Rebel Rule

[Chewett]

[quote name='aaront222' timestamp='1289592734' post='71971']
The king doesn't need to silence rebels. He just makes this rule.MUR!!! QUICK!!! FIX THE LOOPHOLE!!!
[/quote]

Do you not relise what a rebel is? The fact that they go against the rules and establishment and suchforth? they dont need to follow then, so its not a loophole and you are merely spamming

Edited November 12, 2010 by Chewett

[lightsage]

[quote]# Rebels cannot get excommunicated but need to obey land official rules[/quote] Is what it sais in the announcement, I believe this is the line that caused the confusion. I can only guess at what mur means by "land official rules"

[Firsanthalas]

Yes and technicaly when you join a land you are pledging to follow the king and therefore not rebel. You should only be rebelling because you feel that the king has done something wrong, gone too far, lost the plot etc etc. If you break a rule that was already in place before you join and then rebel when punished, well thats pretty much a sign that you didn't really agree with things in the first place (and in my opinion at least, a poor excuse for rebelling, especially if it is simply to avoid just punishment).
The rebel aspect could make for an interesting development. I've no objection to it in principle, I just worry it will be abused or misused.
I also want to point out, that this isn't some kind of survival reaction or feeling of threat. I can be removed from Loreroot at anytime pretty much and that has been the case for some time now. But, I do see how this could be a much cleaner way to go about things, provided it isn't abused.

[Muratus del Mur]

It seems some of you don't get it so here it is in more detail:

- 4 hours means king wont have to run after you every 30min or so.
- same location to be able to silence means rebels will do their talks in remote places, PLOTTING, thats the point!
- more than 4h cooldowntime means if you are persistant enough you can do it
- one single target means rebels can talk anytime if they are united
- citizenship remains, this means main land rules still apply and while king cant, i can jail or ban (easier for me) those that will use rebel status to verbally abuse or cause chaos.
- land official rules will be rules that have to be respected above any directive given by the king. For now consider the system rules as those rules untill the rules page is ready. For example, if system is intended to have Rebels role, then OBVIOUSLY King can't just say no rebels in my land. An other rule of all lands will be that no citizen can plot or be against his land, regardless of his opinion about the king..this is not subjective, there are certain things that are clear about each land, undisputable. Lets say a rebel wants necrovion to be open to all and shades to die or play poker in Loreroot, this is against the land. He will have to fight the current leader with diplomacy, I do not intend to make rebels life easy, I just want to create a balance to the Kings total authority.

Nothing of this is new, it is only made in a technical way now.

[Muratus del Mur]

To put it even more simple:

The rules will mirror the way i _personally_ consider that a king should be dethroned and how citizens should behave. I think that only a GROUP of people , with coherent ideas, respectful to the land and diplomatic enough to fight their way up, should be entitled to challenge a king that otherwise is immune.

Military takeover or popular riots are not something that is allowed or technically supported now... maybe at a later time, takeover by raw power will be possible, but right now, it is not. Rebel status and propaganda.

Kings should not fear to take harsh decisions, they should not fear to be blackmailed by possible rebels, but they should also fight to be a suitable king and not just an other player that has fun with a very public role.

I also don't plan to put any rule or item that will make it easy to dethrone a king 4 times a year, the longer a player remains active (ACTIVE) as a king, the better. It is better because it means stability, the land gets part of his personality, citizens form a more coherent structure and so on.

The rules are meant to support this view.

[Aysun]

[quote name='Firsanthalas' timestamp='1289594735' post='71976']
Yes and technicaly when you join a land you are pledging to follow the king and therefore not rebel.
[/quote]

I think when you join a land you are doing it for the land in the hopes that the king is doing what's best for the land. A citizenship isn't a fan club for whoever the king happens to be at the time, so you're not really there for them. xD

[dst]

[quote name='Aysun' timestamp='1289597133' post='71979']
I think when you join a land you are doing it for the land in the hopes that the king is doing what's best for the land. A citizenship isn't a fan club for whoever the king happens to be at the time, so you're not really there for them. xD
[/quote]


Unfortunately for some cases it is. Should I remind you that Pample left Necro when Peace was elected queen?

