Rules of Warfare

[The Forgetful Archivist]

It seems like there is a lot of freedom still there, if anything I think we need more rules, such as a clause prohibiting godmodding.

Edited April 9, 2018 by The Forgetful Archivist

[Archer]

Hi. LA representative here. I appreciate the idea of this topic, but I'm not agreeing to anything until I've gotten my two cents in. Here are my suggestions:

The insertion of a preamble stating that the good of the 17S should be of foremost concern, and any actions taken should be made only after considering their effect on the 17S. The Shard does have site rules that should be adhered to. No one wants to see the Shard spammed with angry threads, particularly ones of no relevance to the topics and sections they are posted in.

Which brings me to my second point. Clear boundaries need to be made. Areas outside of intro, social groups, pms, RPs and personal pages (although that one needs limitations set on it) should be out of bounds. We’ve seen how easily topics can be derailed (I’m thinking of the Sanderson Memes topic) which is an annoyance to uninvolved members.

Unrelated bystanders should be able to opt out of all of this. I suggest a ‘non-combatant’ designation that members can adopt for themselves. Essentially, it would mean that they are off-limits for assassination. The catch to their immunity being of course that they can’t assassinate anyone either, it goes both ways. (Safeguards to prevent abuse of the system needed)

Duels are great between consenting members. I’m not totally against them, but I do want restrictions in order to preserve the quality of the 17S.

There should be a forfeit option. If someone challenges you, you should be able to forfeit or decline if you’re not interested.

The long-term effects of death should be minimal. Lose your pride? Yes. Anything else? Nah. I’m against the of ‘returning’ members. I’m also against the idea of disbanding/ forcible takeovers of guilds if enough members are killed. It gives an unfair advantage to groups that are newer, more specialized, more passive etc.

On the topic of the long-term implications, I support keeping a running total of those you’ve killed, maybe in your sig like SE does or like the DA does with spike counts. It provides an incentive. That said, I think that should be enough of an incentive. If we have fights ‘happen’ in a realm with no physical consequences that would be nice, and you could always try again if you want another go at it. (appropriately cosmere ideas welcome)

We should have a no killing newcomers policy. No one want their first experience on 17S to be their assassination.

We need a no cheap deaths policy. A single post saying, ‘a bomb explodes, you dead’ is effective, but doesn’t give a fair chance to fight back. Impartial moderators could effectively solve this issue, especially if the moderator gets to decide the effect of any offensive action.

[Tineye Navigator]

I accept @Mraize's Nomination. I agree that some sort of moderation ought to be made for these issues. I think the best way to decide what those ought to be is to greate a Moderaters guild, made up of members of the other guilds, and discuss each issue there in more detail.

[Archer]

The issue of course is bias, ideal moderators would need no connection to the guild of the combatants. But only guild members would be interested in moderating so we're back where we started. 

[Kidpen]

22 minutes ago, Archer said:

The issue of course is bias, ideal moderators would need no connection to the guild of the combatants. But only guild members would be interested in moderating so we're back where we started. 

The thought is having an equal number from each guild, or maybe just one representative from each.

[Archer]

Perhaps have a single moderator per duel, but on the condition that they have no connection to the combatants? For example, a LA moderator for a DA vs Ghostblood duel.

[Kidpen]

3 minutes ago, Archer said:

Perhaps have a single moderator per duel, but on the condition that they have no connection to the combatants? For example, a LA moderator for a DA vs Ghostblood duel.

That would make sense. What about for inter-guild duels?

[Archer]

Like duel between members of the same group? The two schools of thought would be a) a moderator from said group, and b ) an impartial moderator from another group. I think either would work, but b ) would be fairer.

 

[MacThorstenson]

I never though I would say this, but I agree with @Archer. The good of the shard comes first. I still refuse to acknowledge his status as a representative until I see evidence of him being a member of this LA.

How about this for moderation. I could be willing to 'die' in the figurative sense. Cut all public ties with any guilds I am a member of and be an impartial moderator between guilds. (Public, because I am a member of some role-playing guilds and I don't wish to leave those.)

