Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aethon

judges
Judgment on Nomad Bring-In

32 posts in this topic

Following my last topic on this subject, and the obvious agreement from some, I'd like to kindly request for an official judgement on the Nomad's 'Bring in' spells.

I'd personally like to see some form of usage rules implemented, rather than complete removal of the spell. I'd also like to ask for myself and Mallos to be removed from NC, as there is no possible route for use to escape aside dying reviving, and we were dragged in unwillingly.

@dst @Burns

-A

 

Edited by Aethon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a complete farce. One of the judges is openly biased, as per her own post in the previous topic, thus there is no way this is going to be a fair trial. Not to mention that the whole base for this is just... obscene. 

What's next? Players who were killed should ask for the killing tools of their murderer to be removed (or 'restricted'), and for them to be revived, because this is a restricted, limited power and it was done to them unwillingly? People who were locked in chaos? People who lost alliances, because it was done to them unwillingly? 

MD is unfair. Many people have unique, or very restricted powers. Up until now, you lot were defending the freedom of use of such powers, what happened to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason why a player cannot request things within the game to be looked at a second time, and even the best of developers make mistakes all the time. What I love is how the developers here actively show an interest in interacting with their population and this in itself makes this game more unique than so many others.

To try to keep my post short, my interest here is how I've been dragged to the Trial of Agony with no way to get out and this fate is pretty much worse than death as all I can do now is log out. At least dead players can go look around Necrovion somewhat... To say, this doesn't make sense to me how unrestricted their spell is when it's been stated that these powers should be only for their (previous) citizens yet they can have it unrestricted just because they were the driving point (right?) behind the spells being changed at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're gonna start talking about what makes sense and what doesn't, and what's unrestricted and what not, and whether there will be 'usage rules' implemented, I have a list that can make you stop talking.

Yes, if you really want to go this way, you have to be prepared for backfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aeoshattr said:

This is a complete farce. One of the judges is openly biased, as per her own post in the previous topic, thus there is no way this is going to {blah blah}

MD is unfair. Many people have unique, or very restricted powers. Up until now, you lot were defending the freedom of use of such powers, what happened to that?

Hippocrisy much? Really.

Also , I call upon DST and burns too to pass a judgement.

Edited by Nimrodel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aeoshattr

I promised myself not to reply, but it seems Lashtal has some good words to heed! :D

3 hours ago, lashtal said:

But I understand it's easier to throw mud all around and yell "abuse" or "bias" every time things don't go as you wanted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true Dst has commented on the situation - but that is her right as a player. Whilst I realise she causes people's tempers to fray in her demeanor and outspoken nature, she has always to date shown an unbiased and systematic view in taking decisions in her official position as a Judge to date.

I do have an opinion on this, but I reserve comment until a decision is made or we are asked for opinions.

Z

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aethon said:

@Aeoshattr

I promised myself not to reply, but it seems Lashtal has some good words to heed! :D

 

Nothing went either way yet, as opposed to the situation lashtal is talking about which is done and sorted; there's a difference, not to mention the vast difference in circumstances between what lashtal is talking about and what I am talking about. Which is why I bothered to point out the issue, before an irrevocable decision is taken. 

But then again, as I myself said, MD is unfair, so I don't really know what I was or am expecting to come out of this, or why I'm expecting to make a difference in the first place.

Also, do note, Mallos found a solution to getting out of NC without being killed/revived in spite of it being seemingly impossible, as you state in your first post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aeoshattr said:

Also, do note, Mallos found a solution to getting out of NC without being killed/revived in spite of it being seemingly impossible, as you state in your first post. 

I forgot about that! Well done @Mallos:D

Thank sweetie Aeo for pointing it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General rules is not exactly what judges are for, it's more of a case-by-case thing... What you're looking for is a parliament's job :))

I'll happily give some input and lay out what i'd definitely rule as abuse (if proven), but i'm not going to bind all future rulings to this discussion. So, if you want a post from me, it'll be all the things you definitely can't do as far as i'm concerned, but that doesn't mean that the things that are not on the list are okay in all cases.

If you find something like that helpful, i'll try my best to provide a useful list... But i don't consider this the job of judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At longer consideration, and after Chew pointing out the obvious to me, i'll have to withdraw my previous post. There's too much risk of people considering everything that doesn't make it on the list to be okay, so i can't provide one.

Sorry to get your hopes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 4:07 PM, Burns said:

General rules is not exactly what judges are for, it's more of a case-by-case thing... What you're looking for is a parliament's job :))

I'll happily give some input and lay out what i'd definitely rule as abuse (if proven), but i'm not going to bind all future rulings to this discussion. So, if you want a post from me, it'll be all the things you definitely can't do as far as i'm concerned, but that doesn't mean that the things that are not on the list are okay in all cases.

