The Naval Licensing and Prize Court

[Capn Frank]

@CB4:

We are working on something in the skunkworks, CB4. Most likely a set of "archetypes" for each class.

Good luck.

Lets just say I build a 44 gun ship, MF scale. It's over two meters long and over 40 studs wide. Would it be a lower or higher class than the 54 gun minifig illusion-scale vessel that Maxim made on 16 wide, prefab hulls? I don't mean to rip on Maxim's awesome vessel. I am just stating the difficulty and potential futility on rigid guidelines.

[CelesAurivern]

Lets just say I build a 44 gun ship, MF scale.

What if it's the other end of the spectrum, say a mini or microbuild?

[Maxim I]

What if it's the other end of the spectrum, say a mini or microbuild?

Mini and micro builds are a difficult matter, as they are kind of cheating.

I am defending the "right look"-classification over the measurement-classification. Not everyone has unlimited bricks or likes to build in LDD.

For me a vessel can be the desired class, when the MOC shows clearly the intention of that class and is very well executed.

As said in the naval court, I prefer a shorter but awesome MOC, over a MOC which is long enough, but doesn't look right...

As Phred pointed out:

My warship is build on prefabs. So I could not make her longer than 5 midsections. It was very timeconsuming making sure every part of the ship is minifig height, without losing the balance. So in the end, I am sure we will see warships of the same class who are longer, but who will have lost their balance.

If a ship looks like she fits a certain class, length should not be a problem.

But ofcourse we are not talking about an exact science anymore then, rather on a feeling

[Bregir]

@Captain Dee:

I agree with your statement in its entirety.

@CB4:

That will be too rigid and stifle creativity, I think. Plus, too hard to manage. That is why I suggest archetypes as a benchmark. The current index (while a great tool) presents too diversified classes to be an easy help in finding the right rating.

@Kai:

I want to make one thing clear: This case was brought to the court, so we took it up and gave a conclusion on our remarks. We did NOT seize it on our own initiative, and would not have done so.

This court's mandate is clear:

1. License change
   Make rulings on changes in licenses to ensure fairness and avoid gaming the system for in-game advantages.
   
2. Prizes
   Manage the prize system. (Which has not yet been used, sadly )
   
3. Advisory role
   Apart from those, we offer to advice on vessel-ratings for anyone who would like some input. This is not binding, and only meant as a help for those who would like it.
   

I really do not understand why people get so upset about comments on the suggested license. Have the MRCA taken such precedence, that the advantages in game are more important than immersion?

I think that open, constructive debate (and always presented together with other feedback. No policing, thanks.) is the best way to reach common ground on the rating system. Which again is the best way to avoid conflict. Of course, this requires that people are constructive, and keep an open mind (Both ways).

I am not talking micromanaging or policing, but a general constructive debate to avoid imbalances and feelings of ill-will, because someone perceive that someone else has allegedly over-licensed his/her vessels. Hopefully we can avoid too much "class-creep" and rule bending.

I think this is a much better solution that people starting to "snitch" on each other in underhand messages to leadership. It is much better to get it out in the open, as long as it is constructive. Closed processes lead to conjecture, speculation, and a feeling of unfairness.

This is of course my personal opinions, and if people are generally offended by my comments on ratings, or anything else, I apologise and will refrain from doing so in the future. I strongly feel that would be the wrong course of action, though.

@Phred:

I entirely agree about rigidity stifling creativity. If someone creates a great mini-scale line of battle ship, I see no issue with granting the license.

My idea of an archetype is to give builders a reference point for each class in terms of size. One can then easily compare eg. a 3A and a 4A and see which their moc fits best, or what they should aim for, if they want a 4A.

@Maxim:

I entirely agree that it is the feel of the MOC that should matter. The spirit of the law, rather than the letter, which is why I personally resist rigid rules.

As to sizes and scales, I think the important part is not the size of the moc, but the size of the ship it represents. Your Margot clearly represents a 55 gun line of battle ship, even if she is (expertly) built on prefabs.

I too prefer higher quality mocs of smaller size over larger, lower quality mocs. But that is not to me relevant for classification. (As long as sufficient effort has been put into it).

The rating system should not become a prize to win for high quality mocs. It is not a *better* moc, because it is rated 5, rather than 4, and if some are interpreting it so, we need to change that.

[Kai NRG]

...@Kai:

I want to make one thing clear: This case was brought to the court, so we took it up and gave a conclusion on our remarks. We did NOT seize it on our own initiative, and would not have done so.

This court's mandate is clear:

1. License change
   Make rulings on changes in licenses to ensure fairness and avoid gaming the system for in-game advantages.
   
2. Prizes
   Manage the prize system. (Which has not yet been used, sadly )
   
3. Advisory role
   Apart from those, we offer to advice on vessel-ratings for anyone who would like some input. This is not binding, and only meant as a help for those who would like it.
   

I really do not understand why people get so upset about comments on the suggested license. Have the MRCA taken such precedence, that the advantages in game are more important than immersion?

I think that open, constructive debate (and always presented together with other feedback. No policing, thanks.) is the best way to reach common ground on the rating system. Which again is the best way to avoid conflict. Of course, this requires that people are constructive, and keep an open mind (Both ways).

I am not talking micromanaging or policing, but a general constructive debate to avoid imbalances and feelings of ill-will, because someone perceive that someone else has allegedly over-licensed his/her vessels. Hopefully we can avoid too much "class-creep" and rule bending.

I think this is a much better solution that people starting to "snitch" on each other in underhand messages to leadership. It is much better to get it out in the open, as long as it is constructive. Closed processes lead to conjecture, speculation, and a feeling of unfairness....

Yes; I've no problem with you guys giving a ruling if a ship is brought to you, which this one was, I'm just saying that there really wasn't any need for kabel to feel forced to bring it to you if he didn't want to. But I can see how some of the comments on his build would suggest that he had to or at least should bring the case to you. After he did so, of course, you guys giving your erudite opinion on the matter was perfectly acceptable and called for.

Although of course it would be nice if everyone always agreed with me as to what class I wanted to license my ship as, I personally wouldn't really be seriously bothered by a half a dozen comment suggesting that I was totally wrong. I'd still go with whatever I felt was the right class though of course I'd take into account any good points brought up which might cause me to change my opinion. And I guess what we're really doing here is looking at two kinds of comments. One; the commentee doesn't really have any serious problems with the proposed class size and is just throwing out a bit of CC for consideration. Two; the commentee really thinks that the class size is wrong and absolutely needs to be adjusted. The problem is that it is super easy to mistake one of those for the other. In the second case, I personally think that a conclusion should be reached privately when possible. Although if we all had huge amounts of time it might be nice for everyone to express their opinion on everything, most of us don't have that much time and so listening to a whole bunch of builders each chime in with their own opinions as to what the size of your ship should be is just a little... well, put yourself in the position. It might get tiring. I don't speak from experience; I only built one ship and no one said boo about my proposed class size (partly, I suppose, because I didn't say what it would be, which in turn was because I didn't really want anyone questioning my judgement on the subject ); but I can see why kabel would get tired or disheartened by a whole bunch of different comments as to what he should or shouldn't do with regards to licensing his ship.

As long as it is constructive, doing things out in the open is great. But when there's a risk that we might get derailed on trivialities and reasonably annoy some member(s), I personally think it's better to be on the safe side. For that reason, I think that it would be better not to directly question a builder's proposed class size in your comment. If you want to say, this doesn't really look like a cutter/galleon/whatever, and give a few reasons, by all means do so. That's constructive. And I'm not, of course, going to say, "You cannot question any builder's proposed class size!" I'm just saying that I'm not sure doing so is a wonderful idea. Neither am I trying to find fault with any specific comment(s)/commentee(s); just want to bring up the point that there is a fine line here between how things might be perceived from the builder's perspective. While you may (and probably are) just trying to offer some helpful constructive criticism, the builder may see you as nosing into his private DB concerns where you had no business. (Again, I personally wouldn't take a comment of this sort in this way; nor am I saying that kabel did; but I'm just saying that some people might.)

As for your three points on what the naval court is for; pretty much what I was thinking and much more elegantly put.

[Bregir]

I hear you, Kai, but I believe we must disagree, which is very well exposed in the part below:

***snip*** ...While you may (and probably are) just trying to offer some helpful constructive criticism, the builder may see you as nosing into his private DB concerns where you had no business...***snip****

This is the entire issue I am trying to get to. It SHOULDN'T be a DB concern. In that case, the MRCA/EGS has become too important. *IF* it is a db concern, then all the more important with strict and disinterested rules/rulings on classes - otherwise I promise you, we will see discontent, allegations of gaming the systems, and of unfairness.

What it should be, is a quest to build beautiful/interesting/accurate/creative/funny/etc. mocs. Mocs that can then be put into the MRCA within reason. If you put a rating over the actual moc, you are putting dbs over immersion. Those ships are going to meet, and if one is significantly under-licensed, and the other significantly overlicensed, you will see absurd outcomes of battles, which would make no sense if you put the actual vessels against eachother.

On the other hand, this clears it up for me: If people are so set on a specific class for game-advantages, I can see how it is annoying to have it shot down. I do not like this kind of thinking, for reasons stated multiple times now, but at least it is logical.

I really think we should all be more interested in feedback, than in a +1 gun rating... Of course, all feedback must be delivered constructively, but everyone should also make an effort to receive it as such.

(This is not a rant against any individual builder/faction/whatever, but against a train of thought which sets the EGS/MRCA above the stories and builds, something I think will be the ruin of BoBS, and which, if I understand Kabel right, is actually already the source for some discontent.

[Kai NRG]

Maybe it shouldn't be; and as I said I hope I would never take it that way; but what I am saying is that some people might do so, and I really don't see how any of us can say, "Nope, sorry. This game is about having fun and building and if you just are here for the DBs then get packing." I don't think we want to say that, either. We're here to have fun; but if someone else is here to be on the top of the DB leaderboard, as long as he/she is playing fair, I think that should be respected and we should be aware that shooting down his/her class proposal will be annoying; and for that reason be careful not to do it unnecessarily.

That's a pretty extreme case though; and I think you're putting too narrow of a box when you suggest that the only reason someone might be annoyed at a questioning of his/her proposed class would be because of in game advantages. Having one's decisions on such a subject questioned might be found annoying by some people even if there were no DBs involved. It's not pleasant, you know, to be told that you're wrong... especially when it's true.

[Bregir]

The freedom of speech requires two things, Kai:

1. The obligation not to offend unduly
   
2. The obligation not to take undue offense
   

In short, be nice and constructive when you comment, but say what you think; and assume that those commenting are not doing so to bring you down, but to be constructive.

And if someone wants to be on the top of the DB leaderboard (it really isn't that fantastic up here... ) they really should play by the rules, and accept that they can't license their "rowboat with a gun" as a 80 gun, 2nd rate line of battle ship. (Extreme example, but should make my case clear)

I put immersion and consistency in the ratings over people gaming the system. (Which is what I think manipulating the ratings is.)

Of course, there should be a certain leeway and creative license, but as Captain Dee said, if the general consensus is, that one's vessel belongs to a smaller or larger class, or another classification (F/WR/T/A), maybe one should listen, rather than take it as a case of collective bullying?

[Garmadon]

In case it was previously unclear, as with property licences, the leadership (the court having, as Bregir pointed out, has merely an advisory role in such cases) has the full power to deny an over-licenced vessel. So far it is certain that there has been some leeway and variation in each class, and that as such is a good thing - our goal is to give the builders and players, in this respect as in others, as much leeway and room for interpretation and creativity as possible (within reason, obviously!)

Anyone "gaming the system" will be taken care of by the leadership, so if there is someone attempting to licence a rowboat as a 80 gun ship of the line, you don't need to be afraid of facing that fisherman in a battle!

(In CelesA's words, "Look, Cap'in, there's another case 0 fishing boat!")

[SilentWolf]

I would like the court to offer as a prize the ship I acquired through right of capture by HMS Whisper. The ship being condemned as a prize is the 3A Blind Jack.

[Maxim I]

If you first want to try to sell it, that's possible as well through the ship index :)

[Bregir]

I would like the court to offer as a prize the ship I acquired through right of capture by HMS Whisper. The ship being condemned as a prize is the 3A Blind Jack.

