From BattleMaster Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Daniel Richard v. Menelaus: Fined for not giving access to Banker

Summary: Fined for not giving access to Banker

Violation: Inalienable Rights violated

World: Dwilight

Complainant: Daniel Richard

Respondent: Menelaus


Region Lords have the right to not allow the Banker access to there Regions, How can one be ordered to do so, its the same concept of ordering a noble to recruit certain types of troops to recruit or punishing nobles for attending tournaments.  The fines are for the wrong reasons period. Full text



Same principle as telling a player what to recruit. This is one of the newer features so it wouldn't have mention directly in the IA

But it needs to join the list, has way to many abusive features if concepts of that above is proof.


This is about the players hoarding food and not responding back anyway to those who asked them to sell food.

Morek is a theocracy.. the said players ignored orders from the ruler itself.. dont think any medieval rulers would have accepted that without doing anything. They didnt even give an explanation or speak until now on why they dont want to sell food or open up their granaries.

This complaint seems to be more out of OOC reasons as the player complaining is one who was ridiculed by the ruler for supporting a region lord who allowed his region to starve and got kicked out due to the region loosing control.


Yes, I really don't see the issue here.

It is a legitimate power struggle between Lords and the Council. If the Lords are looking after their food well, and making sure it gets sold, then they can argue that giving the Banker control is unnecessary. If, however, they are being negligent, and through this negligence the realm suffers, and if they then further refuse to cooperate when the Banker tries to right the situation, then arguably they deserve punishment.

Totally IC power struggle and dynamics. There is no rule that says "you can do whatever you want with your region, this is OOC and protected by IR".

Just like the IR says you can be active as much or little as you want. HOWEVER, higher positions require more commitment, an unspoken agreement when you take them on. This does not mean that you need to log in every day, but you DO need to do the job that your positions requires. And if not, you will, or at least SHOULD be called on it.

And you just got called on it.

Too many people just sit by quietly in BM (I know, as I am guilty of this in some instances as well), and then complain when their lack of participation is frowned upon. In this case, it sounds like you are actively not participating, and further not allowing others to do the job that you should be doing, and then complaining here when they apply the stick as an attempted second corrective measure.



Not an IR.

The IRs protect OUT OF CHARACTER enjoyment, this is an in-character power struggle that should be resolved through in-character actions.

Justin Licht v. Lyman Stone: Inappropriate Out of Charcter Insults

Summary: Inappropriate Out of Charcter Insults

Violation: No verbal attacks, insults or harassment of other players. E

World: Dwilight

Complainer: Justin Licht

About: Lyman Stone

Full Complaint Text:

Out-of-Character from Hireshmont II Vellos  (just in)

Message sent to everyone in "Sanguis Astroism" (124 recipients)

F--k you.

Lyman Stone



Jonsu (Justin's character) planned with one other person (an Elder in SA) to take over the Church. Jonsu was allowed back in, promoted to Elder, and demoted almost everyone else from Elder in the span of a few hours. Now, with no mechanic in place to oust an Elder, Jonsu basically has full control of SA.


No matter the provocation, such out-of-character venom is never excusable.


Worth noting that I've never behaved like this before.

In the previous case where we've had discussion of particularly venomous interactions between players, it's been usually both sides having a long record of negativity and hostility. I have no such record, nor do I think anyone can accuse me of this kind of blow-up before.

I've already paused Hireshmont, who was my last active character. The resolution of this case will probably not meaningfully affect my decision to play or not in the future.

I don't get mad at people for just being antagonizing. Annoying people, people who routinely operate on OOC grudges... I've played BM long enough to deal with that. No problem with that.

It's when apparently two characters, one of whom has been borderline inactive for months and hasn't included any other characters (publicly at least) in his apparently monumental plans, exploit a ridiculous asymmetry of button-power to single-handedly rewrite the whole structure of the largest player-created institution in BM-history. Yes, that ticks me off, because it's OBVIOUS abuse. It's CLEARLY not playing with friends. It's Justin having fun f--king with game mechanics to knock over the sandcastle the other kids have been diligently building for years.



