Absolutely Done With The OOC And Player Favoritism

[Trick]

@Celerity

Well put.

[Unknown Criminal]

Aidon, I admitted the attack on you was a bad one. It was the first time in 218 hours I saw a full PK range and my (attack first or die fleeing) mentality kicked in. By the time I got outcasted and demoted I had 5 PK's, 2 of those PK's im pretty sure were accidental. Anyhow I paid my dues, put in another 30 hours, got my guild back and auto promoted to Vet.

By the time last night rolled around I may have had 8 PK's on my record with a ballpark 250 hours, 3 of those PK's im sure were accidental. The only people ive been fighting were Irant, Synestra, Virthux and Kotrag. When i logged in there was about 7-8 people in PK and I think 3 of them were wanted and guess who has a trade pact with Tribunal? Guess who has tried to kill me in the past? Guess whos cabal has killed me 5-6 times in the last couple days? My bad, I deathmarked a clear cut enemy and gave him about 10 hours to situate himself before I went looking. Low and behold I see him in Val Miran, alone. As I go attack my syndicate enemy I noticed a poisoned blood guard,  then the dude goes straight OOC on me. Then I get docked RP points... I was cool to shrug off the OOC but another RP point penalty meant ive thrown away 250 hours + on a character who will never be promoted in his cabal again, top it off im summoned into the RP room and told im doing a pisspoor job with my character and should be outcasted again.

I put in waaay too much time to be disrespected like this, Hornecka is not blood thirsty, roleplays his fights (except for the one bad one) and has deep roots with many players. Hornecka has been and is involved in multiple RP plots and interactions where (someone makes something up and I help them roll with it), the most recent one was stealing some magical essence from the Savant tower and the new one Henvik is running.

Anyhow I apologize to the players, I had alot of fun but cant do it anymore. Im waaay too much of a bloodthirsty machine who cant roleplay properly, it would be selfish of me to continue forcing my pisspoor characters into your playing field.

 

[f0xx]

38 minutes ago, Fireman said:

@Celerity

Well put.

No it's not well put at all.

She built her whole post around the idea that Anume said that neutrals can't PK others because of protection.

Which is not true. Anume didn't say that.

What she said was along the lines that, if you had rolled a neutral just for the protection damage buff, you're going to be in trouble. Rolling a neutral and playing it like an evil WILL get you in trouble. Some time ago a neutral character of mine attacked someone who was following me around with sanctuary on. I was pulled in Deep shit and had to make an explanation for it. And that was just for attacking first an evil who was going to attack me anyway.

If you have your RP built, you must stick to that RP. If your character hates all mages above all else, then you MUST attack all mages above all else. Not just the mages that suit you, i.e. the weak ones.

Attacking a goodie non pinnacle who just recalled, as a neutral gladiator, without having said a word to him before, is a huge breach of BOTH align and clan RP.

Twisting your RP so it suits your OOC desires is actually OOC.

Even the explanation you give in your posts here to why you attacked him is weak: "I saw a full PK range and got excited", "I felt threatened". How can you, as a decked pinnacled mino berserker, elder in gladitor, can in any way feel threatened by someone who is not even at his pinnacle?

About your RP.....

You send a lot of spam notes. Like a lot.

I, as a player, get pissed off having to read 10 notes about how you went out, grabbed some flowers and gave it to someone, and my imagination pales about what the IMMs actually feel when they have to deal all that spam.

Just look at this:

 

Quote

[ 10 ] GLADIATOR Hornecka: My Wrong Doings
[ 11 ] GLADIATOR Hornecka: A Good Days Work
[ 12 ] GLADIATOR Hornecka: Another Fine Day Of Protecting The Camp
[ 13 ] GLADIATOR Hornecka: Another Long Week Honorably Protecting
[ 14 ] GLADIATOR Hornecka: Temple Talk And A Good day
[ 15 ] GLADIATOR Hornecka: A Date With The Demon

And all these written in the span of 4 hours!

What the hell dude. I play a character with 750 RP, with 600 hours under his belt and he has as many journal entries as notes you send in 4 hours!

Just look at this:
 

Quote

[ 13] GLADIATOR Hornecka: Another Long Week Honorably Protecting
Sat Oct 14 21:20:17 2017
To: WARMASTER IMMORTAL
After another long week of protecting the camp I started wondering how
Kesrick and his troops had been fairing, so as I was skipping through the
flowers on my break I went up to check on them.  I fed them all some water
and wished them a good day, but before I left I kicked one of the guards in
the backside.  As I was being super nice I decided to tone it down a notch
with a good kick, as we all know balance is everything and he had great
balance!  He didnt fall or stumble in the least.  Back to werk I go.  

*Hornecka*

And you send 6 of those, in 4 hours, to the IMMs and call it RP?

Come on....

[Magick]

Based on that one example from Foxx, I'd concatenate them into two (maybe three, content depending) and make them journals.  Notes sent to the entire cabal are done with more major cabal issues in mind.  Like state of cabal affairs concerning other cabals and RP plots and the progress I've made toward those ends.

But that's me.

 

[Grim_Reefer]

I see chaotic neutral as probably the most unpredictable and potentially aggressive alignment there is. 

The chaotic indifference can be a powder-keg for explosive behaviors.

[Trick]

She built her response on the premise of inconsistency in the rules and their application in regards to RP and PK. And she is right. More often than not, especially in these situations, the "rules" that are enforced depend entirely on the IMM dealing with the situation at the time. One IMM may see it differently than another and then the rules change.

That's the problem. If rules are outlined well enough and stated accurately enough, then conjecture is not possible because it is clearly defined. Our rules aren't. RP rules follow a sense of implied understanding. IE: We all know what is good, neutral, and evil. The issue with that is what Anume considers an evil act, another considers neutral and vice versa. Especially in the instance of Syndicate. Its okay to murder for cash, but not for the personal belief and stance that all mages are inherently bad? That's ludicrous.

The definition of Good, Neutral, and Evil has changed along with the Staff. Each generation of Staff have had varying views on this and even the current ones differ in their opinion. A perfect example was Ithric. An IMM whose RP was built around the Neutrality faith and the defense of it through all means necessary - be that aggressive, passive, or diplomatic. Anume has said on several occasions that this is not what the Neutrality RP is "supposed" to be, despite the help file contradicting her directly. (This is just one example that has stuck with me, I'm sure there are others.)

That's two IMMs in the same Staff-Era that have different views on what is acceptable and what isn't. If the IMMs have varying opinions of what is considered appropriate RP, then how are players supposed to know what is appropriate?

 

As far as Hornecka's notes, I don't know. I don't have a character, but that last note looks very passive-aggressive and is less of a note with RP and substance and more of a jab at the Staff. He is effectively saying, " Look! I can RP balance by picking flowers then kicking someone! Balance, balance, balance! ". Sarcastic and smart-assed.

[Grim_Reefer]

If the code of conduct is that strict for gladiators, then don't allow chaotic gladiators?

[Celerity]

56 minutes ago, f0xx said:

No it's not well put at all.

She built her whole post around the idea that Anume said that neutrals can't PK others because of protection.

Which is not true. Anume didn't say that.

What she said was along the lines that, if you had rolled a neutral just for the protection damage buff, you're going to be in trouble. Rolling a neutral and playing it like an evil WILL get you in trouble. Some time ago a neutral character of mine attacked someone who was following me around with sanctuary on. I was pulled in Deep shit and had to make an explanation for it. And that was just for attacking first an evil who was going to attack me anyway.

Did you just read the first 5 lines and stop? The protection bit was brought up because the staff citing protection is irrelevant and inconsistent. It is inconsistent because protection is not different than any other PK consideration. It is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if somebody rolled their character for that bonus or not. Completely independent of RP.

You want the staff to get involved into judging the INTENT of rolling a particular combo?

If I roll my character to have xxx combo with yyy RP, why stop with protection? We would need to have some massive ruleset that defines the reasons why you can play xxx/yyy based on the PK advantages of the RP/build combo. You want to try to enforce my race choice (chosen for PK advantage) and I'm not RPing it well enough? This is obviously absurd and impossible.

