An Invitation to all Guild Leaders

[r.guppy]

By all means encourage players to not break PS rules in a RP manner, but feel we do not have the right to enforce the law, only within our guilds can we do so. PS rules are enforced by GMs, that it part of their job.
 The intention here is to encourage those who do not belong to a guild, to follow our example, by the way our guilds do it.
 As for guilds which do not implement what we decide upon here, I feel are missing out on a great opportunity to show that members of the community care enough to help in trying to solve a common problem.

[Sangwa]

The problem is, Janner, some guilds\' purpose is to cause havoc and chaos and implementing such rules would be against their best interest.
Encouragement only reaches so far. Enforcing might compensate, while providing with a much more realistic and pleasant roleplay enviroment.

I don\'t think it would be much trouble to anyone to acknowledge some guilds as law enforcers. They will still be mortal, defyable and interactive guilds.

[Pip]

Originally posted by Sangwa
The problem is, Janner, some guilds\' purpose is to cause havoc and chaos and implementing such rules would be against their best interest.
Encouragement only reaches so far. Enforcing might compensate, while providing with a much more realistic and pleasant roleplay enviroment.

I don\'t think it would be much trouble to anyone to acknowledge some guilds as law enforcers. They will still be mortal, defyable and interactive guilds.

While those of the guilds which are happy to abide to and enforce the rules may recognise a few among their number as law enforcers, the guilds whose   \"purpose is to cause havoc and chaos\" would not. Without additional powers all the law abiding guilds can do is report misdemeanors when they see them. Speak to the offenders first of course; they might be new and not know the rules.

[r.guppy]

I see your point but feel we would have the same problem as to which guild/s it would be, unless we take it in terns trying to en-force the rules.

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Pip

Originally posted by Sangwa
The problem is, Janner, some guilds\' purpose is to cause havoc and chaos and implementing such rules would be against their best interest.
Encouragement only reaches so far. Enforcing might compensate, while providing with a much more realistic and pleasant roleplay enviroment.

I don\'t think it would be much trouble to anyone to acknowledge some guilds as law enforcers. They will still be mortal, defyable and interactive guilds.

While those of the guilds which are happy to abide to and enforce the rules may recognise a few among their number as law enforcers, the guilds whose   \"purpose is to cause havoc and chaos\" would not. Without additional powers all the law abiding guilds can do is report misdemeanors when they see them. Speak to the offenders first of course; they might be new and not know the rules.

Hmm, I don\'t really see the problem there. When they RP causing havoc and such, then they will also RP trying to run from the law and the results of failing to do so.
If, OTOH, they are OOC and just like to OOC disrupt the game for others, then this is where GMs need to take over.

Originally posted by zanzibar
There are mechanics to the PVP system which all individuals with a good connection are able to exploit:

- hit and run attacks
- bugging the system into attacking the instant the other guy gets within range
- starting the attack before the challenge is accepted, resulting in attacking the instant the challenge is accepted instead of having any sort of wait
- double clicking such that you accept the challenge and start your attack at the same time, while the other guy might have to deal with his reaction time



All of these can be justified in a role-playing context. The alternative is to simply let the guy with the highest stats, best shortcuts, and luckiest dice-rolls win. Since people usually die from the first hit, this is boring to me.

They cannot be justified from an RP POV, because, as you stated, this depends on the OOC capabilities of the player or their computing system and as such is not, and never will be, RP, as much as you may want it to be. It is abuse / exploitation of the system, nothing else. A true RPer will not do these things, but instead fight the fight IC-ly. Also, the fighting system is so limited that the really interesting fights that include maneuvers can\'t be conducted through it, but instead tend to be RP\'d using /me-ing. Yes, this does require very experienced RPers on both sides.

So either fight properly, thereby allowing your opponent the same opportunities instead of exploiting the system to get an unfair and completely OOC advantage, or /me the fight. Failing both, don\'t fight.

This is something that IMO should be included in the proposal:
If you use the PvP system for your RP fights, then any form of exploitation is not allowed. Commodities like shortcuts may be used for convenience, but not for speed.

[Sangwa]

Hmm, I don\'t really see the problem there. When they RP causing havoc and such, then they will also RP trying to run from the law and the results of failing to do so.
If, OTOH, they are OOC and just like to OOC disrupt the game for others, then this is where GMs need to take over.

Exactly my point of view.

[r.guppy]

Sounds good to me.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Seytra
Hmm, I don\'t really see the problem there. When they RP causing havoc and such, then they will also RP trying to run from the law and the results of failing to do so.
If, OTOH, they are OOC and just like to OOC disrupt the game for others, then this is where GMs need to take over.

That\'s nice, but how do you distinguish between IC and OOC disruption?  Here\'s how I do it, and this may or may not be similar to your own thoughts:

OOC disruption:
- can involve the petition system
- can involve exploiting bugs of the game
- can involve in-game events spreading to the forums and IRC
- can involve the use or abuse of GM powers
- can involve private communications that the other part tries to avoid but cannot (ie harrassment)



So, an example of OOC disruption would be if you had a problem with someone in-game, then you started spamming their mailbox on the forums even as they ask you not to, then you make frivolous complaints to not one but many GMs about that person you harrassed.

However, IC disruption can include murder, the starting of guild wars, betrayal, rumour-mongering, fear-mongering, theft, insults which are not obviously harrassment, etcetera.  IMO anyway.  I welcome everyone to be critical of it.

[Pip]

Originally posted by Sangwa

Hmm, I don\'t really see the problem there. When they RP causing havoc and such, then they will also RP trying to run from the law and the results of failing to do so.
If, OTOH, they are OOC and just like to OOC disrupt the game for others, then this is where GMs need to take over.

Exactly my point of view.

OK, I see what you are saying. Sangwa, are you volunteering your guild? I am sure we can\'t force anyone to do it, maybe ask for volunteers and somehow take it in turns. How would we notify which guild was being the \"police\"? Perhaps someone would be willing to start a new guild with a few members from each of the other guilds...........?

Originally posted by Seytra
This is something that IMO should be included in the proposal:
If you use the PvP system for your RP fights, then any form of exploitation is not allowed. Commodities like shortcuts may be used for convenience, but not for speed.

Good point

[Seytra]

Originally posted by zanzibar
That\'s nice, but how do you distinguish between IC and OOC disruption?  Here\'s how I do it, and this may or may not be similar to your own thoughts:

OOC disruption:
- can involve the petition system
- can involve exploiting bugs of the game
- can involve in-game events spreading to the forums and IRC
- can involve the use or abuse of GM powers
- can involve private communications that the other part tries to avoid but cannot (ie harrassment)



So, an example of OOC disruption would be if you had a problem with someone in-game, then you started spamming their mailbox on the forums even as they ask you not to, then you make frivolous complaints to not one but many GMs about that person you harrassed.

However, IC disruption can include murder, the starting of guild wars, betrayal, rumour-mongering, fear-mongering, theft, insults which are not obviously harrassment, etcetera.  IMO anyway.  I welcome everyone to be critical of it.

Anything that is detrimental to someone\'s char and not previouisly agreed upon is OOC disruption. This includes challenging. For someone to be allowed to challenge some one else, they must previously (at least OOC-ly) have agreed upon that to happen.
If this does not have an RP reason, then even if it is mutually agreed upon it is OOC disruption because others will have to put up with the baseless fighting, which has already been classified as not acceptable all by itself in point 1.

Also, anything that is otherwise not RP is OOC disruption, including undesignated OOC and dropping of items, movement of chars to make fun of the game (i.e., stepping into others, especially repeatedly, jumping or doing the popular walking backwards \"moonwalk\" ).
IOW, even things that are beneficial to one\'s char can be OOC disruption, like someone dropping circles around you or even handing things over via /trade. These are another form of harassment.

All of these are easily distinguished from IC disruption, because there is no RP context for them.
In the very rare case that there actually is someone who actually acts like that IC-ly, this person would then need to ensure that it is done realistically, which does take a lot of thought and effort, like describing oneself very well and also detailing all the actions that lead up to the odd behaviour, taking into account the IC situation and reactions of the others (even if it is \"/me ignores that and proceeds to do XYZ\" ), i.e., a whole lot of /me-ing. Obviously if you are already known as good RPer you\'ll have less trouble coming accross correctly than when you\'re not known at all, but it still is far from being a trivial task. Also, consistency is key, even more than usual.

Given these clear distinctions and provided there is a proper RP reason for it, what you listed as IC disruptions I agree with to be actually IC.

As for the \"police\" guild: There is (or was) the \"Hydlaa Law Enforcement\" guild, headed by Monketh.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Seytra
Anything that is detrimental to someone\'s char and not previouisly agreed upon is OOC disruption.

Reading through your post, I find that position to be impractical, unproductive, and harmful to the game.  Boring and unrealistic and outside the tradition of role-playing also come to my mind.


However, I have a simple solution:  By playing Planeshift, you agree to bad things happening to your character from time to time, perhaps often, perhaps never.  Bad things happen in every single RPG.  Heck, bad things even happen to you in the Candyland boardgame!

[ramlambmoo]

Anything that is detrimental to someone\'s char and not previouisly agreed upon is OOC disruption.

Previously agreed upon by whom?

The problem is, Janner, some guilds\' purpose is to cause havoc and chaos and implementing such rules would be against their best interest.  

This has been my point all along; Most of you in here have agreed to this (at least in principal), but then again most of you in here arent the problem, which is why have been dismissive of any of this actually working.  Furthermore, I dont really like the idea of having self appointed Vigilante stlye guilds running around enforcing things that they came up with.  Well, I mean from a RP perspective I would love it for the challenge to tear into them, but from a neutral perspective its not going to acheive much, since the only people who would listen to them would be the people who dont need to change.

[r.guppy]

I for one am happy to abide by the main reason for this topic so as soon as i can wrap it up in my guild as still a few members to see it, will inform my guild to abide by them.
 One comment from member, seconds, i feel that should be optional but mention it anyway.
 I feel the police thing is a separate issue, and must have GM approval and be consulted with to make that work.

[Bereror]

Originally posted by ramlambmoo

Anything that is detrimental to someone\'s char and not previouisly agreed upon is OOC disruption.

Previously agreed upon by whom?

Agreed by me and you comes into my mind.

Rude actions in the game need some explanation first because I have to react in one or another way. If this is RP, my character has to react in a RP manner depending on my character. If this is because you are a 9-year old noob, I as a player will add you to my ignore list.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Bereror
Agreed by me and you comes into my mind.

Rude actions in the game need some explanation first because I have to react in one or another way. If this is RP, my character has to react in a RP manner depending on my character. If this is because you are a 9-year old noob, I as a player will add you to my ignore list.

If people can\'t tell the difference between role-play dialogue and 9-year-old noobs, if people need an explanation first before someone else says anything with a hint of malice, then gentlemen - we are in trouble.