EFUPW Forums

Disclaimer:  these are my own personal thoughts and not those of the DM team as a whole which may or may not differ entirely.


As we are all no doubt busy people, I expect many of us have limited time to spend on our hobbies - and as I count EfU as one of my hobbies I try to spend that free time doing something I enjoy.

Trials have rarely counted as one of those things.

With the court room process back as a possibility in EfU I personally believe that in cases which are a foregone conclusion or certainty for execution that there be some respect paid to any player who is simply for all intents and purposes watching as people drag out the end of their PC.

However it does strike me as possible that people really enjoy these instances as a chance to shine in a lawyerly fashion or to allow truly persuasive PC's to alter an outcome.

It seems to me though that a large proportion of the time this doesn't happen and there is just an hour long ordeal and then a permadeath for the criminal.   In which case things would have been better served with a quick run down of events, hammer down by judge and boom - next case.

Or perhaps allowances for creative punishments or some collaboration with whoever is about to lose their PC OOCly as to whether they would like things sped along if possible so they can get back to doing something they enjoy.

Just my thoughts.   If people really enjoy such roleplay I will simply shuffle off into my dark little corner and glare balefully from the shade.

So... your thoughts?

I LOVE the idea that a criminal is not automaticly sentenced to death. Obvious a trail is a way to wiggle their way out of the death sentance, but there is also plenty of time for them to escape.
Once this is said I agree, trails normaly take too long, and are borring. Lets face it, we dont play efu to sit in a courtroom and chitchat. We play EFU to go out there and slay the dragon and save the princess.
All in all I am for a "quicker" trail too.

I haven't really seen hour long trials resulting in the death of someone as of late. I think the last one was a 2,500 debt bondage for pleading guilty to owning substance, assaulting the Spellguard and stuff like that. Most cases ending in execution were because of murder.

I don't see anything wrong with the court system, as they are now.

Quote from: Nuclear Catastrophe;382739Or perhaps allowances for creative punishments or some collaboration with whoever is about to lose their PC OOCly as to whether they would like things sped along if possible so they can get back to doing something they enjoy.

This should become a thing. Sometimes people just want to be done with it, and for the sake of OOC courtesy, I think they should be allowed that option.

If I were a judge in the trials, I would certainly implement such a thing. Especially for those foregone conclusion types. Then again, Slyde Radke's was a foregone conclusion, and he ended up getting a chance to break free and it was a glorious escape for him... despite a long trial. In fact I think having a long trial served him very well, getting his story out there.

So at the end of the day, what matters is: those with power to mete out the end of a PC (prefects, directors etc) should definitely find creative ways to make the trial process more stimulating for all involved.

I agree with NC that a situation where the trial is merely a formality leading inevitably to execution can be pretty boring for the player sitting there and waiting to die.

Unfortunately, that inevitability is mostly caused by the fact that the way trials are run in EFU is a sham. I'm usually reminded of that one DS9 episode where O'Brien is put on trial by the Cardassians, but they already have decided he's guilty and the trial merely serves as a spectacle for public enjoyment and display of the state's efficiency in dealing with criminality. The defense attorney merely pleads for the repentant criminal's forgiveness in the eyes of the state so that at least his surviving family will be left with some dignity.


Rather than doing away with the idea of trials entirely, I'd rather see the system be developed in a way where there is a burden of proof going beyond 'well, he's a watcher, what he's saying must be true' or having trials be a proud display of the cronyism going on in Sanctuary's bureaucracy. If it's the same guy (ie. a director) who is responsible for issuing a law, then an arrest order for a guy breaking it, then the fair trial of the guy he had arrested, I'm sure you can see how there would be room for foregone conclusions along the way.

Ideas such as the separation of powers, a court system that operates independently of the government and law enforcement or independant and legally immune defense council are unfortunately low on the agenda of most players (to be frank, they are kind of boring), but I wish the complete disregard for any concept of fair legal procedure could be had without the extensively time-consuming pretense that bores three quarters of the people involved.

If it's a summary judgement, just get over with it and don't bother with the ceremony.

Well.. I'm certainly feeling a bit anxious walking into a room where everyone already seem in agreement. I'm going to try and defend the current system by saying that a lot of what has been said is from the point of a law enforcer simply not true.

Execution is 'rarely' a foregone conclusion. And often the defense and prosecution can easily in those three quarters either move the sentence to something harsher or something more mild depending on how well they play it to the prefect.

