The Inquisition, The Unfair - Policy

[Kinaed]

I want to take a moment to reflect on the theme of The Inquisition and how it plays out for the sake of getting an understanding between staff and players about how this whole thing works. Mostly, I just want people to know what to expect from the staff because, frankly, I get the sense that people don't understand policy around things like getting arrested, being arrested, killing and being killed, when it comes to the very specific topic of Inquisitions (a key area of major thematic PK).

From the staff's perspective, there are only a handful of things that will cause us to step in and stop a player's Inquisition:

1. It is clear that the Inquisitor OOCly hates the player in question and is harassing them.
- We'd look to see the behavior of the Inq across the targetted player's alts, the IC reasoning presented, and if we feel that the Inquisitor is making up spurious justification for causing the player problems (as opposed to two alts seriously deserving it because the player is OOCly upset about their character's death, so acting out in revenge across alts).

2. The Inquisitor appears to have absolutely no, or extremely spurious, reasons for burning.
- We'd look to see what the reasoning is for an arrest. Generally, we're not okay with players getting burned (though we probably wouldn't say anything about simply arrested) for backtalk, but provided the reasoning on the part of the Inq is understandable and mostly realistic, the staff won't get involved.

3. There is a -gross- misrepresentation of theme going on. Examples:
- A lowly Inquisitor arrests a noble without the backing of the Grand Inquisitor or Cardinal.
- The Knights are arresting people without a warrant from the Order and no IC indicators of magery/heresy.
- The Order starts using their authority to patrol the streets like the City Guard.

Note: The staff are unlikely to just take it for granted that the above items warrant intervention, however - we simply reserve the right to. Most likely, we'd have a conversation to check with the players and so forth as to why these things are happening, and to explain the theme. We'll probably leave it alone anyway. Why? Because staff members want players to be able to own the theme as much as possible. It's perfectly okay for people to do things that are ICly 'wrong' so long as it's not in a manner that rewrites the behavior as a new, thematic standard of play. So, for example, if an Inq arrests a noble, and ought not to have - well, the Inq should be able to RP it out, maybe get into trouble, maybe get away with it. The only time the staff would step in, and probably not even ICly, is simply to correct everyone's frame of reference so it's known that this is not the standard of thematic behavior to prevent it from becoming the new theme. And, frankly, as staff, we find it hard to justify these interventions, so we genuinely try not to even in cases where there -might- be a genuine, game-impacting reason to do so. So far, we've always adopted a 'let's wait and see approach', even when we were concerned, and honestly, we feel it's paid off in terms of player happiness and great RP.

4. A player has been in jail for far too long, and it's clear that no efforts were made on the Inquisition's part to alleviate the issue.
- Yep, if a player is in jail forever, and the Inquisition doesn't attempt to RP with them, arrange a date to meet up and work through the issues that got the person arrested and so on, the staff just may let them out. Typically, this is around the two week mark when we see a heavy presence of the jailbird, no evidence of pboards or requests to sort a specific time, etc. At some stage, we just look at it and go 'this is enough, if the Inq wants this person so badly, they can restart at the bottom'.

However, if the Inq is making arrangements, does show up for when those arrangements are scheduled, or the player refuses to schedule a time, etc... well, the staff won't step in then.

There's a HELP CAPTIVITY in game if a player wishes to try to ICly escape whilst not in direct RP, btw. Have a look!

So, let's look at the flip side of the coin to discuss some reasons staff members won't step in, and when you might get into trouble expecting intervention:

1) A player believes the Inquisitor doesn't have enough evidence.
Sorry, guys, Inquisitors don't need evidence, they have authority.

So long as they're not burning someone for clearly OOC reasons as noted above, Inquisitors are not required (by policy) to prove that a player is a mage or heretic before burning them anymore than we tell other players that their reasons for PKilling someone are limited to A, B, or C. Inquisitors, like everyone else, are only required to prove that their actions and reasoning towards a player's burning is In Character. This is hard to swallow, especially because it's leads to burnings that may not feel 'fair'. But we have to remember, the theme of the game is designed for this conflict to occur.

Let me explain. We very carefully designed the game so that, unless a mage actually demonstrates their magic, there is no conclusive evidence of a magery. There just isn't. Why? Well, let's think about what this game is trying to represent - people in real life were burned as witches when, in real life, most of us accept that witchcraft doesn't pose any real threat. Are cows sometimes born deformed? Yes. But does this mean that Little Susie is boinking a demon? No. And yet, people still got burned irl. The Inquisition is about the mystery, and navigating those waters. The theme is also about power and how it is used and abused. Those things are perfectly okay.

