judges Judgment on Nomad Bring-In

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

You've linked to the exact post where Mur states depletion is not officially punishable. There is also an announcement regarding land rules. This shows a clear difference between that situation and this one - but those things aren't 'real' enough for you? I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here?

Z

[Mallos]

On 8/31/2016 at 1:10 AM, dst said:

Or if that is too much coding (I don't really want to take precious coding time from really important projects) then at least the people killed should be revived by the higher powers as soon as possible if the "victims" require so.

When the Caretaker's quest is available this can be done through donations of resources by any player and extras that we have we intend to use on any dead players so contact me if you need to be revived, other than that the dead should contact any player in realm that has a revival tool. Higher powers might not always be available to contact and sometimes the current revival tools are on cool-down so having a backup plan is usually a good thing, you can always pm me here or in-game if you need to be revived.

 

"Um, I haven't said I see it as abuse (find the point where I said they had)? I said "abuse" as I was comparing nad's with situation to this, as they're largely similar. "

Largly similar but vastly different, the connection is rather small as it's basically what dst and Burns think on nadolski banning people for depletion which was a point brought up by Mur while this topic is about Azull bringing Aethon and I into a very restrictive area in Necrovion (where we could not exit alone and could have been killed). Honestly I see no actual "abuse" here just a rather unwanted (by us two, Aethon and I) behavior that could borderline abuse if done differently, such as bringing a lot of people into Necrovion to be stuck or dead without help (remember "exiting" Necrovion the way I found was still involving a sacrifice).

Although dst wants to have the spells changed, it doesn't look like Burns wants to make a ruling on this topic based on what he's said so far. As Aethon still wants something done, I wonder what Z thinks on this topic...

[Aethon]

1 hour ago, (Zl-eye-f)-nea said:

You've linked to the exact post where Mur states depletion is not officially punishable. There is also an announcement regarding land rules. This shows a clear difference between that situation and this one - but those things aren't 'real' enough for you? I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here?

Z

I'm not entirely sure where you're getting at either...

Mur states that it's not punishable officially, though clearly states "individual authorities may use their abilities as fit" and then goes on to even suggest getting the judges involved, as they're individual authorities.

The quote of his I show also states "I say keep an open mind and avoid comparison to RL regarding this...give it a chance for a new judging without poluting it by existing RL situations" which is exactly the opposite of what is happening now - Hell! Chew's even made an Archives topic comparing the RL and MD!

You say comparing the two is incorrect yet they are alike in many ways - something happened to a player that they saw unjust, they spoke up, the public gave their pros and cons and then a judgement happened. Why is that not be the case here?

As I stated in both topics:

1. Why do they have the abilities and why are/should they be different to the current rulers (who have a significantly weaker version)
2. I'd like a judgement based upon Azull's summoning. Considering it has been done before, by Syrian on other players, it wouldn't surprise me if anyone else wished to contest it as well (as people have already shown disliking to the actions already)

It really isn't all that hard to understand...is it?

Edit: Perhaps I'm being dumb and missing the point or not putting mine across correctly, but I honestly don't see it...

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Aethon
Added self-questioning

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

There is a clear difference between the cases you want to compare. In one, there are rules and expectations, in the other, there aren't. Read what Mallos said. Your constant linking of them does not change that and each time you try to explain it, what you do is explain why it is justified to bring any matter to a tribunal. You're right, it is. It is also the tribunal's right to throw something out. That's a judgement in it's own right. You've had one. You just don't like it.

Clearly people took issue with this when the announcement went up, as they have said they spoke with higher bodies. They got responses, and did not go public. It is now 5 months later, and because you have a personal experience you don't like, you are now making it a matter of public interest. Seems a little off to me. Again, you are totally within your right to do it.

The why you keep going on about is obvious if you just take an objective position on it, they shouldn't have to explain it to you - and I'm not about to.

Z

[Mallos]

"Why do they have the abilities and why are/should they be different to the current rulers (who have a significantly weaker version)"

http://magicduel.com/page/Announcement/view/3903
It's stated in the announcement above why:
  "After long discussions with Mur about what he wants to do with the bringin spell he has decided on it being replaced with a more fitting spell.
All those who had the bringin spell from land leadership have had it replaced by a weaker spell which has two limitations. It is only able to be cast on members of the land you were king of and you must be in that land when casting the spell."
  "The two leaders of the nomads, Syrian and Azull, have been given 20 non regeneratable casts of bringin, This replaces the permanent bringin spell Azull had and represents the fading of their kingship powers."

Personally if I had to have the spell changed I would make it work only on anyone with a nomad flag but work while cast within any land, and give them 2 spell casts.
"It is only able to be cast on members of the land you were king of and you must be in that land when casting the spell."

Why give them extra rights with it than other ex-leaders? Because for them to be in Necrovion officially they need to be on tour or hiding from the Death Patrol and this is hard to do without being dead (and bringing in others is likely a death sentence, not too lenient), I don't think they should be restricted from using their spell as they are ex-Necrovion and don't currently seem to have a homeland. They have a traveling nomad camp already so if the spell is changed it would likely benefit their camp.

How to change the spell would be up to dst/Burns or Chew/Mur, since they already chose as per the announcement. But maybe @Azull or @Syrian would like to give input on this topic

Edited September 1, 2016 by Mallos

[Assira the Black]

My two cents on the subject, I was not around for the events that transpired... so I have a bit of an outsider perspective. 

I do not see where it is abusive or misuse of power. People were killed and as such there are consequences to any actions taken. Why are you surprised at this? When you (Aethon) have used abilities available at your disposal to further your goals. 

 

As for the spells themselves, just as Mallos said by posting the announcement made on the creation of the spells. 

 

I think Azull and Syrian were within the bounds of their roles and powers to react in such a way. 

 

 

 

[Aethon]

37 minutes ago, (Zl-eye-f)-nea said:

It is now 5 months later, and because you have a personal experience you don't like, you are now making it a matter of public interest. Seems a little off to me. Again, you are totally within your right to do it.

I promised I wouldn't reply (and I won't after this, at least for a few days) but I'll reply to this little bit.

 it's Actually, it's a very different reason as to why this all began, some will know and some won't, but it wasn't because it happened, I was quite content with that.