[Jubaris]

I dislike that military take overs ain't possible.

So called "diplomacy" falls down to having people that are relatively close to Mur that can lobby to force some kind of change, and so called "diplomacy" has nothing to do with the gameplay. Rebels are supposed to fill some kind of non-written requirements so their demands can be fulfilled... pfff.
Please make some basic rules on what can be expected of the feature without divine intervention.

I think that the possibility of a military take over should be possible, also it can be used in land wars (most probably and for the best as well is that all kings maintain some kind of status quo when its about territory issues, but it is pretty logical that in an RP world that tries to make realistic environment and feedback it should be allowed for some King to mark his new territory and kick all the rest who defy him if he's strong enough to)

I just find this "king immunity" concept ridiculous... Kings of certain groups are chosen from those groups, and it is up to the people to follow the person... To overthrow (if have enough power to) or serve if they want... But the system favors the king rather than any other group.
Those roles shouldn't be called Kings at least, but Moderators of Mainlands.

[Aysun]

[quote name='dst' timestamp='1289597807' post='71980']
Unfortunately for some cases it is. Should I remind you that Pample left Necro when Peace was elected queen?
[/quote]

Yes, although it was before my time, I remember reading that in the forum. I think leaders and their people should be able to work together, at least to some extent, to better the land, but when that communication breaks down, or one side decides to just stops listening, this is where Rebellion will become useful when it gets out of hand, I think.

[Muratus del Mur]

Kings are not presidents,
You have no clue about kings it seems. If you expect me to create a confortable alternate version of rl world.. you are WRONG.

MD world has its rules, its own rules, and maybe if you would try to adapt and fit to them you would learn something out of it. Afterall you have "monarchy" or "dictators" or stupid rules all around you, a lot more real than just a game. You find them in school, work, even in traffic. This things are embeded deep in how we are.

My judgement flaws or slips, is what makes such rules challenging. It is also my judgement that has always kept things at the edge of "doable" , allowing both backdoors but also unforseen oportunity to most of the laws and rules I placed.

If you took your time to read my latest show of force article you would understand that in a world where the rules are the same for all, its only your fault if you cant follow them, you "Mirror" your own ...whats the word...incompetence? or lack of adaptation ability.


Humanity survived because it can adapt, any individual not ready to adapt is expandable for evolution.

[Chewett]

All offtopic rants and suchforth will be removed from below here if they continue. That includes responses to above said things, i will remove the post you are responding to also. This topic is about questions on rebel rule. if you disagree with it, or what to change it then make another post, I will move any posts to a new topic if you wish for them to be.

EDIT: some posts have already been removed

Edited November 13, 2010 by Chewett

[Jubaris]

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' timestamp='1289646381' post='72015']
Kings are not presidents,
You have no clue about kings it seems. If you expect me to create a confortable alternate version of rl world.. you are WRONG.

MD world has its rules, its own rules, and maybe if you would try to adapt and fit to them you would learn something out of it. Afterall you have "monarchy" or "dictators" or stupid rules all around you, a lot more real than just a game. You find them in school, work, even in traffic. This things are embeded deep in how we are.

My judgement flaws or slips, is what makes such rules challenging. It is also my judgement that has always kept things at the edge of "doable" , allowing both backdoors but also unforseen oportunity to most of the laws and rules I placed.

If you took your time to read my latest show of force article you would understand that in a world where the rules are the same for all, its only your fault if you cant follow them, you "Mirror" your own ...whats the word...incompetence? or lack of adaptation ability.


