Rejected Escalation of Force

[Señor Jaggles]

Peak irony where after massacring a bunch of ranchers, she becomes gravely injured and ends ups ignored right next to one of the ranchers with a chip on his shoulder...

Her death was more or less akin to Rasputin's lol, everyone pitched in a bit to try and make her die

 

[Mic15000]

I did ask you to join me and you turned down my offer, bitch.

I ain't joining unless I have to I'm not THAT crazy :P

 

[avralwobniar]

Some points:

1. You don't PK someone, you kill them. You may still suffer consequences even if the person ends up NLR'd. Players other than the character who died may ask for the PK to be enforced, but it's on them to give the reason why it happened and staff to execute the command. If there's no reason, there should be no PK. If the staff member judges the reason does not fall under PK criteria, then there should be no PK. Everyone in the team knows this.

2. You can bring a horse to a river but you can't make it drink. The playerbase is very, VERY used to "PKing" people. A very bad mindset if you ask me, but toxicity brought this on. Eventually people will part ways with just killing everyone they don't like. Some others will not. The staff team will work to ensure there's some measure to this.

3. Reason why valid PK reasons are not listed specifically outside of very clear case-scenarios is merely for two reasons: First, they would be too many to properly list, and second, we want people to not focus on a "list of things you can pull on your adversary to make sure they lose their character forever".

Now to address some of the points made here.


"If the staff team does not force players to do things the way I want them to, I will actively ruin everyone's enjoyment of the server". Not the point you think you're making.


It's an actual rule. We can't tell people who to kill and who not to kill (except very clear-cut cases) when most of these kills occur in grey areas.


It is an actual rule you have to abide to. It tells you that you're supposed to seek less violent resolutions, and that your kills need to have a reason of weight behind them. The rule merely applies to a grey area instead of black-or-white situations.


This has not been an enforced thing since Helix is a thing.

Refer to the above.

The reason for this is it gave us double the work and had the exact same results: We had to review all the auths, dive through logs, and go in circles to authorise one, just for us to find out there was more to it in the posterior appeal of 20 pages (and do the same, review auths, dive through more logs, and go in more circles). Neither the staff or the players deserve this torture.


For anyone to abuse this all they have to do is not ask for the auths themselves. (It has happened in the past. A whole lot.)


Refer to point 1 at the start of the post. But yeah, disagree all you want, some situations happen in a snap and you can't exactly tell people to pause the gaming to ask staff if they can PK them; gladly, we don't need that, as you can kill someone and then staff will decide if they apply the PK or not. If you're caught playing some sort of deathmatcher who murders people relentlessly, you will be accordingly punished for it. But so far people seem smart enough not to do this. I'd say 'Mother's case was more complex than just "I was bored so I RDMd", but ban management needs to deal with that.


So far staff members are supposed to do a quick check to ensure the PK is at least vaguely valid. They've done it (and even asked me over Steam to confirm) and still do it. We've had two appeals in this time, it really isn't a big deal.


I did ask you to join me and you turned down my offer, bitch.

That's all really, I'm not turning down this suggestion merely because it's already a thing in the ruleset, but we need players to eventually grow out of a very toxic mindset that years of roleplaying has ingrained in them. Until that happens, we will issue out NLRs or outright voids/resolutions when possible, to drive them towards better port.


Note: We still allow people to come to us and ask for PK auths (or to resolve their doubts regarding a situation where someone will die), but we can never, by any means, give a verdict right off the bat, as we only know the context you told us. Asking for PK auths isn't encouraged but at the same time you may resolve your doubts about something you're planning to do.

not reading all of that

 

[Andrew]

if you pk first you end up with fascinating situations like when northgate was suffocated inside of a barrel in c8, and it results in over an hour of a lot of people coming together to figure out where to go next because it has serious implications for every involved party
only issue is that was voided after which left a strange taste in a few people's mouths, so it can totally backfire
yet still allow a good hour or two of fun as large sub-factions duke it out over what to do next, with people venturing to wild places they've never been

 

[Hunk]

i thought this was a basic rule of roleplaying, does it even need mentioning?

its obvious the situation has to escalate to a certain degree before it turns into a gunfight. else it might just be called failrp or rdm and we got pk management team to deal with those situation + ingame admin team

either way:

any rule that limits or blocks the player's spectrum of action shouldnt exist.

 

[bigdaddyman413]

but then you wouldn't have situations like @Raiden's today, where he picked a fight with a bunch of ranchers over a grievance and got shot dead

raiden taunted me grieiving my nephews death

actually it was more they picked a fight with me after i got invited into their home, it was a messs lmao

yikes

 

[Señor Jaggles]

not reading all of that

If one party does not want to discuss, then there is no conversation to be had.

Suggestion rejected.