Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

CL: FMOCR and mystics

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Althea

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 7:08:35 PM9/1/02
to
A discussion of mystics and the recent FMOCR are happening on the Winds
of Dawn Forum. (why its not happening on this ng, I'm not sure... Koric
chose to open the topic there, rather than on this ng) The discussion
is here:


http://www.windsofdawn.org/forum/forumdisplay.html?s=&forumid=2

Xel has a decent account of the events for some background on the raid.

http://xel.puddleby.info/report.html


Basically, Hidden bought the mystic Manticore (or so its reported) and
sought to obtain an orga stone. Neige sued him right before the magician
showed up. Manticore chose not to attend his trial. He was convicted in
absentia and prevented from getting the stone.

This was a good thing, because Manticore is really no longer a mystic.

Mystic character transfers that created this problem, should not be
allowed. Mystic character transfers should be treated differently from
other class characters transfers because the mystic class is different
from the other main classes. Mystic tests and promotions have nothing
to do with ranks. In fact, mystics get to earn their ranks after passing
their tests.

Becoming a mystic requires more of the clicker than the other classes,
in part because of the system of peer control built into the Mystic
Guild. Becoming a mystic requires enculturation in a political system.
There's a series of relationships that are created in the process of
becoming a full mystic, unlike healers or fighters. No other class has
that requirement --its one of the things that sets the mystic class
apart -- peer control. The closest analogy is the bard system. Becoming
a full mystic requires of the clicker that they follow the guidance and
dictates of the mystic council.

All of this adds up to making a full mystic character very different
than a high level fighter or healer. They are far more than simply the
sum of their skills. Hence, transferring a mystic character is quite
different from transferring a healer or a fighter.

The fact that Manticore is enjoying FM status and skills seems contrary
to design intent (based on writings in this NG on what the design intent
is) Hence, I'd say its a bug.

Those who castigate Neige for disrupting an FMOCR should instead be
applauding him for preventing a bug from being further exploited.

I hope DT will fix this bug soon.

Shamhat de Leon

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 8:29:14 PM9/1/02
to
In article <althea-199374....@cnews.newsguy.com>,
Althea <alt...@clanname.com> wrote:

> Mystic character transfers that created this problem, should not be
> allowed.

That's a reasonable and defensible position, but I'm not sure that it
would be possible for DT to implement. There is no /webcam command, even
for the GMs, and it is impossible for DT to know whether the person
playing a given character at a given time is the person who originally
created the character or was clicking for that character at the time of
his promotion.

There are numerous characters who are played by more than one person,
for a variety of reasons. There are also rumors about characters being
clicked by more than one person. I remember being presented with a
portfolio of "evidence" that Axell was being played by more than one
person--"She was mad at me in the morning and in the afternoon it was as
if she had completely forgotten the incident!."

As for the issue of transferring characters between accounts: apparently
people want to do this, for various reasons, and that's why it's
available. I'm considering transferring one of my characters to my
husband's account so that my kids can play 2 of my characters at the
same time. If that character is a mystic, how would Joe be capable of
ascertaining my motives? Or, indeed, would it be a violation for my
children to play my mystic character at all?

About selling accounts: the only way that Joe would know an account had
been sold or given away would be the change in billing information. How
many of us have moved, gotten married, or gone off to college and
changed our billing information accordingly since we started playing? I
just don't see joe asking for copies of marriage licenses before he
accepts a credit card with a new name. Furthermore, with the Paypal
payment option, DT sees nothing but an email address. How could they
distinguish a sale from a new ISP?

-Shamhat

Phelps

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 9:22:19 PM9/1/02
to

> Basically, Hidden bought the mystic Manticore (or so its reported) and
> sought to obtain an orga stone. Neige sued him right before the magician
> showed up. Manticore chose not to attend his trial. He was convicted in
> absentia and prevented from getting the stone.
>
> This was a good thing, because Manticore is really no longer a mystic.

Manticore is so a mystic. You have a problem with the clicker for
Manticore, and you (collectively) allowed an OOC dispute to interfere
with an IC endevour -- and that SDB.

Also, as one of the main bitchers about the ICQ list fiasco, I find
it very hypocritical that you chose to "out" Manticore on this list,
thus showing that you personally SDB.

> Those who castigate Neige for disrupting an FMOCR should instead be
> applauding him for preventing a bug from being further exploited.

If it is a bug, /bug it. No one appointed you or him town vigilante.


HWC for Phelps
obPhelpses of the World
obBalanceTaxSDB

--
"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually
idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of
us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.
He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to
despair." -- H.L. Mencken

Koric

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 9:46:36 PM9/1/02
to

> A discussion of mystics and the recent FMOCR are happening on the Winds
> of Dawn Forum. (why its not happening on this ng, I'm not sure... Koric
> chose to open the topic there, rather than on this ng) The discussion
> is here:
>
> http://www.windsofdawn.org/forum/forumdisplay.html?s=&forumid=2

I opened it in that forum because I have found that, historically for
whatever reason, the quality of discussion in that forum is far, far
higher than in this newsgroup. So far, I'd say I chose well. You're
welcome! :)

> Those who castigate Neige for disrupting an FMOCR should instead be
> applauding him for preventing a bug from being further exploited.

He prevented one "bug" (transferrable mystics) by exploiting another
"bug" (easy to sabotage a delicate and timed plan with a court case).
Two wrongs don't make a right. There are other, better ways to do
what Neige wanted. Unfortunately, the needed debate is happening now
rather than a week (or a year) ago. But at least it is happening,
and I hope DT pays attention to the consensus.

