Consilium Structure OOC

[Xander]

Xadun

Please read our rules regarding continuity.

I get that we don't have a written rule for when a plot enters continuity for multiscene plots like the theater, but Quad damage was a single nonsticky that closed on April 4th and Concilium is a sticky that was posted April 1st. You can't be talking about it in this concilium meeting, and this is the third official meeting in a row we've had to work around you jumping the gun on this stuff.

Read the things.

Edit: I'm pretty sure we're in the clear to talk about the theater, but quad damage was still clearly not in continuity yet.

[Xadun]

My apologies - you're right.

I'm not doing this maliciously. I just keep forgetting, especially when a scene closes in the first few days of concillium opening. It's much easier to ignore a scene happening concurrently.
Aeolus , as ST please could you strike the part regarding the Quad Damage plot from Phoenyx's last post in The Councillors side thread?

[Xander]

No worries. I didn't think it was malicious, but it definitely felt like something that needed to be mentioned.

Friendly advice though? I keep important threads in my subscriptions until the next official meeting I can share them. Since we only sticky the monthly meetings, it keeps a nice neat list of my relevant scenes with the date of the last post so I have an easy reference guide to what happened when. Once you share them and feel the thread is safely past tense, just delete the subscription to keep an accessible list of current events available.

[Aeolus]

All right, there are some things we need to talk about after last month's Consilium. They'd warrant another thread, but I don't want to clutter the boards too much until increased discussion or the need for a poll warrants it.

I'd like to discuss two topics and it would be great to have some sort of feedback here - ultimately I want this venue to be as much fun as possible for everyone involved, so I'd like to make sure that things aren't moving in a direction the majority of players isn't comfortable with. If you don't care either way, maybe just drop in and say that.


1. Structure of Consilium

This month we've tried to separate the 'speakers' and the 'listeners' with the hope of getting things done without having to wait for 10+ people that may or may not be involved in the discussion. The good thing? That sort of is what happened, in the sense that the main actors of a discussion moved things along at a decent pace.
Unfortunately, most other characters didn't have a lot to contribute and while it was maybe an interesting read, I want to open up the floor to discussion on how to proceed in the structure of those meetings and I'll start with my thoughts on the matter.

As is, there is an 'official' meeting every three months and a general chance to socialize for the rest of the year. The only difference between the two is Status, the established assumption that 'the doors are closed' after 7 days, and having trials or official announcements during Consilium.

The two questions I'm asking myself is: what purpose do those meetings fulfill (I'm talking OOC here) and what is the 'cost' associated with those meetings?

Starting with the latter: attending the Consilium is a scene slot and a time commitment. Telling players that attendance is mandatory (and/or associating IC or OOC penalties for missing it) leaves a bad taste in my mouth but on the other hand I think it's reasonable to expect this level of engagement if players want to be an active part of the venue. Does that mean there should be penalties? No, because in a perfect world people would attend because it's fun and engaging. In a perfect world it's a place to socialize, play ranks and have a bit of (OOCly-good-natured) politics going on.

Which brings me to the other question: what's the purpose of those scenes? Acknowledgements (more on that later) can be done at any time, so that's not it.
I can think of two things: trials and announcements. Announcements require every Mage to be present but can be handled via a notice board or something in the Heralds-forum, so this purpose could be handled elsewhere. That leaves trials - are those reason enough to keep the structure as is? The need for a trial could arise at any time, waiting for the official Consilium to come around is impractical. Furthermore, Consilii are oligarchic in nature so arguments can be made to have a less strict schedule. The alternative could be to announce a trial when charges are brought up and handle the trial in a separate scene or at next month's meeting, thus giving people the opportunity to prepare and plan.

In my opinion, Vampire is a good example of engaged social/politic system - but Mage and Vampire are different games and players have different wants. How would you like to see this aspect handled?

(A) Keep things as they are: 'Official' meetings where trials are handled in the Consilium meeting which is mandatory, the rest of the gatherings are lose social scenes.
(B) Have every month be a "Sanctuary" so that nobody is forced to attend but has a platform to make announcements, bring up grievances or any breaches of the Lex.
(C) Other (please specify).


2. The Lex, Consilium, and the offices.

I want to make a few things clear:

The Lex should be upheld and should hold significance in the venue. I am aware of the rich history of this site and the venue and that politics played a bigger part in the past. I am also aware that certain circumstances and situations required specific ways to handle things and have created a trove of experience and reasons for how things are. My intention is not to disregard all of this, my intention is not to say 'screw that' and do things my way - my intention is for people to have fun.
Also, while an understanding of the venue and the rules is required, characters can have different reasons for disagreeing on accusations or rulings. If characters argue about the Lex it should be an opportunity for roleplay, maybe define future relationships, alliances, or rivalries. It should not swap over to OOC or get personal, so I think we should come to an agreement on how to move forward from here.

When I took over the as ST there was no Hierarch and only 3 of the 5 Councilor positions were filled. It has been discussed prior to that that the venue wasn't big enough to warrant keeping the Charter and I simply took that status quo and went with it.

For not communicating more clearly about this I am sorry. If it looked like I was deciding on the fly on how to handle acknowledgements and was willing to change things 'just because' I am also sorry. This can be the belated attempt to have a discussion about how we want to handle things moving forward.

I stand by the prior decision that <15 Mages is not enough players to warrant a fully staffed Consilium or re-integrate the Consilium Charter. We can talk about re-electing a Hierarch, but I think that the current system of 5 Councilors works and in the case of one player being absent/a path not being represented I think that another Councilor can handle the acknowledgement instead.
For passing judgement the majority vote of the Councilors should count - even though that might be the 'objectively wrong' decision. If a Path feels not properly represented by their Councilor it is between them, if some Awakened think that one Councilor or member of the Consilium holds beliefs that are not wise or unfit for the position there are ways to handle this in character. Mages are ultimately human and if favouritism, a petty grievance or other personal motives dictate a decision so be it. This is a roleplaying site after all.

First, what's your opinion on this?

(C) Keep things as they are: 5 Councilors, no other offices.
(D) Bring back the Hierarch - whether in addition to the Councilors or taken from their ranks.
(E) Bring back a different Consilium duty.
(F) Other (please specify).

On the topic of the Tetragrammaton I think we should agree on what the various degrees of punishment should look like. I am happy to look at earlier precedents and judgements and listen to suggestions to create a guide that (hopefully) makes discussing potential breaches of the Lex easier.

One thing to note about this is the difference between how the punishment is felt IC and OOC. The character should feel a punishment that is in relation to his deeds and the player should feel the effect too without being overly penalized for roleplaying. In a perfect world, the two factors are identical - in our world we can find a compromise for things.

Below is a spoiler with most of the degrees of punishment with suggestions of what this could look like added by me. Again, if I've missed any pre-existing rulings or if you have a different suggestion feel free to bring it up. I am biased in my preferences, so my suggestions steer in a direction I deem 'most likely to result in roleplay' - but they are neither absolute nor indisputable. I do think however, that telling stories together is what we are here for, so keeping players from doing that for IC actions should be avoided. If the OOC rules are broken or a player is behaving out of line this is a separate matter.
The precedent set earlier regarding the timeframe is a good idea in my oppinon: unless specified otherwise, punishments should last 3 months starting from the month the judgement is passed. I suggest it affects those scenes that are started during this timeframe - are there any objections or problems with continuity I'm overlooking?

From the Wiki

Minor Reprimand
This is little more than formally stating that what the mage did was wrong. This formally expresses to other mages in the city that the Consilium considers the act a transgression. (Refer back to the Precept of Recognition for further details.)
Nothing to add here - this can be applied as written.


Major Reprimand
The Consilium instructs other masters to limit their assistance to the mage. In some cases, the Councilors may even warn other cabals or mages against helping the criminal.
This is a good point to talk about what 'assistance' means. I think 'to assist' should describe sharing resources (Mana, Hallows, items), services (mentoring for learning higher non-ruling Arcana, casting spells for each other, helping in personal matters), and knowledge (teaching Rotes, giving advice). Hence, any character who is currently a Master in an Arcanum should refrain from assisting the punished character.

Payment of Debt
The mage must pay a debt, usually in the form of a favor, act or deed. Cabals and orders trade favors, as do masters. If the mage belongs to a society — such as a cabal or order — she must pay on a debt that her society owes another.
The debt is decided by the offended party and should be role-played. This seems open ended and most likely an opportunity to act as a hook.

Minor Penance
The mage must atone for her act by performing a service for the city’s mages. This may be something as simple as re-organizing the contents of a library, standing guard with agents of the Adamantine Arrow or serving as a lone watchman for a few nights.
See, in my magical dream-world I'd suggest the punished player has to write a glimpse describing the service done to the city's mages: it would reflect the degree of punishment, take some work and give players a canvas to roleplay about their crimes or the punishment. However I realize that forcing players to write a glimpse can suck the fun out of it straight away. I'm leaving the suggestion here either way, otherwise I think that going forward maybe flipping the precedent could be a good compromise: the player has -1 scene for the time, since the character is busy doing a service as punishment.

Major Penance
The mage must perform a risky or dangerous act for the benefit of the city’s mages. This could involve scouting an area known for supernatural activity, undertaking a spiritual journey or retrieving a powerful artifact. Note that this punishment actually hints that the mage has potential, since a fool would not be trusted with such an important mission.
Adding to the above point: if the undertaking is more dangerous it's not unreasonable to think that this would dent the character's Mana-pool: in addition to the scene cap, the character loses points of Mana in excess to their Wisdom (or to make it sting more: a flat amount).

Severe Reprimand
The Consilium states bluntly that no one (not even initiates) may aid or assist the offending mage, clarifying the duration of the reprimand. Offering assistance merits the same punishment, “tarring” the collaborator “with the same brush.” The mage is then either instructed to meditate in seclusion or abstain from practicing magic. Failure to comply leads to incarceration.
See the definition of 'assisting' above. It could be argued that characters are expected not to publicly interact with the punished character - private scenes (while frowned upon and bringing their own host of possible consequences) are not forbidden by OOC rules.

Incarceration
The mage is magically confined, surrounded by powerful wards that cripple his magical power. He must meditate on his actions. In many cases, this is done because the mage is dangerous enough that he has risked exposing or seriously weakening the city’s mages, and the Consilium needs time to recover while repairing the damage that’s been done.
The character is not allowed to participate in open or private scenes for the duration of the punishment. 'Visits' (i.e. small, private scenes) and glimpses are okay but the former should be justified in some way (the jailor and the jailed, a Cabal mate visiting, a Guardian interrogating).

Banishment
This is rarely effective, but sometimes used as an alternative to incarceration. The mage is given orders to leave the city, sometimes for a specific period of time. If she returns during that time, she faces incarceration or worse. The stigma can include further details of where the mage must go or what she must do before she returns.
The character is asked to leave the venue, with the possibility of maybe returning at some point in the future.

So, that was my wall of text concerning this. For things we could vote on I've put the options as letters, if discussion gets big enough to warrant a new thread we can start one - for now I'd like to invite everyone to share what they want to get out of the social side of Mage and the things attached to that.


BoxingUnicorn Drakken Endymion Fedup Jake T Matt Orianna Pisces ragnarokxg Shane Vincent Xadun Xander

[West]

FWIW it's worth, I just wanted to add a historical alternative -- not to sway the vote, but just because it's happened and no one might think of it (F).

When I joined the site (around 6-8 mages IIRC), there really wasn't a Consilium. At all. Then there was, but there weren't Path Councilors. At all. We had the Order heads, and that was it. The actual metaplot/venue mystery was "Who murdered the Hierarch". There wasn't one. When the venue swelled to about 30-40 Mages is when the Councilors were created. Later (5 or 6 years) a new ST added the Charter, Tet, Hierarch, etc. Granted, their Hierarch was an NPC, but that position was rarely (if ever) needed.

Like any system, it had it's downfall -- the same as the Councilors. Some Orders were too small to have a head or anyone with enough Status to qualify as the head. It makes Path Status meaningless. Trade-off? It made Orders a bit more defined and roles more important.

[Matt]

1. Structure

Option C
I think this meeting demonstrated that maybe Trials need to be handled as a separate scene. In this instance Puck brought forward the accusation and this enables a bit of prep time for the characters. An actual separate trial means there could be a prosecution and defence and either can call in people for their testimony. As the accusation was against a councillor it would have given time for say the Acanthus and Obrimos paths to have a stand in councilor to vote for the path so that Puck could play the role of Prosecution and then Pheonyx could have defended herself or had a defender (in this case it was Corn).

I also think actual Council meetings need to be one of two ways.... They are either public and in that instance I think we need an NPC hierach (There are not enough characters for a PC one) and they are very much here to serve the cosillium and ensure that the process flows and meetings flow.

Or

The councillors have a private meeting and then either an announcement is posted or the Councillors are responsible for passing those announcements on.

2. The Lex, Concillium and Offices

(f)

I agree we do not have enough to fully staff the Concilium and I am in two minds on this topic...

1) We could handle it all In Character but that Consilium discussion would take forever so we would probably have to split into groups to give everyone a say within their own order / path and then the councilors figure out a system based on what their "constituents" want. We very much are in a game where the groups are made up of the players, there are not 50 npc's running around so part of me things... let the Concilium decide in character. See what happens.

or

2) (My preferred option) - We move away from path based councillors and move back towards order based ones. The orders are the primary political factions within the city, this is where the majority of your political intrigue is going to come from. The Mysterium find a powerfull magical artifact, they want to keep it the guardians want to destroy it. Etc etc. Basing it on path removes this element of political intrigue within the councillors. Plus it has the ability for one order to control the council so the concilium could become Mysterium Light for example.

The most imporant status in my mind is the city status, this is how the entire concilium view you. Then its order... then path.

I think we need an NPC hierach to keep meetings flowing. At this point I do not think we need assign any offices appart from Councilor and NPC hierach.

On the subject of punishments - I think maybe this latest situation could be the springboard for in game political change? Mechanically the loss of Mana...I will be honest I hate this. <insert rant no one needs to hear here>.

I think in these cases there should be some sort of loss of status involved built into the mechanics of the punishment. I get in theroy when we all do status posts that may happen but the automatic loss of 1 point, 2 ponts or 3 points across all status types shows that you have been denounced by the council for breaking the law. If you were 4 and now 3 and someone puts 0 they just feel stronger about it etc. This maybe lasts for X time and after X time that point is regained. Because when you break the law you are seen in less of a positive light and you have to spend that time earning the conciliums trust again.

Or maybe it could be a Status cap? I do prefer an IC punishment and it has the potential to help a character grow. I messed up, this is the consiquence, I have to do something to show them that I am a trustworthy and reliable individual. I dont think the concilium has a shared library but if you were mysterium maybe you loose your library privileges for anything thats deemed 3+dots of occult or something.

I think the punishment thing needs to be a totally separate post, sort the councilism structure first because its a somewhat large topic and Discussing all the points at the same time may confuse matters.

[Fedup]

1 Structure


C. I agree that actual trials need to be a different scene. It would be very boring for some players.
I believe we should keep the Sanctuary and Consilium as I think it is better to play our reactions on announcements AND concilium is for more than trials and announcements by the council. A cabal may seek retribution against another cabal etc.




2. The Lex, Consilium, and the offices.
(E) as a player. See below. My character disagrees though, so you will see different things ICly from Corn.


Hierarch/offices: I would be against an NPC hierarch for three reasons: (I) It requires some major suspension of disbelief to have a major NPC show up, say he/she is the boss and everyone agree on it. Or Retroactively say "all those IC discussions about whether we needed a Hierarch were void, we had one all the time". (II) gives a sudden boost to a path and order out of the blue. (III) The "power" issue: For the new NPC hierarch to be accepted he/she should be able to fend off easy challenges... and we have people with 300+XP here.
As a player, I don't think we need a Hierarch at all. The current system mostly works.


Furthermore, many things here should be discussed ICly, IMO.
As an example, the player of Corn doesn't think we need a Hierarch. Corn the character thinks we do and it will be brought up ICly.


The player of Corn (and Corn) think we need two offices aside of the council: Sentinel (Winter) and Herald (to be decided ICly).
I will give the IC reasons ICly. The OOC reasons is that we need someone as an in-game explanation of how we know which are the cabals, where they are, the verdicts of previous consilia even if the charter was abolished, who has which office and more; some things in the wiki that our characters are "assumed to know" without any explanation of how we know.


Tetragrammaton:
While it will be a lot of work for the ST, if Aelous can do it, I would suggest going over one by one and proposing mechanical penalties to serve as basis. If a punishment warrants a different mechanic in some case, we could deal with the exception to the rule.


Now, I want to state that I strongly disagree that the player should be punished for the actions of the character. This is a game we play to have fun. A game has rules and penalties that apply to our character in the game and that should be it.
In the case of Phoenyx for example, Aurora is a double master and also (at least IMO) her closer friend and the person the character interacts mostly with. The consilium telling Aurora to stop helping Phoenyx and stop having girls-nights-out with her (= major reprimand) is completely justified in game but would probably severely impact the enjoyment of the player. We are not trying to punish Xadun for the actions of Phoenyx. Our characters are trying to punish Phoenyx.




I agree with Matt that I don't like the loss of mana and that is not because I don't understand how the game is played.
I 100% agree with this statement: " I do prefer an IC punishment and it has the potential to help a character grow. "
However, I disagree with the examples given by Matt.


I agree we need a different OOC thread to discuss and debate on the punishments suggested by the ST, cause I have some disagreements.

[Xander]

Structure- Option C.

I agree that the current rotation of sanctuary and concilium is best because it gives a clear time table of when to expect/make announcements and catch up on current events. That means we can coordinate and plan accordingly. I've definitely come around to the idea of handling trials and things in separate scenes, though I'd still prefer pushing them off screen entirely. I personally hate doing them. It's inevitably the sameish conversation with one or two dissenters every year or two, and it just gets tedious to rehash repeatedly. I get the distinct impression I'm not the only one who finds them frustrating, and I do wish we could have the option to have them off screen and make the announcement of the results at the concilium gathering.

That being said, I think everyone needs to take a second look at Path meetings. With only one month to get things done, Councilors need to be left to hash things out between them. If you have an objection to how your councilor is handling things or have questions, this is what your path meeting is for. The Concilium is a representative democracy where the best of the best make decisions for the whole. If you as the new guy who isn't the Councilor want to get something off your chest or ask questions, call a path meeting after concilium. This will keep the conversation decluttered and give a reason to RP with your pathmates that otherwise wouldn't exist if people blurt out whatever on the floor of concilium. This has less to do with the last concilium then an overall trend I've noticed as far back as Pixel and Cosmo.

On the topic of order Councilors, I understand there's historical precedent but I sincerely and intensely dislike this idea. The main issues I have is how that works with the themes of the Free Council and where the apostates fit in. The core of the FC is it's democratic/collectivist decision making. If one person is chosen to make serious decisions for the concilium, a lot of that collectivism is cut out of the order. With a second libertine entering play and two apostates set to convert, we finally have the chance to hold votes and start exploring those order values in more depth and appointing an order councilor I feel undercuts that. As it stands, nothing is stopping the various orders from running for office and even claiming multiple seats on the council in several instances (like the mysterium is doing now by choice or chance). I don't really think this switch would add more emphasis to the orders except to force representation that's currently being overlooked/turned down. We already have the option of bringing order values to the concilium political scene, the question to me isn't how to do so but why people have chosen not to. Also Apostates. This model kind of manufactures a set of outcasts that don't exist in a path based model. I remember the existence of the apostate advocate jammer, but I always felt he was unnecessary given the options between how to represent the concilium differently.

Lex, concilium, and offices- Option C again.

As the person who brought up the recognition process you are clarifying, let me clarify as well. I didn't mean that we should start bringing back all the offices. I felt like the discussion was overlooking the existing solutions within the current ruleset on how to handle recognition as people were explicitly stating they hadn't read the MET material. The heirarch was the example for when there is no one on the path at all to perform the recognition. The more obvious solution in Apollo's case was simply that Guru step down from the position and Aurora step in. The way the situation unfolded I thought Guru appointed Aurora as a Provost, which is where my wires got crossed because they have no power under MET to affect status. I don't personally think we need a Heirarch or anything else unless the venue contracts back to the point a path has no one to recognize people again. That being said, if the majority wants to house rule that any councilor can step in at that point then I don't even think we need to do that much. Especially if we're talking NPCs, which are just more work for the venue admin to RP.

