The theme of the game is about zealots...
Re: Remi's death - if you're wound up about it, I do encourage you to post so it can be resolved. Maybe some people - certainly I, at least, would be happy to explain my point of view on the issue.
Leto, btw, died b/c Julea told the Order that she was a mage and the Tenebrae.
Commentary: Julea's Pkill
Going to play devil's advocate here for a moment... and just to be clear this isn't a comment on any specific PK/execution...
The natural counterbalance to that would be to have the baddies assassinate the more zealous lawful ones, but I don't think there are the tools to do that feasibly as is.
I think the issue is that if you execute everyone and anyone on the slightest hint of anything inappropriate, you're kind of taking the outsmarting bit out of it. Rather than try and figure out the truth and playing that guessing game, you just assume guilt and that's that. No figuring needed.The guts of TI and the way it is set up is lawful folk get the fun guessing game of who is bad. The bad guys get the adrenaline thrill of outsmarting the lawfuk folk for as long as they can.
The natural counterbalance to that would be to have the baddies assassinate the more zealous lawful ones, but I don't think there are the tools to do that feasibly as is.
I agree, Geras - and that's why it is NOT ILLEGAL to be a thief. People know who mob bosses are IRL, they just have trouble pinning stuff on them. It's not actually illegal (to my knowledge) to be a gang member, but gang members are regularly harassed and accused of crimes. This said, I'm not sure what you mean by 'not a lot of tools for bad guys to attack good guys' - they've got the same code capabilities exactly, and in instances where baddies have organized... it was pretty devastating.
This said, I'm not sure that recent deaths really had to do with OOC things like "I found Tenebrae!" or even Julea's role as Sapiente (other than it had implications for what people already knew about the actual people filling those roles - for example, that Tenebrae was a mage was a known issue for the Order, so finding the Tenebrae means catching a mage). Rather, I think we saw a situation with people digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole when evidence was supplied and questioned, and more and more corroborating evidence coming out once initial accusations were made. And, honestly, a bunch of OOC complaining that the people asking questions couldn't possibly have the IC information to do so, which I think just spurred people to do a -better- job of ensuring they did cover their IC bases, honestly.
At one stage, it was brought up that someone "OOCly guessed who Remi was based on height and weapon type, and this was a stretch", and I agreed. Xine said he wanted to post about it (and he did) and I supported that. However, according to Romana, that evidence never even made it to her ICly to be considered. So whereas I can see why, for example, Xine might feel it was "cheap", I think the true reality of the situation is that he just didn't know what else was going on under the hood, and thus believed that it was a personal attack or dislike of him (but who could dislike Xine? I mean, seriously, he's totally awesome) because what he thought he knew was cheap.
I think it's just in situations like these, that's the natural way people's minds work. When people see the world from a certain point of view (like that they had no intent to do harm or are innocent), it's simply hard for them to conceive that their perception of reality isn't shared by others, so it appears to be a deliberate violation instead of people simply having clashing views and information. That's why PK rules don't address fairness or evidence, they just say 'give a reason, prove the reason is IC, and make sure people can RP evenly with a victim so the success of the PK isn't rigged either way'. If PK was about what was 'fair' and staff tried to judge on that... omg. I can't conceive of the mess.
TI's PK policy has never been soft, nor is intended to become so now. The policy itself hasn't changed, just the level of enforcement. People always needed desc notes, they always needed to let their RP partner RP (and if people twink, report it so we can discourage them with an appropriate XP hit), and they've always needed to provide an IC reason, whether the victim agrees with the reason or not.
This said, I'm not sure that recent deaths really had to do with OOC things like "I found Tenebrae!" or even Julea's role as Sapiente (other than it had implications for what people already knew about the actual people filling those roles - for example, that Tenebrae was a mage was a known issue for the Order, so finding the Tenebrae means catching a mage). Rather, I think we saw a situation with people digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole when evidence was supplied and questioned, and more and more corroborating evidence coming out once initial accusations were made. And, honestly, a bunch of OOC complaining that the people asking questions couldn't possibly have the IC information to do so, which I think just spurred people to do a -better- job of ensuring they did cover their IC bases, honestly.
At one stage, it was brought up that someone "OOCly guessed who Remi was based on height and weapon type, and this was a stretch", and I agreed. Xine said he wanted to post about it (and he did) and I supported that. However, according to Romana, that evidence never even made it to her ICly to be considered. So whereas I can see why, for example, Xine might feel it was "cheap", I think the true reality of the situation is that he just didn't know what else was going on under the hood, and thus believed that it was a personal attack or dislike of him (but who could dislike Xine? I mean, seriously, he's totally awesome) because what he thought he knew was cheap.
I think it's just in situations like these, that's the natural way people's minds work. When people see the world from a certain point of view (like that they had no intent to do harm or are innocent), it's simply hard for them to conceive that their perception of reality isn't shared by others, so it appears to be a deliberate violation instead of people simply having clashing views and information. That's why PK rules don't address fairness or evidence, they just say 'give a reason, prove the reason is IC, and make sure people can RP evenly with a victim so the success of the PK isn't rigged either way'. If PK was about what was 'fair' and staff tried to judge on that... omg. I can't conceive of the mess.
TI's PK policy has never been soft, nor is intended to become so now. The policy itself hasn't changed, just the level of enforcement. People always needed desc notes, they always needed to let their RP partner RP (and if people twink, report it so we can discourage them with an appropriate XP hit), and they've always needed to provide an IC reason, whether the victim agrees with the reason or not.
I wonder how appropriate a post-PK debrief could be?
What I mean by that is I wonder if after you're PKed, maybe you send a few questions to the Imm about what happened with your PK, and that Imm passes those questions along to the PKer to be answered (or not). That way people might have an idea what actually led to their deaths and might be more assured that there were legitimate IC reasons behind it.
My thinking is that it's not just important that the RP leading to a PK is fair; it's just as important that the parties to the PK perceive the RP as fair.
I dunno.
What I mean by that is I wonder if after you're PKed, maybe you send a few questions to the Imm about what happened with your PK, and that Imm passes those questions along to the PKer to be answered (or not). That way people might have an idea what actually led to their deaths and might be more assured that there were legitimate IC reasons behind it.
My thinking is that it's not just important that the RP leading to a PK is fair; it's just as important that the parties to the PK perceive the RP as fair.
I dunno.
I've no issues with that, provided the pbase supports it.
It could help retain players, at least. It might also have the opposite affect - sending surviving players running for the hills if petty reasons, exposure of their secrets, etc, got out. *ponder*
Might poll it.
It could help retain players, at least. It might also have the opposite affect - sending surviving players running for the hills if petty reasons, exposure of their secrets, etc, got out. *ponder*
Might poll it.
I really want(ed) to not post on the forums anymore, but you know, I'm going to go ahead and speak on behalf of the law folk because I don't see a lot of that happening, if any.
First of all, there's no way I'm going to purposely make my character an idiot and/or blind to people around him, it's out of character and it makes no sense to me. You're asking law people to play dumber, be more slack? I say criminals should play more tightly and be more careful about their identities, their manner of speaking, etc.
I think Kinaed summed it up very well. The good guys hunt and that's their thrill, the bad guys try to outwit and inflict as much damage until their almost inevitable capture.
It is not my job to play stupid because criminals do ignorant things. The fact is that TI is fairly close to RL in terms of what happens to bad guys. If you act stupid, go on mass murder sprees, wear a cloak or no concealment at all, you're going to get caught. It's the characters that fly under the radar and keep themselves back and away from the main danger. The chessmasters, if you will, that last the longest and that's just how it is IRL too. We currently have one recently outed mage that played a completely innocent seeming person for OOC -MONTHS- and didn't let a scrap of evidence about them surface. That's the kind of villain I'm describing.
This business that 'there are a lot of vNPCs who should have the same approximate descs as me, why am I being singled out' is a weak one, at best, which I'll address below.
We've had some very, very good villains, especially as of late. Julea wasn't the most intelligent about keeping herself under the radar, but she was exceptional at avoiding punishment for a very long time through other means, and I give props to her for that. Ultimately though, her deeds caught up with her.
I'd argue Remi also did a good job of keeping himself concealed for a very long time, but he made some very key mistakes and I think a lot of OOC assumptions, such as the 'vNPC' part above that I'll elaborate on further below.
Okay, vNPCs work both ways, frankly. In a way, I'd saw currently as far as NPCs go, the baddies have it better because our actual, NPC guards do not auto attack warranted criminals, AFAIK. But that is not the case for lawful/noble people who venture southside.
Secondly, vNPCs from a law perspective rarely if ever are helpful in the capture of baddies. We don't get random tips (true OR false) from random vNPCs. If we want vNPC help, it's mainly by RPA or the recently added thing the reeves got when certain actions take place.
Now, as far as vNPCs vs. PCs being suspects, all I can say to that is that I imagine when we have a profile, especially one that's semi-vague, people should assume that we are arresting vNPCs who fit the description offscreen. The fact is, the staff probably doesn't have the time to RP out these arrests/interrogations. Do I think it would be a cool thing if it happened? Sure, but it doesn't. So simply saying 'a hundred thousand people are six feet tall with black hair and blue eyes in the city', while true, is not helpful or productive. We can't ICly actually interrogate vNPCs, not onscreen anyway.
The second part of this is that while yes, there are a hundred thousand people who are six feet tall with black hair and blue eyes, most law people don't know all of them personally. They go off of who they know and who are reported. If you're a bad guy.. why the hell would you be regularly and often RPing with people who are in the reeves, knights and/or order? Now don't get me wrong, I understand our pbase, while growing, is still small and it might be hard to RP otherwise, but no one said being a criminal or mage is easy.
I'm sorry, but I feel no sympathy for players who know they've been spotted, know their description is around, and then just congregate to church square or whoever and expect r/o/k folks to pretend that they have 20/200 vision that day and an IQ in the double digits. When you're at risk of being exposed, an intelligent person goes underground, or at the very least ought to avoid being around ROK type people. Southside is perfect for this. ICly there are no, AFAIK, vnpcs that are of the ROK variety, so really you only have to worry about fellow PCs turning you in, or random ROK pcs invading that area and searching you out. And if they do that.. well, you do kind of have home field advantage. So.. yeah.
Okay, now that I'm done with my rant regarding that, let's talk about evidence here for a moment. I'm semi-conflicted about this, but really the fact is that we, as law people, have pretty much set in stone guidelines for most punishments. Mages = burn, AFAIK there is no IC middle ground. Heresy is a little more subjective. Treason = death or at best, exile. More minor crimes and criminals have been caught, fined, jailed for a time, lost a finger, branded, etc. This idea that all criminals/heretics are immediately PK'd is out of proportion. I think the problem is that recently we've just had a lot more of the very major criminals, heretics or mages that have been caught and it's skewing people's vision.
I know the majority of this is off-topic for this thread, as this is specifically about Julea's death. I wasn't present for her arrest that stuck and mostly showed up in the aftermath and sentencing, so I really can't say if what went down was kosher or not.
But while we're on the subject of twinking, can we add that a person who decide to just run has to emote first or be punished for it? Attack is now not at all a way to force criminals to not auto-flee like it was in the past. I think the ROKs and baddies would debate on whether this is good or bad, but from my perspective if I'm being a responsible RPer, I have to first emote, then draw my weapon, then step into the appropriate range, then attack. A bad guy who doesn't at very least emote before pushing (directional letter-enter) is twinking, and IMO forces us to counter-twink because we have no choice. I'd like, personally, to see the combat code revised a bit to allow for an initiation of combat so that this kind of thing can't happen, or perhaps an addendum to the twinking rules that requires people escaping/running from the ROKs to at the very least type out a 5+ word emote.
Anyway, now I'm way off topic by now so I'll end, but I will just say this one more time because it bears repeating: zealots are kind of the theme of the game, asking us to be more forgiving, dumb, slack.. that's just uncool. It's not our/our character's job to make it be easier for bad guys to be bad guys. Is that harsh? Probably, but that's the way I feel about it.
First of all, there's no way I'm going to purposely make my character an idiot and/or blind to people around him, it's out of character and it makes no sense to me. You're asking law people to play dumber, be more slack? I say criminals should play more tightly and be more careful about their identities, their manner of speaking, etc.
I think Kinaed summed it up very well. The good guys hunt and that's their thrill, the bad guys try to outwit and inflict as much damage until their almost inevitable capture.
It is not my job to play stupid because criminals do ignorant things. The fact is that TI is fairly close to RL in terms of what happens to bad guys. If you act stupid, go on mass murder sprees, wear a cloak or no concealment at all, you're going to get caught. It's the characters that fly under the radar and keep themselves back and away from the main danger. The chessmasters, if you will, that last the longest and that's just how it is IRL too. We currently have one recently outed mage that played a completely innocent seeming person for OOC -MONTHS- and didn't let a scrap of evidence about them surface. That's the kind of villain I'm describing.
This business that 'there are a lot of vNPCs who should have the same approximate descs as me, why am I being singled out' is a weak one, at best, which I'll address below.
We've had some very, very good villains, especially as of late. Julea wasn't the most intelligent about keeping herself under the radar, but she was exceptional at avoiding punishment for a very long time through other means, and I give props to her for that. Ultimately though, her deeds caught up with her.
I'd argue Remi also did a good job of keeping himself concealed for a very long time, but he made some very key mistakes and I think a lot of OOC assumptions, such as the 'vNPC' part above that I'll elaborate on further below.
Okay, vNPCs work both ways, frankly. In a way, I'd saw currently as far as NPCs go, the baddies have it better because our actual, NPC guards do not auto attack warranted criminals, AFAIK. But that is not the case for lawful/noble people who venture southside.
Secondly, vNPCs from a law perspective rarely if ever are helpful in the capture of baddies. We don't get random tips (true OR false) from random vNPCs. If we want vNPC help, it's mainly by RPA or the recently added thing the reeves got when certain actions take place.
Now, as far as vNPCs vs. PCs being suspects, all I can say to that is that I imagine when we have a profile, especially one that's semi-vague, people should assume that we are arresting vNPCs who fit the description offscreen. The fact is, the staff probably doesn't have the time to RP out these arrests/interrogations. Do I think it would be a cool thing if it happened? Sure, but it doesn't. So simply saying 'a hundred thousand people are six feet tall with black hair and blue eyes in the city', while true, is not helpful or productive. We can't ICly actually interrogate vNPCs, not onscreen anyway.
The second part of this is that while yes, there are a hundred thousand people who are six feet tall with black hair and blue eyes, most law people don't know all of them personally. They go off of who they know and who are reported. If you're a bad guy.. why the hell would you be regularly and often RPing with people who are in the reeves, knights and/or order? Now don't get me wrong, I understand our pbase, while growing, is still small and it might be hard to RP otherwise, but no one said being a criminal or mage is easy.
I'm sorry, but I feel no sympathy for players who know they've been spotted, know their description is around, and then just congregate to church square or whoever and expect r/o/k folks to pretend that they have 20/200 vision that day and an IQ in the double digits. When you're at risk of being exposed, an intelligent person goes underground, or at the very least ought to avoid being around ROK type people. Southside is perfect for this. ICly there are no, AFAIK, vnpcs that are of the ROK variety, so really you only have to worry about fellow PCs turning you in, or random ROK pcs invading that area and searching you out. And if they do that.. well, you do kind of have home field advantage. So.. yeah.
Okay, now that I'm done with my rant regarding that, let's talk about evidence here for a moment. I'm semi-conflicted about this, but really the fact is that we, as law people, have pretty much set in stone guidelines for most punishments. Mages = burn, AFAIK there is no IC middle ground. Heresy is a little more subjective. Treason = death or at best, exile. More minor crimes and criminals have been caught, fined, jailed for a time, lost a finger, branded, etc. This idea that all criminals/heretics are immediately PK'd is out of proportion. I think the problem is that recently we've just had a lot more of the very major criminals, heretics or mages that have been caught and it's skewing people's vision.
I know the majority of this is off-topic for this thread, as this is specifically about Julea's death. I wasn't present for her arrest that stuck and mostly showed up in the aftermath and sentencing, so I really can't say if what went down was kosher or not.
But while we're on the subject of twinking, can we add that a person who decide to just run has to emote first or be punished for it? Attack is now not at all a way to force criminals to not auto-flee like it was in the past. I think the ROKs and baddies would debate on whether this is good or bad, but from my perspective if I'm being a responsible RPer, I have to first emote, then draw my weapon, then step into the appropriate range, then attack. A bad guy who doesn't at very least emote before pushing (directional letter-enter) is twinking, and IMO forces us to counter-twink because we have no choice. I'd like, personally, to see the combat code revised a bit to allow for an initiation of combat so that this kind of thing can't happen, or perhaps an addendum to the twinking rules that requires people escaping/running from the ROKs to at the very least type out a 5+ word emote.
Anyway, now I'm way off topic by now so I'll end, but I will just say this one more time because it bears repeating: zealots are kind of the theme of the game, asking us to be more forgiving, dumb, slack.. that's just uncool. It's not our/our character's job to make it be easier for bad guys to be bad guys. Is that harsh? Probably, but that's the way I feel about it.
-
Sephone
Enix, if you want to play a Baddie, then you need to anticipate that you might get your character killed.
The same as when you log in and make a mage, it tells you that this might get your character killed. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you that you should get some slack cut. Why should you get some slack cut when you activally make a choice to play a character where you're putting yourself in danger?
Baddies are a needed part of the game, I agree. I have played a few of them. But, it is not fair to say that someone who chooses to play a Knight should cut a mage slack because they have a right to have long term fun as their character. Or that a Reeve should have to cut you some slack because you're breaking the law. They choose to play someone accepted by society, and they are doing their job to protect it. The role of s 'baddie' is to do bad things, and a role that requires the resposbility that you're more there to create plot and move story along.
Everyone is entitled to play what they want to play, and to have fun playing it. TI is a non-consensual game, which means that if someone decides IC that they don't like your character, and they are out to get you, good or bad, then they are out to get you and there's a chance you could die.
