Officially..

[Caligrace]

Oh no, no misunderstanding. I'm saying that if I'm Player B, and Player A either kills me or tries to kill me, then I'd have no problem whatsoever in killing Player A once (a retaliation), and killing them again to get to the point they were at after initially attacking me. The "valid reason" for killing them twice is because they attacked me first. If they then want to attack me again, fine, as that would be truly even, because they would be within their rights to retaliate my attack. A retaliation is not "even", as Player B's hand is forced, like playing black in chess. Player B needs to play white to get on an even footing.

Repeatedly killing a player is clearly bad news, but getting "even" seems perfectly fair.

So, Player A kills you once, and you're considering it even by killing them twice? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand your point!

If that is the case, that's not even in my opinion. I'll use Sawyer as an example. She, as part of her story, went after a to of vampires, no fucks given. Her initial reason? They're vampires. She doesn't know them, she doesn't know if they're good vampire or bad, because that doesn't even enter the equation to her. You're undead, you're filth. Once the initial attacks were out of the way, however, she didn't just go around and keep attacking them every time they moved - especially if they didn't retaliate, though her story would have told her to do so. I, as the player, am against that. She might attack those who haven't attacked her back in the long scheme of things, hell, she might do it a few times - but she's not going to just sit here and repeatedly attack them back to back to back without so much as them twitching in her direction.

I can't remember all that she did hit twice, but I know Doc, Niklaus and Nikolae were on the list. Doc, her reasoning is he dodged her first attack, and then her second. Everyone else fell to her blade in some form, but not that old ****. Then he cursed her spirit, so she started sending attacks back out to him - and then he attacked Ephraim. His list of indiscretions is long in her eyes! Niklaus told her he was coming for her, so, that was a challenge [bring it, Klaus!], and Nikolae tried to BTTD her and shot her in the leg.

And, if she figures out who's cursing her while she's in the hospital, they'll be on the list, too - if they're not already.

The list is long on who all she attacked, but again, even though it's in her blood to not look for reason, per the Anti-Griefing Rule and my own personal outlook on what is considered griefing and bullying, I won't allow that [without permission from the players of the characters on the receiving end.]

Onto the killing part, though. Sawyer attacked Every. They battled to the death, resulting in Sawyer's demise. Every killed her, so technically that would make Every's side even. She'd have no reason to come after her again, as she put a blade through her skull and sent her straight to the hospital, however, Sawyer will go after Every again. It might not be anytime soon, but she wants to kill her for killing her.

If she kills her, grand, then they're even, unless of course Every comes back at her. Not killing Every, waiting for her to come back, then going after her again for only killing her once. That's not even, that's just looking for another excuse to kill her twice. That'd make it imbalanced. Of course, now, if Sawyer were to lose a second time, resulting in her second death, then yes, Every would be on her list double time.

[Stonehouse]

Repeatedly killing someone because they might attack you is pure speculation. Killing someone because they have attacked you is fact.

Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that if Player A takes first strike on Player B, and Player B chooses to retaliate, it's not "even", because Player A has taken the lead and Player B is simply reacting. For this scenario to be truly "even", Player B needs to subsequently strike first, and Player A needs to retaliate.

Both players may die twice in this conflict, one player may not die at all, but either way, it becomes an "even" contest if there are two battles.

Griefing would be repeated acts of the first part of the scenario, i.e. Player A repeatedly giving Player B a beating.

[Azraeth]

Ohhh, I gotcha. Yeah, that would be technically legal, but additional kills beyond the 2 would be against the rules, and I am not sure that ideology stacks. For example, it isn't a matter of being a 2:1 ratio. Like if your character kills mine 10 times in a row, that does not entitle me to 20 kills. But that is what I mean when I say that a lot of this stuff is contextual, based in the situation.

There are also other considerations to take into account, like the chapter. If each person on the "for" side were killed or crippled once per person they hit, that would technically be fair. But twice per person? At some point it becomes less about character punishing, and more about player punishing. So yes, in the exact situation you mentioned, you are correct, but the logic there doesn't work in every situation across the board, which is the point I was initially making in my first post with the whole "cut and dry" thing.

[Doc]

This discussion is precisely why I wanted an official explanation.

There are so many caveats..

So basically i want to know.. Do I need to keep screen shots of stuff? Because Doc does nto act immediately. He waits for optimum pain and hurt.

So For example.. Saywer attacked Doc 5 times. She missed once.

Doc retaliated against 2 of those. There are two outstanding. Hes not worried about it right now.. He will wait.. and wait and wait.. until.. He decides it is the right time. It could be next month. It could be next year...

There are two outstanding.. Do I need to keep screen shots of it on hand, to prove my case?

[Caligrace]

Well, if we're going to go that route - as the player of Sawyer [and you can totally screenshot this if you want!] I say no! Sawyer will keep gunning for him, and he can keep his records, if he wants. They're valid reasons, and he could be the type to just wait for the right moment to strike. Keep her on her toes, so to speak.

With that said, again, I feel like as long as you talk it out OOC with the player, that could be how it's dealt with, regarding certain occasions. I don't know, though, that's not an official ruling or anything, but I'm totally cool with it, Doc's player!