If you first want to try to sell it, that's possible as well through the ship index :)

Maxim is right, but for the future, when someone has decided to sell a vessel through the prize system, let us not interfere.

I suggest that we give it a 24 hour grace period after posting, where anyone can make a purchase agreement with the seller. After this period, we will proceed (at first possible opportunity) to make the roll, and if the result is posted before being called off, the deal is final and the vessel will be sold as a prize.

That way, no one can game the system.

Silentwolf, please confirm whether you will proceed here. (Which will start the 24 hour period.)

[SilentWolf]

Thank you for the suggestion Maxim. I was just planning on closing this before the end of the month and it seems the ship index takes a little longer.

Bregir, let us begin the 24 hour period and I will call it off if anyone reaches out in regard to it.

[SilentWolf]

I was contacted and I have negotiated a sale of the 3A Blind Jack's license. Thus, I will be removing it from sale as a prize.

[Dukesc]

I would like to make a request from 'The Naval Licensing and Prize Court' to look at a MOC I made of a captured vessel, 'The Ranger'. I am asking to be allowed to upgrade the captured ship from a 4A to a 5LightA based on the upgrades I made.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=133604

[Jacob Nion]

To the most honourable licensing court:

My request is to up license my 5LA galleon, the Queen Annetta's Revenge to a 5HA vessel. Given the size and rigging it is my opinion that she is slightly slower but bulkier than what a 5LA vessel is supposed to be. I ask for your evaluation if any upgrades are demanded for the uplicensing. In my opinion the most reasonable upgrade in thiscase would be the addition of a few cannons. The deck would easily offer enough space for two more guns without any reconstruction nessecary. This would result in a total amount of 18 guns. Please let me know your counsel as soon as possible so that I can upgrade her before the next MRCA, provided that she survives the current run.

Yours,

Captain Benjamin Morgan.

[Bregir]

Dear Captain Morgan,

Your request is being processed and we will return with an answer as soon as possible. In the meanwhile, we should like to know if Queen Annetta's Revenge is a captured vessel, or a newly licensed one. It is unlikely to affect our decision, but for the sake of transparency and precedence, we prefer full disclosure.

Sincerely

The court investigator

[Jacob Nion]

Dear sir investigator,

The Queen Annetta's Revenge from the point of the jibboom to the stern lanterns is completely constructed by myself. She was never owned by anyone other than me, and she set sail to her maidenvoyage two days ago.

The fund for the licence is completely my own investment.

Best regards,

Captain B. Morgan.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Jacob Nion

[Bregir]

To Captain Morgan,

The courts have granted you the right to reclassify your ship from a 5LA to a 5HA on the conditions that you:

1) Pay the difference in licensing costs (50db)

2) Post a small moc/vignette explaining the change. Examples could be: purchasing new guns, contracting with shipyard to make changes, etc. We emphasize that you do not need to include the vessel in this MOC, but can explain the difference indirectly as indicated in the examples above.

Should this lead to any questions, you are welcome to contact us again.

Sincerely

The Naval Licensing and Prize Court

[Jacob Nion]

Under my special sea rat conditions that would make 35 DB difference, wouldn't it? (5LA -30%=280) - (5HA -30%=315) = 35DB difference.

[Bregir]

That is correct. Pardon the oversight.

We should like to add that you are to take care of all the paperwork yourself. (Getting the license changed, etc.)

[Jacob Nion]

Of course. That shall not be a problem. One last question. Let's say I depict a harbour scene where additional cannons are stored aboard the ship, could I license this scene also as property or does the moc has to serve only the purpose of showing the upgrading?

[Bregir]

Unless you hear otherwise, you may license it, if it fulfills the requirements for a licensable property. (I will confer with my colleagues.)

The main purpose of the MOC from our side is to ensure IC consistency. (i.e. explain why the ship changes rating.)

[Legostone]

Okay, I have a new ship that I want to get the rating for. I intended it to be a class 5LA, but I'm not sure if it is alright, considering it is not in mini figure scale; instead it is quite a lot smaller. I haven't posted a topic for it just yet, but I want a quick confirmation that my intended rating is indeed plausible.

• The leadership will consider micro-builds for ships of larger sizes on a case by case basis.
  

[Bregir]

You may expect to hear from the courts later today.