Search: Home | Atlas | Guides | Tests | Research | Index | Recent Changes | Preferences | Login

Users > Dors > Conflict Court

The Conflict Court, Purpose and Summary

The purpose of the Conflict Court is to ensure that "gaming" in Conflict does not balloon out of control, and to deal with those who consistently use illegitimate means to advance in Conflict. The purpose of this court is not to stop gaming entirely, as this is not feasible. Please note that the following summary is meant as a summary only; details are listed further on.

The Court shall consist of multiple judges, split into two types; Conflict judges, and Leadership Judges. Anyone may make an accusation against another player. For the Court to hear the accusation, a Leadership Judge must accept the case; if an accusation sits for a week without acceptance, it is not heard before the Court. If the accusation is accepted to be heard before the Court, the Leadership Judges appoint one or more Conflict judges to assess guilt. If the accused is found guilty, the Leadership Judges decide the penalty given to the accused, if any. If the accused is found innocent, the Leadership Judges decide the penalty given to the accuser, if any. Penalties should only be given to the accuser if the Judges believe the accusation was clearly unjust and made for personal/political gain. The results of all cases heard by the Court will be broadcast to system (note that this does not apply to accusations that the Court decides not to accept). Court rulings can be overturned by law.

Conflict Judges

Leadership Judges

The Conflict Court, Details

Court Makeup

The Court shall consist of five Judges, three of which are Leadership Judges, two of which are Conflict Judges. The names of the current judges, as well as their type, are available at any School or University of Conflict.

Process of Accusation and Conviction

  1. Player A makes an Accusation against Player B at a University of Conflict.
  2. Any one of the three Leadership Judges may accept the Accusation for the Court to hear. If none of the Leadership Judges accept the accusation, it is removed after a week. If it is accepted, it moves on to the next step.
  3. The Leadership Judge who accepted the Accusation decides which Conflict Judge assesses guilt, or can appoint both Conflict Judges to assess guilt.
  4. The Conflict Judge(s) appointed to assess guilt collect evidence in a manner of their choosing. It is expected that the Judge will converse with Player A, Player B, and any other relevant witnesses. If necessary and fitting, the Judge may also want to observe the players in a game. The Conflict Judge(s) have 72 hours to submit a vote of either Guilty, Innocent, or Abstain. If Guilt or Innocence is determined, the case proceeds to the next step; otherwise the case is thrown out.
  5. The Leadership Judges vote on the severity of penalty given to Player X (X=B if B is Guilty, X=A if B is Innocent) by majority vote. Failure to produce a majority vote results in the case being thrown out.
  6. The results of the case are output to the System Channel, so Egypt is aware of the Court's actions

Accusation Details

The following are considered valid accusations (just examples, other valid accusations most probably exist).

Player A makes an Accusation against Player B at a University of Conflict. Player A will click to make an accusation, and then get a window popup to type in the exact name of the accused (server checks to ensure a player with the name input exists). The accusation is then put in a format similar to that of a petition writeup. Where the name of the petition would usually go, the text "<Player B> accused by <Player A>" is automatically filled in. The text below, where the body of the petition would go, is where Player A explains the basis for his/her accusation. Unlike a petition, the Accusation does not go to Player A for signature collection, but is distributed among the Universities of Conflict, to await acceptance from a Leadership Judge. A Leadership Judge may choose to Accept or Decline the accusation from a University of Conflict. If any Leadership Judge Accepts, the accusation becomes a case to be heard before the Court. If all three Leadership Judges vote to Decline, the accusation is removed. If a week passes without any Judge voting to Accept, the accusation is removed. A player may only make one accusation per 48 hours.

In the event that a Leadership Judge votes to Accept the case, a window pops up for the Judge to choose either Conflict Judge 1, Conflict Judge 2, or both Conflict Judges to assess guilt. The Leadership Judge's vote to Accept the case is processed only after this window is filled out, so if the window is allowed to timeout, it is as if the Leadership Judge never voted to Accept. A Conflict Judge may view the case(s), if any, they are to assess guilt for at a University of Conflict. As a sidenote, it is hoped that the Leadership Judges will consult amongst themselves before one of them Accepts.

Guilt Assessment Details

The Conflict Judge(s) appointed to assess guilt collect evidence in a manner of their choosing. It is expected that the Judge will converse with Player A, Player B, and any other relevant witnesses. If necessary and fitting, the Judge may also want to observe the players in a game. Note that there is no coding required for the evidence-gathering. The Conflict Judge(s) can not force Player or Player B into playing a Conflict game for their observation. Of course, refusal to do so is cause for suspicions.

The Conflict Judge(s) have 72 hours to submit a vote of either Guilty, Innocent, or Abstain. The vote is made at a University of Conflict, with a confirmation box. The assessment is then put in a format similar to that of a petition. Where the title of the petition normally goes, the text "<Player B> has been found <Guilty/Innocent/to be Undetermined> by <Conflict Judge>" is automatically filled in. Where the body of the petition would go, the Conflict Judge gives an explanation of his ruling. If a vote is not submitted within 72 hours, the Conflict Judge votes to Abstain by default.

If only one Judge is assessing guilt, the case is automatically thrown out if he Abstains, and automatically advances to the Penalty phase if he votes Guilty or Innocent. If two Judges are assessing guilt, the case is automatically thrown out if both Abstain, or if one votes Guilty and the other votes Innocent. Otherwise, the case automatically advanced to the Penalty phase.

Penalty Phase

After the Conflict Judge(s) have made their assessment (note, the submitted assessments are viewable by the Leadership Judges at the UoC, as are the ranks and levels of both the accused and the accuser), the Leadership Judges may vote for a type of penalty at a University of Conflict. If the penalty has a numerical value tied to it, this value is input into a separate popup window. Each Leadership Judge is also given an opportunity to give a justification why they voted the way they did, in a format similar to that of a petition. Where the title of the petition normally goes, the text "<Judge>'s Justification for the case of <Player A> vs <Player B>" is automatically filled in. Where the body of the petition would go, the Leadership Judge gives an explanation of why he voted the way he did. Once two Leadership Judges vote for the same penalty (with the same numerical value, if applicable), a majority vote has been achieved and the penalty is levied, and the case completed. If after 72 hours no two Leadership Judges have voted for the same penalty, a penalty is levied if and only if one Leadership Judge has voted and the other two Leadership Judges have not; otherwise the case is thrown out. The penalty is applied to the accused if Player B has been found Guilty. The penalty is applied to the accuser if Player B has been found Innocent. Below is the list of possible penalties.

Note that when a Level is decreased from 7 to a lower Level, the test passing that was associated with Level 7 is removed. Similarly, the lower Level may result in a reduction of status in Conflict (for example, a prentice could be lowered to a student). Also note that individual penalties made by the Court can be overturned by law. The Leadership Judges may request from the Pharaoh additional penalty options. The Pharaoh may refuse these requests if either 1.) he believes the penalty requested is not within the Court's jurisdiction, or 2.) he believes the penalty is too complex to code relative to its necessity, or 3.) he wants to.

Public Notice and Record

Any case that is Accepted will have its results output to System once it has been resolved or thrown out in a later phase, in the format: The only exception to this format is if the case is thrown out after the Guilt Assessment phase, in which case the message is in the format: Additionally, for any case that makes it to the Penalty Phase, the following will be viewable by any player at a UoC (similar to the way past laws were viewable in T1):
Home | Atlas | Guides | Tests | Research | Index | Recent Changes | Preferences | Login
This page is read-only | | Create/Edit another page | View other revisions
Last edited October 9, 2004 6:06 pm by Dors (diff)
Users must be logged in to edit this page.
Search: