028 Db Vs Braecen

Etah

07-05-2009 02:30:44

Since Kir has asked us to comment on Chamber of Justice Decisions on our message board rather than in the News Posting itself in the past; I figured it would be best to post my response here:

I think three things

1) I think this ruling sets a dangerous precedent of resolving personal disputes by sending logs that would otherwise be privileged to Kir and screaming for CoJ.

2) If a rule is so important that a member in good standing of the Dark Council itself can be put on parole for an entire year, it ought to be alot clearer. Having very vaguely worded rules and enforcing them vigorously smacks of arbitrary.

3) Because of the large amounts of interest in this case and itís potential to result in disunity and to further stir the animosity between the clans that began in the GJW, I think the Chamber of Justice should spell out the case, including all supporting evidence to the membership at large. If the case is as solid and open and shut as both Muz and Kir have said, then releasing this information should kill the controversy.

I know the simple retort is that if the members had to approve of everything the Chamber does nothing would ever get done. I can see the truth in that, but I believe the profile of this case, its relative ambiguity, the vehemence in disagreement, the allegations of bias/conspiracy and the potential for a negative fall out are all prolifically greater in regards to the results of this case, than it has in any other case before it. Thus I believe the process in which the disputed conclusions were founded deserves public scrutiny.

EDIT: Point 2, He has apparently not been removed from leadership.

Denath

07-05-2009 03:28:45

The case is in the process of being added to the Wiki. It will not magically appear the moment the news post is made - Justicar Kir does have several things on his plate at the moment. Personally, I'm not aware of any "privlege" that protects anything stated in a Clan channel - can you quote the part of the Covenant that provides this "protection"?


I think DJK Solus Gar raises an excellent question, which I'll repeat and paraphrase here.

What exactly constitutes match dodging? http://www.darkjedibrotherhood.com/wiki/in..._Gaming_Conduct may help anyone who wants to know.

To help further clarify, would a high authority person mind making some time to reply to these examples?

1) I want to hang around in #DBGaming to contribute in Empire at War matches for Event x. I avoid a JO match in event y because I've done it 1,000 times over the past week and will cover the next person who so much as types JO in peanut butter and feed them to ants.

2) I have IRC running in the background. I am in #DBGaming and am currently competing in event x on platform y. Someone challenges me to a match for event x on platform z, but I do not see the message - and therefore cannot accept - until my current match has finished, an hour later.

3) I want to spend some time focusing on written events, and jump on my Clans channel in IRC to stay in touch (or coordinate, in the case of the run-on). I am not in #DBGaming, and if asked, state that I am focusing on other events.

4) I accept ALL requests from #DBGaming. I completely ignore all requests that come from private messages, Clan channels, the #DB channel, email, et al.

5) I have Jedi Outcast somewhere in my house. I think my brother may have borrowed it, and has it stashed with his Mariah Carey CDs that he got off his really good friend Stevey. I eventually find it, install it, learn the value of knocking before barging into someone elses room, and then lag like crazy and achieve a kill score so low, even DJM Shadow won't touch it (:P). I leave #DBGaming and do not go back for the rest of the Vendetta. I delete Jedi Outcast, cover the CD in peanut butter and feed it to very confused ants.

Halcyon

07-05-2009 08:21:11

So because a case is deemed more "important" than others by some people, it should therefore not follow the same precedents as all cases that came before it?

If you're going to have a fair system you cannot treat each case differently than the next. A problem was brought up, evidence was collected, defences were given and a judgement made. Do you want to know what cheating used to be? You're busted down to APP and all medals removed. In this case Braecen keeps everything and is only on probation, but it still doesn't stop him from continuing in the club in any capacity.

All of the rules themselves are very clear. What punishment then isn't "bad"? Just the LoR? Nothing at all? It appears anything outside of saying "don't do that" is deemed to be beyond the ability of the JST and should be dicussed ad nauseum by a jury.

The ruling also wasn't about Braecen dodging matches, but what he was telling people as Consul of his Clan.

In the end, it appears that because of who it is, or what position they hold, how it is handled should be changed. If you are to change procedures based on each individual then you really do open yourself up to misuing the justice system in the DB. This case was treated just like every other, as it should be. There should be nothing different in how it is handled because of who it is or what they may or may not have done.

As for the gaming question and in terms of something like the GJW, it can be fairly simple. If you're in #dbgaming then it means you're "open" to a match. If you don't want to play, don't go into #dbgaming. Anything outside of that channel can be ignored. And if you had played a platform during the competition, then that platform is open to any challenge

Really, the only "bad" thing is this. Person X played EaW at the beginning, but deicded not to anymore and concentrates on JO instead. Person Y asks Person X for a EaW match. Person X gives them an excuse about not wanting to play EaW and then they turn around and play a JO game. That's match-dodging. If you're refusing games in one platform (and have played it before during the competition), but accepting matches at the same time for another platform, that's match-dodging. Nothing really fancy about it

Selika Roh

07-05-2009 15:58:09

Really, the only "bad" thing is this.† Person X played EaW at the beginning, but deicded not to anymore and concentrates on JO instead.† Person Y asks Person X for a EaW match.† Person X gives them an excuse about not wanting to play EaW and then they turn around and play a JO game.† That's match-dodging.† If you're refusing games in one platform (and have played it before during the competition), but accepting matches at the same time for another platform, that's match-dodging.† Nothing really fancy about it

See, the problem there as I see it is simply this: We're all here to have fun. Forcing people to play games that they're sick of or are tired of getting their ass handed to them in isn't fun. When we have rules in place that as a direct result of their existence promote things that are NOT fun for the membership, it's time to revisit those rules. People having a fun, enjoyable time in our club trumps "fair" any day of the week. The message I personally take from these things is that if I ever want to have the option of declining a JO match because I'm bored with JO, I'd best never EVER play JO in the first place. From what I understand, there were some people having problems trying to get matches on certain platforms. Rules that encourage people to 100% avoid those platforms or get CoJ'ed for match dodging isn't going to help other people find matches for that platform.

Halcyon

07-05-2009 16:14:14

The rules will be looked at...after every competition the organizers go over to see wha can be improved upon, and one of the biggest issues is the way the various rules apply to such large-scale competitions. However, this is a discussion best left for when a new topic is opened up for GJW comments and suggestions. Concerning this specific case, the rules were already set and those are the rules that are applied in this instance. This topic really isn't about the current gaming rules and match-dodging.

Selika Roh

07-05-2009 16:25:37

The rules will be looked at...after every competition the organizers go over to see wha can be improved upon, and one of the biggest issues is the way the various rules apply to such large-scale competitions.† However, this is a discussion best left for when a new topic is opened up for GJW comments and suggestions.† Concerning this specific case, the rules were already set and those are the rules that are applied in this instance.† This topic really isn't about the current gaming rules and match-dodging.


I think it very much is about match dodging and the current rules. I'd really hate to see the rules change in such a way that would fundamentally change the definition of match dodging so that it wouldn't have applied the same way in this case, and yet Brae is still on probation for a year. I remember that in Virginia it was illegal to sell certain things on the sabath (it used to be stores open period, but it was realized that things like drug stores needed to be open for medicine, but they couldn't sell non medicine things under the law). Some DA went out and arrested somebody for buying a tooth brush on a sunday, but the purpose wasn't to throw the guy in jail, it was to get the law changed. The point is if the rule is going to be revised because it's got some serious issues, should we really be enforcing the letter of the law now?

I mean yes, I don't know exactly what the details of the situation are here, but if rule changes come about in the near future that would invalidate the cause of action in this case, that would be quite worrisome.

It seems to me from my uniformed vantage point here that Brae advised somebody specifically to avoid #dbgaming so as not to get matches, and under the current rules that's not ok. But what if I as a gamer made that decision myself? Am I match dodging then? The question is where does it become against the rules to advise somebody to do something that they could decide on their own and have it not be an actionable offense?

Halcyon

07-05-2009 16:39:31

We actually haven't seen the exact logs, so I belive it's a bit more than him telling someone "don't go into #dbgaming". The very point of the case, as I can tell from the current information available to us, is that a Consul told one of his members something that was against the rules. Consuls are not "newbs" so they do know the rules, and what constitutes breaking them.

And not being in #dbgaming is not match-dodging in and of itself. Being in the channel and then telling people directly you won't game with them, when you have before and are capabale of it, is dodging. In the end, no matter how the rules are changed, it will always need to balance the "fair" and "fun" aspects. People will take advantage of any system that is unbalanced

Blade

07-05-2009 16:59:32

What about being in the channel and telling those that ask that you can't game on a certain platform for some reason because of a set of circumstances? And then being openly mocked for saying so? Isn't that against some rule or another or are the rules like a buffet where you can pick and choose?

Tarax Kor

07-05-2009 17:29:38

To quote my snippet from the news page:

People tend to forget... Kir isn't obliged to release his findings to the public. As outraged as everyone seems to be, you're forgetting two things:

1. All Braecen got was a slap on the wrist. Not even that. Even if by some crazy deranged miracle he was convicted falsely, it's not like he was demoted to Apprentice and stripped of all of his awards. None of the GJW results/standings were changed...no one PROFITED from all of this.

2. It's not for *us* to decide if this was fair or not. It was for Kir, who has all the evidence with him. Everyone can cry bias until you're blue in the face and foam starts frothing in your mouths, but that doesn't change the fact that your opinions still mean dickshit. Believe it or not, the only people Kir and the CoJ owe transparency to are the ones directly involved with the trial; and that's none of you.


He was caught telling people in his Clan things he shouldn't have been. That's what he was charged for, and that's what he was found guilty on. It's as simple as that.

Also, cries are bias are just stupid. If you keep claiming it, you need to shut up and be killed off. :P

Blade

07-05-2009 17:49:55

To quote my snippet from the news page:
He was caught telling people in his Clan things he shouldn't have been. That's what he was charged for, and that's what he was found guilty on. It's as simple as that.

Also, cries are bias are just stupid. If you keep claiming it, you need to shut up and be killed off. :P




Since I can't find anything in my post about bias, what the hell are you talking about? :S

Halcyon

07-05-2009 17:59:40

He's talking about the Comments from the News post that this very thread is based on.

And if someone's "reason" for not playing a platform changes on each telling/depending on the channel itself, then there's something wrong :P Now, does anyone have anything actually pertaining to the case itself, or just poking holes in everything else while we're here? :P

Tarax Kor

07-05-2009 18:11:43

There's no need to poke holes in cheese; Swiss cheese already has 'em!

Blade

07-05-2009 18:32:02

I have 2 copies of JO sitting right here on my desk, yet I didn't play a game one of JO... does that make me a match dodger? B) Even tho it is listed in my games on my profile and i have played JO in years past? And since I am a QUA and sent emails out to my members encouraging them to participate in fiction/gfx/ro/acc events, am I guilty of the same thing? Well maybe not acc events... but the rest sure. >:)

Halcyon

07-05-2009 18:33:48

This thread was actually have constructive comments, up until now. Everything was already explained, including answers to your "questions". There's no point in posting sarcastic drivel. You're not happy about what happened? Sorry, but deal with it. Unless you have something constructive to say, it's best you just stay away

Selika Roh

07-05-2009 18:40:30

I think there are plenty of people, myself included, that would like to know exactly what went on in the case so we know exactly where the match dodge line is. As the case itself says, it's not exactly clear. The problem here is that we know that Braecen did something that constituted match dodging, we just don't know what exactly. Given the variety of tales as to what exactly went on, you've got a bunch of people concerned for themselves in the future as to what they might do that could get them CoJ'ed. As of this moment, my plan to avoid any CoJ actions is just to avoid gaming all together because at this point I have no idea where the line actually is. That's why at least some of us would like to know exactly what's going on here, and exactly what actions Brae is guilty of match dodging with. To tell the truth, I don't know Brae from a hole in the ground, so I can't speak to one side or the other on or against his behalf. But I'd like to damn sure know the exact specifics of the crime just for my own self interested, don't want to get in trouble reasons.

Halcyon

07-05-2009 18:43:48

Braecen did not match-dodge...he instructed someone else to do it and/or condoned it. And my example is pretty clear, as that is exactly what counts as "match dodging" in something like a GJW. Someone asks you for a game in #dbgaming on a platform you have already played in for the competition and you refuse, yet still continue to participate using other platforms. It's not too complicated

Selika Roh

07-05-2009 21:13:42

Braecen did not match-dodge...he instructed someone else to do it and/or condoned it.† And my example is pretty clear, as that is exactly what counts as "match dodging" in something like a GJW.† Someone asks you for a game in #dbgaming on a platform you have already played in for the competition and you refuse, yet still continue to participate using other platforms.† It's not too complicated



Right, exactly why some of us would like to see what was going on. As the only things we've seen have been things instructing people to stay out of #dbgaming. And frankly Halc, your opinion doesn't really enter into it. Those of us concerned would like to hear something from the judicial system on this one, not just random elder type. :P

Halcyon

07-05-2009 21:24:19

I'm sorry, my time on the DC and as DGM must mean I don't know how things operate...my mistake. If you would like a quicker answer, may I suggest a direct e-mail to the JST?

As for seeing what was going on...that's now how our cases work. I mentioned that already. This topic isn't about clarifying match-dodging rules however, and since you won't believe me, then e-mailing the parties in questions is best

Selika Roh

07-05-2009 21:35:12

I'm sorry, my time on the DC and as DGM must mean I don't know how things operate...my mistake.† If you would like a quicker answer, may I suggest a direct e-mail to the JST?†

As for seeing what was going on...that's now how our cases work.† I mentioned that already.† This topic isn't about clarifying match-dodging rules however, and since you won't believe me, then e-mailing the parties in questions is best



The point is that this case sets precedent. Some of us are just interested in what exactly that precedent is, and as somebody that wasn't involved with the case how are you privy to that information? It's not being spread out to people aside from those involved in the case, so you're no more an expert then anyone else. The other questions I've been pondering in regards to this case is simply this: Brae was busted for conspiracy to commit match dodging and actually affecting brotherhood proceedings. So why is it that the match dodger in question isn't being CoJ'ed too? As I asked before, when is it wrong to advise something that's apparently acceptable to just do?

Halcyon

07-05-2009 21:45:12

What precedent does it set? All of my "information" is gleaned directly from what Kir wrote in his original news post. Take the time to read it carefully, and maybe you'll see what I see.

And if he told/advised someone to match-dodge using his position as leader, the other person in question wouldn't be charged as they were basically being told what to do.

And match-dodging is not acceptable, and nothing in the case says otherwise. So unless you happen to have more information, I don't know what you're going by, and in the end just running in circles. I've explained what "match-dodging" is as it applied to the GJW, as well as explained why information will not just be given out regarding the case. If you don't want to believe it, fine, your prerogative. Just wait for someone else to come along who you will "believe" more, and take the answer they gave you. Otherwise, you have all of the answers you need if you just take a moment and actually read.

While I'm not JST, I have been around long enough (and active :P) to speak comfortably about these topics. As this is an open topic I am more than willing to answer questions as they come up. However, I think most of the topics pertaining to this case have already been touched upon in some form or another.

Selika Roh

07-05-2009 22:31:41

What precedent does it set?† All of my "information" is gleaned directly from what Kir wrote in his original news post.† Take the time to read it carefully, and maybe you'll see what I see.

And if he told/advised someone to match-dodge using his position as leader, the other person in question wouldn't be charged as they were basically being told what to do.†

And match-dodging is not acceptable, and nothing in the case says otherwise.† So unless you happen to have more information, I don't know what you're going by, and in the end just running in circles.† I've explained what "match-dodging" is as it applied to the GJW, as well as explained why information will not just be given out regarding the case.† If you don't want to believe it, fine, your prerogative.† Just wait for someone else to come along who you will "believe" more, and take the answer they gave you.† Otherwise, you have all of the answers you need if you just take a moment and actually read.

While I'm not JST, I have been around long enough (and active :P) to speak comfortably about these topics.† As this is an open topic I am more than willing to answer questions as they come up.† However, I think most of the topics pertaining to this case have already been touched upon in some form or another.



You're happy to address the questions that you think are pertinent apparently, and be arrogantly nasty to those people that have questions you see as worthless. I'm not sitting here saying Brae got screwed. I'm sitting here saying that the information that HAS gotten out on this one has been very confusing. Hell, the decision itself admitted that the rules on match dodging are pretty murky. Murky rules are clarified by precedent, which this case set. I read the decision, several times. It doesn't give any details as to actions, it just says that rules were violated without saying how or in what manner. I don't need to see logs, but I'd like to hear something a bit less nebulous about what exactly this case speaks to.

Tarax Kor

07-05-2009 23:43:28

First of all, remember what this CoJ case was about:

It wasn't about match dodging, it was about a Consul giving inappropriate advice that was against the spirit of the competition, and against the duties of a Clan Leader.


Second of all:

You don't need to see [Expletive Deleted]. Know your place and trust the Justicar's judgment.


Now get your knickers out of a twist and shut the [Expletive Deleted] up already. If you won't, then just imagine Rosie O'Donnell in a Black Widow outfit, zipper down to her navel.

Selika Roh

08-05-2009 00:11:07

First of all, remember what this CoJ case was about:

It wasn't about match dodging, it was about a Consul giving inappropriate advice that was against the spirit of the competition, and against the duties of a Clan Leader.
Second of all:

You don't need to see [Expletive Deleted]. Know your place and trust the Justicar's judgment.
Now get your knickers out of a twist and shut the [Expletive Deleted] up already. If you won't, then just imagine Rosie O'Donnell in a Black Widow outfit, zipper down to her navel.



I could care less about the decision. I'm interested in not getting in crap myself for whatever actions are against this nebulous and ill defined rule. And this case IS about match dodging, I'd give you the same advice that Halc gave me: Read the damn opinion that Kir published:

Braecen knowingly and willingly used his position as Consul to unduly influence and manipulate Kara Rohana to commit match dodging in the Great Jedi War.

I've since communicated with somebody directly involved in the situation and it's left me with even more questions.

And as for sitting back and trusting the Justicar, BS. I've heard enough of that other groups and real life of late. Asking questions of the process isn't unpatriotic or unsupportive, and I had a very nice discussion with Kir that was civil and answered some questions last night. I wasn't aware that Fox News was running the DB now, and it didn't appear that Kir or Muz were either when I talked to either one of them over the last couple days. And know my place? I'm sorry, but somebody's position in a FICTIONAL MADE UP organization doesn't make them better then I am. Period.

Etah

08-05-2009 11:39:10

First) I would like to comment that Darth Bias and Tarax defending Kir doesnít make this seem any less like its a partisan Tally v. the rest of the DB issue.

Second) it seems like the definition Halc is using to define match dodging is the definition created by Kir. Itís also not clear to me whether or not Kir had the authority to change the Rites of Combat and even if he did or we're pretending like he did, it doesnít seem prudent to me to change the Riteís of Combat smack dab in the middle of a major competition.

Third) The Chamber of Justice was created in answer to Asst and his abuse of powers. If many members of the DB perceive an action the CoJ takes as unfair or unjust, saying [Expletive Deleted] you we donít answer to the members doesnít seem to me like it would create much confidence in the process.

Fourth) This seems like this issue will result in few people outside of Tally playing Jedi Outcaste in a major competition EVER again and I donít think that was the outcome Shadow was looking for.

Halcyon

08-05-2009 11:46:44

I'm glad this thread has now turned into a full-out bashing of various people. Thread should probably now be closed, and if people have questions, they can take it up with both Kir and Muz. Otherwise, you can continue thinking this is some sort of plot just to "take out" Braecen in the GJW, even though it didn't impact anything and CP itself was never in the running for first.

Everytime there is a judgement there is a yell of bias in some form or another...every single time. If this thread is here just to rip into other people, especially when all they're doing is answering questions, then so be it.

Etah

08-05-2009 11:52:24

I for one see few insults save for Taraxís. Many people on this thread are from clanís that have little love for each other, moreover this thread is not filled with those members that dissent to everything. I for one have no problem with Kir or any current member of the Dark Council. I have a concern as do many others from across the spectrum. I think such concerns, especially when espoused by a myriad of people from across the Brotherhood, should be taken seriously. Shutting us down and telling us our concerns arenít important wonít solve the problem and neither will muzzling us (no pun intended).

EDIT (as to avoid a double post):
Everytime there is a judgement there is a yell of bias in some form or another...every single time.

Actually I think youíll find that few CoJ judgments have elicited concern from more than a small group and I doubt very much any past CoJ judgment has elicited concern from Arcona and CSP about any member of CP much less itís Consul. The other clanís are the butt of our jokes, there is no need to defend them for any other reason than a genuine concern for the judicial process.

Kir

08-05-2009 12:03:56

I didn't really look at this thread until today...and yeah, it is quickly devolving - just like the comments on the DB page did. I'm going to close this topic now, but if you have any questions you can directly email myself and Muz and we'll be happy to talk with you.

To quickly answer two questions I saw:

1) The match dodging definition wasn't created by me, it has been the standard used in the last three GJWs and two RoSs.

2) The JST does have the authority to change the RoCs - and in this case, I merely edited them to bring them up to the standard that had been in use for years. Originally the RoCs were not meant to be used for Vendettas (which had their own special rules), but when we started using them, we forgot to comb through them and update the rules in those cases.

3) There will be changes in the Vendetta system in the future. While many parts of this GJW were a success, there were other portions which showed us that it's time for an overhaul. I'll be putting up a discussion thread for the GJW soon, and the DC will eventually (before the next vendetta) be looking into some major changes.

Muz Ashen

08-05-2009 12:08:24

I haven't read all of the replies yet except to make sure no one has answered Denath's questions. So I will, then i'll read the rest and comment if need be.

(...)To help further clarify, would a high authority person mind making some time to reply to these examples?

1) I want to hang around in #DBGaming to contribute in Empire at War matches for Event x. I avoid a JO match in event y because I've done it 1,000 times over the past week and will cover the next person who so much as types JO in peanut butter and feed them to ants.



Dodging.
If it is during a vendetta event, it would be considered dodging at this point. If you play a game during a vendetta event, you are expected to play it throughout the event. Keeping that in mind, try not to burn yourselves out on a platform early on.


2) I have IRC running in the background. I am in #DBGaming and am currently competing in event x on platform y. Someone challenges me to a match for event x on platform z, but I do not see the message - and therefore cannot accept - until my current match has finished, an hour later.



Not Dodging.
Set your nick to Denath|EAW or Denath|BF2 or whatever when you are mid-game. reset your nick to normal when you return. This allows people to know when you are in-game and not in-channel. If you are talking in the channel, or even idling in the channel, people will attempt to game with you. If your nick shows that you are in a game, they won't hassle you for matches. However, if you hide behind a nick that shows you as in-game, and you're just chatting away, it becomes dodging when you refuse a match, because you plainly are not in-game.

3) I want to spend some time focusing on written events, and jump on my Clans channel in IRC to stay in touch (or coordinate, in the case of the run-on). I am not in #DBGaming, and if asked, state that I am focusing on other events.



Not Dodging.
If you don't want to game, stay out of #DBGaming. It is not a social channel, it's a channel set for the setting up of matches.

4) I accept ALL requests from #DBGaming. I completely ignore all requests that come from private messages, Clan channels, the #DB channel, email, et al.



Not Dodging.
Match requests that come from a source other than in #DBGaming are not valid and may freely be ignored. Having said that, clans will sometimes ask clanmates int heir clan channel to come help them out. Provided that the willing come to #DBGaming first, this is fine.

5) I have Jedi Outcast somewhere in my house. I think my brother may have borrowed it, and has it stashed with his Mariah Carey CDs that he got off his really good friend Stevey. I eventually find it, install it, learn the value of knocking before barging into someone elses room, and then lag like crazy and achieve a kill score so low, even DJM Shadow won't touch it (:P). I leave #DBGaming and do not go back for the rest of the Vendetta. I delete Jedi Outcast, cover the CD in peanut butter and feed it to very confused ants.



Not Dodging.
Long stories about brothers and what have you are not necessary if you are not in #DBGaming. If you are not in #DBGaming, dodging is impossible. However...if you *are* in #DBGaming, and only want to play some other platform, it doesn't matter what sort of story you tell us about your other game disc... if you played it once during a vendetta, you are expected to be able to play it again, regardless of stories about peanut butter and Mariah Carey.

I hope that clarifies the dodging situation a bit.