Seneschal Directly Ousting GLs — Why This Can Be Good

Talk about anything TI here! Also include suggestions for the game, website, and these forums.
Starstarfish
2018 Cookery Contest Winner!
2018 Cookery Contest Winner!
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:13 am
Discord Handle: Starstarfish#4572

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:08 am

It's appropriate for players to be genuinely fearful of angering the Seneschal, and the propsed checks and balances basically come down to diluting this themely intent.
Characters should be afraid of angering the Seneschal character, but a player should not be fearful of upsetting the player of the Seneschal. As that's sort of what is being discussed here, I don't think anyone is debating the theme of the power. However, likewise is the proper theme of Reeves or Knights arresting people or thieves to steal or characters to want to kill other characters within the on-grid world. But those things still have rules within the OOC framework. Balances that ensure that the choice is indeed RP based, and not simply OOCly convenient.

So with that in mind:

What will be the requirement or expectation for RP leading to an ousting?

IE, would you need to at least be familiar with the person? Would it go to a staff queue for review like a Gambit would?

Without any oversight or minimum expectation, this could IMHO become a thing of just watching the Guild leader board and being on at the right time and time zone relative to rollover. A factor that was mentioned as a concern during the last Seneschal election. There was also the concern before about how people should need to be at Gambit level for X period of time before a Gambit could be processed, what would the expectation be here?

I also have the concern about the idea that getting Seneschal ousted means you are kicked out of the Guild entirely. What happens if at the time you were the only active member of the Guild? What are you meant to do then in the next three month period of time? I'd imagine that might encourage Guild hopping (IE - if the population at large didn't support the decision someone else might take this person in) leading to the gaining of closed skills that seems against the heart of the reason for phasing out Dual Guilding.

kipperialovskii
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:54 am

Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:11 am

Checks and balances do not dilute the Seneschal role. It empowers them, without diluting everyone else, making them feel like an afterthought.

I mean... This game is already getting publicly negative reviews already based on this subject. It should, at the very least, be considered. A decent chunk of the game aren't against the Seneschal being powered or feared, but it's hard to say that the suggestions made have been inherently an attempt to curtail power-- It's suggesting things that work with mechanics already in place.
I had exactly the same thoughts--this kind of echoes of much OOCness here, or at a minimum a very, and I do mean very, minimal amount of RP.
It just feels really strange to me that instead of looking at the system in place, we're deciding to go for this strange new coded system where the Seneschal can just boot whomever for whatever and make up a reason later.
Without any oversight or minimum expectation, this could IMHO become a thing of just watching the Guild leader board and being on at the right time and time zone relative to rollover.

Thus far there are at least three concerns raised in this forum about this being abused on an OOC manner, and more over avoiding RP. Another two negative reviews on the game as a whole based on GLhood. That's a minimum of five people raising their concerns about things surrounding the system. Let alone ones that have yet to raise their voice on the matter, and those that already have posted other forum posts.

Maybe it would clear the air to fully hear what the full changes are, planned, for the whole GL/Seneschal roles? It leaves people in a less sticky situation of having to guess if what is happening is stepping on their toes, or is actually balanced when looked at, in the scope of seeing their role's changes.

User avatar
Niamh
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:04 pm
Discord Handle: Niamh#3824

Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:05 am

Arrests and the execution or burn commands are probably pretty good points for comparison - I think that was Starfish who made the reference above. The reason these commands are coded are because the Reeves, Knights, and Inquisition have the authority to arrest and kill your character IC. Similarly, the reason the Seneschal command is being coded is because the Seneschal has the authority to remove appointed officials IC.

I don't think I've seen anybody suggesting this isn't authority that the Seneschal possesses IC, so I'm gonna skirt debating that and stick with the "lets compare the balance around firing appointed officials to the other impactful commands we have for IC authorities" bit:

With arrest you need a cnote within 24ish hours of having used it. With execute and burn, a cnote at the time of command execution is required as part of the POLCA-- no option not to enter one, in order to issue the command the cnote of a certain length has to be entered. No PK Familiarity is required for the Order or Reeves at or above middling rank to use burn, hang, draw & quarter, etc., to enact a PK.

If we're thinking we ought to balance the requirements on the Seneschal removing an appointed official with the Order and Reeves enacting official PKs, what we would be looking at is a cnote requirement, which I think is a pretty reasonable expectation. Am I right in getting the impression that that's what we're looking for?

User avatar
Taunya
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:08 am

Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:16 am

From my understanding, the Seneschal is something like the right hand of the queen when it comes to the City of Lithmore, so the power makes total sense to me.
I assumed that it was already going to be something similar to the current gambit system- reasoning verified by staff before the GL gets the boot, but immediately booted upon confirmation rather than going through the gambit process.

Geras
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:02 am

Niamh wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:05 am
Arrests and the execution or burn commands are probably pretty good points for comparison - I think that was Starfish who made the reference above. The reason these commands are coded are because the Reeves, Knights, and Inquisition have the authority to arrest and kill your character IC. Similarly, the reason the Seneschal command is being coded is because the Seneschal has the authority to remove appointed officials IC.

I don't think I've seen anybody suggesting this isn't authority that the Seneschal possesses IC, so I'm gonna skirt debating that and stick with the "lets compare the balance around firing appointed officials to the other impactful commands we have for IC authorities" bit:

With arrest you need a cnote within 24ish hours of having used it. With execute and burn, a cnote at the time of command execution is required as part of the POLCA-- no option not to enter one, in order to issue the command the cnote of a certain length has to be entered. No PK Familiarity is required for the Order or Reeves at or above middling rank to use burn, hang, draw & quarter, etc., to enact a PK. If we're thinking we ought to balance the requirements on the Seneschal removing an appointed official with the Order and Reeves enacting official PKs, what we would be looking at is a cnote requirement, which I think is a pretty reasonable expectation. Am I right in getting the impression that that's what we're looking for?
Does the Seneschal really have the authority to remove the Grand Inquisitor? I would think not?

User avatar
Niamh
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:04 pm
Discord Handle: Niamh#3824

Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:13 am

Nope! GI is autotejected before it even goes in the queue.

User avatar
The_Last_Good_Dragon
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:08 am

Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:24 pm

Geras wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:02 am
Does the Seneschal really have the authority to remove the Grand Inquisitor? I would think not?
Niamh wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:13 am
Nope! GI is autotejected before it even goes in the queue.
It took me longer than I care to admit to understand what Niamh meant, so I'll say it another way for anyone who might be a dumb as me: Niamh's saying that no, the Seneschal doesn't have the authority to remove the Grand Inquisitor — which was confirmed earlier in the thread, too! — and that if they try the code will just auto-remove the attempt without processing it forwards.
~~ Team Farra'n'Stuff. ~~

User avatar
Niamh
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:04 pm
Discord Handle: Niamh#3824

Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:10 pm

Omg I said "autoTejected"...

User avatar
The_Last_Good_Dragon
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:08 am

Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:03 pm

Niamh wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:10 pm
Omg I said "autoTejected"...
On behalf of all the Tejects out there I can say I forgive u for auto-pasting us.
~~ Team Farra'n'Stuff. ~~

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest