>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."

This rule can already easily be applied to the current Guarded setting. If you steal from someone, you are saying that you accept responsibility for the consequences of that theft for a reasonable amount of time. It doesn't mean you are temporarily granting consent to everyone in the entire game for any reason or no reason.

>Point is, the act of gwethsmashing or stealing from someone is Open behavior.
>I have never heard of anyone asking the player of a character can they steal or gwethsmash their character before doing so.

No. These actions don't require consent. Killing (or 'wound-causing attack') does, and this is what the Open setting is for. When stealing and gwethsmashing require consent, then and only then is it appropriate to call them "Open behavior" in my opinion. Conflictual behavior yes, but what's the point of having a Guarded setting "for people who enjoy PVP and GM-less conflict" if they have to either ACT closed, or be forcibly set to Open?

---

RueaDR: It really freaks me out how much fluff people wear
There isn't a limit? I just passed a girl wearing fifteen lines of fluff, I counted!
Included in this was four broaches, two garters, a girdle and a corset
how is that physically possible

>>When stealing and gwethsmashing require consent, then and only then is it appropriate to call them "Open behavior" in my opinion.

Open behavior (key word being behavior) is not mainly defined by consent. It is defined by how conflictual one is against other players. You are confusing the words consent and conflict here.

If my character walks around and slaps everyone he meets, or threatens to kill anyone he runs across, technically, he's not doing anything that requires consent. However, he is still behaving in an open manner because he is being extremely conflictual. He is definitely not Guarded because Guarded behavior would have him asking the players would they like to conflict first. And obviously he isn't Closed if he did that.

---

Vinjince Rexem'lor

>He is definitely not Guarded because Guarded behavior would have him asking the players would they like to conflict first.

Okay first of all, this is not what Guarded means. It's a step ABOVE closed, not a caveat for "OoC whisper before interacting with me if you aren't a snugglebunny." Hell man, that would be more closed than Closed is.

>It is defined by how conflictual one is against other players. You are confusing the words consent and conflict here.

No, I'm not. Guarded and Open are BOTH Yes-PvP, Yes-Conflict. The only difference between them is(should be) that Open doesn't care if you skip the foreplay on consent. I'm not confusing them and blurring the lines, you are.

Either that or I'm the only person in the game who sees Guarded as Open-lite and not Closed II.

>>What's the point of having a Guarded setting "for people who enjoy PVP and GM-less conflict" if they have to either ACT closed, or be forcibly set to Open?

Still waiting for an answer to this before I bring out the REST of my argument, since I don't believe any further argument is necessary if it can't be.

---

RueaDR: It really freaks me out how much fluff people wear
There isn't a limit? I just passed a girl wearing fifteen lines of fluff, I counted!
Included in this was four broaches, two garters, a girdle and a corset
how is that physically possible

>>KOUGEN> I'm the only person in the game who sees Guarded as Open-lite

At least as far as players go. You have no idea.

A few days ago someone reported me for harassment, because Szrael gwethsmashed them after they falsely accused her of being a murderer on the gweths. I'd* gwethsmashed this same person a few weeks prior to this for emoting on the gweth.

Clearly a case of harassment!

People are crazy. Like, seriously. The vast majority of people have trouble being rational when it comes to losing fights or being gwethsmashed. That is why I consider guarded to be closed II and not open lite.

-- Player of Szrael --

---

You hear the voice of Solomon exclaim, "HAX!"

You scream!

* I consider smashing for OOC to be an OOC act.

Guarded is Closed II because there is no Policy distinction between the two.

The text of the Guarded stance can read whatever it wants - the Guarded player can decide to act Closed if things aren't going the way they'd prefer.

Not so Open. If you're Open, you are bound by your choice.

Guarded could only be Open Lite if it carried a binding rider. Something like:

"If the situation is any more complicated than 'I got jumped out of the blue by someone I have never seen or spoken to.' we won't get involved."

That would make Guarded a meaningful choice with binding consequences - more Open-Lite than Closed II.

- Mazrian

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

I think it's no coincidence I'm debating this with the three loudest advocates of setting everyone in the game to Open and letting the bodies fall where they may.

The problem with the proposed "solution" here is that it makes Guarded meaningless instead of meaning more. Which is going to accomplish nothing but making all the Guarded people go back to Closed, and encourage them to use REPORT to solve their problems to avoid being set to Open.

Even if Guarded worked, or was supposed to work, in the way Vinjince described it would be completely broken because - what if I DID arrange a conflict beforehand in IMs? The system can't track that. It will still set me to Open auto-magically even though I've behaved according to the Guarded setting to the utmost extreme.

---

RueaDR: It really freaks me out how much fluff people wear
There isn't a limit? I just passed a girl wearing fifteen lines of fluff, I counted!
Included in this was four broaches, two garters, a girdle and a corset
how is that physically possible

or, you could utilize some of the facilities that are set up for pvp in-game, such as the arena down in steel-claw clan in ilithi.

Although there are drawbacks to using that system.

1. fee
2. you can't use your own gear, you're stuck with store-bought stuff

and, i'm not sure what effect the mana storms had in those rooms for MUs.



The undead hordes would like to take this moment to remind you that they are quite happy to eat your brains so that you may test new depart.Please consider it.Hugs and kisses, Team Necro.

>I think it's no coincidence I'm debating this with the three loudest advocates of setting everyone in the game to Open and letting the bodies fall where they may.

I've been reading and I agree with them. I've just had nothing further to add.

I think you should set yourself to open, just to prove them wrong. Or.. maybe you wont because you are worried you would be proved wrong?

<<Crazy? In an online video game/MMORPG? No way!

<<http://www.watchtheguild.com/

welcome to 3 years ago. On a side note Felicia Day is fairly hot.

>I think you should set yourself to open, just to prove them wrong. Or.. maybe you wont because you are worried you would be proved wrong?

Setting myself to Open manually could never possibly prove or disprove anything currently being discussed. Are you sure you've been reading?

>Kougan,

Effort, dude. Seriously.

>Why are you so fearful of being set to Open?

Don't confuse "fearful" and "don't want to be". It's an equally valid opinion that conflicting with one person should not grant consent to everyone in the game. Furthermore, this has little to do with me because I'm not one of the people who behaves in the manner you have a problem with.

>All setting someone Open for first-strike does is make them think twice about the utility of escalating a situation, and eliminate any policy playing they might be tempted to engage in afterward.

For being the one with no faith in the players who have actually stepped up to use the Guarded setting, I can't believe it escapes you that the forced-Open proposal would only make policy players update their baiting tactics and Report just as quickly and furiously as before, while doing absolutely nothing to fix the "Szrael's-gwethsmashing-victim problem." (Which is apparently relevant since she keeps bringing it up.)

>But don't claim you're 'Open-Lite' then refuse to go Open with a quote attached to it for further explanation.

Other than the fact that I'm using my quote to actually be a quote at the moment, this suggestion is meaningless because as Mazrian points out, Policy Implications > all. I remain Guarded because it most accurately expresses my preferences as a player regarding involving my character in violent conflicts given the three current choices. I really have nothing to gain by inviting irresponsible players to come get their free PK jollies, even if it never happens. That includes any ridiculous notion of a fuller, richer, elitist roleplaying experience.

It might also be worth reminding you that the GM you so passionately encourage to get this idea implemented currently sets his PCs to Guarded.

---

RueaDR: It really freaks me out how much fluff people wear
There isn't a limit? I just passed a girl wearing fifteen lines of fluff, I counted!
Included in this was four broaches, two garters, a girdle and a corset
how is that physically possible

1. OPEN - This setting indicates that you welcome any conflict with any person at any time. This is a dangerous setting and should not be chosen lightly, as it will leave you open to random attacks without any recourse available from a GM. Basically, if you have this set, you are on your own when it comes to PVP and you accept that completely.

2. GUARDED - This setting indicates that you are open to PVP conflicts, provided you're aware they're coming. This option is good for people who enjoy PVP and enjoy "GM-less" conflict, as long as all parties involved are consenting and have agreed beforehand what's going to happen.

---

I know that those descriptions were vague for a reason but I think Guarded could be expanded upon just to clear things up a bit. Specifically mentioning non lethal actions and how that comes to play seeing how there is some confusion about it still.

Kougen,

You aren't the only one. I just stopped reading this thread a few days ago because it was the same 4 people arguing that everyone who isn't open should be forced to be open if they ever have the temerity to look cross eyed at anyone.

Flavius is Guarded- if he feels the need to act offensively towards someone he will take his lumps from that person. That doesn't mean he needs to be set to open because he gwethsmashed someone for Blasphemy, it means the person he gwethsmashed is welcome to come kill Flavius(and he did). If Flavius kills some idiot for slapping him repeatedly, that doesn't mean Flavius should be set to Open so that idiot's idiot friends can all come kill Flavius too. Let idiot do his own wet work.

One of the reasons I feel no need to be Open is the same reason I rarely act offensively- its usually not much fun to kill someone. The rare occasions when conflict comes my way it is usually some idiot trying to provoke a response so he can get consent to have some fun. I usually do not find such idiots fun to play with. Clerics don't have locate or travel abilities so when idiot run's off to the islands or gates to Theran its just not worth my time to find someone to track him down.

Frankly, if they wanted to change the Profile system dramatically at all, I would say just do away with it entirely. We can go back to the way it was before the profile system and I wouldn't care at all.

>>Almost all of you Open advocates whined mightily that all you wanted(prior to profiles) was a way to show everyone that you were open for anything- that consent rules don't apply for your characters.

I'm not sure who you're referring to but it wasn't me. I'd rather drop the consent policy entirely and go with a harassment policy.

Profiles came into the discussion after being involved in more than one situation where someone claimed they welcomed conflict but turned around and reported. It had nothing to do with me wanting people to know the stance on my character but everything to do with others being honest about their stances so I don't have to waste my time.

So yeah, you got something wrong there.

>>So then you change your tune and start gripping about everyone who isn't Open. That there needs to be mandatory stuff here and mandatory stuff there.

I make suggestions. I have talked with people over IMs and they'll tell you I never EVER pushed the issue. I don't even want to suggest it to you or Kougen since you're both obviously set in your ways.

The problem comes when people like you get overly defensive over suggestions being made. Armifer made a suggestion despite his PCs being Guarded, and then Kougen starts whining about it. If you or Kougen are so comfortable in your positions then it shouldn't be a problem. If you fail to understand how helpful the profile system is to the entire game (which you obviously do), then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on it at all.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but answer this:

If someone is curious about the profile system, what is wrong with me suggesting they give being Open a try and then go back if it doesn't work out?

Answer that one and then explain why there's so much whining over it, bud.

---

Vinjince Rexem'lor

>>Probably because every time profile comes up you post the same thing and get annoyed when people tell you no.

Every time it comes up there is generally a new person who is curious. I present my side of the argument and then the same people (Flavius and you) make a crusade against my suggestions. I have had more than one IM sent to me asking me about my views so, I really don't care how you feel about it.

>>Yes, it does come across like pushing, and yes, I do see their point that it's sort of tedious after awhile.

I respond.

Take a look back on this thread and read my first post on it (2826). No pushing at all, and I am only posting now because people respond and challenge me on my views. If you are so sensitive and bothered by it then feel free to ignore me.

---

Vinjince Rexem'lor

I reserve the right to report gross misconduct against myself/my character. Hence guarded.

When I was guarded, anyway.

Use the comments.. follow the comments.. whisper "Hey look at my comments"

Anyone got anything new?


_____________________
>>I'm constantly amazed by the things that people do in game that would get them punched in the face in RL, but then they try to claim that they didn't do anything that would warrent a PvP situation.<<
-Evran

Snarking goes elsewhere.


Annwyl
Senior Board Monitor

If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing Senior Board Monitor DR-Annwyl@play.net, or Message Board Supervisor DR-Cecco@play.net.

Advocates of Open,
Would you concede the rights of players killed without an in character purpose* to be included under either the Harassment or Disruptive Behaviors policies? For which they can report?

*An in character purpose defined: Someone you have provoked in any way at any time, from the lowest slur to first degree murder, even through their relations.



"So it is a sword, It just happens to function like a key in very specific situations."
"...or it's a key all the time, and when you stick it in people, it unlocks their death."

"or you didn't perceive you won the situation"

Mazrian, I am not sure how you managed to twist my words to mean this, but I will clarify for you. I have never reported a CvC attack, though Flavius has been killed I think three times in conflicts. My record is easy to keep track of because I am 1 for 4 in a win to loss ratio.

Your quote: "Under the right circumstances you would report a player for PvP because it didn't fit your definition of 'fair' play"

What I say: "Under the right circumstances I would report a player for PvP because he both clearly violed consent and did so with no regard to whether it was going to be fun for me too. If what he did irritated me enough, and I hadn't institigated the annoyance, I might report."

"IMO it's pretty dishonest to say you wouldn't report but explicitly reserve the right to report."

I am not sure where I ever said I would never report. I certainly reserve the right to report, though I have never used it.

So I think we might just want to stop the whole calling dishonesty track right now, because it will quickly disolve. I see no inconsistancy in my comfortability with Guarded stance. I think it very clearly describes how I wish Flavius to be perceived. Anyone who doesn't want to play with Flavius because he is Guarded, please do so. As I have said before- I don't even check profiles- I don't care what anyone's profile is, I will treat them the same.

A lot of you are deliberately poisoning the well right now and frankly I am glad you won't interact with me if I'm guarded because you don't sound like the kind of people I want to interact with anyway.

---

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"

>>Examples: player a is anti-elf dwarf, is known to be anti-dwarf by most of the population, insults elves whenever in the same room, regardless of circle,etc -- and if player B plays an Elf, they can both be guarded and get into some serious rp-ed conflict. Not just a coming up and killing b out of the blue.<<

But player A or player B can decide they don't like how things are going and report, and potentially get the other side in trouble. They can switch preferences at any time and the other side has no idea until they're in a consult.


- Mazrian

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