Removal of Support/Subvert for the Tenebrae

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I don't feel that strongly on it, and I did agree that it should be harder for lawful types to gambit out lawless types.

Just because it was moved to accepted doesn't mean it'll be implemented exactly how it was proposed (they very rarely do). Let's not jump to conclusions.

It's the only Accepted idea I've seen without staff commentary on it with views directly contrary to the original suggestion, hence my hope to continue discussion elsewhere before implementation moves on without appropriate conversation.

[chronodbu]

To be fair - Only three players actually commented on that thread, so one can't really say the thoughts of those three players reflect most of the game populace.

However, I see merit to removing it with the Tenebrae, but I also think the Tenebrae should not be able to support or subvert anyone in return if they're being given that protection. Feels kind of gamey, and if someone is trying to gambit the Tenebrae.. well.. staff have the power to knock that gambit down if it doesn't make sense for the person in question to actually create it.

[Voxumo]

Recently, a suggestion got moved to the "Accepted Requests" forum, which locks the ability to comment on it. The suggestion was for the Tenebrae to be unable to be supported/subverted by the title (you can currently do either with 'Tenebrae' alone) but by knowing the Tenebrae's IC name. All players who offered subsequent input on the idea commented that they did not like the idea, with only the current Tenebrae suggesting it. As the discussion doesn't seem to be over, I thought to move the discussion here and maybe discuss with more words why I — and many other players seem to agree — making this change would be one for the worse.

Just recently, Kinaed posted a note asking people to solve IC issues ICly, not going to OOC methods to solve problems. This seems in direct contrast to that — if the Tenebrae is finding it difficult to earn support through IC means, they might consider changing their approach or being more mindful how they talk to others, whether it be through kindness, promises, appropriate threats, etc. That the Tenebrae is making this suggestion when they are sitting at "Neutral" support smells fishy at best. When Farra dipped into 'Hated' (or was it 'Disliked'?) territory as Grand Inquisitor (a dip which was never really explained, and almost immediately resolved once Staff briefly put support through an approval queue; strange!) I embraced the hate in both personal RP and in the notes written from that position, something that I found very rewarding as it forced Farra to grit her teeth and make (or reinforce) alliances she wasn't entirely delighted to make. Thus is the game of politics: you find beds with enemies in times of necessity or convenience.

Further, this Tenebrae is making the suggestion while their title is being used ICly against another GL in a gambit. If the Tenebrae wants to use their influence to try to expell another Guildleader (a GL of the Brotherhood's natural rival, at that), enabling them to hide being OOC constraints is doggy at best and openly OOCly unfair at worst, I feel like.

This Tenebrae is certainly not anywhere near as "bad" as others have been in the past, and those Tenebrae's have managed to continue without being gambited. Also, they argue that the Tenebrae role is the "only" role in the game that suggests it would have a large portion of the playerbase aligned against them, which is also untrue. Orderites face the reality that about 50% of the game's population at any time are mages, and those mages have a built-in reason to not support the Holy Order. A GI or Earl Marshall who adopt even the "thematic" extents of their power in being bullies and oppressive risk backlash if they cannot garner the support of elsewhere.

The Original Poster argues that this will "make getting support on the Tenebrae more difficult" but this is a laughably wrong argument. As someone playing a character who operates under an alias, I know precisely how easy it is to limit the amount of people who know my character's coded name. As Tenebrae, you merely need to ensure that you give out your coded name only to those who have promised beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are loyal to you and you never have to worry about subversion. In fact, if I understand the system correctly, you could in fact never give out your name at all and bypass the Support system — and thusly the gambit system — entirely.

If the fear is that a Tenebrae loved by the Brotherhood and Freemen can get ousted by the nobles and Guild Leaders that the Tenebrae is naturally aligned against, then the proper response would be to limit the method by which the Tenebrae can be gambited. Raspberry argued that gambits should only be initiated by freemen, and I'd go a step further to suggest that, should the Tenebrae be gambited, that ONLY freemen and Thieves Guild Members be able to vote on it, further protecting the Tenebrae from the kind of "backlash" they say they fear. You might even extend the ability to start a gambit from within the Thieve's Guild itself, as I suggested.

If you are going to shit talk me Farra, and make none too subtle suggestions, at least don't hide behind an attempt to be righteous.

I'd like to clear some things... Firstly, your insinuation that I've brought said topic up because my support is at neutral... You realize I've been sitting at neutral since bloody february right? I haven't seen a shift in my support at all, except an odd moment of time where I suddenly shot up to entrenched for maybe 4 days max, and was quickly right back down to neutral. But no, I'll remember the suggestion that only those at Entrenched are allowed to talk about the ridiculous support system, because clearly anyone else has ulterior motives.

Secondly... Nice job relaying ic information through an ooc means. Glad to see you have no qualms about such when it's against someone you disagree with. Though arguably I can see where such an idea would come from, as I certainly chose the wrong time. As mentioned I wrote that original idea after talking with another, during a time when I was upset and just generally frustrated with being Tenebrae. Particularly because they made mention of playing a successful organized crime leader in another game, that conveniently doesn't have a support system like TI's, where the longevity of a Guildleader is strongly tied to whether or not a small group of highly supported characters, or a large group of measly supported characters, are sick of your nonsense. So yes, the timing on my part was shitty, but it had nothing to do with a supposed fear of backlash. Said fear stems from a desire to go beyond, with killings and other such crimes being a norm, and a fear that when lives start to be taken, that such will be crossing the line. It also stems from my time as Misune, where I was ousted by my entire guild, though not a single person had the audacity to bring the concerns they raised to my attention icly, and instead I was swept away in a sudden wave of accusations I hadn't even been aware of until the ousting. Easier to oocly subvert than to confront icly.

Thirdly: When was the last time we had a "Bad" Tenebrae, or really an active brotherhood in general? A brotherhood who just didn't hide in their hidey hole? The last time I can think of was when two mages lead the brotherhood, and were thusly banned from the game. Other than that we've not had a proper "Bad" Tenebrae in a good several years, perhaps even before the introduction of the gambit process, as that's still a relatively new system in the grand scheme of things.

As for the coded name bit... You know you aren't wrong on that, though such had never crossed my mind as that just seems like abusing an ooc system, and I tend to avoid stooping to such lows.


Finally the idea that only freeman or thieves can initiate a gambit against the Tenebrae. I actually think that's a far better idea than what I suggested.

[Rothgar]

It also stems from my time as Misune, where I was ousted by my entire guild, though not a single person had the audacity to bring the concerns they raised to my attention icly, and instead I was swept away in a sudden wave of accusations I hadn't even been aware of until the ousting. Easier to oocly subvert than to confront icly.

I've said my bit about how I feel about this thread, but this is patently untrue, as-per your own words from your own IC post.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=256&p=7487&hilit=Misune#p7487

[Voxumo]

It also stems from my time as Misune, where I was ousted by my entire guild, though not a single person had the audacity to bring the concerns they raised to my attention icly, and instead I was swept away in a sudden wave of accusations I hadn't even been aware of until the ousting. Easier to oocly subvert than to confront icly.

I've said my bit about how I feel about this thread, but this is patently untrue, as-per your own words from your own IC post.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=256&p=7487&hilit=Misune#p7487

Nice cherry picking. If you had scrolled down the search a wee bit further, you would see that was from my second tenure as Earl Marshall, and during that stepping down I did so due to a lack of time availability after I'd already held the position for three months.

Here is the First time I stepped down, as a direct result and attempt to oust me.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=256&p=6056&hilit=Misune#p6056

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

If you are going to shit talk me Farra, and make none too subtle suggestions, at least don't hide behind an attempt to be righteous.

I'd like to clear some things... Firstly, your insinuation that I've brought said topic up because my support is at neutral... You realize I've been sitting at neutral since bloody february right? I haven't seen a shift in my support at all, except an odd moment of time where I suddenly shot up to entrenched for maybe 4 days max, and was quickly right back down to neutral. But no, I'll remember the suggestion that only those at Entrenched are allowed to talk about the ridiculous support system, because clearly anyone else has ulterior motives.

I'm not trying to insinuate that this is the reason for the suggestion. I'm merely mentioning that it's odd timing to bring it up now. You used language like calling the support system a "purely OOC metric" which it is not, you framed an argument biased for yourself to try to prove the point, didn't much comment on other people's concerns, and claimed victim to an issue that I can't ever remember happening on TI:L. I agree that a Tenebrae should have more protection from the court of public opinion when it comes to being removed as a Guild Leader, which was your fear. I do not agree with the Tenebrae being shielded from that court by OOC, artificial protections that they have full control over.

Secondly... Nice job relaying ic information through an ooc means. Glad to see you have no qualms about such when it's against someone you disagree with.

I'm not sure which information I shared? If you're commenting on the Tenebrae being connected in support of the gambit, that comes from a comment left in the gambit system, which is available to all players without having to purchase anything. You may use 'gambit review 1' to see the comment; it's number four on there. If you feel like I've shared information in a way that violates policy, you can absolutely talk about it with staff and I'll defer to their judgement, but I didn't think that something visible on a MUD-wide, free-to-access method would be contentious.

Though arguably I can see where such an idea would come from, as I certainly chose the wrong time. As mentioned I wrote that original idea after talking with another, during a time when I was upset and just generally frustrated with being Tenebrae. Particularly because they made mention of playing a successful organized crime leader in another game, that conveniently doesn't have a support system like TI's, where the longevity of a Guildleader is strongly tied to whether or not a small group of highly supported characters, or a large group of measly supported characters, are sick of your nonsense. So yes, the timing on my part was shitty, but it had nothing to do with a supposed fear of backlash.

That's fair. I'm glad that you can understand why I might have been suspicious of the timing. It's good to know that current IC landscape didn't play a role in it, but I thought it necessary to raise it as you hadn't explained this in your original idea. Not every critical comment is made with nefarious intent.

Said fear stems from a desire to go beyond, with killings and other such crimes being a norm, and a fear that when lives start to be taken, that such will be crossing the line. It also stems from my time as Misune, where I was ousted by my entire guild, though not a single person had the audacity to bring the concerns they raised to my attention icly, and instead I was swept away in a sudden wave of accusations I hadn't even been aware of until the ousting.

I definitely understand that. As I said, I agree that the Tenebrae should have more protections than others. However, I simply felt the ideas you proposed were far too generous for the Tenebrae, as "knowing a name" is something that player can control to quite a large extent. Again, I say this from personal experience. While you might not abuse such a restriction on support, I wanted to illustrate how easily a Tenebrae could use this protection to blatantly abuse the system. Any change to such policy shouldn't be made for a single player's benefit but built to ensure it can't be abused in the future. Restricting the way gambits work against the Tenebrae by limiting who can have a voice when such a gambit might occur would solve this problem without the risk of Twinking that your suggestion would allow. Like Tasker said, a Tenebrae SHOULD be fine with being 'disliked' by the city at large, but certainly shouldn't fear being removed so long as they are keeping the Brotherhood happy and, to a lesser importance, the Freemen that the Brotherhood works with/for.

Easier to oocly subvert than to confront icly.

I sympathize here, I really do. I always found it frustrating how few people would confront Farra ICly but instead choose to subvert and never let things come to a head, but I do think it's important to remember that subversion is not an OOC metric. It represents an IC action with IC consequence. By subverting someone, your character is doing what they can to talk shit without risking their neck. And I think that's good. I've got plenty of ways I'd like to see the support system improved (indeed, I think anyone familiar with me at OOC meetings will recall me grouching about the system some!) but shielding one GL from it over others isn't the way to go, in my opinion. As others have said: when someone supports or subverts "The Tenebrae" the impact is the same whether they know the person's name or not. The Tenebrae keeping their identity a secret has so many advantages (the Tenebrae can't be warranted code-wise if the Reeves don't know the Tenebrae's name, after all!) that rewarding them even more for keeping information secret doesn't sit well with me.

Thirdly: When was the last time we had a "Bad" Tenebrae, or really an active brotherhood in general? A brotherhood who just didn't hide in their hidey hole? The last time I can think of was when two mages lead the brotherhood, and were thusly banned from the game. Other than that we've not had a proper "Bad" Tenebrae in a good several years, perhaps even before the introduction of the gambit process, as that's still a relatively new system in the grand scheme of things.

I think I remember the Tenebrae being up to all kinds of no-good when I was new to the game; however, I'll concede readily that my memory of that isn't really that great at all and that I might not have had reliable information on that front.

As for the coded name bit... You know you aren't wrong on that, though such had never crossed my mind as that just seems like abusing an ooc system, and I tend to avoid stooping to such lows.

Finally the idea that only freeman or thieves can initiate a gambit against the Tenebrae. I actually think that's a far better idea than what I suggested.

If I came across as suggesting that you specifically would abuse the system then I apologize, that really wasn't my intention. I know I can word vomit a bit and let some opinions come through a bit too harshly at times. I actually really like the support system overall. I remember what it was like before that was implemented and GLs were able to be very abrasive and, so long as they never put themselves into a position to be PK'd (which isn't that hard to do, really!) then there was little anyone could do about it. I don't want the Tenebrae or Brotherhood to be able to act without thought of recourse, and the initial suggestion really had ways that this would enable that kind of behavior.

And, thinking about the idea further, I like the idea of making it where only Thieves / Freeman can initiate or vote on a gambit of the Tenebrae. That way, the nobles and Reeves could, in theory influence a gambit like that, but they'd be entirely reliant on garnering support of the lower classes. While what the nobles and reeves think of the Tenebrae should matter somewhat, it shouldn't matter to the extent that their opinions trump those who matter for the Brotherhood.

[Voxumo]

Few things, if you did not have the intention to insinuate my suggestion had ulterior motives, then the need to point out the suggestion was made while at neutral, ignoring the fact I've practically only been at neutral, and saying it was fishy... well you chose very poor wording.
And I wanted to respond, but as you pointed out, the topic was quickly closed. By the time I had checked my email again and saw notifications after my last comment, the topic had already been closed.

Regarding the releasing of Ic Information. Firstly it was comment 5, secondly here is what it says

5. The Proconsul has been on the front lines doing the grueling of job fighting crime against a growing criminal threat. And made a great enemy of the Tenebrae doing so. What a coincidence...

In no manner does this confirm nor deny it was the Tenebrae initiating the gambit, which is what your comment implied. And even if it did outright say that, it's common practice to not talk about ongoing rp in an ooc manner.


Your argument that subversion is an ic action. I don't disagree that it's intended to be an ic action, and is often treated as such, but it is incredibly easy to come up with a justified reason to subvert someone you haven't even rped with. The execution of subversion is incredibly ooc, while the action is ic. Perhaps that is a better way of wording such.

As for the rest your post, I generally agree with it aside from one major point. I still stand by that subverting and ousting a guildleader is a thousand times easier than dealing with them in a more direct ic manner. Removing a guildleader from the power they had as said guildleaders oftentimes removes them as a threat. Yes some still remain as such, but a good number don't remain. Easier to cut their ties to power than to kill them.

[Niamh]

Err, just for the record, that idea wasn't approved. I cycled through probably 50 threads yesterday and moved them; that one wasn't discussed at the Staff meeting and wasn't intended to be moved. I'll track it down and move it back to the "under consideration" board. Panic over the thread's location may now subside.

More generally, lets check ourselves and cut back on anything resembling a personal attack. If a criticism or comment can't be made without referencing a specific person's IC actions, position, or past, lets just not make those comments at all. Adhere to the magic words (pls don't burn me): Neutral, courteous, and respectful. Thanks all!

[Niamh]

Moved out of "under consideration" in error. Sorry all!

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

ANGRY AT NIAMH? WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? WE'VE GOT YOU COVERED!
COME ON DOWN TO THE PITCHFORK EMPORIUM!

WE GOT 'EM ALL!
Traditional: ---E
Left Handed: Ǝ---
Fancy: ---{

WE EVEN HAVE DISCOUNTED CLEARANCE FORKS!
33% off! ---F
66% off! ---L
Menufacturer's Defect! ---e

NEW IN STOCK. DIRECTLY FROM LIECHTENSTEIN. EUROPEAN MODELS!
The Euro ---€
The Pound ---£
The Lira ---₤

HAPPY LYNCHING!

.

.

.

But for real Niamh I do appreciate your work in keeping the ideas forum tidy and in motion and making sure the ideas get passed along to the discussion meetings!