CvC discussion

If the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, discuss it here.
Post Reply
User avatar
nobody
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:43 am
Contact:

CvC discussion

Post by nobody »

I wanted to bring over some discussion from the game channel following the CvC policy and didn't want to bog down the announcement thread.

First, suggestions/concerns mentioned from the game channel (numbered for ease of reference, ordering is based on how they came up/how I found them, not on any kind of prioritization):
(1) Suggestion: include mention of the ignore command in the keep it in character section if private ooc communications become harrassing.
(2) Suggestion: in the Corpses and recovery secion, the "making these policies more difficult to justify" clause could use clarification (in that if the victim immediately starts insulting, taunting, threatening, or prodding their killer, the killer may be justified in treating that response as a new incident).
(3) Concern: appropriate recourse for the victim was mentioned and potential escalation via retaliatory blood war
(4) Concern: the policy's explicit reliance on interpretation of intent (namely the Assaults need a reason section I believe) may make enforcement problematic.
(5) Concern: should the reason for being killed be explicitly clear to the victim.
(6) Suggestion: there should be an explicit 'staff have final say' clause, and an explicit 'by playing this game you agree to these terms' clause within the body of the policy - these two might constitute their own section of the policy.
(7) Suggestion: include consequences so that they are explicitly stated
(8) Concern: legitimate reasons for an attacker to remain where a corpse is, even without intent at further assault (e.g. a common combat area (not CvC resource area)) with regards to the Corpse camping section.
(9) Concern: is an ongoing cause for assault permissible (e.g. this person has not yet returned my item)

I'll drop back in and share my opinions after I get some lunch, but I think by-and-large everyone is one the same page with the concerns as of present.
User avatar
Lexx416
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:14 pm

Re: CvC discussion

Post by Lexx416 »

nobody wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:00 pm (8) Concern: legitimate reasons for an attacker to remain where a corpse is, even without intent at further assault (e.g. a common combat area (not CvC resource area)) with regards to the corpse camping section.
(9) Concern: is an ongoing cause for assault permissible (e.g. this person has not yet returned my item)
I think that trying to codify every instance of "is this okay?" for CVC is ultimately not a great idea, and I'm pretty much okay with Staff Final Word covering the bulk of the situations (and relying on staff taking necessary steps to resolve people who don't agree with Staff Word).

However, I do think it's worth mentioning in regards to these two specific points: Ongoing cause for assault in relation to common use non-cvc and non-faction areas (such as hunting areas).

Telling someone "don't come back to this spot", especially in regards to hunting areas, seems like an iffy/sketchy validation for CVC, especially if they're using the area as intended (hunting for exp, whatever). If we're going to allow the aggressor/attacker to remain in an area with a corpse to hunt after resolving CVC, we should also be allowing the victim/atackee to return to said common use, non-faction oriented areas without further validation for CVC, provided they aren't escalating things beyond utilizing the area as intended.
"You hear the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods... Remnants of an older time they be, living few and secretly, wild and wary as beasts."
Acarin
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:49 pm

Re: CvC discussion

Post by Acarin »

Lexx416 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:10 pm
nobody wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:00 pm (8) Concern: legitimate reasons for an attacker to remain where a corpse is, even without intent at further assault (e.g. a common combat area (not CvC resource area)) with regards to the corpse camping section.
(9) Concern: is an ongoing cause for assault permissible (e.g. this person has not yet returned my item)
I think that trying to codify every instance of "is this okay?" for CVC is ultimately not a great idea, and I'm pretty much okay with Staff Final Word covering the bulk of the situations (and relying on staff taking necessary steps to resolve people who don't agree with Staff Word).

However, I do think it's worth mentioning in regards to these two specific points: Ongoing cause for assault in relation to common use non-cvc and non-faction areas (such as hunting areas).

Telling someone "don't come back to this spot", especially in regards to hunting areas, seems like an iffy/sketchy validation for CVC, especially if they're using the area as intended (hunting for exp, whatever). If we're going to allow the aggressor/attacker to remain in an area with a corpse to hunt after resolving CVC, we should also be allowing the victim/atackee to return to said common use, non-faction oriented areas without further validation for CVC, provided they aren't escalating things beyond utilizing the area as intended.
The way I suspect this would work is that the attacker would just issue another warning if the victim returned and the attacker wanted them to leave. Failing to follow that direction/warning from the attacker would be grounds for another attack. If the victim does not want to be attacked again, they would just need to leave immediately... continuing on in that instance would be considered provocation.
You reach toward ((DEV Rias)) ... Pull(d225([1]x)):214 vs Mark(d1100):714 = -500 (-222%)
You notice ((DEV Rias)) glance your way, causing you to quickly withdraw your hand from his wool
drawstring pouch (open).
Roundtime: 5 seconds.
User avatar
nobody
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: CvC discussion

Post by nobody »

nobody wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:00 pm (3) Concern: appropriate recourse for the victim was mentioned and potential escalation via retaliatory blood war
(4) Concern: the policy's explicit reliance on interpretation of intent (namely the Assaults need a reason section I believe) may make enforcement problematic.
(5) Concern: should the reason for being killed be explicitly clear to the victim.
(8) Concern: legitimate reasons for an attacker to remain where a corpse is, even without intent at further assault (e.g. a common combat area (not CvC resource area)) with regards to the Corpse camping section.
(9) Concern: is an ongoing cause for assault permissible (e.g. this person has not yet returned my item)
3:
This is straightforward when there is an extreme disparity in skill, if there is no contest then the lower skilled adversary should give up pretty quickly (one would hope). The policy seems like it should also do pretty well to discourage the higher skilled adversary from being an aggressor long term without cause. The trouble here is surprisingly when the two characters are well matched, ideally they would enjoy this exchange, but I also wouldn't blame anyone for being disinterested in a perpetual war of retaliatory assaults. Consider having an escalation clause to address this? It may also be beneficial to state plainly that events that occur in CvC zones shouldn't be carried outside of CvC zones, if indeed that is the expectation.