--
Doug Ingram (Koric/Siri) --
Check out Koric's Journal at http://dingram.phys.tcu.edu/koric.html

Kiriel D'Sol

unread,
Sep 1, 2002, 10:07:51 PM9/1/02
to
In article <shamhatNP-3E78A...@nntp.mindspring.com>,

Shamhat de Leon <sham...@SPAMvagilemind.com> wrote:

> In article <althea-199374....@cnews.newsguy.com>,
> Althea <alt...@clanname.com> wrote:
>
> > Mystic character transfers that created this problem, should not be
> > allowed.
>
> That's a reasonable and defensible position, but I'm not sure that it
> would be possible for DT to implement. There is no /webcam command, even
> for the GMs, and it is impossible for DT to know whether the person
> playing a given character at a given time is the person who originally
> created the character or was clicking for that character at the time of
> his promotion.

In my opinion, the problem this stems from is that there is no way for
the mystic council to demote a full mystic currently. Personally I would
like to see character transfers happen in a mostly IC way, and let the
person who takes over the character set the trend for whether that
character acts like they used to or doesn't. But I respect that the
mystic council doesn't feel comfortable with the transfer of mystics,
and it would be useful if they had an IC way of dealing with the problem
that didn't involve taking advantage of flaws in the court system and
general harrassment. I'm of the opinion that the treatment of
transferred characters should be dealt with on an individual basis
instead of the blanket "they're transferred so they must be unqualified"
approach the mystic council seems to take, but give them the power to
make those judgements themselves and perhaps we'll see a more reasonable
response to the situation. Maybe if the mystics didn't feel forced into
a corner they might actually repromote the full mystic one day after
having the opportunity to demote them. Personally I think it's rather
sad to waste a character with a huge amount of skill just because the
PWC no lo longer is around, if someone wants to turn them around and
make them a productive member of society. I suspect if Manticore was
actually treated as a mystic by the guild he would be a very good one,
but they've forced him into his position as clearly as DT has forced
them.

If DT is uncomfortable with giving the mystic guild complete power to
demote, perhaps there could be a system for mystics to lodge a grievance
that might result in demotion if enough mystics supported the grievance
and it seemed a reasonable one. Although I personally support
Manticore's right to continued existence as a mystic, I think that the
mystic council should have the opportunity to deal with this in their
own way, without resorting to the kind of slimy tactics we saw yesterday.

Jo posted on the WoD forum that the reason there have been no full
mystic promotions in over a year is because of the concern over pocket
mystics and the inability to demote them. If this is the case, then this
is truly a sad turn of events because the lack of full mystics in
Puddleby is a big problem. I don't think it's really fair to blame the
problem on Manticore- the current system doesn't deal with the situation
properly and if full mystic promotions are completely halted then it
makes sense to try to make full use of existing full mystics (and
Manticore has more training in the teleport stone than any other
mystic). Preventing promotions just makes the problem worse. I'm
assuming this has already been brought to the attention of DT, but if
the mystic council is really serious about this, start pushing harder
and more publicly about it. This is a case where your guild's policy of
secrecy is really hurting you.

-SWC Kiriel D'Sol

-- Ye have enemies? Good, good- that means ye've stood up for
something, sometime in thy life.... -Elminster of Shadowdale

Nath_J

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 12:35:58 AM9/2/02
to
Shamhat de Leon <sham...@SPAMvagilemind.com> wrote:

> In article <althea-199374....@cnews.newsguy.com>,
> Althea <alt...@clanname.com> wrote:
>
> > Mystic character transfers that created this problem, should not be
> > allowed.
>

> There are numerous characters who are played by more than one person,


> for a variety of reasons. There are also rumors about characters being
> clicked by more than one person. I remember being presented with a
> portfolio of "evidence" that Axell was being played by more than one
> person--"She was mad at me in the morning and in the afternoon it was as
> if she had completely forgotten the incident!."

Actually, Axell is played by only one person.


--
Axell

mike...@mac.com

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 2:32:30 AM9/2/02
to
Althea <alt...@clanname.com> wrote:

Bug my ass. If we can transfer bards around I dont see why we cant do
it with mystics. Neige is an asshole for doing what he did, and fucked
up a lot of peoples hard work. Just because becomming a mystic is
different doesnt mean that it needs special protection. You dont think
it bugs me to see someone inherit a 5th circle fighter? I worked damn
hard to get where I am too. Just because its RWing instead of
asskissing does not make it any less important. And you dont get to 5th
circle without having relationships, who would you hunt with?

This kind of thing is impossible to police anyway. You know (or think
you do) that Manticore is a new person, but what about the mystics that
get traded that you dont know about? Its not a hard thing to keep
secrect if you want to.

Michael

Kojiro

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 3:29:37 AM9/2/02
to
Given that a large percentage of the full mystics don't even play
anymore, who really gives a damn if Manticore is a mystic or not?

-Kojiro

Noah

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 5:03:48 AM9/2/02
to
Althea <alt...@clanname.com> wrote in message news:<althea-199374....@cnews.newsguy.com>...

>
> Basically, Hidden bought the mystic Manticore (or so its reported)

Just to clarify: I gave Manticore to Hidden before I canceled my
account with the intention of keeping Manticore alive. I didn't want
an exile with a Training Ledger in teleportation to go to waste.
There was no money involved except for the fee of moving Manticore and
the fee of creating a new character of space. For the record, I know
and trust PWC for Hidden in real life.

-Noah, PWC for Manticore for the past 2 years, now ex-clanner

Shamhat de Leon

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 8:08:37 AM9/2/02
to
In article <1fhve9q.149p47s1islxn8N%natha...@skynet.be>,
natha...@skynet.be (Nath_J) wrote:

> I remember being presented with a
> > portfolio of "evidence" that Axell was being played by more than one
> > person--"She was mad at me in the morning and in the afternoon it was as
> > if she had completely forgotten the incident!."
>
> Actually, Axell is played by only one person.
>
>
> --
> Axell

Who obviously has a more forgiving nature than the person who reported
the "evidence!"

-Shamhat

Shamhat de Leon

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 9:16:41 AM9/2/02
to
In article <shamhatNP-7495B...@nntp.mindspring.com>,

Shamhat de Leon <sham...@SPAMvagilemind.com> wrote:

> > I remember being presented with a
> > > portfolio of "evidence" that Axell was being played by more than one
> > > person--"She was mad at me in the morning and in the afternoon it was as
> > > if she had completely forgotten the incident!."
> >
> > Actually, Axell is played by only one person.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Axell
>
> Who obviously has a more forgiving nature than the person who reported
> the "evidence!"
>
> -Shamhat

Sorry to follow up to myself, but my point is that it's very easy to
start a rumor that a character has been sold or shared, and impossible
to prove or disprove it.

-Shamhat

Tigger

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 11:17:34 AM9/2/02
to

I think that was her point...that the person's claimed evidence was silly
and could easily be explained any number of other ways...so there's no
real way of knowing for sure if clickers are switched or not?

- Tigger

Nath_J

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 12:05:35 PM9/2/02
to
Tigger <spam...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I think that was her point...that the person's claimed evidence was silly
> and could easily be explained any number of other ways...so there's no
> real way of knowing for sure if clickers are switched or not?

Yes, exactly...
Just dont play for or with rumors ;-)

--
Axell

Althea

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 1:06:23 PM9/2/02
to
In article <5d266125.02090...@posting.google.com>,
no...@olteco.com (Noah) wrote:


> There was no money involved except for the fee of moving Manticore and
> the fee of creating a new character of space.

thanks for the correction.

Althea

Dandelion

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 1:47:56 PM9/2/02
to
I've made a couple of dozen starts to this and thrown them all out.

I had quotes and full colour sketches with circles and arrows and a
paragraph on the back of each one ...

This is something I feel very strongly about and have for a long time.
There's just too much to say! So, instead of all of the in-spite-ofs
and whiles, I think I'll just say that I support Neige in this and
would be happy to discuss it face to face in town.

Dande

--

Solipsism is pointless. - Kojiro
Yes, but it's only pointless to me. - Michael - HWC for Monolith

Warren J. Dew

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 3:21:27 PM9/2/02
to
Doug Ingram posts, in part:

He prevented one "bug" (transferrable mystics) by exploiting
another "bug" (easy to sabotage a delicate and timed plan
with a court case). Two wrongs don't make a right.

Agree with that last sentence.

Unfortunately, the needed debate is happening now
rather than a week (or a year) ago.

Actually, both have been discussed fairly extensively within the past year.

In the mystic transfer case, DT has not done anything, and I believe that
indicates they believe the system works now. For what it's worth, I agree with
them. The mystic council - which by the way is distinct from the set of all
full mystics - may think they control mystic magic, but the reality is the
other way around.

The lawsuit problem was to some degree mitigated by the ability to refuse to
show up for a court case. I'm not sure what happens if you are convicted in
absentia - do you magically get thrown in jail, or do you only go to jail if a
guard catches you? If the former, perhaps a further fix to change it to the
latter would be appropriate. If the latter, it seems to me Hidden and
Manticore could have ignored the whole thing, hiding out outside of town until
they got their stone.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

Warren J. Dew

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 3:36:00 PM9/2/02
to
Kiriel D'Sol posts, in part:

I suspect if Manticore was actually treated as a mystic by
the guild he would be a very good one, but they've forced
him into his position as clearly as DT has forced them.

You see two problems, but there's another way of looking at things. As I see
it, there isn't even one problem.

The way mystic magic works, mystics can promote other mystics, but cannot
demote them. That's just the way the world works. The fact that the subset of
full mystics that participate in the council are unhappy with the current
situation is no more indicative of a bug than the fact that Michael is unhappy
with vermine swarms.

As for personality changes, perhaps if Manticore hadn't gotten so fed up with
council politics, he wouldn't have felt a need to visit Lethe and change
personalities.

Jo posted on the WoD forum that the reason there have been
no full mystic promotions in over a year is because of the
concern over pocket mystics and the inability to demote them.

If this is the case ...

If he is talking about years of player time, it is not the case. There have
been at least two promotions to full mystic in the last player year. One
promotion, for which I was online, was of a mystic I had never heard of before,
and have not heard of since. The other is of a mystic that was quite well
known and active. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been several others
that I wasn't aware of.

If he's talking about years of Puddleby time, I guess I don't find it too
appalling if an occasional Puddleby year goes by without a new full mystic.

Kiriel D'Sol

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 4:01:21 PM9/2/02
to
In article <20020902152127...@mb-md.aol.com>,

psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> The lawsuit problem was to some degree mitigated by the ability to refuse to
> show up for a court case. I'm not sure what happens if you are convicted in
> absentia - do you magically get thrown in jail, or do you only go to jail if
> a
> guard catches you? If the former, perhaps a further fix to change it to the
> latter would be appropriate. If the latter, it seems to me Hidden and
> Manticore could have ignored the whole thing, hiding out outside of town
> until
> they got their stone.

