....and there hasn't been a Immortal response concerning Eskelian post or Behnistek's reposting of it. The post has received nothing but good responses from several people (most of which who usually don't agree). On both forums it's been pretty much well received and been overly discussed but nothing from the higher ups.

Now I can understand rule stuff like this can take time - hence why I figured I'd leave it for a week. If you're discussing it internally, let us know that and we can step away from it. If you've got an official response, it'd be nice to hear it. If you're not discussing it or don't have an answer, well then....maybe this will bring to light how important this issue really is.

1) This isn't a post about the denies. What happened happened.
2) This past has nothing to do with how easy/hard the Inferno is.
3) The average playerbase this week was 30 and at the time of this post there are 11 people on. It's not getting better.

Come on, ya can't let something like this fade out.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=34322&mesg_id=34385&page=

I haven't been playing for a while, but I don't think this change would improve CF. It might draw in some extra bodies, but I don't think it would draw in the kind of people cf really needs.

I also don't think pve grouping is harmless as compared to pvp grouping. Pve grouping gives you an advantage in pvp. If you have an advantage in the former, you get an advantage in the latter.

You're claiming that loosening OOC perma restrictions will increase the number of players. There's no reason to think this would be the case. In fact, one could make the case that it would potentially decrease the playerbase because it would put independents at a disadvantage. If you get your way, who is going to play more, one or two of your friends?

If I were an IMM, my reply regarding a rules violation would be, "I know it when I see it. End of discussion."

If your goal is to bring more players to the game, I suggest starting a thread about that. You've started with a personal goal (lax perma rules) and tried to tie it to something everyone wants (more players) and the connection you imply just isn't there.

I for one would prefer the rules remain unchanged. As someone without a group of friends that still plays (and I don't plan to make ooc friends with any of the current players) I see nothing but potential negatives from a change to status quo. The most obvious negative, and one that I feel is reasonably likely to play out, is a harder time finding groups in general whether it be ranking groups, exploring groups, etc. If permas are allowed more openly, so people can rank from level 1 to 51 with their friends, what happens to people without those connections? The pool of players to group with essentially shrinks by whatever the number of people who are permaing is. I do not see this a good for me.

It doesn't matter to me much as I rarely have time to play but I do feel like this would make the time I do play less fun.

n/t

You're basically stating that if permas that don't pvp are more allowed, you won't have people to group with right? So here's some problems with that...

1) "Permas" don't always have every member online at all times. If 2-3 people play together, chances are they will be around more in general if the rules were a bit relaxed on them hanging out and chances are you'll find more people to group with because of it. This is especially true for explore groups considering "more the merrier". I've never done a complete OOC hell trip and usually take a few newbies along.
2) The number of people in the game is dwindling - if people felt the game was more realistic in OOC expectations, you'd likely see more people. More people = more fun all around.

The status quo is choking the playerbase size.

Regardless of what I say or you say it is all hypothetical since we can only guess as to what would happen. I really don't think your arguments are very compelling at all to be honest.

I see no reason why, except for potentially a few old players who have friends that still play, why this change would draw players in. The people I know that use to play would without exception NOT return due to this change, they left because like for most people life changes and they no longer have the time or desire or both.

As for current players playing more, that doesn't help me for finding groups. If you have only 2 people of your perma on your still subtracting from the pool of players. Further you have not added players you just increased playing time, personally I doubt this would be a large increase or long lasting.

As for exploring, outside of hell (which I have not had the time for since around 2004), there few places that you'd need more then 3 people. And since one of the primary benefits of exploring is the loot there is a strong disincentive to bringing larger then minimum necessary. Your explore groups might be different, but a lot more people play this game then just yourself, to assume everyone would haul along everyone that can go or wants to go is silly.

And while you didn't mention it, but it has been mentioned in other threads on this topic...CF is not EVE or WoW. The game does not have the player base nor will it ever again to support large ooc groups while still providing a game playable by those without such networks.

Of course this is just my opinion, but I think this change would make the game less fun for some player of which I am one, and potentially decrease the player base as players such as myself find more enjoyable ways to spend our free time.