Bringing protection up as part of the RP (and this example is brought up A LOT in terms of neutrals, so I addressed it) is an error. You are conflating a build with the RP which you either have to do consistently or not at all.

The real reason the staff enforces these things is to keep players playing the game. Thus we need a reason to PK, no multikill, and various other things that are largely inconsistent with the RP of the FL world -- but are absolutely necessary to maintain the game itself. The error is applying these rules differently to different groups. Good game etiquette should apply to every single character, no matter the build, because of that necessity for the smooth functioning of the game. That means evils need as good of a reason as anyone else to PK.

Unfortunately, the staff misunderstands the rule and enforces it on the basis of various criteria (align, cabal, whatever) instead of recognizing it as an OOC maintenance rule (and thus applied equally to every single player).

What we see here is some kind of half-managing of PK to RP balance (e.g. neutrals have PK advantage, so we give this is arbitrary RP disadvantage). This is one reason there are a lot of issues and cases brought up. There is no real direction/ruleset here and is enforced erratically, as has been mentioned several times.

If the staff wants gladiators to never attack other people who are in combat, they need to stop them code-wise with a bloody protection/require a deathmark with a long timer. If they don't want gladiators to fight pre-50s, they need to get rid of their down PK range. If they don't want people to attack at pits, they need to make pits safe-zones. Obviously, some of this stuff sounds absurd and it should. That means you are trying to enforce absurd rules.

If neutrals have such a PK imbalance due to their align that you have to enforce with RP rules that need micromanaging, you need to fix that issue. I don't believe that is the case, but if the staff does, they need to balance the PK part, not get bogged down trying to enforce every single case for eternity through RP micromanaging.

Clearly, there are some serious RP violations in this particular case as presented in the thread, but my post was about the larger issue brought up. I am not defending @Unknown Criminal here, but he probably would've been wise to use me as his lawyer.

As for your point of needing to enforce align and a person's RP by ensuring they are consistent re: rolling a neutral but playing an evil:

Again, if you didn't have arbitrary, inconsistent standards for the two groups, there would not be a benefit or need for enforcement of such things. There'd be no benefit to act evil as a neutral. Why does one have a greater need to have a reason to kill than the other?

Either you need to hold evils to the same standard as neutrals or neutrals to the same standard as evils. Same with the aligns, the qraces, and everything. Since you are enforcing RP mostly for the OOC functioning of the game, all those PK variables (protection, build) aren't even a consideration. So they shouldn't be cited as a consideration.

Bad RP is bad RP. It shouldn't matter at all about their align or anything else related to their mechanical build.

Like I keep saying, selective implementation/enforcement of RP rules is very hard/frustrating to follow for the player and very hard/frustrating to manage on the staff level. Thus the rest of my post about making things consistent (the whole 95% of my post that was NOT about protection).

[Celerity]

39 minutes ago, Grim_Reefer said:

If the code of conduct is that strict for gladiators, then don't allow chaotic gladiators?

Chaotic in FL is not following Tribunal laws. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with normal RP game lawful/chaotic about personal codes of honor, etc.

This is why I've argued that ethos is superfluous in this game. Either you are lawful and part of Tribunal or not. There is no difference between chaotic/neutral ethos. 

[Unknown Criminal]

My notes were supposed to be sarcastic bullshit.... However, I actually took my EVIL Minotaur and made him skip through flowers, feed the homeless, bring water to guards just to send those notes. It was REAL RP that actually happened where I made a complete fool of myself by doing what Anume told me to do, 'just send a few notes and show that you have changed for the better and you will get the outcast removed'. I apologize if some players didnt appreciate my retarded notes but I had to throw all my RP out the window and become a pansy to write them.  When else was I supposed to do? There was NOBODY ONLINE with me for most of my time, I spent it alone like a friggin loser begging for attention. *spit*

My entire gameplay was screwed, I couldnt travel, i couldnt group, I couldnt equip myself but low and behold now everyone wants to fight me. Not only did I send those notes in a span of probably 4 hours but i sat in my cabal for almost 30 hours ONLINE. I could have thrown away my friends and RP just to roll a new char and get to where I was in less time but I sucked it up because I had too many roots. This is why i keep suggesting timeframes on everything because with my outcasting being an endless black hole of having no idea, it could just be set at 10, 20, 30 hours of gameplay.

Anyhow im done defending my actions, I wasnt in the wrong and im a victim of multiple power trips across multiple characters. The reason I say its over multiple characters is because all my characters are documented as being mine, I was also forced to delete a bunch of them because 'i had too many' and they couldnt keep track of who I was playing. Im sorry im able to put in more time than most people being a stay at home dad, I did alot of ranking and alot of training. None of my chars abused any rules or even really PK'ed aside from defending themselves.

UC

 

[f0xx]

10 minutes ago, Celerity said:

Bad RP is bad RP. It shouldn't matter at all about their align or anything else related to their mechanical build.

I agree?

The thing is, good RP reason for a neutral to kill is not the same as a good RP reason for an evil.

A good reason for an Evil DKN to kill someone can be anything ranging from "I want his EQ" to "I want to feed my malform".

"I want his EQ" is not a good reason for a neutral to kill though.

Aligns are here to create this environment where players generally know what to expect from other characters.

If your character is neutral and comes and attacks me for no obvious reason, then I, as well as many others, will report this on prayer. After which the IMMs will pull you up and ask you to explain why you attacked. If they deem your reason as weak, then depending on different factors, you will be punished. I know this because it has been done to me on various neutral characters I've played.

It's all about the reason in the end.

A good enough reason for a neutral syndicate to kill you is because you have a bounty.

It's the same with cabal warfare. If being in Savant is deemed as good enough reason for a neutral WM to kill, why isn't having a bounty deemed as a good enough reason for a neutral syndicate to kill? it's basically the same.

Out of all the inconsistencies concerning align relations, I have problem with just two:

Goodies in Tribunals vs other goodies and Watchers vs Avatars.

In those two cases you have one side which is either not allowed or heavily punished for fighting back. That's why avoid playing avatars and goodies.

[f0xx]

6 minutes ago, Unknown Criminal said:

I could have thrown away my friends and RP just to roll a new char and get to where I was in less time but I sucked it up because I had too many roots.

And props to you for that.

IMHO, you should have sucked it up to the very end though, showed the IMMs that you are the bigger person, sticked to your RP and show them that they are wrong.

 

6 minutes ago, Unknown Criminal said:

Anyhow im done defending my actions, I wasnt in the wrong and im a victim of multiple power trips across multiple characters. The reason I say its over multiple characters is because all my characters are documented as being mine, I was also forced to delete a bunch of them because 'i had too many' and they couldnt keep track of who I was playing. Im sorry im able to put in more time than most people being a stay at home dad, I did alot of ranking and alot of training. None of my chars abused any rules or even really PK'ed aside from defending themselves.

Hm, that seems wrong, if that's what actually happened.

If you stick to the rules, you shouldn't have problems no matter how many characters you play. This comes from someone who used to play many characters too, and still does.

I've interacted quite a bit with Gurumba. He was/is a very good character, the best merchant currently in the lands, and I think you were/are very close to Elder, and from what Anume says, it seems it's a mere game mechanic that has kept you away from the spot.

[Celerity]

28 minutes ago, f0xx said:

The thing is, good RP reason for a neutral to kill is not the same as a good RP reason for an evil.

A good reason for an Evil DKN to kill someone can be anything ranging from "I want his EQ" to "I want to feed my malform".

"I want his EQ" is not a good reason for a neutral to kill though.

Aligns are here to create this environment where players generally know what to expect from other characters.

We both want consistency in the game world. I think we agree there. Of course I see a difference between good and evil RP.

--

Wanting his EQ is not good enough of a reason, but wanting (way less value) cash is? Thus the problems and complaints about what a good enough reason is. It is arbitrary -- "Because the staff says so in this case".

