It's recently become aware to me that there is very little policy involving Gwethsmashers. The incident I have encountered is this, A gweth was smashed for no valid reason and the GMs would not tell who was the cause nor give the victim any retrobution or reason as to why. All they told us that it was a Player owned Gwethsmasher that was used.

The situation is this, Allaya was going to the cleric guild to see if I needed any help. When she got there she gwethed asking for a Paladin to come glyph, now I personally don't have a gweth but I trust that that is all she said since afterall the GH didn't say, 'Well you said this.' There was no cause, and I was told by Algion I would be violating policy by attacking this person, and as would Allaya. Though his words were to me, he meant Allaya as well. The GH Would not tell us who used it and niether would Algion. I didn't really expect him to though anyway.

My problems with this are as follows ---
1) There was no cause for the gwethsmasher to be used except spite.
2) There was no retrubution we could take, for there was no IC way for us to know who did it.
3) The GH would not tell us who, or even give us any way to understand why policy would follow such an easily abused path.

This is abuse to me, especially considering who it is rumored to be. There is no right for such a 'tool' to be given to players if there is no way to control their use of it unless they over do it. Lets face it, the problem isn't usually someone going around killing everyone they see, the problem is the one that kills a single person for no reason. Why should this sort of abuse be any different?

I'd like to ask for either gwethsmashers to be completely removed, or a policy to be implamented so it would fit Consent laws. Also, show who used the smasher and grant consent on the user. If anyone else uses the gwethsmasher for someone else it would be violating the policy and removed, or broken itself.

~Venic

>>There was no cause for the gwethsmasher to be used except spite.

Cool

>>There was no retrubution we could take, for there was no IC way for us to know who did it.

Even cooler

>>The GH would not tell us who, or even give us any way to understand why policy would follow such an easily abused path.

Thats awesome

Sounds like yer all upset cause you don't have one...


>>I'd like to ask for either gwethsmashers to be completely removed

this = if i can't have one no one should....boo hoo

>>or a policy to be implamented so it would fit Consent laws

it is:
1. you can only use it once a RL day
2. you have have to be bigger to smash someone
3. you have to be way bigger to smash someone not in the same room
4. as for consent....get bigger so that have to use it in the same room so you know who done it

>>the problem is the one that kills a single person for no reason. Why should this sort of abuse be any different?

it doesn't kill or hurt the person....that makes it different


On another note Venic how many times have you bragged to other people about how you broke policy and talked yer way out of a warning.....cmon let it go......i guarantee Allaya will be smashed again by the fella thats doing it

- DZ - (half owner of a gweth smasher)

>>Smashing someone's gweth grants consent.

The problem is that having consent doesn't do a bit of good if there's no way to know who you have consent against. That's why snipe is a "use it responsibly or lose it" ability - if you can hurt another player in some way without them knowing who did it, you should face the consequences for targeting people for no reason.

Hey GMs....it definetly, without a doubt, should tell you who smashed your gweth. Otherwise I might have to roll up a ranger on an anonymous account and sit outside Xing sniping people all day.

Seriously, that's inconsistent policy.

If player A can smash player B's gweth without player B knowing about it, then player B should be able to report. If I had a 100th ranger and sat outside of crossing sniping newbs, the newbs would have no way of knowing. However, newbs could report and I could get in trouble.

Why is on anonymous attack different than the other in regards to policy?

Or make it non-anonymous, and the person who got their gweth smashed has consent (similar to how it is now).

Policy inconsistencies like this are probably my biggest gripe with the game.

Player of Tessaa

Well here's the deal... 2 gwethsmashers... 438975493875984 thieves and rangers that can snipe... the gwethsmasher does 0 zip none zilch nada damage to the person who got smashed beyond them having to go buy more gweths, most people get them free anyway


Evasion Junkie Algion

Ya know, I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Snipe actually kills people, hence the need for people to use it responsibly and if they don't the ability is removed. Gwethsmashing does NOT kill anyone, it just destroys a gweth, no other damage to your body whatsoever. Boo hoo. If you don't want your gweth possibly smashed by someone like Algion, I suggest you don't annoy him with it. But then, that's just my humble opinion.


~Tykyra~

I wish I had a gwethsmasher. I'd start rapidly circling and smashing every ::hugger::'s gweth I could find.

In the end, though, there should be consent and knowledge of who did the deed. 15 plat is more valuable to most people than one death.


--Quelgash.
"Do not go where the path may lead.
Go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail." -Emerson

Probably because to those 'other's' 15 plat a drop is nothing.


~Tykyra~

If you fail the conentration check, does the gwethsmasher message the target your name and a message that you attempted to break their gweth?

Also when this happens, is one way consent in place?

By one way consent, I mean like when I catch a thief in my pockets. I can kill him, but he can't go ahead and attack me until I prep a spell or attack him or whatever.

Or, if you prefer, when you snipe someone and fail and the arrow misses and it messages your name.

Player of Tessaa

>if you fail the conc check it smashes your gweths
>Evasion Junkie Algion

You have to be wearing gweths for it to work?

Player of Tessaa

GMs can and do the same thing with no messaging.

I am --- Navak

Seems simple matter of consistancy here- the person whose gweth is smashed should know who smashed it. What is the problem with this? Why would the person who smashed it care? Do they have a reason to want to hide behind anonymity? I think they should identify the smasher, let it be consent and be unreportable.

I realize there are only 2 or 3 around, but the principle remains the same. Whether the person using the gwethsmasher is a jerk or a saint, they should be able to stand up to their use of the device.

Flavius

<<That way newbs wouldnt be totally confused.>>

You don't have to be a "newb" to be confused when it happens.

~Chris, player of Field Medic Nimmi

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. - Unknown

When and why did "gwethsmashers" come to be anyways?

Player of Shollagar

>b) That person is much bigger than you, and makes consent absolutely worthless.

So basically what you're saying is we should eliminate consent rules if the person is, what, 20 circles higher than you?

There's still spousal consent, and Moon Mage with cruddy defenses consent, and so on. So why shouldn't everyone know who used the gwethsmasher to destroy their gweths, so they have at least an opportunity to kill the offending person?

So, Algion, you should try being a little more concise with your answers. I think we were all aware we had consent before post #614. We want to know who we have consent on, not wait for them to brag about smashing our gweths, and probably do so in person since we don't have a gweth to hear them brag anymore.


--Quelgash.
"Do not go where the path may lead.
Go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail." -Emerson

You require consent to use snipe in the first place; if you needed consent to use a gwethsmasher then the anonymity is not an issue. But if someone has a bad day, they could smash any random person's gweth if they felt like it. It wouldn't be hard to go on a gweth smashing rampage (such as is possible with the 1/day limit) and never get caught or even suspected, rendering the consent issue moot.

The anonymity of snipe is the reason it is so carefully guarded against abuse. If gwethsmashers remain anonymous, then they should be subject to similar strict policies, as not everyone can afford to buy new gweths.

---

"Perhaps the angel world might even be set up with ectoplasm causally dependent on physical properties, so that wombat copulation on the physical plane sometimes gives rise to baby ectoplasmic wombats on the nonphysical plane." - David J. Chalmers

You could certainly ruin someone's week. I know I don't make enough in a week's worth of hunting to afford new gweths every day, and as long as I'm not in a crowded area like the crossing I find gweths indispensable.

---

"Perhaps the angel world might even be set up with ectoplasm causally dependent on physical properties, so that wombat copulation on the physical plane sometimes gives rise to baby ectoplasmic wombats on the nonphysical plane." - David J. Chalmers

I've still never seen an official GM response to what (if any) effect gwethsmashers have on LTB unbreakable gweths. I'd really like to know.

Gizella

Its always been said gwethsmashers are pretty much not being touched by GM's. From what I know theres a concentration check to see if the user can actually smash the target gweth, but other then that, thats pretty much as much of a check as there is. It is impossible to see who smashed your gweth. Luckily, there are VERY few gwethsmashers so its usually pretty easy to figure out who did it.

As for "rampaging" 1/day is hardly a rampage.

As for "Harassment" I think its laughable that smashing someones gweth 1/day would be called harassment anyway. But this is the policy folder, and the policy players are rampant here.

Honestly, its a gwethsmasher. Whats it made to do? Why, by george, its made to smash gweths. If its owned by a jerk, and they want to be a jerk with it and smash peoples gweths, heck, that really sucks, but thats pretty much summing the situation up in a sentence.

As for the gweths/ltb gweths, its real simple as it was explained to me once (I forget by whom). You have consent on whomever smashed your gweth. If an LTB gweth is destroyed, you have consent on the person until they replace your expensive gweth. Since you cant buy an LTB gweth, I think people sell the 5 year (I think they are 5 year, maybe 6) for like 500-600 plat? That would be, in my eyes, fair compensation for such an item(According to item theft policy such as graverobbing, you have consent on someone until an item is returned, or until agreeable compensation has been provided for the taken item, I dont see how smashing a 600 plat gweth would be any different then throwing away someones 600 plat armor that you graverobbed). Until I was compensated in such a manner, I would exact my consent whenever possible.

Low level people who couldnt possible win in a PVP conflict against someone big: if someone smashes your gweth and they are way over your circle, I suggest graverobbing them when they die at some point down the line, or dragging their corpse in hard-to-find places when they die. Patience is a virtue, people expect you to try to "take revenge" immedeately. Wait a few days, a week, a month, let things settle and be forgotton, and when they slip up, thats when you take something shiny back for yourself. That would be my suggestion anyway.

---

After carefully gauging the distance to Maelshyve, you lash out at her!
The piercing screech of tortured air assaults your ears, punctuated by a sharp CRACK!!
Don't be a fool!
Roundtime: 1 second.

>>I don't think it breaks LTB gweths, it just shuts them off for a time.

Would be nice if a GM could speak on this issue. It has been asked more than once, yet never an answer has been given.

Brabs

---

It's fascinating, though, how much like an oral culture this can be when it's carried out entirely in text.--GM Natala