Yesterdays trial saw the defense give a pretty heartfelt speech and be overall decent. But the overwhelming proof still brought execution, but without the -chance- for him to have a defense, if say the prefect and law enforcement were forced to just skip most of the trial and the defense because of the overwhelming proof, then that would just be making an IC Sham out of the court for OOC courtesy. I love this server because it is so immersive, and I'm not -always- here for quests and loot and danger, I actually like doing my ingame job and trying to see it done properly. And I think some Prefects have done too, and with our program to find interested clerks and dedicated lawyers I think they do too.

And all of this serves to make Sanctuary a more believable city. If the Character -wants- to get things over with, want to get executed quicker, want things to be over. Then he could take the IC approach and simply -confess- to the crimes, that makes the trial last 40 minutes less and gets him the same result he already expects. If he lets his defense drag it out and declares himself innocent it is because he hopes for a lesser sentence, which in my experience.. Many have gotten. Not long ago we had a major trial that could have ended in exile which merely ended in a massive fine, because the prosecution botched their case and the defense did well.

That's something that has to be possible in a world like this. The chance to use the courts as another tool among many. You don't have to use it, you can opt out of using it. But I don't think letting a character have the proper time to defend themself in a trial trying to get a lower sentence is -disrespecting the player-. I happen' to believe quite the opposite.

If it's too long for you people. What I meant to say the player who has overwhelming evidence stacked against him and knows he's going to get executed can do himself a courtesy by confessing to the crimes. I'd rather such be done on a case by case basis as cases with overwhelming evidence and foregone conclusion punishments are rarer than people think, and I think that trying to systematize OOC courtesy in the courtroom would just end up damaging the world.

As for making trials more stimulating.. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that... I think you can download the Phoenix Wright - Ace Attorney courtroom battle themes for the Watcher Barracks?

Yesterday is well the first time Narvis sentenced someone to death after a trial; a trial that saw an Agent take to the Witness Stand, a Thayan Wizard standing as a Defense Attorney who in all honesty excelled himself, and a memorable and impassioned speech by an Inspector on the value of oaths, trust and duty.

Regarding 'speeding things along', there are two main things that I do to see this done:

Firstly, the accused is always given the opportunity to simply plead guilty and go straight to pleading for mitigating circumstances. Narvis has been criticized as being rather benevolent in the past, to the point where he had been persuaded by mitigating circumstances to give nothing but a hefty fine for those found guilty of treason;

Secondly, as a rule, I always ignore the weaker charges if there is a severe and capital charge in play. For example, for someone accused of Treason, Theft, Assault and Resisting Arrest, it's pointless in my opinion to go too deeply into the latter three when, if found guilty of Treason alone, he could already be executed - and whatever the case is, that charge alone is likely to have a heftier punishment than all the others combined. So for the sake of brevity and not spending hours on a trial, it is enough to just focus on Treason.


The thing about foregone conclusion is this: it could very well happen, and in my experience, have happened before, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists in order to fulfill an IC and OOC desire for lawfulness and transparency respectively. I acknowledge completely the fact that characters such as mine, Abala's, and so on, are given a certain degree of power over our fellow players - in my opinion, this degree of power also comes with some degree of responsibility not to blatantly abuse it, and trials do create a semblance of transparency that makes overtly ridiculous abuse impossible or have certain ramifications.

A final thing to note is that trials do provide a great opportunity for RP. Characters before trials tend to work, plot, scheme and manipulate others to try to get the verdict they want. People call in favors, arrange private meetings, surreptitiously pass around pieces of unorthodox evidences, or try to influence the various individuals involved. I have personally been netted into quite a lot of RP, even before becoming a Prefect; in fact, on my first day in EFU, Narvis served as a Defense and got swiftly embroiled in rather underhanded politics.

There's more than meet the eyes. While many of the PCs might not involve themselves for whatsoever reason in the dark things that lurk beneath the facade of a trial, a great deal of conflict, politicking, persuasion, bluffs and lies stimulate a whole slew of RP opportunities even at the mere opportunity or prospect of trial. And then of course, trials are when all this come together, when all the cards are revealed on the table, when all the politicking seem to hatch fruits - and the verdict concludes the victors.

Trials are perhaps one of the most amazing part of PvP conflict in Upper Sanctuary; PvP without mechanics, without buffs, supplies, knowledge of spells or knockdowns, but PvP through interactions between PCs.

One of the best punishment I have ever seen was "X years duty in army".
Perfect punishment for good RPing players.

