Path of the Vampire forum

What is the definition of 'Griefing'?

Pretty sure it isn't me you are wanting an answer from but (no griefing intended) here it is regardless... <3

"The term "griefing" dates to the late 1990s, when it was used to describe the willfully antisocial behaviors seen in early massively multiplayer online games like Ultima Online and first-person shooters such as Counter-Strike. But even before it had a name, griefer-like behavior was familiar in the virtual worlds of text-based Multi-User Domains (MUDs), where joyriding invaders visited "virtual rape" and similar offenses on the local populace.[4] Julian Dibbell's 1993 article A Rape in Cyberspace analyzed the griefing events in a particular MUD, LambdaMOO, and the staff's response.

In the culture of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) in Taiwan, such as Lineage, griefers are known as "white-eyed"—a metaphor meaning that their eyes have no pupils and so they look without seeing. Behaviors other than griefing which can cause players to be stigmatized as "white-eyed" include cursing, cheating, stealing, and unreasonable killing.[5]"


source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

Ok.. that was interesting.. But I meant in regard to this game.

We were talking oocly.. and there seems to be several different ideas of what it means for this particular game.

One person was under the impression that once a character died, all past sins were forgiven; even if your character did not kill then.

Another person said.. no.. its once your character kills them.. all past sins are forgiven.

Another person said.. no it's not either of them. Its when an NIA is in place and your character kills them.

So.. there is a general misunderstanding of what it means.. so I wanted clarification.

Doc wrote:Ok.. that was interesting.. But I meant in regard to this game.

We were talking oocly.. and there seems to be several different ideas of what it means for this particular game.

One person was under the impression that once a character died, all past sins were forgiven; even if your character did not kill then.

Another person said.. no.. its once your character kills them.. all past sins are forgiven.

Another person said.. no it's not either of them. Its when an NIA is in place and your character kills them.

So.. there is a general misunderstanding of what it means.. so I wanted clarification.

I think it depends on context. Anti-Griefing is a difficult rule to enforce because of the IC/OOC component, and due to other factors.

For example, the best cut and dry version is: Person A attacks Person B. Person B has a right to retaliate and kill Person A. However after killing person A, Person B doesn't have the right to continue retaliating and killing.

It really only gets more complicated when:

1) You include faction on individual interaction.
2) Faction on faction interaction.
3) Unprovoked interaction
4) Killing over difference in opinion/world view

Looking at those individual cases, the second part is spelled out in the rules. Faction versus faction warfare allows for continued attacks above and beyond the initial kill, if peace is not reached.

For scenario one, good form tends to be: If an individual attacks a faction member, it's considered fair for them to be killed once for it unless they continue to attack after the initial death.

The gray area for that is: If an individual attacks 2+ members of a faction, whether or not those 2+ people each qualify for a kill, and that's where it would be up to David to decide what's fair or not in that specific situation.

In the third scenario, a character who attacks someone 'at random' or for chaotic reasons can kill a character once, but subsequent kills would require a reason like the ones listed above.

In the fourth scenario, characters who may have a disagreement about opinion or world view can kill each other. However, kills shouldn't persist after the first one, unless there's another or new valid reason for continued attacks.

Though a lot of this stuff really is just contextual. For example. Az was attacked by Lasair and Ephraim Steele when he was in the Lonstlade compound. Mortll (a member of the faction to which Az belongs) killed Lasair, so he considers that business over and done with. Then he attacked Ephraim several times, and he thus considers that business over and done with. However, someone else who was attacked by those characters may not feel that way, and may thus want to attack and exact their pound of flesh. Which would be their prerogative.

So it varies depending on the character interactions and dynamic, as well as the player dynamic.

The only hard and safe rule really is that a character should have a reason to kill someone, motivated by things in character.

The way that I've always understood it is that griefing in path is generally an action that will drive someone away from the game, without a verified IC reason to kill a specific character which makes a player feel as if they're being targeted. It used to come up a lot during the masquerade violations and whatnot.

Example:

Every kills Doc for masquerade violation #3.

She waits a week, kills him again and says that it was because he was a repeat offender, but he has yet to break the masquerade once more. That previous infraction was forgiven and therefore, not valid any more.

If Doc were to hit Every and she killed him again for it, that would not be me griefing you as she had a valid reason to attack him back.

If I constantly attacked you without having any reasons at all, that too, would be considered griefing. I, personally, also see flimsy excuses such as "I don't like his shoes" or "he did this x months ago" to be the same, but I don't know how David sees it.

Another person said.. no it's not either of them. Its when an NIA is in place and your character kills them.

I don't think this is correct, but someone please do so if I'm wrong.

Step 1 NIA's are when they're requested and for example, I feel finally over the edge and put someone on my enemies list. I want absolutely no contact with said individual and will ignore their existence - otherwise, I can get my NIA request thrown out for antagonizing them. When it comes to a Step 2 NIA, there is severe harassment between the individuals, and any contact will be noted and recorded. Even if someone has IC reason, OOC issues have been too severe and may end up to be believed potential crossing.

Griefing would have already been attempted at this point.

In my personal opinion due to an NIA break being instant banning, I definitely do not think it's even remotely good to attempt either way.


And as Josh said above, it gets more complicated when more individuals or factions are brought into the situation.

The Nia thing isn't true. They are completely different. Pretty much what josh and Donni said is my understanding.

Azraeth wrote:For example, the best cut and dry version is: Person A attacks Person B. Person B has a right to retaliate and kill Person A. However after killing person A, Person B doesn't have the right to continue retaliating and killing.

I disagree (sorry, Az!). Player B has every right to hit Player A a second time. Player B's retaliation is simply that: a retaliation (not a decision to make a first strike attack). It doesn't "even" things up. Player A made a decision to attack Player B, to get "one up" on Player B. Player B should be able to do the same, i.e. to get "one up" on Player A. Player A took that risk, so they should be prepared to suffer the same fate. If Player A then chooses to retaliate, well, that would be truly "even", as all actions would be counteracted. Basic physics :)

I disagree (sorry, Az!). Player B has every right to hit Player A a second time. Player B's retaliation is simply that: a retaliation (not a decision to make a first strike attack). It doesn't "even" things up. Player A made a decision to attack Player B, to get "one up" on Player B. Player B should be able to do the same, i.e. to get "one up" on Player A. Player A took that risk, so they should be prepared to suffer the same fate. If Player A then chooses to retaliate, well, that would be truly "even", as all actions would be counteracted. Basic physics :)

I think maybe there is a misunderstanding somewhere, I never said that Person B can only hit Person A once. I said that after Person B has killed, or contributed to the death of Person, A, they cannot continue to try and kill Person A without a new valid reason. In fact, that is the entire point if the Anti-griefing rule. Otherwise, to use the example I used towards the end of my post, I could have Azraeth repeatedly kill Ephraim Steele because Ephraim threw the first punch. While that might be in character for some characters, at some point it becomes unfair to the other player, and makes something as simple as basic gameplay impossible. It also doesn't add to story, and inevitably leads to uneccrssary OOC tension.

Now, if attacks continue in both sides, that is a different matter entirely, but I didn't really cover that scenario.

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.

I imagine a situation like that would depend on a few factors, because I don't disagree with you, but that would technically be against the rule. That would be another one of those gray areas David would need to sort out. Because, by that very logic I could repeatedly kill someone's character on the off-chance that they might try to attack mine.

Tho really if both players are copacetic, it doesn't matter. Which, I suppose makes a strong case for trying to engage in good player versus player relations.