Because I've played other games that allow more OOC communications and all the hypothetical issues you're describing just don't happen. I also played CF when the rules were more lax and the things you describe didn't happen either.

So we can sit here and assume that the sky will fall or we choose not to and realize that ultimately, any change can be undone in ten minutes.

I doubt you've played significantly more online games then I have to be honest. And yes, many have no restrictions on ooc groupings or communication and they play just fine. None of them, not a single one provides a game similar to Cf. None are able to provide any semblance of what I call RP. Few are as harsh as CF is in regards to PvP and PvE deaths. In most circumstances the games tend to be almost 100 percent playable by solo players excluding end game content. And, in regards to end game content most games have built in mechanisms for solo player to more easily find groups.

The biggest differences though in my opinion is that most other games have a profit motivation. The things that attract me to CF are what is often sacrificed in the name of bringing in more players. Now cf could go down this route and redesign aspects of the game that are likely negative draws on the player base, though it would not be cf then. And while this change is not a game shattering change it is also not the kind of change that is going to make cf vastly more popular - if at all.

My point is, unless your talking about another text based, PvP mud with enforced RP your not really comparing the same type of game.

FWIW, the rules and culture on CF, especially as it relates to the issues at hand, are very different from most of the popular MUDs (in case, let's say with player bases that are higher than CF, on average) out there today.

You can throw MMOs and all that crap out if you want. Even if you look only at MUDs, most of the big ones either don't forbid a lot of the behavior that at least a sizable portion of CFs player bare wishes CF does or they aren't nearly as severe in their forms of punishment.

I don't think "enforced RP" has anything to do with most of this. It's absolutely possible, and quite common, for people to know the players of the characters they interact with in-game and still RP just fine. This is probably why most people don't notice this stuff happens, because they can't tell the difference. As long as people are acting out their roles and otherwise behaving as their role, cabal dogma, religion, alignment, etc. say they should, then who they play with or how has nothing to do with OOC connections. In fact, I've been in situations before where the ONLY valid group mates my character had to pick from were people in knew OOC. Should I break RP and refuse to group with someone I otherwise would just because I know who plays that character?

None of this is an argument for CF changing it's policy, it's simply a counter-argument to the notion that CF is somehow special or that modern observations about game design, player habits, etc., do not apply to CF.

I haven't found a mud outside of cf that has no restrictions on ooc grouping/communications that maintains consistent RP. I have had isolated incidents of good RP within some games but generally, the more popular ones also seem to have a chat room feel to them. Anyway, I didn't mean to make the point that having lax ooc rules = no rp. My point in the last post is that I do think there is a uniqueness to cf and its a combination of many different aspects, rp, pvp, etc that is not replicated in the other games I've played and thus making statements that it works in other games (EVE and WoW have been the two most mentioned in the bigger thread) I do not think is particularly useful.

Further, for arguments sake, if there is a game that is CF like in everyway except it allows ooc grouping, I have feeling people who play without such groups would be at a disadvantage - which is the point of my original post.

It's all relative.

There aren't a ton of MUDs out there that match CF in quality of RP period, but that isn't the point. It's the degree to which CF makes it difficult to be a player enjoying the game with other players compared to other MUDs. I don't think I've ever found a MUD that was "RP-enforced" that has zero restrictions on OOC activity, but CF is definitely on the ultra-conservative end of the spectrum compared to most modern MUDs/games, and regardless of what you or I think, that seems to be having an impact, as there are quite a few players, even those outside of Torak's group, who are voicing an opinion as such.

The fact that some players aren't happy with some policies doesn't mean CF is doing anything wrong. It's purely subjective and a matter of it's maintainers to take input from players, their direction for the game, and a bunch of other factors, put it in a blender, and make something good come out.

