Bachus

Wurm Justice System

Recommended Posts

Wurm has always had a problem with griefers and general anti-social behavior from a few that spoil things for the many which seems to have become worse lately.   Also the methods of punishment are either nonexistent or ineffective.  


  Permanent Bans are a last ditch resort and temporary bans are a joke for those wishing to engage in this anti-social behavior much like getting expelled from school which only worked at all because it effected the parents meanwhile the kids were happy to be expelled.  


  Also it seems the GM's do not have the time to properly investigate the causes, effects, and most effective response for this behavior.


 


  I am suggesting a justice and punishment system similar to real life to bring a new layer of consequences to this anti-social behavior that will hopefully lessen the part GM's play and give players the ability to govern  themselves while preventing any seemed favoritism.


 


Part One:


  When an incident happens it is investigated by the nearest CA, CM, or GM if they actually play in that area.  They gather statements from both sides, what evidence they see possibly screenshots as well, and report any other evidence they deem necessary.  They then form a report and submit it to a justice committee (formed of CA's)  who render a verdict of guilty or innocent, perhaps with a recommendation of punishment  to the GM who carries out the sentencing.  The council would be 3 CA's who would change month to month basically acting as a jury and the GM would be the judge. 


 


Part Two:


  As an additional option to Banning we could have a prison.  A sentence in this prison would be longer than a general ban but with the option to get out sooner with hard labor.  By hard labor I do not mean using their skills and enchanted tools they would be transported by the GM to this prison where their skills and equipment would be set to that one would have straight form the tutorial. They could not teleport, or suicide out as this would be their only option to re-spawn.  


   For a minor infraction a sentence could be 30 days or the mission of mining and making 3000 bricks.  When their mission is completed they can portal back to their home server starting point.


 


  This way the players could decide what actions are considered griefing in their own kingdom and the appropriate punishment for each individual's bad behavior.  


 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This system would be heavily abused.  Just think about it.  Most of the in-game community that actually talk have 0 problems harassing/bashing someone that they do not like.  What's to stop them from trying to get someone banned who doesn't deserve it, just because that someone disagrees with their opinions often? 


 


- 1 to an interesting concept, but definitely not an idea that would work with this community


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1 , While its sounds very entertaining  the scream of bias as well as the burden it would place on volunteer staff  prompt me to vote no.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lolol trusting scumbag CA's and CM's to punish people to help their friends.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This same general idea keeps popping up.....stop posting it.


 


-1


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This system would be heavily abused.  Just think about it.  Most of the in-game community that actually talk have 0 problems harassing/bashing someone that they do not like.  What's to stop them from trying to get someone banned who doesn't deserve it, just because that someone disagrees with their opinions often? 

 

- 1 to an interesting concept, but definitely not an idea that would work with this community

 

That is why it would be 3 rotating members.

 

I find it hard to believe the community in general has such distrust for the volunteer staff.  I can see how they might distrust GM's as they have more power and are generally not seen as a part of the community anymore but the CA's and CM's are on in chat every day and involved in the community.

 

This is the list of volunteers that the jury would be chosen from

Chat Moderator (CM) - (Chat moderation for all public channels)

  • Alectrys

  • Atazoth

Bloodscythe

Covenant

Duce

Evening / Ballad

Firestarter

Gary

Giuseppep / Fun / Era

Help

Kaih

Kediec

Kraegar

Kunibert

Lando / Rictol

Lisabet / Delara

Lokitio

Marni

Maxthx

Moogien

Necroe

Odynn

Samool

Sandyar

Serraphine

Shrimpiie

Silvirwolfe

Skyefox

Theoslex

Theria

Thorgot

Tristankh

Wilca

Willow / Pine

Wraithglow / Wraithfoe

Xcapi / Tiba

 

Community Assistant (CA) - (Answers common questions via CA Help channel)

  • Arathorn

Balatyn

Biggibbo

Drsatan

Fireriders

Jdbooker

Kilitra

Necroedarkslayer

Percefonie

Rage

Stimrol

Telurius

Timothymarker

Urb

Yaga

Yes there might be a couple on there that are less trustworthy but those are more than balanced by those that are such as Willow, Yaga, Odynn, Thorgot, and many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This same general idea keeps popping up.....stop posting it.

 

-1

Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no thanks, if any system is put in make it an in game criminal system like UO.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no thanks, if any system is put in make it an in game criminal system like UO.

 

I am not familiar with that system perhaps you can detail it and make your own suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of those people on that list I know for a fact would sell their mother for 5 silver.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I hire a lawyer to defend me, and can I get out on bail? -1, btw.

 

If we agree my remuneration - always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I wouldn't trust most of the staff.. They simply aren't impartial.

Idea behind it is good tho. There is still void, which was left in the game, when they created PvE servers and disabled Pvp(which in reality is the only way to enforce the rules for players). Reylaark described the issue a bit better in another thread:

On PvP, how is something addressed when people do bad things?

1.Get annoyed.

2.Vow to put a stop to it.

3.Sharpen double-headed axe.

4.Talk to alliance, kingdom, spies, Gods and locate culprit.

5.Introduce culprit to #3.

6.Repeat introduction with increasing violence until satisfied.

On PvE, how is something address when people do bad things?

Conceding that even with deeds, people will do bad things.

1.Get annoyed.

2.Vow to put a stop to it.

3.Put on KOS, unless highway, then skip to #4.

4.Get annoyed. KOS is ineffective.

5.Vow to put a stop to it.

6.?

EDIT: Of course, whatever the solution will be (if any, which is more likely), improving tracking would be an important prerequisite for it.. Without identifying the offender there would be no case. And currently I think the protection of anonymity is also a big problem.

Edited by rixk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but seriously -I'm afraid that peer judgment would tend to slide into lynching mobs. Innocent people would get jailed for other's entertainment (hey it's a game), but they will feel that as real injustice.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really like the idea, jurys, sentences, maybe just more problems would come out of this  :wacko: 


 


Most of the ppl are playing nice and can talk to each other if they have problems, -1 for this.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 -1 overall.  Different people have different play-styles.  I've the become to extreme then they deserve to be dealt with.  But creating a more care bear community by devising a system which will just cause people to quit, I do not believe is the right path.  Potentially with some more thought into implementation and associative rules this might be a means of moving forward.  But I'd think it would have to be more of a house arrest type thing where they can't leave the deed.   As opposed to some form of lock up where they can't do anything but grind bricks for hours that they wont use / sell.  As well most of the community members suggested that would be dealing with this are volunteers and were-as my interaction with a limited number of these individuals has been good... I can easily see some people trying to abuse a system as mentioned here to their own means and largely wasting these volunteers time.


 


TL:DR - Vote of No as proposed.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 -1 overall.  

1,) Different people have different play-styles.  I've the become to extreme then they deserve to be dealt with.  

2.) But creating a more care bear community by devising a system which will just cause people to quit, I do not believe is the right path.  Potentially with some more thought into implementation and associative rules this might be a means of moving forward.

 3.) But I'd think it would have to be more of a house arrest type thing where they can't leave the deed.   As opposed to some form of lock up where they can't do anything but grind bricks for hours that they wont use / sell.  

As well most of the community members suggested that would be dealing with this are volunteers and were-as my interaction with a limited number of these individuals has been good...

4.) I can easily see some people trying to abuse a system as mentioned here to their own means and largely wasting these volunteers time.

 

TL:DR - Vote of No as proposed.

 1.) Which current methods are totally ineffective except for the extreme cases involving banning an effective less extreme consequence would lead to less of these extreme cases.

 2.) People are quitting now because they do not feel comfortable with the deed it, lock it, guard it, build walls around it and never leave it to be safe status quo that is the anti-thesis of Freedom.

 3.) not really a punishment as some do this for years anyway and would be even less of a deterrence than what we have now.  A punishment has to be unpleasant to be effective.

4.) They are wasting a GM's time now. If there is nothing to warrant a reaction then very little time is wasted and since the directive comes from a panel of peers not an all powerful GM less calls of favoritism.

 

There will be less abuse and less favoritism because incidents will be reviewed and decided by 3 people not involved instead of one GM that can be convinced, lied to, or smooth talked.

 

As to needing a lawyer there will be no prosecuting attorney so there will be no need for a defense attorney and judgments can always be appealed to Enki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 1.) Which current methods are totally ineffective except for the extreme cases involving banning an effective less extreme consequence would lead to less of these extreme cases.

 2.) People are quitting now because they do not feel comfortable with the deed it, lock it, guard it, build walls around it and never leave it to be safe status quo that is the anti-thesis of Freedom.

 3.) not really a punishment as some do this for years anyway and would be even less of a deterrence than what we have now.  A punishment has to be unpleasant to be effective.

4.) They are wasting a GM's time now. If there is nothing to warrant a reaction then very little time is wasted and since the directive comes from a panel of peers not an all powerful GM less calls of favoritism.

 

There will be less abuse and less favoritism because incidents will be reviewed and decided by 3 people not involved instead of one GM that can be convinced, lied to, or smooth talked.

 

As to needing a lawyer there will be no prosecuting attorney so there will be no need for a defense attorney and judgments can always be appealed to Enki.

I've had personal issues in this game where a report was passed through 2 different CM's, then to a GM and then to Enki.  Said issue went through the hands of 4 staff before being dealt with accordingly.  The first 3 staff members did not come to the conclusion that Enki came to, and thus failed to do their job appropriately through a lack of research and commitment to solving the case.  I say this to serve the point that it doesn't matter how many staff members you circulate through, many don't take the job very seriously due to being volunteers and many aren't trustworthy as it is.

 

It would be much easier to increase the scrutiny faced by staff members, especially CM's and GM's, to insure the best possible volunteers are working on the various issues that come up in this game.  Anything short of that would be extremely complicated for no reason at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hard labor...lol. I actually like that!


 


My one suggestion would be to make it so identities are anonymous in the evidence supplied to judges. This way the judges wouldn't know who they are judging. That should go a long ways towards removing bias.


 


As it stands, I can't support it because of bias problems and good old boy cronyism.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be less abuse and less favoritism because incidents will be reviewed and decided by 3 people not involved instead of one GM that can be convinced, lied to, or smooth talked.

 

These situations are never ruled over by one single GM, the entire GM team discuss all cases as a group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now