Necromancer Games Under Fire?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What a truly bizarre article from a generally respected paper. My guess is that the unusual complaint by the litigants got an editor's attention and they assigned it to someone with Internet skills but no background in geek culture.

The notion that this hobby is somehow any more distracting than, say, judges messing with their fantasy football rosters, is ludicrous. And given Clark's regular and extended absences from gaming social media, I'd say it's pretty clear his priorities are pretty spot-on.

 

[Scorpio616]

Judges make enemies and judges are held to a high standard by folks who have LONG been set in their ways. You do anything differing from community norms, you are gonna bring cross-hairs on you.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/new-jersey...ng-panned-by-judicial-panel/story?id=20307110

 

[DaveMage]

Clark sold Necromancer to Bill Webb and Frog God Games a while back so as far as I know he is no longer involved with it.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Who decides what kind of behaviour is appropriate or not? This rules in Idaho mean just one thing, IMHO: more power to the lawyers who can continue a lost process easily by hurling dirt at the judge.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, this is more Clark being under fire, rather than Necromancer Games.

Clark is a good guy. If he gets called onto the carpet, it should be for honest potential issues, not the fear and ignorance stuff.

 

[Scorpio616]

Since this person has shown to be litigious, I'll choose my words carefully.

After his mother died in 2010, Tyner contested the will. He claimed that his mother, who suffered from dementia, changed her will and left most of her money to Tyner’s sister as a result of undue influence by the sister, who served as their mother’s caregiver.

Wow...

Clark sold Necromancer to Bill Webb and Frog God Games a while back so as far as I know he is no longer involved with it.

Year and a half ago. http://tsathogga.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/press-release.html

 

[Scorpio616]

Who decides what kind of behaviour is appropriate or not? This rules in Idaho mean just one thing, IMHO: more power to the lawyers who can continue a lost process easily by hurling dirt at the judge.

http://www.judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/Idaho Code of Judicial Conduct.pdf

 

[Jan van Leyden]

http://www.judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/Idaho Code of Judicial Conduct.pdf

Well, I've read this (or rather read section 2 and glanced over the rest) but failed to receive an answer.

Sections like "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny" or "The test for violation of this Canon is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired" don't help.

 

[billd91]

It seems that he's fallen into a trap. Everybody has a hobby outside of work. Everybody posts from work on some site (facebook anybody?).

But because 2 litigants didn't win their cases in his court, they did some digging and are using what they found against him by ignoring the fact that everybody (including judges) have lives outside of work.

That's pretty much witch hunting for you. It's pretty ridiculous. It's not like he's taking pictures of his genitals and tweeting them.

 

[Janx]

Well, I've read this (or rather read section 2 and glanced over the rest) but failed to receive an answer.

From who? Nobody here owes you an answer or is an authority on it. Did you email Idaho and ask them?

Sections like "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny" or "The test for violation of this Canon is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired" don't help.

That quote tells me that I should be careful about where and how I engage my non-work activities. Since D&D had a bad rap, and Idaho might host more than a few stereotypes that ring true, I'd be very careful to keep the two separate. Including obfuscating my identity, and NOT posting from work. I don't think I'd want my real name associated with ANYTHING except court cases.

Heck, just presiding over divorce cases while in the midst of a divorce is possibly a conflict of interest to the right observer. Imagine empathizing with a male litigant because you're in the same situation in battling your own crazy wife and her ridiculous demands (choosing male because he is male, not that all or any divorcing wives are bat-crap crazy).

Ignoring the D&D angle, I could see somebody playing an angle on the premise that you shouldn't be judging a divorce while you're in the midst of your own divorce because it colors how you perceive a case and its sides.