>It's all relative.
>
>There aren't a ton of MUDs out there that match CF in quality
>of RP period, but that isn't the point. It's the degree to
>which CF makes it difficult to be a player enjoying the game
>with other players compared to other MUDs. I don't think I've
>ever found a MUD that was "RP-enforced" that has zero
>restrictions on OOC activity, but CF is definitely on the
>ultra-conservative end of the spectrum compared to most modern
>MUDs/games, and regardless of what you or I think, that seems
>to be having an impact, as there are quite a few players, even
>those outside of Torak's group, who are voicing an opinion as
>such.
>

I agree it is all relative. And I don't disagree that some people feel that a rule change would be a good thing. I just happen to feel it would be a negative for me personally.

>The fact that some players aren't happy with some policies
>doesn't mean CF is doing anything wrong. It's purely
>subjective and a matter of it's maintainers to take input from
>players, their direction for the game, and a bunch of other
>factors, put it in a blender, and make something good come
>out.

I agree with this as well. I just felt that a counter position to the original poster should be stated so that the absence of one does not give credence to the idea that all players want this change.

You said "we can only guess at what would happen". I don't need to guess. I know what would happen because :

1) CF's rules used to be looser than they are now, as was the playerbases's attitude.

2) There are a million other games where your doomsday scenarios just don't happen.

So don't deflect onto "that's not the game I want it to be". Years ago when I used to talk to a lot of people over AIM, my RP was better. I was more engaged with my characters. I cared more about the outcome of my roleplay. I generally got rewarded more and recognized more as a good player.

And the reason why was because I was having fun doing it.

So the slippery slope argument just doesn't hold water.

>You said "we can only guess at what would happen". I don't
>need to guess. I know what would happen because :
>
>1) CF's rules used to be looser than they are now, as was the
>playerbases's attitude.

Those were different days with more players. And as you state players attitudes were different. You can't know what exactly would happen with today's players. And stating that you KNOW what would happen just makes you look silly.

>2) There are a million other games where your doomsday
>scenarios just don't happen.

I never said it was a doomsday scenario. I said I do not want the rule changed because I can conceive of problems that it would cause with the way I play and enjoy the game, one of which is that I feel it would be harder to find groups for people (such as myself) that do not want to form them ooc. How else should I comment on a suggested rule change except through my own perceptions of what a rule change would mean to me?

Obviously you think it would benefit you, it probably would because I would imagine you have a group of ooc friends that play. I am not arguing against that, I am just saying this rule change would make the game less fun for me. I have not heard anything in the arguments for changing the rule that would make me think otherwise.

>So don't deflect onto "that's not the game I want it to be".

Umm, why not? This is a discussion about a rule change. What angle would you propose taking other then changing this rule moves the game in a direction I would not like. How is your argument that other games that allow ooc groups and so should CF any different? Are you not just arguing "that's how I want the game to be"? Seriously what the hell are you trying to say?



>So the slippery slope argument just doesn't hold water.

I didn't say this would lead to the doom of CF. You just keep bring up the fact that other games allow for more ooc grouping/communication and CF should be like them. I simply tried to point out that it is unlikely that those games are good comparisons to CF. Your only proof is that at a point over 10 years ago when the game was vastly different it didn't have problems, which is false and is why the rules were changed in the first place.

My point is that you're overreacting by saying its going to hinder you to get groups. There's no logical reason to think it would. There's also no logical reason to fear it or to have to guess at the outcome. By your logic I could never cross the street because I can't be sure I won't get hit by a car.

Just a quick response from me.

You won't get clearly defined rules just so you can try to work around the rules.

If Bob, Jim, Steve, Bill and Ken have a repeated history of doing things to work around the rules, they should expect to get denied for doing these things.

That is all.

Setting clear boundaries isn't going to prevent you from enforcing the rules, its just going to lead to a consistent approach in applying them.

Actually, when you have people who consistently try to think that rules are made to be bent to test how much it takes to break them, that won't work.

I don't think there's a whole lot of people who try to sidestep the rules, I'm not even sure you can call it sidestepping based on how its described in the rules. Its not like they were attached at the hip. It's not like old school Diku or Chris Warren permagrouping. If someone is a repeat offender, permaban them. But, for those of us who honestly just want to combine fun with abiding the rules, toss us a bone and let us know where the lines are drawn.

I absolutely want to follow the rules. I have zero desire to make anyone's life more difficult than it has to be. I also want to know where the lines are so that I can have fun without disrupting your fun. It's more fun for me to play a game with people I know, its great to chat OOC about relevent IC topics. It's great to explore places with my friends and then talk about it out of game where I don't need to go through a bunch of hoops to describe the properties of an item I identify or what a trap effect is or whatever.

So where is the boundary at? Is that ok so long as I don't exclude other people? Is that ok so long as I don't circulate logs? Is that ok so long as I don't steamroll people in PVP? Etc. I don't think its unreasonable to know it, not so I can sidestep it but so I can abide it but also make my life easier in the process.

Since the rules are ambiguous at best they should be clarified. And I do agree that it can be more fun ultimately I just don't cf has the player base to support a large amount of perma grouping.

Clearly defined rules means you that you wouldn't get situations like the one that just happened....but you're basically saying "you'll get denied if we feel like it" since sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's not.

1) We had chars that knew each other in-game that pvped together, which was a no-no. They're gone, moving on...
2) It was stated by Nep that as long as you don't pvp together and didn't "abuse" it, it was fine considering he grouped with his wife a lot and they have had characters at the same time several times.
3) So we made chars that never pvped together, didn't even rank together really, and purely hung out to enjoy Hell together.
4) With no warning we were denied on solid characters purely for the Hell trip when we did exactly was stated by Nep as "fine" by the rules around no-pvp together.
5) I've never seen anyone denied for OOC hell groups which have existed from the beginning of CF.

So yeah, I think the rules should be clearly defined. Maybe if it was clear about what your problem is with OOC knowledge of others I wouldn't lose 300 hours on a Scarab character because of it.

And you have a long well documented history of trying to break the spirit of rules without breaking the letter which is the same as breaking the letter in a community like this.

See the gray area torak? Try to stay away from the gray area and you won't have problems. The fact that you purposely go as far into the gray area in everything you do is why the imms will no longer bother responding to your rediculousness. It is ok to be in the gray area sometimes not all the time.

I love how people keep saying this same response - "a long well documented history of trying to break the spirit of the rules without breaking the letter".

Let's get a few things clear. My "history" involves some ####ed up events but 90% of those were an enraged teenager almost ten years ago breaking the rules to get back at "the man". I'm not rehashing this but if you were even present for these events, it had nothing to do with OOC. Posting wand lists and such isn't trying to "stay in the letter of the law". They moved on, I moved on, get over it.

Rawvos was one of the first characters in a very very long time where I hung out pretty often with a friend in-game for pvp (not exclusively if ya check his pk stats). I was called out on it but never had anything enforced on him (nor has any of the other Imperials who are basically pulling the same thing right now). So my next character I made specifically to avoid the people I know unless it was to explore (an Ehren Scarab) since I didn't want a repeat. And I get denied after one successful Hell trip without even a warning/discussion. Loshnak is the first guy to have in the Realm of the Dead for at least 5 years if not longer.

So yeah, this history of bending the rules...I'd love to hear it - give me an example of a single character in the last few years who broke these OOC rules like I did with Rawvos and "steam rolled PVP" as people like to state considering his mediocre stats at best.

And I'm not even *pointing* to my post, I'm pointing to Eskelian's which has nothing to do with mine. Hell I don't even know the guy and he gets a hugely welcome response and no Immortal one. Stop going back to the response "Cheater McCheater, I'm not answering you!" and man up and answer this guy's post.

it is a simple fact of life and you will forever be viewed differently in this community because of something you did years ago.

Except that isn't the case because obviously you are breaking the rules still today so your claims of being reformed are obviously bunk.

You can try and justify it by saying it isn't fair because the rules are not clear enough but that is not a great argument. There just are not a lot of people getting denied for any reason so there is obviosly not a lot of general confusion in the playerbase or disagreement between players and imms about the rules. It is NOT THE GAME OR THE IMMS IT IS JUST YOU!