4:
I don't want the majority of staff time to be arbitration, and probably it won't be. I also don't think it is possible (or worth while) to list out everything that is valid justification for killing another character. That being said, my read on the "but know that reports are always taken seriously" statement is that if someone feels a thing was out-of-line enough to report, then it'll get looked into even if it is a one-off event. To that end, it might be beneficial to include a policy of use the think command (or some other command specifically for that purpose so that the think logs aren't muddied with a bunch of murder records) either before you engage with another character or at least immediately after you kill another character (not in a CvC zone obviously) to log your RP intent just to help staff in potential future investigation. That might be horrid making everyone file their own victim's murder report, and I really think it'll also save time for staff (in the long run), but I also understand if everyone else absolutely hates this idea.

5:
This was referenced very briefly but I think it is worthwhile to have everyone on the same page. I'm ok with characters (and players) not understanding why another player just killed their character. I would consider it courteous if the murderer stated their reasons explicitly before killing someone, but I also understand that there are going to be circumstances where that just doesn't make IC sense. So, if the expectation is that the reasoning be made clear to the other player before or immediately after the death, I would favor an explicit statement to that effect in the policy. I was going to suggest including a statement that you always have the right to ask another player why they just killed your character, but then I imagined circumstances like, what if that reason is that they were hired to do so and to keep the person doing the hiring secret, and I realized that I'm not sure where I stand in the "I trust other players with OOC information so they can make better RP" - I know where I stand on that in a tabletop game, but a mud isn't the same.

8:
I'm good with the character that just did the killing being generally in the same area (and occasionally the same room), but I feel like remaining stationary in the same room is against the intention of the policy. I can't think of a good reason where there would be a compelling reason to remain in that single room, though I admit that may be a failure of imagination on my part.

9:
So this originally came up in chat as a "leave this area because reasons" but I wanted to frame it as the above (this person has not yet returned my item) to examine the scope of this problem a little more broadly. The conclusion that seemed to be arrived at in chat was, if the circumstance that resulted in the first death is on going, there should be more IC warnings, threatenings, etc but then it is a new incident. With the case of a thief that stole an item and still hasn't returned it, it feels like the right call to me - of course you can keep telling them that they need to return your stuff and if they fail to do so you hunt them down and kill them again. But what if that gets turned all the way over on it's head. What if someone declares they really like your coat and that if you don't hand it over they'll kill you. And then you die for not handing over your coat, but then they keep demanding your coat and now it's a new incident. That seems less clear cut to me, even though the outward circumstances are very similar. In the most extreme case, what if a top notch warrior finds out someone is a sorcerer and tells them "I never want to see your face in Shadgard again, or I'll put an axe through it." Story-wise I could really see that happening, and when Notshadgard is implemented it'd be a great reason to flee there. But what if the sorcerer doesn't want to leave Shadgard? Should it be a matter of never being seen by that person in town? I would love further clarification of the policy intent in these kind of situations.
User avatar
Lexx416
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:14 pm

Re: CvC discussion

Post by Lexx416 »

nobody wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:11 pm
9:
So this originally came up in chat as a "leave this area because reasons" but I wanted to frame it as the above (this person has not yet returned my item) to examine the scope of this problem a little more broadly. The conclusion that seemed to be arrived at in chat was, if the circumstance that resulted in the first death is on going, there should be more IC warnings, threatenings, etc but then it is a new incident. With the case of a thief that stole an item and still hasn't returned it, it feels like the right call to me - of course you can keep telling them that they need to return your stuff and if they fail to do so you hunt them down and kill them again. But what if that gets turned all the way over on it's head. What if someone declares they really like your coat and that if you don't hand it over they'll kill you. And then you die for not handing over your coat, but then they keep demanding your coat and now it's a new incident. That seems less clear cut to me, even though the outward circumstances are very similar. In the most extreme case, what if a top notch warrior finds out someone is a sorcerer and tells them "I never want to see your face in Shadgard again, or I'll put an axe through it." Story-wise I could really see that happening, and when Notshadgard is implemented it'd be a great reason to flee there. But what if the sorcerer doesn't want to leave Shadgard? Should it be a matter of never being seen by that person in town? I would love further clarification of the policy intent in these kind of situations.
This is mostly the sort of thing I have in mind when it comes to my issues, and why I'd like more clarification on ongoing or pervasive conflict from staff. Threatening and bullying for story reasons may be ICly justified, but that doesn't mean they're good, or narratively interesting, or actually fun. Essentially barring players from experiencing portions of the game under the guise of "CVC" and "IC Conflict" seems overall problematic - the person who is existing in an area and utilizing it as intended isn't creating an IC justification to be killed, the aggressor is. The same would go for someone trying to rob someone of an item. Or trying to kick a sorcerer out of Shadgard (especially if that sorcerer is part of the Shadgard faction).
"You hear the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods... Remnants of an older time they be, living few and secretly, wild and wary as beasts."
Post Reply