Hold on, no need to get all fired up. You just told me that they don't both belong to TBR. Therefore, unless they were cooperating in other ways, there is likely no problem. I'd have to know more about "if it weren't for other characters demanding that they be in the same place and/or cooperating sometimes" to know if this is crossing the line or not. It is not dissallowed to have two in the same town. It is, however, sometimes difficult to state a steadfast rule without knowing the circumstances. Some players seem to have a hard time grasping that it is not all black and white.
So, that being said, I'm not sure what you're asking me to defend. If it is my first statement....."Having two characters in the same organization, acting upon the same philosophies, and working towards a common goal is against the Capital Rule"......this is due to the fact that this situation would be creating an unfair advantage to other players who do not group their characters for added benefit, say in an opposing army, or a competitive business. It doesn't sound to me like you're doing that, though.
Karnon Forest
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department, Programming Department
-
Agar
- Posts: 1687
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:43 pm
Hell, half the characters on that island support TBR without being part of it. Most of the time, they're in other orginasations, other armies, but would stand shoulder to shoulder with TBR at a moments notice.
Why?
IT'S A LITTLE ISLAND.
Some people have five to seven characters on it. So if one is in TBR, the others are played by the same player, and how could they fight TBR and themselves without a CR breach? So just support them, which is also a CR breach, but a less dramatic one.
Anyhow, Don't fret about what's said here. You've explained your actions, and if the PD feels the need to tell you what actions you need to take, they'll tell you. Everyone here is armchair admin ing. Listen to the people actually in charge.
Why?
IT'S A LITTLE ISLAND.
Some people have five to seven characters on it. So if one is in TBR, the others are played by the same player, and how could they fight TBR and themselves without a CR breach? So just support them, which is also a CR breach, but a less dramatic one.
Anyhow, Don't fret about what's said here. You've explained your actions, and if the PD feels the need to tell you what actions you need to take, they'll tell you. Everyone here is armchair admin ing. Listen to the people actually in charge.
Reality was never my strong point.
-
Bran-Muffin
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: California
Only problem here is the times that these characters are played. As I understand it alot of dragging took place last night.... this is the area that we frown upon. Two characters of the same player to help drag being active at the same time is the only problem.. that I can see with these two characters. Other than that.... meh, Oasis... this one is yours cause well... obvious reasons.
*notes that Oasis and himself are the ones that need to be listened to.*
*notes that Oasis and himself are the ones that need to be listened to.*
-
Yo_Yo
- Posts: 725
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:32 am
- Location: Hiding in the bush
Agar wrote:Some people have five to seven characters on it.
Yes, got to love "random spawning" eh :p
That junk still happening? I remember that island being a big enough of a problem without having to try and not break the CR with five toons that spawned there. Got to the point where I picked one and let the others die.
Vicki Vale: You're insane!
Joker: I thought I was a Pisces!
Joker: I thought I was a Pisces!
-
saztronic
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: standing right behind you
Anyway
Actually, I have had other chars spawn on that island and have, indeed, let them die. I actually had two chars spawn right IN the forest, within a couple days of each other. One's dead now.
Anyway, my problem will no longer be a problem, I think. It will be a long while before my two living island chars see each other again.
Anyway, my problem will no longer be a problem, I think. It will be a long while before my two living island chars see each other again.
-
Oasis
- Posts: 4566
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:30 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
-
saztronic
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: standing right behind you
The Ethics Escape Me
Well, it's been interesting reading these posts, and the ones over on the general board on the thread -- now closed -- about the PD, and thinking over what they mean to my particular case. Let me sum up, if I can:
1) Brandon, who is now on the Player Dept., was once found to be cheating and actually banned from the game. And we're not talking about a simple matter of two of his characters dragging somebody together. He was actually involved in an organized, OOC conspiracy to manipulate the game. This strikes me as being the equivalent of making Al Capone Chief of Police.
2) Same Brandon has been commenting on my case, when it bears directly on one of his characters, quite obviously. I won't out that character, although I have a pretty good idea at this point who it is. I suppose it's readily apparent where that character would be if you have followed this thread, meh?
3) There is no written Capital Rule per se, because that would just be too limiting, you know, man? And this is, like, an evolving game, and like, we need to look at each case on its own merits, yo. Translation: we'll decide what's right or wrong based on how we feel about it on any given day. Not much of a principle, or a "rule", really. More of a vibe thing.
So: The PD is itself, at best, compromised, and at worst, nothing more than a group of likeminded people sitting around deciding what they think is right for everyone and then imposing it on them.
Now, I won't side with Nick, because that just seems unpalatable, no offense Nick. But what does all this mean for the particular case that was raised in this post, which may or may not have involved two of my players?
The question remains: If you are a good role player, and I'm not asserting that I myself am, mind you, but if... then why is having two characters in the same place, working for the same organization, automatically forbidden? As I've stated, my two characters only cooperated with each other when a general order was given regarding a particular action to be taken. As both characters had their own reasons for following those kinds of orders, they followed them. It would have been out of character for them not to do so. It would have been bad roleplaying, and not true to this game, for them not to do so. At the same time, these chars never connived together, worked toward their own ends apart from those of the larger group, conspired against others, or in any other way "shared" information unique to either.
I was able to do this (I think fairly), drawing a pretty good line between what would be right and wrong, and playing it consistently with both chars, and this after playing the game for only a very short period of time.
Apparently, some members of the PD were not able to the same.
What I am getting at is this: It appears the CR is not the CR because it's automatically good policy, but only because you can't keep some people from abusing it. In that sense, it's like the drug war. Not good policy from an economic or social or perhaps even moral standpoint, but the wonks put the policy in place anyway because some people that do drugs get addicted and/or resort to violent crime to feed their addictions. All are punished for the actions or weaknesses of a few.
Including Nick, apparently, which is why I won't lump myself in with him.
The more I think about this, the more I think my two chars should be able to do what they want to do; because I'm fairly sure what they will want to do -- i.e., what I will want them to do -- will be ethically more consistent than what the PD has yet been able to come up with in their amorphous "guidelines" on the CR.
Ah, debate.... It does a body good.
1) Brandon, who is now on the Player Dept., was once found to be cheating and actually banned from the game. And we're not talking about a simple matter of two of his characters dragging somebody together. He was actually involved in an organized, OOC conspiracy to manipulate the game. This strikes me as being the equivalent of making Al Capone Chief of Police.
2) Same Brandon has been commenting on my case, when it bears directly on one of his characters, quite obviously. I won't out that character, although I have a pretty good idea at this point who it is. I suppose it's readily apparent where that character would be if you have followed this thread, meh?
3) There is no written Capital Rule per se, because that would just be too limiting, you know, man? And this is, like, an evolving game, and like, we need to look at each case on its own merits, yo. Translation: we'll decide what's right or wrong based on how we feel about it on any given day. Not much of a principle, or a "rule", really. More of a vibe thing.
So: The PD is itself, at best, compromised, and at worst, nothing more than a group of likeminded people sitting around deciding what they think is right for everyone and then imposing it on them.
Now, I won't side with Nick, because that just seems unpalatable, no offense Nick. But what does all this mean for the particular case that was raised in this post, which may or may not have involved two of my players?
The question remains: If you are a good role player, and I'm not asserting that I myself am, mind you, but if... then why is having two characters in the same place, working for the same organization, automatically forbidden? As I've stated, my two characters only cooperated with each other when a general order was given regarding a particular action to be taken. As both characters had their own reasons for following those kinds of orders, they followed them. It would have been out of character for them not to do so. It would have been bad roleplaying, and not true to this game, for them not to do so. At the same time, these chars never connived together, worked toward their own ends apart from those of the larger group, conspired against others, or in any other way "shared" information unique to either.
I was able to do this (I think fairly), drawing a pretty good line between what would be right and wrong, and playing it consistently with both chars, and this after playing the game for only a very short period of time.
Apparently, some members of the PD were not able to the same.
What I am getting at is this: It appears the CR is not the CR because it's automatically good policy, but only because you can't keep some people from abusing it. In that sense, it's like the drug war. Not good policy from an economic or social or perhaps even moral standpoint, but the wonks put the policy in place anyway because some people that do drugs get addicted and/or resort to violent crime to feed their addictions. All are punished for the actions or weaknesses of a few.
Including Nick, apparently, which is why I won't lump myself in with him.
The more I think about this, the more I think my two chars should be able to do what they want to do; because I'm fairly sure what they will want to do -- i.e., what I will want them to do -- will be ethically more consistent than what the PD has yet been able to come up with in their amorphous "guidelines" on the CR.
Ah, debate.... It does a body good.-
kinvoya
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: The Wide, Wide World of Web
@saztronic. I thought it was made clear that the incidents in which Brandon was involved took place several years ago when the game was very new and the rules were not quite so clear (or even more unclear or whatever). From what I've heard practically everyone was cheating in some way back in the dark ages because the big smackdown had not yet been developed. Was there even a PD then? I dunno.
Anyway I don't think Bran was banned but I'm not sure. I think he was reprimanded, warned and closely watched. Unlike a lot of players who were caught cheating he didn't panic and quit. He kept playing and proved himself to be trustworthy to the PD. I don't know this for sure but I think he probably gets watched even more closely now than before he joined the dept.
When I first started playing I made a lot of mistakes out of ignorance and sometimes I deliberately tried to get away with stuff.
I was contacted by the PD more than once and asked to explain my chars actions. I lied/weasled/promised to be good and they didn't do anything mean to me.
I have a different account now and I don't cheat or do anything that would get me into trouble because A) I don't really need or want to and B) I know it's not really as much fun as just doing things the way the PD suggests. Some people like to get away with things. Me not so much. I have enough excitement/stress in my real life.
The PD can't say, "Sure, saxtronic, you go ahead and do what everyone else is not allowed to do because we know you are smart enough to keep your chars acting in a way that would not compromise them or the CR." Why? Because every jackhole who plays will want to do the same thing and then they will not follow the rules and then the PD will have to chase them down one by one and spank/shoot them (symbolically).
Also, if you have two chars in the Beer Bong Clan, why not have 5 or 10? Then when the Toker Tribe tries to attack you, all 10 of your chars can fight back at once and defeat them. Some players actually try to do this. I'm sure you've heard them trying to find each other by now.
Newspawn: "Which direction is Seatown Forest? I have to meet my brothers there so we can assasinate Mary Williams. That witch!"
Oldspawn: (OOC: you aren't even on the right island, dweeb.)
I'm sure you can see the general pitfalls of having more than one character in an organization. And didn't they already say it was still OK as long as they aren't in the same town or something like that?
It's not always possible to act completely in character especially if your chars are close together and potentially interacting. I had two of my chars married to each other when I first started playing. They were't doing any harm but I still had to separate them which was about as out of character as it could get. Meh. I lived with it.
It's not really that big of a deal. Why make it into one? Is anyone even telling you that you have to do something different with your chars or is this all hypothetical?
Anyway I don't think Bran was banned but I'm not sure. I think he was reprimanded, warned and closely watched. Unlike a lot of players who were caught cheating he didn't panic and quit. He kept playing and proved himself to be trustworthy to the PD. I don't know this for sure but I think he probably gets watched even more closely now than before he joined the dept.
When I first started playing I made a lot of mistakes out of ignorance and sometimes I deliberately tried to get away with stuff.
I was contacted by the PD more than once and asked to explain my chars actions. I lied/weasled/promised to be good and they didn't do anything mean to me.
I have a different account now and I don't cheat or do anything that would get me into trouble because A) I don't really need or want to and B) I know it's not really as much fun as just doing things the way the PD suggests. Some people like to get away with things. Me not so much. I have enough excitement/stress in my real life.
The PD can't say, "Sure, saxtronic, you go ahead and do what everyone else is not allowed to do because we know you are smart enough to keep your chars acting in a way that would not compromise them or the CR." Why? Because every jackhole who plays will want to do the same thing and then they will not follow the rules and then the PD will have to chase them down one by one and spank/shoot them (symbolically).
Also, if you have two chars in the Beer Bong Clan, why not have 5 or 10? Then when the Toker Tribe tries to attack you, all 10 of your chars can fight back at once and defeat them. Some players actually try to do this. I'm sure you've heard them trying to find each other by now.
Newspawn: "Which direction is Seatown Forest? I have to meet my brothers there so we can assasinate Mary Williams. That witch!"
Oldspawn: (OOC: you aren't even on the right island, dweeb.)
I'm sure you can see the general pitfalls of having more than one character in an organization. And didn't they already say it was still OK as long as they aren't in the same town or something like that?
It's not always possible to act completely in character especially if your chars are close together and potentially interacting. I had two of my chars married to each other when I first started playing. They were't doing any harm but I still had to separate them which was about as out of character as it could get. Meh. I lived with it.
It's not really that big of a deal. Why make it into one? Is anyone even telling you that you have to do something different with your chars or is this all hypothetical?
<a><img></a>
-
Nick
- Posts: 3606
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: Halifax, Canada
-
kinvoya
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: The Wide, Wide World of Web
whateva
The point is a lot of new players make mistakes. The Capital Rule is hard to understand especially since it is so poorly written on the new player page which is repeated in Wiki. Some people get upset when they think they've been following it and then get told they have broken it.
Still, it's nothing to spaz over.
I've said before that this:
"Your characters are not automatically a family, a clan, a tribe, an army, a company, or so on - not necessarily even friends. They should have their own interests and goals. They should not know each other unless they happen to meet. If two of your characters interact, they should do so as though each were looking out for their own interests and goals - essentially, as though the other character were being played by a stranger."
is totally misleading. Maybe because it was written by someone who's first language isn't English (I presume). The way it is worded actually says, in a round-about way, that your chars can, in fact, be in the same group together and can, in fact, do things together as long as they have their own motives for doing so.
The K-Island is pretty small. If you have chars spawned in Karnon Forest or nearby they could very easily both want to join the tribe. They might have different reasons. Maybe one just wants security and freinds. Maybe one thinks he will become an important person this way.
They have their own reasons, personalities, motives, lives. No one can prove otherwise. This was all debated before by that girl and her mom. I thought maybe it would result in some rewording but here we are again. Deja vu!
@Nick. I hope this is suffiently on topic for you, Mr. Topic Monitor. If not I invite you to bite me.
The point is a lot of new players make mistakes. The Capital Rule is hard to understand especially since it is so poorly written on the new player page which is repeated in Wiki. Some people get upset when they think they've been following it and then get told they have broken it.
Still, it's nothing to spaz over.
I've said before that this:
"Your characters are not automatically a family, a clan, a tribe, an army, a company, or so on - not necessarily even friends. They should have their own interests and goals. They should not know each other unless they happen to meet. If two of your characters interact, they should do so as though each were looking out for their own interests and goals - essentially, as though the other character were being played by a stranger."
is totally misleading. Maybe because it was written by someone who's first language isn't English (I presume). The way it is worded actually says, in a round-about way, that your chars can, in fact, be in the same group together and can, in fact, do things together as long as they have their own motives for doing so.
The K-Island is pretty small. If you have chars spawned in Karnon Forest or nearby they could very easily both want to join the tribe. They might have different reasons. Maybe one just wants security and freinds. Maybe one thinks he will become an important person this way.
They have their own reasons, personalities, motives, lives. No one can prove otherwise. This was all debated before by that girl and her mom. I thought maybe it would result in some rewording but here we are again. Deja vu!
@Nick. I hope this is suffiently on topic for you, Mr. Topic Monitor. If not I invite you to bite me.
<a><img></a>
-
Surly
- Posts: 4087
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
- Location: London, England
Kinvoya, I agree with Nick on this. Don't comment on Brandon's past if you don't know what happened.
I have no problem with Brandon being on PD... but I do think it is totally inappropriate for him to be involved in any PD work with relation to the K-Isle. I am sure the PD can see why, and I would hope they would act in common sense on this issue.
I have no problem with Brandon being on PD... but I do think it is totally inappropriate for him to be involved in any PD work with relation to the K-Isle. I am sure the PD can see why, and I would hope they would act in common sense on this issue.
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
-
saztronic
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: standing right behind you
Regardless
Regardless of Nick or Brandon or whatever, I'd still like an answer to the two main questions here:
1) Why is the situation I described wrong? In fact, my characters have now been separated for OOC reasons, with one of them shipped off to do something that that char IC would have little or no interest in doing. This seems, for lack of a better word, lame, from a roleplaying standpoint.
2) What makes the PD qualified to judge these situations? They're not elected, so they're neither representative nor do they have any group-sanctioned mandate. They're not selfless; in fact, more likely than not they are self-interested both generally and, as in this case, specifically. If I am following the discussions correctly, they don't have any principles they are guided by that they are required to apply to every given case. At the risk of hyperbole, the PD sounds more like a Politburo than a group dedicated to protecting and serving the interests of the players. And of course they don't feel that way about it, but then, neither did the Politburo, you know?
*shrugs* I mean, whatever. I like the game. I'll keep playing it. I don't really care overmuch. But from what I have seen, I think the PD is fooling itself if it thinks its application of the CR is making the game better, rather than worse, from a roleplaying standpoint. With caveats to the extreme situations as noted by Kinvoya (i.e., ten people in one clan) or perhaps those on display during Cantr's early years.
