Rule 4 Brainstorming as per request

All people subject to Rule 4 must immediately down all weapons and become moisture farmers on Tatooine. That’s what happened to Luke’s uncle, I bet!

Well, and the "knowingly" thing leads you into the whole complicated problem of what happens when you blow up a ship with multiple people in it or perm someone in covering armor that turns out to not be who you were sure it was and situations like that.

I suppose we could do without the knowingly.

Of course no matter how clearly written it is, it’ll still be buggered all to hell by the RPC after about 3 months.

Help Rules – "All rules are held to the interpretation of the RPC/Immortals, not your own"

Just because people think something is being buggered by the RPC doesn’t necessarily mean it is. If the Immortals thought the RPC were doing a shitty job on restore cases, they would have done something about them. If multiple people think the RPC buggered something, then PR should be called.

Anywho, before this conversation gets derailed again….

I figured that would be a relatively simple situation RPC wise.

RPC can see who took the final shot in a space battle most of the time, so in that case, they can find out if it was a rule 4’ed guy and well, restore the guy that was permed by it. And, assuming the guy was suitably apologetic or whatever, I doubt anything bad would happen to him.

I thought I suggested a few ways around the ‘can not osay in space’ by suggesting guy 1 contacts the imms to contact guy 2 for example. Or, if there arn’t any imms or rpc (if they know who it is) around, to try something as unambiguous as possible. – "Do you agree to surrendah to mah authoritah" or whatever. Of course, if someones that unsure, they could always just perm them and nothing will have changed. Just because you add a new option doesn’t mean that it should always be used.

I’ve tried to be fairly specific with who rule 4 affects, barring them from attacking a whole clan seems to be a bit out of the scope for a semi every day rule. I mean, you don’t tend to interview a whole clan if someones permed by one, normally it’s just the guy who ‘did the deed’ and the guy who gave the order.

Feel free to have a try at a redraft yourselves though.

First problem I have with it: The bounty hunter rule. If the bounty was for a live capture, the hunter did -not- have a reason to perm the victim, meaning they shouldn’t be protected by rule4. If the bounty was to kill the victim, and the bounty hunter chose not to, whoever issued the order did not free the victim, and should not be protected by rule4. I can think of very few instances where both of them actually have the right to be protected by the rule. Actually, the same thing goes for clan chains of command. If the Emperor says "Kill that man!" and some soldier sneakily sets him free, what debt does the released prisoner have to the Emperor? It’s different if the Emperor orders him free, since both the Emperor and the soldier have the right to perm members of a warring clan.

Also, assuming the aggressor is not also prohibited from seeking to harm the victim, I think it ought to be explicitly stated that if you are attacked by those who previously captured you, you are free from rule4. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to kill them if they attack you.

My biggest problem with this draft is the fact the rule4 offers unquestioned protection, forever (unless you apply, but we all know that applications can take weeks to get responded to — something that might cause a serious problem when quick action is necessary). I’d prefer something that required a -completely- unrelated motive to killing your rule4er, provided you even had a motive in the first place.

For example! I’m a rebel, you’re a rebel, I find out you’ve been selling secrets to the Empire, I attack you, you beat me down, you rule4 me. Later, you kill my character’s sister. …I can’t see a reason why I would refrain from attacking you now. The victor of the original fight is still alive and well to make life difficult for the victim. The victim agrees to put up with that in order to live, but when the victor does something new and terrible, I feel they should be allowed to reevaluate. …This is sort of a double-jeopardy type thing. If they fail to kill you for whatever it is you’ve done, they need to find a totally different reason in order to attack you again.

Last thing: In the situation above, letting other Rebels know that Rebelspyguy is a spy for the Empire would almost definitely condemn him to death, but you’re not actually attacking him yourself. Would spreading that information be considered an "attempt to harm" or can you do it?

Anyway, I wanted to get Compel’s opinion on what I had posted previously about Rule 4 kind of working like a ceasefire.

Rewriting this on Compel’s behalf.

[quote:2dtj2ofp](4) An alternative to perming is an agreement between players to release a victim without fear of reprisal. Read HELP RULE4 for more information.[/quote:2dtj2ofp]

[quote:2dtj2ofp]HELP Rule4
A player who is in a clear position to perm another (enemy stunned and mortally wounded, a doomed prisoner or an enemy ship disabled/out of fuel) may choose to invoke rule4. If both parties agrees, the victim cannot seek revenge in exchange for their life. The victim is free from rule4 if the other party decides to pursue/attack them at a later date. If rule 4 comes into play, it is a good idea to record the incident in a think log.

A player can apply to be freed of rule 4. The other player(s) will be informed if this occurs.

The point of rule 4 is to provide a safety net for our players who don’t want to deprive another of their favourite character but also don’t want to be killed themselves for ‘being nice.’
[/quote:2dtj2ofp]

I took out the ‘clan/BH’ things because it just gives examples of how the rule works, but I think it’s clearly worded enough to get the point across.

I like!

I like it too. I think the examples actually confused more than they clarified. Though "agrees" should be "agree".

I don’t think a requirement for formally discussed consent is a good idea in this case. If I have you at my mercy and choose not to kill you, I shouldn’t have to get your agreement to follow the rules. And then you’ll have the morons who go "He tried to rule 4 me but I didn’t wanna consent so he permed me for refusing to consent so I want a restore"

The moral of this story, kill everyone and show no mercy.
Dead men tell no tales, except on AIM and to RPC.

Fishy, as you no doubt have experienced, alot of people put forward stupid restore requests and usually they are summarily dismissed and the perm sticks. Sure its a good thing if people want to show leniency but as a character who had a chance to remove a future potential death, would you really be more inclined to let them go so they can skulk and plot your imminent downfall?
To question this also, does rule4 also mean they have to be released or would the detainee be viable for say a life sentence in prison. Or would this come under some other rule to moderate the punishment/outcome?

Life sentence falls under execution in jail guidelines so I’d think you would have to release them or force them into slavery or some other fun thing. =p