No they aren't. 95% of the players take an ultra-conservative view of it because they're afraid that the interpretation of the rules may be stricter or more lax depending on the imm involved.

That's not clearly defined, that's vaguely defined combined with people who are afraid to cross a boundary that they don't know where it ends at.

If it makes you feel better, ignore Torak's posts and just look at mine. I'm not Torak, I haven't ever had a character denied, I've never been accused of cheating, I'm just an honest guy trying to figure out what I'm allowed to do and not allowed to do.

You, Eskelian, likely have nothing to worry about. Because if we thought you were involved in this same sort of shady activity, the first thing that would happen would be a warning. Which is exactly what happened to most of the aforementioned Hell group.

Torak and Artificial got denied due to it being a repeat offense.

Tweedster got slain/purged and de-empowered due to using people that he admitted to speaking with OOC to achieve the goal of getting to Satan. It was fairly clear to me that this was a pre-planned thing prior to character creation.

The players in question do have quite a history of rule breaking. This was a huge factor in the punishment. There were 4-5 other characters who were given a warning. One was unfortunately left in the Realm of the Dead longer than I wanted, because I was unable to find him, and so instead I spelled out the warning to him in an email and had him moved out of the RotD offline so he could go back to playing.

You have allowed Torak and Artificial to make you their Champion in this...whether you are just wanting to be argumentative or not. The bottom line is repeat-offenders who broke a rule got denied for that rule. First time offenders would not have been denied. And BECAUSE the rule is vague, when I talk to people about it, I TALK to them. Many of the "other permas" that people like to speak of on these forums have had that talk. But that is between them and the Immortal staff. That talk has changed at least one of their play patterns, for the better. More than one, in fact, that I can think of.

The rule does not need to be changed, nor does the wording.

Well, I get what you're saying and I agree that, if it was me and not Torak, I wouldn't have gotten denied. I still avoid things because I'm afraid they might be against the rules.

Recent example is traps and trapper skills. I have no way to really test these things out easily on myself and I need to test them in game. But any attempt to test them in game, without going OOC, is difficult at best. Char tells you, "Looks like this trap breaks my strength by 8 stones for 5 hours." But I'm hindered because, let's face it, coordinating testing of traps over AIM would be considered shady depending on who you talk to. But I'm sorta screwed because how would I achieve that without it? And its not unreasonable to know what the effects of the skills are.

Like look at the example with blister agent. How would you possibly know it stopped spellcasting? Now I want to know if its frequent, semi-frequent, or sorta rare. But how do I test that in game without blatently breaking role?

That's why the vagueness annoys me, I feel like I need to be ultra-conservative at the detriment to my enjoyment of the game because certain anti-social elements of the playerbase don't want anyone talking to each other OOC.

And that truly is the point. You think about the line and make an conscious decision on whether or not to step over it. There are players who try to find a flimsy excuse to step over that line and when it doesn't go their way, they cry foul.

That is reason enough for there to be interpretation and punishment befitting the offense for rule breaking based upon many different factors. It can't be cut and dry.

Ok so in this situation (testing skills over AIM), is it stepping over the line or not? And if I'm unsure of where the line is, who do I direct my question to?

Should I pray in game? Should I email an Imm? Which Imm should I email?

I think we can leave things as is if there's some remediation step we can take that doesn't give away our characters or cause us in character problems.

Use common sense. That serves 95% of the player base really well.

Hehe. My common sense is broken on this item because, common sense to me is that its not a big deal to test your stuff with someone OOC but historically any sort of coordination OOC is considered denial worthy offense combined with a bunch of people on the forums calling you a dirty cheater.

Could I get a clear yes/no on whether or not I'd get in trouble for coordination testing of skills OOC?

I don't want to get a black mark on a char with a role that took me over a week to write and 150 hours worth of invested time but I also really want to know enough about my skills to utilize them in PVP.

To be quite frank, I see a way to actually do this IC. Kind of like ragers practicing in the village to hone their skills or mages spamming spells.

