Because patrons aren't always present to babysit dumb and/or corrupt players (And by that, I mean people who write laws like the one Asarnil brought up). I personally hate IC attempts by patrons to interfere with the running of guilds (Major reason why I couldn't ever stand Glomdoring).

To me, this is an issue between IC and OOC, because that is what defines this argument. It is my belief in the fluidity of politics that causes me to question this policy, while your motivation seems to stem from a different source. I would rather see the possibility of bad decisions and laws rather than a rigid line set for what can and can not be done in that arena. I also find interest in the foibles of those who would lead, as well as learn from mistakes that I have made myself.

But perhaps I am in alone in this desire to see the world of Lusternia simulate real political thought and folly.

Real political thought and folly are for the real world. If you are interested in such, I suggest you get out there and experience it. There is no reason that I would accept as being valid the actions I've heard mention by Asarnil. Lusternia is suppose to be a form of entertainment for all participants, not just a select few.

They are advisors for the guild, they do not write the laws nor do they enforce them. They would have to step out of their role-play, putting on their administrator hat to correct the problem each time it reared its head. The solution that they came up with is the best one in my opinion. It is clear what the restrictions are, so that everyone understands the rules of the game. There is still plenty of room for political intrigue and such, but the abuse possibilities have been significantly reduced.

That would depend on the guild and the god.

It would certainly have proved an arse for Fain to have to force the Ur'Guard leadership to obey, but it would hardly have been a step outside his RP. Sure, there would have been a huge amount of bitching... and a whinging thread or two.. or three.. and the Ur'Guard leadership would probably have attempted to swap patrons, only to see the exact same thing happen again with the same whinging threa....

Ok. I take your point, I guess.

Yes, Lusternia is supposed to be a form of entertainment that caters to a diverse group of people with different interests. So I find it a little amusing let’s say that you would highlight that fact on one hand while deriding those that are interested in its political aspects on the other.

But if you wish to speak on specifics regarding the Ur’guard as well, I’ll entertain you, since some things do need to be cleared up. One thing stands out above all else and that is that the leadership made a mistake, one that I should have noticed and advised them on. That mistake however set the stage for each of them to be replaced and sowed some dissent within the guild. Wars of propaganda were waged from both sides and lines were drawn, but also pertinent issues were raised and as a result were going to be addressed. Now none of this is bad in my opinion, it is politics, it is change, and it is life.

That’s what I play this game for above all else. So who are you to ridicule my form of Lusternian entertainment.

That is a very good point.

I can see where you are coming from now, and I am starting to think that the very existence of the rules that could technically be broken and therefore argued over, would stimulate political interest and activity instead of making change impossible. (which is, what I think the admin view is)

Not so, but we need to compromise, players do it, orgs do it, and in this we've seen the admin do it. Someone may have a very nasty/pissy character, but hopefully they temper themselves and don't go out of their way to drive away all newbies they run across for the sake of the purity of their RP; they may be in an org who is full of power-tripping characters, but hopefully they don't go around targeting the other sides novices. This, in my mind is along with those compromises. I don't think most new players would be very trilled by joining a mostly empty deadlocked guild that's stagnated due to some law.

I don't think I have ever seen that happen.

There can be many reasons for a guild to stagnate and the like, but I don't think the "official laws" is a contributing factor.

I pointed out that your form of Lusternian entertainment should not come at the expense of others. That is why I ridiculed you. You can enjoy the political aspects of the game, but your form of entertainment deserves to be, and will be, ridiculed if it comes at the expense of other people's enjoyment.

So to answer your question, I am the man that sees that some things do not seem right and speaks up. That is who I am that I can ridicule your form of Lusternian entertainment.

Can't we all just get along; compromise when needed, and mostly just let each take our own enjoyment from the game?

That’s an interesting stance to take; unfortunately it loses some weight when actions speak differently. What do you enjoy about the game? What has caused you spend so much on credits to the extent that you have? Is it combat?

It seems so to me, but it raises a question. Have you lived up to this ideal you preach? Have you held back your blade rather than ever cause others to not enjoy this game? Have you held back your tongue so as to never make others feel bad?

Not from what from what I’ve seen, but yet you stand before all and proclaim that you are the sole arbitrator of what is or isn’t right. That you see where others are blind, and hear where they are deaf.

I wish I had such certainty in my own sense of justice.

I will address the concept that the Patrons should have dealt with these laws on a case-by-case basis, and in particular I will refute that idea. I can see the merit in this, particularly in that it is IC rather than an OOC approach - which is always preferred in that it does not interrupt continuity and fosters roleplay. However, that also opens up a host of other problems. Here are a few:

- Lusternian Gods are not infallible. Their opinions can be regularly wrong.

