just doesn't make sense to tie the hands of the Empire Imms more than those of the other cabals when they already have a more complex structure to deal with! Especailly since Empire was designed uniquely to have MORE people kicked out. Its part of what makes the Empire what it is, so the Empire Imms should anath whenever they see the need IN ADDITION to the Sect Leaders and Emperor. There is just that much more work.
Zulghinlour said something similar to me when I discussed some of this with him, and I'll say the same thing to you. He said, and I have little reason to doubt him, that most of the Imm anathings are done to those who are particularly egregious in their faults, be it bad roleplaying, no roleplaying, near cheating, whatever. And as I said to him, that doesn't bother me. If someone is cheating, or has been seen by you over and over and over to be a crap citizen, has been accused often by others both inside and outside the cabal, gotten notes and prays about him, etc., then go ahead and anath him. More power to you.
But what I believe most people, myself included are thinking about are the times when someone is anath'd when they have *not* been a bad citizen in the past, especially in comparison to other citizens. Perhaps its the first time, or perhaps it was done in such a way as to hide the action from other mortals and only immortal ooc powers could be used to discover it, or it was done because it fits with some role of anti-empire that's hidden, or whatever. My point here is that the Imm anathing's are sometimes random and rather upsetting. For the run-of-the-mill player, anathing should be done by his sectleader or emperor, not an Imm. Yes, the empire has numerically the largest amount of members. But again, it also has five times the number of people who can dole out the punishment for fuck ups. Five leaders can anath. And while the blademaster can't anath an arcane, the emperor can, so at the very least that's two for every memeber of every sect. And, of course, when one sectleader tells another how one of his members has acted in an anath sort of way, that goes a fair bit. Yes, yes, yes, I know that intra sect alienation will devalue the word of even another sectleader to a sectleader, but come on, it's not value-less. And especially if combined with this mass of notes/prays/accusations you get from both other citizens and non-citizens, the sectleader is going to get the picture.
And if they dont? Anath and replace them. That's how it's done in an empire, no? For real?
> > Obviously, someone is going to say, "but sectleaders and an emperor aren't on all the time, they wont see all the bullshit that would normally get someone anath'd, but is done outside their sight/logon times." Well come on, this is not particulary difficult to get around. Unless the citizen/player logs on *exclusively* when he is the *only* citizen around, then other citizens will see and know of his routine fuck-ups. They can tell their sectleader, or....
>
> There are several problems with this:
> 1. It doesn't make sense to risk letting someone get away with an offense because the Imm have to wait for someone else to show up. Also you will end up with Imms acting like secretaries for mortals, which violates the power structure.
Why doesn't it make sense? I mean really, gee, a whole 24 extra hours to be part of a cabal. Yeah, that's going to ruin the whole game for everyone, for ever. Come on, waiting a little bit to allow the mortal to take care of the punishment is not even a price, but little enough it would be if it bought us the 1. more and better roleplay, which it would, because it would be people doing it amongst themselves, not having it be a bolt from the heavens out of nowhere and with nothing afterwards, and 2. it gave the playerbase a more realistic and reasonable understanding and belief in the ability to play a char in the cabal in accordance with their ideas at generation. As for imms becoming morts' secretaries, I don't really think that would happen. Like anything else, after a period where this culture is put in and accepted by the players, where sectleaders and emperors are anath'd and replaced for not doing their jobs and being ruthless, the playerbase (those who choose to play empire at least) will act that way and take note of who is acting in what way, who needs weeding out, etc. It's all a matter of inertia. Once you start the ball of proper behavior rolling, it will gain it's own momentum. People who play these parts will do their part, and they wont complain (much) when they get booted, because *THAT* will be the way they have come to expect the empire to run, and they will have been on notice, so to speak. And if an Imm has to send a one line note once a day or two to a sectleader/emepror, well, I guess I'm willing to accept that. And I would be if I were there, too. *shrug* More than that would be tiresome and not worth it, but I dont think that would be necessary, once people got used to the system.
>
> 3. When I have played Imperial Leaders, I often got messages from Immortals to anath so-and-so or watch so-and-so and I followed these mesages. It was fun to roleplay, but if I was getting 5-6 of these everytime I logged on it would start to suck.
And I think you are exaggerating quite a bit here to try to make your point. If people are doing their jobs, you wont need to get 5-6 imm messages every time you logged in. And, of course, anathing someone doesnt take much time at all.
>
> >
>
> All cabals have multiple leaders, in some cases they can't induct. In Empire the leaders are actually less powerful, even though they can induct, because they only have authority over a fraction of the population. The War Master can't do a damn thing to anath an Arcane who is helping kill the Omegus. Should the Immortal just sit there and watch?
We aren't really talking about induction here, we're talking about anathematizing. See above.
> So a Warmaster, Emperor, etc. should have to deal with OOC issues? As soon as they have to then they instantly have to go OOC just to deal with your actions. Thats one of the reasons An Immortal isn't identified, in my mind. They can deal with your cheating, lying, whatever in a way that the Emperor can not.
You completely misread what I wrote. When an Imm does it, it has that ooc flavor. When a mortal does it, it doesn't. Yes, it still has the "my char is fucked now" component, but if it were done to you by a mortal, who "caught" you through mortal means (even including an immortal nudge to watch this one a bit more carefully) it would not have that ooc flavor.
Again, we are excluding the egregious, repeat offenders who every day at 4:25am log on and go to a corner of some area and exchange equ with their dawnie friends.
> This is not a non-sequitor. The reason you don't want Immortals anathing is either because you think the Mortal Leaders can be more effective (which is just silly) or because you don't trust the Immortals to be as fair as the Mortal Leaders, and so you're in on the whole Imm Conspiracy theory.
No. Neither. THe reason is that the game is based on people being able to play roles, and act, withing certain boundaries they can expect. Expectations they have because of the rules set up for them and the "rules" of the in game organizations they are part of. To accomplish this in the best way, people play a role they have created for themselves. They then act in accordance with those characters and hopefully the character acts as it would based on that role. When another mortal, following *their* role, interacts and impedes on you in an ic way, the game is functioning best. When your play your char and play him as the being you created would act if really alive, and you act in such a way as to conceal your activities from other mortals, you shouldn't be punished by someone using ooc powers and just anathing you out of nowhere.
You are obsessed with accusing people (read: me) of thinking you are either totally inefficent or totally enwrapped in a conspiracy to fuck over certain people. While there is a small validity to the latter in other areas, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation. Neither is the case in this discussion, and your continued return to that motif makes no sense.
Imms shouldn't anath because it is a power given to mortals and a power that they should exercise. Imms should anath only when there is an egregious violator, a repeat offender, or, as I said, when someone who shoould be anathing isn't, and so himself needs to be anath'd and replaced. Let the mortals do it, that's what they are there for.
> > >
> > > If you can feel the difference, then you should be able to figure out who is anathing you so it shouldn't matter if they are Wizi or not. In any case, I imagine that part of the reason that they anath while Wizi instead of Vis is to stop personal attacks from people and to try and create a feeling that you never know who is watching you when, so you'd better be on your toes at all time. Big Brother watching is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to keep people in line with the Cabal Laws of any of the various cabals out there.
I am sure that you are correct and that the reason the imms stay wizi is so they wont get personal attacks. But that is neither here nor there. Your argument fails here because you err in reading what I wrote. The different feeling is not that of being anathed among the immortals, it is between being anath'd by a mortal or by an immortal. There is no way to know *which* imm is doing, and the feeling is not different from one wizi imm to another, when you are anath'd. You feel different when you are anath'd by a mortal then when you are anath'd by *any* (wizi) immortal. Because of your error here, the next statement is equally false. There is no way to know who it is doing it, and so no way to know what behavior really caused it, necessarily. Look at the log that started all this, the actions of dolraxis *there* were not anath worthy, in most people's views. And had not the imm come here and said that dolraxis was really anath'd for past behavior, nobody would have known and people would have believed it WAS for the log in question. That is one of the biggest points here. There is NO REAL CONSISTENCY, NO REAL WAY OF FORESEEING, the anathematizing.
Here's another example. Someone asking the whereabouts of someone on the cabal channel. Why is that anathemable? How does that show weakness? Expecting mortals to be omniscient is absurd. And, obviously, there is no way of knowing if the person asking doesn't in fact know, and is looking to see who will answer, so they know who later they can take advantage of. And that's just off the top of my head, there are plenty of other interpretations/possible reasons/explanations/roleplaying options. But somewhere someone decided that at least once, that was worthy of anathematizing. An imm, not a mortal. Seems rather curtailing of rp, to me.
>
> This would be DRASTICALLY less effective. A large number of violations are done in private with no witnesses. Only Imms can catch these. Plus you can't trust enemy cabals reports, they could just send 10 notes and get an effective Citizen anathed, and you can't trust other Sects reports... So your looking for One Quarter of the Empire to do all the monitering... It just wouldn't be effective even in a Utopian World, let alone CF. There wouldn't be the man-power or the drive to do this.
So if only an Imm can see this constant egregious behavior, go ahead an anath. But if it is something this person has done just the one or two times (not cheating, no, I'm talking about doing something against imperial law for instance), or it's something that if a mortal knew, they would anath, then just tell one of the mortal leaders. There just can't be so many that are *both* egregious offenders that you, the imms, should be anathing, AS WELL AS those that are the rare, roleplayed, or simply mistaken that you would be talking to the mortal leader eery five minutes. Don't exaggerate, please. You, the imms, can anath all of the first category. Leave the rest to the mortals. If they are that egregious, they deserve what they get, because they are acting in such a way as to not even try to play it within their character's role.
