Removal of the Cabal Interference Mandate(or Revision)

[Zrothum]

Well, unless 30K is including areas that haven't been switched over to main yet. I think the MUD is sitting about 24K playable rooms.

[Fīv]

FL: By the Numbers

Rooms: 24200

Unique Mobs: ..

...

...

...

That is including areas that haven't been implemented.

- grannyman

Yea.. I rounded to the nearest hundred.

[Zrothum]

Numbers schmumbers. This is just punishment not fitting the crime. Uncabaled person attacks a decked cabal elder after they placed a stolen standard at his altar while no one else was in the area, which is violating a questionable mandate. IMM slay, full sac including some extremely rare eq. Not to mention it happen to Ryden and Morgwean because of the same person.

Anyhow, been fun debating with you all today. My view on the whole situation was changed slightly, in that my belief that a rule like this should indeed exist, however, I am still unmoved that it holds some rather big flaws. Yet, I understand that it is not the will of the IMMStaff to change it, regardless of the playerbases opinion, since the IMMStaff does not feel it needs to be changed.

I'm off to bed, see you all tomorrow...maybe I'll dream up something good to make this weekend, shrug. Hopefully I'll be out on the grid iron in pads and cleats, takin people's heads off.

[Malchaeius]

Please do not confuse 3 or 4 forum "loudmouths" (I do not mean this in a pejorative manner. I mean it in the sense that you are the avid opinionated posters) as constituting the will/opinion of the -ENTIRE- playerbase, or even the majority of the playerbase.

Honestly, I attribute most of this post to a knee-jerk reaction.

[Zrothum]

Not sure I understand what you mean by knee-jerk? Sure, I was rather irrate when it all happened, but it was only then that I actually realized how far you guys are taking this cabal interference stuff. I mean really, an IMMslay and full sac because I attacked a decked cabal elder who was alone in an area? Regardless of any rule or mandate or anything. Just think about it like that. The only thing I did wrong was a break a rule. If attacking a decked cabal elder when he's alone after stealing a cabals item is breaking a rule....does't it even seem a LITTLE harsh? I was fine until I was told my eq wasn't being returned. Eshaine summoned me and said the punishment is a death. Im pissed but like yea, well i broke a rule, ill deal with the death. Then no eq....then they give me my own ear. I was fuming lol.

[Malchaeius]

Not sure I understand what you mean by knee-jerk?

I mean:

I was rather irrate when it all happened

and

I was fine until I was told my eq wasn't being returned.

Sleep on it. Then re-read this entire thread. You will see what I mean.

[Zrothum]

pish posh. I wont have all my points belittled because of that comment. The principle remains. I was fine taking just a death if you all thought it was necessary with this bogus mandate. But a slay and taking every single piece of my eq? That punishment does not fit what I did. Forget the word RULE or MANDATE for a moment and look at only what happened.

I attacked a decked cabal elder who was alone in front of his cabal after doing nothing more than his duties. Duties that should in no way shape or form give him some sort of pk protection since he CHOSE to become a cabaled character in a world full of danger.

Death and full sac? When I didn't even KILL him?

My eq has nothing to do with my dislike for the rule. I have more time on my hands than 99% of people who play this game. I can make, rank, and train characters in mere days. I know every area in the game. EQ means nothing to me. Time means nothing to me. Being F"d in the bum because this game is turning into nothing more than a barbie playground is what is getting to me. Sooner or later there will be so many checklists you have to go through before you can ever THINK about attacking someone. The element of danger in this game is just being killed.

If eq was why I was mad, why didn't I just delete Zothorius? Why did I log on my DECKED ogre nexus TRUSTED and delete? Because the 50 range is nothing I want to play while this rule exists. It's doing nothing but candy-coating what used to be a dangerous world.

[Iyorvin]

Zrothum, stating examples you don't know about won't help your cause. I agree to disagree with the entire situation. It's a good rule, but the caballed members, especially T's should take some restrictions too. Mediocre to skilled players know that if they get behind a T of a strong skill set cabal(ie. TEMPORUM), that no one(uncaballed) is going to touch them one on one. So you see these scourge wannabees multi killing and mass killing the pbase with little to no challenge, and little to no purpose save feeding their ego. Trust me, this used to be me.

Peace.

[Iyorvin]

pish posh. I wont have all my points belittled because of that comment. The principle remains. I was fine taking just a death if you all thought it was necessary with this bogus mandate. But a slay and taking every single piece of my eq? That punishment does not fit what I did. Forget the word RULE or MANDATE for a moment and look at only what happened.

I attacked a decked cabal elder who was alone in front of his cabal after doing nothing more than his duties. Duties that should in no way shape or form give him some sort of pk protection since he CHOSE to become a cabaled character in a world full of danger.

Death and full sac? When I didn't even KILL him?

My eq has nothing to do with my dislike for the rule. I have more time on my hands than 99% of people who play this game. I can make, rank, and train characters in mere days. I know every area in the game. EQ means nothing to me. Time means nothing to me. Being F"d in the bum because this game is turning into nothing more than a barbie playground is what is getting to me. Sooner or later there will be so many checklists you have to go through before you can ever THINK about attacking someone. The element of danger in this game is just being killed.

If eq was why I was mad, why didn't I just delete Zothorius? Why did I log on my DECKED ogre nexus TRUSTED and delete? Because the 50 range is nothing I want to play while this rule exists. It's doing nothing but candy-coating what used to be a dangerous world.

Your argument is bogus. It is like saying that char trading lvl 1 characters is ok, because they are only lvl 1 and shouldn't be punished as harshly as char trading 50's. Or that multying mithril shouldn't be punished as bad as multying the soulblight. It's a rule, all have the same punishment.

[Zrothum]

Trading chars regardless of level is bad.

Multing equipment regardless of what kind is bad.

Killing a cabaled character while he is fighitng anotehr cabaled char and you are not cabaled is bad.

Attacking a cabaled character while he is alone? Not bad.

I think your argument was the bogus one bro lol. It's a case by case thing. You can't just blanket protect these people.

Trading characters has no scenario. You either traded a char, or you did not.

Multiing eq has no scenario. You either did it or you did not.

But there is so much crap that goes on in PK hunt, chase, and battle that it is obsurd to try and lay down a blanket rule like this.

[Iyorvin]

You're refusing to look at the basis of the RULE itself.

You may not assault the cabal guard, or any cabal member within TWO rooms of the cabal. That's the rule. Now are you debating that you should not have been killed? If so, prayer forum. If you are debating the rule, then debate that. But so far, all you have done is use a slipperly slope fallacy by creating all these sinking circumstances that are bound to happen if we continue down this road. Trust me, it is alot better as is, with a clear defined RULING about the situation, rather then trial and error as it once was.

[Zrothum]

I am looking at the BASIS of the rule.

The BASIS of the rule is to prevent uncabaled cahracter from jumping in on opportune PK with cabaled characters trying to do their duty.

I did not do that. His duty was fulfilled the moment he placed that item on his altar and saw that me and him were alone. There was no one else in the area but me and him, so defense is out of the question.

I dont care that I died. I dont care about the eq. Yes Ive mentioned it, but thats not my point.

My point is the rule and that it has too many flaws to be slaying and full sac'ing people over it. My point is that it will happen again. Maybe not to me, maybe not to you. But it will happen again.

[Iyorvin]

No, see now you are putting a situational decision in a yes or no statement.

If you attack a caballed member within two rooms of a cabal altar, you are slain.

Zrothum attacked a caballed member within two rooms of a cabal altar.

Zrothum is slain.

There is not what ifs in there. Argue the rule itself. For instance.

Placing a no pk zone for caballed members against uncaballed members is denying the 'gang' tactic that has been employed from the very start of FL. Without this gang tactics, caballed members have became stronger since one of their greatest weaknesses has been covered. Etc etc.

However, it is up to the IMPLEMENTERS to decide which direction to go with the MUD. It is up to the PLAYERS to decide whether the direction they go with is where we want to play.

[Zrothum]

No, see now you are putting a situational decision in a yes or no statement.

If you attack a caballed member within two rooms of a cabal altar, you are slain.

Zrothum attacked a caballed member within two rooms of a cabal altar.

Zrothum is slain.

There is not what ifs in there. Argue the rule itself. For instance.

Placing a no pk zone for caballed members against uncaballed members is denying the 'gang' tactic that has been employed from the very start of FL. Without this gang tactics, caballed members have became stronger since one of their greatest weaknesses has been covered. Etc etc.

However, it is up to the IMPLEMENTERS to decide which direction to go with the MUD. It is up to the PLAYERS to decide whether the direction they go with is where we want to play.

Exactly what I am saying. It should not be a yes or no. It should be extremely situational. A blanket rule (yes or no rule) in something like this is way too flimsy and full of loopholes. Sure, he had attacked a cabal and stolen their item. However, he was not wounded when I attacked him. He was not engaged in battle when I attacked him. He was not in any other present danger, as we were alone.

Why again should have have been shielded in this situation?

[Deravgner]

Well I leave for a few hours and return to an exploded Thread. Hehe.

Ok here's my problem. Like Zrothom said, he attacked said person resting outside his cabal 1/2 rooms, drained, but not to his knowledge being drained.

THIS is where the cabal'd person is using his 'PK shield' He is knowingly sitting there hoping his uncaballed enemy will attack so he can cry, send in a log, and get him slayed/looted so he won't have to worry about fighting him for a while.

Now I fully agree with uncaballed people attacking altars/guards or healing them/giving them protections part of the rule. This is CLEARLY helping in cabal warfare. I fully disagree with the 2 room sanctuary that they are given. I know many cabal'd people that have sat in this space while holding a standard just so they only have to worry about their cabal'd enemies. I've faught people that their cabal just took a standard and they flee straight to their cabal and sit within this 2 room space.

I have been in the position where I have been attacked by a cabal'd person(ganged actually) with an enemy on inside the 2 room space. I return another time with aid to fight the 2 and the cabal'd person sends in complaint, we get slayed/looted. You are giving way too much authority to this rule to cabal'd people to abuse. You have no restrictions for them within this 2 room area to attack anyone at will, but if someone returns to fight them, they are breaking the rule. To me, the 2 rooms outside the cabal is free area to fight. Considering you can sit in front of your guard to protect your altar.

Look at it this way from an uncaballed persons view

1. An undead gets attacked by a Watcher. Watcher gets beat up. Runs around. Watchers enemy logs on, he goes and gets standard knowing it will be easy, sits drained outside his cabal. Undead has no clue this has happened and attacks. Caballed peson complains, undead gets killed.

2. Nexus wannabe attacks a Knight, beats him, same scenario. Knight is sittin outside his cabal, Nexus wannabe goes and attacks, Knight sends in log, nexus wannabe get slain/looted.

3. WM wannabe fights savant, gets beaten up badly, WM logs on and Savant takes standard. WM wannabe is still lookin for Savant and finds him sittin outside his cabal, WM wannabe attacks, Savant complains, WM wannabe gets killed looted.

All three scenarios can be reversed and in all three the wannabe's rp to fight enemies is getting punished.

Now I do not wish for this rule to be changed so that the wannabees can freely attack altars/guardians or for them to be able to attack when they are already fighting enemies. I wish it to be change so that when NONE of the cabal'd enemies are even close to the area are around, the noncabal'ds can attack at will the Caballed members that are sitting outside their cabal.

Now if there is clearly fighting. WM is fighting Savant near cabal/attacking altar/attacking guardian.....the noncaballed should clearly leave and let them fight it out. BUT when the Caballed person isn't even being bothered by their enemies, they should have no shield outside their cabal. Too many times i've seen caballed people, decked, powerful with the standard of their enemy who is naked and can't kill caballed person sit outside their cabal just waiting for the caballed person to attack without having to worry about others, and if they do get attacked by uncaballed people they can just send in complaints and have them slain/looted, though obviously if the person that attacks them gives them no trouble they won't complain because they will either kill/send them running and be merry.

This scenario can be replayed in my mind 10000000 times and it still isn't right to me. I suggest the 2 room rule being removed allowing uncaballeds to attack caballeds at will so long as:

1. Cabal person is cleary not fighting anyone in the area.

2. Caballed person's enemy is clearly not fighting altar/guardian.

3. Caballed person is just sitting outside his cabal.

Now I think this is a new record for me in the length of a thread so im exhausted, please feel free to criticize.

[Zrothum]

Exactly.

If they are not fighting a cabal guard. No shield.

If they are not fighting a cabaled PK. No shield.

If they have no vendettad cabaled PKs in the area. No shield.

CABAL PK SHIELD:

When they are clearly fighting a player in another cabal.

When they are fighting a cabal guardian.

When they are INSIDE of their cabal.

When they are in the same area of PK cabal member. (assuming you guys have not already been fighting and are chasing/hunting each other.)

This should not be word of mouth at all. If the reward for breaking this mandate is death and full eq loss, I think the IMMs need to be snooping and finding the truth. Not trusting the words of the players.

[Iyorvin]

1. Cabal person is cleary not fighting anyone in the area.

2. Caballed person's enemy is clearly not fighting altar/guardian.

3. Caballed person is just sitting outside his cabal.

Now I think this is a new record for me in the length of a thread so im exhausted, please feel free to criticize.

1. Cabal enemy just left area, player smart enough to play the ignorance game is waiting in area, hidden/camoed so defending caballed member can't see them. "I wasn't around when they were fighting, I didn't know. I am sorry." Defending caballed member was killed and full looted, obvoius offender gets off free.

2. See 1.

3. See 1.

The rule is cut and dry so the IMMORTALS dont' have to guess and chose. Use it to your advantage.

[Zrothum]

Which is why unless an IMM is snooping and KNOWS the player in question is interfering in something he KNOWS is happening....nobody should be getting punished so severely. In my situation, the cabaled person I attacked never once was engaged in a PK in my area. Never once. I interfered in absolutely NOTHING. Yes, I attacked him while he was one room outside of his cabal. SO WHAT? He wasn't doing anything. What exactly did I interfere in? He wasn't about to be attacked by anyone else, since I was the only one in the area.

[Iyorvin]

Which is why unless an IMM is snooping and KNOWS the player in question is interfering in something he KNOWS is happening....nobody should be getting punished so severely. In my situation' date=' the cabaled person I attacked never once was engaged in a PK in my area. Never once. I interfered in absolutely NOTHING.[/quote']

Again, debating your punishment, not the rule. Look at Derav's post, he at least supplied examples of what is wrong with it, you're just wasting bandwidth.

[Zrothum]

My punishment was because of the rule. Therefore it is completely legitimate in my argument. I've given a full example of what is wrong with it. Yes, I included my punishment in my posts, but it does not take away the points I have made. So stop disregarding what I have been saying, only to point out what you think I should not be saying.

The part of the rule that states you cannot attack someone in front of their cabal is hogwash. It's not interfering in anything if he's just sitting there alone. It's not interfering in anything if he didn't just get out of a PK. It's not interfering in anything if there is no one in the area but you and him.

I say again. The rule is flawed. The punishment being given out on the rule in which, in my case at least, ZERO Imm snooping took place and punishment was dealt out with only he-said, she-said proof. I will not re-state my examples, observations, opinions, nor resolutions if you keep disregarding them only to make it seem I'm whining because I got my shinies taken away. I got them taken away because of a rule that is flawed. A rule that I have already outlined and criticized and offered a very easy, a very fair solution.

[Zrothum]

I'll break it down.

--If it's attacking the guard, it's interference.

Couldn't agree more. You are uncabaled and have no business doing this. Unless no vendettad cabal members are on and you are doing it to make the person fight. That's my opinion though, but I think it's a very sound tactic and fits RP.

--If it's attacking the person at the guard while they are in the middle of defending/preparing to defend/just after defending, it's interference.

Shaky. How do I know if he's outside his cabal preparing or not? Sure if I saw him run away from a PK or from the cabals guard....this is where an IMM snoop comes into play. If he's at the vendettad cabals guard, yes, I have no business there. But if he's at his own guard? And no PK is waiting for him in the adjacent area? He should be free game.

--If its attacking one or two rooms away from the cabal or inside the cabal (assuming the 'strong' guardian is dead), it's interference.

Assuming he did not just get done with a cabal PK this should not apply. Assuming there is no one in the area but you and him this rule should not apply. Otherwise it's just letting someone sit in front of their cabal with a no-uncaballed PK shield on that he does not deserve. Shouldn't be a problem with entering his cabal if the strong guardian is dead, as long as there is no cabal enemy of his online. Its his own fault they are too weak to protect themselves, isn't it? This part of the Mandate should practically be taken out.

--If it's healing the altar/guardian/guarding person, it's interference.

Couldn't agree more. Cabal War is going on and it needs to be fought by the cabald people. You are directly interfering in something by doing this.

In fact, I agree with the rest of the Mandate.

If it's fighting in order to assist the retrieval/taking of a standard/defending, it's interference. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THIS ONE. This means that you, as a caballed person, should NOT be telling your clanmates, "Bash soandso and keep him laglocked while I take his standard."

It is NOT interference to ask clannies to assist in evening up a gangbang, IF it's for the purpose of PK, not standard taking/retrieval. In other words, if it's asking a clanny to do any of the above, it's NOT allowed. However, if it's asking a clanny to engage in PK when none of the above (attacking the guards, one or two rooms away, etc.) are involved, it IS allowed.

If it's a caballed ally called in to even up the numbers/re-take the standard, it is NOT interference, as caballed allies have always been able to retrieve standards for each other, but it should only be done when the numbers are unequal.

These rules apply to EVERYBODY. Including Syndicates out for a contract, and Tribunals out after criminals.

My resolution is to simply change

This: --If its attacking one or two rooms away from the cabal or inside the cabal (assuming the 'strong' guardian is dead), it's interference.

to this: --If its attacking one or two rooms away from the cabal or inside the cabal (assuming the 'strong' guardian is dead), while your opponent is obviously dealing with cabal PK, it's interference.

Word of mouth. He-said, she-said....all of that should be thrown out of the door, because NO ONE KNOWS what anyone is seeing, unless you are watching.

[Malchaeius]

We have said it a million times. The sword cuts both ways. If you witness someone abusing the rule by camping outside their cabal to avoid PK, notify us and we will make sure something unpleasant happens to them.

If you choose -NOT- to do this (for whatever macho reason you can produce), then you forfeit your right to complain about the other person not receiving a punishment. That is like getting caught speeding and complaining that the guy next to you was speeding as well. Guess what. YOU got caught breaking the rule. YOU get punished.

[The you's in this paragraph are general and do not refer to any specific player]

Once again.

Cabal members should not sit outside or inside of their cabals to avoid PK. They may go in there if they have to heal diseases, buy items, and on special occasions - conduct cabal meetings.

[Zrothum]

Word of mouth is ridiculous. People lie, people cheat, and people make crap up. Why would you slay anyone if you don't have hard proof and if you didn't witness exactly what happened?

Changing the two room rule to reflect a sort of "bloody timer" is really my issue. Not people cheating, not people breaking rules. I don't agree with the rule so I'm not holding anyone accountable following it or not following it. I'm simply wanting to see it modified so these cabaled people are not shielded in circumstances they shouldn't be.

I.E Sitting in front of their cabal when they are in no clear and present danger and expecting to have a PK shield.

[Deravgner]

I have brought up this complaint directly to an IMM and got the 'it will be looked into' statement. Where as when I was 'punished' the caballed person merely sent in a log which I know was inaccurate and I was slayed. I don't see where you are balancing this equation. I've never seen a caballed person punished for sittin outside his cabal because its hard to get hard proof where as a caballed person can easily come up with a log of him gettin attacked in this area. Sure we can send in complaints but in most cases I know the imms will just warn the caballed person and he will refrain from doing it whereas the uncaballed people are goin straight to the slay/loot with no warning. No warnings at all that they are crossing a line or whatever until the caballed person said its been crossed and sends in a complaint and the imms automatically side with caballed person. I know 3 cases where this is the case and no investigation was used only the evidence the caballed person had, each time the uncaballed person was slayed/looted and pretty much told it was his fault he didn't know the person was in cabal warface/caballed/in control of standard.....each of the three hard to be sure of unless you start asking around to every person you fight which breaks the RP of most characters. I do not want my enemies to know I want to come for them, it takes away the major advantage of surprise. Im starting to blab so I will stop now.

[Iyorvin]

There, now you have some what of an arguement. Notice how you didn't once bring up the question of, "Was my punishment just or not?"

So here is what I have read, and now you have me arguing for you.

Zrothum, was not warned by the caballed member he/she was engaged in cabal warfare. Zrothum was slain.

Derav was not warned by the caballed member that he/she was engaged in cabal warfare. Derav was slain.

-I- was not warned by the caballed member that he/she was engaged in cabal warfare. -I- was slain.

Three instances with the same situation. Three slays. Zrothum stated some more, I am unsure of their situation, I am sure of these. Sure, to the point that Derav and Zrothum are telling the truth.

Here is me, as the caballed member in the same situation.

uncaballedx attacks my cabal/or me, while I am fighting off cabal enemies.

You tell uncaballedx, "I am currently engaged in cabal wafare, your actions are frowned upon." *Or another such variant*

uncaballedx tells you, "I apologize, and will cease immediatly."

I've used it multiple times, different tells, but all got my point across. Only once have I had to pray about it, and in all other situations(where I had every right, log and all, to have them slain), I let it slide because they respectfully backed off.