OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[ULC]

Here we go again

You wish me to point out the legality of this IC? If so, then I will, although I can't see how I can bring it up...

[pevergreen]

IMO, He can move it around, but does not influence get calculated at the start of the session, TC said that it would be calculated off the latest save before this session was called, so I think W&F and AG do not get the +1.

[TinCow]

Influence is calculated at the start of a session, not later. This is the specific reason why oaths cannot be sworn or broken during a Senate session: people need to be able to know what the influence is while debating and voting. If it can change right in the middle of voting, it is too chaotic. The proper influence is the influence that existed at the moment that the emergency session was called. Subsequent changes to influence only go into effect after the session is over.

[Rowan]

You wish me to point out the legality of this IC? If so, then I will, although I can't see how I can bring it up...

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to pick on you, just tried to express my frustration.

FWIW I think both Aleksios' will and Ioannis' grant of Privy Seal were perfectly legal.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Sorry guys, Monday is my bad day. I'll try to get to the influence issue later tonight, but from glancing over it I think I'm in the wrong.

[TinCow]

Thanks for all your hard work GH. I promise after this residual emergency session mess is sorted out that you can ignore all future GM-type stuff.

As a brief heads-up to the everyone, I am still pretty busy in general. I've got a decent amount to catch up on at work due to my vacation and my wife and I are in the process of buying (and moving into) a new house. This means my free time will be reduced below its previous level for the next couple months. I do not really expect this to impact LotR in any way, but I just want to give some notice about it. If I seem to be shirking my duties or otherwise falling behind on necessary work, please do not hesitate to smack me over the head and tell me to get to work.

[GeneralHankerchief]

No problem, TC. Anytime you need me to help out, just ask.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

...please do not hesitate to smack me over the head...

No problem! Always glad to help you with that!

[TinCow]

I have updated the Library a bit to try and take into account the changes while I was gone. Everyone, please take a moment to review the Table of Political Alliances and Houses and your avatar's bio post to make sure they are accurate. Specifically, I am looking for errors in rank, lord/vassals, and provinces. I think I've got the oaths right, but I suspect I've missed a few provinces that have shifted or been conquered while I was gone. Please help me double-check this. Note that influence has not been updated in that table.

[Andres]

Back from holiday, so Savvas is no longer an inactive avatar

[TinCow]

The recent confusion about the OOC/IC CAs got me thinking. I think the current CA/Edict system is obsolete and can be reformed to improve the game. The current system is one of the few things that has remained fully intact since econ21 wrote it for the original WotS game. I think that the LotR game has now evolved to a level where this original system needs a bit of tweaking.

The basic problem is that the current CA/Edict system does not take into account the difference between the OOC rules and IC legislation. I think we need to split these two, specifically keeping IC changes entirely in the IC realm. I like the current IC enforcement system a great deal and I want to rely on it for all IC issues, even if they are violations of CAs. If a CA is by nature IC, I don't see any reason why its enforcement cannot also be dealt with IC. So, I propose a three tiered system for legislation.

Edicts - Require a simple majority of influence to pass. Are in effect only for a single Megas term. Require IC enforcement. Cannot contradict the Game Rules.

Charter Amendments - Require a 2/3 majority of influence to pass. Are in effect permanently or until repealed by another CA. Require IC enforcement. Cannot contradict the Game Rules.

Rule Changes - Require a 2/3 majority of unweighted voting to pass (1 vote per player). TinCow can veto any proposal, but does not vote. Permanently changes the Game Rules. Can be enforced IC or OOC depending on the circumstances.

The idea of this system would be essentially to keep the system as it is, but to elevate changes to the OOC mechanics to a higher level, keeping them separate from all IC issues. On a practical level, I would use my veto on Rule Changes to keep all IC issues confined to the CA level of legislation. This would include things like the two CAs proposed at the recent emergency session. I see no reason at all why these kinds of things cannot be enforced exclusively IC. Rule Changes with potential OOC enforcement issues need to be restricted entirely to fundamental game mechanics, not politically motivated legislation.

Thoughts?

[ULC]

I would very much be in favor of this. It provides the clear distinction that makes it easier to separate IC and OOC, although, I must ask, say we were to propose the "University" now? Which section would it fall under?

[TinCow]

I would allow that as a Rule Change, since it requires console editing of traits which cannot really be controlled via IC enforcement.