At the end of the day, it's a game. It's meant to be fun, and if your character dies, you can make another.
The same as when you log in and make a mage, it tells you that this might get your character killed. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you that you should get some slack cut. Why should you get some slack cut when you activally make a choice to play a character where you're putting yourself in danger?
Baddies are a needed part of the game, I agree. I have played a few of them. But, it is not fair to say that someone who chooses to play a Knight should cut a mage slack because they have a right to have long term fun as their character. Or that a Reeve should have to cut you some slack because you're breaking the law. They choose to play someone accepted by society, and they are doing their job to protect it. The role of s 'baddie' is to do bad things, and a role that requires the resposbility that you're more there to create plot and move story along.
Everyone is entitled to play what they want to play, and to have fun playing it. TI is a non-consensual game, which means that if someone decides IC that they don't like your character, and they are out to get you, good or bad, then they are out to get you and there's a chance you could die.
At the end of the day, it's a game. It's meant to be fun, and if your character dies, you can make another.
I think we're getting sidetracked a bit by the IC issues here (and I know I was part of the sidetracking.)
There's a bigger OOC issue that someone who was fairly newish had some OOC issues with some bugs / being familiar with the code, and that that snowballed into losing a char. It didn't help either that when the player OOCly voiced they were having issues things weren't stopped to have everything sorted out.
Here's what I suggest:
-Create a "PAUSE" command, much like the graphic command. This would ping a helpfile to the room to halt RP while an Imm is summoned to assist in any code/OOC issues (ie they are unfamiliar with how to do something), and sends a message to the Aide channel that <Player> has used PAUSE and is asking for assistance (if it's a simple issue an aide might be able to solve it by tells). Only to be used in serious circumstances. Strict penalties for abuse.
I think that such a command is absolutely necessary, and it'd be something to send to a new player that looks like they're having a hard time navigating the code during some critical RP too. I understand and agree with the current reluctance to null RP, but I think this sort of command is a necessary consequence of that reluctance. It's one thing to lose your char, but it's another to lose your char for reasons you feel are unfair or outside your control. You feel cheated. That's the root of the problem there, and I think something along the lines of what I outlined above would do a lot to reduce those feelings at least.
I'd argue it's very similar circumstances to the graphic command too. Torture and violence, just like PKing, are part of TI's theme. We still have the graphic command out of consideration for that fact that there are real people playing these chars though, and that their experience on TI should be a positive one, not a painful one.
Also I'd suggest encouraging players to let newer players know about such a PAUSE command, and to even let people intervene with it on others' behalf. That way if you notice someone struggling to figure out how to do something codewise or otherwise held up by trying to convey their ideas through the framework of the game, you can step in and try to have it addressed.
-I had a second suggestion too, but now I'm tired and can't remember it. Lol. Hopefully I'll remember it later.
Anyways cheers.
There's a bigger OOC issue that someone who was fairly newish had some OOC issues with some bugs / being familiar with the code, and that that snowballed into losing a char. It didn't help either that when the player OOCly voiced they were having issues things weren't stopped to have everything sorted out.
Here's what I suggest:
-Create a "PAUSE" command, much like the graphic command. This would ping a helpfile to the room to halt RP while an Imm is summoned to assist in any code/OOC issues (ie they are unfamiliar with how to do something), and sends a message to the Aide channel that <Player> has used PAUSE and is asking for assistance (if it's a simple issue an aide might be able to solve it by tells). Only to be used in serious circumstances. Strict penalties for abuse.
I think that such a command is absolutely necessary, and it'd be something to send to a new player that looks like they're having a hard time navigating the code during some critical RP too. I understand and agree with the current reluctance to null RP, but I think this sort of command is a necessary consequence of that reluctance. It's one thing to lose your char, but it's another to lose your char for reasons you feel are unfair or outside your control. You feel cheated. That's the root of the problem there, and I think something along the lines of what I outlined above would do a lot to reduce those feelings at least.
I'd argue it's very similar circumstances to the graphic command too. Torture and violence, just like PKing, are part of TI's theme. We still have the graphic command out of consideration for that fact that there are real people playing these chars though, and that their experience on TI should be a positive one, not a painful one.
Also I'd suggest encouraging players to let newer players know about such a PAUSE command, and to even let people intervene with it on others' behalf. That way if you notice someone struggling to figure out how to do something codewise or otherwise held up by trying to convey their ideas through the framework of the game, you can step in and try to have it addressed.
-I had a second suggestion too, but now I'm tired and can't remember it. Lol. Hopefully I'll remember it later.
Anyways cheers.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests