Basically the old IMMs are gone in most cabals. New IMMs have taken over that do things differently. You pretty much just have to accept that and move on at this point.

Having played Trib a few times recently its sort of obviously leadership will determine most aspects of law interpretation instead of history and 'how it always has been'.

I noticed you posted Daev's interpretation of the aiding a criminal law and yeah, that is how it's been done for the last decade, but I've seen three times now in recent history where leadership says their interpretation of the law is not limited to jurisdiction and current IMMs are okay with that.

Just throwing this out there since Lochlan's discussion of it got locked for some reason.

The whole idea of law and serving law is that it is different than rules based on the whim of man. That's why the U.S. aspires to be a Nation of Laws not of man. The law should be clear and unchanging no matter who is provost.

I would argue laws cannot be unchanging as the CF landscape is changing.
- Entropy is back and this is a great example as there is currently no clear way to handle disperse, you could claim it is offensive or harmful BUT it is also random, so what if in the one in a million disperse was used and by random luck it landed the person on a healer, allowing them to heal the very thing that was about to kill them.
- Stretching the point I know but one could argue the outcome was neither harmful, nor offensive

- New classes are round the corner (Enchanters)

If the laws do not change or perhaps (Precedent put in place) then more and more loopholes are created. Just look at planets earths own laws and the struggles that extremely rapid technical advancements are making.
EG Driverless cars. That I am currently aware whats the ruling if a driverless car has an accident? The driver? The manufacture of the car? What if the driverless car has no-one in in and is enroute for a pickup? Which is also something ride share companies are heavily looking into.

As for US law? One could argue, gun laws that are still based on rules created when muzzle load rifles were all in vogue is a complete and utter failing in evolution with technical advancements.

I believe the crux of the Trib law problem comes not from any actual issues with the Law being poorly written (which it is), but that the consequences aren't fun from an OOC perspective. IC, My badass hero Villager doesn't give two ####s about the law. I kill mages. Don't care where. But that is tempered, not by the fear of getting on Tribunal's bad side, but by the OOC annoyance and time wasting of dealing with guard NPCs all over the place.

Or, if you aren't a villager, and you aren't an Outlander, and you have an actual desire to ever buy anything, you have literally invulnerable shoppies that kick your ass if you forget for a second that you are WANTED. You have to mow throw low level NPCs attack you even though they die 2 rounds later. You have towns like Udgaard, which don't even have Tribunal protection, being completely inaccessible.

None of this makes sense IC. Very little of it is punishing in an IC sense. Almost all of it seems designed to annoy, punish, and waste the time of the WANTED player.

Imagine, if you will, a Thera where you, as a minotaur, got attacked by every human female. After all, you are an abomination born from the death of a human female. How playable is said minotaur? Even as a hero this would just be *annoying*. Now if Human Female PC wanted to try and murder you, that would be interesting. That could be a fun little story between two players, but being harassed by NPCs isn't fun or interesting. It obnoxious.

If you want to fix Tribunal "law", fix guard NPC behaviour to give them any sense of self-preservation. Fix all the random "guard" mobs that shouldn't give 2 ####s about a WANTED flag. Make shoppies murder-able and loot-able, so if they want to start something because you are a criminal, they can reap the consequences. Now being WANTED isn't pure player annoyance and you can fill that hole with meaningful player interaction instead of time wasting punishment style behavior.

OOC concequences.

Or at least not seriously. For any other built-in enemy type of thing, you don't see 1% of the arguing you'll see over even a properly applied WANTED flag, and that arguing is usually half OOC garbage, because the reason for arguing is because it is an OOC punishment.

I believe from an IC perspective, that aiding law clearly opens the possibility for "creative" flagging and that it should be legit, but actually enacting that as a PC would be painful for myself and everyone else in an OOC sense.

I can see what your saying here, however I dont understand why it is OOC. When you make the decision to break the law and become wanted IC, do all these guards magically appear from nowhere? No, they are and have been there the whole time long before decision was made to break the law. These consequences are known at that time, so IC your character has to put up with it. If you don't want to put up with this annoyance then don't break the law, if you want to go on a mage slaying spree where ever you find them, well that's the balance of power sure you get double the mage kills, but you get wanted to.

>If you don't want to put up with this annoyance then don't break the law

The problem is:
1) I and Tribs will disagree on what constitutes breaking the law. Moreover, this thing changes every time a Provost changes. The "science marches on" argument is very weak because things don't change to match new circumstances - they change back and forth because different Provosts have different understanding of the law. Nothing undermines authority and erodes respect faster than this, IC and OOC.

2) Consequently, I don't always know if what I'm going to do will be seen as lawbreaking. Sure I can err on the side of caution but if a Trib is really determined to find a reason to flag me, they will. I want concise rules that restrain against possible arbitrariness and outline exactly what I'm allowed to do and what I'm not allowed to do.

3) Laws should not restrain people to the point of ridiculousness. People should always be allowed to defend their cabal without worrying about a flag.

4) From my every experience as a non-Trib character, it's that PK-hungry Tribs are always trying to provoke me into breaking the law.
See #1. Sooner or later I'm going to slip and get flagged. How about you guys focus on your enemies? On those who actually hate the law?

I think they just keep the conflict to be the eternal source of drama.

>I can see what your saying here, however I dont understand
>why it is OOC. When you make the decision to break the law and
>become wanted IC, do all these guards magically appear from
>nowhere? No, they are and have been there the whole time long
>before decision was made to break the law. These consequences
>are known at that time, so IC your character has to put up
>with it.

That's the thing though. IC my character probably enjoys killing guards. IC guards probably aren't 100% suicidal. IC, guards in areas that aren't protected areas really shouldn't give a crap about a WANTED flag, especially when it is suicidal. My character might be perfectly happy to mow through guards. But I, the player, find it tedious. My character has no IC explanation for shopkeepers being un-killable and un-lootable, but as a player I've just made buying stuff real annoying for myself.

>If you don't want to put up with this annoyance then
>don't break the law, if you want to go on a mage slaying spree
>where ever you find them, well that's the balance of power
>sure you get double the mage kills, but you get wanted to.

If I, as a player, don't want to be annoyed, then don't break the law. If I, as a character, wouldn't care about laws, then suffer through the consequences as a player, even if they have very little effect on my character. Yea. No thanks. Especially because the "consequences" I'm concerned with continue to be annoying even when there are not Tribunals around.

The whole point of the original post was to quicken your realization that times have changed and your arguments don't matter. I accepted this several months back and had a great time playing Trib after.

It turned into a law symposium instead, which is fine by me.

P.S. Did you know Murphy has a law degree too?

NT

If I became Provost and declared that henceforth all known Battleragers should be permanently flagged, would everyone just roll with it too?

And as I pointed out, it's not just "Daev's interpretation" -- it's something Daev said is not subject to interpretation.

Once again your example is pointless and has nothing to do with anything even remotely written in the laws.

Someone else mentioned it but I will use it now:

I give you my defense:
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing
I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca
lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make
sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live
on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make
sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this
have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has
nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me.
I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin'
about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am
not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to
remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin'
the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and
gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If
Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Quote From South Park "Chef Aid" Season 7 Episode 14

NT

Gr

But aiding a criminal is already a part of the law. Interpreting the scope of that law is within mortal hands as long as they can provide justification. Declaring membership in a cabal as against the law would be creating a new law which is outside the scope of mortal leadership.

And changing jurisdiction rules is ALSO outside the scope of mortal leadership.

.

Basic Tribunal form currently is that the Provost decides primary law interpretation. If it is a sketchy one, one that pushes the limit, or a 'new' one - they end up having to defend it (and as Vramun knows, that can be lengthy) until it is satisfactory.

Warrants placed on that interpretation are typically removed until a final decision on validity is made.


If you want to reign in Trib, feel free to join up and aim for Provost. Let your word BE LAW!


But if it is just some nonsense "warrant everyone" thing, it's refused, period. Allowing Provosts to 'interpret' the law keeps Tribunal more interesting than "sit in city 24/7". It makes it more writing/rp intensive, but I think that's fine.

-Ish

things being interesting for other cabals and players other than Trib, as law interpretation has a major impact on overall gaming experience.

Forgetting about jurisdiction seems like a bad idea from that perspective.

For example it'd make things more interesting if jurisdiction borders between cities was made more vague, like Hamsah magistrate can flag for murder in all the "lower" cities" or something, but letting all tribs to flag for things done outside the cities raises way too many objections.

that jurisdiction is set in stone as only protecting the cities. that's not technically what the helpfile states. The helpfile first states the "laws of the land" (hint, not laws of the cities). Second it says the cities are "protected by the jurisdiction" of the Spire. If you take the plain meaning of the language, that means that cities are protected, but that doesn't mean that the Spire's jurisdiction doesn't exceed that.

This argument is further supported by the fact that the laws themselves (except the important one that is in contention, rule #3) explicitly state the area in which these crimes must be committed (i.e. in a protected area, or in the Spire). The laws leave out, interestingly, any sort of explicit bounded area for rule #3. So one can argue that it was the intention of the initial framers of the laws that rule #3 is not bound to only protected areas. A pretty compelling argument, on the condition that you assume that the writers were smart.

An opposing argument is that you just assume the writers were careless, or you take a position of history. the first is that the writers had intended to mean everything, including the "protected by the jurisdiction" phrase to intend that the jurisdiction of the Spire was solely supposed to be the cities (which I guess I have to disagree with since you see rule #4 suddenly extend the jurisdiction of the Spire to the Spire itself. So that means that jurisdiction does, to whatever extent, go beyond just the cities.)

The second part is that in the past it has been the precedent that Rule #3 was interpreted as only being in cities, and that there should be no change.

The final position you can take is a policy argument. That it's just a dumb idea to suddenly implement a change when it could undermine the authority of the Spire and that it in fact will increase the number of attacks within cities, and cause discontent, especially when it's such a hard law to implement. This angering of the masses is clearly seen by posts where people vocally dislike this change of interpretation, and is only enjoyed by tribunals who enjoy mincing over what a word means while smoking a cigar and drinking a scotch rather than actual consequences of their decisions.

Personally, unless you decide that the writers had no idea of the consequences of the wording of the laws (which I think is true to some degree), there's compelling reasons to believe that rule #3 extends beyond city walls. I also think that the policy argument is just as compelling of an argument to not take up this interpretation.

I can assure you the original 'founders' when imms went from Arbiter to Trib had no intention of black and white laws being up for interpretation. Basically they would say you're all a bunch of dumbasses.

I disagree with the 'open interpretation' policy whole heartedly, especially if the logic behind it is 'oh no if we don't do it this way trib might be boring!' If that is the logic maybe don't play trib.

I'd be careful of calling anyone a dumbass. What's happening right now happens all the time in all judicial courts in all countries that have a separation of powers between who writes the laws and who interprets them. If it was their intention to make it black and white, they should have written it better :P. It's not someone's fault for reading it decades later and seeing ambiguous portions.

Or really meant to be interpreted by them either (or law students).

The rules of the game can be as constricting or permissive as the Imms want them to be, and that's pretty much it.
Arguably Trib both interprets and executes the laws, but does not write the laws as that is the role of IMMs.

Imms = Congress and Supreme Court
Provost = Executive and Appellate Courts
Provincials = Lower executive, district courts.
Magistrates = police

Would be interesting if they had true sep of powers, and made 3 leaders.
Provost is the Congress, makes the laws (in accordance with the Imms)
Vindicator executes the laws and has authority over magistrates
Justiciar interprets the laws

But I don't think Thera needs a robust legal system since it's a game and the Imms can just set the rules and that's the end of it.

Absolutely. It'd be silly to only watch one person's fun. But I think it's also worthwhile to consider that, for many, Tribunal is "dull". Friction on its own isn't bad, obviously insane bad warrants are.

I do my best to keep an eye on all of it and fix up problems if there are any.


Jurisdiction matters. But CURRENTLY per law writings (and hey, who knows, maybe it can change) there isn't a jurisdictional requirement for a specific law. There are a lot of other restrictions on it though. It doesn't make everything fly.

I'd like to think I'm not actively forgetting any of the aspects, and I've spent a silly number of hours talking it out with others, so I'm doin' my darndest :).


-Ish

Is an insane bad warrant. Period.

When a Trib strikes the Maran Tara'bal he should expect all Forties to defend and it's no grounds for flagging them, even if one Maran is wanted.

What becomes warrantable during a raid is, per current language, insanely restricted. In general a warrant shouldn't happen there.

But if you're arguing that it couldn't due to expectation, that's a bad argument. "You should expect people to defend a criminal!" isn't really a valid point against law enforcement types. Their law trumps your allegiance to your friends/family/cabal/etc.

I haven't had to deal with much of that currently, given raiding a cabal knocks tribs off-duty and I've yet to get a note (at least that I can recall) about warrants placed mid-defense of an outer/inner.

Now please consider that ALL Tribs are off-duty AT ALL TIMES when they're out of town. The Provost included -- see the helpfile.

While I appreciate your willingness to jump ship to something else to try and make a point, that's not exactly how it works.


On and off duty have to do with vigilance and proper behavior. Duty doesn't isolate the ability to warrant, as clear from the specific scenario listed when an off-duty Magistrate is attacked in a city that isn't his jurisdiction.

An off-duty Magistrate lacks the ability to actively place a warrant. Hence them having to return to their jurisdiction to place it. The same is true in the situation you're referencing.

I'd rather not get too specific on it here, given there is some fun IC Trib stuff to go through that I haven't even gotten to hash out due to nobody actually doing it yet, but thanks for the feedback. But to settle worries without spoiling anything: I'm not a fan, nor would I be okay, with willy-nilly warranting without defining what assisting a criminal is.

>Duty doesn't isolate the ability to warrant

What part of "off-duty you are just like a normal citizen" does imply that? It specifically says you cannot flag even if you witnessed a crime in another jurisdiction.

>as clear from the specific scenario listed when an off-duty Magistrate is attacked in a city that isn't his jurisdiction.

Yes, it is listed as the exception. It is stated to be the ONLY exception. And it's extremely specific: it has to be a personal attack, in a protected city that isn't the Magistrate's assigned city.

This is just about as much of a facepalm as when Umiron told me that "a provost is always on duty". Why are there helpfiles if we're just going to ignore them?

It is the only mentioned exception. But we do also have a law that doesn't specify jurisdiction and also doesn't require vigilance to witness, though it does require jurisdiction to warrant. But that last part is easily solved by going back to your city.


Sorry to make you facepalm. Between you and Lhydia I'm just a dumbass who makes folks facepalm. How the mighty have fallen.

Personally, I think that while a Provost can be off-duty, they are always acting as a representative of the Spire. So it's more of an ongoing duty in relation to the position/image.


Thanks for the feedback.

-Ish

Law #3 itself doesn't specify "in a protected city". I think it should, btw, that would make things way clearer; and yes I would prefer it both as a Trib and as a non-criminal outsider, and as Outlander.

>though it does require jurisdiction to warrant. But that last part is easily solved by going back to your city.

It requires for the crime to happen within jurisdiction. Not just that the Trib be in her jurisdiction at some point in order to actually place the flag.

***

By the way, the Spire library actually goes kinda weird on this:

"While off-duty you are just like a regular citizen, in that should you see or hear a crime in a city that is not of your jurisdiction, you may NOT return to duty and flag the person."

So if I'm in Udgaard (a city not in anyone's jurisdiction), and I see or hear a crime (it does not specify which kind of crime; any crime) I may NOT return to Galadon and flag the culprit. But if it's in the Fortress I can?

***

Regardless of the above, there's also "help provost", which has a remark that it's never illegal to attack the provost abroad. Why is that remark needed when the laws already say "in protected cities"? Oh wait there's one law that doesn't. And it's for that law that the remark exists.

Yeah, it strangely is the only one (outside of 4) that doesn't. What a stink that is.
**
And according to the phrasing there, yeah. Scalia would be proud.
**
Agreed. It is NEVER illegal to attack the Provost abroad. I'd personally like this as part of other helpfiles so it's all 'together', but yeah. Coincidentally, I set up a scenario in another response where it is not illegal to attack the Provost, but is illegal to attack his guards.

I think I get now why it was YOU who became the new Trib imm.

If we go ahead with your premise then don't we end up at a partially absurd notion?

1a. Magistrates can warrant people for aiding criminals outside of towns.
or
1b. Magistrates, per the laws, allow that the Spire has jx over more than cities + spire.
2. Magistrates, then, must have jx over all of Thera, even though they might not be on duty.
3. Magistrates have power to warrant for breaking of laws wherever they have jx, even if they are not on duty, as long as they go back to warrant where they are on duty.
4. Magistrates should be able to warrant for crimes they witness in other cities they don't preside over, which is clearly a no-no of the Spire.

On a maybe side-note, you also mention that an off-duty magistrate would have to "return to his jx" to warrant. I assume you're not referring to the same jx I am, right. Since if you are (and stating its the physical territory that the magistrate has legal authority in), then that's just confusing. That would mean that off-duty magistrates can't warrant people for aiding criminals outside of his city, since he has no jurisdiction.

PS: Thanks for actively responding to comments about the Tribunal. I agree with the notion that Tribunal was boring and the laws ought to be re-visited by its magistrates, regardless of the outcome.

Yesish, or to put it more simply.

There are some things you can warrant when out of the cities. There are some you can't.

Is there a reasonable purpose for this? No it is arbitrary since that is the way the law is written.


The more absurd/amusing thing to me is this, and really this is spoiling a lot since I was hoping to keep all this in IC discussions: What is aiding a criminal? If helpfiles specify that it is NEVER illegal to attack the Provost outside a city, then you could easily dogpile him when he is attacking a criminal. But ;aw three does specify that "killing tribunal guards" qualifies. So now you've got a situation where the Provost chases criminal X to his cabal. Provost attacks criminal X with his guards. It is legal to attack the Provost, but illegal to attack his guards? Ain't that fun.

There has been discussion on revising the laws a bit, but I'm going to be walking a very fine line of "clarity" plus (my preference) some "malleability" so that Tribunal is more than playing on repeat.

And no problem, I have more fun with it than I should, which is why I end up responding more than I should. Keep it in game I say! Roll up a judicial master and get justiciar/Provost! We'll have lots of fun!

I completely forgot to write that I had written up a firestorm of a post about my issue with "aiding" and the lack of clarity of this and how it is still my number 1 gripe , and then I saw you posted you had plans for clarifying. So I deleted it :P

Though in the situation you hypothesized, I'd argue that you could potentially get them warranted for aiding a criminal after Provost attacks X. Or, if you're just attacking a Provost, you could say the guards attacked you and not vice versa, so technically not a crime! :P

I can't play, my grades suffered from the past year of CF and it was a hit of realization that I knew was going to come as I did not get the market/job I wanted for my 2L job :( So I gotta work my butt off and hope I get lucky my 3L OCI. If I ever did roll again, It'd for sure be a tribunal, though! GL with any IC changes you make!

Boo! 2L jobs are pretty hard to come by as is. I got lucky since mine was won not by grades but by past work experience/resume.

You got this! KICK BUTT!

(woefully remembers playing CF in the middle of Admin Law)

Also stuck out at OCI. Which market are you aiming for?

I really don't miss those days. Most people strike out at OCI, so don't get discouraged by it.

Just do your best in classes and look for other ways besides pure grades to set yourself apart as a candidate. Unpaid work experience or if the school lets you work for credits can go a long way. I did a stint at legal aid in Atlanta in my 3L year (or was it 2L, I forget), was an easy way to get 3 credits and get some more legal work on the resume.

Also, don't underestimate the importance of getting a strong reference from one or two professors that teach in the field you're looking for, something that goes beyond the generic.

And finally put together a very strong writing sample on something relative to the field, and work with a professor or someone to revise it to make it as strong as possible. Employers will want to know how well you write, since that's primarily what lawyers do. Unless you're one of those insane court room litigator types. :)

I got lucky, I had just passed the bar when someone showed me CF.

NY big law, I was stupid enough to not seriously try for CHI or SF and LA as I should have. Got CBs but I know from at least some inside connections with 1-2 firms that did give me a CB that my grades didn't cut it, comparatively.

I'm actually at a bar getting a beer after an interview with a big law firm in the Midwest, I really liked it so hope I get this at least :p. Wbu?

Split my list between North Carolina and NYC. Two NYC CBs, crickets from NC. Finalized my bids for Equal Justice Works, so I'll be in DC at the end of December.

That big firm wouldn't happen to be Husch, would it? I really liked the people they sent for OCI.

I don't want to hijack a thread with IRL stuff, but if you have an account on QHCF, hit me up! It's pretty cool to see other lawyers and law students play CF.

And no, I didn't participate in midwest OCIs even though I go to a midwest law school (STUPID ME), so I didn't really have a chance to interact with many of the firms during 2L OCI, though Husch is a great firm and my school does feed a lot of people to them.

>The more absurd/amusing thing to me is this, and really this
>is spoiling a lot since I was hoping to keep all this in IC
>discussions

Thing is, with many types of characters there's no ability to discuss it IC. Many types of imperial roles disregard tribunal law as such, there's no point in discussing it.
Outlanders and Entropy will not discuss intricacies of law as such, for the first - it doesn't exist, for the second - it's the ultimate evil.

That leaves discussions with much fewer participants, of which many don't break law. Like that was the reasons I once raised a forum whinefest as Kaer on ignite flags. I didn't OOC understand why I was flagged, but I didn't have an IC ability to discuss that. And I HAD to discuss that one way or another because being flagged affects your gameplay in a major way.

Same goes when you see tribs abusing their powers, but you can't report it IC because you're an outlander. OOC it ruins the game, but IC you should be happy about it.

So OOC law discussions are inevitable.

So it is clear for all:

- There is a precedent where all members of Tribunal can place a flag when a certain crime happens that is not within their Jurisdiction, and this can be done immediately without approval from the Justicar, Provost, Provincials or Tribunal Immortals

regardless of the definition of jurisdiction you want to use, if they can place a flag for that crime, it literally means they have the jurisdiction. You'd have to use some stupid phrase like "city that they preside over."

I am with Ishuli on this so please understand I am not being aloof nor trying to be vague, I am taking this approach because I want for most of this to say IC.

And when I say I spent the better part of 90 minutes arguing one of my flags I did and that was just for one flag!

So I want you to consider just briefly that this is not something where I went BOOM there we go, everything was calculated and some things took significant time to build the case and place justification on it.

Sometimes this meant repeat offenses, hey I was fighting criminal X and this person Y attacked me soon after when I chased them. Would I think coincidence yes. But when that happens the 10th, 11th, 12th time at some point there is a line where its a pattern.

And early on thats exactly how I applied it
- Criminal A Criminal B (Busted getting gear in area 1) ... OK
- Criminal A Criminal B (Busted getting gear in area 2) ... Hrm
- Criminal A Criminal B (Busted getting gear in area 3) ... Well
- Criminal A Criminal B (Busted getting gear in area 4) ... My my
- Criminal A Criminal B (Busted getting gear in area 5) ... Flag

No offense taken at all, I merely wanted to understand to what degree you were interpreting "aid," but as Ishuli did mention, best you keep it IC and best of luck with it all, if you are assisting in any way.

I am not helping just trying to speak from my IC perspective but not lay everything down, which I cant do anyway cause I am terrible at keeping logs. :)

Its the alzheimer's version of CF where you are stoked every time you remember where charred leather bracers are :)

In my rush my editing was terrible should have been
- Criminal A Non-Criminal B

Newer addition.

Thanks Ish!

I will give you an in game scenario because this is whats happened on many many occasions, I am interested in your response and I will engage in healthy conversation. But in answering why the other 3 should not be marked criminals you need to consider the following things in the discussion:

- intent
- frequency
- proximity

1. Criminal enters Galadon (Often not going beyond limit of outer gates)
2. Tribunal chases
3. Criminal leaves town
4. Tribunal checks outside gate
4a. Criminal one step from gate
4b. Any mixture of other classes also there (Invoker, Warrior, Bard, Healer, Ranger)
4c. Worst scenario of this was a group of 4 in quicksand
5. Tribunal wisely waits
6. Criminal comes back in BUT only when tribunal leaves the outer gate
7. Rinse and repeat steps 1-6 several times
8. Tribunal eventually chases outside town dying to a 4 man gank down

Now I will admit I am starting here because my logging of things is horrible and I was going to put together a word for word reply from the various IC sources but I don't have half of them. So instead I am going to do a half baked one simply using help files! :)

You need to look at where the crime has happened, not at where the offender or assister were.

E.g. if someone sends a nightgaunt into the city, that's a crime and deserves a flag. If someone uses unerring smite to strike a guildsitting dude, that's a crime and deserves a flag.

If a criminal periodically retreats to receive healing or shielding from someone who doesn't enter the city themselves, then yes, that someone is committing a crime. If you can prove the fact, go ahead and flag. Send a lowbie assassin to catch them in the act or something.

But if both the criminal and the assister are outside city borders at all times, then the crime does not lie within any Tribunal's jurisdiction and thus cannot lead to a flag. You can call it a crime if you wish, but you cannot flag for it -- it has not happened within your jurisdiction. Therefore you cannot flag for 8.

Such situations don't concern me, really. But I'm concerned that your note technically empowers Tribs to flag people like Qinsa did, e.g. for:
* ranking with criminals
* attacking him anytime he was with guards
* defending against his raids on cabals when one member of the cabal was wanted

THIS is what I don't want to happen again.

Say, with Vramun, how could I truly know when he was chasing a criminal? Mostly I just let you attack first (yay chargeset), but that precaution cannot be taken with, say, a necromancer.

Firstly don't look at the points in isolation all 8 must be considered this was 100% my intent on the method of application and this is why i detailed events with a rinse and repeat.

A couple of things
"If a criminal periodically retreats to receive healing or shielding from someone who doesn't enter the city themselves, then yes, that someone is committing a crime. If you can prove the fact, go ahead and flag. Send a lowbie assassin to catch them in the act or something."

Wait what?
- So you can flag 4b for the below on the word of a lowbie outside town but you cannot yourself flag for something you have witnessed because you are outside town, which of the two is more credible.
- Even investigating a crime in a city which I did not witness the word of one person is not good enough and you should know this! Hence why the "elsewhere" example resulted in no flag, both offenders denied it and I had one chaotic witness.

"But if both the criminal and the assister are outside city borders at all times, then the crime does not lie within any Tribunal's jurisdiction and thus cannot lead to a flag. You can call it a crime if you wish, but you cannot flag for it -- it has not happened within your jurisdiction. Therefore you cannot flag for 8."

Explain why not, there is intent, frequency and proximity in action of the group of 4, and as stated above you are looking at the points in isolation.

>So you can flag 4b for the below on the word of a lowbie outside town but you cannot yourself flag for something you have witnessed because you are outside town, which of the two is more credible.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. You can't flag on the word of a lowbie, that's exactly what I was saying: 4b may be a crime and you could argue for it being your jurisdiction, but you would have a hard time getting 100% proof of actual helping/shielding/healing.

But if someone just attacks you outside the city, when you're chasing a criminal (who is also outside the city), then it's out of your jurisdiction and you can't just return to Galadon and flag. You are not the magistrate of Eastern Road.

"If a criminal periodically retreats to receive healing or shielding from someone who doesn't enter the city themselves, then yes, that someone is committing a crime. If you can prove the fact, go ahead and flag. Send a lowbie assassin to catch them in the act or something."

Thats your quote above, and I simply questioned how anything could be drawn from that. BUT as I said elsewhere atleast there is a recognition that a flag could be reasonable

NT

What you have stated in 37 seems to be at odds with what you said in 47 where you "could" flag for healing outside town. And I would argue more prone to error.

First a sidenote, and not to nitpick but I'm not a fan of hyperboles. You never died to a 4 man gank, and you didn't seem to die to 3 man ones in or near a city ever, at least from your PK Deaths. So saying "many many occasions" is incorrect, unless 8. is to be changed to "Tribunal eventually chases outside town and faces a 4 man gank down."

But back to the main point, I'd want to know what standard of evidence you are using when deciding if someone should be given a warrant. Given the typical talk for Tribunals has been don't warrant unless you are absolutely certain (and correct me if I'm wrong here!), then your standard is at the very least "beyond a reasonable doubt."

To use your example, gank group had already set up post on the outskirts in order to try and kill you, and the criminal came along and saw that they were there. The criminal then proceeds to take advantage of that situation. There was no "aiding" there. Unless you are going to warrant based on the fact that the group should have left at that moment and dispersed because to even be there was to "aid." At that point you're basically warranting people for having to take an action to leave an area that theyd have every legal right to be in, just because someone else enters. Which makes absolutely 0 sense to me.

I'll use an own personal example to show a different concept. Person P sees magistrate M fighting criminal C in Hamsah. M words to Galadon. M is now en route back Hamsah on eastern when P sees him. M then detours to go a diff route back to Hamsah. That's at least what P thinks. So P goes and stands right outside the southern gate of Hamsah to hope and catch him walking. Meanwhile, C walks up to the area after P does and stands next to him, thinking the same thing. M then gets attacked, and warrants P. Did P aid? Even though P has his own agenda, M is outside of town, and P got there first? It's quite possible they colluded. It's also just as likely they didn't. Would you warrant P? Let's say they are in the same cabal. Would you warrant P then, even if they never tacitly or explicitly agreed to anything?

My point being, you speak of intent, proximity, and frequency. those are all indeed important factors. But even with all three there, that does not necessarily mean you have met your burden. Even assuming a high success rate, that method will create cases of false flagging. But if you're fine with an X% of people becoming falsely flagged, eh, what can ya do.

At least from what I gather of his words. If a criminal benefitted from your actions, it's assisting. Crime.

Sometimes, though, a criminal benefits from your actions no matter what you do. I guess then you just eat the flag and accept life is not fair. Because this is oh so Just and Honest and it is the Tribunal Way (TM).

Later on ill try figure out what what the hell C, P, V are actually doing.

See my response to Murphy, you are looking at the example in isolation all 8 points must be taken into account.

Never did I say it "actually happened", it was always intended as an example because I think in such a situation its fair and reasonable to flag some if not all of that group. Regardless of if the group was there first or not.

What my actual intent is ... well the actual outcome that has happened in the last couple of hours ... Yourself (I think you) and Murphy who have strongly argued that this should never happen have actually agreed somewhere there is a reasonable line in the sand.

My prior posts, that you might not have read, have made it perfeclty clear that while I favor one interpretation of the law, both are perfectly reasonable. What I'm asking boils down to whether or not a person has to actively avoid a situation in order to prevent a tribunal from thinking they are "aiding" a criminal.

I did look at your 8 point timeline of events. I'm saying that you're only viewing it from your POV. From your POV, sure, that might be blatant assisting. From the group's POV, it could literally be them wanting to catch you, and a criminal suddenly taking advantage of that situation. Which is why I ask what your standard of evidence is. Do you just have to think "damn, this looks like aiding to me!" Or do you actually have a higher burden you need to meet, which is, "I know from the facts that this is in fact collusion of some sort between the two parties involved, and there is no reasonable doubt within my mind."

I understand the "taking advantage" but when that advantage draws out over say 24 in game hours and the criminal keeps walking in and out and you constantly see the group together. And the group stays there, I think the "element of surprise/advantage is long gone" and you know that you are simply being baited.

But you raise an interesting argument because until attacked I never even considered with enough time I didnt even have to step out of town to consider flagging.

*Roles an Evil Giant call "Numarv Lemraj" (Get it?) ready for Trib round 2" :)

So if the group wasn't speaking with the criminal, didn't intend to work with this criminal, then you're saying that at some point during the 24 hours the group has got to move so they don't look like they're aiding, or risk a warrant.

You're second part also concerns me, since you're now taking the position that "aiding" can literally just mean them standing on eastern and looking at you from afar. If you have evidence that they plan to assist, sure. But if they never intend to strike you if you engage the criminal, then you're risking just warranting them without certainty. Which leads me full circle back to beyond a reasonable doubt.

All of which I am perfectly fine with. I was just trying to flip something you said for consideration. Hence my tongue in cheek character name.

Consider then, this exact same scenario and taking the next step on it the 4 people involved have a long standing history of aiding one another when criminals. Somewhere I feel that a history of action and intent has been shown, now should this be used in judgement? Perhaps it should.

Certainly when one considers that tribunals cannot travel with anyone who has been a criminal to many times.

All I am trying to do is show that a situation cannot always be black and white sometimes there is a grey area.

Flagging requires 3 things:
* they must commit a crime
* you must obtain proof
* the crime has to be in your jurisdiction
Taking all 8 points of your example together, I would not flag for that -- because nowhere in the list do the three things happen together.

Now pay attention! The crime has to be in your jurisdiction. Not the criminal, and not you. "Where the crime has happened" is the ONLY thing there that is open to interpretation. This is where you can draw the line further or closer.

But if you and the victim and the offender are all outside, then obviously it didn't happen in the city and there is no line to draw.

perhaps I misunderstood what you said, you said a flag could be warranted with 4b, can you be clearer on how? because isolate this complete to this example lets assume the trib does not move and that group of 4 v trib remain in a stalemate for 2 RL hours. How does the lowbie assasin help?

I didn't mean 4b in a vacuum. But consider this:

Criminal attacks you in the city. Fights briefly, then runs out. You scan, see 4 people standing there (including a healer). Criminal returns fully healed and with sanc, attacks you again.

You can flag their healer now. He never stepped in the city but he helped a criminal and it could at least be argued that the crime happened in the city (because the criminal is in the city using this benefit to fight back against you).