As for the tetragrammaton, I like what you have but I want to say two things. I think a penalty to status would be appropriate for a major/minor reprimand. Councilor's have the ability to bump up or down a persons status or revoke recognition, which could be a mechanical (albeit superficial) way of representing a reprimand from the concilium without cutting to deep into RP opportunities. A minor reprimand could only apply to people with Status 2+ in accordance with the sins/praiseworthy deeds that MET status provides to reinforce that people who rise to certain levels of respect have a higher standard for their behavior. Second, I deeply disagree with the idea of using punishments as RP opportunities. The reason is it blurs the line between what should feel (both IC and OOC) like a consequence for what the character did and just another opportunity to RP. If the punishment becomes an opportunity for anything, then you could find yourself in a situation where a player decides turning grass into butterflies in broad daylight at a park with sleeper witnesses (Yes, this actually happened) is just a chance to have fun and not a grievous lapse in judgment. I'm okay limiting the punishments to some degree, but they need to distinctly feel like negatives so the player has to ask themselves 'is this worth what I have to pay for it?' Finally, please no glimpses. I can look at a blank page for hours and have nothing to show for it. I hate writing them and forcing them into being for any reason just makes me cringe with dread.

As for previous judgments, you honestly have most of them. I linked to shodan, and broke down Phoenyx. The old council group has the judgments for Winter and Kaze in them. If you give me access and are willing to say Puck has access to the information, I'll collect them all together and publish them in the Heralds subforum for ease of reference. That way we have an IC reference doc for who did what when. I can include an OOC banner to clarify the mechanics unless you don't want it included. My understanding was that Striker and Weavebreaker were dropped after the Reality War so we wouldn't have to contend with how flawed those rulings were so I'd rather exclude them.

As for Phoenyx and future punishments, my only issue is I think the punishment should start on the first of the month following the sentencing. Depending on how we handle trials moving forward, we may have time between when the scene starts and when the final judgment is known and applied (like if we start a trial IC in a sticky thread and finalize the judgment three weeks in). In that scenario, applying the penalty from the start of the thread likely counts weeks towards the punishment where the player didn't know what the punishment even was to apply it to their character. That to me feels like incentive to metagame and just derail the conversation or not post as much as possible to weasel an extra few weeks off the actual penalty. Alternatively, if the sentence starts part of the way through the scene we have to reconcile why the timing of the punishment doesn't coincide with when the trial was held. Which is also not good. Applying it on the first of the following month means we don't have to worry about how these minor headaches might affect continuity.

[Aeolus]

Good points all around. I will make a thread for the Tet and possible punishments to declutter the discussion once I've caught some sleep.

The general Consensus seems to be to keep the Consilium/Sanctuary structure - I'm fine with that. If we're keeping this, I'd suggest that absence to those meetings could be reflected in the Status there. Which brings me to the suggestion about Status hits being a possible sentence for this. I like the idea! People would need to play status more consciously. I'm not talking about fully ignoring low status Mages, but it should be tangible in its effect. To that effect I was wondering whether Councilors should be bumped to Status 2 or 3 once they get the title - of course that could be adjusted once the general opinion shifts, but the office should come with a innate respect and authority. And it would make blunders or good deeds more noticeable I guess.
Matt's suggestion of shortening the announcement period I somewhat agree with. But a separate meeting of the Councilors beforehand is a lot of maintenance, isn't it? And there will always be comments or questions and then we'll have to wait for everyone to react to those things again. On the other hand I don't want to allow aggressive skipping of other people to answer back since that'd be unfair to those waiting for their turn..

I am on the fence about off-screening trials. I totally understand that, given enough time to discuss, people should always come to the 'correct' result but that would null personal power plays (for a lack of better word). How about: clear cases can be done off screen with the judgement posted in Heralds and if someone wanted to contest or really fight one accusation out it can be done in a separate scene?

I am strongly against a NPC Hierarch, mostly for the reasons given by Fedup. An outsider acting as Hierarch would be dubious at best and an Antagonist at worst.
I agree with Xander: whether the Councilors are picked from the Orders or the Paths the result will be the same: those who enjoy politics and want to create power dynamics will find a way to do it either way and those who don't care will either do it to fill a position or not do it at all.

[Aeolus]

So, as promised a separate thread to discuss the

From the Wiki + my suggestions

Minor Reprimand
This is little more than formally stating that what the mage did was wrong. This formally expresses to other mages in the city that the Consilium considers the act a transgression. (Refer back to the Precept of Recognition for further details.)
Nothing to add here - this can be applied as written.


Major Reprimand
The Consilium instructs other masters to limit their assistance to the mage. In some cases, the Councilors may even warn other cabals or mages against helping the criminal.
This is a good point to talk about what 'assistance' means. I think 'to assist' should describe sharing resources (Mana, Hallows, items), services (mentoring for learning higher non-ruling Arcana, casting spells for each other, helping in personal matters), and knowledge (teaching Rotes, giving advice). Hence, any character who is currently a Master in an Arcanum should refrain from assisting the punished character.

Payment of Debt
The mage must pay a debt, usually in the form of a favor, act or deed. Cabals and orders trade favors, as do masters. If the mage belongs to a society — such as a cabal or order — she must pay on a debt that her society owes another.
The debt is decided by the offended party and should be role-played. This seems open ended and most likely an opportunity to act as a hook.

Minor Penance
The mage must atone for her act by performing a service for the city’s mages. This may be something as simple as re-organizing the contents of a library, standing guard with agents of the Adamantine Arrow or serving as a lone watchman for a few nights.
See, in my magical dream-world I'd suggest the punished player has to write a glimpse describing the service done to the city's mages: it would reflect the degree of punishment, take some work and give players a canvas to roleplay about their crimes or the punishment. However I realize that forcing players to write a glimpse can suck the fun out of it straight away. I'm leaving the suggestion here either way, otherwise I think that going forward maybe flipping the precedent could be a good compromise: the player has -1 scene for the time, since the character is busy doing a service as punishment.

Major Penance
The mage must perform a risky or dangerous act for the benefit of the city’s mages. This could involve scouting an area known for supernatural activity, undertaking a spiritual journey or retrieving a powerful artifact. Note that this punishment actually hints that the mage has potential, since a fool would not be trusted with such an important mission.
Adding to the above point: if the undertaking is more dangerous it's not unreasonable to think that this would dent the character's Mana-pool: in addition to the scene cap, the character loses points of Mana in excess to their Wisdom (or to make it sting more: a flat amount).

Severe Reprimand
The Consilium states bluntly that no one (not even initiates) may aid or assist the offending mage, clarifying the duration of the reprimand. Offering assistance merits the same punishment, “tarring” the collaborator “with the same brush.” The mage is then either instructed to meditate in seclusion or abstain from practicing magic. Failure to comply leads to incarceration.
See the definition of 'assisting' above. It could be argued that characters are expected not to publicly interact with the punished character - private scenes (while frowned upon and bringing their own host of possible consequences) are not forbidden by OOC rules.

Incarceration
The mage is magically confined, surrounded by powerful wards that cripple his magical power. He must meditate on his actions. In many cases, this is done because the mage is dangerous enough that he has risked exposing or seriously weakening the city’s mages, and the Consilium needs time to recover while repairing the damage that’s been done.
The character is not allowed to participate in open or private scenes for the duration of the punishment. 'Visits' (i.e. small, private scenes) and glimpses are okay but the former should be justified in some way (the jailor and the jailed, a Cabal mate visiting, a Guardian interrogating).

Banishment
This is rarely effective, but sometimes used as an alternative to incarceration. The mage is given orders to leave the city, sometimes for a specific period of time. If she returns during that time, she faces incarceration or worse. The stigma can include further details of where the mage must go or what she must do before she returns.
The character is asked to leave the venue, with the possibility of maybe returning at some point in the future.

Matt's post

On the subject of punishments - I think maybe this latest situation could be the springboard for in game political change? Mechanically the loss of Mana...I will be honest I hate this. <insert rant no one needs to hear here>.

I think in these cases there should be some sort of loss of status involved built into the mechanics of the punishment. I get in theroy when we all do status posts that may happen but the automatic loss of 1 point, 2 ponts or 3 points across all status types shows that you have been denounced by the council for breaking the law. If you were 4 and now 3 and someone puts 0 they just feel stronger about it etc. This maybe lasts for X time and after X time that point is regained. Because when you break the law you are seen in less of a positive light and you have to spend that time earning the conciliums trust again.

Or maybe it could be a Status cap? I do prefer an IC punishment and it has the potential to help a character grow. I messed up, this is the consiquence, I have to do something to show them that I am a trustworthy and reliable individual. I dont think the concilium has a shared library but if you were mysterium maybe you loose your library privileges for anything thats deemed 3+dots of occult or something.

Fedup's post

Now, I want to state that I strongly disagree that the player should be punished for the actions of the character. This is a game we play to have fun. A game has rules and penalties that apply to our character in the game and that should be it.
In the case of Phoenyx for example, Aurora is a double master and also (at least IMO) her closer friend and the person the character interacts mostly with. The consilium telling Aurora to stop helping Phoenyx and stop having girls-nights-out with her (= major reprimand) is completely justified in game but would probably severely impact the enjoyment of the player. We are not trying to punish Xadun for the actions of Phoenyx. Our characters are trying to punish Phoenyx.




I agree with Matt that I don't like the loss of mana and that is not because I don't understand how the game is played.
I 100% agree with this statement: " I do prefer an IC punishment and it has the potential to help a character grow. "
However, I disagree with the examples given by Matt.

Xander's post

As for the tetragrammaton, I like what you have but I want to say two things. I think a penalty to status would be appropriate for a major/minor reprimand. Councilor's have the ability to bump up or down a persons status or revoke recognition, which could be a mechanical (albeit superficial) way of representing a reprimand from the concilium without cutting to deep into RP opportunities. A minor reprimand could only apply to people with Status 2+ in accordance with the sins/praiseworthy deeds that MET status provides to reinforce that people who rise to certain levels of respect have a higher standard for their behavior. Second, I deeply disagree with the idea of using punishments as RP opportunities. The reason is it blurs the line between what should feel (both IC and OOC) like a consequence for what the character did and just another opportunity to RP. If the punishment becomes an opportunity for anything, then you could find yourself in a situation where a player decides turning grass into butterflies in broad daylight at a park with sleeper witnesses (Yes, this actually happened) is just a chance to have fun and not a grievous lapse in judgment. I'm okay limiting the punishments to some degree, but they need to distinctly feel like negatives so the player has to ask themselves 'is this worth what I have to pay for it?' Finally, please no glimpses. I can look at a blank page for hours and have nothing to show for it. I hate writing them and forcing them into being for any reason just makes me cringe with dread.

As for previous judgments, you honestly have most of them. I linked to shodan, and broke down Phoenyx. The old council group has the judgments for Winter and Kaze in them. If you give me access and are willing to say Puck has access to the information, I'll collect them all together and publish them in the Heralds subforum for ease of reference. That way we have an IC reference doc for who did what when. I can include an OOC banner to clarify the mechanics unless you don't want it included. My understanding was that Striker and Weavebreaker were dropped after the Reality War so we wouldn't have to contend with how flawed those rulings were so I'd rather exclude them.

As for Phoenyx and future punishments, my only issue is I think the punishment should start on the first of the month following the sentencing. Depending on how we handle trials moving forward, we may have time between when the scene starts and when the final judgment is known and applied (like if we start a trial IC in a sticky thread and finalize the judgment three weeks in). In that scenario, applying the penalty from the start of the thread likely counts weeks towards the punishment where the player didn't know what the punishment even was to apply it to their character. That to me feels like incentive to metagame and just derail the conversation or not post as much as possible to weasel an extra few weeks off the actual penalty. Alternatively, if the sentence starts part of the way through the scene we have to reconcile why the timing of the punishment doesn't coincide with when the trial was held. Which is also not good. Applying it on the first of the following month means we don't have to worry about how these minor headaches might affect continuity.

To add to Xander's last point: agreed, but let's agree to do this the next time around. Anyway, here's the floor to continue this discussion.