October 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm #1129
Rule 4 states:
(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.
What do YOU think? Is two weeks long enough for you to let someone go instead of killing them? Is it too long? Not long enough? Should more things be added (such as the person being let go cannot tell other people what happened without that person being bound by Rule 4, etc.)?
Let your voices be heard!
October 5, 2010 at 2:13 pm #11560
I vote for the ‘lessened/abolished’. Although the rule is understandable, and if it should be in, it should be lessened to a couple of days, perhaps changed that with enough RP and think logs, the one that was let go can strike back in 3 or 4 days.
Then again, it’s silly. I like letting some people go, some not. Depends on the situation. I don’t care if they come after me. It shouldn’t involve with the roleplay whatsoever.
October 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm #11562
I don’t see much of a problem with the rule as it is, but then again, I haven’t really ever been in a situation where I need to let someone go for some reason. I’ve only permed like two people since I’ve started playing, and both of them were executed in prison and would have been killed either way.
October 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm #11565
There have been numerous discussions and arguements about this.
I would like to direct you here: <!– l –><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.legendsofthejedi.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1433">viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1433</a><!– l –>
October 5, 2010 at 7:12 pm #11571
I agree with Rule 4 as an alternative to permanent player-killing, if the person has a reason, just like you’d need one in a perming situation. The 2 weeks time part sort of defeats the purpose of RP-over-PK. However, I also believe this rule should be treated carefully, almost in a case-by-case kind of deal.
In some cases, a lot of people like to be assholes and will stun you, beat you up and then let you live, for no reason. Perhaps in this type of situation, a process could be submittable to RPC (or Imms), when this happens, just to get the approval for a retaliation (before the two weeks). Otherwise, when this rule is used in a legit manner, you must have ANOTHER valid reason, after two weeks are up.
It was always my understanding that if you got released via Rule 4, you’d have to forget about the problem, and that AFTER two weeks.. if you have ANOTHER reason for revenge.. you could go for it.. instead of, holding your ‘grudge’ for two weeks and then going to PK the person when time is up.
October 6, 2010 at 1:16 am #11576
The time limit needs to be longer and it needs to be enforced by RPC and Immstaff who aren’t dumbasses.
No offence to anyone in particular, just in the course of my 10 years of LotJ and like.. what.. 6 or 7 RPC terms, I’ve seen SO MANY convoluted twists and turns taken with Rule 4 to make it apply where it shouldn’t or not apply where it should in order to protect/screw over friends/enemies.
October 7, 2010 at 10:29 pm #11166
Rule four needs its own effing helpfile like help rules1 says it does. >=[
It needs to be clarified, that’s its problem.
Edit: Okay. well. It doesn’t say it has its own helpfile anymore. But still, I think it needs to be expounded on since it’s the topic of so much discussion.
October 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm #11169
Okay. So what do you want rule 4 to say? What expansions or exceptions should we include in the help file?
When the Dark Lord of the Sith lets a person go, it’s very VERY different from a regular guy letting the Dark Lord of the Sith go. What if a person is released with a mic on their person that they didn’t know was there? They were released under false pretenses and upon discovery of the bug, they’re upset and want to seek retribution.
I want to cultivate an environment that encourages RP over PK. Most of the players get that, but there are still some that don’t. The rule has to exist to help enforce the culture for ALL the players.
October 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm #11170
Well, I could see the person being mic-spied on as being ‘provocation’ by the person who let them go, rendering Rule 4 to be null in that specific situation. But, of course, it’s the RPC/IMM interpretation of the rule that matters – so maybe we should have some examples of things that would negate Rule 4 as opposed to just the ‘unless provoked’ clause. Is smirking at someone you let go, when you next see them, enough to render Rule 4 non-effective? I think we could use a bit of a ‘set-in-stone’ helpfile… Like if it includes your friends going after the person, after you run right to them and tell them all about how so-and-so beat you up, for example. Clan-mates should be an exception if so, of course, I’d think.
This would make it less of a crapshoot at determining whether or not the rule would apply in our circumstances. I’m not saying we need a hundred examples of as many situations as we can think up, just maybe something similar to help spyapp. Like what the person who’s let go is definitely allowed to do, and definitely is NOT allowed to do. And the same for the one who let them go. Anything that isn’t covered as a definite, ask the RPC or PR about your situation.
I know every situation is different, but surely there is enough common ground that a few good Do’s and Do Not’s could be established, instead of leaving it so vague.
The point of this topic posting, though, was the two-week thing. I don’t agree with it. I think it should definitely be longer, mostly because it doesn’t take much to sit around brooding for two weeks and then jump the guy. Even if the person wasn’t dangerous two weeks ago to your character, you might be unpleasantly surprised two weeks later with how much progress they make, or what friends they seem to have made – this causes the timeframe to make it a very flimsy incentive to allow someone you’ve just captured to live."Muse":lxxbjhs3 wrote:It was always my understanding that if you got released via Rule 4, you’d have to forget about the problem, and that AFTER two weeks.. if you have ANOTHER reason for revenge.. you could go for it.. instead of, holding your ‘grudge’ for two weeks and then going to PK the person when time is up.[/quote:lxxbjhs3]
Perhaps Muse’s suggestion of being forced to find a new reason to go after the person, even after the two weeks, would be good.
October 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm #11027"Xaleron":1m1d576e wrote:Perhaps Muse’s suggestion of being forced to find a new reason to go after the person, even after the two weeks, would be good.[/quote:1m1d576e]
Unfortunately finding a reason to kill someone isn’t that hard, giving someone two weeks to come up with another reason actually makes it fairly easy.
October 9, 2010 at 7:37 am #11028
That is true, it isn’t that hard to find a second reason, after two weeks, to kill a person.. but neither is it hard to find a /first/ reason.. After finding a second reason, they’ll have to go through RPC if they kill the person (and said person applies for a restore), thus, the RPC can judge accordingly.
I confused myself a little @[email protected], it’s late. <3
October 9, 2010 at 2:39 pm #11033"Anna":38xvgi9r wrote:I want to cultivate an environment that encourages RP over PK. Most of the players get that, but there are still some that don’t. The rule has to exist to help enforce the culture for ALL the players.[/quote:38xvgi9r]
Problem is, Anna, this rule is a running joke. It is very very selectively enforced with more twist’s and turns then anything else we have. I have been told so many things from imms and rpc aout different ways to handle it I just gave up.
Edit I think rule 4 should be treated as a restore case. The victem who got rule 4’d cannot attack or seek revenge unless victor from the last encounter initiates it.
Flek attacks Xpuma, Xpuma wins. Expuma lets Flek go. Flek cant touch him untill Xpuma fucks with Flek again. Leaving Xpuma to clear of any future attack if he rps right or carefully. Punishing Flek for failing his attack. Not giving him a round 2 free and clear.
October 9, 2010 at 5:01 pm #11035
I don’t think waiting for the victor of the last encounter to initiate it is a very good idea.. then they’d always have the upper hand. What if said victor was just some random guy that felt like randomly beating someone up and calling it RP? Though, it really is a case by case thing.. and I agree, like I said before, should be treated like another restore case.. blah blah. Don’t feel like repeating my post. But yeah, this thing is iffy and with a lot of loopholes. The ideal thing would be for everyone to use the rule fairly, without twisting it.. then there wouldn’t be rules for rules.. of rules..
October 10, 2010 at 5:10 am #11041
Just perm everyone and you will never have to worry about this rule.
October 10, 2010 at 7:30 am #11042
That’s my new plan.
This topic has 14 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by .
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.