- Lusternian Gods are not dictators. The guild leadership is not compelled to obey their patron whatsoever.

- We have seen many valid (and also some invalid) criticisms in the past that Gods are running organizations (I think there's even a lengthy thread on the main page of this forum about that!). The administrative position has been, and will continue to be, that Patrons are advisors and guides for players. We have seen how god-dictators have contributed to poor player environments in the past (ie, Glomdoring) and will not likely return to that model in the future.

Ultimately, if the Patron commands a guild/city/commune to revise their laws, then we are damaging player governance far more than an OOC administrative policy ever could. So while I concede that an OOC policy is not perfect, it is infinitely more appropriate than asking Patrons to lord over their organizations would be, both in terms of players freedoms and in terms of clarity of the policy. It is inescapably clear that this is a strict policy and not just, for example, Shikari's personal opinion on elections (with which players could justifiably disagree and/or ignore).

No, I do not stand before everyone and say I am the sole arbitrator. I stood before everyone and said I will speak up. You asked the question who am I, and I answered it for you.

To answer your other questions, no I do not hold my tongue just to soothe feelings. I also do not chase down characters and kill them just because I can. I spent a lot of money on Lust, but then again I spend a lot of money on other forms of entertainment. I do not see how that would bother anyone, unless someone is jealous. Now here is the difference. I purchasing credits do not stop anyone else from purchasing them. It does not hinder others from having a chance at what I have. Creating unfair requirements can hinder a person from gaining what another has. They can hinder a person's chance at doing the same thing their predecessors have accomplished. So to make it simple for you... What I do does stop anyone from doing what they desire within reason. What that law did, could stop someone from even trying to do what others have done before him or her.

That post right there largely defined what I believed the Ur’guard should be, as well solidified my commitment to the path I chose as a character. There were no direct commands within its depths, but its influence was felt without a doubt. That is what I believe a Patron should be, there is no need for them to lead, but they should be there for guidance. Because there is nothing wrong with a Patron privately and publicly making their presence felt in a guild.

It’s just a shame that it isn’t done more often.

While I am amused by how easily you tread through the path I laid out for you, it is time to move beyond the personal.

This issue has raised some questions within me, what determination goes into deciding what is or isn’t good entertainment? How are the priorities set? Also what is next on the list?

I mean I can look at combat and see that in every engagement someone wins and someone loses, no matter the scale. That there is always someone who loses and can feel bad as a result; the forums have been filled with such incidents. The form has however usually focused on specific skills and tactics, and often for good reason.

I can also look at quests and see how people compete against each other to complete them. I can predict that if two people try the same quest at the same time, one at least will fail. Now the one that succeeded could be proud of that, but the other could feel bad.

I can look at the most visible aspect of politics and see that only one person can win an election. Someone has to lose and feelings will sometimes be linked with that. Also in the background, characters can be maligned, insults hurled, and friendships strained.

But really how enjoyable would this game be if there was no competition at all?

This is a double post, but I'll make use of it to an extent, by stating this.

Entertainment comes in many forms and things that may seem terrible at first glance may not be so with further evaluation. Just one of the lessons I've taken from this game.

That it does.

How would you feel about a rule that stated you would not be allowed to participate in any combat, unless your enemy agreed beforehand to being attacked? Or, should your enemy choose not to agree, you could consult his or her guild leader for permission.

I understand that there is some amount of intrigue in the political system, and that level has been diminished by the new rulings. However, I believe you overestimate the motivation of people to work against the system, and understimate the effectiveness of oppressive laws. While it is interesting to think of all of the possibilities of rebellion, we can see that the vast majority of the time rebellions fail miserably. In real life, that is all okay - sure, some people will give up or die, but someone else will eventually take their place, until change is successful. In Lusternia, it is simply not acceptable to allow so many people to disappear.

Oppressive rules are interesting and a lot of fun in theory. In the reality, however, the majority of players who do try to fight the rules will fail, leading to frustration. The new system allows for peer pressure to take the place of actual rules and laws, which I would think allows for even more manipulation and intrigue. The element of subtlety is now introduced, allowing players to technically achieve whatever they want, if they can convince their peers that they deserve it.

Given the nature of the new no-outguild-during-election mechanic and the way this announce showed up, I really don't think that anyone has to actually revise the laws. In most political systems, a vote of no confidence breaks all rights that the ejected party had to maintain power. So, while a civil succession can be governed by any laws that the guild so chooses, a more belligerent uprising is still protected, and the victorious party can deal with it however they so choose. Same deal that I stated before: all of this is ok because it still rides on individuals getting elected. So, sure, leave the laws and make unlawful contests punishable by disfavor and fines. Life will go on either way, just so long as you understand that you can't use an elected position to keep power against the will of your constituency.