Humanity survived because it can adapt, any individual not ready to adapt is expandable for evolution.
[/quote]

Our schools, works, have their rules, but they are made by the humans, and they can be changed by humans. World itself doesn't have social rules, but social rules are created by people that can change them. In here MD has "natural" social rules. Equivalent of MD's King in reality would be a King of Spain (let's say) with God's immunity to do what he wants, until someone has pretty good reasons to complain to God (and prayers take time to be read) so the God would do something... perhaps even make new elections where, no matter what the King did, he could be re-elected.

What I would find more realistic and certainly more interesting is that Kings represent people, with certain people being able to enforce their rule if they are strong enough to (or be crushed if they try and fail), rather than people representing Kings. Military option for the rebels is certainly welcomed in that realistic aspect, but you disliked the idea originally when stating possible options (could you be more detailed about it? so I don't make assumptions on what was meant there, for the kings)

Rules most certainly are not the same for everyone.

By the way, I didn't try to degrade you in any way, I was pointing out that suggestions and criticism is welcome if you want to 'perfect' features, rather than accepting everything as already perfect as it was more rudely said in deleted topics.


I'm certain you said somewhere that the beauty of life is in watching (perhaps it was someone else, irrelevant who was it anyway).
Feedbacks of people's actions is great, and that's one thing, but enforcing of social rules by the one who should be above them is another thing. That's my point. And you are limiting interferance of the group itself to choose their leader.

[Muratus del Mur]

i think i get it now... what you consider to be people that loby around me are those that find ways of putting their concerns in a decent manner. You Princ, somehow fail to do that, and for some unknown reason I find your remarks annoying, agressive, and somehow offending...that makes them hard for me to understand. I assure you that i put in practice good ideas regardless from who they come, from people i never spoke to, from people i used to argue with and so on...but they need to come with the required "diplomacy" how I call it. I am not talking about ass-kissing, pressure, or such..just a decent, non provocative, non moaning kind of discussion, something you obviously are incapable of.

On the topic
next to be done is a way to see percentage of discontent in a land, and more creative ways to punish rebels while keeping their purpose as a rebel.
If you want me to hear your suggestions or opinions, please keep it short and to the point and cut the bs.

I believe its way to soon to predict what will happen and how rebel status will be used. Thats why i stated where i am aiming at with these changes, and i will adapt the rebel thing in such way that it will fit that concept. If rebels will start to abuse chat and mock the king , the chat silencer for rebels will have more uses, if the king will abuse its powers to hurt rebels unjustified, the rebels will have better immunity, all in time.

If the concept is not flawed (and that i am ready to debate if it is the case), the rules are a formality to be adjusted.

[Muratus del Mur]

in fact, i talked to you Princ more than i did to some of the kings, and i listened and acted to sugestions from players i never talked to before more than i did with people from "within my circle" how you like to put it. You still stick to your deranged conceptions about how MD runs and about me, constantly pointing as wrong to any idea or decision that is not serving your purpose. I bet that if i put a rule that anyone not satisfied with the king can call elections immediatley, you will be happy about it.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Muratus del Mur

[Curiose]

Perhaps when in the discussion of how to see the percentage of discontent, would probably be either to:

A. Create some sort of... perhaps an automated reader that scans through the chats picking up detection of discontent/approval of the players, and then putting it into a percentage form. [Maybe this is too out there?]

[b]Advantage[/b]: Less work for Mur, Possible accuracy in percentages, anonymous.
[b]Disadvantage[/b]: Abuse [? Lies about how people actually feel], Inaccuracy if reader breaks down/ people do not state how they feel, discontent of having the chats scanned by said reader.

B. Creating a weekly poll/ Survey.
[b]Advantage[/b]: Accurate information [based on who states what].
[b]Disadvantage[/b]: More work for Admins/Mods, less accurate [because of little input from populace], debates on said polls.

In the accuracy about numbers... as in, how many people state what, would there have to be a specific number of responses for it to be considered "accurate?" Realistically, not everyone in MD is going to respond to polls/state their opinion on the matter.

This is all that I can think of currently.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Curiose

[Jubaris]

not at all.
First, I see those very elections as a ridiculous thing. Mainlands' structures are supposed to be in some way of a competition with each other. That's the fun in most of games, competition, but allowing whole realm to vote for one mainland each is illogical to me, unless whole MD works like one organ, having several entities working their own job for something greater (which in that case, some things that inspire competition between lands would be pointless)

What confuses me a lot, is that there ain't some concept rules of MD realm for us to build upon, axioms, those that are existent are needed to be found by ourselves deep within theories of theories, so the chances are likely that in some twisted case all this actually is normal.
You can draw up some conclusions from the Adventure log, from the scenery, location poems... But in the end, they are theories, and you (as average player) can't present them as facts. For all I know, MD can actually represent the travel of our RL characters via computer into a mirrored world, rather than having a fictional world with role-player characters

I don't "moan" about things cause they don't go on my advantage. I want things to be clear and fair, realistic, which isn't the case. (MD is great, but it can surely be better, and always can get better and better)


Response to the first post:
what you described, about the supported course of actions, is exactly lobbying. If an event requires your interference, and successful lobby (rather than the truth, that isn't spoiled by any positive or negative manner of it's participants), then, in my opinion, that shows that the case you're interfering into is going wrong. There will always be those minor details, but I'm not talking about them, kingdoms are a major detail on this realm.



on topic response:
if you implement citizen discontent via anonymous votes, it can always be abused by those that have hidden agendas, negative votes that do not represent the fault of a king, but the ambition of a citizen.

[Yrthilian]

Ok so to get everything back on track if we can.

so in regards to the questions put forward and to answeres.

The new system of the rebels. Good idea? bad isea?

The point of what can be done currently with the new system

- Rebel is safe from excomunication (good)
- Rebel can be silenced for short periods of time (good)
- Kings recived item to use as a way of silincing a rebel (good)
- This give a new system to try force a vote for removing the king (good)


I am sure there are many other point i have missed but still all i can really see from this are good things
yes there are bad too but i would not really consider them bad enough to be put forward but i could be wrong.

This system is new and will take time to adjust to. It causes fear for many as many dont know what it really meens.
[b]
For the item that was given the silencer.[/b]

This item is well balanced it cannot be abused by the king unless he/she uses it agenst a rebel for things that are nit really of concern. The item has it limits too. It can only be used on a singles player per use. The cooldown timer for it is longer then the chat ban. I dont see how the item could really be used in an abusable way.

[b]For the rebel[/b]

The rebel is protected and still remains a citizen this is really good as this then give the rebel the change to fight for their opinion and to gather support. This to be is one way for people that have an opinion diffrent to the king to try get him/her replaced. This new system also has many other aspects to it and will be intresting to see how it could be used.

All in all the new system is just that new. The kingship may gain more ways to punish a citizen for disloyalty. This is a good thing really. But also the kingship should gain new rewards to be able to give out and not just be a WP dispencing machine. There is a ballance beeing meet here. This new system i am sure has more tweeks to be made before it is what we would like it to be.

This is a new change in MD so all i can really say in embrace the change and work with the new tools beeing provided.

What i am wondering is though if a king is removed from power will the kingship items be taken away and given to the new ruler?
The penelty oint given to the king for a bad desision, are the going to be permanment or will they be removed over time. example is if a king has to bad marks in say year 1 but year 2 has done nothing bad will the point be removed or will the stay. I would think they should be removable after a set time.

I would also like to point out that with this new system we have yet to see the new land based rules and then the kingship rules for the lands.
I am sure when they come out there most likly be more complaining but lets wait and see.

[Mya Celestia]

[quote]next to be done is a way to see percentage of discontent in a land[/quote]
[color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]
Why not once a week the system pop a screen between log in and the game with a +/- voter or a 1-5 scale of kingship satisfaction? The system could keep track of this and calculate it according to land. If it goes to a certain percentage or amount of dissatisfaction, a flag goes up letting Mur know.[/font][/color]

[Jubaris]

[quote name='Mya Celestia' timestamp='1289675002' post='72050']
[color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]
Why not once a week the system pop a screen between log in and the game with a +/- voter or a 1-5 scale of kingship satisfaction? The system could keep track of this and calculate it according to land. If it goes to a certain percentage or amount of dissatisfaction, a flag goes up letting Mur know.[/font][/color]
[/quote]


[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1289669458' post='72045']
if you implement citizen discontent via anonymous votes, it can always be abused by those that have hidden agendas, negative votes that do not represent the fault of a king, but the ambition of a citizen.
[/quote]



furthermore, if the vote isn't anonymous, then a citizen that gives a low remark will get his Christmas gifts accordingly

[Muratus del Mur]

indeed penalty points should reset over time. I have no idea what that time should be. Might also be a good idea to reset them if king does good things for his land, but again, might be abusable.

about discontent level.... any systen to track it will be abused by people that want to show things are worse than they really are. I believe the only real indocstor is the number of active rebels over the number of active citizens. Empty complains should not be cobsidered real discontent..if someone is really discontent with a king, they should be ready to do the sacrifices the rebel status brings.

new ways to reward a player are also needed. I will consider this for the future, maybe inplement it with the upcomming christmas things (cant say more for now). I dont consider new reward options as part of the rebel topic. open a new topic for this if you want.


yes, kingship transfer means tag change and kingship items transfered... but don't think anyone holding the items is automatically a king too.

[Sephirah Caelum]

[quote]next to be done is a way to see percentage of discontent in a land[/quote]

This came after a talk with Azull:

Mya's idea is good, but the king has the right to know
the reason why people are unhappy with his governement,
therefore for this purpose could be used the Post Office
system, that Chewett placed in front of the Willow shop a
while ago. Once this allows the citizen find the king's
ears even when he is not on the pre-rebel's Friend list.

The person receiving the letter could be named by King
if he is very busy.

[Muratus del Mur]

anonimous but public complain system, addressed to the king (only to him), is something i agree it could be usefull. not many have the courage to speak their mind freely, but their ideas might be usefull. It also prevents the king from saying no just because of his ego.

For now see how yould manage that with what it is...untill i figure something like a feature for it.

[Yrthilian]

I like the idea of beeing able to pm a king even if he/she is not on the friends list
It would also be good if they could do it anon too. As Mur said some people may not say
something out of fear of a previous conflict and think their idea wont be listened to
also it is a good way for people to voice their opinion on ideas put forward

I like this very much it would be a very usefull system to be honest and i would
love to see this get implemented.

Maybe something like the citizen application system. Use the message system it has
That would meen the king having a link similar to citizen approval. but just for
kingship messages. Have the feature hide the user id but still have it that the
king can respond to it directly too in order to give feed back to the person that
sent the message.

[Curiose]

For those who are voicing their opinions on a specific King, are they protected from any outlash of said King? That is, if they choose not to be anonymous.

Also, is this restricted to those who are only citizens, or can anyone in MD voice? And if not, what about those with diplomacy in a certain land?

Edited November 13, 2010 by Curiose

[Yrthilian]

[quote name='Curiose' timestamp='1289687226' post='72062']
For those who are voicing their opinions on a specific King, are they protected from any outlash of said King? That is, if they choose not to be anonymous.

Also, is this restricted to those who are only citizens, or can anyone in MD voice? And if not, what about those with diplomacy in a certain land?
[/quote]


If a system like this was to be made i would expect it to always be anon if someone chooses not to be anon
they they should understand the posiable backlash from such a choice or become a rebel if they so choose.

The message system idea for king should ONLY be fore the land citizens as it is their land
This message system idea i think should only be fore the citizen to talk to the kings. I know i am not
always online or in an accessable area for Golemus people to comunicate with me. But the system should also
only be used for land issues and not a call for the king to help people out of Golemus for example.


If you are refering to the new rebel system it is also land based only.