[Poll] Should players be limited to one character in any given guild?

[Pixie]

This gets into a boggy road with allowing dual guilding because thst means, and yes especially for Merchants. Now ICly it's been established no one is meant to sell anything or provide services without joining even if some skills aren't guilded to the Merchants. If only one alt can be in that clan, that's going to by IC precedent cut off lots of possible support roles that might technically require that Guilding by IC rules.

Err, not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but in the interest of staving off misinformation: the opposite of this is what was recently established. Decree from the Queen and all. Food and drink, books, and medicines, were all formally made exempt from Merchant control or regulation. <3

[Voxumo]

This gets into a boggy road with allowing dual guilding because thst means, and yes especially for Merchants. Now ICly it's been established no one is meant to sell anything or provide services without joining even if some skills aren't guilded to the Merchants. If only one alt can be in that clan, that's going to by IC precedent cut off lots of possible support roles that might technically require that Guilding by IC rules.

Err, not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but in the interest of staving off misinformation: the opposite of this is what was recently established. Decree from the Queen and all. Food and drink, books, and medicines, were all formally made exempt from Merchant control or regulation. <3

I'd also like to tack on that I believe medicines are now under the regulation of the Physicians, so not quite free-roam as food and books.

[Snefru]

I'm going to suggest a process like application being required before allowing an alt into the same guild. Should review the reasons someone feels they need another character in the same guild...

I agree with this. If not this, then I'd say no.

Also, I'll disagree with Taunya about the guild leadership thing only because I don't think other players should know about a person's alts.

[Kinaed]

Well, at the current split, the pbases' feelings are a bit murky/even divide.

May I ask people who voted maybe to revote for whatever side they're leaning towards?

Vicannia, your comments read to me as if you have somehow used convoluted logic to twist my polling the pbase's opinion about how the game should be structured into targetting players who have done nothing wrong. With all due respect, I personally feel that is a stretch designed to support your desired stance rather than a natural truth. If nothing else, it's damn hard to target someone or a group of people through other people (everyone would have to be in cahoots to pull it off).

[Voxumo]

your comments read to me as if you have somehow used convoluted logic to twist my polling the pbase's opinion about how the game should be structured into targetting players who have done nothing wrong. With all due respect, I personally feel that is a stretch designed to support your desired stance rather than a natural truth. If nothing else, it's damn hard to target someone or a group of people through other people (everyone would have to be in cahoots to pull it off).

Firstly how does one revote.
Nevermind, figured it out. Used to polls having choices locked.


Secondly I'm basing my comments on previous polls, where the results seemed to often coincide with what staff ultimately decided to do. Given prior polls it's not that hard to assume that should yes be the overwhelming choice, that staff will then likely end up in favor of limiting alt-multiguilding. It may not be the case, but I'd rather caution on the side of previous polls, and assume worst case scenario. And I don't mean revising the policy itself is worst-case scenario, but the results of the poll deciding the revision as worst-case scenario.

And I feel targetting is not a fair term here. In no way do I feel staff, or any players in support of this potential revision to policy are trying to target any one person. I just feel it foolish to potentially instate a policy meant to correct an issue that isn't even an issue, but instead a "Fear'. Again this is me basing my logic on past polls of this variety and the outcomes and results of such polls.

[Rabek]

We've had an excellent staff member asked to step down for mentioning a plot line one of their alts was connected to as another alt when that alt was ICly asked about said plot line.

That is a standard that is literally impossible for any player to maintain if their alts share any kind of sphere overlap whatsoever.

Given the precedent established by Kinaed in that case, I don't think any player should be allowed alts in the same area of influence at all. Anything less and it's impossible to maintain the standards expected of us by staff.

Since that's not the question being asked, I will give my answer: given precedent set by Kinaed in other areas of the game, the only consistent stance to take is to ban players from having more than one character in a guild, regardless of other factors (such as one player accruing too much power in a guild; something that is not so easily sorted out as Voxumo seems to believe).

[Voxumo]

Since that's not the question being asked, I will give my answer: given precedent set by Kinaed in other areas of the game, the only consistent stance to take is to ban players from having more than one character in a guild, regardless of other factors (such as one player accruing too much power in a guild; something that is not so easily sorted out as Voxumo seems to believe).

If a character has too much power in a guild, there is one simple thing characters who don't iike that power control can do... Kill the character. I say character and not players because if a character truly has as much power in a guild as people are claiming, then it's a matter of IC, and as such IC actions can be taken. Character A, C and D don't like Character's B monopoly in a guild, then they should conspire to ruin or kill character B, instead of seeking a policy to diminish their power.

Somebody can have all the alts in the world in a single guild, but if the playerbase doesn't feed into their grab for power, it amounts to nil. So if somebody has that much power, it is likely IC based. Take care of it ICly.

[Taunya]

Kill the character. I say character and not players because...

While effective, you can't play TI from prison?

[Voxumo]

Kill the character. I say character and not players because...

While effective, you can't play TI from prison?

And if you are smart about it, you won't get caught... Also I'm just now realizing you are joking...


It's funny really, the more I read and watch people's response, the more this reminds me of an instance I had with Ariel and Misune. Misune never liked how much power and influence Ariel had, and he had quite a massive amount. So what did Misune do, well when Misune finally snapped and lost what little bit of morals he had, he tried to kill Ariel, proclaiming it would have been for the good of Lithmore. Though for awhile there, I'd constantly try and claim he only had the power he did because of cliques and ooc friendships, it should be noted that at the time I truly did believe this was the case. This is very similar to what is happening here. Eventually I realized that without proof of these claims, I really shouldn't be trying to solve my issue oocly, and as such eventually Misune tried to solve it icly, and yeah it resulted in his death, but at least it can be said i tried.

[Kinaed]

Also in the vein of staving off misinformation:

We've had an excellent staff member asked to step down for mentioning a plot line one of their alts was connected to as another alt when that alt was ICly asked about said plot line.

That's not what happened.

Takta was asked to step down because she was online with Takta, noted RP she didn't agree with (the execution of one of her alts's lovers/friends) happening as a staff member, and logged Ariel in (not related to the RP), to stop the execution.

In her view, she was stopping the execution for policy reasons even though she checked with me as policy prior and I said no, it was for players to stop if they wanted to, not staff.

Here is the link to the policy disclosure on Takta's dismissal.