Jump to content
Curiose

Rebel Rule

Recommended Posts

Ok, seeing as this was directly linked to, lets examine it.

[quote]
Based on recent events, i consider Kings could be "banished" by first taking over the main alliance of their land and then instigating their people to vote against them. The word banished is better than demoted, because kingship should not be considered a job or promotion but an absolute position.

The powers of such a ruler should be absolute over the people of his land. Therefor i will implement a citizenship system and players will be marked as beinng part of a land or an other, obeying the rules of that land and accepting the king, or queen, as the one person (except me ) to have decision power over their destiny.

The king will be able to change tags of his people, but for now these tags should be first discussed with me and i will check and aprove if they are indeed deserved. I dont want a tag inflation or tags to lose their importance, but i also don't want tags to be forgotten or ignored just because some got them and most didn't, like its now.

The king can directly decide regarding things that concern the land, such as land weapon, character belonging to that land, direction the land will go in diplomatic situations with other lands, etc. [/quote]

In particular read the first few words of the last line [b]The king can directly decide regarding things that concern the land[/b]
You see? There in lies the rub. We don't even get forewarning about changes that concern the land.

Yes, changes are needed and yes they sometimes have to come from a higher power than the king. I have no argument with that at all. BUT, it seems that we are just bypassing the kings as of late and neglecting the establish things that were set out when the kingships were announced.
I know that things take time, but at the same time there has been a long tradition in MD of half doing something and then moving on to something else and leaving it like that for an eon. Then we end up with moaning on the forum and not just from kings I might add.
Yes, the council are not around long and yes they are clearly doing things (and by the way kudos to ye for that. Don't think I'm trying to say ye aren't doing anything, you clearly are and I know there is a lot to do)and perhaps there are things already in the pipeline about issues I've mentioned here. The thing is, I don't know, none of the kings know by the looks of things, because we haven't been told.
The issue is that kings have not been given many abilities they should have had, but even more importantly, they are being left out of the loop completely. The kings don't seem to be utilised for the reason they were created. This is not a rant that kings don't have fancy toys boo hoo. This is about the fact that kings are not being utilised at all. Its not all about fancy toys, but a king may need a nudge, a heads up or be able to provide useful feedback.
There needs to be rules and guidelines yes. There needs to be ways to remove or speak out about kings that are failing for one reason or another. But it also seems that you don't need to or care to involve kings in this at all. There also seem to be clear uncertainty as to what kings can and can't do or should be doing.
I am trying to highlight this, not spark off some kind of moaning and groaning session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree that in things involving the kings that they do need some sort of Heads up, but in the situation we are facing currently...

The action of Mur to dissipate further abuse and to take allow the people more freedom to take care of a rogue king, I think, has been swift and is necessary. As was said in the announcements, he made this new rule based on current events, though I will not delve into what specifically.

What I think Mur was trying to do, was get allowing the people to help take care of massive issues dealing with the Kingship. I am not saying that anyone has abused it, but rather, if ever there is a case of sorts that this would be necessary, the people have the ability to be their own task force instead of crying to Mur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='pamplemousse' timestamp='1289484783' post='71896']
I have a question about the chatban part. From the Announcements:

"Kings will receive items to supress rebels from talking in chat but they wont be able to suppress groups"

*I understand there is strength in numbers, but what is considered a group? 2 or more, or a higher number?

*What is to stop a King from silencing all the individuals at once? A cool down, or something else?

*Must the target have the "rebel" tag to be silenceable?
[/quote]


Ok so to clear things up a bit for this in a single post

The rebel silencer :D

- it has a cooldown timer
- cannot be cast on multipul people (2+)
- it has a number of casts
- It does chatban for a short time.
- only works on player with the land rebel tag
- player must be in same location as king casting it

I hope this help clear up some of the info regards the ablity.

Thanks to Grido for helping me test the item :D
always said he was a rebel :P

Edited by Yrthilian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, the chatban lasts for [u]4 hours[/u], so I'm told. That seems [b]INCREDIBLY[/b] excessive. I understand that only one person can be banned at a time, and that there is, or will be, a cool down. But for those that are not on MD for long hours at a time, this seems a bit unfair.

Of course, those that rebel will have to lose some rights, but if someone is rebelling, you most likely have an issue with a King and that King might be more inclined to want to shut you up because you are rebelling, not because what you are saying is inflammatory or negative.

Being a rebel has its price, but not being able to speak anywhere in MD chat for 4 hours seems like a brutal muzzle for those in opposition to the Authority, not a real way for Kings to squelch an uprising.

*edit* I don't want to just state what I think is wrong and "moan" so I will also offer suggestions.

I would think that a ban of 30 minutes would be long enough to be a deterrent to rebellious speech, but would offer enough freedom to still actually be involved in MD.

Alternatively, the 4 hour ban could remain but perhaps for every 5 or so silences, there would be a deterrent for the King. As in,
*half a point given for every 5 casts of the Rebel Queller.
*or for every 1 cast, The King would also not be able to speak.

I just feel there needs to be something to balance the 4 hour ban, but that is just my opinion. Edited by pamplemousse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imo, the 4 hours are justified by the facts that there's
- just one person who can do that, in all of MD
- ONE rebel usually gets imprisoned and shut up, look at China
- just one of them can be active at once
- rebels can come back any time of any day, no king could find you every 4 hours.

You definitely need to be a little dedicated to make a good rebel, 30 minutes a day is too little to stand up for your principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Burns here, 4 hours of chatban is nothing compared to 2 weeks in jail. If the king is discouraged from protecting himself, then rebellion would be too easy. There's no point in stacking it against the kings, because someone will always be unhappy with them, not matter who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='pamplemousse' timestamp='1289523056' post='71916']
So, the chatban lasts for [u]4 hours[/u], so I'm told. That seems [b]INCREDIBLY[/b] excessive. I understand that only one person can be banned at a time, and that there is, or will be, a cool down. But for those that are not on MD for long hours at a time, this seems a bit unfair.

Of course, those that rebel will have to lose some rights, but if someone is rebelling, you most likely have an issue with a King and that King might be more inclined to want to shut you up because you are rebelling, not because what you are saying is inflammatory or negative.

Being a rebel has its price, but not being able to speak anywhere in MD chat for 4 hours seems like a brutal muzzle for those in opposition to the Authority, not a real way for Kings to squelch an uprising.

*edit* I don't want to just state what I think is wrong and "moan" so I will also offer suggestions.

I would think that a ban of 30 minutes would be long enough to be a deterrent to rebellious speech, but would offer enough freedom to still actually be involved in MD.

Alternatively, the 4 hour ban could remain but perhaps for every 5 or so silences, there would be a deterrent for the King. As in,
*half a point given for every 5 casts of the Rebel Queller.
*or for every 1 cast, The King would also not be able to speak.

I just feel there needs to be something to balance the 4 hour ban, but that is just my opinion.
[/quote]

argg some details should be kept quiet about the item.
But i will say this the cooldown time is longer for the item i will not say how much longer

The 4 hours chat ban i think is fine it is better as many have mentioned a 2 week jail sentance
remeber you are protected from excomunication while you are a rebel i think this supression item
is a good move and is fairly balanced. also the fact it can only be used on one player at a time.
It is not in any way over powered to be honest.

Besides it was fun shutting Grido up for 4 hours :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='pamplemousse' timestamp='1289523056' post='71916']
So, the chatban lasts for [u]4 hours[/u], so I'm told. That seems [b]INCREDIBLY[/b] excessive. I understand that only one person can be banned at a time, and that there is, or will be, a cool down. But for those that are not on MD for long hours at a time, this seems a bit unfair.

Of course, those that rebel will have to lose some rights, but if someone is rebelling, you most likely have an issue with a King and that King might be more inclined to want to shut you up because you are rebelling, not because what you are saying is inflammatory or negative.

Being a rebel has its price, but not being able to speak anywhere in MD chat for 4 hours seems like a brutal muzzle for those in opposition to the Authority, not a real way for Kings to squelch an uprising.

*edit* I don't want to just state what I think is wrong and "moan" so I will also offer suggestions.

I would think that a ban of 30 minutes would be long enough to be a deterrent to rebellious speech, but would offer enough freedom to still actually be involved in MD.

Alternatively, the 4 hour ban could remain but perhaps for every 5 or so silences, there would be a deterrent for the King. As in,
*half a point given for every 5 casts of the Rebel Queller.
*or for every 1 cast, The King would also not be able to speak.

I just feel there needs to be something to balance the 4 hour ban, but that is just my opinion.
[/quote]

I commend you for bringing up the possibility of abuse, and helping to answer a few of my own questions. I must say that I do agree with the fact that a 4 hour ban is excessive. Considering that we do not know, for whatever reason, how long the item will take to 'cool down', this could very well be a problem.

If it is as long as my gut tells me it is, a king could likely use it every 1-2 days and silence the rebels while talking about a useless topic like.. say, toast.

I find that to be a bit ridiculous honestly.

I feel that there should be a penalty for misusing the chat-ban item, as being shut up for 4 hours for talking about something unrelated to your so-called rebellion is, in my opinion, not alright.

It is well understood that being a rebel has it's draw-backs but... that item should be regulated in some way. Not just by mechanics and cogwheels, but by rules.

As to what rule, I leave that for those in this topic to debate.
This is just my small bit of input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that it has 4h, and 100 uses before it's going to be reviewed...

Why the hell is there such a fuss over a totally not OP item.

Even if you do it nonstop, 24/7, it's 17 days you got banned in chat? So...? Afterwards the king has made a fool of himself.


Look at it this way..if you have to insist on rebelling by doing it this way, which will not let you get jailed at all?! and even retain a method to stay inside the land...unless you have no good reason, but just a grudge, this works out fine.

If the king does bad. Then surely you're not alone? And your group of followers surely is bigger than those of the king? If not it's just a political war of tug and tie, and boiling down to personal conflicts and miniwars.

And, if you asked me...vs a true rebellion this item is utterly useless. Utterly. Vs a private war of single persons (keypersons, not entourage), it is.

I summarize:

If you are truly a rebel, then:

- You'd take the risk of being silenced for 4h, over the course of the next month, simply to make a point
- You'd not be alone
- You'd have people just as strong willed as you helping you out, you're not the sole leader, or if you are, the others would still manage without you, knowing you are there, but cannot speak

If you are not, but merely having a private war, then:

- Your entourage also will be silenced simply because you are the key person who dragged them in
- Your threats to the land will be ineffective, because you represent a minority with no powers as well. (There's a thing called majority rules, and thats applied most of the times)

Warfare is about planning, fighting, but also diplomacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll say that in my opinion, 4H chat ban is not excessive, if not even not enough at all.

First of all, chances that you run to the king that is feuding with you everyday is slim, which means you'd only get silenced every once in a while. Do remember that you need to be on the same place to cast the silence. And if the king would persistently chase you to silence you while talking about breakfast, s/he's actually doing you a favor anyways by showing people how petty s/he is, and that's a step up to your cause. Not to mention you're making him/her use up their item's charges with every use. And you can always switch to an alt if you really need to talk..
And as Shadow has mentioned, when you're rebelling with other people sharing the same cause, it's unlikely that the king will be able to silence you all the time; he also has others to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting how Aaront222's opinion was still pushed into the negative, even though he made a very good post.

Anyway, being that I have yet to see any 'Mur' imposed 'land rules', other than the 'don't break the game rules', the king could do such a thing.
It would be quite, quite interesting to see the effects of such a rule and possible rebellion afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excommunication is essentially a 2 week silence spell minimum. Its way worse infact. You can't talk in any scene in MD other than Jail for 2 weeks. So yeah, 4hrs may sound like a long time, but when you put it into context it isn't. Also, I believe Yrth said that the cool down is longer than the duration, which means you can't simply keep silencing someone non-stop. There will at least be some kind of window of opportunity for a rebel to speak.
A question I have is what happens with people that basically set out with the aim to be a rebel? By this I mean, people that essentially either don't really have a beef with the king or do before joining a land and are essentially joining to just annoy the king (or for some other reason, like to get tools for instance)?
This may seem strange to some, but there are strange people around and its exactly the kind of thing that I suspect a few people would do for a laugh if nothing else.
What if a group of people decide to do this to force a king out for no real reasons other than perhaps personal ambition or some sense of fun? What about people using alts? Especially alts of a group of associated people, like a whole land?
Maybe there should also be a method to remove rebels at some point. I mean, imagine a situation where someone has become rebel under a circumstance like I mentioned earlier and the citizens feel that they should just be exiled and not regarded as any kind of citizen, loyal, disgruntled, freedom fighter or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color="#2e8b57"][i]On the topic of a 4 hour chat ban....

Why would a rebel, voice his opinions in the presence of a king (because from what I gather the rebel and the king have to be in same location) knowing that he's gonna get banned from talking?
Its just common sense for a rebel to start a rebellion away from the king and once he has enough support then take it to the king. Just like what William Wallace did in braveheart [/i][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see the reasoning behind those who are rebelling(totally a pun :D) against the 4 hour chat ban.

If you are rebelling against your king, the king has absolute power over you while you are a citizen of their Land. That means, if he wished it, you would be beheaded. This is not a democrasy people. It's a dictatorship(technically a monarchy, but you get the idea). Yes, the Kings were elected at first, but the Kingship is now being passed along to people of the King's choosing. Yes, the King has to choose wisely or the populace will replace him, but still is a Monarchy/Dictatorship.

When the King says "Jump." You don't sit there and debate with him whether or not you should do it, you immediately do it.

I don't know if this is just me, but the King's need powers to enforce their rules. The populace needs an official way to dethrone a King. Instead of whining about how long a chatban is, ask yourselves who are you planning on overthrowing that it could effect you. Don't annoy the King, and don't become a Traitor to the Land. If you wish to rebel, don't get caught. It's not rocket science.

~Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About cooldow timers and rules that might cancel other rules i have one thing to say. Rant as you much as you wish, eventually you will see they make sence as they are.

About not informing the kings prior of such rules... well.. things should be challenging for them too, not only for their citizens.

What is missing right now are ways to prevent rebel abuse. Depending on the upcomming situations, a solution to this will be decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I have a few things to say after listening to every bodies posts. First I understand the concerns of the kings and the possibility of abuse. As for alts we can already rule them out. The announcement already has stated that people using alts to rebel will be punished for it. So if you have lets say 4 alts in the same land you are only allowed to use one to be a rebel. Next issue to tackle is that there was no warning. Ok I can understand this but only to a certain point. People used to able to overthrow kings just mur decided it was time to be automated. Make it so those rebels can still make a presence heard even if those people are not online all the time. Rebels have to get back to real life just as much as the rest of us.

A four hours silence is also a necessity. I mean in order to make people join your cause you have to talk to them. In other words you have to rally people to your cause. You have to have a reason and make it heard. The silence and window is sort of like the police moving in and breaking everything up. Rebels are just a better way for the right people to be heard and to make it harder for kings to deny there responsibilities to there land. As for rebels you have to have a good reason to rebel. Just rebelling for one reason is not going to rally people and obviously you will be silenced.

People will become rebels only if there is something everybody can agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a question...

Would lands harboring the Rebels be punished, or would there be freedom as to where the rebels can discuss their plans and such, if not in their own land?

As I see it, the Kings could easily punish their own citizens for such aiding, but at the same time, how does one draw the line from that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Here's a question...

Would lands harboring the Rebels be punished, or would there be freedom as to where the rebels can discuss their plans and such, if not in their own land?

As I see it, the Kings could easily punish their own citizens for such aiding, but at the same time, how does one draw the line from that? [/quote]

The rebels are still citizens of their own land. Taking up rebel status only removes them from their alliance and prevents unwarranted jailing because of their protest against the monarch for whatever reason it might be.




In the end, the mechanics of Rebellion aren't the point- the point is what it is as a whole. Now, if a monarch decides to become a despot or completely inactive, citizens now have the tools to actively do something about it instead of having no real choice in the matter for the sole reason that "The king is the king and that's the way it is- tough". Now monarchs will have to be held responsible for their actions if they wish to be kept in power. It won't be easy to take them out of power, but if they step on too many peoples' toes, it will be possible. THAT is the purpose here- not that kings didn't have a say in the building of the system or that people don't like the cool down rates of items. The point is that if enough people find fault with their monarch, they can now do something about it and that it will count for something where it didn't before.


[size="1"]edited for grammar tweaks.[/size] Edited by Aysun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think 4 hours is really excessive at all. In my opinion, it is to show that 1 rebel can be squashed 1 rebel means nothing, but a group of rebels they cannot all be silenced.

If a King abuses his rebel squasher all I can see happening is more rebels forming and the downfall of his empire. These changes are quite neat there is power back into the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you see I was applying a real world situation and putting it into MD.

Say you have Land A which is the land with the abusive king or whatever, and its Rebellious people went to Land B to discuss their plans and such. Say that people in Land B knew of this, and helped to discuss their plans, take over, or whatever, and if Kings of Land A and B were.. good friends, and such, would land B punish his own citizens as for aiding against an allied land or something?

I know how the mechanics work, but in a situation as such, I was curious as to what lengths the Rebels would be deterred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Curiose' timestamp='1289587615' post='71963']
No, you see I was applying a real world situation and putting it into MD.

Say you have Land A which is the land with the abusive king or whatever, and its Rebellious people went to Land B to discuss their plans and such. Say that people in Land B knew of this, and helped to discuss their plans, take over, or whatever, and if Kings of Land A and B were.. good friends, and such, would land B punish his own citizens as for aiding against an allied land or something?

I know how the mechanics work, but in a situation as such, I was curious as to what lengths the Rebels would be deterred.
[/quote]

Sounds like something that would be up to the discretion of the ruler and how the roleplay went, really, I think. xD It would certainly be a fascinating scenario to play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, as I see it, this could possibly lead to a war, or some sort, if the situation gets serious enough I think.

Unless one of the land rules is simply that Kings cannot effect where rogues stay to communicate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's quite simple, as long as a person is citizen of a land, the king has power over them, once they're not, the king can't do anything.
If people from one land plan treason with the people of another land, it's up to one king to judge one tribe, and the other to judge over the other. One might punish them, the other might not.
WHERE people talk is of no matter whatsoever, as long as they are citizens.

If they wanted to be immune rebels, they'd need to pick a different citizenship first. Which obviously weakens their position a lot, as not-citizens don't have any word in land matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='aaront222' timestamp='1289565029' post='71938']
Why doesn't the king of a land just make a rule saying "Thou shall not rebel while thou est a citizen of my land." Or alike.
[/quote]
The king doesn't need to silence rebels. He just makes this rule.
MUR!!! QUICK!!! FIX THE LOOPHOLE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Forum Statistics

    15,899
    Total Topics
    173,966
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...