All OOC:
First off I am as tired of this as anybody, I am hung in the balance of
retiring or seeing this through to a fair conclusion. Frankly, I imagine
CdC's and especially BDP's career to be too tarnished to have much future
success now the boot is being put in.
I am asking for Greg's intervention on this matter that is way out of hand.
Greg, please read to the end as I believe I have shown two instances where
rules have been abused or breached - and not by CdC! Also my considered
opinion on the best conclusion is written at the end of this post.
At 11:26 29/04/00 Saturday +0100, you wrote:
> > AdM misquoted alleged orders taken from an internal DG memo regarding
>CAT's
> > *proposed* regimental structure (in and out of character),
>
>Sorry, AdM was never in receipt of the regimental memo (no longer being in
>the regiment). All I had was an (OOC) message from Tracy(CAT), including the
>the regimental structure "she had ordered".
Another conspiracy?? ;-)
Is it perhaps like the one where a character in favour with the GM may
break the rules leapfrogging _two ranks_ at once. Don't the rules
regarding promotion relate to what our characters understand as Military
Regulations?
Sorry Greg, but this is imho a bit of an outrage considering the current
circumstances isn't it?
Opps! Now I've done it, bad dice for CdC for the remainder of his
career.... =(
> > since it is a proposal how can it also be a clearly defined order?
>
>or alternatively, since CdC didn't object to the proposal why did he screw
>it up? ;-)
He didn't have an objection that's true, I expected GlV to have got the
rank, I personally thought Kirsten deserved it as it goes, but in
retrospect I now believe from this nonsense that "all is fair in love and
war" :-)
As I stated none of us were to know what deaths, resignations or promotions
there would be through the summer (although I will admit GlV was and is
very deserving of a majority), yet he may have been dead for all CdC was to
know or another vacancy may have arisen at another time during the summer.
If you stop to think for a moment Paul, how could it have been CdC's screw up?
Who screwed up if not CdC?
-----------------------------------
[I don't honestly know, but I won't take the blame unless Greg forces me to
- at which point I may have to consider if I am still playing in an
unbiased role play environment and wish to continue, a very sad day for me]
1) CAT's regimental restructuring in Tracy's orders, making me most senior
captain somehow and hence automatically processing my purchase order ahead
of Kirsten's? Is that CdC's fault or the fault of a inexperienced CO who
had only just conspired with the GM and the Lt.Col to jump two
ranks? (Darn, Greg will no doubt have me beheaded now! ;-)
2) GlV's oversight again in orders? I don't believe this was the case,
but it did happen in the case of BDP.
3) Some error processing orders by the GM?
[ I really must be dead now right? That's my third little accusation
against Greg! :-( ]
4) A bug in the code as suggested to me in OOC mail at the time from
CAT? That's the first I have heard of the so called "glitch" theory, but
I'd be happy to assist in debugging the code to prevent this from occurring
again to some other poor sole.
I would like a GM's decision/explanation on the matters at hand please Greg.
In particular,
1) What is allowable as regards GM's breaking rules and why? (Such as in
the case of AdM and CAT)
2) At what level does a senior officer have the right to make over the top
role play orders? (Like ordering the resignation of a player, ordering
fines or the withholding of advancement?)
3) How can you break the rules to assist three players as GM and then later
allow some of them to totally wreck characters' careers who act on their
best intention within the rules and their role play orders?
There are now members of the regiment suggesting fines, the CO ordering a
resignation, and a captain suggesting we be held back so they can
themselves advance _two ranks_ over us! In fact the last one from Captain
AdS is the most ridiculous suggestion. Indeed I am sure he would love to
be promoted directly to Lt. Col, what greater breach of rules and protocol
could anybody suggest?
Since all mail seems to be free-for-all these days, and I currently hold a
superior rank to AdS who is directly within my command, can I order his
demotion or for him to muck out the stables for insubordination?? :->
I certainly know I could order a command to the front, but that seems
inappropriate and unfair on the other captains.
Frankly, this has become a farce - and from the press I would imagine
others agree with me.
>Surely this is largely semantics since CAT's intentions were
>perfectly clear?
Semantics are a valid point in favour of CdC's argument, but not at all in
AdM's and just poor communication by CAT.
> > >I propose the following change to the command structure and request
> > >comments from all of you Dragoon Guards.
Was not the internal memo we are referring to (above) for the eyes of the
DG? Hence not for AdM to interpret, but rather for CdC and others who were
actually in the DG at the time?
The meaning of a "proposal" is clear to anybody with a dictionary. In all
the dictionaries and thesauruses I can find there is no reference to the
word "order" or "protocol" anywhere to be found in relation to the word
propose. Perhaps somebody has a reference I am not familiar with?? =p
> > Since we are on an issue of House Rules vs Role Play in gaining rank, just
> > how did AdM and CAT both manage to "leapfrog" over the Lt.Col to become CO
> > of the DG? As I read the house rules there is no provision for this at
> > all, it is clearly not allowed, right? So the rules were completely bent
> > or ignored, and nobody objected...
>
>Well, to paraphrase von Bismarck, "The less people know about how Colonels
>or sausages are made, the better they'll sleep at night" (it involved both
>AdM and CAT selling their souls to PldE :).
>Basically, in-character AdM takes a very dim view of Colonels who take
>government positions
>(giving far more status than a mere Brigade Command) and then sit
>permanently in the
>Colonel's chair denying all hope of further promotion to those below them.
>Especially pertinent to the DG for the reasons prevously given in-character.
>At the same time, PldE wanted to pursue a political career but remain in the
>DG. So we hit on a compromise which allowed PldE to remain as Lt.Col (not
>sure how the game mechanics work here, but it's something we had to clear
>with Greg beforehand) but still allow the possibility of continued promotion
>for the rest of the regiment. It involves an undertaking to get promoted out
>of the regiment as soon as possible - another unwritten rule of the
>regiment. Actually, another reason for AdM to get involved too - he denies
>himself the hubris of lording it in Paris as CO of the King's most
>prestigious cavalry regiment only for some bounder to usurp the advantages
>which his sacrifice has provided! ;-)
I'm am not questioning AdM's integrity, or CAT's, or PldE and certainly not
Greg's. I merely want to point out that these admitted rules violations
(HOWEVER JUSTIFIED) followed by the hassle to both BDP and CdC appear to be
heavily biased by the over zealous role play actions of AdM and PldE -
which are likely to have rule breaking consequences based on the
observation and admission that rule breaking by PldE, AdM, CAT and Greg has
happened before.
> > Why is it now when the House Rules are followed correctly is it turned into
> > a huge roleplay issue surrounding a gentlemans' behaviour and questions of
> > moral obligation?
>
>See previous paragraph.
I fail to see the relevance. The fact is the rules, or should I say
military regulations, were broken for advantage and then those same players
make role play criticisms of other players who have not broken rules,
regulations or orders.
I can't speak regarding BDP disobeying a direct order IC to the press, but
I think it was a pretty harsh order to face up to.
> > If I am correct then neither CdC nor BDP have broken any rules or orders,
> > but AdM and CAT very clearly have broken the House Rules.
> >
> > How can this be fair? More to the point how should it be amended?
>
>I think it's more a case of the rules not covering _every_ eventuality and
>the GM's discretion having to be called upon from time to time - as in this
>case.
Rules are ok to break if the GM thinks it is ok?
Well I most certainly agree that rules may not cover every eventuality and
a GM may need discretion, but in this instance they very clearly do cover
this matter.
I quote:
From House Rules, 6.3 Joining and advancement
You can't buy past a rank unless there is a vacancy at that rank...
> It may also be useful to note that, had this not occurred, there
>wouldn't have been any vacant majorities for CdC and BDP to leapfrog into
>anyway. Aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater here?
I quite agree here, except that AdM and CAT are the admitted _double
leapfrogging_ rule-breaking characters, not CdC or BDP.
As for the baby, well, I'll run round the barn at high noon to avoid
colloquialisms. :-)
>Because, unlike in the DG, the Colonels of many other regiments don't give a
>toss about the porspects of characters beneath them, with the result that
>you never _get_ six characters going after a single majority and thus need
>no protocols to ensure that these are handled. And btw, AdM has never
>visited a brothel and, until last month, had never been intimate with a lady
>whom he had not subsequently married :)
AdM must at times have been "virgin on the ridiculous" compared to the rest
of players. ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist that little pun to lighten the mood a little. <g>
> > There were never any _orders_ regarding BDP's purchase of a majority nor
> > mine, regardless of there relevance under the house rules, it is really a
> > question of good or bad form and that can hardly be the most dastardly
> > crime ever committed by a character! BDP's only crime is to have tried to
> > defend himself within the framework of the rules and against unsound
> > roleplay orders to resign his commission.
>
>I'd disagree. If it were against the _rules_ the situation could never have
>happened in the first place.
You meant to add except if it were to concern AdM and CAT??
>In a RP context, wouldn't you say that a
>captain of three months flouting regimental protocol by leapfrogging over
>the heads four more senior captains (who _had_ followed regimental protocol)
>to snatch the majority earmarked for a fifth, and then going onto ignore
>directives from his CO regarding this would be bound to raise just such a
>stink?
I cannot comment. At least until I have _double leapfrogged_ to CO. =)
>Yes, but as you point out yourself OOC, the Summer turns were over a short
>timespan (with a lot of other things going on). IC, examination of BDP's
>actions bringing a recent transgression of a similar nature to light again
>seems eminently reasonable.
Yes entirely, such as transgressions of military regulations (read as House
Rules) by AdM and CAT. Yet who inspects the IGoC, the MoW co-conspirator
PldE?? This must be viewed as rather over biased imo and partly why I have
asked Greg to get involved.
> > On the basis of anything that goes to the mail list, private or otherwise
> > is for public use does everybody feel they have some right to comment on
> > what they may have happened to have overheard in a private letter?? Is
> > General npc_OC an idiot? Can't he read to himself or does he have to read
> > the words of CdC's private mail aloud so that any Lt.Gen passing his door
> > can listen through the keyhole?
>
>See above. Applications to NPCs have to be announced specifically _so_ PCs
>can throw in counter-influences if they want to (which IC suggests an
>'applications pending' list at army HQ or some such).
Sorry Paul, but you are wrong again, allow me to remind you of the rules:
2.6 Announcements
Certain things must be announced in advance to allow other players to use
influence on them if they wish. They are:
Applications for important posts which will (or may) be appointed by an
NPC. Applications for aides to people, adjutants (and brigade majors), and
fencing instructors need not be announced: all others must be.
I think everybody will agree that these rules cover "every eventuality" and
there is no need for GM discretion provided that in view of these rules,
which Paul probably got mixed up again, I must ask that AdM retract his
comments (IC) to npc_OC and not to use direct or indirect influence/bribes
against my attempts for any appointment as an aide or ask others to do so
on your behalf.
I am awaiting Greg's final decision on this situation. Of course as the GM
I will accept his word as final.
If all official IC statements and accusations against BDP and CdC are
dropped and the matter of the curious conspiracy surrounding CAT and AdM
forgotten for good I would consider this to be the best solution. I hope
then we could then get back to playing the GAME (key word :-) and having
fun rather than spending hours debating roleplay vs rules.
-Mark