-

You brought up the need for a consistent align environment, but we don't really have it because we allow so many exceptions in aligns:

We assume goodie A to be very different from goodie B. Purity can attack evils. but compassion cannot. So some goods can act evil in some cases, but others can not. Why is it OK for a compassion Knight to attack a Nexus evil without a thought, but not OK for a Watcher or non-knight compassion to do the same? 

Same with neutrals. Warder can attack avatars (even though their beef is with Tribunal). Some neutrals can do blatantly evil things for their entire career (Syndicate), but some can not.

But with evils:

Evil A is the same as Evil B: Evil Savant can attack neutral Watcher or neutral Warmaster. The neutral Watcher needs a reason to attack evil Savant, however. Why?

The consistent RP about this would be: the game has absolute alignment, they are evil, thus are absolutely, objectively evil and thus I can attack on sight. This does not violate 'alignment conventions' and keeps the game predictable.

What really ends up happening though in practice is the appearance that evils have a significantly lower threshold for RP, lighter, cleaner rules enforcement, and generally more freedom in their gameplay. Thus you don't like to play goods, for instance.

Then you have the qualifications:

If evil attacks without cause excessively, they'll get in trouble. Why? Because of OOC, not RP, management.

If the good is aggressive against the wrong foes, they'll get in trouble. Why? Because RP, not OOC, management. Thus another problem.

And so on, and so on.

--

If we are going to separate characters based on their cabals, aligns, etc, for determining what is 'good RP', we need to apply it to evils as well. If Nexus is so evil as to attack everyone for any reason, they should consistently attack everyone without reasons. Thus no allies, no friends, nothing. Right? Why does Nexus have consistent friends, reliable allies, and sometimes even fairly friendly RP? This is not consistent with the align environment.

-

If we follow this logic, you end up making the case for no align at all, and you judge the character purely based on their TRUE ideological preference (watcher, anti-mage or whatever) rather than their align. Each ideology has a clear set of enemies. In that case, everyone know who they may and may not attack at all times. Is this a good thing? It could be.

But I think it would be easier to just simplify and make the rules consistent with a clear hierarchy.

edit: I'm not advocating completely arbitrary player freedom. Thus my repeated calls for the need of cleaning the ruleset.

[Mali]

I will say this:

The need for an IMM to intervene at all on anything that is not a code issue represents a flawed system.

 

[mya]

2 hours ago, f0xx said:

I play a character with 750 RP, with 600 hours under his belt and he has as many journal entries as notes you send in 4 hours!

You better not die before I manage to kill you.

[Unknown Criminal]

9 minutes ago, Mali said:

I will say this:

The need for an IMM to intervene at all on anything that is not a code issue represents a flawed system.

 

Did I just hear a bird sing? 

If something 'shouldn't be done' then the code shouldn't allow it, there is no need for snapshot punishments and character finger pointing if everything was pre determined in the code. Yes it's more work but it also saves time for future projects. If X good or evil attacks Y neutral the code should have X person listed as an enemy of said neutral, so when said neutral attacks 'whomever' the code should check for known enemies to punish or approve of said neutrals actions accordingly.

When an immortal logs on and only sees the tail end of some confrontation they tend to punish based on a snapshot observation. 

[Zoichan]

I for one am enjoying the conversation.

 

Also, I pulled @Unknown Criminal up all the time just for funsies.

[Lloth]

26 minutes ago, Unknown Criminal said:

Did I just hear a bird sing? 

If something 'shouldn't be done' then the code shouldn't allow it, there is no need for snapshot punishments and character finger pointing if everything was pre determined in the code. Yes it's more work but it also saves time for future projects. If X good or evil attacks Y neutral the code should have X person listed as an enemy of said neutral, so when said neutral attacks 'whomever' the code should check for known enemies to punish or approve of said neutrals actions accordingly.

When an immortal logs on and only sees the tail end of some confrontation they tend to punish based on a snapshot observation. 

We do not just see tail ends of conversations. We have access to the whole thing.

 

There's also no feasible way to code the game to take role play into account. The smartest AI in the world has the reasoning power of a toddler.

[Unknown Criminal]

12 minutes ago, Lloth said:

We do not just see tail ends of conversations. We have access to the whole thing.

 

There's also no feasible way to code the game to take role play into account. The smartest AI in the world has the reasoning power of a toddler.

Firstly, If you have access to 'the whole thing' then why was i punished for fighting a syndicate who has tried to kill me in the past. And dont give me the syndicate vs tribunal OVER murder vs honor.

Secondly, I havent coded in years but I could still slam together a basic PK tracker based on alignment in 30 minutes. Neutral getting attacked or being killed logs an enemy, neutral starting a fight or killing against a non enemy logs a penalty. X amount of penalties and the code will outcast for X hours, X amount of cabal based penalties auto demotes 1 rank. Doing things this way would give players the freedom to screw up their own chars knowing the punishment up front while relieving immortal pressure to intervene. Any errors with the basic punishment coding can be coded improvements to prevent further errors or issues. Easy.

[Celerity]

1 hour ago, Lloth said:

There's also no feasible way to code the game to take role play into account. The smartest AI in the world has the reasoning power of a toddler.

It is very difficult to code role play, but it is perfectly feasible to codify role play rules.

and

It is feasible to ensure that said rules are objective and self-consistent, making them viable, quality game play rules.

--

It is NOT reasonable to expect players to know, follow, understand, or agree with subjective, inconsistent or arbitrary rules.

and

It is NOT reasonable to expect subjective, inconsistent or arbitrary rules to be enforced consistently among administrations or even staff members.

therefore

Violations will be defined and enforced in changing, inconsistent ways.

therefore

Players will unintentionally commit many violations.

and

It is NOT feasible to correct every violation or enforce rules consistently through staff manpower indefinitely.

therefore

Players and staff will suffer from predictable, recurring problems resulting from these inconsistencies as they occur.

therefore

It is expected that similar problems will continually, and indefinitely, arise for every inconsistency until the rules are sorted out.

[tassinvegeta]

This is a very unfortunate situation that shoudn't happen. There are probably things from both sides that can be done better. The 5 rp deduction isn't a big deal and hope you're able to get passed it. Alot of the imm rules are here for a reason, mostly to protect us and help us to continue having an enjoyable atmosphere. As usual Celerity did give a great solution as how to minimize some of these ambiguities. I for one fell victim to it recently. I always thought Tribunals were allowed to capture others regardless of align. Goods could capture goods. Heck even Tribunals could capture Tribunals. But hadn't realized that Tribunal undeads had to pretty much ignore Wanted undeads. Which really made no sense to me but oh well I took the punishment and moved on. However not all players can behave in this manner. @LlothI know it's almost impossible to prevent these things from happening but I really hope we can use this as yet another example to take steps to minimize situations like this from happening in the future.

[Lloth]

32 minutes ago, Unknown Criminal said:

Firstly, If you have access to 'the whole thing' then why was i punished for fighting a syndicate who has tried to kill me in the past. And dont give me the syndicate vs tribunal OVER murder vs honor.

Secondly, I havent coded in years but I could still slam together a basic PK tracker based on alignment in 30 minutes. Neutral getting attacked or being killed logs an enemy, neutral starting a fight or killing against a non enemy logs a penalty. X amount of penalties and the code will outcast for X hours, X amount of cabal based penalties auto demotes 1 rank. Doing things this way would give players the freedom to screw up their own chars knowing the punishment up front while relieving immortal pressure to intervene. Any errors with the basic punishment coding can be coded improvements to prevent further errors or issues. Easy.

Because it was a breach of gladiator RP to gang up on him. Anume gave you the reason already. 5 rp is also a very light deduction.

Also, what you're suggesting is not nearly as good as you are suggesting it is. Tracking 10 people, even if you COULD track every online character, is a large load on the server. There's a reason we don't use mobs that have "update always" flags. Plus, you'd be looking for keywords in says/tells/clans/cabals/*motes to accomplish the QC of "does this person have a reason" checks (which again would have to either be constantly run, log individually serverside to build history to attribute to each active pfile, or both) which is NOT desirable for anyone. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Celerity said:

It is very difficult to code role play, but it is perfectly feasible to codify role play rules.

and

It is feasible to ensure that said rules are objective and self-consistent, making them viable, quality game play rules.

--

It is NOT reasonable to expect players to know, follow, understand, or agree with inconsistent or arbitrary rules.

and

It is NOT feasible to manually catch and correct every violation through staff manpower indefinitely.

and

It is NOT reasonable to expect subjective or arbitrary rules to be enforced consistently among administrations or even staff members.

therefore

Players and staff will have predictable, similar recurring problems resulting from these differences.

therefore

It is expected that similar problems will continually, and indefinitely, arise until the rules are sorted out.

At best, we can feasibly do it how we have damnation for goods. Which is a far from perfect system, and honestly does not fit the molds of other alignments, let alone cabal choices for those aligns. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, tassinvegeta said:

This is a very unfortunate situation that shoudn't happen. There are probably things from both sides that can be done better. The 5 rp deduction isn't a big deal and hope you're able to get passed it. Alot of the imm rules are here for a reason, mostly to protect us and help us to continue having an enjoyable atmosphere. As usual Celerity did give a great solution as how to minimize some of these ambiguities. I for one fell victim to it recently. I always thought Tribunals were allowed to capture others regardless of align. Goods could capture goods. Heck even Tribunals could capture Tribunals. But hadn't realized that Tribunal undeads had to pretty much ignore Wanted undeads. Which really made no sense to me but oh well I took the punishment and moved on. However not all players can behave in this manner. @LlothI know it's almost impossible to prevent these things from happening but I really hope we can use this as yet another example to take steps to minimize situations like this from happening in the future.

There is a lot to consider. I also want help files to spell more things out, but they're also not nearly as ambiguous as some claim.  I would have explained to you, for instance, that goodie tribe can cap goodie tribe because goods cannot KILL goods, but they can mercy them. Undead cannot harm other undead, PERIOD. The difference being the difference between harm and kill. 

[Celerity]

15 minutes ago, Lloth said:

At best, we can feasibly do it how we have damnation for goods. Which is a far from perfect system, and honestly does not fit the molds of other alignments, let alone cabal choices for those aligns. 

At best? You don't need to do an ounce of coding to address the most important part of codifying the rules: The ruleset.

For example, damnation is imperfect not because of the code, but because of the ruleset. You could derive and code damnation conditions all day, but your true answer lies in fixing the align rules, not the code. It is the difference of trying to code a series of arbitrary rules and having good rules. Worlds of difference in productivity and end result, especially when it comes to overworked staff.

On the discussion to coding the rules to adhere to such a ruleset, I'm sure I, and just about anyone else, could come up with many, many ways that could be improved. But again, it is mostly a waste of time until you have that solid, self-consistent ruleset.

 

--

If goods are allowed to harm other goods with intent to kill (capturing leads to execution), but not actually kill with their own hand, does that open a lot of cases for good vs good PK then?

If the entire undead race is incapable of fulfilling Tribunal duties, why are they allowed in Tribunal? They should be booted out the first time they don't attempt to capture another undead. Since it is a quality that applies to the entire race, the cabal would be very aware of this. Thus undead should not be allowed in to begin with.

This kind of stuff is exactly what I mean by arbitrary rules.

[Unknown Criminal]

@Lloth Where did anyone gang up on anyone? Im sorry i dont have immortal eyes and ears to hear if anyone was fighting anyone in the entire lands before I log on and deathmark them, maybe add a stipulation to deathmark and challenge to check for a bloodied opponents? Other than that id have to OOC UB's screen or start mad PM'ing people and asking if im allowed to defend my honor now or have to wait till they sneak attack me. Its just dumb, add a friggin OOC chat for players so they knows what going on when they log on, otherwise expect to have to keep punishing people for playing the game and their chars correctly.

[Mali]

Uc let's just get a beer and play something else. Anything you say will be subject to obfuscation.