In this particular case, I personally wouldn't have any problem with you and a buddy conversing over AIM to determine how your thief skills work/don't work, for things that you think are too OOC to do via tell/gtell.

When you say you personally, do you mean that another Imm might have a problem with it and cause problems for me?

so if someone has a problem with it, and you've gotten the ok for doing this *one particular thing* from me, it'll be discussed, but you wouldn't be punished, only warned that "Hey, yeah, um Twist was wrong, so don't do that anymore."

The problem is, in answering you, now, on a forum, I'm sure we'll see a rash of people doing all sorts of OOC things that really COULD be done IC, in the game, and claiming that "Twist said it was ok."

Clarification: I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone testing out thief skills on someone they knew, ooc.

Basically the line in the sand is when does whatever you are doing have the potential to screw other people over unfairly? Knowing what your thief skills do, to me, does not do that.

We implemented a game of Humans Vs. Zombies at my university my sophomore year. The first semester, we had 350 players in this live action game with a very explicit, cut and dry rulesset. Very specific boundaries were given, and as problems arose, more rules were added. The result was the game came to be more about finding loopholes in missions and in the rules, so much so that we even joked that it had become "Loophole: the Game". We lost over half our playerbase after the last mission of that first game.

The next semester, it was my turn to GM, and the first thing we did was we cut the rules from 6 pages to 2. We went from very specific, itemized language, to broader language that emphasized the POINT of the rules more than the rules themselves. Rules lawyering dropped dramatically, and gameplay and immersion saw a marked improvement. The players overall reported having more fun, and were specifically pleased with how the streamlining of the rules had lead to fewer rules arguments in the field, and thus more consistent, intense, and less confusing gameplay.

From a moderation standpoint, the administration went from receiving 20-40 cell phone calls regarding rules a day, to maybe 4 over the entire game.

Long story short, it is my experience that under vague rules, players overall will misbehave less and have more fun, and not just because the definition of misbehavior is hazier. These same principles definitely seem to apply to Carrion Fields, as well.

Splntrd

The key difference is you're arguing the difference between being vague and being misleading.

"Broader language that emphasized the point of the rules more than the rules themselves" would suffice as well. The broad language used right now is "to prevent characters from being attached at the hip", which is not only vague but misleading.

The key term used to justify enforcement is one sentence in a separate help file that says "ask yourself if you are exploiting your connection to the other characters to gain an unfair advantage over another player". That's the whole of the entire rule but it's in a separate help file and vague enough that anything and everything can be considered cheating.

I mean, its not like anyone wants a thirty page directive. Just an honest rule that is enforced consistently that places less emphasis on trying to manage people's OOC behavior and more emphasis on managing the actual outcome in the game.

The rule, which is pretty much enforced would have to be vague and take player history into account. Which is what we do. There is no clear definitive rule and there shouldn't be in regards to cheating.

I agree with you in that I don't like the way this specific rule is currently written and interpreted (enforced). I'm just sticking up for the general merits of gray areas in rules-sets with what I feel like is a valuable personal anecdote.

Splntrd

>Torak and Artificial got denied due to it being a repeat
>offense.

So your "repeat offense" as you're defining is just knowing each other?

-I met Artificial a few months ago through Starcraft and we played two chars that broke the rules since we pvped together but we were never warned, never punished or had even a discussion about it. If you look at the stats he was there for 8 out of 35 kills - considering we were both sect leaders, that's not much. But yeah the rules were bent.

-Loshnak never pvped with Mazthroil, nor with anyone else. I didn't even rank with anyone I knew. The only thing we did was go to the Inferno together. That's it. The only connection between the two is the Hell trip.

You even said yourself in the RotD that "I hate being the policeman" and "We already decided, this isn't up for discussion" and yet you are silent on the forums to the offense being only the Hell trip. Why? Because I don't think you guys would deny without warning about a Hell trip - you had assumed it was the same as with Rawvos and had assumed it was a "repeat offense" but were wrong unless it's just knowing each other who strictly avoiding each other for pvp and ranking. Which is exactly what Nep and his wife just recently admitted to doing.

That's why it needs to be defined.

I'm not going to get into a lawyerish debate so the people who want to do everything in their power to meet the letter of the rule, but not the spirit of the rule can try and find loopholes.

99% of the players don't have to worry about these rules because they do the right thing.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

It's been my observation, based on comments made by Immortals at various times, usually after the fact, that the rules yo do have simply aren't applied consistently.

I've heard an Immortal say more than once something to the effect of, "... I probably should have applied <punishment> at <Xyz> time" after never doing so, or doing it much later.

I can understand coming down on Torak's group harder because most of them have records. Even in the case of the other 95% (as you put it) though, it seems like sometimes you guys act swiftly and harshly, and sometimes you you do not, and in hindsight, there was no particular reason why other than a difference in which person handled the incident or whether or not that person was having a good day.

Sometimes a person with no history gets a warning, sometimes they do not. Sometimes people press their luck and nobody politely taps them on the shoulder and says, "Hey, you're crossing the (vague) line now, so you know.", and then they wonder what happened when you go off on them later. This usually leads to people not necessarily knowing that their behavior isn't 100% kosher and being ignorant to the fact that some Immortal is up there annoyed and pissed off with them thinking, "Grr, I should punish them!" but doesn't, for some reason.

It all just seems very inconsistent. Forget the rules themselves, the verbiage, etc. The way the Immortals apply them jut seems incredibly inconsistent and unpredictable that I can understand why, apparently, a lot of people either have no clue where the lines are drawn at all or disagree as to what is and isn't okay.

Final random thought: It's NEVER the staff's fault when a person break the rules, but it is hard to sympathize with them when somebody gets away with bending the rules (either intentionally or out of ignorance) for so long they simply assume that officially or unofficially, what they're doing is acceptable and this results in a player just doing what they think is apparently gonna fly while an Immortal sits there brooding over what an asshat this person is. Consistent enforcement (and even reminders/minor butt kicking) would solve this. You can argue the Imms should have to do this in the first place, I guess, but focusing on it a little more would probably improve things for everyone, for what it's worth.

It's the 5% who are repeat offenders that don't allow for your system to work. We have to be flexible based upon a player(s) history.

Changing it would only benefit the offenders. It wouldn't affect the 95% of those who think before they act.

Love how you say "flexible based on a player's history" when Rawvos was my only char to pvp with a friend for in years, and Loshnak is my first RotD and my first denied character in at least five years if not ten years.

And I did act and think, considering Loshnak never grouped/pked/ranked with friends besides a Hell trip. But you all seem to keep avoiding this fact. The only reason you guys got complaints is because CraftedDeception/Harvy_Dent mass messaged people on Dio's outing my character, which he got banned for.

Getting denied conveniently hides my PBF for proof.

>Love how you say "flexible based on a player's history" when
>Rawvos was my only char to pvp with a friend for in years, and
>Loshnak is my first RotD and my first denied character in at
>least five years if not ten years.

That's like saying, I have been good for five years since breaking the law. I shouldn't get in trouble for it this time.

Sorry, but that's exactly how I see this in perspective.

>>Love how you say "flexible based on a player's history"
>when
>>Rawvos was my only char to pvp with a friend for in years,
>and
>>Loshnak is my first RotD and my first denied character in at
>>least five years if not ten years.
>
>That's like saying, I have been good for five years since
>breaking the law. I shouldn't get in trouble for it this
>time.
>
>Sorry, but that's exactly how I see this in perspective.

The point is Rawvos did bend the rules and wasn't warned/denied/anything but Loshnak didn't beyond a Hell trip, which under current rules assumptions "didn't rock the boat" given Nep's comment but I was still denied without warning or dicussion. I was even encouraged by Sacer to return to Hell after a failed trip.

Don't start responding to just parts and not the whole like Daevryn does, it's really detrimental.

I have already responded to this above. But I will spell it out for you more clearly.

You admit to bending the rules with Rawvos. It didn't get caught or whatever. You now expect it to with Loshnak.

If OJ killed another person and made up the defense, "I didn't get caught for doing it last time, why are you catching me now?", it would be ridiculous.

