Why would the Don trust Bob?
The Don has no reason to trust Bob at all. He is usually wary about anyone. He had already received warnings about Bob before Bob became chancellors. There were always complains that Bob would mainly work for his own but not the town's interests. Then Bob drops his position as chancellor, which the Don considers as breaking a deal. Even worse, Bob went to battle afterwards despite the other chancellors stated clearly not to go. In the big trial, it could be proven that Bob is a liar. The Don even showed his distrust during the trial by mentioning several times that they would have to prove themselves. Furthermore, the tax records were checked four times and each time Bob paid constantly more taxes than before, except the last time.
Code: Select all
Oct 30 08:44:40 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 4551.
Nov 7 08:23:21 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 5278.
Nov 17 11:21:23 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 7911.
Nov 23 13:54:24 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 6915.
Quite obvious that something is not going on as it is supposed to be. Even if we would accept that you had to log off and could not pay your fees immediately one or two times, the fact that it increased constantly and you had still about 50% more than in the beginning doesn't support your claim. And I save us the time to talk about the missing donations. Just a reminder:
Valerio Guilianni says: We will change the conditions now, so that they fit better to your assumptions. Meaning, you all will serve as force to the town but whatever you earn, collect, whatever by your activities, you will give it to the town.
Another reason for the Don not to trust Bob are reports that Bob and his friends are planing a coup against the leadership of Galmair. Considering the past of Bob and his warmonger attitude, the Don has enough reasons to assume these reports are true and to see himself in the position to make the first move.
Then comes the report by the Bearers. The Don doesn't trust Dji either but more than Bob with his history and plans. There was not much than the words of Bob that Bob wouldn't have attacked the Bearers, when Bob was confronted with this accusation. In other words, nothing. So, the Don sees himself also forced to take action to avoid a war, which would be most likely a loss.
Permissions
The Don stated during the trial:
Valerio Guilianni says: Just that you understand, you will ask for permission of your actions.
Valerio Guilianni says: No raiding, no hunting, no smashing by your own.
Valerio Guilianni says: Only when the chancellors allow it.
As you can see, he says chancellor
s -> plural. The Don knew that Dranis is a member of the Free Man and expected that your chars would most likely abuse it since previous chancellors already raised this concern. In the confrontation yesterday, both other chancellors did not know about such permission. Meaning, neither Bob nor even Dranis did report it to the other chancellors or the Don.
Furthermore, why should there be such thing as a permanent permission? Why would anyone have to ask for permission to do something if it is granted anyway? That just makes no sense. Fact is, your char has had to ask for permission and he didn't. So, Bob just broke another deal with the Don and gave him even more reasons for the sentence.
The Sentence - death
The sentence includes definitely a harsh element with the thread of permanent death, but it is a thread in the end and considering the past of Bob, his plans and what was said in the trial, it is just reasonable. Your char was even warned by the Don during the big trial, that they risk death, if they don't follow the orders. For instance:
Valerio Guilianni says: If you think you can run away, your heads might become interesting for others.
The sentence in the trial was rather mild and many other players complained about it, because it offered so many loopholes. So, you could have expected that if you misbehave any time soon again, it will have more serious consequences. At some point, it is too much and your char is doing far too much. He fools, lies and threats not just others but also the chancellors and even the Don. Yes, you can try but you should expect consequences when the Don figures out you want his throne, which he did figure out via reports from other player chars. He, thus, doesn't need to meet Bob to learn about Bob's actions and plans. Of course, they could be made up by these players but again, they sounded reasonable.
Furthermore, in your char's chase, we closed our eyes multiple times. For instance, we learnt that your char went to Runewick within the first week after the trial despite it was declared as a no-go-area. It wouldn't be difficult to play that spies of the Don reported Bob being in Runewick. There would be good reasons why the spies of the Don observe Bob. Since other players didn't report it, we decided to ignore it but come on man, you can't let your char stay out of troubles for a single week.
In addition, if we would truly play the Don consequently, there would be no trial. Bob would feel some pain in his back on day and never been seen again. It is also very odd to expect that the sentence needs to be discussed. Since when does a judge discuss a sentence? They discuss the case but not the sentence and in your char's case there is nothing to discuss any more. You char is misbehaving on a constant level and there are no signs of improvement but all kinds of prove it gets worse. We even have to force us to ignore your char's actions because he does it so obviously.
The point of including the death sentence is simple to make it obvious to your char and others that he has crossed a line and should step back to save his ass, because it looks as he doesn't see it.
Slavery
The sentence of the big trial was that your char has to ask permission for leaving Galmair and donate the things he collects (see above). This means technically, your char is already enslaved. He can't move by free will and can't collect more property. In that sense, nothing really changes here for you as a player. You are still depended on other players and need to cooperate either to leave Galmair or gain property until the service is done. Maybe it makes it even easier because you are not just depended on the chancellors any longer. The only thing that actually changes is that your char is officially slave now and the addition of the controller stone, which is a role play element. Theoretically, it could be stolen and someone else could gain control about your char. Or your char gets control about the stone himself, etc. There are many options and ways for the story to develop and it is not really restricted. The Don might abstain to rent it to Jeff, Fooser or Juumajin at the current state but that again is just a question of negotiations.
Further motivation of the sentence
Having many players online is also our goal. Experience, however, shows that you should not overestimate these numbers. What was successful one time, doesn't mean to be successful another time. Look at the Games. Similar high numbers the first two times but a fail the third time for multiple reasons. It is true, we haven't had such a big PvP event for a long time and it was obviously fun for most involved, but if we would have such PvPs on a daily basis, it is very likely that these numbers drop soon because people get tired or mad about it. There are many people who don't want to have a war in-game or the risk to be slaughtered by other players as soon as they leave the town walls.
So, what needs to be done is not just pushing all the time but also pulling from time to time. You need to give people a break to recover from your in-game "harassment". For instance, when we played the orcs back then in Gobaith, we always took ourselves back when things escalated and acted rather peaceful and looked for different victims. Previous victims of our terror could do their things in the meantime and achieve their goals until we pulled the trigger again. But if you only push, push, push as you do currently, it just leads to complains. Thus, the sentence also aims to contain you and your gang a little bit and try to balance things. I don't say this always works all the time but we try to create balance as good as we can. And please keep in mind, we do this in our spare time.
Furthermore, a war or ongoing open conflict would need much more activity by us GMs, but we are currently only three GMs and too busy with our RL to monitor such a big event. We even have problems to run proper smaller events as you might have noticed. At least from my side. And you can read in old threads what happens when such conflicts aren't monitored. Even more ranting and from all different sides, which aren't good for anything and cause just even more unnecessary work.
Differences in punishments
If you wonder why only your char and not the others of his gang are punished to death or slavery, it is simply because your char is the head of this gang. The hope of the Don is it will scare the others and he can avoid similar measurements, since those chains are expensive but if this sentence doesn't help, it can always be extended to them.
The comparison to the other cases you listed doesn't work. Every case is different or has different circumstances. They were all differently to your case. There are also months (almost years) between them. The game and the game-play of the Don have changed in the meantime. Just see the next point.
The Don's inactivity
The inactivity of the Don is mainly the result that we take him out of the game as much as possible and move responsibilities to the chancellors. For instance, when Jeff requested to discuss the proposal, he was informed by the Don, to discuss it with the chancellors. Although the Don listened to your chars then, this is going to be decided by the chancellors. He might ask questions and point to problems and offer suggestions but if there aren't any, there is no reason to intervene, although your cases are becoming special now.
Also most crimes are dealt by the chancellors nowadays. We see the Don only as the second and highest instance/court and pull him in only when we think things might go out of hand like when you guys almost started a war or someone complain about the decision by the chancellors.
Same for building projects. They are run by the chancellors. The Don only asks questions and checks if things moving on. He would only turn down projects, when we see either the rules or the game harmed.
Furthermore, we recognised that the chancellors are mainly ignored by players when the Don shows up and he gets all attention instead. This is fine due to his status but we decided to use him mainly for events or important matter in order to allow the chancellors to have more impact. If the British queen would show up every day in the parliaments, the Prime Minister would also only be busy with kissing her hand. Some might think this would be better though.
You should actually be aware of this since your char was chancellor recently. The conversation with the chancellors happens mainly via PMs since it is always difficult to find time for everyone to meet and to avoid further delay.
And the Don has never been really emotionally. So why should he be this time? In particular since he told Jeff to go the chancellors with this topic. And the proposal might lead again just to another war, which means more expenses. A true merchant would not drool over at such risky adventures. They love no risk and guaranteed profit. Just observe the stock markets when somewhere conflicts or crises are mentioned.
Plus there are RL reasons, but I don't need to show accountability to you in this regard.
How to continue.
We are not going to change this sentence. Your chances, however, are much better if you cooperate than rant and run wild. Even when the death sentence looks so final, it doesn't need to be. It bears many options. The idea was to let your char flip a coin. Head would mean beheaded or hanging, tail would mean an ordeal or mission that would look like the sure dead of a char. The point is, since it would be your char flipping the coin, you wouldn't really need to take the chance but could emote the result. So, your choice. During the ordeal, either a god could save your char or your friends could run a secret mission to save your char's ass or whatever idea comes up. Even beheading or hanging would not mean that it actually happens. There are so many opportunities. Nothing is given or written down. We are always open for ideas but if you prefer to rant than using your time for creativity, it is your choice of course.
Whether Bob will hate the Don forever now is also your choice but fine. Bob should only be aware by now, that the Don will not accept everything and knows to defend himself. The Don tolerates many things but you should not mess with him. In particular when you are not protected by another town. And even if I wouldn't mind, he will not die until the game team decides another setting. So, I suggest either avoid the Don or win his favour back. Again, your choice but learn to accept the consequences.
Correction
Despite the sentence will stay, I admit that using Krunk together with NPCs surrounding Bob can be seen as unfair since you had no option to rp. Therefore, we are changing this to Krunk and the NPCs are heading to your char's flat and give your char the chance to run off. So, you can choose now between death sentence, slavery or becoming outlaw.
I'm a little sorry I started but I did want to say that dialing back the forced nature of the punishment and opening up some other options for the character/player was a nice concession. Thank you for taking that into consideration. Thank you also for explaining to the community at large the decision making that led up to the punishment post. That had me a little bit worried.
). They are the evil servants of the greedy pig-dwarf!
) the environment did not respond to any threats or actions or what ever. The towns where just a couple of houses and they were there no matter who did what. While did provided a wider degree of freedom to the players who wanted to cause some trouble, because in the end there was not much anyone was able to do against this, as long as the players kept within the borders of the game rules. This surely provided fun for the set of players who were spreading some havoc and at least at the start of everything also for the players on the other side. But to my experience one side usually became pretty upset with the entire situation. Simply because there was no stopping the other side or because there was nothing to gain. Everything did remain as it was and that was about it.