Simplified PK Discussion

Sena

I doubt "all kinds of ass-hattery" is going to be allowed any more than it was before. There are still issues, and people can still be punished for killing others without a good reason. Even under the old, literally-23-pages-long rules, breaking the rules was still allowed if you had a good reason.

Sarapis

Good move. 

The reason that PK rules in Achaea are such a difficult issue is because we want context to matter. In games where the code is the sole determiner of when you can kill someone, most context is lost, as the code just isn't capable of taking it into account (and never will be without true AI). As a simple example, the code doesn't know that player X just betrayed you by running off with an item you loaned him by verbal agreement. It doesn't know that your Maldaathi induction ceremony was just ruined by someone sneaking in and pickpocketing you others in the room in the middle of it.

Sure, in both cases code could be created to formalize something like a loan agreement, or to formalize a Maldaathi induction ceremony, but there are, for practical purposes, a nearly infinite number of similar situations in which context matters. Originally, as a result, the PK rules were just don't be a jerk.

The two problems with that are 1. "being a jerk" means something different to everyone (legitimately so, and that includes both players and admins) and 2. When 'jerky' behavior is agreed on, there's still the issue of providing evidence that said behavior qualifies.

Over time, certain examples of 'jerkiness' needed explanation, because they happened a lot and people were getting upset when they felt that they were being punished for something they honestly didn't feel like was a jerk thing to do. Rinse and repeat, and you end up with 34 pages of PK rules.

At some point, the rules become so complex that it's not reasonable to expect people to understand them all, so you end up with experts (pk lawyers) on the rules, some of whom then use their expertise to abuse the intent of the system. (Sounds a lot like real legal systems doesn't it!) 

And so a simplification is proposed, we cross our fingers, and go for it. Something needed to be done. Maybe this is it. Maybe it won't work, though one problem is quantifying what "works" means, as that's clearly different for, say, Veldrin vs. Xenomorph, and both of their viewpoints are legitimate.

Sohl

I think the majority of us will continue on the same as before, content that both sides in a conflict will act reasonably. And when they don't, there's always name and shame.

Cahin

As someone who reads the PK rules every night before bed, I feel like my life is now irrelevant. 

Silas

The game has been moving towards this for a long time, in terms of people's attitudes to PK. There are outliers, obv, but things in general seem to be focused on making things fun for all while retaining a sense of competition and actual conflict.

I'm optimistic.

Lucine

As long as the Divine remain true to their 'If you abuse this, you will be punished by turning leafy" then there won't be a problem.  I trust the admin enough to think that they will do this.

Zeon

I like this simply because it means the game is moving in a direction I personally believe to be fun. I don't know if it will actually change much, I've been pking solely off HELP COMMON SENSE for a long time now, and haven't run into any problems or pk lawyers.

Antidas

Zeon said:

I like this simply because it means the game is moving in a direction I personally believe to be fun. I don't know if it will actually change much, I've been pking solely off HELP COMMON SENSE for a long time now, and haven't run into any problems or pk lawyers.

qft

Awan

I am glad to see the PK rules changed to something closer to what both players and administrators have treated as the "real" rules for quite some time now.

One suggestion for the future: Under the old rules there seemed to be a whole bunch of additional, unwritten rules which administrators used to judge issues. I always thought that was bad; having unwritten rules you mention in issue rulings but which aren't in the PK rules puts players who are not actively enough involved in conflict to have learned what those unwritten rules are at a disadvantage which gets exploited by those who are. I hope we won't end up in that same position again. Even if it meant making the PK rule document a little longer, I'd rather have written rules that everyone has equal access to than unwritten ones which some players will know but most won't. That doesn't need to be a slippery slope into another 20-page document.

I also personally am really not looking forward to the fact that there's no longer such a thing as open PK status for forest enemies in the forest (or anyone in an enemy territory, but common sense is probably sufficient for cities). Nature conflict is already a major pain, and it is already completely one-sided and occurs only on the exterminator's terms; doing away with that rule will make it even more of a pain and even more absolutely one-sided. But the only reason we needed the protection of that open PK rule to begin with is because of how terribly broken and stupid the nature conflict mechanic is, and surely that will be fixed soon, I hope? In which case I guess that's fine.

Samakhulis

Rakon said:

Please fix your sig, @Samakhulis. It is insanely and unnecessarily large, kind of like Cooper's ego.

Yes...I kinda noticed that too. Cooper's ego, I mean. Not my sig .

Aetous

Awan said:

I am glad to see the PK rules changed to something closer to what both players and administrators have treated as the "real" rules for quite some time now.

One suggestion for the future: Under the old rules there seemed to be a whole bunch of additional, unwritten rules which administrators used to judge issues. I always thought that was bad; having unwritten rules you mention in issue rulings but which aren't in the PK rules puts players who are not actively enough involved in conflict to have learned what those unwritten rules are at a disadvantage which gets exploited by those who are. I hope we won't end up in that same position again. Even if it meant making the PK rule document a little longer, I'd rather have written rules that everyone has equal access to than unwritten ones which some players will know but most won't. That doesn't need to be a slippery slope into another 20-page document.