Manticore refused to show up for the case because at the time he had to
stay to get the stone. Because he wasn't there to defend himself, and
because his potential supporters had to avoid jury duty to continue
their work in helping with the stone, he didn't get a real chance at a
fair trial. As it turns out when you get convicted you do get
immediately ported to jail, so when he got ported, the FMOCR failed
because there was no other mystic present to get the stone.

I don't know if the verdict would have been different had he been there
to defend himself and had a more balanced jury, but the timing of the
courtcase had the effect of denying him a proper chance at a fair trial
in addition to making it so the FMOCR had no chance to succeed.

Simsu

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 4:52:48 PM9/2/02
to
Not giving my opinion one way or another I'd like to point out a few
things..

1) Grouping all mystics into trhe 'evil bastards' catagory is highly
unfair to those who did not participate or condone any actions that are
wrothy of that title.

2) Anything said by non council members (and I'm not going to say who
the council is) describing how the council feels or how it looks upon
someone or something should be looked upon from very far away trying not
to get the stench of the crap their slinging around on you. After all,
unless it comes from the horse's mouth it's probably shit anyway.


pwc salandra

Hidden

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 6:38:04 PM9/2/02
to
In article <20020902152127...@mb-md.aol.com>,
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:

> I'm not sure what happens if you are convicted in
> absentia - do you magically get thrown in jail

That's exactly what happened. On the other hand, it makes about as much
sense as the jury being magically thrown into their box or the same with
the defendant, so that argument doesn't hold too much water.

--
His Holiness,
sir Hidden T. Thoom
Knight of the South Farms Empire
and High Priest to Mak'ros

Jeanne

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 8:32:08 PM9/2/02
to
In article <3D73D11F...@attbi.com>, Simsu <si...@attbi.com> wrote:

> 2) Anything said by non council members (and I'm not going to say who
> the council is) describing how the council feels or how it looks upon
> someone or something should be looked upon from very far away trying not
> to get the stench of the crap their slinging around on you. After all,
> unless it comes from the horse's mouth it's probably shit anyway.

If we don't know who the Mystic Council is then how can we determine who
is, to use your analogy, speaking from the horse's mouth or the horse's
rear?

--
Jeanne's Legacy <http://moonwarrior.livejournal.com>
Warrior Monk of the PKM <http://pkm.puddleby.info>
Catenae member & webmaster <http://catenae.puddleby.info>
ThoomCare(TM) reporter & chainer <http://www.thoomcare.com>

Helpful GM

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 9:25:43 PM9/2/02
to

> Mystic character transfers that created this problem, should not be
> allowed.

[snip, a whole lot of opinion, a lot of it flame-bait, but
that's ok, she meant well]

> I hope DT will fix this bug soon.

"Thank you for your input." <G>

Or, if you prefer,

"You are mistaken (x2)"

Helpful "custom customer-service paths, while you wait" GM

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
I never purchase anything from unsolicited commercial e-mail. Ever.
I do not speak for anyone and typically don't like if they try to speak for me.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

Helpful GM

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 9:28:19 PM9/2/02
to
In article <kirielspam-87821F.13012102092002@localhost>,

Kiriel D'Sol <kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:

> Manticore refused to show up for the case because at the time he had to
> stay to get the stone. Because he wasn't there to defend himself, and
> because his potential supporters had to avoid jury duty to continue
> their work in helping with the stone, he didn't get a real chance at a
> fair trial.

To clarify, the whole lot of them had a chance at a fair trial, and
chose to waive that chance in favour of something they deemed more
valuable.

No one denied anyone a "chance at a fair trial" (as fair as any trial in
Pby is, YMMV, etc.) People make choices, and live with the consequences.

Windy Dorf

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 10:48:07 PM9/2/02
to

Helpful GM wrote:

> In article <kirielspam-87821F.13012102092002@localhost>,
> Kiriel D'Sol <kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:
>
> > Manticore refused to show up for the case because at the time he had to
> > stay to get the stone. Because he wasn't there to defend himself, and
> > because his potential supporters had to avoid jury duty to continue
> > their work in helping with the stone, he didn't get a real chance at a
> > fair trial.
>
> To clarify, the whole lot of them had a chance at a fair trial, and
> chose to waive that chance in favour of something they deemed more
> valuable.
>
> No one denied anyone a "chance at a fair trial" (as fair as any trial in
> Pby is, YMMV, etc.) People make choices, and live with the consequences.

OK...
Yer right. They all had the chance at a fair trial.
They also had the chance that to attend that fair trial, they would have put the
OC4 party in jeapardy in the event that key people would have been removed to the
coutroom, leaving the group in a bad way. Yes, they saw remaining as a cohesive
group as more valuable than the "fair trial"
This was not a huge group raiding OC4. One or two less would (imho) have been
disastrous.
People were denied the right to complete a hunt as a group.

-WD

Maeght

unread,
Sep 2, 2002, 11:33:11 PM9/2/02
to
In article <HelpfulGM-464E3...@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:

> To clarify, the whole lot of them had a chance at a fair trial, and
> chose to waive that chance in favour of something they deemed more
> valuable.
>
> No one denied anyone a "chance at a fair trial" (as fair as any trial in
> Pby is, YMMV, etc.) People make choices, and live with the consequences.

Well, you've heard it from on high folks, this was a fair and sanctioned
method.

The fact that many if not most of us don't think it was doesn't really
enter into it.

Hurrah for justice.