If you find something like that helpful, i'll try my best to provide a useful list... But i don't consider this the job of judges.

 

28 minutes ago, Burns said:

At longer consideration, and after Chew pointing out the obvious to me, i'll have to withdraw my previous post. There's too much risk of people considering everything that doesn't make it on the list to be okay, so i can't provide one.

Sorry to get your hopes up.

It's intriguing how a few people say they've had a word with Chew and Mur about this, received dismissive answers and then you decide to not announce your opinions after Chew gets involved, yet refused to give any answers on a public topic and decided to message you in private...

Guess we'll just have to keep wasting those casts! :D

Edited by Aethon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer : all characters in this story  are fictional and any relationship to the living or dead is purely coincidental.

So there was this govt and it passed a law without foresight regarding a certain small loophole. Whether it was intentional or unintentional no one knew. When the loophole came into light, the officials were approached. Victims were told that the loophole and any advantages or disadvantages arising from it couldn't be corrected because people would lose faith in the credibility of the govt if they kept changing things, even if the accused seemed to be at fault. The victim decided to sympathise with the govt and keep her mouth shut. But history repeated itself. And this time, the issue was brought out in public. And govt. Still decided  to give no comment regarding the complaint. People lost faith in them anyway. And the loophole kept on getting exploited.

 

Now., Something in relation with the topic, I thought the judges were free to pass judgement without interference of mur and chewett regarding which issue they could select and which they couldn't? I don't see dst's voice anywhere regarding the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting on the input from the populace perhaps? :D 20 casts isn't that much if it gets replaced by the new bringins afterwards. I had more than 100 casts left of my spell to send players to the gate of the bored, I used it on a few players and then started porting some aramors (before getting the spell taken away for porting the aramors, I'd rather they told me cause I ported those few players). But spells like this are immensely powerful... Combined with necrovion... Mainly when used to teleport several players in one spell cast.

It all depends on how severely the supposed "punishment" is received by the victim(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dst's voice is simple: casts from both players should be replaced with a different type of bring in similar to the one created for the rest of the monarchs meaning a bring it that would work, in this particular case, only on the nomads.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2016 at 3:25 PM, (Zl-eye-f)-nea said:

It is true Dst has commented on the situation - but that is her right as a player. Whilst I realise she causes people's tempers to fray in her demeanor and outspoken nature, she has always to date shown an unbiased and systematic view in taking decisions in her official position as a Judge to date.

I do have an opinion on this, but I reserve comment until a decision is made or we are asked for opinions.

Z

 

If Dst wasn't able to make (what is in her mind) objectively right decisions, then she shouldn't be a judge in the first place. So regardless, she (anyone) shouldn't referee situations where she is personally involved, in the form of MD judge. Similar thing happened on Nadrolski's case.

---

The root of this problem we're having now is in the system (originally Mur but it goes downwards through the hierarchy) and the selective justice it applies.

Because of that, if you change the bringin, you contradict one principle established before, if you leave it as it is, you contradict another...

It's interesting that MD which holds about a dozen remaining people is still a fruitful ground for conflict, obviously a dozen players is too much for MD and this is a natural process towards balance for an even smaller number...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there appears to be some confusion about how rules work in MD I have clarified them somewhat here: http://md-archives.com/1032/a-summary-of-the-rules-in-md/

>Now., Something in relation with the topic, I thought the judges were free to pass judgement without interference of mur and chewett regarding which issue they could select and which they couldn't? I don't see dst's voice anywhere regarding the issue?

Hey Nim, How are you? We havent spoken in _AGES_, got some suggestions for anime to watch (pm me).

To get onto your post (for fear of those evil mods banning our offtopic discussionings)

>I thought the judges were free to pass judgement without interference of mur and chewett regarding which issue they could select and which they couldn't?

They can! I am assuming you are commenting that Burns decided to not post his list of bad things after I talked to him. There are a couple things here that you might have missed as burns was highly cryptic!

Firstly he doesnt feel this is something the judges should do, and its partially true. Listing what is and isnt allowed in MD isnt something the judges are meant to do, that would essentially end up be deciding laws and anything he posted would end up as potentially his fault and then we would get into another situation of "He told me it was ok, ban him".

Hopefully my md archives post clarifies this somewhat. Judges are to take decisions on individual cases and thereby create precedants. They can pass their judgements on conflicts but the listing of good and bad isnt a conflict.

If you read his post, I didnt actually tell him not to, I asked him. Below you can see his message and the private one I sent to him.