I also personally am really not looking forward to the fact that there's no longer such a thing as open PK status for forest enemies in the forest (or anyone in an enemy territory, but common sense is probably sufficient for cities). Nature conflict is already a major pain, and it is already completely one-sided and occurs only on the exterminator's terms; doing away with that rule will make it even more of a pain and even more absolutely one-sided. But the only reason we needed the protection of that open PK rule to begin with is because of how terribly broken and stupid the nature conflict mechanic is, and surely that will be fixed soon, I hope? In which case I guess that's fine.

If I'm known for blowing up forests, and I'm walking through one - common sense says that if anyone who cares is around, I'm going to get attacked.

Vayne

I just hope I never hear anyone talk about "counting cause" ever again.

Awan

Aetous said:

If I'm known for blowing up forests, and I'm walking through one - common sense says that if anyone who cares is around, I'm going to get attacked.

I happen to agree that's what common sense says, and you've always been a good sport in or out of the forest. But in past discussions it seemed like the majority of exterminators disagreed. I still see exterminators hunting down forestals for attacking them in the forest even WITH the rule explicitly prohibiting it (and sometimes even when they were in the middle of exterminating when they were attacked). Without such a rule, "common sense" will definitely not be adequate to enable forestal non-combatants to engage in reasonable defensive practices without regularly getting hunted down for it later, and given the one-sidedness of nature conflict that's really not fair.

There's a certain common ground with other forms of conflict, because they're available to everyone: since you have experience both raiding and being raided, that gives you a basis for a "common sense" agreement with your IC enemies about what's reasonable in raiding situations. There is no such common ground between forestals and exterminators, and it shows. The one-sidedness of nature conflict has tended to make externally imposed, explicit, specific rules more necessary.

I hope that nature conflict will be fixed in some fashion very soon. If it isn't, this is going to be a problem.

Tiamat

So Awan has yet again, hijacked a thread. Narrowing down the whole discussion to the forests, when there is such a larger picture in play with these rule changes.

Tarkanian

This is a great update, and Achaea is going in a very good direction as of late. First, Snub, and now, PK. They're finally giving responsibility back to players, and one could only hope for the best with things like these.

The onus is now on the playerbase to show Tecton and company that we deserve to be handed the reins.

Sherazad

I'm feeling optimistic again because of the recent changes. Thank you, admin. I just need to have some free time when people are around.

Tvistor

I'd like to take a moment to say everyone in the Garden is extremely good-looking, astoundingly charming and they smell amazing.

Boosteya

Tvistor said:

I'd like to take a moment to say everyone in the Garden is extremely good-looking, astoundingly charming and they smell amazing.

Methinks @Tvistor has been stalking, and infiltrated, while phased of course, several Divine's IRL realms, to get this information. :P

Iocun

Tanris said:

Really like the direction this is going.

 

Could we get Nirvana/Inferno/Chaos plane added to the trecharous planes list incidentally? Could make dealing with undesirable elements of the respective classes easier when they do show up, although in those situations there'd likely be rp justification regardless.

I think it's a given that there's enough RP justification for non-members of the respective classes to attack trespassers, so making them akin to the UW/Annwyn would in fact only encourage the trespassers to attack the respective class members. Unless that's actually what you're asking for (i.e. the possibility to raid those places and attack the "legitimate" visitors) I don't believe what you're suggesting is necessary.

Cahin

Heres to hoping the next major change is either fixing or deleting forestal conflict.

Aithon

I don't like that change at all. The old pk rules may have been too complicated and far from perfect, but removing them
for some vague guidelines probably will cause more problems than it'll solve. In particular I don't like the word
"repeately" in paragraph one. In other words it's ok, to kill somone for some unacceptable reason
as long as you don't do it repeately? The borderline between roleplay and "being a jerk" can be quite
thin sometimes and there will be abuse. No thanks.

Sohl

What a party-pooper.

Sena

@Aithon It's not such a huge change. The old rules, while excessively long and detailed, were already filled with vague guidelines and were often ignored by both players and admin when it was appropriate. You could follow the rules and still get punished for "griefing" (which is more vaguely defined than the simplified PK rules) if you killed with cause but without a good reason. Conversely, breaking the rules was perfectly acceptable in a lot of situations, as long as you had a good roleplay justification. As @Awan said, the "real" rules that people played by and that admin judged issues by were already closer to the simplified PK rules than a literal interpretation of the old rules.

Obviously there will be abuse, and people pushing the limits with flimsy roleplay justification. But it seems unlikely that it will be any worse than the abuse that was already possible/happening under the old rules.

Also, death just isn't a big deal. If someone kills you once without a good reason, either kill them back, hire, or just ignore it because dying usually doesn't hurt you much. Even under the old rules, issuing for a single death was rarely appropriate, regardless of the rules. And if you did issue, the killer would be unlikely to get more than a warning, unless they made a habit of it (and I doubt this will change now).

Dethea

This is exciting! I'm optimistic (if I ever get the chance to play regularly again ). For all those who are skeptical, I think you should give it a chance. In both cases there is room for abuse, but I believe this way is much easier on everyone.