I would be unbiased, so long as no one is being a douche.

 

In terms of a non combatant option, I would suggest that whatever impartial moderators get elected, form a guild of judges/impartial people/whatever you want to call them. These guys would be impartial, and unable to be harmed.

Edited April 9, 2018 by MacThorstenson

[Archer]

Thank you Mac. That's quite the offer. However, I'm not sure the 'death' is necessary. Perhaps if you agree to be impartial we could slot you in as a mod from non DA members duels. I think asking you to cut ties with your guild would be too much to ask of you. 

As for my membership, will you accept the word of an LA member to vouch for me? 

[MacThorstenson]

17 minutes ago, Archer said:

As for my membership, will you accept the word of an LA member to vouch for me? 

No. I am sorry, I need it on paper (figurative) Just a post outlining the new LA is all that I would require. I don't recognize the LA as currently existing.

I feel like having a varied team of moderators wouldn't work in the sense that the UN isn't really working. There isn't anything enforcing the UN, similarly without actual moderation powers we can't enforce anything. I think that a new neutral guild would need to be formed. One whose members are only loyal to their guild.

The democracy of the current proposal is, in my opinion, too heavily impacted based on whether or not your rep is active. If your rep goes inactive, everything swings against you. Also, you have the problem of coalitions of guilds and how representation is decided. If representation is by pure numbers, the DA wins everything. If its one guild one vote, suddenly the DA has many hemalurgic bakeries popping up. All of which agree with everything posted by the DA.

I like the idea of having reps, but I don't think that inter guild democracy would work.

Edited April 10, 2018 by MacThorstenson

[Archer]

6 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

No. I am sorry, I need it on paper (figurative) Just a post outlining the new LA is all that I would require. I don't recognize the LA as currently existing.

Mac, I'll work on it, just assume the LA exists in the meantime. I'll tag you when I get something together.

Once again, everything centers on the neutrality aspect of it all, which is hard to create. And if it becomes corrupt, there needs to be a mechanism to dissolve it, but if there's too easy a way to get rid of it, then it won't have any authority. The only way to get accurate representation would be to have 100 or so rep seats. That way the DA could have 30 or so, the LA 10 etc. But we don't have the manpower for that. The complications do make a strong case against a central power of that sort.

The solution I'm leaning towards right now is just have it so that anyone can become a mediator. Then we make a mediator page where people can request their services and whoever is best suited/available can volunteer.

The reps system has flaws I agree. One rep per group leads to loopholes like Mac mentioned, and frankly, they're not really needed past the initial start-up phase.

Side note: If we do come to an agreement, we need to make sure that every group signs on. Let's not create something like Canada's Night of Long Knives.

[MacThorstenson]

2 minutes ago, Archer said:

The solution I'm leaning towards right now is just have it so that anyone can become a mediator. Then we make a mediator page where people can request their services and whoever is best suited/available can volunteer.

The reps system has flaws I agree. One rep per group leads to loopholes like Mac mentioned, and frankly, they're not really needed past the initial start-up phase.

Side note: If we do come to an agreement, we need to make sure that every group signs on. Let's not create something like Canada's Night of Long Knives.

I like that Idea, but I worry about corruption. In these last few minutes I came up with a half brained guild idea that could solve this. (in spoiler tag)

Spoiler

Moderation guild. 

This guild is composed of a few parts. 

The first is the Unbiased part. This would probably be the smallest amount of people and those people would have cut all ties that they could be a member of. They could still be considered ambassadors to that guild. They would take up the mantle of impartiality and be impartial in all matters of inter guild business. 

The second would be the House of Guild Representatives. This would have a rep or two from each guild that would be allowed to bring issues and advise the unbiased people. Basic representation things. 