[Freyja]

I'll say right now that, in Sawyer's case, 99.999999999999% repeating, of course, chance that no, you're good with Sawyer, Doc.

Especially if you prod her after the fact and remind her of this very incident.

Even if it's ten years down the road.

We're pretty level-headed players and are pretty slow to run to the forum to cry "cheater." We try to be reasonable people easy to get along with. I know not everyone is, so the discussion is still a very valid point. But I don't think either of us minds trading blows on the grid whatsoever. I know I don't. I've been dying for some pvp action myself.

I wish that this was the mindset of the community at large, but I know that sometimes, people can take things too far.

I'm always glad to run into a good sport, like Luffy's player, whom I do not know whatsoever, who was actually very good natured about being attacked. That was a ray of real sunshine for me, and I doubt they knew how much that meant to me, that a complete stranger was just fine with rolling with the punches I dished out and expressed interest in returning the favor.

Serious kudos for that.

As far as my personal opinion on griefing is considered, I'm pretty lax up until the point of death for my own character or their target. Death is definitely a debt paid. Though, should I owe that debt to many characters, as Ephraim surely may, depending on who you ask, then I fully expect him to die several times.

However. If I kill or attack your character once, and you come at me, say, a second time, I'll be disgruntled, but likely quiet, as I'll certainly be hitting right back. Though if I've already died twice for this crime and I'm looking at a third stint in the SR/Hospital, I'll likely have something to say on the matter.

I'm pretty lax, though, compared to a lot of people. So I'm totally fine with stricter regulations than those.


ETA: See? I told you. >.>

[Doc]

With that said, again, I feel like as long as you talk it out OOC with the player, that could be how it's dealt with, regarding certain occasions. I don't know, though, that's not an official ruling or anything, but I'm totally cool with it, Doc's player!

I used Sawyer as an example, because you used Doc first.

I want clarification.. because there is .. 1. mis-information out there. 2. In Doc's mind, time is a tool.. no need to retaliate in a hurry. 3. There doesn't seem to be a clarified reason, posted anywhere.. so that you can go back to.. and refresh your memory to point new players.. Its all hearsay, and "this is what I was told" etc.

I really think there needs to be something written and explained and posted somewhere. There are obviously different ways a person can see an event.

If One party.. sees it one way.. the other party sees it anther.. then it can blow up into an ugly situation. A posted definition, or explanation should be available.

It wasn't much of an issue in the past year, because there was no PVP. But PVP is back. We need to be on top of this.. sooner rather than later.

[Starla]

I absolutely agree with you.

People should know what to expect in the terms of realistic consequences that they could be facing for involving themselves in pvp before they jump in and someone who may be a little over-zealous takes things a little too far. As well as laying out that line clearly, so that aggressors will know how deep the rabbit hole goes before they find themselves a splattered mess at the bottom, looking at griefing accusations and not really knowing that they were griefing in the first place.

[Azraeth]

With that said, again, I feel like as long as you talk it out OOC with the player, that could be how it's dealt with, regarding certain occasions. I don't know, though, that's not an official ruling or anything, but I'm totally cool with it, Doc's player!

I used Sawyer as an example, because you used Doc first.

I want clarification.. because there is .. 1. mis-information out there. 2. In Doc's mind, time is a tool.. no need to retaliate in a hurry. 3. There doesn't seem to be a clarified reason, posted anywhere.. so that you can go back to.. and refresh your memory to point new players.. Its all hearsay, and "this is what I was told" etc.

I really think there needs to be something written and explained and posted somewhere. There are obviously different ways a person can see an event.

If One party.. sees it one way.. the other party sees it anther.. then it can blow up into an ugly situation. A posted definition, or explanation should be available.

It wasn't much of an issue in the past year, because there was no PVP. But PVP is back. We need to be on top of this.. sooner rather than later.

What changes might you want for the existing rule?

Game Rules

[4] No killing somebody over and over without provocation

Grief killing (killing somebody multiple times for no new real reason) is frowned upon. You can kill anyone you like in game, for any reason you want (characters are allowed to be douches), but doing it multiple times without a new reason each additional time is against the rules. This means that you cannot kill a character 3 times in a row because they attacked you once. Each kill requires a new provocation for it to be legal.

Decent reasons for killing a character would include retaliation for being attacked, in defense of an ally, in response to a serious roleplay insult, bounties, etc. You may kill a character for any other reason (or no reason at all), but doing it more than once in a row without provocation is considered bad form, and only serves to drive people out of the game.

The one exception to this rule is in the case of faction VS faction warfare. Where peace isn't made, the enemy doesn't have to wait to be hit before hitting back.

You might consider asking specific questions about the rule, not covered by the text already there, and submit it to David so he can make any relevant changes he might want to from there?

[Caligrace]

I agree, Doc, I was just saying in that case, I am cool with it. xD

There does need to be some ground rules. Without them, I feel like what could be amazing here with PVP and RP could spiral out of control fast and ruin everything. I don't want that, and I know no one else would, either.

That's what I suggested talking to a player OOC. I know it won't work all of the time, but it could be something added to the rule - which Az ninja'd me on - but that is something that could be done.