Face it, as long as players are trying to "bend" the rules instead of playing by them, then we will have to do what is necessary to prevent it by using appropriate punishment. And yes, that means even if we didn't "catch" you last time, it still goes for this and future times.

In your example about OJ, Rawvos murdered someone but Loshnak did not but was crucified for it. That's the point - and you basically just stated that by saying "we will have to do what is necessary to prevent it from happening future times."

The point of this thread isn't the history of what happened between those, it's done with. I had assumed as much and basically that's what happened. My problem and wish for clarification is what specifically happened just to Loshnak as an isolated case - denial for an OOC hell trip and nothing else.

Twist just said you could OOC coordinate chars to test out thief skills on each other. Nep said it was fine to OOC, as he did with his spouse, for ranking and knowing each other in-game as long as you didn't pk steamroll. And for several years the majority of Hell trips have been ooc without any repercussion and was even encouraged to continue with Loshnak.

It's vague - the only "advantage" that I can think of that happened to Loshnak is getting Hell gear (a whole two pieces), so if I basically make a character who doesn't rank with or pk with friends and doesn't take anything from Hell then it's kosher because he'll have done nothing to gain advantage over others. If that's wrong, you need to say why.

I agree with in that you've basically got different people saying different things.

RE: the "advantage". Loshnak and Co. did more than Hell. You guys (all or some) went and got gear from a handful of areas. The crux of it all is that without your planned OOC Hell group, you wouldn't have had those allies around to even casually interact with, get eq with, defend the cabal with (for those who were Scions), etc. If you want to nit-pick, you "gained" more than just Hell gear. Full empowerment (given your build) was a pretty big advantage over pretty much anyone else who ever has or will roll a Twist-evil-guy healer, for example.

>I agree with in that you've basically got different people
>saying different things.
>
>RE: the "advantage". Loshnak and Co. did more than Hell. You
>guys (all or some) went and got gear from a handful of areas.
>The crux of it all is that without your planned OOC Hell
>group, you wouldn't have had those allies around to even
>casually interact with, get eq with, defend the cabal with
> for those who were Scions), etc. If you want to nit-pick, you
>"gained" more than just Hell gear. Full empowerment (given
>your build) was a pretty big advantage over pretty much anyone
>else who ever has or will roll a Twist-evil-guy healer, for
>example.

I got equipment with whoever was around and it was done completely IC - most of the time I never took Tweedster or Artificial. I could have gotten any of the gear I had with random people around like Sigator, Arkellin, Kyanden, and many others that I did get gear with. The only one place I really did with both was Yzekon and it was to summon Yzekon (which ironically was useless for me since I couldn't use the axe). Again, just doing something that hasn't done since Ravon and his crazy charges or Cabdru and his.

Full empowerment actually would do jack for a healer in exploring. Dark Pact is horrible to put on a tank for longer fights and rejuv just makes them healer quicker, not longer. I think he had all his purities anyways but I'm not sure. Make a healer and go to the Inferno and you'll realize how much you're just a sanc/cure bot compared to a bard who can sing healing forever and do it a lot better.

Anyways it's a moot point.

There is nothing in the post to respond to. If you play and know other people that play don't let that affect how you interact with their chars. Nothing new there.

in my odd 13ish years of playing as a player i have noticed one thing over and over again, players (like me) want quick answers and justified response but sometimes you imms take your time to talk about it inbetween yourself then post your answer or whatever with none of the background...... I would personally just like to hear a "hey we are on it discussing it now, or stop beating a dead horse we have already talked about this one megabagizzillion times, and just a bit of info on why you made your choice, I know that last will mostlikely be the roughfest but hey ever remmeber as a kid when you dad said well Its cause I said so that why...ha

thanks again for all your hard work and dealing with jackholes like me

Behn

p.s. My new goal is to have a char without daev posting on it's immortal comments this guy sures whines allot about gear, the guy only multi killed you and took all your newb bread, get over it, hehehehheheheh

this is not the first time this topic has been hashed out.