The third would be made up of anyone who wanted to be a mediator. Any one who wants to could, without renouncing all guild connections, be a mediator between inter-guild things between two different guilds. Lopen could do it between the liebrary and the LA, Archer between the ghostbloods and the DA. and so on. So long as their involvement was agreed on before hand, and they didn't have any ties to the involved guild, they could mediate. 

The difference between the mediators and the Unbiased Ones, would be that the mediators have to be decided on before hand. If you want a mediator, they have to be notified before the thing starts so that they can prepare and make sure that they have time and so on. They couldn't break in on a conflict at any given moment, and issue decrees. Only the Unbiased ones are allowed to do that, even then when they don't abuse their power.

 

Also, every group would have to sign on. Unless its obviously not part of the forum RP. (Knights of the Cosmere and HGC wouldn't need to sign on)

[Archer]

6 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

Also, every group would have to sign on. Unless its obviously not part of the forum RP. (Knights of the Cosmere and HGC wouldn't need to sign on)

Perhaps non-combatant status could be automatically granted to any non-signatory guild members.

The moderation guild has merit. Random thoughts on it:

Sounds like the US government. Mind you, the US gov has the cool feature where the 3 branches are of equal power, and the other 2 can reign in the 3rd if it gets out of line. We should consider something like that as a safeguard. 

Would these be permanent positions? What are the requirements to join (certain amount of experience needed)? 

The House sounds like just a place to air grievances, and the Unbiased just a final say if things get testy. Is the House necessary?

[MacThorstenson]

2 minutes ago, Archer said:

Perhaps non-combatant status could be automatically granted to any non-signatory guild members.

I like that.

3 minutes ago, Archer said:

Sounds like the US government. Mind you, the US gov has the cool feature where the 3 branches are of equal power, and the other 2 can reign in the 3rd if it gets out of line. We should consider something like that as a safeguard. 

I designed it with the US Government in mind. The Mediators were the Justice branch, only able to mediate when things got brought to them. The house was congress and the Unbiased the executive.

I just have a few problems with being able to be removed, and that is when the Unbiased have to make an unpopular decision or what counts as being biased. I was thinking that the house could have the ability to remove unbiased who aren't unbiased, but that raises the question, what constitutes being unbiased? If one guild is consistently in the wrong, is that being unbiased? There isn't a constitution about what is or isn't allowed. That would lead to Mistsprens concern of things becoming to rule bound they aren't fun. 

This is what I suggest, if an unbiased isn't upholding to the fun creating standards of the other Unbiased, they get a friendly chat, and are allowed to leave if they don't agree with those standards. IMO, everything should be conducted in the spirit of companionship. This can be suggested by the House, but needs to be conducted by the unbiased. The thing is, I trust someone who has really renounced all guilds, thus taking them out of the majority of guild RP, to make unbiased decisions. They care more about the fun, then they do about beating the other guilds.

24 minutes ago, Archer said:

Would these be permanent positions? What are the requirements to join (certain amount of experience needed)? 

You could join or leave as you wish. Any of these positions. I would like to have seen someone have been around and active for a while before becoming unbiased, just so they are familiar with the guild dynamics before mediating.

[Archer]

1 hour ago, MacThorstenson said:

I would like to have seen someone have been around and active for a while before becoming unbiased, just so they are familiar with the guild dynamics before mediating.

^ Agreed. 

Some cases would be easy to rule on. Eg. Ghostblood assassination attempt in restricted area. This is in clear violation of the agreement to not assassinate in said area. Ghostblood is reprimanded. (the rulings would need to have teeth to them, the best sentence being that they can't assassinate for a time period, and any attempts to do so would be nullified.)
This is where having a clearly stated purpose would be helpful. Needs an emphasis on maintaining the quality of the 17S, quality of duels, fairness, keeping the peace etc. Assuming we use a western justice system, precedent from cases can come into play later on. The tougher cases, which are the ones that would result in allegations of bias, would be more contraversal, but as long as the rulings are accompanied by a writeup of the judges reasons for their decision, they should be accepted.
If we pick the right folks, who have the respect of the populace, we can make this work. That said, there should be a final failsafe. A clause that allows for the removal of an official, or the voiding of a ruling, or the rewriting of the agreement (whatever radical thing you want to do) upon a unanimous favourable vote from the guilds or 90% of guild members (who take the opportunity to cast their vote in the allotted time frame, minimum of x number of votes. You get the idea, if the people unite against one person, then the person can be overruled no matter their position of power.)
Overall, I think it's a good idea having a central body in charge, but the more passive they are the better. My goal is to have a system where we can go about our business and interact knowing that if we need it, there's a way to resolve our disputes. The obligators, I mean mediators, should be the only people that the average member going about their daily business ever talks to, if they need mediation. The rest is just a backup.

Edit: one more thing. I'm against have a 17S moderator involved. This would drain on their valuable time. Plus, moderators have a different kind of authority on this site that needs to be respected.

Edit 2: To prevent abuse of the rep system, stipulate guilds are defined by minimum number of unique members (members can only claim to be part of one guild officially, so if Jim, John and James are in the J Club, the three can't go and spam a bunch of new groups. If Jim and Jake and Jerry are in the X Club, then they officially only have 2 members since Jim doesn't count, for purposes of representation) 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Archer

[Nohadon]

7 hours ago, Mistspren said:

I’d like to raise an alternate opinion.

I feel that the application of rules and strict regulations kills the fun and more casual atmosphere of the Alleyverse war. This is enjoyable as loosely guided endeavor where you have to find loopholes or plan ahead for assassinations and try to outthink the opponent, but if that air was replaced by a bland, standard punishment without workaround this would feel tedious, strained, and make the forum feel much more hostile. Additionally, it would make users feel compelled to spend all their time fighting instead of enjoying the site itself or the community.

TL;DR some framework is good, but don’t sacrifice the spirit or loose nature of the conflict.

You make a fair point!

Well from what I have seen in the assassinations, nothing seems to HAPPEN when people actually die which in itself kills the intrigue of the entire thing, of course, you can still save yourself from assassinations by outthinking your opponent, this just incorporates some more RP aspects, i still very much intend to keep it casual, but we still need to know what we are doing

[Archer]

I think the agreement should mostly focus on violent aspects of interactions. Normal interactions should remain unregulated for the reasons stated above. 

[Nohadon]

Agreed, I will add the non-combatant feature and that the good of the 17th shard comes first, are there any other rules that you would like to add or dispute?

[Archer]

6 minutes ago, Nohadon said:

are there any other rules that you would like to add or dispute?

Yes. There is. Me and Mac have been brainstorming, those ideas should be considered. Also, structurally you should start numbering different sections. And I'm against the entire DEATH section. Basically, a lot of revisions are needed. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Archer

[Nohadon]

Will do. Shall I make a “referee” thread where people can sign up?

[Archer]

Let's wait until we have a full job description for them so they know what they're signing up for. But eventually one will be needed, yes. 

[Nohadon]

Ok, I like the idea that they must have no public relation to the guild

[Archer]

Yes, although I have my doubts as to the quantity of volunteers who will put themselves forward. Hopefully I'm wrong. We'll see. 

What do you think about the oversight system Mac proposed?

[Nohadon]

7 hours ago, Archer said:

Duels are great between consenting members. I’m not totally against them, but I do want restrictions in order to preserve the quality of the 17S.

There should be a forfeit option. If someone challenges you, you should be able to forfeit or decline if you’re not interested.

The long-term effects of death should be minimal. Lose your pride? Yes. Anything else? Nah. I’m against the of ‘returning’ members. I’m also against the idea of disbanding/ forcible takeovers of guilds if enough members are killed. It gives an unfair advantage to groups that are newer, more specialized, more passive etc.

The duels system is similar to that on roshar, where the terms are decided before the duel, my duel with Lopen is that whoever Yields, is incopacitated or dies, loses.

as to the effects of death, it’s just a 1 week period where you can’t murder or recruit, others in your guild still can