Hello everyone

What follows below is very long, and in some places may look a little complex -- but please take the time to read through it. It will also be available in the near future for in-game review via NEWS.

One of the most frustrating and confusing scenarios in which staff is requested to intervene are those that involve PvP. In the last few years we've found ourselves trying to adjudicate as many situations as fairly as possible to both sides of a dispute, and adapting the consent policies with each generation as we go. And obviously what may have worked yesterday, may just not be a fair ruling today and vice versa. So in the last week Riel and I sat down and reviewed many of the major types of PvP complaints, with Solomon's approval we've managed to come up with a series of clarification to the current rules of "consent."

Now -- some of what you will read will look similar to Policy as it stands. However some of it is a complete reversal from previous stances, so read through each section carefully. Despite the occasional grumble to the contrary ;) , we really do try to strive for consistency and a level of fair mediation in an effort to preserve the general game playing environment. To that end, the general GM staff received a copy of these exact rules approximately one week ago for review. These changes are effective immediately. We expect a period of adjustment on both sides of the fence, at least for the next several weeks or so.

We are working to strongly encourage players to role-play their way out of conflicts, settling disputes among one another in-game and without staff intervention. Obviously we will never be able to cover every conceivable circumstance or scenario, but hopefully these guidelines will help to solve some chronically occurring problems. As always, if there are any questions feel free to post them in the response folder.

Sincerely,

Auriane Macaria, CE SGM and Riel's Capo

* Clarifications on Consent (effective 4/1/2002) *


Theft:

Taking something from another player can be considered consent, regardless of method. This not only includes graverobbing, but money, gems, items and kills. Yes, you heard that last part correctly. Nobody owns a room that does not change. But if the intruder insists on interfering with the occupying party's hunting, or begins to take items, skins, or kills that obviously should have gone to the occupants first -- then they (the intruders) ARE operating under implied consent. This does NOT mean that the occupants may shoot first and ask questions later. But it does mean that if they have reasonably requested that the intruders leave the items/critters be, and that request is not honored, then they have the right to seek recompense. In addition, items on the ground, being obviously guarded by another player, are grounds for consent if stolen or deliberately destroyed. Interpretation: If you take something that does not belong to, nor was intended for you in the first place, expect to take your lumps without us bailing you out.

Magic / Ranged:

All “actively” offensive spells, including (but not limited to) Mental Blast, Swarm, and Harawep's Bond are considered to provide consent. "Passive" magic like Dazzle, Halt or Confusion are consent IF they place the target in danger. For example, if Halt is cast on a player in a hunting area preventing the player from being able to defend themselves, or if passive spells are used as part of a combined/coordinated attack on said target. Targeting or prepping a non-offensive spell during a player conflict, then casting at them to taunt them and aggravate the situation CAN be considered implied consent -- especially if the opposing player has no way to tell what type of spell was being prepared. The same goes for aiming a ranged weapon at another player, to do so is an obvious threat to that person. If they choose to act on that threat is their decision, you take that chance by taking aim at them. Interpretation: Don’t point a loaded weapon at someone, or cast a spell at him or her, if you’re not willing to deal with the consequences.

"Non-physical" attacks:

Any statement, emote or action used in a negative manner against another player has the potential to be considered consent – especially when it is deliberately used to goad the target into a physical encounter. There should be evidence of provocation strong enough to warrant a reasonable person to respond in a negative manner. A single taunt, slap, kick etc alone may not be sufficient. However, if a player is repeatedly and openly insulting another player, or kicking, punching, slapping, etc. -- then that person is operating under implied consent. In other words, if their target gets tired of the abuse and chooses to react in a more physical manner, they have the ability to do so. If the abuser has been reasonably warned to cease their behavior, and they continue with said actions, then they are giving their target consent. "Hit me again and I will kill you." Abuser does it again, bingo -- he just consented. Interpretation: Don’t write checks your player won’t cash. Do not expect staff intervention in situations that you have provoked, exacerbated or kept deliberately ongoing. You will be expected to deal with the repercussions of your actions.

Friends / Spouses aiding the "victim":

It is not considered a violation of policy for a player to provide non-violent intervention and assistance to the victim of a crime (such as grave robbery). This will include the use of magic or skills to search for, delay and detain the criminal in order to facilitate the victim exacting revenge and/or obtaining his/her belongings where warranted. A player's pre-existing and recognized spouse may however, act on their behalf and be considered to have consent as well through their relationship to the victim. It remains against policy for a player to then bring in an "older" and more experienced character on their account in order to attack their opponent, this falls under mechanics abuse and will be treated as such. Interpretation: Your pre-existing spouse falls under your umbrella of consent, but no way are we gonna buy your 50th circle “brother” just “happened by”.

Eye for an Eye:

In the cases of direct player dispute, consent can be called satisfied at a responding death -- and the conflict called to a halt. In cases of item theft however, for as long as the thief retains the item or items in question, they are operating under implied consent and the victim has the right to try and retrieve their things in an IC setting. This means it is NOT satisfied by one death if the thief retains the items. Deliberately attempting to "walk" a player remains against policy, but short of that -- the thief is accountable for their actions until the item or items are returned to their owner or the parties mutually end the conflict. In any PvP scenario, the instigator should not be able to suddenly cry foul when things go awry. Interpretation: Getting killed once does not mean you get a “Get away with theft free” card. You will remain accountable for the consequences incurred by your actions – until such time as it becomes unreasonable and disruptive to the general game play environment.

"But I was just Rping!"

Claiming to be role-playing an insane person, serial killer or mass murderer is not an acceptable reason for engaging in unprovoked PvP. While we are working to encourage players to settle their disputes in an IC manner as much as is conceivably possible -- this will never be a reasonable defense. Whenever feasible, we will be looking to utilizing and implementing IC repercussions. These include things like the justice system, Guild-specific punishments etc. Interpretation: Do the crime, do the time.

So when is it truly Unconsented PvP?

Obviously we cannot cover every possible scenario that will arise. When one player attacks or kills another without a determinable cause that is potential grounds for unconsented PvP. This includes players getting involved in conflicts that do not involve them in any direct fashion. It covers those who like to bully younger players, inciting them into an altercation without their knowledge of policy or what their options are as far as response goes. If it is clearly obvious that this is the case, please expect that we will pursue the instigator in regards to Disruptive Behavior if the situation is not resolved quickly and to everyone’s satisfaction. Attempts to “hide” behind Policy will no longer be tolerated. Interpretation: Pick on somebody your own size who’s willing to throw down with you, or expect to find yourself on the wrong side of the law.