My character plays a pacifist where other characters are concerned. He will not fight another character if there is any other resolution. The only time I've ever attacked another player outside of a dual was a thief who stole from a very young friend then taunted them repeatedly. I have some IC reason for not wanting to pvp that i won't go into here. That said. If you harass me, regardless of my ability or inability to mop the floor with you I'll try to pacify the situation IC. If that fails I'll ask in OOC whisper that I'd like to resolve this IC without violence as i will not participate in pvp killing. As a LAST resort I will report some snert who thinks rping revolves around pissing other people off. I never want to report, I think it's a waste of GM time but I'm not going to break my IC RP to put someone in their place.

>>Reporting is breaking your IC RP to put someone in their place.

>>Any time you report, the situation stops being IC.

Quoted for Truthiness

Anyways, you know what I got out of your entire post? Waaah waaaah, nobody is going to make me do anything I don't want to do. EVER.

God I'd hate to see you actually try to role play anything dynamic.

-Galren Moonskin

!>You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde screaming in barbaric approval of your deeds.

We play a role-playing game, but we play a role-playing game with rules. Those rules govern a great many things . . . they govern genre, they govern language, they govern sexually explicit role-playing, and most controversially, they govern violent conflicts between characters. These rules are a compromise which allow different populations of players, all of whom pay to play the game, to interact in a way which has the potential to be enjoyable for everyone. But of course, we all know the definition of a compromise--a sloution with which all parties concerned are equally unhappy.

>>Waaah waaaah, nobody is going to make me do anything I don't want to do. EVER.

I see this argument a lot . . . but it's a two way street. Let us imagine a player/character which prefers to resolve conflicts by a combat skill contest. This player is willing to accept that he or she may lose in such a contest, but is frequently unwilling to accept a contest of words in which they may be beaten. And God forbid that anyone make you resolve a conflict in a way that you don't want to.

For a completely in-character example, I think this difficulty is best exemplified by what I like to call the Empath Problem. Empaths can sling insults with the best of them, sometimes saying things which are deeply hurtful to other characters. However, empaths absolutely cannot participate in normal man-to-man combat, and despite people frequently decrying the guild-as-a-defense attitude, it is generally not socially acceptable to kill an empath.

Where the Empath Problem differs from the consent rules, however, is that the character does not have to agree in advance to a set of rules governing the resolution of conflicts. The character can kill the empath and accept the social consequences, which, depending on the relative social status of the two, can range from mild to severe. In contrast, the player has pre-agreed to out-of-character regulations, and if he or she chooses to violate those rules, there are out-of-character consequences.

There are failings in the consent system, chief among them that it protects the characters engaging in the most egregious acts of within-policy taunting and griefing from the violent social consequences that would surely follow were those rules not in place. It is foolish, however, to think that an all-social-consequence consent-free system would be without similar failings--it would simply be more satisfactory for some and less so for others.

So here, we're back at our compromise. The compromise that everyone agrees to by logging into the game. The compromise that lets everyone do what they want, but which also makes everyone accept some things that they don't want to. The great compromise that, at least in theory, is equally unacceptable to everyone.
_

Moon Magic 101:
"A lethal spell is defined as a spell which, by itself, can cause the death of anyone other than the caster." --GM Armifer

The problem isn't using report as a last resort - it's there to deal with the most egregious of offenses.

The problem is using report as a weapon, and that is how I see it most often being used. "Well, they killed me and made me look stupid publicly, so I'll just get them in trouble." Motive does matters. If you're just reporting to get someone in trouble, not address a serious playability issue that you have exhausted all other means of resolving, you are not using it correctly in my eyes - you're simply using it as a weapon to wield against another player.

Any time your character dies by the hands of another and you report or feel a desire to, ask yourself honestly if you would still want to had you won and killed them instead. If the answer is no, you shouldn't be reporting them. Plain and simple.

---

Rev. Reene

Syralon whispers to your group, "Gentlemen, to evil!"

"The problem is using report as a weapon, and that is how I see it most often being used. "Well, they killed me and made me look stupid publicly, so I'll just get them in trouble." Motive does matters. If you're just reporting to get someone in trouble, not address a serious playability issue that you have exhausted all other means of resolving, you are not using it correctly in my eyes - you're simply using it as a weapon to wield against another player.

Any time your character dies by the hands of another and you report or feel a desire to, ask yourself honestly if you would still want to had you won and killed them instead. If the answer is no, you shouldn't be reporting them. Plain and simple "

Reene, oddly enough I find myself in agreement with you. While I don't know whether Report is used often as you describe it or not- that is not what report should be used for. And I think that the original poster made it clear that was his own personal policy, but others immediately told him that any use of report was wrong.

Too use the language of an entirely different type of debate- Report should be readily availible and rarely, if ever used. The goal should be a reduction of the desire to report- both by reducing the number of incidents that are truely valid reportable incidents and by reducing the number of frivolous or malicious reports.


"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"

<<policy violation is a serious playability issue.


Way to be as vague as possible. Did you write policy?

"Go ahead, say it out loud once or twice or 10 times. 99.95% of you would NOT report if you had won the conflict. I know because I've seen it happen before. I've killed someone with Galren and get reported. A month later my thief gets into a VERBAL scuffle with them, they kill him and OH LOOK AT THAT, THERE IS NO REPORT because they won."

99.95% of Bald Eagles electrocute themselves on high power lines. I know- because I saw it happen once.

Stop being such a victim. Yes a victim. You and your ilk are always championing that no one needs to report, because they could instead of either walked away. Yet you always have the same option. Walk away and 99.995%(see I made my assertion even higher because it makes it more impressive) you won't get reported. See- no need to be the victim.

Strange- don't steal from anyone and 99.9995% of the time you won't get reported. It is not hard to avoid being reported- I don't believe Flavius has ever been reported. Of course that is because I rarely, rarely ever initiate conflict in game. If you decide to initiate conflict, and skirt as closely as you can along that line that is policy, hoping to incite someone to an action for which you hope you can plausibly claim consent, then the chances are you will get reported. And sometimes, for some of you, in the judgement of a GM you will have crossed that line.

I understand how the concern that people may report hampers your ability to impose your concept of fun on other players. But just as players have a responsibility to not abuse the report mechanism, players have a responsibility to avoid putting themselves in a position where they can legitimately be reported for offensive actions.



"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"

<<But just as players have a responsibility to not abuse the report mechanism, players have a responsibility to avoid putting themselves in a position where they can legitimately be reported

Needed repeating.

<<Anyway, there are consequences for the person being reported, yet no consequences for the person that reports.

There are consequences for violating policy, the report is just a means of communicating to the staff that policy has been broken.

Being reported when you haven't broken policy is extremely unlikely to result in you being penalized. A baseless report is just that, baseless.

Look at the DP crusade. The DPs had some of THE heaviest hitters in-game on their side killing attacking players...

Not only was it NOT a consent nightmare, it was a heck of a lot more fun than people would have expected.

When it comes to CvC, there are three general broad categories:

1.) People who don't want to CvC at all.

2.) People who are okay with CvC as long as they win.

3.) People who are fine with CvC.

Now, obviously these don't apply to everyone in all circumstances - some folks are fine with CvC in a limited group, but otherwise look to win and won't CvC if they feel outclassed.

Most people in DR largely fall into category 2. Sorry, but it's true. Take Ragran: He gets involved in a lot of shenanigans, but he doesn't get in trouble for it because people don't report. Why? Because he's easy to kill.

This is a viewpoint that offends people on the second category, but Galren is right. Category 2 people are the players who will report if they lose or feel outclassed, and if they think they can win easily won't report and will fight instead.

I knew a couple folks who would stance down when they were unsure if the other person would report, because when they fired a couple arrows and missed, the other person (Remember, Type 2 is the majority in DR) would attack them back rather than report - clearily if they missed, they weren't a threat and could easily be killed.

It's not a statement that exclusively applies to picking fights - if someone is playing the line on policy and is insulting you or hassling you but won't step up and fight, if you shoot at them or cast at them and miss on purpose, they will usually fight back because they think they can kill you easily.

I'm a type 3; I don't report when attacked, I steal from people, I graverob, I thump, and I pick fights. But I recognize the difference between someone who genuinely isn't interested in conflict and someone who simply thinks they can't take me in a fight and will shoot their mouth off instead and report if they get killed. So most of my CvC is limited to a group of folks who will likely as not greet me with a friendly crossbow bolt, clout, etc instead of a wave.

The funny thing is that Type 3 people have a better understanding of perspective in DR than type 2. We recognize, in a way that Type 2 don't, that CvC is fun when taken within limits. For example, while it may be humorous to shoot the person who just got raised and has been continually talking smack while dead, doing it over and over is unnecessarily mean spirited. The idea of hunting someone down for days might sound exciting but what it really amounts to is two people hanging out in safe rooms training non-combat skills and waiting for the other to log off so they can go hunt.

Consent policy has simultaneously supported decent CvC interactions and hamstrung it. Because policy is used as a defense, and because GM interpretation of policy is traditionally very loose (including examples which go contrary to stated policy) and dependent upon the whims of individual GMs, people interested in CvC are required to procure excuses - essentially 'tricking' non-type 3 players into giving them consent - to engage in conflicts which are short lived, violent, and always end in death.

Why do conflicts always end in death? Because that's when policy says that they end. I can't beat someone down, slap them around, and leave them with a bloody nose in game because if I don't strike hard and kill them, they'll get healed and come back until I DO kill them. Sometimes I don't want the hassle of a murder fine, but type 2 players are so bloodthirsty when they have free reign to kill someone within their abilities to do so that it is easier to just kill them.

On the other hand, the benefit of CvC policy is that type 2 players are just as bound by it, and the parts of CvC that aren't actually any fun (see 2 people sitting in safe rooms training noncombat skills for days) don't generally happen because the people who don't know any better are prevented from taking it too far under policy. The fact that consent usually ends at one death means that Type 2 players rarely enter a situation where they would be allowed to push CvC out of the situations where it is enjoyable. The rare situations where it does occur are instances of item theft where the victim has consent until the item is returned or compensated for, if the item is destroyed.

There are a few people that technically still have free reign to kill me under policy because I possess items that I stole from them - and they know that I stole them. Does this mean I'm constantly watching my back for them to come and kill me? Absolutely not - the time for that behavior is past. I stole it, they chased me around for a few hours, I didn't cheat and run off to other cities, the islands, safe rooms, no locate areas, or any of that. They eventually gave up, I got away with it. In short, it was a game and I won.

That's the important part, really. It's a game, but type 2 people don't want to play if they're not pretty sure they're going to win. In other words, Type 2 people are poor sports and sore losers. Sadly, these are the people the consent policy was designed for, not the Type 1 people.

I still strongly support the idea of a 'CvC' flag which a player could set that would indicate to anyone who also had their flag set that they are uninterested in reporting under the consent policy. People who did NOT have the flag set would be unable to determine if someone had the flag set. It's basically an extension of WARN COMBAT. It would allow Type 3 players to identify each other easily and wouldn't affect anyone else.

Of course, it's not like we haven't had any recent examples of GM sponsored CvC that turned out well or anything to support the 'flag' idea that certain players have been asking for.

>>There are consequences for violating policy, the report is just a means of communicating to the staff that policy has been broken.

>>Being reported when you haven't broken policy is extremely unlikely to result in you being penalized. A baseless report is just that, baseless.

1. I've watched folks get in trouble over baseless reports.

2. So where is the recourse for a baseless report then? There's quite a few notes on my account and just about every conflict I get into results in a GM consultation.

Now ask me how many PvP Warnings I have. NONE. Not one on any character on any account of mine. I think at this point I've had a consult with well over half the GM population in this game.

-Galren Moonskin

!>You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde screaming in barbaric approval of your deeds.

"but Flavius pretty much disagreed by the way policy is being enforced, if he agrees with the original poster of this thread."

Okay- I don't even understand the point you are trying to make there. I do agree with the original poster- try to RP it out, whisper if necessary to try to explain to the other person you do not wish to continue with the conflict, and at last resort Report. Make sense ot me.




"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"

Okay Kaishi- some agreements- some disagreements:

DP War- agree- well done all around- everyone involved wanted to be involved and no one was abusing the situation.

That is very different from what often happens. I disagree with your categories also- add a third category there-
People who think CvC means bullying others so they can kill them.

In general they might fall into category #2- except they might not report, they just work very hard to pick on only those they feel they can kill.

I think that a large amount of DR would like to enjoy the game without being bullied to participate in what they don't want to participate in- perhaps the majority. Unlike yourself, I don't have a good census on what groups the majority of DR falls in. However, I rarely see sub level 10 characters attempting to bully those 20 or 30 levels above them. I have often encountered the reverse.

I think Type 3 have no greater perspective than others. I think that you and they have and advocate their own very narrow perspective.

"Why do conflicts always end in death? Because that's when policy says that they end. I can't beat someone down, slap them around, and leave them with a bloody nose in game because if I don't strike hard and kill them, they'll get healed and come back until I DO kill them."

I do find that funny though- because if all you were concerned about was RP, then why would you care about consent? You blame consent on that? If there were no consent rules, the exact same options would be availible to you.

Where I find agreement with you is the CvC flag- seems like a reasonable option to me.

"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"

ALDEN,

>>If you don't get involved with conflict, you don't get reported. I feel comfortable with this assertion because a) I (to my knowledge) have never been reported and b) strongly suspect that Strange has.

This is a two-way street, remember? Some people LIKE conflict. Why should they always have to walk away just because the opposing party will abuse the report function?

The issue here is that so many people report, that they're destroying the other part of the street. It's hard to get in good conflict these days. This latest CvC event with DPs was GM sponsored, and shows how fun a conflict can be if there's no instant reporting.

>>From what I have seen on the boards, those that most strongly advocate that nobody should ever report, are folks who also complain about getting reported.

That's an assumption, and it looks like you're starting to realize that it's not really true.

>>Why am I never encountering such people? Why am I never being reported? Really according to your propostion, I should get involved with such griefers regularly, and have to figure out some way to deal with them without being reported.

Because you avoid conflict? I mean sure, if everyone walked away from every single conflict then they'd never encounter such people, and they'd never be reported. Some people just don't like to walk away from conflicts.

Again, if I'm in an IC conflict with someone, I should not be FORCED to walk away from it because I have a pretty good feeling the player behind their character will report at the drop of a hat. That's a one-way street there.

>>But I would imagine that some folks abuse the report mechanism, just as others attempt to bully others in order to initiate unwanted conflicts. Neither should be acceptable.

This is my point. (1)

>>Okay- I don't even understand the point you are trying to make there. I do agree with the original poster- try to RP it out, whisper if necessary to try to explain to the other person you do not wish to continue with the conflict, and at last resort Report. Make sense ot me.

You will be issued a warning for an unconsented kill. The reporter doesn't have to try to RP it out, the reporter doesn't have to even try to whisper. All they have to do is report. Obviously, if you agree with RP'ing it out, then you disagree with how policy is often handled.

My understanding of policy is to prevent harassment, not to eliminate RP. People that report faster than you can be taken to jail (I honestly almost had this before. The GM pulled me up just a few seconds after mechanics placed me in jail for killing someone in town. I was sent back down with a warning in less than 30 seconds total, without getting a chance to explain or anything.) completely destroy any chance of RP that can come out of the situation.

Now, with that being said... people that generally bully others and are in violation of the enforcement of policy are given warnings, and eventually lockouts. This is not acceptable, according to enforcement of the policy. This is also not acceptable according to you. (1)

People that abuse the report function do NOT get warnings and do not get lockouts. This is not acceptable according to you.

However, there won't be much abuse from those that bully others and are in violation of the enforcement of policy, simply because they will get locked out.

There is/will be a lot of abuse from those that abuse the report function, simply because they won't get locked out. You said both are not acceptable, so why is only one side of it getting punished? This is a two-way street, right?





Vinjince

---

"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."

- Sima Yi

>When it comes to CvC, there are three general broad categories:

I think you forgot the fourth category:

4) People who are okay with CvC when there is an interesting and legitimate RP reason behind it, but do not think baiting others into mindless and groundless conflict is either fun or, in a great many cases, even character-driven RP.

Not saying that there aren't characters out there whose players have worked out consistent and well-constructed backgrounds that legitimize their "evil" or just anti-social RP. Just that there are far, far too many who are just being driven by jerks out to annoy and frustrate others.

You can rationalize their right to do so, but it's just hypocritical to pretend that they don't exist and that those who don't want to interact with them are the ones with the problem.


Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen

A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.

>>>MANNOND's post

Ding!

I've not yet been party to a CvC conflict throughout my entire history in this game. (I realize that some of you may find that to be somewhat of a shock, but it is true. I hope you recover from the shock soon.)

I've been close a couple of times. Most recent was when my character was being annoyed by a certain obnoxious Rakash who didn't get the hint that my character would have zero interest in him whatsoever. So I, through my character's eyes, simply stated that if he didn't step back, I'd throw a stick for him to fetch. A deeply personal stick, and one that he would be highly attached to. (For those that don't read vague allusion very well, translate that as "pulling a Bobbitt" on him.) Of course, I find out later that he had about 30 circles on me, which would have made no difference whatsoever to my character's reactions at the time.

When it does happen, I would bloody well hope that there is a solid RP foundation for it before we come to blows, such as with the above scenario. If there is not that foundation, then there is absolutely zero reason for me, via my characters' different thought processes, to continue the conflict. CvC conflict is, to my view, senseless unless it has that in-character relationship and history and therefore would go out of bounds for a CvC conflict and into the realm of simple PvP.

I don't play this game to pit my skills as a player against people. I play this game in order to create a character, complete with different viewpoints and reactions than my own. So if there is no in-game justification for a conflict, why should my characters even bother with it as it bears no relation to what they are doing.

I can have senseless PvP by playing WoW, occasionally with the opportunity for parity and even odds where player skill comes into effect even with all the twinks in the system. So why would I seek it here?

The bottom line for me is that, if it's not the way my character would react to the provocation, then it is too OOC for me to bother with it, regardless of how the consent issue works out.

Amagaim; the player of,

---

The whole of nature is a conjugation of the verb to eat, in the active and the passive.
--- William Ralph Inge

>> As far as what I actually think: I think the policies on this subject are abysmal because they tend to protect griefers and not their victims.

Funnily enough, I think the opposite. Or rather that quite a few of those supposed victims are more worthy of the griefer, snert, or whatever overdone meaningless title you'd like to use themselves.

My perspective is rather simple. If you don't want CvC (and I apply this standard to myself too because heaven knows I'm not always in the mood for it)...Fine! I support your right to play the game the way you want to. However, it's your responsibility at that point to avoid doing anything that can reasonably be construed as conflictual.

Does this mean that someone might rob, insult or bother your character for no reason and leave you with no like way to respond without inviting conflict? Yes.

Does this mean that you may have to forfeit inserting yourself into arguments or fights, even between your friends and someone you believe is being excessively cruel to them? Yes.

Does this mean holding your tongue when you feel the desire to speak rudely about someone, whether or not you think they're listening? Yes.

Does this all sound kind of restrictive with regards to roleplay? Well, yes. That's because it is. We all have to make concessions in one way or another and we all need to be aware of our own consequences and responsibilities regarding our actions.

My own responsibility is to try and make sure that people are aware of the consequences of their actions one way or another before I carry through with anything violent. This is the same responsibility anyone that plays a conflictual character has. If your character is not conflictual, that does not mean you are not still responsible for their/your conduct. You do not get to viciously insult my character with absolutely no consequences just because you aren't interested in CvC for whatever reason. It just doesn't work like that, nor should it.

>> It chaps my hide when I see someone victimized and, as much as it is in my character's makeup to go after the victimizer (and possibly even die in the attempt), I really can't. Why? Because the vast majority of those who engage in this behaviour will start screaming (to me, the GMs, often anyone in earshot) that I don't have consent on them the minute they figure out (or assume) that my character can bring them down.

I agree. In this case, the policy is how it is to account for people that would abuse it, and it's unfortunate that intervention I would consider perfectly reasonable is not alright under policy. There are villains out there that would roll with it but entirely too many that wouldn't - which is that type B we keep referring back to.

I repeat it again for the masses: The next time you (general you) feel a need to report someone over a conflict, ask yourself if you would still be doing so if you had won the fight and killed them. If the answer is no, you should not be reporting them.

If I can change even one person's perspective on this issue I'll consider it a good thing.

---

Rev. Reene

Syralon whispers to your group, "Gentlemen, to evil!"

Does this mean that someone might rob, insult or bother your character for no reason and leave you with no like way to respond without inviting conflict? Yes.

Does this mean that you may have to forfeit inserting yourself into arguments or fights, even between your friends and someone you believe is being excessively cruel to them? Yes.

Does this mean holding your tongue when you feel the desire to speak rudely about someone, whether or not you think they're listening? Yes.

---

And the above is why so many people cry/report. They want their cake (the ability to trash talk) and eat it too (report you when you choose how to deal with it).

-Galren Moonskin

!>You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde screaming in barbaric approval of your deeds.

>>why does it even exist?

To be helpful to those that use it for the right reasons. They can't help if it gets abused.

Look at scripting. You can always ask... why does scripting exist? It exists to help people from doing so many repetitive actions by hand. Does this mean it can't be abused? No.

And if you're in denial that reporting is using up a lot of GM resources then maybe you should try to check on it yourself. There's been more than just one GM who claimed that it's using up a lot of their time.

No one's trying to leap at your neck about this Alden, but from what I'm seeing, there's obviously a lot of stuff that you didn't know.


Vinjince

---

"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."

- Sima Yi

>>It exists so that . . .

What about when the little snotrag whose face you just rearranged logs in his 110th circle "brother," or is that still role-playing?
_

Moon Magic 101:
"A lethal spell is defined as a spell which, by itself, can cause the death of anyone other than the caster." --GM Armifer