In EFU I can imagine punishment like servant of watchers/society/auxulliarity - with no competencies, but only duties. I think there can be duty or expulsion for those, who are not dangerous for the society.

If the character is dangerous for the society (direct danger for Sanctuary), I understand when death comes - but I think that not every necromancer (who doesn't practice his arts within Sanctuary) is dangerous for Sanctuary.

Quote from: Aefar;382748One of the best punishment I have ever seen was "X years duty in army".
Perfect punishment for good RPing players.

In EFU I can imagine punishment like servant of watchers/society/auxulliarity - with no competencies, but only duties. I think there can be duty or expulsion for those, who are not dangerous for the society.

If the character is dangerous for the society (direct danger for Sanctuary), I understand when death comes - but I think that not every necromancer (who doesn't practice his arts within Sanctuary) is dangerous for Sanctuary.

...Objection (//%22http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=7269507%22)!

// *Coughs* T'was a joke. Pls no hurt.

+ 1 to Corrigo's post.

I likewise agree that problem is that the laws have always been so vague, and the authoritarian governments so thinly veiled, that trials just seem a fait accompli.

Lot of good points - Nikolaz especially but I guess I can condense my somewhat jaded post to 'I think people should try to streamline things and work it all out among  yourselves as players to avoid subjecting someone to hours of their lives where you can'.

I guess where it is deemed wholly necessary and appropriate by you guys you can do as you will, I do appreciate the excellent and high standards you all put in, and find efu an amazingly rich and enjoyable place - I basically try to keep things ticking along and I just want EVERYONE to have fun.

I haven't seen a trial in a bit, but what struck me about the ones I did see is that the accused was never allowed to speak in any way in their defense. I know if I was on trial this would annoy me no end. Here you are, looking at the possible end of your PC, all these others roleplaying around you and you have to just sit there in silence.

Certainly, you do have to limit a bit of the accused (in some cases) will just rant on. But I feel it does a disservice to the player who helped create the courtroom roleplay that many enjoy for that player to be left out of that roleplay.

To me that's the biggest thing. It would be miserable to be excluded from the roleplay leading to the end of your own PC. I'd probably have a hard time even paying full attention to the proceedings.

If it's to any comfort Cap- the accused are allowed to defend themself when the defense or prosecution calls them as witness. Anything else would make trials an even more longwinded affair if the accused was just allowed to rant on.

The accused is often allowed to even interject with his own comment 3-4 times before getting gagged.

If, and I say -if- execution is called for. Then the accused also gets to have a last word. In the case of yesterdays execution the rebel went all Braveheart on us and I believe he himself said it was a satisfying conclusion.

We can do many things to make the player feel better about his end, respect his last wishes as long as they are reasonable, give him a priest to talk to, (http://www.efupw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=382754#post382754 - Thanks to GentoftheEmpire for playing an awesome comforting religious guy) allow him last words in front of a crowd. Little stuff like that all goes into making the soon to be dead PC feel a lot better without necessarily having to start break character. And it's something I think is proper we at least 'try' to give to everyone we think might end up executed in a trial, because we don't want their death to be our moment, We want it to be -their- moment.

I will say that all these 'rules' are not set in stone and that prefects have a lot of lee-way in the pacing and order of the trial.

Has there ever been an incident in EFU:R in which a player underwent a trial and was dissatisfied with the length of it?

I know when I run a NPC trial I am usually in and out within 5 minutes. If players (including the accused) prefer to make it more elaborate I see no harm in it.

Quote from: Nuclear Catastrophe;382739Or perhaps allowances for creative  punishments or some collaboration with whoever is about to lose their PC  OOCly as to whether they would like things sped along if possible so  they can get back to doing something they enjoy.

This does not have to be OOC at all. The accused player can simply  plead guilty. Perhaps there could even be a sign placed in each of the  cells explaining that "If you are ready to face the judgment of your  god, CONFESS!"

I think the enjoyment of trials by the playerbase  is demonstrated well enough by the number of players who consistently  show up for them. The courtrooms are usually packed with half the active  server whenever one begins.

The biggest problem I see with the  trials is purely IC: the court procedures are inconsistent and absurd. I  recall one trial where the prosecution called the defendant as  their first witness. This resulted in the absurd spectacle of the  defendant, who represented themselves as their own defense, cross  examining themselves before ever even presenting their defense case.

For those of you who don't know, there are quite a few basic things wrong here:

• The defendant was being asked to testify against themselves.
• The  prosecution should never call a hostile witness (in this case the  defendant) in order to make their case. That's not a presentation of  fact, it's an interrogation, which should have been done before the  trial. It's also a good way to lose control of the case.
• The  orderly process of prosecution ==> defense ==> verdict was  disrupted, making the trial about thirty minutes longer than it should  have been. The defense got to make their case twice.

That's  just one example. All of these Sanctuary trials are legal farces in some  very basic ways and would be laughed out of even an 18th Century common  law tribunal.

My recommendation is to come up with maybe four or five very simple rules of order, based on common law, which simply dictate the flow of the process, nothing more. This could be done either ICly or OOCly. We just need a simple set of rules to ensue that trials are consistent and orderly.

I am somewhat irritated by the 'foregone conclusion' accusation that is thrown out as if it were a... foregone conclusion. It is, quite simply, not true. At most half the capital crime trials that I have witnessed (and I have sat in on a number of them) have ended with a conviction and not all of these resulted in a death sentence.

Also, given that one of the objections raised here is the length of the trial, I also feel that it should be pointed out that in those open-and-shut cases where the result actually is a foregone conclusion, the trial rarely lasts very long. And these are usually cases where someone is clearly guilty of murder (tons of eyewitnesses, caught red-handed, etc.).

As to the persons on trial never being allowed to defend themselves, that is a patent absurdity. I am actually not sure what I have seen more of, trials where the defendant pled their own case or where they had an assigned defender. Only if the defendant is completely uncooperative do they normally get gagged. (Ironically, I once saw a case where a PC ran their own defense and where I was convinced he was headed for acquittal when the player suddenly started to scream how unfair the system was and that he might just as well plead guilty and get it over with.)

There's a number of ways to deal with someone sitting in a cell and being bored. You could allow the player to log out and just check in again in half an hour to see if the trial was ready. If the player feels the trial is a foregone conclusion and/or doesn't want to go through it, you could work out a trial outcome on IRC/in Tells and just say the trial already took place. Or, as was actually done once or twice when I was a Watcher, when the accused was a citizen of some note or repute they were allowed freedom to move around against bail or some other such measure.

It's extremely easy to find ways to avoid PC boredom in this. All you need is OOC goodwill and a few minutes of discussion. There is no need to lay into the legal system itself and scream about how it is all showcase trials and foregone conclusions. And frankly, what if it was? This is Sanctuary, not some bloody hippie commune. Some of the trials may indeed be rigged and that is part of the game, too -- if the player then feels they don't want to waste time on it, once again polite OOC discussion is the easy way to deal with that.

~tOH.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, I agree with everything PlayaCharacter just said. I've wished for proper IC procedure for the longest time. And again, at least some people must think trials are not boring or they wouldn't be attending them.

I agree with PC's points. I've never been put on trial personally and have only seen a few, and they can be entertaining, if a little confusing to watch. I don't mind the idea of the law being a little subjective in Sanctuary, it seems to fit the theme of the place that I could commit the same crime in front of two different Watchers and receive very different penalties for it. But I do think that the general flow a trial should follow should be explained- OOCly or ICly- to the prosecution and defense prior to beginning the trial, especially considering that in some cases, PC's can simply volunteer to represent one side or the other in a trial. Some loose form of structure would go a long way.

I think it's very deliberate that there is no process or structure to trials, PCs are EXPECTED to make it fun, and if they fail to do so, should find a different avenue to pursue.

Take a book out of director crane, he sentenced someone for assault to have dinner with a PC as punishment. You can do what you want in terms of sentencing, it doesn't have to be exile/capital punishment/fine.

Trials are an important and fundamental part of my character's existence- she is a Tyrran, after all! She found her start in the city, initially, by being a defender in numerous different trials and those roles available offer an excellent way to dive headfirst into politics/the legal system in general.

Trials are no different from any other public event. They are like rituals, games, competitions, etc. They offer an opportunity for communal roleplay. That they bore some players is too bad really but no one is required to sit through them if they don't want to.

As someone who has probably presided over more trials than I am even comfortable saying, I vehemently disagree with the implication that Sanctuary law is a farce and that the trials are like Stalinist show trials or something. I personally have had my character put a great deal of thought into each side's arguments and weigh them against one another before coming to a conclusion. Length is usually a required factor when the evidence is mixed and the trial could go "either way"- a fair trial requires that the defense is given ample time to counter the points of the prosecution. Arguably the most corrupt trials have been the ones that lasted the shortest amount of time!

Generally though it is never a perfect thing and there will always be people who are unhappy with trials for whatever reason. I will note that when players send me a tell informing me that they have to leave I do my very best to make things go very fast.

I do agree with the procedural complaints but while I've long contemplated a set procedure for trials the meta-realities that we face mean that it's probably never going to happen. DMs want the flexibility to come in and say "Okay this guy is innocent" or "Okay this guy is guilty" if they want to, and they certainly don't want to have to go checking the Sanctuary procedural legal code subsection 5b to do it.

Quote from: Howland;382764Has there ever been an incident in EFU:R in which a player underwent a trial and was dissatisfied with the length of it?

I know when I run a NPC trial I am usually in and out within 5 minutes. If players (including the accused) prefer to make it more elaborate I see no harm in it.

Yisilda's trial was cut short by the time of her defense (the prosecution was ruled without shortcuts) ICly under the excuse that more important issues should be dealt with. I was both ICly and OOCly displeased with it, but  understood that OOCly the general people involved were tired and needed to be busy with other things. I don't need to say that it ended bad to her.

So, I'm the occasional nerd that would whine about having it cut short and I did whine. No, I don't like the idea of having it cut short because it often will mean keeping the accusation and fastening the defense, not allowing you to build up the persuasion that could save your PC.

My personal opinion is that in cases of clear cut guilt the judge should be able to move to summary sentencing hearings.  I.E. half a dozen witnesses watched you cut down someone in cold blood, fairly conclusive murder case.  I think one of the main issues is that the accused rarely has time to prepare a defense, and in cases like banditry/killings as part of some evil cult/gang they have made no attempt to disguise themselves thus making it a foregone conclusion that is simply dragged out at times.

There is always the option for criminals to plead "Guilty, punish me now, save me from this torment" at the start of any trial.

Edit: Here is an example of what pleading guilty can get you.

(http://i.imgur.com/GS10uLl.jpg)

Honestly, trials in general should be reserved for cases where things aren't clear-cut and a trial is actually needed to determine guilt (generally capital cases and the like). There is nothing requiring a trial for any crime and if it's totally obvious then there is absolutely nothing wrong with rendering judgement without trial.

My main complaint with trials is that the person being tried, who has the most to lose, has the least amount of involvement and roleplay in the entire process. Sometimes they don't even get time to speak with the person being appointed to their defense. Spectators don't have to come, and can leave if they aren't enjoying the process, but the victim is generally forced to just sit there for 30m to 2 hours or whatever just casually emoting staring at the mirrors or whatever.

I would like a process that involves the accused a bit more than as a prop piece.

Quote from: Mia;382798There is always the option for criminals to plead "Guilty, punish me now, save me from this torment" at the start of any trial.

If someone is going to plead guilty, I suggest it happens even before the trial, because why do we need a trial, sendings, arranging defense and prosecution and what not if it's going to end in less than 5 minutes.

also, when my PC accidently confessed during interrogations with the watcher he made a crime, a DM possessed one of the directors, said there is really no need for a trial because he already confessed, passed the punishment and it was over in less than 10 minutes. as D_I said, a lot of the times, a trial is unnecessary.

I really enjoy trials and have probably been involved in all facets of them at one point or another (accused, lawyer, judge). I do think its quite funny when PCs show up for a trial and spend the entire time emoting "yawns" or whatever. If you don't enjoy them, don't go to them? I do enjoy them, so I don't see length as a serious issue. But to play devils advocate...

One thing I do think would really help speed along the process, is some set of regulations. I.E. the prosecution/defense is allowed to call only -1- witness (better pick the right one), that limits be set on the number of questions that can be asked, etc.

I am also not a fan of the current system in that the accused is pretty much forced to pick a lawyer instead of defending themselves. Often their lawyer has no knowledge of the case until a few minutes beforehand. This can lead to a rambling set of questions or misinformation takes time without providing much substance.

It might be a lot quicker just to have three people involved, accused, prosecution, judge. Hey, maybe the only witness that can be called is the accused who must defend the accusations/evidence of the prosecution personally with the judge asking for elaboration here and there.

Bring back Stoning please.

Guys... trials are not only to define if the person is guilty or not. They're to define how bad are the deeds and the most appropriate outcomes based on what happened.

This mindset of "guilty or not guilty" is the one that focuses on "FD or not FD" the PC. There are other options beyond these two.

I always enjoyed lengthy trials, just not running them as a DM.