31 replies to this topic

[Lukoi Banacek]

Splitpin, on 14 March 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

Could we continue, or reopen this debate on the Smoke Alliance forum rather than here.

Actually this thread is the old Alliance thread. It could be locked. The following is the up to date Alliance page.

http://mwomercs.com/...smoke-alliance/

[Lukoi Banacek]

You belittle the efforts of those people who are empowered by their unit mates to speak for their units. Assessing the needs of their player base, while trying to coordinate efforts across a variety of different perspectives is not something to be devalued imo. It was 10 of the then 12 participating units that voted. One simply did not participate and one was again, your unit leadership who was aware of the issues at hand.

I never considered us adversaries in the manner you describe PH. We simply disagree on several key issues. The alliance is open to those willing to work with it's members. Not so much those who simply claim to be Jaguar loyalists due their tag alone but through their actions. You have done quite a bit to further CSJ (among other agendas), but your efforts without the consensus of the group before taking action, or speaking out as if representing the alliance or the faction showed you wanted to things your way, not with the group.

You point to us and claim folks are elitist for voting you off of the island. The fact is, those folks represent their units and those players have a voice and seat at the table. Not just the unit leaders, but the players. You don't like the representative mechanism, well I am sorry for that but while it's helpful to know a single pilot is interested in a certain course of action, it is more relevant to these bare-boned "operations" when entire units with groups of players are committed to a certain course of action.

I certainly have not always agreed with everyone in the Alliance...hell not always with members of my own unit, but I go where the reeds bend in an effort to maintain the buy-in of my fellow gamers. I don't offer machinations of my own and expect others to simply fall in line.

[Mcgral18]

Prussian Havoc, on 14 March 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

My issue resides with the handful of Unit Commanders who wrongfully and unilaterally voted me out of the Alliance when there was not even a mechanism, established and published to do so. Without even the courtesy of a TS session to discuss the situation / inform me of the impending vote, a vote was conducted behind my back and website permissions withdrawn.

Would this be an appropriate place for a Trial of Grievance?

[Mcgral18]

It's best to give at least a week. Perhaps PM those responsible for prompt responses as well. You'll get a sure answer anyhow.

[EmpireX]

While admitedly not a Clan Lore expert, I'm fairly certain that if you want to refute the results of the vote via combat (i.e. be readmitted by playing against folks), the correct trial would be a Trial of Refusal. The odds you face are determined by the vote. It's my understanding that 10 of 12 voted you out, with 1 unit abstaining. Therefore, you would face the same odds in a Trial of Refusal; 10-1. Zellbringen would apply.

The odds could signifcantly improve should the commanders "bid down" their forces for the honor of defending the decision.

While all of the above is cool in a nerdy lore sort of way, considering you were voted out for RL reasons, there's nothing compelling anyone to accept your challenge. As was mentioned many times above, this is a video game.

[stratagos]

It has been over four hours since I laid out my cookie demands, and I have not received a single response. It is your responsibility, as unit leaders and/or parents who have young female crack dealers, to meet my expectations

Because you have not, you have left me little choice but to consider trolling some other forum with my demands for attention. Is that *really* what you want to happen?

[jeirhart]

Yea Prussian this is a Trial of Refusal situation, not a Trial of Grievance.

You are disputing a council decision and not a personal grievance with a single other MechWarrior. Refusals are a bit more complicated and you could end up in a 10 v 1 situation unless you have allies to back you up or bidding goes in your favor.

This is of course assuming you yourself were a council member. If you were not a member of the council and were merely a MechWarrior under their leadership then you would have no place at all to demand either a ToR or ToG. Disobeying their wishes and acting against the council would brand you dezgra.

Edited by jeirhart, 17 March 2015 - 05:01 PM.

[CyclonerM]

jeirhart, on 17 March 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

Yea Prussian this is a Trial of Refusal situation, not a Trial of Grievance. You are disputing a council decision and not a personal grievance with a single other MechWarrior. Refusals are a bit more complicated and you could end up in a 10 v 1 situation unless you have allies to back you up or bidding goes in your favor. This is of course assuming you yourself were a council member. If you were not a member of the council and were merely a MechWarrior under their leadership then you would have no place at all to demand either a ToR or ToG. Disobeying their wishes and acting against the council would brand you dezgra.

While you are obviously right that this would be more appropriately a Trial of Refusal (with 10 to 1 odds, not that good lol, but they would be reduced by bidding to something more acceptable like 2 vs1, which is still a hard challenge in MWO) however i think that even a simple MechWarrior should have the right to a ToR. Just look at Aidan Pryde's example. He was a non-bloodnamed warrior, who claimed his place in a Trial of Bloodright after revealing he became a warrior trough treachery, blatantly violating Clan law and shaming himself in the eyes of many trueborns by disguising as a freeborn. He faced a trial, was judged guilty , togheter with Ter Roshak, but redeemed himself winning a Trial of Refusal, retaining his warrior status, then achieving a Bloodname and ultimately becoming a CJF hero.

This is a quite interesting question though. I would ask Jaroth Corbett.

[CyclonerM]

However, wait.. One of your accounts is Clan-sided, the other is IS? It is one of the normal ways to use both Clan and IS tech in CW, i know, but is there not any conflict of interest between aspiring to be an IlKhan AND a First Lord (meaning an IS-led new Star League) ?

[EmpireX]

Connor Sellock, on 18 March 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

I did my homework on this one before I submitted it for ALL to review and critique.

Let's take a look at the first lines of each a Trial of Refusal..

Trial of Refusal: "The Clan Council makes many decisions and laws using an internal vote. After a vote, a Warrior-caste council member[1] can challenge the decision to a Trial of Refusal. A council member with a losing vote fights a member with a winning vote." A Trial of Refusal presupposes that the one demanding a Trial of Refusal was himself a voting member of the original vote... Just that his constituency lost the Vote. I was not part of the vote against me. It was conducted in secret, As such there was derogatory action taken against me in a highly irregular vote that was prejudicial to me alone. A Trial of Refusal (http://www.sarna.net...rial_of_Refusal) is NOT proper in my case. (PERIOD, FULL STOP)

This is factually incorrect. There are many, many instances in lore where a trial of refusal was initiated outside the above paramaters. Aiden Pryde, Phelan Kell and the Great Refusal being prime examples.

I don't have a problem with 10 ToGs... you can initiate that against whomever you want. Using the global results of 10 individual ToGs to reverse a decision however, is not the proper clan way.

[Prussian Havoc]

Please refer to Post: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4284917

I have withdrawn my demands for Trials of Grievance (ToG)... as is intended to be an option under ToG: http://www.sarna.net...al_of_Grievance

This post closes out an unintended highjacking of this thread.

While I can remove my posts, there are remaining quotes of mine and comments from other participants. While I will refrain from posting in this thread, I will respond in a timely manner to any and all PM's requesting clarification.

I apologize for diverting this thread from its intended purpose.



Good luck and good gaming.

v/r PH

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 18 March 2015 - 01:56 PM.

[EmpireX]

But... but... I like debating Clan lore