Letter from GM with your ticket to violence.

[Delaroz]

I mentioned this letter on Psinet and several folks asked me for it, so here it is. Please note, the GM made a mistake in his initial letter and so a second letter is attached in which he corrected it. Any emphasis added is my own. This was a response to a letter in which I bitched about PvP I was seeing and the action I was not regarding those in the offense. Rather longish, so for a Reader's Digest version: If someone is mouthing off, you can kill em; Warn Interacts are not permanent. And for completists -


Good day,
Thank you for your concerns regarding this topic. There are actually two forms of conflict, between customers, within the game itself. They are CvC (Character vs Character) and PvP (Player vs Player). While both of these are similar in the fact that they are conflict situations, that is about the only similarity they have.
Character vs Character (that will be labeled as CvC from this point forward) is when a conflict stems between the characters themselves due to actions, statements or attacks upon one of the characters within the conflict. This type of conflict between *characters* is acceptable within the guidelines of policy. If you mouth off at another character, expect the possibility of violent resolution.
However, Player vs Player (that will be labeled as PvP from this point forward) is against the rules of policy within GemStone IV. This type of conflict is when the basis of the conflict is Out of Character (OOC). This means that there were no valid in-character reasons for the attack itself. The players who consistently practice this type of behavior do eventually see staff, receive official warnings and/or are removed from the game environment, in some cases permanently.
WARN COMBAT is not something we will require before other characters can attack another because, were that the case, there would be multiple levels of abuse in the opposite direction. Players would be able to taunt, kick, hit, slap, etc any character without fear of retribution because they knew they could get the other character in trouble because they can continue to decline the WARN COMBAT. Also, players would just issue a WARN COMBAT and attack shortly afterwards, claiming the other player, with how WARN COMBAT is described. In addition, the WARN command, in and of itself, is an OOC tool for players to express their wishes to another player regarding these types of situations. Issuing a WARN against another character, in and of itself, is not enforceable by policy. However, the actions of both parties, as they relate to the WARN after it is issued, may be viewed as a violation of policy, which is where the staff may step in. Lastly, WARN INTERACTION is permanently in effect from the minute it is issued onward. It does have a length of time associated with it, so issuing a WARN today and believing it to still be in effect a week from now is not the case.
There is one thing that is required for staff to be able to step into a situation....they MUST be witness to the violation of policy before they can take any official action. By official action, I am referring to official cautions, warnings and/or time out of the game. For example, if character A kills character B, then character B REPORTs to alert the staff, this isn't really sufficient because, while we can verify that character A did kill character B, for all we know, character B instigated the conflict by taunting or goading character A in hopes of getting them in trouble. There are still things that the staff can do, but they are limited.
The proper process for alerting the staff of possible policy-violating behavior is as follows:

1. REPORT once the second a problem occurs. This gives the staff the best opportunity to observe the behavior as close to from the start as possible.
2. Place an ASSSIT to provide the GameHost the details of the event, in full, from start to finish. Depending on when you used REPORT and what the staff member(s) may have been involved in at the moment of the REPORT, they may not have looked into it immediately after you did so.
3. IGNORE and/or WARN the other party. If you ignore, you should verbally inform the other party you do not wish interaction with them and say nothing else to them whatsoever. The biggest misconception that is seen consistently is that players will follow step 1 and, sometimes, step 2, but then they will continue "talking smack" or even acknowledging the other party exists. If this is what occurs, the staff will rule the matter a consented incident and will not get involved in *any* capacity.
4. LEAVE...Just walk away from the room, move all familiars out of that room, etc. Should the person still continue causing problems for with your character after you've left the vicinity, either by following, sending mental messages and/or familiars to continue the situation, then the matter can border upon harassment, should the other party continue after that fact.

We are constantly discussing ways to modify our policies regarding this aspect of game play within GemStone IV and we do understand your concerns regarding this matter. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thank you.

GameMaster Antavian Giantwind
Feedback, Simutronics Corporation

Good day,
My apologies for the confusion. It should state, "Lastly, WARN
INTERACTION is *NOT* permanently in effect from the minute it is issued
onward." As for the clarification, please remember that our games are
loosely based upon the fantasy genre and medieval period in time. In those
days and that genre, it is not uncommon for someone to chop off someone's
head because of continuous insults. If you view the society of the time
period mentioned and today, you'll see that we've evolved, both as a
society and as a race. However, even today, these same situations still
can and do occur, although it is less likely the people will get away
(especially if they continue a similar pattern of behavior), which can and
does describe, albeit to a small degree, how things do occur within our
games themselves.
If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thank you.

GameMaster Antavian Giantwind
Feedback, Simutronics Corporation


There you have it folks. Insults = acceptable reason to murder and warn interactions mean two things: Jack and shit.

EDIT: Made the Reader's Digest version bold so those with shorter attention spans can see it better. :P

[Edited on 10-14-2004 by Delaroz]

[Jenisi]

Anyone wanna give me the short version of that letter?

[Xcalibur]

He resumed it BEFORe the letter.

I think I will get back to gemstone:stupid:

[Tromp]

means ya need to do rock paper scissors before killing someone babe.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Place an ASSSIT>>

Shows you how much they care about assists.

[Xcalibur]

I've killed like 100 people, including Warclaidhmo (around 10 times himself).

Never been warned by gm or anything.

It's all in the details and the ways.:punch:

[Makkah]

<<I've killed like 100 people, including Warclaidhmo (around 10 times himself). >>

WOW!! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!%?!@#?^ Noone cares. STFU.

rht

[Xcalibur]

Make a servey about it and we shall see.

Until then, go eat a pogo, chummer:nono:

[Makkah]

Is that anything like a "survey"?


rht

[Caramia]

As with anything, I bet that if you walk that grey line of policy, and your behavior is considered disruptive, a GM has the absolute right to tell you to cool it regardless of what is and is not enforceable by using WARN, CHALLENGE, or engaging in marginal PvP, and that includes warning you and locking you out.

Bottom line, make sure the reason is in character, makes sure it's got nothing to do with anything OOC, make sure it's all clearly consented, and you'll have no problems.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Caramia
As with anything, I bet that if you walk that grey line of policy, and your behavior is considered disruptive, a GM has the absolute right to tell you to cool it regardless of what is and is not enforceable by using WARN, CHALLENGE, or engaging in marginal PvP, and that includes warning you and locking you out.

Bottom line, make sure the reason is in character, makes sure it's got nothing to do with anything OOC, make sure it's all clearly consented, and you'll have no problems.

Even then it can be trodden on. My fued with Rarr was stopped even though we was consenting. Mainly because Rikkan complained :rolleyes:

[Caramia]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Even then it can be trodden on. My fued with Rarr was stopped even though we was consenting. Mainly because Rikkan complained :rolleyes:

Then at that point it seems Rikkan didn't feel it was consentual anymore and wished to end it. Consent given isn't an open invitation to continual PvP, unless you clearly agree that it will be an ongoing feud or war. The GMs continually have said that it's only valid for one interaction. That means one whack for one whack pretty much. Anything more than that will get you the attention of the higher-ups one way or another.

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Delaroz
Reader's Digest version: If someone is mouthing off, you can kill em; Warn Interacts are not permanent.

Please be careful to take things in context, Delaroz. Antavian did not say that insults are an acceptable reason to kill someone.



If you mouth off at another character, expect the possibility of violent resolution.

Here, I see Antavian saying that you should expect the possibility that if you mouth off to someone, you can get killed. He is not saying that it's acceptable. I believe he wrote that because a number of people know how to "play" the system by talking smack to someone but then claiming the ensuing attack was "for no reason" when it really wasn't.



WARN COMBAT is not something we will require before other characters can attack another because, were that the case, there would be multiple levels of abuse in the opposite direction.

I would never like to see WARN COMBAT made mandatory. As Antavian said, a snert could kick, punch, or whatever with impunity because they could keep declining the WARN COMBAT, making it impossible for someone who wants to RP a conflict to act.



Issuing a WARN against another character, in and of itself, is not enforceable by policy.

Issuing a WARN is not enforcable by policy, no. As Antavian had already said, WARN COMBAT isn't mandatory. The GMs are not going to force people to issue a WARN against someone else, no matter the circumstances. If someone wishes to retaliate for an attack instead of WARN someone, the GMs are going to let them.

If you continue reading...



However, the actions of both parties, as they relate to the WARN after it is issued, may be viewed as a violation of policy, which is where the staff may step in.