>Burns
>At longer consideration, and after Chew pointing out the obvious to me, i'll have to withdraw my previous post.

>My PM
>I would ask and recommend you dont post that. People will start to reference it as "the list" and this is why we havent been publishing such thing.

As to why I havent been replying, A combination of vaguely declining health, toxicity in the forum and a number of people I have blocked so I dont even see their messages :D  I do however have some people who ping me when important things happen and I thank them for this.

>So regardless, she (anyone) shouldn't referee situations where she is personally involved, in the form of MD judge.

Isnt this the rules anyway? Its certainly something I have told a lot of people.

I dont see any other questions, but if you have questions about this or the MD archives post I made, please go ahead and ask them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burns likes to be highly cryptic, get used to it :P

Chewie made it clearer than i could have, mainly because he lives in a common law system and has english as first language... If i had tried to tell you how rules and judges work, i'd have taken twice the words and still only made it half as clear.

One thing i want to underline, because i think Chewie didn't make that clear enough just yet, is the material difference thing. In Chew's summary (page 3, par 2) it sounds a lot like a change in law can make for a material difference, and the same is applicable for a different setting. The different setting thing is by far the more important of these two, and should be on a more prominent spot imo. You can only use precedents when the precedent and the case at hand are the exact same in all major points. That's the main thing judges need to consider in common law (and MD): Is this the same, or is this different from the one we had before? Changes in the rules almost always invalidate all previous cases either way.

Apart from that, i love his explanation :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, out of curiosity, what's the difference between this situation and this one?

https://magicduel.com/page/Announcement/view/4101

I don't see any difference there really, both have used something they have been given to "abuse" another/others multiple times.

Seems hypocritical to suddenly state you can't make judgements on situations like this yet have only just done so on another topic...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the situations as the same at all. I also fail to see how this current situation is an abuse, whether in inverted commas or not?

Z

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To elaborate on what Z said, it isn't abuse lol. YOU think its abuse. There is a difference. They were given the spell, in the announcements even, with no such restrictions which you assume are present.

Now if you push this further I will make my own similar topic.

Edited by DARK DEMON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2016 at 10:44 PM, Aethon said:

Following my last topic on this subject, and the obvious agreement from some, I'd like to kindly request for an official judgement on the Nomad's 'Bring in' spells.

 

Doesn't sound like you asked for a judgement on a specific situation. You asked about a judgement on "the Nomad's Bring In spells".

You see how that's quite different from asking for a judgement on whether it's okay if Azull teleports somebody to Necrovion to get a kill on them, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Aethon, I must apologize but I didnt see your post until someone mailed me it although its obvious why I didnt see it lol

Anyway to reply to your comment, You are mistaken, I have never said the judges cannot make a comment about this so I think you are taking what you want from my messages... never a good idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Nad used his tool given to him, with no real laws laid out, and yet had a restriction on use put on him.

Azull/Sy are doing the same but with their Bring in spells.

---

My point to the previous topic was to find out why they had a large about of casts of an admin spell (that can someone anyone from anywhere) rather than a citizen/flag based spell like the other kings and ex-rulers that received it.

17 minutes ago, Burns said:

Doesn't sound like you asked for a judgement on a specific situation. You asked about a judgement on "the Nomad's Bring In spells".

You see how that's quite different from asking for a judgement on whether it's okay if Azull teleports somebody to Necrovion to get a kill on them, right?

 

On ‎28‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 9:44 PM, Aethon said:

Following my last topic on this subject, and the obvious agreement from some, I'd like to kindly request for an official judgement on the Nomad's 'Bring in' spells.

I'd personally like to see some form of usage rules implemented, rather than complete removal of the spell. I'd also like to ask for myself and Mallos to be removed from NC, as there is no possible route for use to escape aside dying reviving, and we were dragged in unwillingly.

 

 

Perhaps I should have put "spell casts" rather than just spells, but I assumed it obvious.

I did ask for a judgement and then put what my personal preference would have been. You said you were happy to give a list so I went with it - as I said, better something than nothing.

---

Also, in relation to both this and Chew's post on the Archives:

On ‎05‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 0:59 PM, Muratus del Mur said:

My intention, to be honest, was to see some sort of division of laws and regulations depending on land. This allows exactly this, but you seem to want a more global ruling system...thats interesting, but it is also due to the small number of people.

Why not give the chance to judges to do their role here?

How do you judge something that is not officially a crime to do, but the punisher is entitled to consider it a crime in his own eyes? 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.

 

 

Edited by Aethon
Added Quotation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Forum Statistics

    15,355
    Total Topics
    168,782
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews