Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>>What do you all generally think the difference is between asking friends for help (or having friends who step in on their own initiative) and reporting so the GMs come resolve the conflict for you?
I see reporting as tattling, plus it can result in a lock out, loss of ability or even The Banstick (which I see as a way worse penalty than a couple of deaths under the new favor/depart system). I feel there are other ways to resolve a conflict besides trying to get someone in trouble.
I see asking for help as a option reserved for dire situations. Being grave/res camped, grave robbed, etc. Paladins were just given an ability for this purpose. I am sure the intent of this ability was not to protect Paladins alone from being grave robbed.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
Gang,
This folder is for discussion on the policy without getting into the specifics of incidents you may or may not have liked - that is for the conflicts folder.
This was going so well, don't make me pull the thread over.
Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.
Yuoree I could not agree more. I am just going to appoint you my spokesman when it comes to the open profile.
As a side note I rarely if ever see gangs of folks just randomly killing someone unless they graverobbed or its a group war. If I am wrong please correct me. I am not saying that sometimes there is the random attack but generally its just one and you are not generally camped unless you really did something to make someone very angry. Then IMHO if they are that angry about a text death they really need to take a few moments, hours or days to get their head back together.
Well said Yuoree!
Miv
I will paper cut you to death with my awesome ranger TM!
As a side note I rarely if ever see gangs of folks just randomly killing someone unless they graverobbed or its a group war. If I am wrong please correct me. I am not saying that sometimes there is the random attack but generally its just one and you are not generally camped unless you really did something to make someone very angry. Then IMHO if they are that angry about a text death they really need to take a few moments, hours or days to get their head back together.
Well said Yuoree!
Miv
I will paper cut you to death with my awesome ranger TM!
>All of this is irregardless of whether Flavius lived or died during the initial violence.
Inseconsequentially, I'd like to point out that "irregardless" is not really a word and is most likely the primary driving force in me walking outside to punt a small woodland animal just as soon as I hit the POST button.
Inseconsequentially, I'd like to point out that "irregardless" is not really a word and is most likely the primary driving force in me walking outside to punt a small woodland animal just as soon as I hit the POST button.
"What do you all generally think the difference is between asking friends for help (or having friends who step in on their own initiative) and reporting so the GMs come resolve the conflict for you?"
Because I- the player- and Flavius- the character- are both largely loners in this game environment. And I have no interest in a prolonged conflict that can endure for hours or days. Being forced Open and relying on other characters would mean a) resolution would depend upon who had the biggest baddest group of friends or were a member of the most powerful or supportive in game group and b) that the conflict would potentially go on and on. If I wanted that, I would choose to be Open.
I am fine with resolving a conflict between myself and another character, but I have chosen to be Guarded because it describes my attitude pretty much exactly. If anyone doesn't want to involve themselves with Flavius because he is Guarded, I will not lose any sleep over it- I actually encourage anyone to avoid Flavius if that is your overriding concern.
If I am getting harassed in game, to the point where it is detracting from my enjoyment of DR, then yes, I would prefer to rely upon a GM's resolution rather than that of other players.
Because I- the player- and Flavius- the character- are both largely loners in this game environment. And I have no interest in a prolonged conflict that can endure for hours or days. Being forced Open and relying on other characters would mean a) resolution would depend upon who had the biggest baddest group of friends or were a member of the most powerful or supportive in game group and b) that the conflict would potentially go on and on. If I wanted that, I would choose to be Open.
I am fine with resolving a conflict between myself and another character, but I have chosen to be Guarded because it describes my attitude pretty much exactly. If anyone doesn't want to involve themselves with Flavius because he is Guarded, I will not lose any sleep over it- I actually encourage anyone to avoid Flavius if that is your overriding concern.
If I am getting harassed in game, to the point where it is detracting from my enjoyment of DR, then yes, I would prefer to rely upon a GM's resolution rather than that of other players.
"You (generic you) reserve the right to have my character permanently and forever removed from the gaming environment, a character I have been playing off and on for 8 years. B/c your (generic) text died one day and you (generic) were having a bad day IRL and decided to take it out on my text by typing >report soandso just killed me w/o consent!"
I reserve the right to follow the rules of DR. I, the player, cannot have your character removed. It takes a) actual actions on you the players part and b) a GM's decision that your behaviour was inappropriate. All I can do is point out that your behaviour was against policy. Frankly I haven't reported someone for any PVP reasons ever, but sure, I am willing to do it under the proper circumstances.
"There are stronger inequities on your side of the fence than my side of the fence. In my opinion anyway."
Fine- the lovely thing about the current status thing is that you can check Flavius' status and know that yes, I reserve the right to report. You don't have to interact with me, and I will never force my RP upon you.
"It's a game. Dying, even repeatedly, doesn't change that fact. When you (generic) chooses to report for something as silly as a single text death, you make it into much more than a game."
It is a game- it has rules, and consequences, but in the end it is just a game. So why should I be concerned if your character- nothing other than a mass of text gets banned from the game for breaking the rules repeatedly? I have no idea- nor do I care- whether what you do to me is an isolated one time action or something you are doing to other characters right or left. But the GM's can keep track of that and respond appropriately.
"And this is why open prefer to play with open. We know we each have chosen to give up our right to completely obliterate our time investment."
Not a problem- I strongly encourage you to do that.
"Open is about a lot more than just "kill kill kill gangs murder!". It's about being honest to ourselves, and saying that it is just a game. That we aren't going to be so upset that we'll try to demolish all enjoyment that could come from it."
I am being completely honest here too- its just a game. I signal my intent clearly. If others break the rules in such a way that it detracts from my enjoyment of the game, I reserve the right to notify the GM's/umpires/referees. What happens to others at that point is a result of their actions.
I reserve the right to follow the rules of DR. I, the player, cannot have your character removed. It takes a) actual actions on you the players part and b) a GM's decision that your behaviour was inappropriate. All I can do is point out that your behaviour was against policy. Frankly I haven't reported someone for any PVP reasons ever, but sure, I am willing to do it under the proper circumstances.
"There are stronger inequities on your side of the fence than my side of the fence. In my opinion anyway."
Fine- the lovely thing about the current status thing is that you can check Flavius' status and know that yes, I reserve the right to report. You don't have to interact with me, and I will never force my RP upon you.
"It's a game. Dying, even repeatedly, doesn't change that fact. When you (generic) chooses to report for something as silly as a single text death, you make it into much more than a game."
It is a game- it has rules, and consequences, but in the end it is just a game. So why should I be concerned if your character- nothing other than a mass of text gets banned from the game for breaking the rules repeatedly? I have no idea- nor do I care- whether what you do to me is an isolated one time action or something you are doing to other characters right or left. But the GM's can keep track of that and respond appropriately.
"And this is why open prefer to play with open. We know we each have chosen to give up our right to completely obliterate our time investment."
Not a problem- I strongly encourage you to do that.
"Open is about a lot more than just "kill kill kill gangs murder!". It's about being honest to ourselves, and saying that it is just a game. That we aren't going to be so upset that we'll try to demolish all enjoyment that could come from it."
I am being completely honest here too- its just a game. I signal my intent clearly. If others break the rules in such a way that it detracts from my enjoyment of the game, I reserve the right to notify the GM's/umpires/referees. What happens to others at that point is a result of their actions.
>>And I have no interest in a prolonged conflict that can endure for hours or days.<<
Then you shouldn't start stuff.
You want to be the aggressor and then have it all on your own terms, and that should never be the bargain.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
Then you shouldn't start stuff.
You want to be the aggressor and then have it all on your own terms, and that should never be the bargain.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
Mazrian- as Bahb pointed out- I the player, and my character Flavius wouldn't be starting anything. I have in the past- very rarely responded to provocation. The only aggression I might show another character would be a vigorous conversation about the gods or to dispute some incharacter theological point. I am fully aware that such a conversation can lead to violence, but I wouldn't initiate it, unless the other character was deliberately trying to provoke violence, and I had the time and energy to respond. I am sure you have seen it before- where the other player is trying to provoke violence in order to gain consent. If I chose to respond to that provocation I consider it between myself and that other character.
Kevalia: I feel that anyone who chooses to directly escalate a conflict into CvC should be willing to accept reasonable in-character consequences for that, including other people becoming involved."
I understand your position. I disagree.
If another character wants to initiate a conflict with Flavius, and I chose to participate, I am choosing to participate with that with that character, not everyone else. If I agree to dance with you, I am not saying I want to dance with everyone.
Kevalia: I feel that anyone who chooses to directly escalate a conflict into CvC should be willing to accept reasonable in-character consequences for that, including other people becoming involved."
I understand your position. I disagree.
If another character wants to initiate a conflict with Flavius, and I chose to participate, I am choosing to participate with that with that character, not everyone else. If I agree to dance with you, I am not saying I want to dance with everyone.
>>In the scenerio Flavius laid out, how is he starting stuff? Isn't he saying he is responding to the stuff-starter?<<
In the scenario he's talking about he is attacking someone who has not attacked him or made any overt gesture of violence that would constitute a first strike. We all agree that responding to a first strike shouldn't change his profile. The other party has done something that he interprets as provocation but that doesn't rise to the level of first strike.
That is Starting stuff. Whether he feels justified in Starting stuff is not relevant to whether his profile should be automatically reset for Starting stuff. We're each the hero of our own story, after all, and it would be weird if we didn't feel justified in doing what we do. From an objective view the Starter is the one who initiates the preemptive self defense. Arguing otherwise is just self-serving.
I'm not passing judgment on anyone who Starts stuff. Sometimes stuff needs to be Started. Sometimes the other guy really is looking for a fight and there's nothing for an intrepid hero to do but take the bait and throw him a beating. I'd be the LAST person to judge anyone for doing that.
But if someone does that, they are committing the action that escalates the situation into violence. They had the last opportunity to walk away peaceably and they chose to indulge themselves instead. That's a valid, justifiable choice but that makes them an instigator and not a hapless victim who was minding their own business.
And the principle should be that if you instigate you can't use policy to tip the balance of forces your way.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
In the scenario he's talking about he is attacking someone who has not attacked him or made any overt gesture of violence that would constitute a first strike. We all agree that responding to a first strike shouldn't change his profile. The other party has done something that he interprets as provocation but that doesn't rise to the level of first strike.
That is Starting stuff. Whether he feels justified in Starting stuff is not relevant to whether his profile should be automatically reset for Starting stuff. We're each the hero of our own story, after all, and it would be weird if we didn't feel justified in doing what we do. From an objective view the Starter is the one who initiates the preemptive self defense. Arguing otherwise is just self-serving.
I'm not passing judgment on anyone who Starts stuff. Sometimes stuff needs to be Started. Sometimes the other guy really is looking for a fight and there's nothing for an intrepid hero to do but take the bait and throw him a beating. I'd be the LAST person to judge anyone for doing that.
But if someone does that, they are committing the action that escalates the situation into violence. They had the last opportunity to walk away peaceably and they chose to indulge themselves instead. That's a valid, justifiable choice but that makes them an instigator and not a hapless victim who was minding their own business.
And the principle should be that if you instigate you can't use policy to tip the balance of forces your way.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
<< Mazrian
Alright, I understand your point now. I still sympathize with the position Flavius is taking however, when the person he attacks has first committed a clear-cut action that toggles consent under the current definition of policy, but I have to grant that my support is situational, and I can't construct a logical argument to eliminate the arbitrary.
The key idea I am getting from Flavius is that a player with limited game time would like to handle conflicts himself, without GM involvement, but can not for simple playability reasons, afford an escalated back and forth fight that monopolizes the little time in game that he has available. Knowing a little bit about Flavius and the way he plays his character, I feel like there should be a way to accomodate that. There is of course, an ugly flip side to that coin when a less mature player is involved. I know.
In theory, I still support the idea that anyone willing to kill another character should automatically get switched to Open. In my opinion though, implementing that in any practical way opens the door to a few new issues.
At one time, I felt that everyone should be open, and an all-open game would eventually self-stabilize. That opinion has changed quite a bit as I see more and more players approach post 100 circle, and witness more conflicts degenerate into uninteresting back-and-forth deaths ad nauseum. I don't know what the right answer is anymore. Except maybe to ignore the debate entirely and just go play Farmville.
This is all way to much for a morning post.
~Brian/Bahb
Alright, I understand your point now. I still sympathize with the position Flavius is taking however, when the person he attacks has first committed a clear-cut action that toggles consent under the current definition of policy, but I have to grant that my support is situational, and I can't construct a logical argument to eliminate the arbitrary.
The key idea I am getting from Flavius is that a player with limited game time would like to handle conflicts himself, without GM involvement, but can not for simple playability reasons, afford an escalated back and forth fight that monopolizes the little time in game that he has available. Knowing a little bit about Flavius and the way he plays his character, I feel like there should be a way to accomodate that. There is of course, an ugly flip side to that coin when a less mature player is involved. I know.
In theory, I still support the idea that anyone willing to kill another character should automatically get switched to Open. In my opinion though, implementing that in any practical way opens the door to a few new issues.
At one time, I felt that everyone should be open, and an all-open game would eventually self-stabilize. That opinion has changed quite a bit as I see more and more players approach post 100 circle, and witness more conflicts degenerate into uninteresting back-and-forth deaths ad nauseum. I don't know what the right answer is anymore. Except maybe to ignore the debate entirely and just go play Farmville.
This is all way to much for a morning post.
~Brian/Bahb
>In theory, I still support the idea that anyone willing to kill another character should automatically get switched to Open.
I disagree with the premise that killing another PC, stealing from another PC, First Striking another PC or any other potentially consent-granting action is inherently contradictory to the Guarded stance, and frankly it may as well go away after this talked about update, because Closed or Open will be the only two practical choices for anyone who is actually interacting with others.
>In my opinion though, implementing that in any practical way opens the door to a few new issues.
Yes. If an automatic system could solve the current issues with consent and PvP, it wouldn't be an issue because there would be no gray area. If anything, this proposed system will merely shift the balance of injustice to a different group of players while leaving even less recourse for the rest.
~ Kougen
The sturdy oak quarrel is made with metal.
I disagree with the premise that killing another PC, stealing from another PC, First Striking another PC or any other potentially consent-granting action is inherently contradictory to the Guarded stance, and frankly it may as well go away after this talked about update, because Closed or Open will be the only two practical choices for anyone who is actually interacting with others.
>In my opinion though, implementing that in any practical way opens the door to a few new issues.
Yes. If an automatic system could solve the current issues with consent and PvP, it wouldn't be an issue because there would be no gray area. If anything, this proposed system will merely shift the balance of injustice to a different group of players while leaving even less recourse for the rest.
~ Kougen
The sturdy oak quarrel is made with metal.
I think auto-profile setting will be fine. You can just set your !avoid drag flag to avoid the situation mentioned above and any other potentially annoying situations can just be flat out avoided/ignored IMO if you don't want to risk being set to Open. Closed people can go about their merry way and so can Open people.
I like the idea of first strike, stealing, and repeated SLAPs being auto-set to open. I would also like to suggest that TARGETing/AIMing do the same.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
I like the idea of first strike, stealing, and repeated SLAPs being auto-set to open. I would also like to suggest that TARGETing/AIMing do the same.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
Stealing is definitely going to set people to Open, I need to go ahead and do that (probably this weekend).
First strike while Closed will definitely set you to Guarded, multiple first strikes while Guarded in a TBD period of time will set you Open.
I don't personally buy the argument that if somebody honestly is insulting you in a way that grants consent that you should be forced to take it or make yourself open (presuming Guarded stance which says you do like PvP occasionally), and since the System can't track that it won't punish it (at least once).
You can feel free to keep arguing it, since you're being awesomely civil about it lately.
-Z
First strike while Closed will definitely set you to Guarded, multiple first strikes while Guarded in a TBD period of time will set you Open.
I don't personally buy the argument that if somebody honestly is insulting you in a way that grants consent that you should be forced to take it or make yourself open (presuming Guarded stance which says you do like PvP occasionally), and since the System can't track that it won't punish it (at least once).
You can feel free to keep arguing it, since you're being awesomely civil about it lately.
-Z
>>DR-ZEYURN
Actually that sounds like a really good compromise for both parties.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
Actually that sounds like a really good compromise for both parties.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
>>I like this.
Me too. If you're closed, any stealing or first strikes (which shouldn't happen if you're closed) will move you to Guarded. As for Guarded, it's fine to first strike since you freely admit you like PvP sometimes, but don't do it too much or you're looking more like Open.
That makes it so that those who are truly guarded will show by not acting first a lot, and those who aren't will be exposded.