I considered how to codify what is IC and what is OOC, but all possible solutions were very messy and prone to errors. The best option is simply to let me make that call on a case-by-case basis, which is easily and simply done with the veto power. I am growing increasingly inclined towards focusing a lot of vague determinations like this on my own judgment calls without further guidelines. We have been in the habit of legislating them in detail because in WotS and KotR the 'mod' (econ21) was also a player and thus had some conflict of interests. Since I am only running the game, not playing it, I see no reason why we can't break away from this trend and just leave the decisions up to me or whoever else I give the responsibility to. Yes, I am prone to error, but I think in the end that simplicity would be better for the game. This is another step towards fully embracing a 'GM' role for the game in the rules themselves. I now realize that omitting a dedicated GM role from the game was the biggest error I made when writing the original rule system. The game requires one, so we might as well use it in every situation where it can simplify the system.

[ULC]

So, to clarify a point, anything that might fall under direct game modding would thus be rules change? For instance, the intended unit balance update could either be passed off as simply a rules change, or could be played IC as military reform. Thus, can players to a degree decide or tip how something is to be interpreted?

[TinCow]

Anything that requires a mod of the game would have to be a rule change. You can't enforce the use of a mod via IC methods. On a practical level, my decision would turn on whether a piece of legislation is motivated IC or OOC. If it is motivated by the player's avatar and is designed to result in political gains/changes within the IC world, I would probably veto it as a rule change, though I can't guarantee that in every case because it all depends on the specific circumstances. If legislation is motivated by a simple desire to improve the game for everyone or fix a flaw, that will generally be fine for a rule change vote even if it has IC implications. I don't really think the difference should be hard to determine, though. Without exception, every player here is highly intelligent and we know perfectly well when something is being done IC or OOC. Besides, there is always a way to get around a veto: convince me to change my mind.

[ULC]

Okay, thank you TC

I was thinking of roleplaying such things IC, but not a on a rule basis. For instance, like the suggestion above, I would role play it as a set of military reforms IC, and keeping it IC, once it passes as a rules change. Of course, that is murky waters, isn't it?

[AussieGiant]

It all sounds particularly practical to me.

We should get that all sorted out as soon as possible.

[Rowan]

Thoughts?

Quite excellent!

[Northnovas]

Back from holiday, so Savvas is no longer an inactive avatar

Good to hear I was waiting. Welcome Back!

[Cecil XIX]

A very good idea. Tincow. I think the two keys to having this game running smoothly are to have as many issues handled IC as possible, and to make sure those issues that are handled OOC have little room for interpretation. This'll definitely help.

[Ramses II CP]

IMHO the dictatorship is the single most efficient small government form ever invented (If you have a good dictator). In other words, Hail TC! The three tier system seems fine to me as well, and really like a quite slight modification as long as we stick to our common sense. I have no problem letting someone simply draw the lines as they see them so long as that person can clearly describe those lines to the rest of us, and Tincow has proven he can do that IMHO.

In fact, I have only one significant problem with this system, and that's the fact that it denies the rest of us the chance to interact with Lothar's intellectual heir.

Vissa's bit on the table seemed accurate, FYI.

[TinCow]

Ok, I'll write up a CA proposal for that legislation to be proposed and voted on at the next senate session. The current rank limitations on proposing Edicts and CAs will remain the same, but I'm going to let anyone propose unimited numbers of Rule Changes. There's no reason to place IC restrictions on those since they won't be IC by nature anyway.

I would also like to change the term from Charter Amendment to Codex Amendment. Charter Amendment simply doesn't make any sense at all. There is no Charter, either IC or OOC, so what in the world are we talking about when we say that? Codex is a latin term for book which is commonly used to describe a set of laws (i.e. Codex Justinianus), so it makes sense for Byzantium. Plus, it has the exact same acronym (CA) as the term we're used to using, so we can just keep calling things CAs without a problem.

It may also be a good idea to codify the role of GM in the actual rules, for the sake of clarity. Something like...

1.7 - Game Master: TinCow will serve as Game Master and is responsible for management of the game and enforcement of the Game Rules. TinCow can delegate any of his powers to another person whenever he chooses.

This doesn't really say anything or change anything, but it at least creates some kind of basis for my position and also makes it legal for me to put someone like GH in charge of the game for short periods when I can't be around. This is mainly just to make me more comfortable, since I've essentially assumed these powers over the course of the game when I've had no real legal basis to do so. We can call this the Dictator For Life legislation.

[Ituralde]

Great stuff!

This should help us overcome the whole IC/OOC insecurity this game has suffered from and pave the way to some relentless IC conflict without having to worry about OOC rule breaking all the time!

[AussieGiant]

Have we worked out the CA voting situation yet?

[TinCow]

I have not personally reviewed the influence, but no one has disagreed with Cecil's calculations of the various influences in this post. Since the various + to stat ancillaries were not distributed until after the emergency session started, their bonuses do not count. The same applies to rank changes as a result of oaths sworn by OK and GH to AG (if there was any influence change as a result of that).

The only suspect situation is Ignoramus' authority count of 3. He claims his traits give him a +4 to authority, but that his avatar only shows +3. This +1 difference is not enough to change the results on CA E3.1, so that one fails regardless. That said, the +1 would have made the difference for CA E3.2. However, M2TW calculates stats in various ways and has hidden traits as well, such as the base bonuses to loyalty and piety which are given via invisible traits. Unless someone can show me that the +3 being shown on Ignoramus' avatar is an actual bug, that stat will be used.

So, in summary, CA E3.1 fails, period. CA E3.2 fails, unless Ignoramus' missing authority is shown to be due to a bug instead of hidden game mechanics.

[AussieGiant]

Great, thanks TC.

We'll get moving now I hope.

[TinCow]

I have (finally) updated the rules with all of the CA 5.1 changes. Due to the extensive editing this required, I have not put my usual (Modified by CA X.X) notation on the changes, as that would have resulted in an absurd number of notations.

I have also included notes on the Megas and Exarch guides indicating that they are currently obsolete due to the 5.1 changes. I will update the guides eventually to take into account the changes, but that might take a week or two.

Also, the first part of the Code of Conduct has been changed from this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Do not violate the LotR Game Rules. Edicts may be freely violated, but Rules may not. If a Rule is violated and another player protests this violation either publicly or by sending a PM to TinCow, a warning will be sent to the player who violated the Rule. A second Rule violation will result in punishment. The level of punishment will be determined by TinCow alone and will be designed to be proportionate to the harm of the rule that has been violated. Unintentional rule violations are still rule violations, though a lack of malice will be taken into account when issuing a punishment.
   
   Punishments can include, but are not limited to:
   • Temporary breaking of oaths and a ban on reswearing.
   • Temporary loss of all rights to a PA/RA.
   • Confiscation of Land.
   • Temporary suspension from LotR.
   • Permanent suspension from LotR.
   
   
   If you are unsure whether an action you want to take will violate a Rule, send a PM to TinCow or make a proper post in the Rule Interpretation thread (coming soon). Ignorance of the Rules is not an excuse, though it will be taken into account when determining a punishment. You will be given as much help as you need to understand how to play the game, but it is still your responsibility to know the Rules and to obey them. When in doubt, follow the spirit of the Rules and use them as they are intended to be used, even if there is a way to exploit the language to do otherwise.

to this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Do not violate the LotR Game Rules. IC legislation may be freely violated (though it may result in IC consequences), but Game Rules may not. If at all possible, Game Rule violations will be handled exclusively IC. If IC handling is not possible, the punishment will be designed to rectify the error rather than to punish the perpetrator, unless the violation was intentional and malicious. Intentional and malicious violations can result in temporary or permanent suspension from the game. In all cases, the action to be taken will be determined by TinCow and will be designed to minimize the disruption to the game and maximize enjoyment.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Again, sorry for not being active either in an OOC (finishing up the Influence mess) or an IC (Making an SoT, initially moving my character) role. At the moment RL has gotten more fun/interesting so as a result I'm spending less time on the .Org. I'll try to push my involvement up back to an acceptable level.

Also, TC, while you were away there was some discussion about removing inactive avatars (BananaBob's name came up the most, IIRC). Is the plan to off them once and for all at the start of the next Senate session?

[_Tristan_]

The names of Neokaisareitis, Sarantinos, Ek Korinthiou, or Eirinikos come to mind when mentioning Inactive avatars...

New ones could always be recruited if these people come back...

Lemon hasn't been on for two months...
Byblos for almost 3
Bananabob last post dates back a month
and Ichigo hasn't make an apparition here for a long time though he's still active on the .Org.

Those avatars are asking to be killed off...

EDIT : Oops !! In my mind, we were at the start of September... Hopefully, TC got it right...

[TinCow]

The relevant avatars are Philippos Eirinikos (Ichigo), Tarasios Sarantinos (Byblos), and Anastasios Neokaisareitis (The Lemongate). I checked with Ichigo and he confirmed he is not returning and can be killed off. Byblos has been gone for 4 months and TLG has been gone for 3.5 months. All three will thus be killed off the next time I actually do something to the save game (which could well be the next Senate session). BananaBob is borderline at the moment. He has been gone for 2 months, but PK previously said that he had been in touch with BB and was going to contact him via email to see what was going on. However, since PK is himself inactive now, this has led nowhere. I will probably give BananaBob one more Megas term to reappear before killing him off, just to be sure.