The 'relaxed' pk rules

Bonko

I thought the whole point of moving away from the old pk rules to the 'relaxed' ones were so people wouldn't be encouraged to issue over one death. It makes me wonder why the administration are upholding such issues, especially when IC or IG resolution was not even attempted. I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts.

Issue #65914   Reported by: <redacted>          Re: Bonko

REDACTED

Santar

You might want to consider editing/deleting your post or you might end up being banned for this. Just a heads up.

On the subject matter, you obviously have different views than the administration of what is "acceptable". You already knew that. You've been shrubbed multiple times for doing things that you thought were right and the administration thought was wrong. This should have given you enough warning to know that just simply going by your own instincts isn't going to work out for you for issues like this. You obviously need to tone down your behavior and err on the more lenient side of what you believe is a justified reason for killing people. I had to start doing that long ago. If you let things go and don't just kill everyone that you have a minor reason to kill, then you won't have problems like this and won't end up getting shrubbed again.

I even told you this personally the last time you were unshrubbed. I was watching the things you were doing and thinking to myself that you would end up shrubbed again soon. I even sent you a message warning you but you didn't pay any heed, and instead did end up getting issued and shrubbed shortly after. I'd really encourage you to try to change your mindset if you wish to continue playing the game. I like your character being a part of the game and would hate to see you end up with the same fate yet again.

And for the record, I'm not even going to bother reading the issue or trying to make an opinion on what is right. I'm just telling you that you exhibited this same pattern of actions and attitude the last time you were shrubbed, so I hope you take that advice and think about it. I understand that you think you're being wronged, but if you want to stand on principle, you're just going to get shrubbed again before long.

Edit:

Went ahead and read your issues because of the message you sent me. Sorry, but I agree with the administration here. Someone wildgrowthing 'illegal' totems planted on Mhaldor isle isn't a legitimate reason to go gank them while they're alone later on. A proper response to them wildgrowthing your totem would be just dispel the wildgrowth. Your totems aren't even technically supposed to be at those locations, and there's never any point in the PK rules history that attacking someone for wildgrowthing a totem(at a later time after the act) would have been permitted. You should have dispelled the wildgrowth and if they came back to do it again, you can kill them in the act of them actually doing it. You wouldn't lose an issue for that, but I definitely agree that you should have lost this issue for going to kill him later on.

Layna

I could be misunderstanding something here, so do correct me if I'm wrong - but if it was justified for him to attack your totems due to an ongoing conflict between Mhaldor and Eleusis, isn't it then justified for you to attack him?

Also, stating he wasn't aware of the conflict seems silly. He is a known City enemy, on the Isle, taking down totems that do not belong to him, on property that does not belong to him. Surely this is like someone defiling, then going 'Oh I didn't know it was wrong.'. He took aggressive action, he should have expected aggressive action back.. no??

Linian

Want to like for support, but don't want to seem like I approve of the situation you were put in. So, you know what the like is for. Frankly seems like someone misread the situation, sorry that happened to you.

Nemutaur

Bonko said:

I have looked into <redacted>' issue #65914 against you and the issue is upheld 

as the attack lacked a justifiable role-play reason under our standards (HELP PK). <redacted>' 

actions on Mhaldor Isle were part of an existing RPed conflict between Eleusis and Mhaldor started by the Mhaldorian side, and did not give you a justifiable reason to hunt down <redacted> individually later. Our policy notes "they must be aware of the conflict before you attack them," 

and in this case <redacted> was of course not aware.

Does this sound like a contradiction to you or not?'

The issue-er was acting against Mhaldor based on existing conflict, even if started by Mhaldor.

You then retaliate for him acting on the conflict since Eleusis vs Mhaldor has been going on since well the two factions existed.

Then you get told you cannot act because the Eleusian didn't know about the conflict?

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like some poor logic. I thought one of the reason the old PK laws were removed was to promote more conflict and less fear of issues due to PK lawyers and cause counters. If this were serious intended bug abuse then sure, uphold the issue.

Dunn

Shit is dumb. Period. Shit being the outcome*

Eld

Nemutaur said:

Bonko said:

I have looked into <redacted>' issue #65914 against you and the issue is upheld 

as the attack lacked a justifiable role-play reason under our standards (HELP PK). <redacted>' 

actions on Mhaldor Isle were part of an existing RPed conflict between Eleusis and Mhaldor started by the Mhaldorian side, and did not give you a justifiable reason to hunt down <redacted> individually later. Our policy notes "they must be aware of the conflict before you attack them," 

and in this case <redacted> was of course not aware.

Does this sound like a contradiction to you or not?'

The issue-er was acting against Mhaldor based on existing conflict, even if started by Mhaldor.

You then retaliate for him acting on the conflict since Eleusis vs Mhaldor has been going on since well the two factions existed.

Then you get told you cannot act because the Eleusian didn't know about the conflict?

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like some poor logic. I thought one of the reason the old PK laws were removed was to promote more conflict and less fear of issues due to PK lawyers and cause counters. If this were serious intended bug abuse then sure, uphold the issue.

Sounds like the distinction Anytus is making is between ongoing conflict between cities, which the actions on the Isle are taken to be a part of, and personal conflict between individuals. The ruling seems to be that hunting the person down individually is a personal attack requiring its own RP justification, outside the longstanding Mhaldor-Eleusis conflict. If attacking Bonko's totems was the RP justification for the specific attack, then he's supposed to have said, "Hey, I'll get you for messing with my totems" or whatever warning/notification/etc he chooses.

Not to say I necessarily agree with the ruling, but I think it's based on a plausible reading of the simplified pk rules.

Dunn

The fact remains that this is one death and the level of butthurt/idiocy required to issue/even threaten an issue over a single death is astounding. Cry me a river.

Eld

Also true.

Sarapis

This entire thread is an explicit violation of our forum rules. Section 4. "Posting, or paraphrasing, the text of another person's issue or issue reply without his or her explicit consent."

The rule exists because people shouldn't have to worry that their private communication is going to be exposed to the world. I don't like deleting threads or posts, but I'm nuking this entire thing.

Oh, and honestly, although I don't handle issues and don't oversee the people that do, I'll say this: When you issue or are issued, it's not like you're a blank slate. We take into account your past. So, sorry Bonko, I know you're probably trying (and I don't think you intentionally violated the forum rule, so no censure or anything there), but when it comes to PK, Santar's post is kind of right on. You went over the line so many times that even getting near to the line is cause for trouble now. Like Lindsey Lohan and driving.