Player killing rules updated

[Mersereau]

I would hope the caveats on harassment and loot defense are clarified in these cases.

[Cherek]

I would hope the caveats on harassment and loot defense are clarified in these cases.

Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand exactly what you mean.

[Draugor]

I would hope the caveats on harassment and loot defense are clarified in these cases.

Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand exactly what you mean.

Repeated killing without reason I think on harassment and Loot defence... "Leave or die" just because someone was guarding a specific mob one room from the actual mob

[OgreToyBoy]

I would hope the caveats on harassment and loot defense are clarified in these cases.

Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand exactly what you mean.

Repeated killing without reason I think on harassment and Loot defence... "Leave or die" just because someone was guarding a specific mob one room from the actual mob

What mob and what person could this be....

[Cherek]

I would hope the caveats on harassment and loot defense are clarified in these cases.

Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand exactly what you mean.

Repeated killing without reason I think on harassment and Loot defence... "Leave or die" just because someone was guarding a specific mob one room from the actual mob

Repeated killing without reason is already in the rules. As for loot defence, I dont think we ever have policed such things? And I dont think we should. People have always tried to protect certain areas for various reasons, be that RP, XP, or loot, I dont see a reason why that should be forbidden?

[Amorana]

I would hope the caveats on harassment and loot defense are clarified in these cases.

Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand exactly what you mean.

Repeated killing without reason I think on harassment and Loot defence... "Leave or die" just because someone was guarding a specific mob one room from the actual mob

Just from an observer, I actually read Mersereau's statement the opposite of how Draugor did. My interpretation was that if a newbie is being an annoyance (for example, spamming you with pokes while following you around) or doing something like stealing your loot, there should be caveats for this. To me, that falls under "provocation", which I think the new policy dictates clearly by saying "without provocation". I think you're okay to kill a newbie who is a loot thief or an annoyance.

[Mersereau]

Just from an observer, I actually read Mersereau's statement the opposite of how Draugor did. My interpretation was that if a newbie is being an annoyance (for example, spamming you with pokes while following you around) or doing something like stealing your loot, there should be caveats for this. To me, that falls under "provocation", which I think the new policy dictates clearly by saying "without provocation". I think you're okay to kill a newbie who is a loot thief or an annoyance.

Exactly. I would ask it be clearly stated. When it comes to rules being vague is a terrible idea.

[Cherek]

Just from an observer, I actually read Mersereau's statement the opposite of how Draugor did. My interpretation was that if a newbie is being an annoyance (for example, spamming you with pokes while following you around) or doing something like stealing your loot, there should be caveats for this. To me, that falls under "provocation", which I think the new policy dictates clearly by saying "without provocation". I think you're okay to kill a newbie who is a loot thief or an annoyance.

Exactly. I would ask it be clearly stated. When it comes to rules being vague is a terrible idea.

The only thing I changed was the word "repeatedly", and then I added "without provocation" a second time, which I hoped would make it more clear. Like Amorana says, the things you describe definitely falls under "provocation".

If we start listing a lot of different scenarios it will soon become a very long list of specific things you can or cannot do. Like a law book... and we're probably still gonna miss a lot of different scenarios, and risk people thinking anything NOT listed is okay. "But rules said nothing about kicking him in the butt 10 times, it only said poking!". I can imagine that conversation already...

I think the word "provoke" as a good word that does the job well. But if you have an idea on how to formulate it more clear without creating a long list of specifics, feel free to come with a suggestion. I do agree that the rules should be _clear_, but without being a law book with hundreds of scenarios listed.

[Icarus]

How about a filter on the donation boxes, any weapon that is dangerous to the young ones (snake whip, BSA, corrupted weapons etc) gets filtered through a nifty device, returning a weapon of "exceptional quality" of the same class (club/sword/axe etc) which is awesome for a newbie, but then again, can't be wielded by anyone with higher stats than "able to get out of donation box + X %". That way, people can still donate such stuff, but not kill newbies and get screwed over if they do it just to preserve an item

If a puddle of blood starts to form around the donation box perhaps we need to think of some type of filter yes. It's been working fine a long time though, so let's see if perhaps this simply was an isolated incident before we change too much.

I paid a newbie to take out a corrupted weapon from the donation box, just to get it away from those who would die trying to use it... So, it's more luck than anything really... BSA's were "fun to put at Cadets" back in the days.. People used to go there to charge it

[Draugor]

How about a filter on the donation boxes, any weapon that is dangerous to the young ones (snake whip, BSA, corrupted weapons etc) gets filtered through a nifty device, returning a weapon of "exceptional quality" of the same class (club/sword/axe etc) which is awesome for a newbie, but then again, can't be wielded by anyone with higher stats than "able to get out of donation box + X %". That way, people can still donate such stuff, but not kill newbies and get screwed over if they do it just to preserve an item

If a puddle of blood starts to form around the donation box perhaps we need to think of some type of filter yes. It's been working fine a long time though, so let's see if perhaps this simply was an isolated incident before we change too much.

I paid a newbie to take out a corrupted weapon from the donation box, just to get it away from those who would die trying to use it... So, it's more luck than anything really... BSA's were "fun to put at Cadets" back in the days.. People used to go there to charge it

The flaming axe from Kabal was fun aswell xD