- Maeght

Kiriel D'Sol

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 12:25:07 AM9/3/02
to
In article <HelpfulGM-464E3...@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:

> In article <kirielspam-87821F.13012102092002@localhost>,
> Kiriel D'Sol <kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:
>
> > Manticore refused to show up for the case because at the time he had to
> > stay to get the stone. Because he wasn't there to defend himself, and
> > because his potential supporters had to avoid jury duty to continue
> > their work in helping with the stone, he didn't get a real chance at a
> > fair trial.
>
> To clarify, the whole lot of them had a chance at a fair trial, and
> chose to waive that chance in favour of something they deemed more
> valuable.
>
> No one denied anyone a "chance at a fair trial" (as fair as any trial in
> Pby is, YMMV, etc.) People make choices, and live with the consequences.

Personally I wouldn't qualify that as fair. In order to participate in
his trial he would have basically been giving up the very thing the
trial was designed to prevent him from achiving. He could have chosen to
defend himself and put the work of everyone else in the toilet, thereby
giving the person who brought the suit exactly what he was working for,
and he could have asked the folks present to not avoid jury duty thus
putting the rest of the group in danger. But given the trial was
entirely a harassment suit and the end result of the trial had no
significance if he left to defend himself, Manticore did the only
reasonable thing he could have done. If the court gave him the
opportunity to be returned to where he was after defending himself, then
that might have been more fair, but I understand why that option isn't
there, just as I understand why there's no option to reschedule court
for a more reasonable time.

Still, the basic design of the court gives a lot of advantage to the
person bringing the suit- they get to choose the time, they can warn
folks ahead of time to prepare for jury duty, and they can have their
witnesses prepared ahead of time, which does put the accused at a
significant disadvantage, especially is they're doing something time
critical. I would suggest looking into the possibility of putting some
small advantage on the accused's side or at least trying to negate some
of the benefits the accuser gets to make things more balanced.

Kojiro

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 2:26:57 AM9/3/02
to
It sounds like the problem is the fact that court can be used to
teleport people, even if they opt not to show up. Perhaps that should
be changed.

-Kojiro

Lex

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 2:51:24 AM9/3/02
to
> I would suggest looking into the possibility of putting some
> small advantage on the accused's side or at least trying to negate some
> of the benefits the accuser gets to make things more balanced.
>
> -SWC Kiriel D'Sol

How about requiring 2/3 vote to convict? Is it 50% required now?

Lex

Warren J. Dew

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 3:38:50 AM9/3/02
to
Hidden posts, in part:

[Magically getting thrown in jail upon being convicted in
absentia is] exactly what happened. On the other hand, it

makes about as much sense as the jury being magically
thrown into their box or the same with the defendant, so
that argument doesn't hold too much water.

Maybe it's subtle, but to me there's a difference.

To me, the teleportation is an abstraction of the whole process of having the
court schedule the most inconvenient possible time (very realistic in my
experience), and the jurors and willing defendant showing up anyway. Sure, you
could make people play out the actual scheduling and walking to the courtyard
and such, but it's a game - why not cut to the fun part, the actual court
scene?

The case is a little different for unwilling defendants and convicts in
absentia. If this is an abstraction, it abstracts more than a willing stroll
to the courthouse - it also abstracts constables tracking down and capturing
the person in question. The present situation of having the capture be
abstracted for a convict in absentia, and not for an accused, seems
inconsistent to me.

From a roleplaying perspective, I think it would be much more fun to allow
convicts outside the courthouse to roam around until they are captured by a
gate guard or constable. The code already exists for constables capturing
people who are banished and throwing them in jail; I wouldn't think it too
difficult to modify this coe appropriately.

Robin Greyhawk

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 9:18:31 AM9/3/02
to
Koric <d.in...@tcu.edu> wrote in message news:<d.ingram-678D50...@news.charter.net>...

> In article <althea-199374....@cnews.newsguy.com>, Althea
> <alt...@clanname.com> wrote:
>
> > A discussion of mystics and the recent FMOCR are happening on the Winds
> > of Dawn Forum. (why its not happening on this ng, I'm not sure... Koric
> > chose to open the topic there, rather than on this ng) The discussion
> > is here:
> >
> > http://www.windsofdawn.org/forum/forumdisplay.html?s=&forumid=2
>
> I opened it in that forum because I have found that, historically for
> whatever reason, the quality of discussion in that forum is far, far
> higher than in this newsgroup. So far, I'd say I chose well. You're
> welcome! :)

And so neutral too! Yes, it's only lightly moderated and anyone can
post their opinion, but WOD has many of Manticore's main supporters in
this. I'm reluctant to post there because I can't consider it a
neutral site.

>
> > Those who castigate Neige for disrupting an FMOCR should instead be
> > applauding him for preventing a bug from being further exploited.
>

> He prevented one "bug" (transferrable mystics) by exploiting another
> "bug" (easy to sabotage a delicate and timed plan with a court case).

I do consider Manticore being transferred as a Mystic a bug and a big
one. But I admit it is also a difficult one to fix. I object to having
to try to clean up DT's mess in an IC way. For a long time Manticore
was fairly inactive, the problem was minor and there was little
incentive to tackle a difficult problem. Now that the problem is much
larger, I hope it recieves appropiate attention.

> Two wrongs don't make a right. There are other, better ways to do
> what Neige wanted. Unfortunately, the needed debate is happening now
> rather than a week (or a year) ago. But at least it is happening,
> and I hope DT pays attention to the consensus.

Neige acted rashly but did not exploit a bug. Manticore was able to
choose to attend or not. People were able to choose to be on the jury
or not. Had he been exploiting a bug, he likely would have been found
frivolous, even without people from OC on the jury.

Consider the penalty Manticore got. Ninety minutes and 5 days
banishment. The jury had to be almost unanimous in giving the maximum
to get this kind of penalty. Even if some had come from OC to be on
the jury, it's likely that Manticore still would have been found
guilty and Neige certainly wouldn't have been found frivolous.

Of course HGM will tell you there are no bugs, it's all IC.

Robert

Helpful GM

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 10:34:44 AM9/3/02
to

Benefits for the defendant:

* Gets to decide to show up or not.

* Gets to speak last, allowing rebuttal of all points made by accuser
and a chance for closing comments that the accuser will not get to
rebutt.

* Requires > 50% to convict. That is, with a jury of 6, it takes 4,
with a jury of 9, it takes 5, etc.

Lex

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:09:29 AM9/3/02
to
> * Gets to speak last, allowing rebuttal of all points made by accuser
> and a chance for closing comments that the accuser will not get to
> rebutt.

ah, good point.

> * Requires > 50% to convict. That is, with a jury of 6, it takes 4,
> with a jury of 9, it takes 5, etc.

thanks for the info

Lex

Yor

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:34:41 AM9/3/02
to
In article <62eb5668.02090...@posting.google.com>, Kojiro
<its...@garhole.com> wrote:

If the defendant refuses to show up and is found guilty how about not
imposing the punishment on him/her until the next time they are within
the town limits, sort of like the banishing? This way, people couldn't
be suddenly jerked out of whatever they are doing yet they do have to
come back to town at some point.

I will admit that this might only serve to not drive the point home
as good as it could have though in any given dispute.

Yor

Koric

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:39:30 AM9/3/02
to
In article <a361aebf.02090...@posting.google.com>,
robn...@aol.com (Robin Greyhawk) wrote:

> > > http://www.windsofdawn.org/forum/forumdisplay.html?s=&forumid=2
> >
> > I opened it in that forum because I have found that, historically for
> > whatever reason, the quality of discussion in that forum is far, far
> > higher than in this newsgroup. So far, I'd say I chose well. You're
> > welcome! :)
>
> And so neutral too! Yes, it's only lightly moderated and anyone can
> post their opinion, but WOD has many of Manticore's main supporters in
> this. I'm reluctant to post there because I can't consider it a
> neutral site.

I opened it there because it is a good site for discussion, one used by
many who have "given up" on the newsgroup. It is also universally
accessible, unlike the newsgroup (not all articles propagate, and the
client software is a big hurdle for some who have never participated,
unlike the WoD site, which is browser based). I also find the
signal-to-noise there higher and the discussions a little friendlier,
for whatever reason. But maybe that's just me.

I am glad that Althea provided a pointer to it in the newsgroup, just
so that DT can follow the discussion. Not that it will do any good
for them to follow the discussion, if HGM's comments are any
indication, but it's a nice and useful gesture.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you can consider a discussion forum that is
accessible to everyone "biased". It looks to me like all sides of
the debate have had a chance (and done a good job) at expressing their
views. The newsgroup is similarly unbiased, because its lack of
accessibility (a minimal issue) has nothing to do with whether one
is for/against Neige from what I can tell.

--
Doug Ingram (Koric/Siri) --
Check out Koric's Journal at http://dingram.phys.tcu.edu/koric.html

Kiriel D'Sol

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 2:05:42 PM9/3/02
to
In article <a361aebf.02090...@posting.google.com>,
robn...@aol.com (Robin Greyhawk) wrote:
> And so neutral too! Yes, it's only lightly moderated and anyone can
> post their opinion, but WOD has many of Manticore's main supporters in
> this. I'm reluctant to post there because I can't consider it a
> neutral site.

Just to clarify, there is pretty much no moderation on the WoD forum. I
suppose if someone posted something incredibly blatantly inappropriate I
might think about removing the post, but I've never done that before.
Currently the only moderation I do is remove posts discussing candidates
for membership in the private section before they are inducted into the
clan, and that's so clan members don't feel uncomfortable speaking
freely about applicants.

Yes, there are many folks on the forum who support Manticore, but there
are also folks who don't and it's open to the public so anyone can post
there (and no registration is required although it's useful to be able
to be able to be notified by email when responses to a thread are
posted). Robin- if you think I'd try in any way to prevent a free and
honest discussion there, you don't know me very well.

John Holley

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 4:56:34 PM9/3/02
to
In article <a361aebf.02090...@posting.google.com>, Robin
Greyhawk <robn...@aol.com> wrote:

> I do consider Manticore being transferred as a Mystic a bug and a big
> one. But I admit it is also a difficult one to fix. I object to having
> to try to clean up DT's mess in an IC way. For a long time Manticore
> was fairly inactive, the problem was minor and there was little
> incentive to tackle a difficult problem. Now that the problem is much
> larger, I hope it recieves appropiate attention.

So just to clarify. It is the PWC, not the character that really is the
mystic?

So a person who was a full mystic who leaves the game then comes back
with a new character is automatically a full mystic? Yeah, right.

From a true RP aspect I would say that unless you can show good cause
as to why someone should have their mystic status revoked, due to in
game issues then you are all being hypocrits by attacking the PWC.

What right do you have to use in game mechanisms to handle out of game
transactions?

Are mystic IC or IC/OOC?

John

RobnSunny

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 6:38:51 PM9/3/02
to
>Robin- if you think I'd try in any way to prevent a free and
>honest discussion there, you don't know me very well.
>

I didn't mean to imply that you would. However, I am not comfortable using the
site for this purpose. Suppose this had been started on a Dark Horse site
(we're not nearly that organized) instead. Would you have participated as
easily there? Maybe you would and this is just one of my quirks.

I posted once and I'll probably read it in a few days, but it's unlikely I'll
post anything further there.

Robin


Hidden

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 6:52:01 PM9/3/02
to
In article <a361aebf.02090...@posting.google.com>,
robn...@aol.com (Robin Greyhawk) wrote:

> > > http://www.windsofdawn.org/forum/forumdisplay.html?s=&forumid=2
> >
> > I opened it in that forum because I have found that, historically for
> > whatever reason, the quality of discussion in that forum is far, far
> > higher than in this newsgroup. So far, I'd say I chose well. You're
> > welcome! :)
>
> And so neutral too! Yes, it's only lightly moderated and anyone can
> post their opinion, but WOD has many of Manticore's main supporters in
> this. I'm reluctant to post there because I can't consider it a
> neutral site.

If you consider this newsgroup any more neutral and free than WoD.org
then you've got some serious crack-smoking problems. Right now it looks
like the split on WoD.org is pretty well 50/50, but I've already given
up, so I'm not paying particular attention to the resulting discussion.

If you can't handle a civilized discussion that you don't automatically
win by virtue of being a moderator and having everyone else's balls in a
vice-grip (as you may be used to on the Mystic discussion lists), then
WoD.org is probably not the place for you.

--
HWC for Hidden <hid...@noDASHop.com>
"America Online -- So easy to use, no wonder
the internet is full of morons."

Kiriel D'Sol

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 8:46:57 PM9/3/02
to
In article <20020903183851...@mb-fa.aol.com>,
robn...@aol.com (RobnSunny) wrote:

> >Robin- if you think I'd try in any way to prevent a free and
> >honest discussion there, you don't know me very well.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that you would. However, I am not comfortable using the
> site for this purpose. Suppose this had been started on a Dark Horse site
> (we're not nearly that organized) instead. Would you have participated as
> easily there? Maybe you would and this is just one of my quirks.

Personally I have nothing against discussing things in clan forums. I'm
a regular over at the Tan forum and if other clan forums have
interesting discussions that are open to the public, point me to them!
I'm kind of a news junkie so I'll go anywhere.

The WoD forum has always been a welcoming place for non-members and we
often have detailed discussions about things totally non-clan related,
That's probably why Koric thought it'd be a good spot for discussion
given that many folks are loathe to travel in the newsgroup where a
significantly thicker skin is required with all the daggers being thrown
around. I find that in general people tend to be more polite and
respectful of people's opinions on the forum than on the newsgroup
although I'm perfectly willing to post in either location.

Kojiro

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:20:28 PM9/3/02
to
Attn: everyone following this thread-

Consider the fact that the 3rd ever person to make full mystic was NOAH.

I think you will agree that this is the root of the entire problem.

-Kojiro

Koric

unread,
Sep 3, 2002, 11:36:39 PM9/3/02
to
In article <kirielspam-2F4202.17465703092002@localhost>, Kiriel D'Sol
<kirie...@windsofdawn.org> wrote:

> In article <20020903183851...@mb-fa.aol.com>,
> robn...@aol.com (RobnSunny) wrote:
>
> > Suppose this had been started on a Dark Horse site
> > (we're not nearly that organized) instead. Would you have participated
> > as easily there? Maybe you would and this is just one of my quirks.

Err, yes, that's one of your quirks. If the forum is freely accessible
and not moderated in a biased way (or not moderated at all), then I
don't see the problem. It helps if the forum is well-known, easy to
use, etc.

> That's probably why Koric thought it'd be a good spot for discussion

What's funny here is that you all are talking as though I have control
over where the discussion takes place. What's less funny (to put it
politely) is the notion that I would somehow try to "stack the deck"
to avoid a fair debate.

Para

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 1:30:09 AM9/4/02
to
Koric wrote:

> What's funny here is that you all are talking as though I have control
> over where the discussion takes place. What's less funny (to put it
> politely) is the notion that I would somehow try to "stack the deck"
> to avoid a fair debate.

I also linked from TMN to the discussion in the Winds of Dawn forum. It
had nothing to do with stacking the deck or any sort of bias, but due to
the simple fact that the Winds of Dawn group had the best discussion on
the topic and because it was showing both sides of the debate. The
discussion there is much better than has been held here on the
newsgroup. It's worth noting that the discussion was going on there (in
an in-depth way, with views from both sides) even before Koric linked to it.

- Para

Garscow

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 8:44:01 AM9/4/02
to
John Holley <john....@NOSPAM.adeptsystems.co.nz> wrote:

> From a true RP aspect I would say that unless you can show good cause
> as to why someone should have their mystic status revoked, due to in
> game issues then you are all being hypocrits by attacking the PWC.

In my opinion, the problem with Manticore is just the start.

If other PWCs for mystics leave the game, selling off their highly
skilled full mystic characters, the problem will become much worse.

As Jo Ma'rill has said on the WOD message board, the mystic council is
scared of mystics becoming "pocket mystics." You need a mystic door
open? Ask the local super fighter to spend 5 minutes getting his second
account up and full [pocket] mystic out. In return, he'd get a bunch of
shares.

Setting a precedent of letting Hidden use Manticore for things that are
good for the community (getting a strange stone, taking other mystics to
trainers) would end up being very, very bad for all mystics.

Garscow

Shamhat de Leon

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 9:17:13 AM9/4/02
to
In article <1fi0g7b.1323dsnu83jr4N%garsNO...@ihug.co.nz>,
garsNO...@ihug.co.nz (Garscow) wrote:

> Setting a precedent of letting Hidden use Manticore for things that are
> good for the community (getting a strange stone, taking other mystics to
> trainers) would end up being very, very bad for all mystics.

Bad for all mystics, or only bad for the mystics who control both the
services in question and access to the ability to perform the services?