>
> It takes a while to transition between leaders under the best of circumstances. There is often no emperor and only half the council, what then? What if they all delete together, or one goes on vacation for two weeks? Should they get anathed for Spring Break? Or are people allowed to just wreck havoc while the Cat is Away? What about slow-fade-away leaders?
There is often no emperor and half a council BECAUSE YOU DONT JUST MAKE SOMEONE THE NEW SECTLEADER. Don't blame it on something only you, the immortals, can fix. Nobody expects you to name a new sectleader thirty seconds after the old one is gone (unless the reason the old one is gone is that there was a coup and so there, of course, you should make the new one the sectleader immediately). Just as I am saying that having new ones step up even if they aren't what you want, because that's how an empire would really work and would be more realistic and provide for more roleplay, the same reason says here that you should wait a short time to allow for members of the now leaderless sect to jockey for the position. A day or two. A week at most. And even if in the end someone you dont like much gets it, well, as Anthony Michael Hall was in Sixteen Candles, that new sectleader is the "king of the dweebs." If he proves himself that bad once he is installed, then someone else can step up, call him on it and take his place.
As for the times when someone goes away for a week on vacation, or your other examples, these things are easily dealt with in the same vein of having the players be on notice with how things are done. How you ask? Well, these things are pretty much known in advance. The sectleader can simply send a note saying "I will be gone for x period of time. The Eyes of the Gods will be extra vigilant during this period, beware, fools!" and bam, everyone is on notice. Or, they can simply send a note to you, the immortals, and this could just be one of those times when it is acceptable for imms to anath in a general way, rather than the limited times I outlined above. I'm not as concerned with specific examples (though I've just dealt with this one, obviously) as much as I am concerned with the governing policy and basic philosophy of the system for the cabal and anaths.
>
> So fifty players should have to suffer in a shitty Empire while the bad leaders slowly fade away?
>
Heh, don't make me laugh. How exactly are fifty players suffereing while the bad leaders are there? If anything, they have it *better* because they are less policed, and less likely to be busted. Moreover, isn't it far far worse to have *no* leaders, so you, as a player, have to sit around for weeks at a time waiting for someone who can induct you? THAT isn't playing, that's just waiting ooc time for something totally out of your control to happen to *allow* you to play the char you want to play.
No, it is far better to have people in the positions than not to. How they play those positions as roleplayers is a separate question entirely.
> OK, we can continue to go back and forth, but your way means more work for players who already avoid Leadership positions, even though the Sect Leaders got Bonus Powers plus more work for the Immortals who have to play secretary for leaders. Plus you assume that everyone is evenly distributed throughout the playing-day and will be watched by the Mortal Leaders. Empire is already having trouble getting people to be leaders with the limited work they have to put in now... you're going to give them more work, more whining notes, more bullshit from the masses, and more shitty citizens who should have been anathed a while ago?
>
It's a viscious cycle. Empire is already having trouble getting people to play it and be leaders BECAUSE of the rampant imm anathing -- random anathing, sometimes. So, the good players say "I am not going to waste my time only to end up anath'd for no reason, all my hours wasted". So they dont play. So you dont make anyone leader, claimng "there are no good players to do it." So you anath more yourselves, instead of having morts do it. And so people see you anathing and wont play empire, etc, etc, etc.
As for the powers, I've already gone on record saying I think sectleader powers were a bad decision. I love new things, new powers, new skills, spells, sups, areas, etc. But I dont think these helped, and in fact I think they hurt. People were not roleplaying enough, you (the imms) said, so we give even more power to stimulate more roleplaying. Doesn't that seem, well, odd to you? You stimulate roleplaying by stimulating roleplaying. By making those who dont, start. By showing that those who dont (and remember roleplaying is a RULE of the MUD, not just something nice that gets rewarded) will be dealt with harshly. Of course, it would be virtually impossible to strip them from the leaders now, it wouldn't make much ic sense, and so I dont really advocate taking them away (just a little part of me still does :P), but you can't say that there are no people to take the positions. I bet if you just started asking citizens if they would take the spots, 95% would. If they suck, move on to the next one. That's how power works, how empires are run.
> It just doesn't make sense.
Let me end with an aside. Throughout this, your tone has deteriorated into a much more advesarial nature, "us vs. them", and much more insulting. It is saddening that you, whoever you are, cannot accept that other people might have criticism of the game and talk reasonably about it, without your having to denigrate. I wrote all my posts here (with the exception of this paragraph, obviously) with a good natured belief that this was a discussion on how things work, and that we both have the intention of making this game we love the best it can be. But I increasingly felt that you thought of this as a personal attack against you, and that you therefore started attacking me. Next time, if you partake in a discussion such as this with we mere mortals, I hope you will do so in the manner it is intended, where both parties seek to improve the game, not their repetoire of zings.