Thank you, administration!

Oceana

Has anyone been told yet to "Don't be a jerk!" ?

Tvistor

"Don't be a jerk" should apply to everyone, all the time anyway.

Jarrod

Iocun said:

Tanris said:

Really like the direction this is going.

 

Could we get Nirvana/Inferno/Chaos plane added to the trecharous planes list incidentally? Could make dealing with undesirable elements of the respective classes easier when they do show up, although in those situations there'd likely be rp justification regardless.

I think it's a given that there's enough RP justification for non-members of the respective classes to attack trespassers, so making them akin to the UW/Annwyn would in fact only encourage the trespassers to attack the respective class members. Unless that's actually what you're asking for (i.e. the possibility to raid those places and attack the "legitimate" visitors) I don't believe what you're suggesting is necessary.

Hypothetical situation:

Non-Occultist Housed Occie takes their friend into the Chaos Plane. Tanris goes to Chaos Plane because he needs more OP pits and has to talk to Golgotha. In Tanris' mind, it's perfectly RP justified to attack the friend (and possibly the non-House Occie, based on RP reasons), but the non-Housed Occie clearly has the ability to enter the Chaos Plane, and can take their friend there, so to him/them there's no RP justification, he's not subject to the Occultist House rules.

What if Cyrene/Shallam stop being buddy/buddy, and Cyrene went under Ashtani protection. Tanris becomes friends with a Priest and that Priest willingly takes him to Nirvana. What then?

Vasool

Jarrod said:

Iocun said:

Tanris said:

Really like the direction this is going.

 

Could we get Nirvana/Inferno/Chaos plane added to the trecharous planes list incidentally? Could make dealing with undesirable elements of the respective classes easier when they do show up, although in those situations there'd likely be rp justification regardless.

I think it's a given that there's enough RP justification for non-members of the respective classes to attack trespassers, so making them akin to the UW/Annwyn would in fact only encourage the trespassers to attack the respective class members. Unless that's actually what you're asking for (i.e. the possibility to raid those places and attack the "legitimate" visitors) I don't believe what you're suggesting is necessary.

Hypothetical situation:

Non-Occultist Housed Occie takes their friend into the Chaos Plane. Tanris goes to Chaos Plane because he needs more OP pits and has to talk to Golgotha. In Tanris' mind, it's perfectly RP justified to attack the friend (and possibly the non-House Occie, based on RP reasons), but the non-Housed Occie clearly has the ability to enter the Chaos Plane, and can take their friend there, so to him/them there's no RP justification, he's not subject to the Occultist House rules.

What if Cyrene/Shallam stop being buddy/buddy, and Cyrene went under Ashtani protection. Tanris becomes friends with a Priest and that Priest willingly takes him to Nirvana. What then?

If you're not an occultist and you go to the chaos plane, even if you go with your 'bestest buddy in the whole wide world', just expect to be attacked because you don't have a right to be there.

On the flip side, if you get invited to come into Mhaldor, and you're a devotionist, don't expect safe passage. Even if Grunt Bobby specifically invited you there to go play cards.

Jarrod

Chaos Plane/Inferno(less extent)/Nirvana are not faction controlled. Mhaldor is.

Iocun

My point is just: If the argument is "those areas should be 'free pk' because it makes sense RP-wise for them to be", then it seems superfluous, since things that make sense RP-wise are already allowed in such a manner. Specifying an area as a "Treacherous Plane" is only necessary if the history/design of the area itself doesn't provide for any IC excuses to kill someone, but we want them to stay very dangerous for other (more OOC) reasons (e.g. in the case of Annwyn/UW in order to create a counterbalance to the good bashing there, in case of Nishnatoba because that whole place exists for the sole purpose of PvP), as well as in order to just make them "appear more dangerous" in general.

Yes, there may be situations when Tanris may think he has a good reason to kill some other occultist, and the player behind that occultist thinks he does not. But that is in no way specific to those places and can happen for all forms of PK.

What I'm wondering about is whether this change affects the whole village-playerorg alliance thing. Up to now, bashers of allied denizen villages could be attacked by members of organisations allied to that village. Does this change mean that it's considered OK to attack people who hunt denizens your character would logically seek to protect, regardless of official alliances? That could potentially be a huge grey area between "PK farming" and sensible RP (although I'd definitely always expect such PKers to not just attack out of the blue but give reasonable warning first, etc). On one hand, I really want that, since it kind of sucks that Iocun has to stand there next to a person hunting, say, random mhun in Mog and all he can do is frown, but on the other, I'm sure there's going to be a huge temptation for some PKers to turn their RP into that of a champion of tons of frequently hunted bashing spots. Those might be easy to weed out if they make it obvious that they're just seeking for excuses for lolpking, but some of them might actually roleplay that entire champion thing well and consistently enough that you couldn't really fault them.

I'm mostly picking out this example because it used to be one of the areas where the old PK system was the farthest from "common sense", meaning that this change might affect this more than other areas, where most forms of RP-justified PK were already allowed anyways.