Deprecated: Function bp_core_get_user_domain is deprecated since version 12.0.0! Use bp_members_get_user_url() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Deprecated: Function seems_utf8 is deprecated since version 6.9.0! Use wp_is_valid_utf8() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Deprecated: Function seems_utf8 is deprecated since version 6.9.0! Use wp_is_valid_utf8() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
-
-
November 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm #1604
Now that we have the cloning system figured out, lets move onto help perm.
Right now, I don’t see the perming and restore system working the way that I intended it to work when I came up with it. I get more complaints over rule 4 than any other rule. -No, I take that back. I get more complaints about rule 14, but second to rule 14 is definitely rule 4.
I don’t want people to perm someone because they were jailed. Really? They let you go, and you’re going to thank them by hiring a bunch of bounty hunters?
I don’t want people to get caught in unending cycles of "You permed me, so I’m going to go perm you!". There are games that you can do that on. Go there. LotJ is for RP.
I don’t want people getting permed because their attacker was too busy (aka lazy) to do due diligence and check their ID, or because they didn’t bother to look to see that the unarmed newbie engineer wasn’t really the threat that they perceived them to be at first glance.
I do not EVER want a player to be permed because they killed a mob on your planet. That’s just totally inexcusable.I think its reasonable to kill an warring enemy, particularly if they are an immediate threat to you.
I think it’s reasonable to perm someone after attempts to arrest/modify their behavior have failed.
I think it’s reasonable to perm someone who is building ships/weapons/armor, developing new technology, or otherwise working as a[b:3bcyg75i] key [/b:3bcyg75i]member of an opposing faction.We’ve got to have it in writing that your perm will be overturned if your justification is, "Well, he jailed me and so I have to kill him now," or "Yeah, well I’m in the clan that controls this planet and this person is someone whose emote styles I recognize and I hate that fucker, and so I permed that person for whistling Dixie on my watch." We need to start tracking these idiots, setting the to-be-coded noperm flag on their account, and then banning them if they refuse to clean up their game.
The RPC needs to be empowered to review perms outside of the rules and decide not if the perm was IC, because apparently ANYTHING can be claimed to be IC, but rather, to judge the perm as warranted or unwarranted.
-
November 19, 2010 at 9:46 pm #16172
In a way I agree, certainly to the fact that people are being permed for killing citizens on planets. But as Andvari has said in the past… people keep newbie chars to scout planets for clans which annoys the HELL out of people then go running to RPC about them killing a newbie char that 1) Is in an opposing faction anyway and 2) Is clearly not leveling the character in act of scouting for their said clan.
-
November 20, 2010 at 12:55 am #16174
This is a touchy subject for a lot of people and there are already a lot of people bitching about it… even though these ideas are still JUST IDEAS.
Seriously, people… got a problem with this idea, post it here…
-
November 20, 2010 at 3:01 am #16175
If people are rolling newbies to scout enemy planets, then we need to resolve that issues separately. Let us assume that for this conversation, that all characters being permed are in fact player with honest intentions to play their characters normally and not as throw-aways.
-
November 20, 2010 at 5:26 am #16180
Im all for problem players being watched. If pk happens great its part of the game deal with it. We do have a few players who go out of there way just to shoot anything in sight. I dont know who played him. I was playing a stormtrooper last era. No I was not one of the lookup say movealong jerk offs. I actually rped with people. But I remember some guy rolled power leveld. Went out of the base and just started being a dick to get reactions out of people. He would then arrest and perm them. Thing was he wasnt rping a good trooper he wasnt rping an evil imperial. He was just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
Those are the people who need to be watched. So I am all for tagging accounts that seem to have a habit of making multiple chars like this.
I also say bring back the char sheet enforcement. If you want to play a reaaly aggresive persom rp it out. You should have a really good reason for it instead of oh my guy is a dick.
-
November 22, 2010 at 7:14 am #16202
[quote:3tdrbrd4]We’ve got to have it in writing that your perm will be overturned if your justification is, "Well, he jailed me and so I have to kill him now," or "Yeah, well I’m in the clan that controls this planet and this person is someone whose emote styles I recognize and I hate that fucker, and so I permed that person for whistling Dixie on my watch." We need to start tracking these idiots, setting the to-be-coded noperm flag on their account, and then banning them if they refuse to clean up their game.[/quote:3tdrbrd4]
I don’t like this. No two situations are the same and to issue blanket statements like that is just going to fill up a help file and add more layers to the process. How often do those examples actually happen anyway? Perming someone for jailing you very well could be a legit reason… if I am a civilian who gets harassed and arrested by a Stormtrooper?