Meaning, GMs can't make you WARN someone. They can, however, work to enforce it, once it's in place. Break a WARN INTERACT against you, staff can get in your face about it if they know about it.



if character A kills character B, then character B REPORTs to alert the staff, this isn't really sufficient

Please read the entire sentence, Delaroz. Antavian said that simply said that the GMs can only tell that one character killed another, but they don't know if the person who was killed was annoying or harassing the other person. In that way, REPORTing after the fact isn't going to help much, since the GMs don't know what happened, if anything, to lead to the person killing the other.



The biggest misconception that is seen consistently is that players will follow step 1 and, sometimes, step 2, but then they will continue "talking smack" or even acknowledging the other party exists. If this is what occurs, the staff will rule the matter a consented incident and will not get involved in *any* capacity.

No disagreement there. If you really want a conflict to end, you'll need to ignore the person. Otherwise, you'll just look like you're keeping the conflict going, and nothing can be done.



Lastly, WARN INTERACTION is *NOT* permanently in effect from the minute it is issued onward.

Your WARN isn't in effect if you break it, no? As far as having a time issue, I wasn't aware of it, so I can't comment. I haven't had to WARN INTERACT someone yet.



As for the clarification, please remember that our games are loosely based upon the fantasy genre and medieval period in time. In those days and that genre, it is not uncommon for someone to chop off someone's head because of continuous insults.

Another instance of stressing that, if you mouth off to people, expect that there's going to be someone who's going to put a sword in your head. That doesn't mean that it's right, nor that you didn't deserve it.



warn interactions mean two things: Jack and shit.

Dunno where you got that. Please explain that one to me.

Anyways, that's how I read the letter. Then again, I'm probably not looking for reasons to bash staff. ;)

Nilandia

[Delaroz]

[/quote]
Dunno where you got that. Please explain that one to me.[/quote]

Seeing as how I know what the letters are about... Lemme put it simply. I am not bashing staff, I am bashing policy. RPing conflict between two consenting characters is perfectly fine in my opinion. When a character or player is trying to avoid said confrontation and has it forced on them anyway? Not cool. That's what the letters were about. I've seen and played characters that were cut down for little to nothing with, you guessed it, little to no warning. So, what do you do? Report and assist, but guess what? By then it's too late because they, as the GM said, can't go back and see what prompted it. It's about abuse of power, not bashing staff, so get off your high horse and trudge in the trenches with the rest of us lackeys.

[Nilandia]

Not a high horse, Delaroz. Least, I didn't intend it to be. If it came off that way, I do apologize.

I've also been the target of attacks for no reason. (One time, I walked into a room and was whacked by someone with a claidhmore. They didn't say anything, just walked in the room and swung at me. Never saw the person before, never saw them since.)

Trouble is, the GMs don't know that it was for no reason. Only way for them to know for sure is to see it for themselves. That's the main point of what I was trying to get at. Stinks that it works that way, but it does prevent a lot of potential abuse, though there is plenty of abuse as is.

Nilandia

[Delaroz]

Gotcha Nilandia. There is a solution for it actually, but it's one GS has never liked. You can remove the abuse for those that choose to do so with a non-combat flag. Yeah, it sucks, but some people just want to game within their circle and consider the assholes "extras" in their game. Sure, act is still abuseable as hell, but thems the breaks. It's a one way ticket. You flag yourself, your stuck with it. I imagine most people, even myself at this point would opt not to, but if I played a pacifist character I might not think it too bad an idea. Just my 2 silvers.

[Nilandia]

Think you could detail the flag more? I'm not sure if it would protect the character from attack or keep them from attacking others. Both, maybe?

Nilandia

[Artha]

I have a sincere dislike for any non-combat flag that may exist in the future. There is no way to do it that doesn't open it up for abuse.

[Mistomeer]

The only thing that sucks about policy is that there are plenty of players out there that do nothing but look for excuses to kill someone and those people are rarely dealt with. I think you should be able to kill someone for doing very little, but I think they should take action to prevent people from abusing that. I had a friend that reopened his account, and in 3 months, had killed characters about 60 times, and had more player deaths to his name in that time than creature deaths, but the staff did nothing about it, other than just mention that to him.

[Delaroz]

Originally posted by Nilandia
Think you could detail the flag more? I'm not sure if it would protect the character from attack or keep them from attacking others. Both, maybe?

Nilandia

Well, my vision of it is both. Then, if you choose to attack, you lose the flag permanently. Also, lose a lot of verbs in my idea, but I'm a total dictator when it comes to that kind of thing. I just find it odd that they are willing to lose customers (and I know they have lost customers over issues like this) rather than enforce it. Of course, I also know it would be a VERY unpopular and heavy-handed policy... meh, just wishful thinking on my part I suppose.

EDIT: Read Mistomeer's post. Holy shit. That's what I'm talking about.

[Edited on 10-15-2004 by Delaroz]

[Nilandia]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
The only thing that sucks about policy is that there are plenty of players out there that do nothing but look for excuses to kill someone and those people are rarely dealt with. I think you should be able to kill someone for doing very little, but I think they should take action to prevent people from abusing that. I had a friend that reopened his account, and in 3 months, had killed characters about 60 times, and had more player deaths to his name in that time than creature deaths, but the staff did nothing about it, other than just mention that to him.
That's... disturbing.

Nilandia

If your character is reacting in an IC ways, then what's so bad about having so many character kills under your belt?

- Arkans

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Artha
I have a sincere dislike for any non-combat flag that may exist in the future. There is no way to do it that doesn't open it up for abuse. Sure there is. I played in games with one. One game had a total pacifism flag, you couldn't attack or be attacked by anything, NPCs included, so you had to go with non-combat XP. One had a no-PvP flag. Both cases the GMs expected you not to get into the faces of others and taunt them or they could flip your flag, and you could never get it reset.

That'd work just fine in GS.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
Both cases the GMs expected you not to get into the faces of others and taunt them or they could flip your flag, and you could never get it reset.

That'd work just fine in GS.Except that there's usually 300 players to every GM online, and automated systems never work right 100% of the time.

I wouldn't want to see a non-combat flag, because it's awfully unrealistic, and not the good kind of unrealistic either. Being a pacifist doesn't mean nobody's going to hurt you.

The non-combat flag is really a poor idea and hope it never gets implemented. We have enough people crying REPORT as it is, let's give idiots one less thing to hide behind, eh?

- Arkans

[Caramia]

Antavian did not say an (one) insult is consent, nor necessarily just cause for CvC, but if you want to use that as your "excuse" for roleplaying, go ahead! Have fun in the consultation lounge.

I never understood why people have to play their characters as so prideful or thin-skinned that one slur sent them off into a berserker's rage. Instead of seeing their character as a strong fellow, I would see them as insecure, easily threatened, and quick to anger -- which would only mean getting their attention is supremely easy! And the provoker is doing so for just that reason -- to get a reaction and gain attention.

There are two reasons why a non-combat flag won't work, perhaps three. The simplest being that the flag would need to distinguish player from critter, and I bet coding that isn't easy.

Snerts could flip the flag off and on as they like, abusing it. If there was such a flag, I would vote for flipping it at "birth" and never being able to flip it back.

Having such a flag would limit some mature roleplaying opportunities (which is not the same as getting involved in some penis-size measuring whackings).

[Slider]

Or, as an alternative to a flag, how about turning off CvC combat entirely in certain cities, and allowing it in others? Take for instance DAoC, CvC is not allowed in certain areas, but is fully expected in others. Another good example would be the Lands of Light and Darkness game, where those born "in the Light" are not allowed CvC, while those born "of the Dark" are allowed it. But there are also areas where CvC for both is either restricted or allowed, depending on the City you live in.

This would allow those who wanted such interaction a place to do so to their hearts content, while at the same time giving those who do not want it a place to go as well. Would be a perfect reason for, say the opening of New Ta'Faendryl or perhaps the expansion of an existing place, say...Jantalar?

[Disrupture]

On the notion of a flag...

If implemented, I could see it working on a time basis. Like, you can reset your flag to combat or non combat every so often (perhaps once a week or so). That way, people who like to pwn each other will leave it on and won't be able to switch it back when they get into a fight with someone bigger than them, and other people could just stay out of combat altogether. There would still be room for abuse, but I personally think it would be a hell of alot less abusable than WARN INTERACT is.

[Edited on 10-15-2004 by Disrupture]

[Delaroz]

Originally posted by Disrupture
There would still be room for abuse, but I personally think it would be a hell of alot less abusable than WARN INTERACT is.


Warn Interact isn't too abusable, if you look at the letter. If someone warns then breaks it by say, talking about or to you, it's expired, from my guess by the context in which the GM used.