Discussion Archives Index

Let's all go back to OldPK

Current Index

Posted by QuacK on 04/13

Cliff notes version of what I've been posting: PK peoples (some) want a version of PK that is like the old style. Where you are accept all and you cannot reject. Solution: (credit to Sandra) Make a post on the PK board Everyone that appends to the board can be accepted. Everyone on the post is part of the group who accepts the rules of OldPK. People abuse the rejection command. They multi and loot and then reject so retribution cannot be taken. Solution: The PK community (everyone) must know of such people and everyone should either a) wolfpack said person for retribution or b) reject said person so they cannot effectivly PK It's a very simply idea. It just takes everyone's cooperation. Obviously the people that really want to PK will not resort to such tactics, because they know it means less opponents. (such tactics as multi's and looting) If everyone cannot cooperate on such an idea, it's plainly clear that there's not enough interest in "OldPK" to warrant a change back to that system. You (the people) can make PK the way you want it. It just takes effort. I'm tired of debating this subject. Especially since I don't enjoy PK and don't PK. So please... enforce the way you want to play or suck it up and shut up. QuacK

From: Kintare Wednesday, April 11 2001, 03:33AM Your ignorance on this issue continues to stagger even me, QuacK. The counterarguments to everything you've said here have been clearly stated above, and have yet to be addressed. Is it so hard to get everyone to cooperate on a universal accept list? IMO, yes, it is. It's unrealistic to think that such a large group of people can constantly make sure they're all accepting the same people, and what's to stop someone from putting their name on the list, harassing someone, and then rejecting even though they put their name up? In fact, the "list" idea provides even more incentive for the harasser to ply their trade, since it's more likely that the "oldpk" people will trust them enough to pk with them. There are some things the playerbase simply cannot be trusted to police themselves on. This is one of them. Kintare

From: QuacK Wednesday, April 11 2001, 09:32AM What's to stop someone from adding their name to the list and then harrassing and rejecting? The other players on the list. If playerA abuses the list, it's the responsibility of the victim of the abuse to make it known that PlayerA is an abuser. Then the rest of the group takes care of PlayerA by either wolfganging him until there's no tomorrow, or everyone rejects him so he cannot harrass anyone. If the playerbase cannot be trusted to police themselves with PKOK, why should we put OldPK back in? So that 3 or 4 people can PK? So PK can die completely? So we can fill the boards and channels up with the people who enabled and now can't get out, and so they beg and plead not to be attacked until they can unenable? Should there be longer timers for AA? Perhaps. Should it be harder to get out of AA once you're in? Probably. Should we code a seperate system for people who want OldPK? Sure, and we can also open another port, so those who aren't part of the OldPK can't interfere, or get in the way, or possibly become victims of the OldPkers if they happen to group with mixed people. We can also code this alternate port as more of a battle ground instead of a story filled window into the history of Legends. There's no real need for room descriptions if you're merely hunting prey. Personally.. I think a little PK is good for everyone, that's what PKOK is for: Everyone. By creating walls and boundries, seclusions and exclusions you're only hurting yourself and others in the enjoyment of the game. Rejection is a tool of the PKer to maintain a professional business level of PKing. If someone is abusing the rejection, make it known to everyone, so everyone can reject said abuser. How many abusers are out there? One? Two? Ten? Fifty? Should we ask the Imms to police PK so there is no uneccesary multi's and looting? Maybe we could just code it so there can't be any looting or multi's? And then we can code it so that you can't attack while hidden or invisible. And then we can code it so that you can't wolfpack people. Maybe I'm going to extremes with this post. Maybe I'm ignorant of the way PK really is. But atleast I have a voice.

From: Kintare Wednesday, April 11 2001, 10:13AM The blacklisting technique you mention works fine, as long as the person who does the harassing is courteous enough to only do it with one character. But when one char starts getting rejected by people, they can switch to another, and continue there. Okay, so everyone realizes this second person is accept/kill/rejecting also, and rejects the second character. This person could then get their friends into it, any of whom may also have several alts at their disposal with which to accept/kill/ reject. Suddenly it's not just a case of dealing with one deviant, it's dealing with ten or more. This isn't fiction; this has happened. > If the playerbase cannot be trusted to police themselves > with PKOK, why should we put OldPK back in? Because an oldpk option takes the issue of players "policing themselves" out of the equation entirely. The only thing left for the players to do is make sure they behave responsibly toward each other, and if they don't then retribution is always possible because the person can't back out of pk at any moment. The point is: if you give certain people a back door so they don't have to answer for their behavior, they will always take it. Not most pkillers, but some, and they're the reason why some people want AA to be permanent or to have an oldpk option. With that, there is no back door. > So that 3 or 4 people can PK? I think a lot more people would participate in AA or in permaPK, if it were offered, than 3 or 4. Just because only a few people are vocal about it doesn't mean they're the only interested ones, and I personally know about a dozen people who have never posted in favor of it who would use it, if we had it. > So PK can die completely? If current pkers are happier with pk than under the current system, I don't really see that happening, do you? You, like some others, see rejection as the ultimate tool for dealing with people who abuse the system. But as long as people can alt or use their friends to continue, then rejecting doesn't go far enough. Maybe if there were an option to reject all characters from a single IP? Kintare

From: Sandra Wednesday, April 11 2001, 01:54PM I have yet to see an honest attempt at -trying- to set up this type of pk within the pkok system with individuals that wish to pk the old way. If it's so difficult to get people to cooperate on an accept list, then coding any sort of old pk option would do nothing but allow the people that everyone is so afraid of abusing the pkok system to abuse the other option as well. At least with pkok you can reject them, with an old pk option, you can't. I think that you are not giving the pk community enough credit. They can, and to an extend do, police themselves. It's not policing that is the problem here, it's pure laziness. And I can tell you that we won't put in code to fix that. -Sandra

From: Kintare Wednesday, April 11 2001, 04:29PM How would they "abuse the other option as well", Sandra? The way they abuse pkok is by rejecting people after fighting them, so the victim never has a chance to get satisfaction. With a permanent pk option whereby you can't fight permapk people unless you too are permapk, no- body could do that. You're right, no one has tried it yet and perhaps I'm wrong, it would be better. But as I've said: give these people a back door so they can avoid being killed back in retribution for killing/ multiing/looting someone else, and they'll take it. In that respect a "list" won't be any better than what we have now. Kintare

From: LadyAce Wednesday, April 11 2001, 05:49PM My suggestion on this topic is to give a board append system a try. What I'd really like to see us use is almost like a 'club' or 'organizatio n' system -- you might be in the knights clan, but you're also a member of the garden club, the spiff pkers club, and the tinyplot club. Clubs would have rosters and an executive council (how about 5 members?) to keep them organized and anyone on the council could let people in. Clubs wouldn't have ownership of houses, but club members would be forcibly pkok to each other if that option were turned on. You hafta understand that I made all this up (I don't mean I'm super original, I mean it's just me talking, not a promise or anything) -- but I see clans as operating on a closer, 'family' level, whereas a club would cross all boundaries, be open to multiple alts, etc. That way you can have BOTH a broad organization of all surgeons, AND a USL clan, and not have them be mutually exclusive. Anyway, I think that the first step for this kind of an automated system is to show that there's some reason for people to bother to code it -- form these organizations, make these agreements among yourselves, and then we will know it's worth trying to support in the code itself. RP clans were unofficial (and they struggled, and they survived) for a long time before we had an rp clans system. How would a club deal with pk? Well, maybe the thing would be that you would automatically be accepting anyone in the club, and the council could set policy from there. Would rejecting a club member be grounds for removal, or would it be normal practice, or would it be allowable for 7 days until everyone had cast their vote on keeping the member? Or whatever. There are lots of options on how this could all work out in the end, but player energy is key to making a socially-regulated organization work. -LA

From: Milamber Wednesday, April 11 2001, 06:29PM Dunno if i have an energy, but i totally agree with Kintare. -Milamber

From: Testboy Thursday, April 12 2001, 07:57AM Forget it, these imms are either too dumb or too stubborn to ever make a couple of easy changes to fix pk.

From: QuacK Thursday, April 12 2001, 10:42AM I kinda read into LadyAce's reply as to Hey, if you guys show us how your idea would work and that it actually would work, we'll see about coding it in. Why should the Imms spend their FREE TIME coding something that won't be used or won't work the way it was supposed to?

From: Sallah Thursday, April 12 2001, 02:30PM I agree with all the arguments in support of some other option for pking that's more permanent, but I also think LadyAce's suggestion to try it out first without coding it is valid, and should be tried. It's a good test to see if people are really serious about wanting pk to be the way they want it. As long as it's not just a tease to get the focus off of coding something of course ;) Sallah

From: QuacK Friday, April 13 2001, 01:49AM I retract my "shut up" statement :)


Current Index