So I have a fun question. Backstory First (this will get confusing, so try to follow):
Person A and Person B are both open.
Person A decides to kill Person B one day while Person B is hunting. - No Issue, Person B is open.
Person B retaliates and Kills Person A.
Person B goes back to hunting.
Person A tries to kill Person B again while hunting, but Person B gets away.
Person B annoyed by the unprovoked attacks kills Person A again, and tells Person A they must now make repairs for attacking. Either Pay a fine for each attack, or leave the area for good.
Person A ignores this threat, <insert common PvP crap talking> , and Person B kills Person A a couple more times.
Person A then leaves the area (goes to the fest). Person B leaves person A alone, since they left the area.
Person A returns, And trys to attack Person B, failing again. Then leaves the Area again for a week.
Person A returns, and is killed by Person B a few more times, still not getting the clue that they are not welcome.
Person B continues to Kill person A, any time Person A is around. Person A Warns Harrassment to Person B
Person B goes back to hunting, Person A tries once again to attack Person B twice again and Fails completely (after warning Harrassment).
Person B Kills Person A a number of times, because Person A refuses to leave and keeps attacking. After completely getting their face kicked in, Person A finally decides to Warn interaction.
So the question, Person A already warned harrassment, but then attacked again anyway. Then warned interaction after getting completely owned again.
What are the repercussions on Person B, if Person B continues to follow up their threat (leave or pay), and since Person A thinks they can now use the Warn verb, to get them out of a conflict they started.
Falker
C0UGAR
GAMMERGIRL151
Re: Warn Policy
11/13/2012 07:04 PM CST
>John and Sanders are both open. John decides to kill Sanders one day while Sanders is hunting. - No Issue, Sanders is open.
>Sanders retaliates and kills John. Sanders goes back to hunting. John tries to kill Sanders again while hunting, but Sanders gets away.
>Sanders annoyed by the unprovoked attacks kills John again, and tells John they must now make repairs for attacking. Either pay a fine for each attack, or leave the area for good.
>John ignores this threat, <insert common PvP crap talking> , and Sanders kills John a couple more times. John then leaves the area (goes to the fest). Sanders leaves John alone, since they left the area.
>John returns, And triess to attack Sanders, failing again. Then leaves the Area again for a week.
>John returns, and is killed by Sanders a few more times, still not getting the clue that they are not welcome.
>Sanders continues to Kill John, any time John is around. John Warns Harrassment to Sanders. Sanders goes back to hunting, John tries once again to attack Sanders twice again and fails completely (after warning Harrassment).
>Sanders kills John a number of times, because John refuses to leave and keeps attacking. After completely getting their face kicked in, John finally decides to Warn interaction.
>So the question, John already warned harrassment, but then attacked again anyway. Then warned interaction after getting completely owned again.
>What are the repercussions on Sanders, if Sanders continues to follow up their threat (leave or pay), and since John thinks they can now use the Warn verb, to get them out of a conflict they started.
I prefer when examples like this use fake names because the whole Person A and B thing is hard for me to follow (Person A became John, Person B became Sanders). Apologies for reposting basically your whole post, but I can't keep track of what is going on in it otherwise.
Warn Harassment and Interaction are communication tools. Typically they do not enforce any policy/penalties for just those. If both players remain Open, pretty sure it stays in NO-GM territory. Especially if John/Person A keeps coming back and attacking (at all). If we're talking about coming into the same hunting room, etc with a person you know has ill will towards you, that just seems like a bad plan and is entirely not in the spirit of what those WARNs are for.
Now if Sanders/Person B is chasing John/Person A all over gryphons or Theren or what have you, that's a little bit of a different story, but from the description, it sounds pretty cut and dry "you made your bed now lay in it". Especially if they are OPEN.
You've reached the uninformative help match I haven't written yet.
>Sanders retaliates and kills John. Sanders goes back to hunting. John tries to kill Sanders again while hunting, but Sanders gets away.
>Sanders annoyed by the unprovoked attacks kills John again, and tells John they must now make repairs for attacking. Either pay a fine for each attack, or leave the area for good.
>John ignores this threat, <insert common PvP crap talking> , and Sanders kills John a couple more times. John then leaves the area (goes to the fest). Sanders leaves John alone, since they left the area.
>John returns, And triess to attack Sanders, failing again. Then leaves the Area again for a week.
>John returns, and is killed by Sanders a few more times, still not getting the clue that they are not welcome.
>Sanders continues to Kill John, any time John is around. John Warns Harrassment to Sanders. Sanders goes back to hunting, John tries once again to attack Sanders twice again and fails completely (after warning Harrassment).
>Sanders kills John a number of times, because John refuses to leave and keeps attacking. After completely getting their face kicked in, John finally decides to Warn interaction.
>So the question, John already warned harrassment, but then attacked again anyway. Then warned interaction after getting completely owned again.
>What are the repercussions on Sanders, if Sanders continues to follow up their threat (leave or pay), and since John thinks they can now use the Warn verb, to get them out of a conflict they started.
I prefer when examples like this use fake names because the whole Person A and B thing is hard for me to follow (Person A became John, Person B became Sanders). Apologies for reposting basically your whole post, but I can't keep track of what is going on in it otherwise.
Warn Harassment and Interaction are communication tools. Typically they do not enforce any policy/penalties for just those. If both players remain Open, pretty sure it stays in NO-GM territory. Especially if John/Person A keeps coming back and attacking (at all). If we're talking about coming into the same hunting room, etc with a person you know has ill will towards you, that just seems like a bad plan and is entirely not in the spirit of what those WARNs are for.
Now if Sanders/Person B is chasing John/Person A all over gryphons or Theren or what have you, that's a little bit of a different story, but from the description, it sounds pretty cut and dry "you made your bed now lay in it". Especially if they are OPEN.
You've reached the uninformative help match I haven't written yet.
BLUESUEDESHOES
Re: Warn Policy
11/13/2012 08:08 PM CST
As long as they're open, no problem, especially if they're still attacking you. Be careful if they decide to leave the area and go PvP closed or guarded before coming back. There's no way to enforce your "leave or pay" policy, but if they keep attacking, keep killing. I'm a bit fuzzy on the whole "warn interaction" thing, especially if they're PvP Open. Sounds like a chump move to me. Some people never learn.
Elvis has left the building.
Elvis has left the building.
GRIM45
Re: Warn Policy
11/13/2012 10:43 PM CST
>>What are the repercussions on Person B, if Person B continues to follow up their threat (leave or pay), and since Person A thinks they can now use the Warn verb, to get them out of a conflict they started.
Both players get labeled HMC and are told to leave each other alone since they can't handle interpersonal interactions on their own.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
Both players get labeled HMC and are told to leave each other alone since they can't handle interpersonal interactions on their own.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
C0UGAR
Re: Warn Policy
11/13/2012 10:49 PM CST
<<Both players get labeled HMC and are told to leave each other alone since they can't handle interpersonal interactions on their own
Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Basically it sounds like warn means nothing when a person is open. I'm ok with that.
Falker
Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Basically it sounds like warn means nothing when a person is open. I'm ok with that.
Falker
GORTEOUS
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 03:23 AM CST
>> Basically it sounds like warn means nothing when a person is open. I'm ok with that.
It does. Harassment is beast all it's own - as far as I know, WARN supersedes pvp stance, but it requires the person using it to abide as well. I'm not sure how it works in your attacker/retaliator after-the-fact scenario though.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
It does. Harassment is beast all it's own - as far as I know, WARN supersedes pvp stance, but it requires the person using it to abide as well. I'm not sure how it works in your attacker/retaliator after-the-fact scenario though.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
KILLERWMOWN
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 07:38 AM CST
If one is open and they try to use warn harass it will not work as you are "open" to pvp conflict
Sounds like you picked a fight and now mad because you can't zombie script anymore without possibility of getting shot
You know what they say, right?
"qq harder"
SHADOW7988
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 09:16 AM CST
>It does. Harassment is beast all it's own - as far as I know, WARN supersedes pvp stance, but it requires the person using it to abide as well. I'm not sure how it works in your attacker/retaliator after-the-fact scenario though.
To me this, its been stated by GMs that being Open doesn't mean players can harass you, in the above situation the person suggesting their being harassed isn't following through with their end of the bargain though.
_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.
To me this, its been stated by GMs that being Open doesn't mean players can harass you, in the above situation the person suggesting their being harassed isn't following through with their end of the bargain though.
_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.
GORTEOUS
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 12:00 PM CST
>> To me this, its been stated by GMs that being Open doesn't mean players can harass you, in the above situation the person suggesting their being harassed isn't following through with their end of the bargain though.
I would be very leery in a conflict if WARN has been used, regardless of circumstance. Especially in this case given what I've heard about it.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
I would be very leery in a conflict if WARN has been used, regardless of circumstance. Especially in this case given what I've heard about it.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
DR-ANNWYL
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 12:43 PM CST
Just a reminder, this is not the conflicts folder.
Address the points of the post without the attack on the posters.
Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.
YAMCER
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 06:40 PM CST
<<Let me clarify this for everybody>>
Only question really is, did you use warn interact then go into the area and interact with the person you warned?
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Only question really is, did you use warn interact then go into the area and interact with the person you warned?
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
BRYCOLE83
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 07:04 PM CST
<<Let me clarify this for everybody>>
>>> Only question really is, did you use warn interact then go into the area and interact with the person you warned?
Aww. His post is gone. I am disappointed.
>>> Only question really is, did you use warn interact then go into the area and interact with the person you warned?
Aww. His post is gone. I am disappointed.
C0UGAR
Re: Warn Policy
11/14/2012 10:38 PM CST
<<Sounds like you picked a fight and now mad because you can't zombie script anymore without possibility of getting shot
Sounds like you are wrong on all accounts. Didnt pick a fight, and not mad. I'm not the one that was using the warn verb. You were ok with the first statement. Trying too hard to be lawlz on the second.
Falker
Sounds like you are wrong on all accounts. Didnt pick a fight, and not mad. I'm not the one that was using the warn verb. You were ok with the first statement. Trying too hard to be lawlz on the second.
Falker
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: Warn Policy
11/17/2012 10:35 AM CST
Well, the second unknown person deleted their post, but if the original account is true, couple thoughts.
A) "I warned you to leave the area" is not a valid reason to continue killing someone, even if they are set open, even if they conflicted with you previously. You do not own any single room (except your house or boat), much less any area of the game, it's a shared and public environment. If you push this angle a lot I could see a reasonable argument for harassment here, regardless of their PvP status.
B) The WARN verb indicates a lack of interest in further interaction. You can't use it and then attack someone later down the line, even if it's a week or month later. Aggression after a warn completely negates the WARN, IMO, because clearly you do have some interest in further conflict.
Ignoring each other would be the recommended course: if you're hunting the same critter, in the same area, or even in the same room by happenstance, just ignore one another.
A) "I warned you to leave the area" is not a valid reason to continue killing someone, even if they are set open, even if they conflicted with you previously. You do not own any single room (except your house or boat), much less any area of the game, it's a shared and public environment. If you push this angle a lot I could see a reasonable argument for harassment here, regardless of their PvP status.
B) The WARN verb indicates a lack of interest in further interaction. You can't use it and then attack someone later down the line, even if it's a week or month later. Aggression after a warn completely negates the WARN, IMO, because clearly you do have some interest in further conflict.
Ignoring each other would be the recommended course: if you're hunting the same critter, in the same area, or even in the same room by happenstance, just ignore one another.