Selah.
1) Why is the situation I described wrong? In fact, my characters have now been separated for OOC reasons, with one of them shipped off to do something that that char IC would have little or no interest in doing. This seems, for lack of a better word, lame, from a roleplaying standpoint.
2) What makes the PD qualified to judge these situations? They're not elected, so they're neither representative nor do they have any group-sanctioned mandate. They're not selfless; in fact, more likely than not they are self-interested both generally and, as in this case, specifically. If I am following the discussions correctly, they don't have any principles they are guided by that they are required to apply to every given case. At the risk of hyperbole, the PD sounds more like a Politburo than a group dedicated to protecting and serving the interests of the players. And of course they don't feel that way about it, but then, neither did the Politburo, you know?
*shrugs* I mean, whatever. I like the game. I'll keep playing it. I don't really care overmuch. But from what I have seen, I think the PD is fooling itself if it thinks its application of the CR is making the game better, rather than worse, from a roleplaying standpoint. With caveats to the extreme situations as noted by Kinvoya (i.e., ten people in one clan) or perhaps those on display during Cantr's early years.
Selah.
-
Bran-Muffin
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: California
The Surly Cantrian wrote:Kinvoya, I agree with Nick on this. Don't comment on Brandon's past if you don't know what happened.
I have no problem with Brandon being on PD... but I do think it is totally inappropriate for him to be involved in any PD work with relation to the K-Isle. I am sure the PD can see why, and I would hope they would act in common sense on this issue.
Just because I have commented here does not mean I am involved in the case. Only cases I have really dealt with on the k-island are cases where people are knocking like two hundred times while being locked up.
Anyone can comment on my past if they want to if they know anything about it or not. Just because Kinvoya didnt know anything about it doesnt mean you both have to be dicks about her post when she was responding to someone who mentioned something about me.
Saztronic, sorry but you will have to wait for Oasis or Jes to answer this one.
-
kinvoya
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: The Wide, Wide World of Web
Kinvoya, I agree with Nick on this. Don't comment on Brandon's past if you don't know what happened. Rolling Eyes
I have no problem with Brandon being on PD... but I do think it is totally inappropriate for him to be involved in any PD work with relation to the K-Isle. I am sure the PD can see why, and I would hope they would act in common sense on this issue.
Uh, oh, Surly. You were wrong about Bran working on the K-Isle cases. Therefore, you should not have commented.
Please do not ever be wrong again.
<a><img></a>
-
Oasis
- Posts: 4566
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:30 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Regardless
Okay, I'll answer them as best I can, though I fear I'll be repeating myself somewhat. You still may not agree with me, but that's your perogative.
1) It is my understanding that one of your KF chars was shipped off for IC reasons, thus negating the need to interfere OOC'ly. If you would like to discuss this further, I suggest doing so by PM.
I know this will grate heavily on some of you, but there is no hard rule that one may not have two characters in an organization. I would love it if it were so, but it is not, as Jos does not wish this (for reasons I stated previously)
It is highly frowned upon to have more than one in an organization. This can mean business, army, government, band of rebels, etc. Some of these are quite small, and some are very large. Having more than one character of the same player in an organization, especially a small one, but we do not discriminate here, is unfair to the other players, especially of an opposing organization, who do not. Is it the advantage this creates that you don't understand? Your characters are able to be awake at the same time, should there be an attack. You are sure to be able to trust your other character, where if it were that of another player, you wouldn't be so sure. It is an easy way to build numbers in an organization, to make it more productive, more powerful, share information the other char might obtain (though this in itself is another major breach). Players are furious, and rightfully so, when they find out their char has been killed by a group which contains characters of the same player. I could go on, but now I feel I'm rambling.
It is occassionally seen as okay to be in the same organization if, as your chars are now, the chars are seperated by location and objective. Or, if it is a temporary, legitimate situation. Yes, these need to be assessed on a case by case basis, and I'll get back to that later.
I must add, though, that it is not just being in the same organization that is frowned upon. It is speaking on/acting on the same philosophies of a group that Jos has stated to us he is against. This only makes sense. One starts a religion, and another character spouting this religion is of the same player? No good. Unfair. Insert government/anarchistic ideology into the above sentence, and it is the same. They could be in two different towns, both spreading the word, or the work.....this is the type of thing we cannot allow.
So, two chars of the same player are only drones, so you wonder what is the matter with that? First, it boosts that org's ranks by two, not one, thus doubling the output. It also stifles those characters.....neither can ever attain a position high enough to be giving orders to the other of their characters. This, in effect, makes the player have to play the characters not true to their character perhaps. In many cases, we have found this is only done for personal gain. As in your case, you have not, thus why I've discussed it as I have above, without going into the obvious intentional breaches that are so often created. (not quite so rare as you seem to think......the number of cases that continually flood the PD would belie that)
On one hand you say your situation should be allowed, then on the other you say the PD should not be allowed to make judgement calls. Which is it? We certainly can't allow all cases to be allowed, as a majority are quite illegitimate. So, you are in essence saying, don't allow it ever, at all. Period. Would you be happy with that? Would you like us to tell you your KF char who has been shipped away must leave TBR altogether, find a whole new life? Think about it.
Our job is not an easy one, by any stretch of the imagination. We strive to be fair and consistent in every case we do. We may not be transparent to the player population, but we sure as heck are within the department, and in front of the Administration of Cantr. We post everything we say or do. Everything. Every active PD member knows every single aspect of every case. We monitor, assist, take over for each other, all the time. Many players who have been contacted more than once have been done so by different PD members.......but they know that players entire case history.
(I may be a little off topic, but I'm trying to explain our internal transperancy, thus our accountability)
We do not make decisions on a whim, depending on our mood, our feelings towards the player, or for any other whimsical reason. We ask other PD members for their opinions, cases are discussed, the more difficult ones quite extensively. PD members do not take control of cases where their chars involvement would create a conflict of interest (unless unavoidable due to staff shortages). Their input is valuable, however, as they often understand the situation better than others.
What makes us qualified? We go through an application process which is taken very serious by Admin. Each application is discussed extensively, with comments required from many before a decision can be made. Requirements for the PD are the highest, and the standards more stringent. Taken into account are a players case history, a thorough understanding of the CR and it's applications, a good level of maturity, level of in game experience, trustworthiness etc.
We do do not have a group-sanctioned mandate, in as far as the PD being the group. We are mandated by the Game Administration Council. We take our job very seriously, and every decision we make is carefully thought out, and not in isolation. Jos reads our cases, and sometimes comments in them. If he has a problem with how something has been handled, he discusses it with us, however this has rarely happened. His comments are more usually along the lines of support of the decision.
Sorry, I don't know enough about the Politburo to comment about your simile. However, I view it as an insult. We are volunteers who do have a vested interest in what we do.........securing and maintaining the integrity of a very complex game, for ourselves and all other players, so that we may all enjoy it to it's fullest, in the fairest manner possible. Not every decision is going to make everyone happy, but thus is the way of life and Cantr.
I'll stop now, though I'd be surprised if anyone actually read all the way to this point. I hope I've been able to answer your questions somewhat satisfactorily. This does not belong on this thread, and if we can keep personal attacks out of this.......I would be willing to start yet another PD discussion thread on the General Discussion forum, if it is the peoples wish to continue this debate.
saztronic wrote:1) Why is the situation I described wrong? In fact, my characters have now been separated for OOC reasons, with one of them shipped off to do something that that char IC would have little or no interest in doing. This seems, for lack of a better word, lame, from a roleplaying standpoint.
1) It is my understanding that one of your KF chars was shipped off for IC reasons, thus negating the need to interfere OOC'ly. If you would like to discuss this further, I suggest doing so by PM.
saztronic wrote:The question remains: If you are a good role player, and I'm not asserting that I myself am, mind you, but if... then why is having two characters in the same place, working for the same organization, automatically forbidden?
I know this will grate heavily on some of you, but there is no hard rule that one may not have two characters in an organization. I would love it if it were so, but it is not, as Jos does not wish this (for reasons I stated previously)
It is highly frowned upon to have more than one in an organization. This can mean business, army, government, band of rebels, etc. Some of these are quite small, and some are very large. Having more than one character of the same player in an organization, especially a small one, but we do not discriminate here, is unfair to the other players, especially of an opposing organization, who do not. Is it the advantage this creates that you don't understand? Your characters are able to be awake at the same time, should there be an attack. You are sure to be able to trust your other character, where if it were that of another player, you wouldn't be so sure. It is an easy way to build numbers in an organization, to make it more productive, more powerful, share information the other char might obtain (though this in itself is another major breach). Players are furious, and rightfully so, when they find out their char has been killed by a group which contains characters of the same player. I could go on, but now I feel I'm rambling.
It is occassionally seen as okay to be in the same organization if, as your chars are now, the chars are seperated by location and objective. Or, if it is a temporary, legitimate situation. Yes, these need to be assessed on a case by case basis, and I'll get back to that later.
I must add, though, that it is not just being in the same organization that is frowned upon. It is speaking on/acting on the same philosophies of a group that Jos has stated to us he is against. This only makes sense. One starts a religion, and another character spouting this religion is of the same player? No good. Unfair. Insert government/anarchistic ideology into the above sentence, and it is the same. They could be in two different towns, both spreading the word, or the work.....this is the type of thing we cannot allow.
So, two chars of the same player are only drones, so you wonder what is the matter with that? First, it boosts that org's ranks by two, not one, thus doubling the output. It also stifles those characters.....neither can ever attain a position high enough to be giving orders to the other of their characters. This, in effect, makes the player have to play the characters not true to their character perhaps. In many cases, we have found this is only done for personal gain. As in your case, you have not, thus why I've discussed it as I have above, without going into the obvious intentional breaches that are so often created. (not quite so rare as you seem to think......the number of cases that continually flood the PD would belie that)
saztronic wrote: 2) What makes the PD qualified to judge these situations? They're not elected, so they're neither representative nor do they have any group-sanctioned mandate. They're not selfless; in fact, more likely than not they are self-interested both generally and, as in this case, specifically. If I am following the discussions correctly, they don't have any principles they are guided by that they are required to apply to every given case. At the risk of hyperbole, the PD sounds more like a Politburo than a group dedicated to protecting and serving the interests of the players. And of course they don't feel that way about it, but then, neither did the Politburo, you know?
On one hand you say your situation should be allowed, then on the other you say the PD should not be allowed to make judgement calls. Which is it? We certainly can't allow all cases to be allowed, as a majority are quite illegitimate. So, you are in essence saying, don't allow it ever, at all. Period. Would you be happy with that? Would you like us to tell you your KF char who has been shipped away must leave TBR altogether, find a whole new life? Think about it.
Our job is not an easy one, by any stretch of the imagination. We strive to be fair and consistent in every case we do. We may not be transparent to the player population, but we sure as heck are within the department, and in front of the Administration of Cantr. We post everything we say or do. Everything. Every active PD member knows every single aspect of every case. We monitor, assist, take over for each other, all the time. Many players who have been contacted more than once have been done so by different PD members.......but they know that players entire case history.
(I may be a little off topic, but I'm trying to explain our internal transperancy, thus our accountability)
We do not make decisions on a whim, depending on our mood, our feelings towards the player, or for any other whimsical reason. We ask other PD members for their opinions, cases are discussed, the more difficult ones quite extensively. PD members do not take control of cases where their chars involvement would create a conflict of interest (unless unavoidable due to staff shortages). Their input is valuable, however, as they often understand the situation better than others.
What makes us qualified? We go through an application process which is taken very serious by Admin. Each application is discussed extensively, with comments required from many before a decision can be made. Requirements for the PD are the highest, and the standards more stringent. Taken into account are a players case history, a thorough understanding of the CR and it's applications, a good level of maturity, level of in game experience, trustworthiness etc.
We do do not have a group-sanctioned mandate, in as far as the PD being the group. We are mandated by the Game Administration Council. We take our job very seriously, and every decision we make is carefully thought out, and not in isolation. Jos reads our cases, and sometimes comments in them. If he has a problem with how something has been handled, he discusses it with us, however this has rarely happened. His comments are more usually along the lines of support of the decision.
Sorry, I don't know enough about the Politburo to comment about your simile. However, I view it as an insult. We are volunteers who do have a vested interest in what we do.........securing and maintaining the integrity of a very complex game, for ourselves and all other players, so that we may all enjoy it to it's fullest, in the fairest manner possible. Not every decision is going to make everyone happy, but thus is the way of life and Cantr.
I'll stop now, though I'd be surprised if anyone actually read all the way to this point. I hope I've been able to answer your questions somewhat satisfactorily. This does not belong on this thread, and if we can keep personal attacks out of this.......I would be willing to start yet another PD discussion thread on the General Discussion forum, if it is the peoples wish to continue this debate.
Return to “Capital Rule Breaches”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest