Punishing Spies and Traitors

[Kiithnaras]

I've been pondering how to best deal with spies and subversive elements over the past few weeks, and I've come to the conclusion that the Tribunal forum section is grossly ineffective and little more than a writhing cesspool of the vocal minority that results in no appropriate punitive action being taken. At the same time, I do genuinely enjoy the presence of spies and traitors, in a meta-game sense, in that it keeps things interesting and organic and helps prevent stuffy stagnation. The other side of this coin, however, is the frustrating lack of agency regarding said subversive individuals.

I want to preface this with the stance that I do not want these people removed from the game or banned in any lasting or tangible sense, but having no recourse to put a stop to an individual spy's activities is immensely frustrating. 

What I have envisioned involves the introduction of Outlaws, national Admiralties, and a jury-like Admiralty Council. As always, I welcome feedback and constructive criticism.

Creating the Admiralty Council

During the course of play, certain activities that include sinking Enemies (see politics suggestion in signature), War opponents, or Pirates will generate Admiralty points. Completing Delivery missions to your nation's capital or sending prizes to the Admiralty will also generate points, but at a significantly reduced rate.

The twelve players with the most admiralty points generated in the past two weeks would be selected to be on the Admiralty Council and given access to a new Admiralty tab in port. This represents an active trust and vested interest in the Nation that is recognized by the Admiralty. Active players must stay active to maintain their seat on the Council; Every two weeks, new council members are selected based upon the past two weeks' activities. Should a sitting Council member fall below another player, any pending Judgements will have removed members' votes removed as well and their timeframe extended to the full week.

Laying Down Judgement

These admiralty points would count toward normal admiralty store purchases, but one of these purchases would be a Traitor Judgement, taken out against a specific player. The cost for this Judgement should be significant to prevent spamming, approximately a week's worth of playtime or more for an active player.

Once the Judgement is taken out and the valid, specified player name provided (the Subject), the Council is notified of the Judgement and votes twice on it; the first round of voting is to determine the validity of the claim on the individual, and the second round determines sentencing. Not only is the Council notified of the Subject of the Judgement, but each Judgement also lists the player responsible for initiating the Judgement (the Plaintiff). The options available for sentencing would wholly depend on the results of voting. The subject of the Judgement is -not- automatically notified when the Judgement is taken out against them. Multiple Judgements can not be taken against the same player at the same time.

During voting, each member of the Council votes Yea or Nay against the individual with the Judgement. The vote is open for one week, but will close and resolve immediately upon the last vote being confirmed. Abstaining council members' votes are automatically counted as Nays. When a vote resolves, a new vote for sentencing is opened with options dependent upon the result of the Judgement:

• If there are at least 7 Yeas, the Council receives the option to vote on Censure for two weeks.
  • Censure will severely hamper a player's ability to do business. Every purchase on the market and contracts will cost the player twice the listed gold amount. In addition, they will not be able to generate Hostility (or conduct/join Raids, see signature), collect Admiralty Points, or join Port Battles, and they will be forcibly evicted from Nation chat for the duration of their Censure. Their OW info box will specify that they are Censured. This option is intended for minor subversive elements that engage in economic espionage, joining battles only to leave or not contribute, and so on. An individual that receives a second Censure Judgement while Censured is simply refreshed to the full two weeks.
• If there are at least 9 Yeas and the subject has been Censured at least once in the past 30 days, the Council receives the option to Exile the subject. This decision is permanent.
  • Outlaws are still technically members of their nation with a few interesting caveats. They are forcibly evicted from the National chat and treated like permanent smugglers; they cannot craft or open outposts in National ports, and players of that nation (as well as AIs) can actively engage Outlaws without penalty. Once a character has been labelled an Outlaw, that account is restricted from creating a new character in the same nation for 30 days. Outlaws cannot be the Subjects of further Judgements, nor can they take Judgements against other players. Similar to a Censured individual, they cannot join battles for their nation or take out Hostility missions (and will not generate hostility themselves). (might be open to options for redemption.) Outlaws are notified of their existing Outlaw status and see all of their parent nation's ships as hostile.
• If there are 12 Yeas and the subject has been Censured at least twice in the past 30 days or is currently an Outlaw, the Council receives the option to Execute the subject. This decision is, understandably, permanent.
  • Once an Execution Judgement is resolved for a specified Subject, they are immediately labelled an Outlaw. If this player ever subsequently docks or logs in to a port owned by their parent nation, the character suffers summary deletion, and the account responsible is prohibited from creating a new character in the same nation for 30 days following deletion. This is a serious judgement and should only be rendered on individuals that are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be subversive elements and traitors to the nation. Subjects that are slated for Execution are not notified of this condition. Instead, they are notified of their Outlaw status and, for all intents and purposes, treated like an Outlaw until they dock or log in at a port owned by their nation.
• If there are 3 or fewer Yeas (the Council is overwhelmingly opposed to the guilt of the Subject), they receive the option to Censure the Plaintiff, instead, for two weeks.
  • This option is present to discourage false claims against loyal Subjects, encouraging Plaintiffs to be certain of the subversiveness of a Subject before purchasing a Judgement against them.
• If there are 0 Yeas (the Council is Unanimously opposed to the guilt of the Subject) and the Plaintiff has been Censured at least once in the past 30 days, the council receives the option to Exile the Plaintiff instead.
  • This option exists to prevent repeated false claims on loyal Subjects and abuse of Judgements by subversive elements.

Let me know what you think, gents, any feedback and changes to this suggestion are always appreciated.

[Rebel Witch]

this is such a horrible idea, that is not meant to be a slight against the OP, i just mean this will be very bad for the game.

This idea would create player tribunals that ALWAYS end up in "good ole boy" faction hands , so that any kind of debate or opposition within a nation is shut down by the group with the most power in this law tribunal council. It will be abused so badly and be so unfair to many players (paying customers of the game) that it will only alienate players.

This kind of thing is a tyrants pipe dream, sanctioned power for a group of players to judge not fairly but how they want too. It places the power of Devs and moderators to completely destroy a paying customers game time into a faction of players hands.

This will not end well for player population if implemented. It will be taken advantage of for power in the same way it tries to strip the power of espionage.

spying and traitors are a fact of life and a very realistic layer of complexity for a OW MMO this game is trying to be. to implement your ideas would not even come close to ending it, you would only make naval action into a online north korea simulator.

no thanks

[Kiithnaras]

@Rebel Witch, Ignoring the hilarious amount of drama you've placed into your response, how would you go about giving players the ability to mitigate the actions of spies? At present, the sole reliable means of dealing with Spies essentially boils down to avoiding communication in Nation chat - a strategy that severely hampers newer players that join the Nation in question. There is zero recourse to deal with traitors (folks who, especially but not solely through the use of Alts, abuse hostility to set up port battles at times where there is no reasonable chance of victory, fill battles and not contribute or straight-up leave, and so forth) at present.

I feel that this concept, perhaps not exactly as presented but in theory, would give players some recourse in fighting back against known or suspected spies and traitors. It avoids the Good Old Boy and Tyrant factors by assigning the responsibility to active players that contribute to the betterment of the Nation and not using some majority vote mechanism to pick Council seats. It also means that Alt-heavy players would be at a disadvantage since they would be dividing their time amongst their various alts, and would have to sacrifice the use of said alts in order to spend the requisite time to gain/maintain a Council seat.

As I've said, I enjoy having spies and traitors floating around. I want them in the game, they enrich it and keep things lively and engaging. What I don't want is no agency, no recourse against them. In fact, Green on Green is strictly forbidden and a bannable offense. The Forum Tribunals are more for abusive players that break the rules. This concept would give a nation recourse against subversive elements beside hiding down dark holes.

The core reason that I would love to see this power out of the hands (though Devs and Mods could always over-rule a Council decision) is Time. The developers' time should really be spent on game development, not sifting through the Tribunal forum to listen to Player A bickering about Player B, and Players C through Triple Z throwing their two cents in that aren't even involved. A Council keeps its own counsel; they can discuss with the Plaintiff or Subject if they prefer, and can hold a public tribunal in Nation if desired.

[Rebel Witch]

kith, this would be a great idea if we had "player made and run nations" because the owners of that player nation could really control their members.

however this game forces all paying customers to play for an NPC nation, we are all lumped into one big NPC pile and forced to play together. by giving a select few players in each nation the power to pass judgement and then have Dev like alienation and kicking powers against other players they "done like" "suspect of something" "oppose views" etc etc will not go over well. just sayin.

Im not giving you Drama , you asked what people thought, you asked for suggestions. Im giving it to you, stop judging me already aye?

[van der Clam]

Now, I understand Rebel's point that spais were RL and such, but once they are caught in RL, we kill them or at least imprison them. So it's not quite a valid argument. There are two easy options that could help protect us from spais:

1.) We need is the ability to block others from seeing what we type in global and block anything we sell at market from being able to be bought by certain ppl. On the 1st part, as it is now, if I block someone, I no longer have to see them. But we need it also that when they're blocked, they can no longer see me. On the second part, if I sell something, it should be blocked from those on my block list.
Meaning, My texts and everything I sell or contract or anything visible of me in the game should be completely invisible to anyone on my block list.
i.e.
National player SoupNWaffle  is a spai.
I block him.
SoupNWaffle cannot see my text, nor see my contracts, nor see any ships I have for sale, nor anything at all in the market.
Essentially, I become completely invisible to him.

2.) Just as the voting system. Someone can nominate a player as a spai. Their name would be on a voting poll in game for 1 week. The majority of the votes during the week determines if he is put on a week long or 2 week long national block where he cannot see anything, nor buy or build anything in the nation.
i.e.
SoupNWaffle is a spai.
I nominate him as a spai.
The nation has 1 week to vote yes or no.
The votes come back yes.
SoupNWaffle is blocked for 1 or 2 weeks from doing anything at all in the nation and nation chat is blocked. He cannot trade, nor craft in his nation.
He is essentially jailed, but not hung (like he should be).

Edited March 8, 2017 by van der Decken

[Rebel Witch]

23 minutes ago, Kiithnaras said:

@Rebel Witch, Ignoring the hilarious amount of drama you've placed into your response,

Van der decken. im not just talking about RL parallel. Look at what kiithnaras just said. he is already judging me for simply offering my opinion and giving my suggestion. So my opinion is suddenly Drama. So this is the kind of judgement i am talking about that leads to "those with power" can silence "others" whether it be a proven spy, suspected spy, or just someone that creates drama in their opinion.

We all wish we had power to shut down bad guys in our team, but this idea Kiith is bringing up is a very bad idea for the health of the game. That is not drama, that is my opinion. thanks.

[Kiithnaras]

@van der Decken, That is my core point exactly. I think, personally, that there should be more severe repercussions for repeat offenders and obvious spy alts. Again, it's all about agency, the ability of a player to affect the world around them. If Sir NotASpy is caught giving information to enemy nations or, arguably worse, posting strategic information in Global, there should be some means for LoyalCitizen42 to put a stop to Sir NotASpy's actions.

@Rebel Witch, You used loaded arguments like the following:

1 hour ago, Rebel Witch said:

only make naval action into a online north korea simulator

 

1 hour ago, Rebel Witch said:

It will be abused so badly and be so unfair to many players (paying customers of the game) that it will only alienate players.

 

1 hour ago, Rebel Witch said:

This kind of thing is a tyrants pipe dream, sanctioned power for a group of players to judge not fairly but how they want to

You are correct in that there is a potential for abuse - but subversive elements already abuse every aspect of the game possible to gain an unfair advantage over others with no means of addressing such abuse for non-subversive players. I feel that the maintained activity requirement for councilship is sufficient to mitigate the Ruling Elitist club abuse situation, while having 12 voting Council seats is a favorable alternative to a Mob-Mentality Ruling Majority.

Again: How would you do things differently to mitigate the efficacy of known spies and traitors?

[fox2run]

Totally nuts with a tribunal. If you don't want a member of your clan, you can just kick him. 

It's very easy to accuse someone being a spy based on gossip alone. Hell, I know how that is. A clan didn't like my opinions, hence I had to be a spy... LoL.

No. Its a pc game. We play for the fun of it. If you commit yourself to a degree where you see spies in a pc game, then I suggest you take a brake and do some real life stuff instead. ;-)

[Sir Texas Sir]

26 minutes ago, fox2run said:

Totally nuts with a tribunal. If you don't want a member of your clan, you can just kick him. 

It's very easy to accuse someone being a spy based on gossip alone. Hell, I know how that is. A clan didn't like my opinions, hence I had to be a spy... LoL.

No. Its a pc game. We play for the fun of it. If you commit yourself to a degree where you see spies in a pc game, then I suggest you take a brake and do some real life stuff instead. ;-)

I see folks do it all the time.  Some one pops in an out of a port, "THEY ARE A SPY."  Some one has a clan of one and solo plays, "THEY ARE A SPY." They don't agree with us and want to help the little nations, "THEY MUST BE A SPY."  Half the time it's just some lone player or the smaller clans that want to do something different than the big old clans.   This would kill the game for sure.   Hell the spy's that you should be worried about aren't the ones you know.  It's the silent ones that never speak up that are the most deadly.  

[Norfolk nChance]

Kiithnaras,

Your idea shows very good intentions but in my opinion would grind the game to an alt(pardon the pun...).

I assume you mean by spy this is a PCs ALT..? if I'm wrong apologies. But the ALT/SPY is a much needed part of the game. The RL issues were most spies actually weren't intentionally spies to start with. Just some bad decision and miss guided influences to start the ball rolling.... Anyone seen a new player give the game away in PB or Gank or talking in Nation/Global...? Loose Lips Sink Ships...

The well trained ALT however is a much more dangerous animal. Someone who sits in the background listening it adds drama. The ALT that sabotages PBs or Hostility or any other "Game Mechanic" then this does need addressing. The problem I agree, wouldn't want to ban the player but what punishment would you deal out? In Nation its impossible at the moment...

However a solution may arise if the Nation had a PC Figure Head (Pirate might be tricky here). He the head can directly meta out punishment. The coding is simple I think JobaSet might have a better understanding than me. The Nation take GB for instance as 5 clans and a Nation Head(NH). Like in a clan the "Creator" can kick out a member. This would work in the same way. You follow my drift, its just an overall clan of the clans and solo nation members...? The suspect suddenly finds himself having to pick a new nation and start over...

Now whether you agree or disagree with the NH, I or the Dev's or anybody else doesn't have a say. If the victim is wrongly acquiesced, well NA is getting closer to RL?

The NH system cuts out traffic. Obviously RL game abuses like racism and bullying and D-DOS is Game-Labs arena and should go without saying.

How would a Nation pick a head ? GB maybe a Monarchy, the US would be a Democratic vote and the Danes... well enough said. Who knows...?

 

 

let me know if think its rubbish, and if you know a better way likewise

 

Norfolk nChance

 

 

 

[Guest]

I have to agree with rebel witch here. I'm probably one of the most active captains in the DK/NG nation (PvP1EU) and I sure as hell would find a way into that council and yes I would abuse it so hard against any and all who might be having a divergent opinion than mine - I would penalise them so fast they'd be wondering if they'd ever wore anything but an orange jumpsuit and broke rocks for a living. I'm a tyrant at heart so please, please don't give me any more power - I'll use it with every intention of doing good but in reality I'll take everything you love about this game and turn it into something else. Something more sinister. Something less than what NA is all about today.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, fox2run said:

Totally nuts with a tribunal. If you don't want a member of your clan, you can just kick him. 

It's very easy to accuse someone being a spy based on gossip alone. Hell, I know how that is. A clan didn't like my opinions, hence I had to be a spy... LoL.

No. Its a pc game. We play for the fun of it. If you commit yourself to a degree where you see spies in a pc game, then I suggest you take a brake and do some real life stuff instead. ;-)

Yeah.. Srry about that (Lars Kjaer)

[fox2run]

I would never play a pc game like that. I did not buy a game where my role is up for grasp by some teens behind a screen. Sry m8. 

[Kiithnaras]

@Norfolk nChance, The reason I wanted to avoid a council/head/magistrate that was democratically-elected and instead selected by activity and national contribution is the Mob Mentality and Good Old Boys club factors, one of Rebel Witch's few valid arguments. By democratically selecting the justiciars, it turns into precisely that with the largest clans essentially running the show. I definitely don't want that, either. If this idea were to be implemented, it would indeed place the trust of judgement in the hands of the most active players on each nation; whether to believe some random person's random complaints that Unassuming Sailor is a spy without any further information to go on. In fact, tuning Judgements to cost a significant amount of admiralty points (which are non-transferrable) helps avoid knee-jerk reactions, since each Judgement will represent a sizable amount of gameplay investment. I would also be in favor of having Mods having the ability to overturn Judgements if it boils down to harassment, but the Execution option above is pretty final and irrevocable (maybe keep the character in limbo for 24 hours before final erasure for appeals?). It also isn't explicitly about Alts, but it will affect characters that are used as obvious spies. I did merely mention that players that use alts heavily have a lower likelihood of attaining a council seat when compared to another player with only one character purely due to the time investiture and effort required to maintain oneself in the top-12 national contributors.

@Wraith, I wouldn't be opposed to this type of game at all. It sounds interesting and dynamic and pretty neat. It does have one issue, though, and it's the same issue that has caused many to complain about Alliances: Democracy. Democracy is great and all and has its place, but it can tend to form that "Haves and Have-Nots" sort of situation. This is why, in my OP, any serious and permanent punishment requires either a 3/4ths majority or outright unanimity. In your type of setting, I would say any clan/individual would be accepted with a contribution-based Magistrate or Council (Individuals that have gained the trust of the Admiralty through time and effort) presiding over the eviction of subversive or disruptive elements. But that's my take. : )

@Sir Texas Sir, I agree. Those are called Good Spies; spies that do their job and aren't caught. Spies that don't enter battles merely to fill slots and be ineffective or leave and give as little indication or evidence as to their subversive activities as possible. One can't do anything about ghosts. It's the ones that dance in front of you while flaunting their treasonous activities that need to be dealt with.

[Sir Texas Sir]

For the spy's you speak of we have a report system and section of the forums for that.  If some one is doing those thigns they are against the rules and you should screen shot and report them. 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

[Kiithnaras]

19 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

For the spy's you speak of we have a report system and section of the forums for that.  If some one is doing those thigns they are against the rules and you should screen shot and report them. 

Forum Tribunal rules do not cover anything I have mentioned here. Additionally, though Moderators and Admin are responsible for carrying out final judgement for Tribunals, it's all public info and anyone can throw their two cents in (which creates more of a headache for the moderating team), particularly a vocal minority in support of the abuser despite clear evidence provided of wrongdoing and rulebreaking. This system is not for rulebreaking at all, it is for weeding out obvious spies and traitors. As I've said multiple times, I would love a means to give players agency in the game. By leaving the decisions in the hands of uninvolved (but not necessarily impartial) mods and admins, agency is removed from the players, especially when the Tribunal overwhelmingly rules in favor of no significant action (Not that they don't give due diligence, it's simply a matter of distance from the issue and having to reach a certain threshold of certitude before carrying out any punitive action).

Without agency, one becomes helpless. No one likes feeling helpless. Helplessness leads to declining player numbers.

In this system, everything is secret - Council seats are assigned based on actitivity, but not publicly known, even to each other (unless they choose to broadcast their councilship). Judgements are only sent to the screen that Council members can see, and the only indication they have of other council members' activity are the votes that are recorded. Only once a Judgement reaches a substantive sentencing is the Subject (or Plaintiff) notified of the result. Judgements that result in no action, whether by guilt or sentencing (it's entirely plausible that the Council will vote strongly in favor of guilt, but decide on no action to watch the person in order to be certain - it would be another player that they're removing from their own nation, after all), would not notify the Plaintiff or Subject.

When I asked for feedback, I was more interested in how others would do things differently in giving players agency against spies and traitors. It is, however, interesting and curious to see how many flat-out detractors there are here that are clearly in favor of maintaining the status quo of Spying with Impunity.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Kiithnaras

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Kiithnaras said:

In this system, everything is secret - Council seats are assigned based on actitivity, but not publicly known, even to each other (unless they choose to broadcast their councilship).

This would be abused to much. I'm sorry we all ready have a problem with old time players that don't even come out of the ports voting to keep alliances that others don't want.   We see folks that never come out in the OW and bully folks to not enter Port Battles that had been fighting there hearts out in the OW.  Which in my book they should just join any way if they have the agro.

So lets take a look at this concept.  I'm in the Pirate nation on PvP2.  If we go by the most active I'm prob up there in the top 10 for my nation if not the server.  I have almost 4K hours on my main and over 2K on my second pirate.   While my Dane is just a baby with 500 hours.  Though I'm prob the most active Dane that isn't in the CN/CCCP (SEA players) clan.   So what makes some one with 3K hours more important than a very active player with 500 hours in game.  I could stop playing for months and still have more hours in game on my main than most will ever have.   While I do come up with things for the game as a whole trying to make it better for all nations, I would admit there would be some folks in the nations I would be more partial too.  Specially if every one in the Pirates Council was all one clan  "BLACK"  we would control the nation and it's politics even more than we all ready do.  Than add in the coming Black on Black (I don't like using Green ON Green for the new pirates attack each other mechanics).  Than we not only get full control of the Council cause of our numbers and activity of the nations most active players, we can also pretty much kill any one that doesn't see our views.

Now lets look at my baby Dane that is only a few months old.  I use him more as a middle man between two nations and he also is a diplomat for the French/Swedes.  He's very active, so he would prob have more a spot than some one that is active but does nothing, but how will the system know the differences from me or the guy that does nothing but trade and just on every day?  Some one will have to vote as to who be the members or not.  So it will have to be publicly some how.

[Kiithnaras]

@Sir Texas Sir, I don't feel that it will be abused as much as you think, though. You're looking at hours, and I specified activity: OW kills/assists (highest impact, 20% more for War-declared nations, double for PvP kills/assists), PB participation (less impact than OW kills/assists), sending ships to the admiralty as prizes (small impact, iffy on this one), and completing delivery missions to the capital (small impact). The total number of hours is irrelevant compared to the duty contribution in my mind. No, it's not perfect, but I definitely do not want a voting system where one or two clans control a supermajority and, exactly as you put it, never show up in OW and bully other players around.

Simply put, if your Dane alt is presenting more naval superiority by sinking and capturing more enemy ships than most other Danes, he'll probably earn a council seat on that nation as well. Again, these things are tabulated and decided every two weeks, so things rotate out - earning a council seat is not a guarantee that you'll be on the council forever. Once a Council is chosen, all "recently-earned" admiralty points are reset to zero and the process begins again. Someone that sits in port trading every day is not likely to acquire a council seat, and people that only show up to make hostility and participate in port battles are less likely to be on the council than someone who actively patrols in between and goes to Admiralty events and so on.

I might also add that for very small nations with fewer than 12 active players, there simply would be no council - if there aren't at least 12 players with more than zero "recently-earned" points, the council simply doesn't form for that cycle.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Kiithnaras

[Rebel Witch]

5 hours ago, Kiithnaras said:

When I asked for feedback, I was more interested in how others would do things differently in giving players agency against spies and traitors. It is, however, interesting and curious to see how many flat-out detractors there are here that are clearly in favor of maintaining the status quo of Spying with Impunity.

I think your idea is great if this game had "player made nations" who could then control their nation as they see fit. However currently all players are "forced" to play with each other in NPC nations. So i wont rehash my opposition above.

I'll make you a deal, ill support your idea for "agency against spies and traitors" so long as there is an equally powerful "agency against false accusers and back stabbers". I jest, because none of this would be good for the community in its current form.

But good luck finding a solution, because there is none! Its a freaking game!! Hows that for curious and interesting?