But even then you would need to make sure the healer really did heal and sanc him -- in this context I mentioned a lowbie assassin could help.

This is as far as I feel a provost can take flagging and still be justified. FWIW, I didn't even take it this far, although I allowed my magistrates to flag in such particular cases, if they felt it was the right way.

However, if it can in no way be argued that the crime happened in the city, then you cannot flag, and this was never subject to interpretation, in my eyes.

But excuse me as I will fight fire with fire.

I would argue in that case the flag is not correct. Because there are many ways one can heal, pills/potions. As for sanctuary what if there are 4 healers standing there which one did it?

Then how do you separate the "undetectable" (IE not immediately obvious) crimes
- Bard songs
- Invoker shields
- Transmuter spells
- Etc

If you take all this into consideration not placing the flag as you would and placing it when the crime is actually witnessed city or not is a far more level application of the laws.

I will however say this
- I feel there needs to be enough wriggle room that with the appropriate measures and arguments the laws can be interpreted by the mortal leaders, that's what makes the game dynamic and challenging
- What should not be ok is "Provost ruling all villagers are to be wanted all the time", OR the rules being so hard set that tribunal is completely helpless in bringing the criminal element to justice

And lastly:
- It is more than just the wording of Law 3 that for me meant the application for it in my eyes was just. Where outside of Law 3 I will let you find that, I realize law 3 is the big focus but its just part of the larger puzzle
- In-doing this I also want you to remember that I started pushing for this around the 80hr mark (When Sax is Provost) and didn't see it come to light around the 500ish hr mark. 420 hrs give or take, which I can guarantee if I flipped the tables and saw similar tribunal leadership and I was the mortal leader of a handful of other cabals I could have justified going to war with tribunal in about 5 minutes and NO-ONE would have even thought twice about it. Infact there probably would have been high fives all round

- Dont want to be flagged dont mess with criminals
- want to run around with wanted good aligns ... well there are things that can be done here to

You see two people running around, one a criminal the other not...how do you know it's not the criminal who is aiding the non-criminal get gear? The criminal is not being benefitted by the non-criminal in any way. Dun dun dun...

Because that's not a crime.

Once again I think this is quite subjective and is probably along the lines of the other example I gave.

- This criminal had chickens from galadon, everyone else has chickens, they must have all aided them

I think the level at which people leave stuff piling up trying to draw this conclusion for a flag would be an extremely flimsy one at best.

BUT

For the sake of argument lets say this was one criminal warrior and one non criminal warrior. And the non-criminal left the strange bracers behind in his "random kiling" and they were later picked up by the criminal who happened to wander past that to me a more reasonable thing to consider being aid.

I will give it from and IC perspective:
Quote:
"To use your example, gank group had already set up post on the outskirts in order to try and kill you, and the criminal came along and saw that they were there. The criminal then proceeds to take advantage of that situation. There was no "aiding" there. Unless you are going to warrant based on the fact that the group should have left at that moment and dispersed because to even be there was to "aid." At that point you're basically warranting people for having to take an action to leave an area that theyd have every legal right to be in, just because someone else enters. Which makes absolutely 0 sense to me."

Answer:
I think I gave this elsewhere (And IC while the groups were smaller I did try to fight in the situations) what I can tell you is this
- Did the other group always get flags?
++ If they did not fight me while I fought 100% no
++ If they engaged yes, but only those who did

Quote:
"I'll use an own personal example to show a different concept. Person P sees magistrate M fighting criminal C in Hamsah. M words to Galadon. M is now en route back Hamsah on eastern when P sees him. M then detours to go a diff route back to Hamsah. That's at least what P thinks. So P goes and stands right outside the southern gate of Hamsah to hope and catch him walking. Meanwhile, C walks up to the area after P does and stands next to him, thinking the same thing. M then gets attacked, and warrants P. Did P aid? Even though P has his own agenda, M is outside of town, and P got there first? It's quite possible they colluded. It's also just as likely they didn't. Would you warrant P? Let's say they are in the same cabal. Would you warrant P then, even if they never tacitly or explicitly agreed to anything?"

Answer:
So if I have this right whats not clear is "M then gets attacked, and warrants P" who did the attacking? And it sounds like P and C were standing together for a time as M was approaching.

But for the sake of the answer I will assume that P attacked

Yes I would warrant P, for aiding a criminal to elude punishment collusion or not.

However I have made assumptions here but rest assured 100% there were plenty of instances where I would not flag. BUT having said that lets consider that P and C have pulled this stunt a number of times, the opportunity for benefit of the doubt to be applied most definitely would diminish.

I think one of the biggest issues is people think the application was
and I grossly over exaggerate to make point
"Criminal Elf is on eastern road, I'm on eastern road, HEY the criminal is gone, that level 11 elf is on eastern road they must have told them, GUILTY"
OR
"That criminal had chicken in there corpse, who else has chicken, everyone online does, GUILTY"
I can assure you that was not the case.