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
-
-
January 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm #1361
Lets have an open chat concerning what people think about Rule 4
Current Version:
(4) If you are in a conflict, regardless of who instigated the fight, there is
incentive to let the other person go. For two weeks, the player who was let go
must curtail his revenge against the player who let him go unless he is
provoked by that player.My Thoughts – I like the idea of giving people reason to let people live instead of just constant death. However, what does "curtail his revenge" actually mean? Does that mean if Player X beats me up and lets me go…that I have to wait 2 weeks to do the exact same thing? Or does that mean I have to take 2 weeks to go kill him?
I think that there shouldn’t be any, or at least less, time if you’re going to do the exact same thing they did to you. But I agree that 2 weeks is a good time for a "now I’m going to kill them" type of revenge.
However, what happens when you get jumped by 5 different people and they let you go? What if they didn’t as a group decide to let you go, but one of them drug you off to let you go? Does that mean the others are fair game and only the person that made the decision gets the 2 week bye? The whole thing is just rather vague.
So what say you?
-
January 15, 2010 at 6:24 pm #13081
Rule 4 is a fucking joke and has been for years. I can’t think of a single situation where rule 4 was actually upheld, either a restore is granted by twisting rule 4, or denied by twisting rule 4.
-
January 15, 2010 at 11:34 pm #13082"Fishy":3sho4kk0 wrote:Rule 4 is a fucking joke and has been for years. I can’t think of a single situation where rule 4 was actually upheld, either a restore is granted by twisting rule 4, or denied by twisting rule 4.[/quote:3sho4kk0]
Agreed. I’ve been permed at least once when rule 4 /should’ve/ overturned the perm (had it not had the moronic implied stipulation of being only ground fights back then) and didn’t, because the RPC at the time ignored the thing.Suggestions:
No stipulations. At all. It shouldn’t only apply to interpersonal conflicts; group conflicts should be under its influence, as well. As I mentioned earlier, one type of combat shouldn’t be favored. Sure, it’s far easier to take prisoners in ground combat, but that also means that those people who attempt to take prisoners in a space battle should be rewarded with Rule 4 protection because of the increased risk/difficulty/whatnot.
No time limit. 99% of players, when confronted with a perm they want to partake in that might be affected by rule 4, would immediately think to wait a day or two more than two weeks, and they’d legally get away with that (assuming the RPC at the time were competent enough to actually care about rule 4); the remaining 1% of players are dumb. Rule 4 should apply any time it can be proven that the sole (or most important) reason is because of the victim-turned-permer’s previous capture. Now, there would be some exceptions:
-Some sort of spyapp-esque application, perhaps.
-If the previous capture, while not lethal, did something otherwise worthy of death (judged so by the RPC at the time of the perm case), e.g. torture or perhaps an interrogation where the captured party was forced to spill clan secrets.
-
January 16, 2010 at 1:56 am #13083
RJ what do you mean by no stipulations at all? Do you mean there shouldn’t even be a Rule4? Perhaps I’m misreading it.
I wish we could just say that RP should handle it, but unfortunately thats not the situation. However, I can say that last timeline, I was spared by a character who I at once had a chance to really finish off. It tied really well into the whole storyline imho. Though I can’t imagine that happening too often.
-
January 16, 2010 at 7:59 pm #13088"xpuma20x":2h6f1ua3 wrote:RJ what do you mean by no stipulations at all? Do you mean there shouldn’t even be a Rule4? Perhaps I’m misreading it.
I wish we could just say that RP should handle it, but unfortunately thats not the situation. However, I can say that last timeline, I was spared by a character who I at once had a chance to really finish off. It tied really well into the whole storyline imho. Though I can’t imagine that happening too often.[/quote:2h6f1ua3]
By no stipulations, I mean that the rule shouldn’t only apply when certain conditions (in addition to the "had the opportunity to kill and didn’t" condition) are met… it shouldn’t apply /only/ with formal imprisonment, it shouldn’t apply /only/ in ground battles, etc.
-
January 17, 2010 at 8:56 pm #13092
Well, then how would it apply in the case of war? I mean, if you’ve got a death-ish-type situation going on, you tell your superiors about it and they then decide, "Wtf, dude, x clan can’t do that. THIS MEANS THEY DIE." and declare war and everything gets real bloody real fast.
… Rule 4 or no?
-
January 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm #13115
Ok, now that we’ve had a couple of posts, I figured I’ll post what I had on the imm forums about it.
Ok, time to get some of this jumbled mess that’s in my head down onto err… the internet?
[u:2dnh226l]Compels Random Jumbled thoughts on Rule 4.[/u:2dnh226l]
The point of rule 4 is to ‘protect’ people in the game who are a bit soft, or at least, don’t want to actually kill characters.
We want to stop a repeat of the recent rule 4 issues.
The 2 weeks thing is a bit pants. It pretty much defeats the point of what I think rule 4 should be.
Rule 4 should be ‘sold’ to the player base as a completely viable alternative to a perm. Players should be pretty much thankful that they have been ‘rule 4ed’ as opposed to killed.
As such, Rule 4 should potentially follow all the help perm rules, even to the point of going to the RPC for getting it overruled like a restore.
In light of these suggestions, extra support and security should be given to the rule 4’er. I’m not entirely sure how this should work, but he should have [u:2dnh226l]exactly[/u:2dnh226l] (not more, not less) the same level of ‘security’ from reprisal as he would have if he had actually killed someone. – More thought is needed on this.
ICly, some of this could be explained as the characters who have been rule 4’ed as having a variant of the classic Stockholm Syndrome[/url:2dnh226l].
Code support could be possible. It could be done at an opportunity when the ‘murder target perm’ code is being tightened up. Ideal. murder <target> rule4 instead of perm. It then gives a dialogue like teaching along the lines of. Do you accept, decline or (unknown to the attacker), contest. Contest could make the RPC aware of the circumstances.
Help POW. – Kinda like a clan/war version of rule 4. Just had the idea this afternoon, so not exactly worked out.
Idea is the same kind of thing, perhaps allow an extension of jail guidelines. But also, again following the help perm rules, have it as if a player being released at the end of it almost being bound by ‘spyapp’ against the hostage taking clan. – This assuming, of course, that they were released, not escaped (code support would again be a good idea – offer to ‘sign pardon’ or somesuch. Happened in history with high ranking prisoners.)
So, that’s what I’ve been thinking about it.
-
January 20, 2010 at 9:04 pm #13116
Big bad bounty hunter develops Stockholm Syndrome for the Sith who let him go? I donno about that.
Just enforce it OOCly through the threat of immortal smiting and let the IC work itself out.
-
January 21, 2010 at 5:39 pm #13118
If the big, bad bounty hunter really was that big and bad, he wouldn’t have let himself get taken prisoner in the first place <!– s:P –><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt="
" title="Razz" /><!– s:P –>
-
January 21, 2010 at 6:14 pm #13119
Stockholm Syndrome is pretty rare and the full blown version (not just the "Oh I get why they did it" type) is even rarer. I have to agree, while a creative method of coming up with a reason to enforce it, not the most logical.
Again, none of these explains what happens when you get jumped by 5 people (which is the most common case of attacks on LOTJ it seems) and then let go.
-
January 22, 2010 at 9:36 pm #13121
Well, the concept of my suggestion is basically this. If the 5 people jump you then perm you, who would the RPC be asking for statements / reasons why. If all 5 have great reasons to kill you. Then well, **** off less people….
And I did say variant!
-
January 22, 2010 at 9:39 pm #13122
Thats not the question though. If 5 random people you’ve never met, seen or even heard of, decided to all jump you at once (which oddly enough happens a whole lot these days)…but since they really have no reason to kill you anyways…they "let you go"…does that suddenly mean I have to not retaliate against any of them for up to 2 weeks?
-
January 22, 2010 at 9:57 pm #13123
Are we talking current rules or my proposed suggestions?
Current rules, well. That refers to ‘recent events’ and those issues have been addressed by the staff if and when they occur.
My proposed suggestion. ‘Rule 4’-ing someone would pretty much need exactly the same justification as help perm. Which is what I said and should be pretty self explanatory. :S
-
January 22, 2010 at 11:04 pm #13124
Compel, if they apply your ideas, the term has to be way longer than two weeks to be useful.
-
January 24, 2010 at 4:10 am #13127"Skiia":3f7dpkyf wrote:Compel, if they apply your ideas, the term has to be way longer than two weeks to be useful.[/quote:3f7dpkyf]
He did say he wanted it to provide the same level of protection as killing somebody would… if you kill somebody they can [b:3f7dpkyf]never[/b:3f7dpkyf] retaliate. On the other hand, killing a player gives everybody they were close to reason to perm you, "Rule 4ing" them doesn’t… so there has to be a trade off somewhere, I guess. I know the particulars haven’t been worked out yet, but tentatively I’m all for the way Compel’s been saying it should work.
-