Jordan Dishman v. Khari: Farronite-Asylon Merger

Summary: Farronite-Aslyon Merger

Violation: Friendly Realm Merger

World: Dwilight

Complainer: Jordan Dishman

About: Khari

Full Complaint Text:

I'm not sure of the specifics, but Duke Khari Kye has joined Aslyon, leaving Farronite with a single city. I suppose so long as Farronite can continue as a one region realm it wouldn't be a realm merger, but it doesn't seem feasible.



Per game mechanics, barring a bug, it is impossible to merge every region into another realm. You have to leave one city behind. What happened here is that every region of a realm merged with another realm, to the extent possible by mechanics. (Again excepting bug abuse.) The realms involved are friendly. They were in fact strong allies. The merger provides a big advantage in a war to the realm to which received the regions; economically, militarily, and geographically.

What you have here are two regions who have historically been strong friends and allies. They are both strong, viable realms. Neither one is under any obvious external pressure or duress. The action taken merges the two realms, providing a large and obvious advantage to the realm that received the regions. The realms were merged to the maximum extent possible, limited by game mechanics. The remaining region is a city that cannot feed itself, and can only exist by receiving food from the realm to which all its regions moved.

Whether or not there were any IC reasons for the merger is irrelevant. This is an ooc rule which limits the actions of players for ooc reasons. (Besides, anyone with two braincells to rub together can always come with an IC reason to do anything they want. )

Imo, this violates the realm merger rule to the maximum extent possible without deliberate exploitation of a bug. Even if the player that did it did not intend it that way, That's how it ended up.

Glaumring the Fox

I dont think Asylon and the Farronite nobles should be punished for the actions of one noble. I dont actually see that any of us have done any wrong except step on Astrum.

Perhaps the ability for Duchies to seperate and join other realms should be taken out if it causes so many problems, or perhaps only a certain amount of duchies can cede at a time. We didnt write the code or make the rules but it seems when it benefits Astrum there is no issue, let us not forget Kabrinskias realm merger.


This case is identical the switching of allegiance of the Duchy of Sun Hall which was the prelude, and is discussed in this point. A duchy containing all but two regions (a stronghold and a mountain) changed allegiance to Luria Nova from Solaria. Nothing was found wrong with this, which is damned near identical to what just happened. The only reason a case was opened is because a bug was in place that allowed the final duchy of Solaria to change allegiance, which was declared a realm merger. My point is, if Sunhall leaving Solaria wasn't a realm merger, then the recent FR duchy leaving FR for Asylon isn't one either.


Tom's post in the Solari and Luria Nova realm merger thread states:

A "friendly realm merger" does not require a precise definition of every word. What I intend by those words is that I don't want realm A and realm B to sit together and say "hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side" or whatever, and then simply join up.

Duchess Khari decided she didn't want to be a part of FR anymore, not the rulers simply agreeing to merge, thus this is not a realm merger.

Glaumring the Fox

What happened with FR and Asylon is a duchy merger not a realm merger. If you want to prevent duchies from merging then restrict the size of duchies or what or how duchies merge.


I was looking through some of the past magistrate cases and I came across this post from Tom, which I think is instructive. I think that whatever arguments you can make to construe this as a violation, it's sufficiently ambiguous that the case should be dropped.

Tom: If I may inject, because this is already taking way too long.

We are bickering over details.

A "friendly realm merger" does not require a precise definition of every word. What I intend by those words is that I don't want realm A and realm B to sit together and say "hey, as one realm we would have better game mechanics on our side" or whatever, and then simply join up.

What happened here was NOT the scenario I see as a "friendly realm merger", because it was not an agreed act of cooperation between two parties. You can discuss the "friendly" part if you want, but there wasn't a merger. Whatever you call it, and it sure is a strange event, but it's not the event I ruled disallowed.

Moreover, that real question is, which part of the Social Contract was broken. If we can not spot one without lots of arguing, then we can not assume that the players should have.

That is what I meant a while ago when I said cases should be handled a lot faster because unless they are fairly obvious, we can't expect the players to have seen their acts as violations. If it takes a week of deliberation between half a dozen Magistrates to determine whether or not... - how can we expect the players to come to a sane conclusion?

I'm almost ready to make a ruling that says if the Magistrates can't clearly say "guilty" within a few days, then he's innocent. Mostly so the whole game doesn't get bogged down in rules-lawyering. If that means we let a few people go without punishment, that's fine with me. I'd rather improve the rules than try hard to get every last one of them.,3396.msg80195.html#msg80195