If the GMs are going to let people police the gweths they really should be trained in what is and is not an appropriate use.

Its farily simple to figure out

"Am I smashing this person for the good of the realms?"

Example: Blatant repedative OOC chatter, cursing/cussing, things that specifically break policy

if the answer is yes then sure smash away.

"Am I smashing this person for personal gain"

Example: they insulted me, they don't share my view point, they said something I thought was stupid?

if the answer is Yes, then its not a reason to use a gweth smasher, you're just being a snert.

If your reason for smashing someone ever includes I my or me you probably shouldn't be smashing anyones gweths

As far as it being "contested" that's a complete scapegoat, no its not circle based but someone who is 50th circle vs someone who is 15th circle is still going to have better stats simply because they have more TDPs to spend. Further more, generally only higher circle characters are going to have gweth smashers due to their expense. This leaves lower level character to be without any type of reasonable recourse to the situation. Its currently the equivalent of taking someone's <insert pricey item here> and telling them if they can jump this 100 yard wide canyon on foot they can have it back. Doesn't matter how much of a running start you get... its never going to happen.

/wasn't who got smashed
//still thinks its bull crap
///flame on

Neither, why?

Must admit... I love being the guy selling gweths AND gwethsmashers.

I feel like such an arms dealer.

---

Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."

>>And gwethsmashing should automatically set your profile to open.

Oooo... please no! That's too harsh!

---

Vinjince Rexem'lor

Gweth smashing is great.

Giving out personal information is weird.

>"Am I smashing this person for personal gain"

>Example: they insulted me, they don't share my view point, they said something I thought was stupid?

>if the answer is Yes, then its not a reason to use a gweth smasher, you're just being a snert.

It's not that black and white in my opinion. Some characters have been developed to not put up with insults over the gweth or in person and smashing them would be appropriate for them to do so. In fact if they didn't it would probably be breaking character for them.

You used the term personal gain and that makes me wonder if you are referring to character personal gain or player personal gain. You might do better to see things as a RPing opportunity. I realize it is easy to slip into the thought pattern of taking things personally but we really should be focusing on what our characters would do. Some might argue that people who smash are just trying to instigate conflict. You shouldn't forget conflict brings an opportunity to RP.

Without knowing the circumstances in which sparked you to write this post it is difficult to make a call on it. In any case.. so what if it was what you termed "snerty" behavior? It doesn't mean the player can't grasp the opportunity to RP it out.

All this has been said in the past and no doubt this thread will be moved to the dead horse folder.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QQ

---

Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."

I'd like a power point presentation on this, yes.

Also the policy is what is is because, as has been stated by GMs in the past, the alternative was worse (Because the way things were before this policy was unacceptable). Thus don't expect this to gain a lot of traction.

---

Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."

>>And gwethsmashing should automatically set your profile to open.

I agree, actually. But I also think PC theft, offensive spell casting, and a number of social verbs (SLAP, etc.) should do it too. Essentially, any consent-granting action that we can quantify.

I'm 100% behind the idea that if you instigate a hostile scene among players, either practically or implicitly, you should be forced to pay the piper. People who want to be -PvP should be required to act the part.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas

>>I agree, actually. But I also think PC theft, offensive spell casting, and a number of social verbs (SLAP, etc.) should do it too. Essentially, any consent-granting action that we can quantify.

I'm with you all the way man. I'll buy you a year's worth of booze too if you can get it done.

---

Vinjince Rexem'lor

>>I'll chip in. Completely agree and think it would make the game a better place.

Also, give barbs the ability to smash.


Crusader Taghz

DFA = DISC + AGIL + TM > Evasion + Reflex

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.

I am not willing to speculate any further on magic-using Barbarians until after their own guild systems receive some attention. In the current state of the game, that, too, is dead horse material.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas

>>I agree with bumping Closed to Guarded, but why Open?

Because its an attack on someone. Some of just see an attack on our property just as much a violation as an attack on our body. What you are doing basically says about you, 'I'm going to do something against your character without needing any reason for doing so.' That is open, not guarded.

>>and I started this post with genuine interest to help.

>>It was everyone else who started making snide jibs about cowardice and go cry in your milk newb.

Mmmmmk. Maybe you should go back and read the OP? I mean I know you posted it, but you seem to be unclear as to what it actually says.

>>I think I'm starting to see what the issues are with this realm and that this is not actually an outlet to use if you want anything more than to be told you're stupid so shut up and go home. Good to know.

When you're acting stupid you're called stupid? What about that is counterintuitive?

---

TG, TG, GL, et al.
Also: Moo.

>>I agree with bumping Closed to Guarded, but why Open? <<

1) You're should never be able to pick who you attack AND who can respond to your attack.

2) It would prevent policy playing by instituting a simple rule - "If you start or escalate trouble, you are responsible for all the consequences for a reasonable amount of time."

- Mazrian

The Flying Company
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d194/huldahspal/flyingcompany.png

I'm not in favor of anything that forces a change in PvP setting. The setting should never reflect anything other than the profiled player's preferences, in my opinion.

I don't see how an automated flag changing system would work anyhow. How would the system be able to track existing consent? Clearly, acting on consent already granted (attacking the thief you caught in your pocket, or anyone else who's actions gave consent via less trackable means for that matter) should never force you into an open setting that would allow attacks from previously uninvolved third parties.

If Bob gives Abe consent, then Bob should have to deal with Abe alone. Bob shouldn't be able to involve six of his closest friends just because Abe takes a justified shot at Bob and finds his PvP flag forced to open.

>>I don't see how an automated flag changing system would work anyhow. How would the system be able to track existing consent? <<

The system can already track who strikes first in any particular engagement. I imagine it would be possible to code the flag change to happen only when striking first.

>>If Bob gives Abe consent, then Bob should have to deal with Abe alone. Bob shouldn't be able to involve six of his closest friends just because Abe takes a justified shot at Bob and finds his PvP flag forced to open.<<

I don't agree with this as a principle. Bob should not be able to start a fight and then pick who gets to respond.

- Mazrian

The Flying Company
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d194/huldahspal/flyingcompany.png

<<And it would reflect the profiled player's preferences based off their actions. If you're set to Closed, then don't go around behaving as if you're Open. Be a Closed person.

Closed or guarded doesn't require abstaining from PvP. They require limiting PvP to the confines of policy.

Acting on consent granted you by another player does not in any way constitute 'behaving as if you're open', nor should doing so ever effectively grant consent to a third party. Ever.

The only time it would be reasonable to force a player's flag to open for PvP activity would be for initiating ... never for responding. However, the system can't track all means of granting consent and therefor would have no way of knowing whether any given attack was an initiation of conflict or a response to a consent granting provocation.

>>However, the system can't track all means of granting consent and therefor would have no way of knowing whether any given attack was an initiation of conflict or a response to a consent granting provocation. <<

It can track a lot of them. Probably almost everything except a purely verbal argument.


- Mazrian

The Flying Company
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d194/huldahspal/flyingcompany.png

>> I'll buy you a year's worth of booze too if you can get it done.

Armifer has so many people wanting to buy him liquor at this point that he could probably completely avoid sobriety for the rest of grad school.

---

Rev. Reene

Your mind hears Aislynn thinking, "Hrrr. Just not Caelumia. She creates multi-dimensional pain that defies the laws of anatomy."
Your mind hears Azatia thinking, "she's good like that"