And on that, I like it when players are kind to one another and respect each other's RP OOCly. Please remember not to do the "pot calling the kettle black"? Pretty please? I've listened to players OOCly say 'so and so is doing a bad inquisition b/c they don't have enough evidence on their target, but I want them to stop focusing on that one and start Inquisitioning the person I'm accusing of magery/heresy as soon as possible' - but the fundamental difference in the evidence behind both requests for an Inquisition was the same. The only difference was who the accusations were coming from. This is about keeping it all IC. From experience, I know that most Inquisitors are not OOCly targetting people, they're just ICly doing their job with the tools they have available to do it. If that wasn't the case, staff would be stepping in a lot more often as per above.

2) A player doesn't have enough time to RP out their burning.
Yesterday, I made a bad decision, one against the weight of history and precedent. I told a player who was being burned to drop link and told the Inquisitor to stand down because the player being burned said they didn't have enough time to RP out their burning (even though they'd told the Inquisitor in osays they "wouldn't let the Inquisitor burn them until someone specific had a chance to weigh in and protect them"). When the specific person logged in, sure enough, they were back and happy to continue (only 30 minutes later, for about a two hour scene), and sure enough, the specific person who logged in got involved and attempted to stop the burning. I actually don't have any proof that these players cooraborated OOCly, but I don't think I need to point out to anyone that this is pretty unfair to the Inquisitor and it changed the dynamic of what would have happened in the RP considerably.

Due to the nature of PK and death, it's pretty standard for players to attempt to stall saying they don't have time to enact their death, either hoping for something to save them or simply because they cannot take the final step of separation to let their character go. Because of the high frequency - I'd say a good 70% of cases (we're not talking peanuts here) - historically, we've always told the Inquisitor, "If a player drops link anytime after they've actually been sentenced to burn - burn them linkless." I know people don't like it, but it's the policy because of the huge amount of spurious "I have to go"s that come up, usually, clearly stalling... and that is RP avoidance.

This is easy for players to prevent if they really don't have time, however - when the RP starts (like when the Inquisitor walks into the room), long before a sentence is declared, ask each other up front how much time you each have available to play. Do not state something vague or casual to each other like "I have to go soon", say something explicit like, "I have thirty minutes, then I have to go." When the Inquisitor says, "Okay, let's go to the pyre," if this is when a player starts to protest time, they're out of luck. Thus, the Inquisitor knows up front how much time they have, and if it's not enough time for what they need to do, they can negotiate with their RP partner when IS a good time. They can also say "Look, this is really dragging out. We only have 10 minutes left, I'll be honest with you, this is going to a burning, so let's just get it over with." This also works both ways. If a prisoner can't get seen within an OOC week, the staff sit up and take notice, and will start harassing the Order to handle a player's case. We reduce the QP cost to enact an escape, and all sorts of things, up to and including simply letting them out of jail with a thumb to the Inquisitors for not doing their job. In short, when a character's life is in the balance, this is not a time for people to dick around with one another, and we do not tolerate it.

I know I'm going to get some comments like "what if my house caught fire and I really had to go just then" - well, the official answer to that is "Sorry, that does suck, and we know it. Sometimes, however, life isn't fair. The Inq really has the power and authority in this sitation to burn someone, and there's not much the burn-ee can do about it, so their being OOCly present isn't really necessary and wouldn't change anything. As too many people have houses that catch fire right at that moment, we've made a policy that, stinky as it is, addresses a material game need to get on with things." So, with this post everyone is forewarned about how we expect these things to go down.

Thanks for taking the time to read, and I hope it clarified the staff stance on these issues. If you have any questions or comments, I'm happy to field them below.

[Bennie]

I am pleased to see this stuff posted up. And I'll, as the Order's GL, speak up to say that I really do try and approach the situation in as 'fair' a way as possible. I get it, getting burned can really suck. But, its part of the theme..

And also, from an IC standpoint, I work to try and keep my Inquisitors accountable on evidence and the like, but this could easily change with the next Cardinal/GI.

I can understand if it may seem like there is no evidence in certain cases. The policy I follow and that I believe others follow is that we really don't tell you exactly what evidence we have and don't have until you're actually asked about it in the Review itself and a lot of work goes in before the actual arrests and the like to build good cases (and these are often conducted secretly, so if you don't know you're being watched, then its just we're doing our job well). If you're concerned that OOC knowledge may be involved or the like, I'm happy to answer as best I can through tells and I'm sure that Inquisitors will as well.

In regards to OOC time and such, I do my best to make Reviews prompt, but IC circumstances and OOC schedules sometimes conflict. If an Inquisitor isn't showing up and it really is becoming a problem, I'll give it to another Inquisitor or even do it myself so far as is ICly possible. However, I ask my Inquisitors to try and not arrest peoples if they know they'll not have the time to Review unless they give info to another person to do it. Once again, I understand that jail sucks nearly as much as getting burned, maybe even more depending on how you look at it, and I want t get you through it as quickly as I may. In addition, its my policy to send Orderites on prison RP as well. All of them, Priest or higher, have been or are about to be trained for prison ministry RP and will be given access to the Tower. I want to also make the time you have to spend in there easier.

[Enix]

I would have preferred you come to me directly Kinaed, rather than protest the situation out to the general public. Not trying to be rude, but in general speaking think it may have been more appropriate.

Outside of this, there was more too it, honestly. I did need to go. And your right, i returned, via mobile, while i was at a bar to allow the scene to finish with very little involvement at all. Half of the scene I did not even see, because I left my laptop on and left.

Let me remind everyone that I clearly dont have an issue with having characters die, I dont think anyone would think that considering I rarely play a good character, and all bad characters mostly. I have had COUNTLESS characters die. Characters that I really enjoyed, and grown attached too. So I was in no way, shape, or form trying to practice any sort of RP avoidance. I showered, came back, and yes, a certain player logged on and it did reshape the form of the RP.

At the same time, is it fair to me that, in retrospect, that particular player was not logged in, but would have heard the bells and been able to do nothing about it? Thats borderline twinking, and maybe not twinking in a sense that its purposely done. But for the incident to happen without the particular player even being around to want to stop it, as they clearly did, would have been wrong.

I would also like to add, that the simple fact the Inquisition should be able to do things and get away with it is purely biased and unfair. Prime example, things are happening in the current situation and all of a sudden everyone on game is super detective with the ability to wrap their minds around the entire situation and find a way to make it fit in there favor. I can almost guarantee too that the stats dont portray the intelligence, or wisdom they are expressing(Not that we ply high to stats here, but still) If the inquisition can do things, and get away with it, why cant a bad guy? I fail to see logic, nor the fairness in this concept.

While I know the inquisition is a powerful entity, so as well are the others. But the problem is, you cant do much of anything worth while in another guild without being caught, or failing, or RPA being used just to thwart your plans and ideas out the window. Its how its always been, every time a baddie arises its always the same thing. The loneliness, most unassuming shred of evidence ends up getting people caught because everyone is super detective with a million reasons as to why such said person is the bad guy, and do this blatantly ignoring the fact that there thousands of people in Lithmore they have never met nor seen.

I am just saying that if the Inquisition is going to be let give a little leadway, so should the baddies. Because right now it seems, and I could be wrong, and likely am, but it seems that because the who list hardly matches enough suspects, that everyone is pretty much on board with a person initially accused just because there is no possible other way there could ever be anyone else....ever. That and the super detective thing everyone seems to be being as of late is quite irritating, and old.

Sorry if im ranting, but felt i needed to let that out, quite a few things have contributed to my ire as of late.

[Kinaed]

Enix, this post isn't about you as much as it is expectation setting with the pbase. I apologize for upsetting you as that genuinely was not the intent.

However, I simply don't share your views regarding bias towards the Inquisitors. Their authority and activity reflects their role in game. My issue is that I don't like getting tells with requests to arbitrate RP that are simplistic. I figure if I post this post, I have clearly stated when staff will and will not get involved.

You are well within your rights to believe the Inquisition should do their job differently, but that is not a policy issue. If you feel that no one has an IC reason to target you, I can investigate and determine if the staff agree that the IC activity is OOC. We do not, however qualitatively manage people's RP. We do not tell people their reasoning is crap and they cannot play their characters the way they wish to unless there is a major, material, overarching game reason to do so. You, however, are certainly welcome to express your opinion to them and others, though we request it be in a respectful manner.

With regards to "avoiding future RP with others" being twinkish - I must admit I disagree. RP avoidance is when a player avoids a situation at hand, right now, in the present. I don't believe it's appropriate to make assumptions about what the future might hold, then call it avoidance or twinking. In fact, I think holding out for such a slim chance is avoiding RP at hand - and RP avoidance is against policy. From a fairness and reasonableness aspect, I patently think it's ridiculous to tell anyone they MUST open their schemes and plots to the possibility of interference or failure just to give someone else a say. In reverse, do we tell all mages or criminals that they must ICly involve a Reeve in their bank heist simply because the Reeve wants
to get in on the RP and might have an opinion?

[Kinaed]

Meh, crappy mobile phone. Anyway. My statements above = staff policy on Inquisitions. Everyone is welcome to comment, but please expect everyone, including staff, to be held to the policy as it stands until or u.less it changes.

[Enix]

I am not asking to change RP style, or am I asking to switch around Order's methods, not my intent. What I am asking, is that people understand there is more then 20-30 people in this virtual world at one time. Which does not seem to ever be the case, ever. That and maybe overlook something you might know OOCly, and not use an OOC approach to justify a super detective method of determining the solution. Thats apparently, and obviously an extremely hard thing for people to do. There are few who do it, but there is a good number that dont, ever, at all.

Thats all I am saying, at no state do I wish RP to ever be changed. I am not saying the way people are playing is crap, at all. Maybe noone can understand what im trying to say exactly, which why i will just drop it. I dont ever see it changing anyways.

[Geras]

I appreciate where Kinky's coming from, in that it's very hard to address this issue directly from a policy standpoint, but I'd urge other players to consider it in the RP. When you act on hunches and guesses, it's worth asking yourself how much that guess is based on OOC knowledge and how much on IC knowledge. As someone who's played both law-folks and baddies extensively, I feel that the dots get connected suspiciously quickly when there's OOC knowledge out there confirming things. Rarely are they connected in a way that contradicts the OOC information available. (And props to Jei for being one of the players behind the latter case).

This isn't an attack on any player or any incident - I honestly don't know of details to make a judgement anyways. Just a general comment.

[Geras]

On the flipside I'd be remiss for not pointing out that there have been quite a few lawful types that have known OOCly exactly who my baddie was and what they did and did not let it inform their RP either. Cheers!

[Kinaed]

Alas, I agree completely that OOC knowledge pollutes IC activities and beliefs. I wish it didn't, but I know it does b/c I struggle with it as a staff member whenever I alt.

Certainly, if we catch OOC info going IC in a purely unbelievable manner, contact policy and ask us to investigate if it's legit!

Now, the sad part is that it's not easy to tell when there is evidence, and we may very well get it wrong, but we're willing to try.

Still better is if people refrain from "guessing" ICly what they know at all.

Here's my personal IC/OOC divide:

- First, I lay out what I know my character knows.
- Next, I decide what my character patently does not know.
- Next, I decide, deliberately, what it would take to get from not knowing to knowing. For example, if the key to my character putting two and two together is knowing who the owner of the dagger is, the I deliberately choose to make that the focal point/switch to "allow" myself the guess...
- And, finally, I consientiously remind myself not to fish for that tidbit.

In doing this, I try to be reasonable about the difficulty I set myself with regards to how esoteric I think the guess is.

Anyone else have suggestions?

This said, it's woefully hard to have a process that isn't, in the end, based on people's judgement. At best, people just don't have the same opinion on what it takes, but at worst, you do find iffy uses of OOC info that are hard to prove/discern.

Is there a policy people would suggest?

[Enix]

I dont think you will be able to have any sort of policy on this. I mean, as a player, the argument will arise that staff are not letting them RP the way they want, or something.

I would say, which I know is hard to do sometimes, but maybe have more of a play on stats. If your stats do not reflect you being overly intelligent, or wise, why should you be able to play that way? I know its an RP mud, and really stats have no say much other than how well you are combat wise, and how many skills you can have mastered, and how attractive you are. But even then, people dump alot in charisma for the simple fact that they want to be overly attractive. Problem is, when you see someone APP 2 with a gorgeous depicting description, or even something saying that are attractive, and not average. Like i said, I know its all for code related things, but maybe stats should be more viewed in an RP sense?

I know as an IMM its hard to implement something like this, without taking flavor or imagination from alot of RP, but perhaps just a suggestion. Then again, this would also need to be self governed. I dont know, just a suggestion maybe.