Role of the council in regards to ingame diplomacy

[Passant the Weak]

Hello!

I make reference to this annoucement by the council about the Yrthilan/Azull question (use of King tools after retirement). I have a question regarding the council's role in general.
[i]Please don't discuss here about the yrthilian/Azull dispute in particular, this is not the subject, and there is another thread for that.[/i]

[log=annoucement][color="#cccccc"]Ann. 2156 - [2012-01-02 23:16:00 - Stage 11][/color]
All king items have been removed from the Kings, all King powers have also been removed.
Azull has been unjailed.
Our thoughts:
-Yrthilian is guilty because he used tools although he was not supposed to as he is no longer King, items are allowed to be used by those who possess them though.
-Kiley is guilty for breaking the land rules put in place by the former king.
-Azull is guilty for not fully thinking about what his actions meant.
Past what we, the council, have already done, we will take no further action.[/log]

While I understand that the coucil voices his opinion/judgement about yrthilian (he is using tools from the game that are subject to game rules/regulations), I was suprised that the coucil voiced his opinion about Kiley and Azull actions. Those actions are to me pure ingame actions, involving nothing related to game rules. I would have thought that this is not council responsibility to decide whether those actions are legitimate or not.

My question: is the council to raise opinion about diplomatic/ingame policy? I looked for a definition of the council role, but did not mange to find one.

Thanks!

[duxie]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]heh, you're reading my thoughts... but also you're writing them down. good job![/font][/size]

[Maebius]

I was pondering the same thing when I read this announcement.
([i]While the other thread seems to have devolved into other Citizens and friends of GG arguing about "Who's the leaders? Triumvarate? Alliances? Me?",[/i]) I was struck that the Council interveneing on "land diplomacy" seemed just "overstepping" as the initial use of Land Tools to banish a citizen.

Use of tools, is a game mechanical rule. Otherwise, Hmm......
Politics is fun, amirite?!

[Chewett]

definition of council role? lol. I asked that question in the Q and A thingy, and got the response:

Generally we are here to organise and manage the game as an additional
authority to Mur. Unlike he we are a group of people, and therefore
decisisons will be a culmination of everyones thoughts and ideas.
Effectively we run the game with Mur.

very... specific

as for what they said. I think it is interesting that they made a comment on the actions of the others, but it does partially explain why there is no punishment on yrth or anything. Otherwise i would asking why hasn't he lost a trust point or something. In their eyes they are all guilty so there is no punishment. It does however clarify that land laws still apply in this period of no kings... or i think it does.

But politics is politics

[Passant the Weak]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1325585342' post='99467']

as for what they said. I think it is interesting that they made a comment on the actions of the others, but it does partially explain why there is no punishment on yrth or anything. Otherwise i would asking why hasn't he lost a trust point or something. In their eyes they are all guilty so there is no punishment. It does however clarify that land laws still apply in this period of no kings... or i think it does.

[/quote]

Do you mean that the answer to my question is "yes" ? And that the council should also take care of the politics and ingame behaviour of players in regards to land rules and what not?

[Paracelsus]

I was wondering the same passant, so good topic i think, but i was also wondering (sorry if its a bit offtopic) how is this council composed, i mean are there representatives of each land? including the neutrals? has any land more representatives than others?
Again sorry if my questions are a bit offtopic

[Chewett]

[quote name='Passant the Weak' timestamp='1325617153' post='99532']
Do you mean that the answer to my question is "yes" ? And that the council should also take care of the politics and ingame behaviour of players in regards to land rules and what not?
[/quote]

In this case, They stepped in and removed the tools from the kings. Now, the reason they did this, spawned from Yrth using his banning tool. Which again stemmed from the land laws. At the moment there is no kings, and therefore its all a bit of a mist, normally yrth could do what he liked and they wouldnt have needed to step in because yrth would have been king, and king can do wtf they like to anyone in their land. But the Kings were asked not to use their powers, to yrth broke they/mur asked for.

As for the other comments, i agree are unesscary, and i didnt think they were around to comment on the specifics of land laws and personal actions, But it clarifies the point more as to why no one recieved punishment, and also their own personal view as to the matter.

Its always intresting for me to see Murs views on matters, since its so radically different from ours. Personally for me, in this case, i was against yrth because he did something he wasnt meant to (sorry yrth you are still the best gg king ) But, it seems that although the kings are gone, and they are not allowed to use their powers, they still think the land laws should be upheld (which to me, seems wrong, since there is no king, king makes and enforces land laws, so surely you have no land laws???)

[Kyphis the Bard]

This didn't surprise me at all, actually. If you look back at the Jester/Poe incident, they look at as many different factors in the situation as they can to come to as fair and unbiased a result as they can.

There are always a lot of factors in any case, nothing major just "happens" without some sort of motivation first. Would yrthiliian have used the tools if Azull wasn't in a Golemian Alliance? No. Would he have been in the alliance if Kiley hadn't let him? No. Was the last instruction he recieved not to use the tools? Yes.

So yes, yrthilian did what he wasn't supposed to, but he was doing what he wasn't supposed to in response to someone else doing what they wheren't "supposed to". Doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong, but it does change the facts.

Personally, I like that they run like this. It might mean that they take much longer to come to a concensus about how to handle anything (maintain lack of bias, cover all the angles takes a while, just ask anyone who has done jury duty, or watch 12 angry men to understand this), but ultimately it means they are fair.

And we all know Mur isn't fair (he is a Demon, who REALLY expects him to be fair?)

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1325619716' post='99538']
Its always intresting for me to see Murs views on matters, since its so radically different from ours. Personally for me, in this case, i was against yrth because he did something he wasnt meant to (sorry yrth you are still the best gg king ) But, it seems that although the kings are gone, and they are not allowed to use their powers, they still think the land laws should be upheld (which to me, seems wrong, since there is no king, king makes and enforces land laws, so surely you have no land laws???)
[/quote]

I think in this case (abdication) that any land laws would, logically, still stand. Yes the kings might make the laws, but that doesn't mean that without a king there are no laws. Say for example someone pulled a Guy Fawkes and succeed, and then assassinated the royal family. There would be no law creating body in England, however the laws would still stand and the police would still catch criminals who broke the law.

The situation would potentially be very different in the case of rebellion, however, as that would suggest that the people do not like their leader and the way the land is being run. In a rebellion I think it is logical that at the point of success all current land laws cease being enforced until restated by the new land leader (either exactly the same or with different phrasing and conditions)

And yes, yrthilian was (and still is) the best King GG ever had

Edited January 3, 2012 by Kyphis the Bard

[Passant the Weak]

[quote name='Kyphis the Bard' timestamp='1325625273' post='99542']

So yes, yrthilian did what he wasn't supposed to, but he was doing what he wasn't supposed to in response to someone else doing what they wheren't "supposed to". Doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong, but it does change the facts.
[/quote]

That's where I probably disagree. "What they weren't supposed to do". To me it's not the council to judge that. Unless I understood its role wrong, which I'm likely to!

However I understand the rationale now. It's probably just the wording that sounded strange. I would have perfectly understood something like "yrthilian is considered not guilty because he faced an unexpected situation with what he had in hands", rather than saying tat the 2 others are guilty.

[Chewett]

previous situations both parties have been considered guilty and no action had been taken, look at Jester Pample (i think) or various dst Fenrir cases

[duxie]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]i'd say... if you have a tool/ability/opportunity - it's a feature you can use on your own for whatever reason you feel it's suitable, unless it's stated otherwise by some higher authorities/rules.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]Azull had an idea, will and opportunity - no kings, no government = chaos, anarchy, why not to use that? great idea, btw, nice move.[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]Kiley had an ability/authority and used that power for whatever means/profit. none should judge that - anarchy, remember? and none from existent higher authorities ever stated it's illegal.[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif][color=#282828]Yrthilian had a tool and he used it for his own reasons. [/color][color=#282828]another and way more important question would be - why he still had this tool? unless someone from higher grounds wanted to make Yrth as a tool for his own intrigue...[/color][/font][/size]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif][color=#282828]there's no way Azull and Kiley should be judged for initiative and creativity using the situation. i'd say the same for Yrth, unless it was stated by higher authorities/rules that those tools shouldn't be used... but then again: if you want to prevent some action - take the tools [/color][color=#282828]away[/color][color=#282828]. the one who should be blamed the most in this situation is/are the [/color][color=#282828]higher authorities, unless it was done on purpose... *grins*[/color][/font][/size]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]i'd just like to point out that for whatever reason this blaming/judging is done - it is destroying the community, free mind, creativity, ideas, initiative... i still have a hope that his game is more then another governmental/social system of nowadays and is ruled by more open minded people. such ideas and actions should be stimulated and motivated instead of being choked. this game would become boring if some higher authorities would start coordinating or judging each social, political in-game action... [/font][/size]

[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]try to be more objective and based on rules as much as it is possible. that's a new year wish for the council from me.[/font][/size]