Seneschal Directly Ousting GLs — Why This Can Be Good

Talk about anything TI here! Also include suggestions for the game, website, and these forums.
chronodbu
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:27 pm

Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:08 pm

I don't really have a problem with a Seneschal blaming it on 'that's what the people wanted' even if the GL in question had fairly good status.

Tbh, I as a player would use that as ammo against the Seneschal. "Oh, you're so out of touch that you believe that's what they wanted?" "Oh, you're so weak willed that you'd bend that quickly without looking into all of the facts?"

Things aren't always fair. As a mouthpiece to the future King or Queen(whatever we end up with), having such a power would be thematically appropriate. It's really not much unlike the Regency, which is admittedly why I feel it should be largely restricted to Noble characters - difficult as that may be to support currently.

Ultimately - Whether the 'people' wanted it or not, the Seneschal is who pulled the trigger. There's no hiding from that simple fact.

User avatar
Kinaed
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:00 am

The_Last_Good_Dragon wrote:
Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:08 am
I think the entrenched level is a fair level to hold a Guild Leader as safe at — it's really not that hard to get someone wavering off of that, though if it proves to be too difficult I think it could be removed.
quanin wrote:
Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:18 am
Along the same lines, I don't recall seeing an answer to this question, though it's possible I missed it. If a GL does get the boot, what stops that guild from just reappointing him/her later? Say the Seneschal has decided the Reeves need a new Proconsul, so gives the current one the hook. If the Justiciar doesn't agree with it, could he not just reappoint that same Proconsul?
We deffo's need an answer to this before the system goes into play — I think a council vote, which includes all active nobles and Guild Leaders, seems sensible. Maybe even a supermajority to over-rule the Seneschal (which would ICly be seen as a pretty significant blow to said Seneschal; failing to maintain Council support should feel like a strong undercut to the Seneschal's authority).
Staff will probably impose a time limit on rejoining GL of that guild for three OOC months or something like that.

User avatar
The_Last_Good_Dragon
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:08 am

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:03 am

chronodbu wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:08 pm
I don't really have a problem with a Seneschal blaming it on 'that's what the people wanted' even if the GL in question had fairly good status.

.....

Ultimately - Whether the 'people' wanted it or not, the Seneschal is who pulled the trigger. There's no hiding from that simple fact.
I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear with my initial wording — the above is what I meant. The Seneschal could absolutely blame anyone they wanted to ICly, even feel justified in doing things from others, but other players could directly hold the Seneschal IC responsible for the ousting. My comment on it was more the idea that it wouldn't be some other party actually going through with the decree, or able to obfuscate what happened; with a GAMBIT, the originator of the gambit can be obfuscated code-wise. An ousting should not be so unclear, imho.
~~ Team Farra'n'Stuff. ~~

User avatar
The_Last_Good_Dragon
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:08 am

Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:03 am

The_Last_Good_Dragon wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:03 am
chronodbu wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:08 pm
I don't really have a problem with a Seneschal blaming it on 'that's what the people wanted' even if the GL in question had fairly good status.

.....

Ultimately - Whether the 'people' wanted it or not, the Seneschal is who pulled the trigger. There's no hiding from that simple fact.
I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear with my initial wording — the above is what I meant. The Seneschal could absolutely blame anyone they wanted to ICly, even feel justified in doing things for other's happiness etcetc., but other players could directly hold the Seneschal IC responsible for the ousting. My comment on it was more the idea that it wouldn't be some other party actually going through with the decree, or able to obfuscate what happened; with a GAMBIT, the originator of the gambit can be obfuscated code-wise. An ousting should not be so unclear, imho.
~~ Team Farra'n'Stuff. ~~

chronodbu
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:27 pm

Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:05 pm

I absolutely agree with this. The Seneschal should definitely be very visible as the one who used it when they pull the trigger. It'd make perfect thematic sense, even.

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

Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:15 pm

However, when it comes to the actuality of noble power, it becomes much
more complicated. The nobility often must throw their weight around to
receive their due rights. Noble influence outside of their own domain also
further depends highly on their connections with others in power. Even the
king or queen would quickly find themselves ineffectual without the support
of the domains beneath them. A powerful nobleman is therefore one that is
mindful of his relationships with other powerful people and does all that
he can to foster and strengthen them.
--Help Noble Power, Para 3
In the end, gentry power is defined entirely by what the gentryman involved
can and will do. Gentryfolk can attain a significant amount of influence,
but only when they display significant aptitude for social maneuvering. It
is in no way automatic, but enough of the possibility exists for many of
the gentry to adopt noble mannerisms and expectations for whatever they can
glean from them. However, despite such efforts, and frequent success at
impressing their importance upon the freemen, the nobility still consider
the gentry to be a poor imitation of themselves, still very common, and a
necessary trial to endure.
--Help Gentry Power, Para 5


I don't think people are really against the notion of Seneschal booting people out of the position, more that it's a response to the change. I genuinely think that the prior approach of the Seneschal being able to fire off a gambit, and then being shown this current change, is sparking an uneasy reaction. Meaning that a Seneschal has to be explicitly supported in his actions, or else face the backfire of horrendously failing a gambit because people questioned their leadership. Or alternatively, succeeding so well due to his/her dealings, that their work is held in even higher regard.

The general fear I've been hearing voiced about the recent changes, is that it adds code as a 'safety blanket' in place of personal gravitas and sway. Something that, while implemented with genuine concern with the politics IC in mind, could essentially prove quite problematic.

This isn't me saying that the current idea is bad. I actually enjoy the idea of improving political roles, as this might mean that offices might open up.

Voxumo offered a very good point, that rings true with the above about administrative power in the ages, that I think should at least be considered, just for balancing sake. As it gives the Seneschal the ability to be feared, and to be respected, while also respecting IC politics.
Another thing is that this should be linked to their approval rating as well. If they aren't entrenched or loved, I don't think they should have access to said power.
It answers all questions needed. 'Why does the Seneschal have the power to do this to the Order/Reeves?' -- Because they're approved of by the Guilds and populace enough to have this power. 'What RP does the Seneschal offer?' -- The ability to form alliances in a meaningful matter, but also the ability to attack them when most vulnerable, since they are, in the end, subject to vox populi.


Just so I'm not taken incorrectly, I believe that the Seneschal role should definitely hold power. But by increasing the need for alliances, it gives political players more of a reason to schmooze, and doesn't devalue anyone involved that's attempting to make power-plays, or keep the Seneschal almighty.

User avatar
Rothgar
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:32 am

Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:50 pm

Maybe I'm reading into this wrong or didn't properly understand the thread's core meaning here. So please feel free to correct me if I read incorrectly.

That said, I'm really kind of blown away that no one has mentioned this, yet, but this seems like some sort of weird stopgap measure because people have (admittedly, pretty historically) had troubles drumming up support for the Seneschal position from either guildleaders or guildmembers. Couldn't all of this be accomplished simply by getting 2 or 3 people into RP and having them subvert a GL? And then, when they're at a low enough rating, anyone can start the voting process to have them ousted. And then, you know, you just put someone more agreeable into the position.

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. Especially when, with a pretty paltry degree of RP, they can just do it themselves without ever getting some weird ejection system involved where they've got to bother with all sorts of boards and crap. Especially when you factor in that other GL's have pretty weighted IP sums and - with a regular Council meeting agreement - could knock this problem out in less than a week. That's just me, maybe I'm reading into it wrong.
Rothgar Astartes, Fyurii Rynnya, Nils 'Smith' Mattias, Edward Darson, Curos Arents.

quanin
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:19 am

Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:41 am

@Rothgar: 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. I mean it takes more effort than that to temporarily boost a city metric, and that's arguably a whole lot less consequencial than this. I'm usually pretty good at following the logic of what goes on here but I'm still scratching my head nearly a week later.

User avatar
Rothgar
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:32 am

Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:33 pm

Any more movement on this or answer to the question that I'd posed? Any further thoughts or anything of that nature?
Rothgar Astartes, Fyurii Rynnya, Nils 'Smith' Mattias, Edward Darson, Curos Arents.

User avatar
Kinaed
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:30 am

My thoughts are that it's appropriate and thematic for the Seneschal to have this proposed authority with the changes we have in mind. 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.

I don't get anything 'OOC' about it.

MUD code is fluid, we can always change it later if required.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Lei and 5 guests