As for the time, I don't think it should be too short or long. Days, IMO.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
Me too. If you're closed, any stealing or first strikes (which shouldn't happen if you're closed) will move you to Guarded. As for Guarded, it's fine to first strike since you freely admit you like PvP sometimes, but don't do it too much or you're looking more like Open.
That makes it so that those who are truly guarded will show by not acting first a lot, and those who aren't will be exposded.
As for the time, I don't think it should be too short or long. Days, IMO.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
>>I don't personally buy the argument that if somebody honestly is insulting you in a way that grants consent that you should be forced to take it or make yourself open
I can understand this Z. Thanks for the other changes, seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
I can understand this Z. Thanks for the other changes, seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
<<Stealing is definitely going to set people to Open, I need to go ahead and do that (probably this weekend).>>
can there possibly be one change to that:
If a newbie thief steals from other thieves to learn the skill while in the guildhall, I don't believe he or she should be auto-set to open.
Necromancy provides the only source of reliable and potent life extension on Elanthia.
can there possibly be one change to that:
If a newbie thief steals from other thieves to learn the skill while in the guildhall, I don't believe he or she should be auto-set to open.
Necromancy provides the only source of reliable and potent life extension on Elanthia.
I don't think there should be any exceptions, even with a thief stealing from another thief in their guildhall. If you're going to steal from other players you need to realize that there are going to be consequences whether you're level 1 or 150.
I approve of this change.
Necromancy brings out the Stupid in us all. -Armifer
I approve of this change.
Necromancy brings out the Stupid in us all. -Armifer
>I don't think there should be any exceptions, even with a thief stealing from another thief in their guildhall. If you're going to steal from other players you need to realize that there are going to be consequences whether you're level 1 or 150.
THIS.
I like the change as proposed. I think it will bring some much needed sanity to the consent situation in DR.
-pete
THIS.
I like the change as proposed. I think it will bring some much needed sanity to the consent situation in DR.
-pete
>>Shoplifting is a valid learning method from 0 ranks.
^This. There's no reason for anybody to have to steal from another player at this point, it's woefully inefficient for training.
Slight tangent: Might be time to remove experience gain from PvP stealing, similar to PvP combat.
On topic: I love the sound of these changes.
Ogdaro
^This. There's no reason for anybody to have to steal from another player at this point, it's woefully inefficient for training.
Slight tangent: Might be time to remove experience gain from PvP stealing, similar to PvP combat.
On topic: I love the sound of these changes.
Ogdaro
>>I would also like to suggest that TARGETing/AIMing do the same.
What Kougen said.
First strike is a very useful metric for measuring objectively who it was that decided to escalate the situation to violence, since there can be no misinterpretation or vagueness about it. AIM and TARGET you start measuring intentions rather than actions and while those specific instances may be valid (we may even do them), it would also beg the question of other clear intentions for combat which we cannot quantify.
Besides, if this creates an environment where we have posturing stand-offs with people hesitating to actually pull the trigger, we're probably better off for it.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
What Kougen said.
First strike is a very useful metric for measuring objectively who it was that decided to escalate the situation to violence, since there can be no misinterpretation or vagueness about it. AIM and TARGET you start measuring intentions rather than actions and while those specific instances may be valid (we may even do them), it would also beg the question of other clear intentions for combat which we cannot quantify.
Besides, if this creates an environment where we have posturing stand-offs with people hesitating to actually pull the trigger, we're probably better off for it.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
>>Besides, if this creates an environment where we have posturing stand-offs with people hesitating to actually pull the trigger, we're probably better off for it.
Haha, I can't stop picturing a Red Dead Redemption Mexican standoff but with DSX's and Forester LX's.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
Haha, I can't stop picturing a Red Dead Redemption Mexican standoff but with DSX's and Forester LX's.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
>>Besides, if this creates an environment where we have posturing stand-offs with people hesitating to actually pull the trigger, we're probably better off for it.
This is true, as it relies solely on how much each person fears the dreaded Open profile. Quite spooky, it is.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
This is true, as it relies solely on how much each person fears the dreaded Open profile. Quite spooky, it is.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
Being auto-set to Open when stealing--Would that only apply if someone actually sees you make the attempt?
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