Seriously, if the only value a full mystic has lies in the scarcity of
full mystics, then I understand completely why the council rarely
promotes anyone. It's in the best interest of each individual who has
already made it to that level, and they are the only ones involved in
making that decision.

However, restraint of trade is not necessarily in the best interest of
the community.

-Shamhat

Catherine Calin

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 11:54:19 AM9/4/02
to
Let me just say, that I have been an apprentice for a long time. I have wanted to advance for a while now and have completed several quests (finally and I got off my lazy ass to do so), and yet, when I search out anyone that can take me on as an apprentice, no one will. What's the deal there? You talk about discretion, but the fact is that I have a Fighter, and an Apprentice Mystic. They don't want me to keep my AM as a "pocket Mystic", when in fact I have worked very damn hard to get her to where she is. I have been the one to click her for a long time. ONE CLICKER. Still, Either the Full Mystics are rarely on, busy, or taking on too many other apprentices. What's the problem?

<snip>

Seriously, if the only value a full mystic has lies in the scarcity of
full mystics, then I understand completely why the council rarely
promotes anyone. It's in the best interest of each individual who has
already made it to that level, and they are the only ones involved in
making that decision.

<snip>

So does that situation apply to me as well? They aren't going to advance me because I can just log off and bring my AM  on, so I can open something or whatever? Isn't that my right as a player on Clanlord, to decide what I feel I'd like to do? I pay just like everyone else here, and I can't even get a character to advance. I think that's really screwed up. To give power over all other players to one group of people that can decide to screw with your playing style or advancement. I mean really, Who the hell even thought of that? Why not have a couple of NPC's in the Guild, register your progress, and let you know if you are up for an advancement? I am really considering just deleting my AM just so I don't have to worry if I am going to spend the next 5 years of playing clanlord just to watch her stay as an Apprentice Mystic. Get a grip folks.. this isn't a one player game. If you want that, go play something else. No Exile/player should even be allowed to judge if someone else is worthy or not.

I will just say my AM has over 1200 ranks. All earned, Library or otherwise.

<snip>

However, restraint of trade is not necessarily in the best interest of
the community.

-Shamhat
<snip>

My case in point.

If any GM's see this post, Just know there are some pretty damn frustrated players out here that are fed up with the "Exile Control" over other players. Kissing ass isn't the way for advancement in any game. Playing hard and training your character hard are the keys for advancement. Not some stupid idea of letting other players control your advancement.
 

Gurgi

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 4:41:17 PM9/4/02
to
There is nothing inherently special about mystics. An 5th circle fighter
represents the same hard work as a Full Mystic. The arguement that mystics
are some holy order above everything else is silly. Trying to prevent a
character from going about his business in the world on the basis that his
clicker has changed is just as mean spirited and inexcusable regardless of
the character's class. The fact that all 3 classes advance in different
ways is irrelevent.
Healers advance by implimenting strategies whereby they accumulate the
most shares possible over the greatest amount of time. Fighters advance by
killing the most monsters that give them the most experience. Mystics
advance by making the most existing Full Mystics like them the most and by
building a strong social network. All three methods of advancement are
distictly different and involve different strategies. To claim that the
method a mystic uses is somehow so special that mystics deserve special
treatment with regard to clicker change is silly.
A mystic that is transfered to another clicker has just as much right to
continue attempting to advance and contribute to the community as a fighter
or healer that has changed clickers.

-Gurgi


in article althea-199374....@cnews.newsguy.com, Althea at
alt...@clanname.com wrote on 9/1/02 4:08 PM:

> A discussion of mystics and the recent FMOCR are happening on the Winds
> of Dawn Forum. (why its not happening on this ng, I'm not sure... Koric
> chose to open the topic there, rather than on this ng) The discussion
> is here:
>
>
> http://www.windsofdawn.org/forum/forumdisplay.html?s=&forumid=2
>

> Xel has a decent account of the events for some background on the raid.
>
> http://xel.puddleby.info/report.html
>
>
> Basically, Hidden bought the mystic Manticore (or so its reported) and
> sought to obtain an orga stone. Neige sued him right before the magician
> showed up. Manticore chose not to attend his trial. He was convicted in
> absentia and prevented from getting the stone.
>
> This was a good thing, because Manticore is really no longer a mystic.


>
> Mystic character transfers that created this problem, should not be

> allowed. Mystic character transfers should be treated differently from
> other class characters transfers because the mystic class is different
> from the other main classes. Mystic tests and promotions have nothing
> to do with ranks. In fact, mystics get to earn their ranks after passing
> their tests.
>
> Becoming a mystic requires more of the clicker than the other classes,
> in part because of the system of peer control built into the Mystic
> Guild. Becoming a mystic requires enculturation in a political system.
> There's a series of relationships that are created in the process of
> becoming a full mystic, unlike healers or fighters. No other class has
> that requirement --its one of the things that sets the mystic class
> apart -- peer control. The closest analogy is the bard system. Becoming
> a full mystic requires of the clicker that they follow the guidance and
> dictates of the mystic council.
>
> All of this adds up to making a full mystic character very different
> than a high level fighter or healer. They are far more than simply the
> sum of their skills. Hence, transferring a mystic character is quite
> different from transferring a healer or a fighter.
>
> The fact that Manticore is enjoying FM status and skills seems contrary
> to design intent (based on writings in this NG on what the design intent
> is) Hence, I'd say its a bug.


>
> Those who castigate Neige for disrupting an FMOCR should instead be
> applauding him for preventing a bug from being further exploited.
>

Gurgi

unread,
Sep 4, 2002, 4:57:59 PM9/4/02