Theft Updates

Amranu

Yeah ok let's lay this out logically for you all.

Under the current system, Elyon could either not be a thief, or have consequences to his gameplay for being a thief. He chose not to be a thief any longer. He died around 100 times to facilitate that, which imo is pretty severe. He got given gold by Aegoth for those deaths, so if you're upset that he gained something from those deaths, I would point the finger at Aegoth, not Elyon.

The point is the system is working, because it's explicitly designed to discourage theft if you can't deal with the consequences of it. Elyon decided he didn't want to deal with getting jumped by literally everyone in the game whenever he left a city, so he quit theft. Changes working as intended. The fact that the "quitting theft" part is not painful enough for you is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with you disagreeing that 100 deaths or whatever it was, was a fair price.

Argwin

The problem we're seeing is that the method he chose to quit being a thief is immersion breaking at best, and a blatant rule violation at worst.

Amranu

Well, if we move the goalposts sure. But several people were arguing that he was circumventing the new system, which is strictly false because he's no longer a thief.

Kogan

The problem is profiting on the "consequences" of being a thief which were borderline nonexistent to begin with. So you take someone who obviously didn't care about death before. Now if they want to they can steal all the way to really high infamy and then just make more gold on resetting their theft infamy before doing it again? Nah. Regardless of who you point the finger at... knowingly facilitating the breaking of rules is still a problem.

Amranu

Someone should zap rezz Aegoth once for each time he killed Elyon to teach him a lesson then.

Aegoth

Still curious about what rules were broken. Mark killed a thief. Everything else is moot, even if I did give him a paltry sum of gold (like 100k)

Accipiter

@Amranu Is he no longer a thief? Because he has posted in this thread that if he couldn't thieve he would quit, and has not said anywhere that he will not thieve in the future. So judging from the statements he has made publicly, it isn't reasonable to think that he has given up his chosen RP and is instead utilizing a loophole to prevent people other than those that pay him from being able to enforce the thieving consequences.

Amranu

How is it a loophole?

a) You still have RP justification for hitting him as a thief if he stole from you recently.

b) If he chooses to steal again, he has to deal with the consequences again.

Gurklukke

Where is @Shecks when we need an accurate graph to explain this logic and metrics to prove them.

Treyal

The game of "i'm not touching you" continues!

Aegoth

It just sounds to me like people are mad that the consequences they asked for weren’t enough to assuage their dislike for Elyon’s actions. That’s selfish, and I’m pretty sure that just because it didn’t give -you- any satisfaction that it doesn’t mean no consequences were had. Elyon can’t steal anymore unless he wants to repeat the cycle all over. Sounds like you guys were victorious! Pop open some champagne, you forced a thief to stop thieving for a while :)

Amranu

Nothing was broken. As far as I can tell, people think the consequences weren't severe enough because it happened too fast. Maybe if it took you 3 hours instead of 1 hour of rezz killing him it would be fine. Or him repeatedly walking into guards 150 times instead of a player doing that for him.

Seriously, it's a mystery.

Ognog

@Accipiter Sounds like a plan, doesn't it? Just thieve non stop for a week, then have someone pay you for the privilege of killing you a heap of times, then live unharassed on the proceeds until you're ready to go thieving again. Rinse and repeat.

Atalkez

I think it's pretty clear that spawn killing someone like that, whether for xp/renown gain or this itself is at minimum breaking the spirit of the rules. Just because the rulebook doesn't explicitly state killing for the purpose of reducing Infamy doesn't mean it's not on the same logical track as killing to gain xp. You gained something (loss of infamy vs xp) with an agreement to die repeatedly to someone else. That's against the rules, and I'm actually pretty amazed it wasn't immediately stopped in its tracks after the 10th death.

Kresslack

"That's selfish" is a pretty rich comment coming from someone who literally just paid to farm xp and pad his KD.

Adrik

"I was a Member of the Mark just PKing an Infamous thief."

Anyone can pk a thief at the moment. I'm fairly certain there would have been just as much objection to it had I or someone else did it the same as you. Maybe less though, because I don't have a god awful deathsight to go with it.

It's the fact that,

A ) It broke character horribly. I shouldn't expect much else given your history @Aegoth... what with asking people OOC to let you into Nirvana, or letting me run around the Mhaldorian house halls and begging me not to tell.

B ) It was REALLY spammy. The deathsight alone is 2 lines on my screen. Every 8 seconds? That's borderline falling into HELP SPAM, like people who spam snap in serpent combat 24/7.

If there were any other option around that was say a denizen that goes "I can get rid of infamy, put the tarnish away from your good name.. Just sign here on the dotted line." and you lose experience to get rid of infamy (to the same rate, or more so)? That'd have been fine. (Though, obviously, this denizen shouldn't be added because actions should have consequences).

Aegoth

Rules are rules because they’re explicit and specific. Just because something is against the spirit of the rules doesn’t mean it’s against the rules, that’s false equivalency. Loss of infamy is not xp, and it’s not gold, and that’s what’s “against the rules”, according to the rules. If the admin want to change that in the future, that’s their prerogative, but I don’t see how they can without muddling infamy/open pk

Accipiter

@Aegoth No, that is explicitly why we don't have PK cause anymore. The spirit is -all- that counts, the rules as written are general guidelines.

Atalkez

Except you gained xp from it. Let's be realistic here.

I made an agreement with X to kill me for Y as many times as they wanted/as many times as it took. That is against the rules, those variables do not and should not matter.

That said, he just stole from someone's shop not 3 minutes before I typed this post, so..yeah pretty clearly metagamed the system to be able to steal without all the heat for a few days. If it's not against the rules and explicitly stated very, very soon, I'll be heavily disappointed in our admin team for allowing this to stand.

Kresslack

That's an odd stance to take considering how many times in the past if someone has tread the line with rules you're typically one of the most vehemently vocal people pushing for them to be held fully accountable.

Aegoth

I honestly think the whole argument of “spirit of the rules” you’re making would make more sense if the fact wasn’t there that he was open/free PK. That alone just makes your entire argument collapse, because you can kill him for any reason you want, regardless of perceived gain/loss. Whether or not the “spam” of my incredibly awesome and tasteful deathsight was “immersion breaking” is something else we could possibly discuss, though it’s definitely not out of character for Aegoth to grab opportunity kills

Gurklukke

Snapping in Serpent combat and deathsights are a violation of HELP SPAM

But this is perfectly fine?

?

Gallida

I agree, you should only have to call a target once.

Gurklukke

I lol'd not gonna lie @Gallida

Atalkez

By your logic, if I INDEMNIFY you, then the clear expression of the rules regarding farming are null and void? If I choose to do that, and allow you to PK me, I am open and free PK to you because that is our agreement. Your argument doesn't even make sense, man.

Aegoth

No, my argument here is that Elyon was free/open PK at the time of the mass murder, and not a moment afterwards. Therefore, ostensibly, I can kill him as many times as I want regardless of perceived gain/loss from either party.

I will say that I do feel maybe the policies could/should be looked at. I’m not against making things clearer in situations like this! The fact remains though that right now free/open PK trumps your argument in the Achaean rulebooks

Kogan

Or we should just start punishing obviously degenerate behavior so we don't have to make rules to quantify how much of a degenerate you're allowed to be.

Edit: This wasn't targeting anyone's behavior in particular. So if you feel targeted then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kresslack

Regardless of him being Open-PK, this is still an RP based game, and the first part of the guidelines makes it pretty clear.

1. There must be a justifiable role-play reason for every attack and death.

They also do state that being Open PK is sufficient recent for anyone to attack them. They do not say that you can meta and broker a deal with them to repeatedly kill them in order for them to speed-drop their infamy level.

Of course, they don't -not- say that either, but they do say:

"If players are repeatedly attacking others with no justification whatsoever, this is the point at which the administration should be involved."

&

"Killing another player or letting another player kill you solely for the purpose of gaining experience or other forms of renown is not permitted."

Hardly seems like you had any IC motivation for it other than "I can because of the vagueness of the rules".

Atalkez

15.5 HONOUR

Some actions destroy or weaken the powerful sense of being in an alternate

world. These are NOT honourable, and not looked upon kindly.

Examples of these actions are:

- taking advantage of bugs or loopholes,

Pretty cut and dry, in my estimation.

Accipiter

The rules are entirely arbitrary, and this kind of thing should be severely punished to stop it happening again. If the reasoning to keep theft is to maintain a sense of danger in the world, this needs to be punished to keep the sense of self preservation in the world.