What we need to do is encourage and empower the RPC to say "hey! this person permed someone for a super shitty reason. Something should be done." instead of just going "okay we restored him, next" and track based on that.
There is no reason to let the RPC look at a case outside of the rules or not… help perm should already account for that.
[quote:3tdrbrd4]The following factors are most
commonly looked at in restore cases:– Logical cause
– Logs
– Proof of in-game events[/quote:3tdrbrd4]Bullshit perms DO happen but the rules should account for that – logical cause (did they actually deserve to die?)
-
November 22, 2010 at 2:33 pm #16207"Walldo":3o66uh4f wrote:[quote:3o66uh4f]We’ve got to have it in writing that your perm will be overturned if your justification is, "Well, he jailed me and so I have to kill him now," or "Yeah, well I’m in the clan that controls this planet and this person is someone whose emote styles I recognize and I hate that fucker, and so I permed that person for whistling Dixie on my watch." We need to start tracking these idiots, setting the to-be-coded noperm flag on their account, and then banning them if they refuse to clean up their game.[/quote:3o66uh4f]
I don’t like this. No two situations are the same and to issue blanket statements like that is just going to fill up a help file and add more layers to the process. How often do those examples actually happen anyway? Perming someone for jailing you very well could be a legit reason… if I am a civilian who gets harassed and arrested by a Stormtrooper?
What we need to do is encourage and empower the RPC to say "hey! this person permed someone for a super shitty reason. Something should be done." instead of just going "okay we restored him, next" and track based on that.
There is no reason to let the RPC look at a case outside of the rules or not… help perm should already account for that.
[quote:3o66uh4f]The following factors are most
commonly looked at in restore cases:– Logical cause
– Logs
– Proof of in-game events[/quote:3o66uh4f]Bullshit perms DO happen but the rules should account for that – logical cause (did they actually deserve to die?)[/quote:3o66uh4f]
It’s not always "did they deserve to die", but rather "did the killer have reason to believe this person deserved to die". If all evidence points toward someone being guilty of murdering your friend (even if they didn’t actually do it), you would want to kill that person. Period.
-
November 22, 2010 at 3:48 pm #16208"Walldo":3dmuvkbo wrote:What we need to do is encourage and empower the RPC to say "hey! this person permed someone for a super shitty reason. Something should be done." instead of just going "okay we restored him, next" and track based on that.
[/quote:3dmuvkbo]Anything else in this thread is completely "changing for the sake of changing". As it currently is, the RPC serves as a machine that simply votes by whether a rule was(n’t) broken. I like the idea of 3 strikes. You perm someone for a shitty reason, or because they MIGHT have done something because one evidence points towards it, you get a warning. After 3 warnings, you go on a cooldown period with the noperm flag.
Other points? Rule 4 is DUMB. There is simply no efficient way to enforce it, other than notify the PR department of your release whenever it occurs and burden them with more work. I vote for deleting this rule, I can only recall a few cases where it applied and it just allows the victim to grasp for nonsensical reasons to invalidate the perm.
-
November 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm #16209"Troll":xvf25uza wrote:Other points? Rule 4 is DUMB. There is simply no efficient way to enforce it, other than notify the PR department of your release whenever it occurs and burden them with more work. I vote for deleting this rule, I can only recall a few cases where it applied and it just allows the victim to grasp for nonsensical reasons to invalidate the perm.[/quote:xvf25uza]
You know what Troll? You’re right.
While I won’t be as harsh as to call the rule, which served its purpose in its day, ‘DUMB’, I will agree that it doesn’t apply as well today as it did five or six years ago, and should be retired.
-
November 26, 2010 at 1:42 am #16214"Anna":wtsiysj6 wrote:"Troll":wtsiysj6 wrote:Other points? Rule 4 is DUMB. There is simply no efficient way to enforce it, other than notify the PR department of your release whenever it occurs and burden them with more work. I vote for deleting this rule, I can only recall a few cases where it applied and it just allows the victim to grasp for nonsensical reasons to invalidate the perm.[/quote:wtsiysj6]
You know what Troll? You’re right.
While I won’t be as harsh as to call the rule, which served its purpose in its day, ‘DUMB’, I will agree that it doesn’t apply as well today as it did five or six years ago, and should be retired.[/quote:wtsiysj6]
I absolutely love the idea of the rule, but I’m behind Troll in calling it "dumb." It was NEVER applied; the RPC seemingly didn’t know it existed or just didn’t care–neither of which bodes well.If anything, it should be incorporated into help perm, but in a way that it doesn’t only apply to ground-captured, jailcell-jailed victims like the first iteration of Rule 4 did. It should apply to any form of combat–and any other previous chances for harm to have been done.
-
November 26, 2010 at 3:32 am #16215
I meant to suggest this before, but it just came back to me.
How’s about a ‘contract’ command that you can issue on someone you’ve incapped? Basically, you lay out the terms of an OOC agreement (You will not attack me back, you will be my slave, you will pay me so much money, etc – it lets people be creative) and the incapped player has the option of viewing, then accepting the contract or refusing it and getting permed.
Kinda keeps the spirit of Rule 4 without the gray area bullshit of having people decide, "Does it apply? Doesn’t it?" Plus, since it goes through a command, the imms can see the terms and see that both players agreed to it.
-
November 26, 2010 at 9:07 am #16218"Avanga":15hgcyus wrote:I meant to suggest this before, but it just came back to me.
How’s about a ‘contract’ command that you can issue on someone you’ve incapped? Basically, you lay out the terms of an OOC agreement (You will not attack me back, you will be my slave, you will pay me so much money, etc – it lets people be creative) and the incapped player has the option of viewing, then accepting the contract or refusing it and getting permed.
Kinda keeps the spirit of Rule 4 without the gray area bullshit of having people decide, "Does it apply? Doesn’t it?" Plus, since it goes through a command, the imms can see the terms and see that both players agreed to it.[/quote:15hgcyus]
I like the potential of this idea, but being that I should probably be in bed and not playing LotJ right now, I’ll need to sleep on it before I can say whether or not I fully agree with it.
-
November 26, 2010 at 9:37 am #16220"Avanga":h045qmuf wrote:I meant to suggest this before, but it just came back to me.
How’s about a ‘contract’ command that you can issue on someone you’ve incapped? Basically, you lay out the terms of an OOC agreement (You will not attack me back, you will be my slave, you will pay me so much money, etc – it lets people be creative) and the incapped player has the option of viewing, then accepting the contract or refusing it and getting permed.
Kinda keeps the spirit of Rule 4 without the gray area bullshit of having people decide, "Does it apply? Doesn’t it?" Plus, since it goes through a command, the imms can see the terms and see that both players agreed to it.[/quote:h045qmuf]
Actually… I really like the spirit of this.
Immediately, I can see some problems with it from a logistical standpoint, but I think those can be ironed out.
Suppose, as you say Avanga, players can discuss these terms on osay or tells when they’re incapacitated. They iron out the details, and the would-be permer types up a contract between Fred and Barney with a command such as Contract <permer> <victim>. It opens a buffer, and upon typing /s to close the buffer, the contract that Fred just typed up is sent to Barney. Barney gets a message like, "A contract has been opened. To review your contract, type "Contract Review". To accept type "Contract Accept".
I like it.
In order to prevent players from defeating the long distance communication restrictions. (Imperial opens a contract with their clan leader across the galaxy from within the rebel jail cell to inform him that he’s in the slammer).
At the very least, this spells out what is expected of two players who decide to go the PK-Alternative route, and it gives the would-be permer the peace of mind that he’s got this agreement on file. It won’t stop the victim from turning around and convincing his buddy on aim to kill the would-be permer, but nothing is stopping that now anyway.
It sounds like it would be easy to code, too.
-
November 26, 2010 at 10:17 am #16221
Just make a huge, flashing red text that states that refusal of your contract alone is not a valid reason for perming and it will get you punished.
-
November 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm #16223"Troll":112hdetd wrote:Just make a huge, flashing red text that states that refusal of your contract alone is not a valid reason for perming and it will get you punished.[/quote:112hdetd]
Agreed. It will prevent assinine RPCtrials from being submitted because the person "didn’t know that refusing a contract would get" him/her permed or that "refusing a contract was a shitty reason for a perm."
After having more sleep, I am in agreement with this idea. It keeps the spirit of rule 4 while at the same time, spelling out for the incapped person what the terms of their release. There would need to be an idiot clause put in there to prevent unrealistic contracts [i.e. You can never attack me ever again for as long as your character is alive, you can never ever join X clan (although this one is a tad more realistic than the first)].
-