Discussion Archives Index

Destructive Crossplay and policy (long)

Current Index

Posted by Zandy on 06/19

First, let me apologize for my lack of communication around this issue. I realize that both destructive crossplay and pkill interference are critical issues, and I don't have a solution as of yet, but I want to give you some idea why it's taking so long, as well as some of the ramifications of the decisions that get made around these issues, particularly around destructive crossplay. I recognize that destructive crossplay is just that -- destructive. It hampers RP, and has a significant negative impact on both the pkillers and non-pkillers at LegendMud. With the status of pkill in general right now, any decision made by the immortal staff right now is more than just a rule, it's s precident-setting decision and needs to be made with careful deliberation and forethought. I wanted to take a second to share some of the related thought processes that are going on with you. Please don't read any conclusions into this explination, we, as a whole, haven't reached any ourselves, in a lot of ways we're still deliberating. Before I, personally, make any rules, they need to very clearly satisfy three criteria. Any rule needs to be necessary, clear and followable, and able to be consistantly and fairly enforced. Ths can be a bit of a challenge. First off -- necessary. In destructive crossplay, the vast majority of very prominant cases involve pkill, I think everyone would agree with that. We have, in most senses, given all pkillers a significant array of tools with which to protect themselves. If, in real life, you had a way to prevent other people from hurting you, and you CHOSE to allow them to hurt you, (which, in essence you are doing when you accept someone) would you still have room to complain when they do? While I recognize both the fun and excitement of being 'accept all', does a person who chooses to be so accept a certain amount of the responsibility for what happens to them when they don't take advantage of the tools available to them? Secondly, clarity. Neither the player base nor the immortal staff appreciates vague rules. They leave room for perceived favoritism, wiggle-room on the part of wrongdoers, and a whole host of other problems. By way of example. Pkiller1 attacks PkillerA and beats the snot out of them. PkillerA rents out, and logs in PkillerB to attack Pkiller1 by way of revenge. Obviously this isn't good... it's going to be detrimantal to the spirit of the challenge, the fun of pkill and whatnot. However.. if PkillerB and Pkiller1 have a history, how do I make a rule that reflects when it IS okay for PkillerB to attack Pkiller1? 10 minutes? 5 minutes? 20 ticks? How, in a situation that is going to be different each time, do I write a rule that players can follow and immortals can enforce? Additionally, how much of destructive crossplay is worth following up on? If I refuse to sell something to someone who killed my pkiller yesterday, is that destructive crossplay that should warrant immortal intervention? These are all parts of things that need to be sorted out. Finally, fairly and consistantly enforced -- Unforuntately, the immortal mind-meld isn't a part of the immortal toolset. We lack the ability, in nearly every case, to determine motives. If someone gets mad at my mortal because I killed a mob they needed for a quest, and I, later that day, have Esteban logged in and they kill me repeatedly, can an immortal assume that they were related? Any player with 1/10 of a clue is going to say "Um, I'm from London and my character hates people from Lima so I had to kill him," and the immortal's hands are pretty tied. Even if a log is provided, there's nothing sacred or reliable about one player's log. While we like to trust them, there's nothing that stops anyone with a text editor from adding the line "Zandy tells you, 'I just set my mort's hitpoints to 10,000 -- buhahahaha'" and having it be completely indestinguishable from a real tell. Cases of destructive crossplay, nearly 100% of the time, are going to come down to one player's word against another, and leave an immortal with no real method by which to track down what really occurs. An immortal is forced, at that point, to rely on trust and familiarity, neither of which are fair or impartial from my point of view. So, there's where we are. A big part of me wants destructive crossplay to stop, but I'm really debating whether a poorly enforced (by nature of the rule and situation, NOT by nature of the immortal staff) rule will do more harm than simply adopting a policy of telling people "you have the tools to keep PkillerB from being able to attack you, you use them to protect yourself." Like I said, not a conclusion here at all, I mostly wanted to communicate where things are and why I'm dragging my feet. Feel free to reply, I'm not specifically soliciting feedback, but I will read whatever you add. -Zandy

From: Milamber Monday, June 11 2001, 12:03PM I can help you with one thing there. Under old pk could not happen story "Pkiller1 attacks PkillerA and beats the snot out of them. PkillerA rents out, and logs in PkillerB to attack Pkiller1 by way of revenge...". If you will bring old pk back this cant happen again and it is solved. -Milamber

From: Fear Monday, June 11 2001, 12:12PM -sigh- those tools do nothing when you don't know it's coming. Hell, I'm all for making it a one pk'er mud again, under pkok. it just makes more sense, it's easier to deal with, and causes many less problems. There obviously will never -BE- a clear, enforcable rule here, so why continue? -Fear

From: Fynn Tuesday, June 12 2001, 04:31AM I don't think xplay involving PK is destructive, simply because anyone who allowed themselves to be susceptible knew all the risks and benefits of having done so. If you are accept all, you acknowledge that anyone, ANYONE can attack you at ANY given time. That includes char1 char2 and char3 even if they belong to the same player. If they have half the sense, they'll simply fight til they can and bail when they can't. Then remember the chars in question and hunt them down later. However xplay that does not involve PK isn't something anyone asked for, especially when it comes to verbal harassment or fighting words over public channels. I personally get annoyed by anyone who simply say "pkers suck" or "pk sucks." They xplay in that every single one of their chars have a bias against pkers and pk in general. Also in what is disguised as a heated debate, ppl get away with remarks that should not be directed against ppl ... Things would be a lot easier if it was simply illegal to complain about PKers when you are not Accept All. Those that are Accept All should be taken away of their PKenabled status if they complain about pk. Life as a pker would be much easier without non-enabled chars annoying enabled chars at every turn.

From: Chocorua Tuesday, June 12 2001, 10:11AM I am pretty sure that you won't see it made illegal to voice your opinion on a subject. That said let me make sure its not taken to far. 1) from time to time people's opinions get out of hand and will be asked to move to a conference. 2) sometimes people's "opinions" will cross the line from opinion to harassment in personal insults and the way they are stated. 3) Anytime an immortals asks you to take a conversation somewherelse its best to just do it, and if you disagree talk to an admin, head or imp about it later. nothing comes from arguing publically about it. Again the statement "pk Sucks" isn't gonna get anyone in trouble or I would be in some serious trouble. I have been saying it for years. Chocorua

From: Fynn Wednesday, June 13 2001, 08:08AM What I see is that there are people who simply can't stand others with a different opinion, or ppl who get a different sort of playing value out of this mud, especially when it comes to pk. I haven't seen many that complain about those who don't PK, only about those that PK in a certain manner or those that PK at all. At any rate, I find it somewhat moot since all the tools necessary to prevent any sort of harassment is in place -- gag, reject, channelgag etc. If we could only add say and emotes to that list, we'd live in a perfect world of ignoring those we don't want to deal with. I simply miss the 'atmosphere' we once had, but then again I think that was only possible since the playerbase was much younger in terms of years spent on Legend. Too many people here have seen too many things and a great deal of them 'have been there and done that,' including being helpful, being actively involved, etc. And I don't want to blame anyone for not actively searching out other venues of fun within this mud. But given a situation like this, new areas and eq alone won't rekindle the kind of interest or spirit of adventure... at least for me. So here I am, waiting for a change radical enough to make this mud feel like 'new,' not just 'balanced,' or as what it mostly feels like, 'player downgrade.' I'm hoping that skill trees will be in before too long.

From: Akai_Hayate Wednesday, June 13 2001, 04:44PM Hahahahhaha Thou it was prolly a joke, I think it should be illegal to complain about pk when your not in it :P constructive criticism would be cool sure, but gondar saying "pk sucks" 24/7 cause his first pkiller got multied, bah, we don't need any of that crap, we get enough heat from whiners about sl jumping as is... -bob

From: Fook Friday, June 15 2001, 12:41AM I believe one of the OldPk rules about crossplay was that you could not log out of your non-pk alt and log into your PK alt if you noticed someone come online, or to check for pkers. Also, I think it's probably a safe bet that whatever the wait is for healing a PKer you don't have accepted is the same wait that should be applied to borderline crossplay.


Current Index