Open comment period, proposed changes to ALFA's CvC policy:

[danielmn]

What if he tells me "Nice black boots"

But they aren't black, they are grey....

And I hate black, and anyone who says the word black?

[Swift]

If this has been addressed, then I apologize in advance; however, that being said...

Has a situation arise recently that has warranted a specific and precise ruling on CvC, along with manners that can completely nullify any CvC to begin with, or is this a work in motion from the past few months? I haven't come across many scenarios of CvC in ALFA 2.0, and those that I have had been rather tame and, thankfully, drama free.

Recent events have brought the issue of CvC and how draining it is on DMs to deal with sharply into focus which led to this discussion beginning.

How does this rule relate to loot stealing/pickpocketing/badmouthing(not in the insluting kinda way but in the "i'll ruin your reputation" kinda way)/or other harmful actions one can take against another without it being CvC?
Does this mean we need DM approval for retaliation?
And we agreed that DMs dont wanna be bothered, so does that leave the "hurt" party with no option to do anything other than just take it and purse thier lips?

Loot stealing is an issue between players. If they want to take it to CvC then a) please step away from your PC and cool down, its just a game and b) ask a DM.
Pickpocketing, unless we have made changes to the system, should only be done with a DM around anyway, as the default Obsidian system is utterly ludicrous, to the point you can pick pocketed full suits of armour and other utterly stupid things.
If another PC wants to ruin your reputation, that is a very RP focused thing. If your reputation gets shattered to the point you want to CvC, you ask a DM.

[Brokenbone]

Two PCs who don't much like each other bash a boss, one loot item, A jumps on it faster than B. Perhaps A "deserves" it, perhaps "B", don't know, don't care. Players of A and B might though. May RP nicely about how to resolve loot, but apparently the last resort of "the way you'll see it my way is if I clobber you" (could be non lethal!) is off the table absent DM.

I think absent new rules, and say Player (not character!) ability to get along could result in someone saying screw it, kill other guy, loot the item in question and in the absolute unlikely best case, playing that off as a knockout and not a full death, and giving corpse to DM to fix up. With new rules I guess that'd risk a strike, rollback, the loot item somehow going back?

Maybe another case of yes its a 24/7 pw, but remember, play with folks where mutual respect / fun is possible. Hope for best when meeting new folks, or people where you know no common ground exists, wander away or hope they do.

[kid]

If this has been addressed, then I apologize in advance; however, that being said...

Has a situation arise recently that has warranted a specific and precise ruling on CvC, along with manners that can completely nullify any CvC to begin with, or is this a work in motion from the past few months? I haven't come across many scenarios of CvC in ALFA 2.0, and those that I have had been rather tame and, thankfully, drama free.

Recent events have brought the issue of CvC and how draining it is on DMs to deal with sharply into focus which led to this discussion beginning.

How does this rule relate to loot stealing/pickpocketing/badmouthing(not in the insluting kinda way but in the "i'll ruin your reputation" kinda way)/or other harmful actions one can take against another without it being CvC?
Does this mean we need DM approval for retaliation?
And we agreed that DMs dont wanna be bothered, so does that leave the "hurt" party with no option to do anything other than just take it and purse thier lips?

Loot stealing is an issue between players. If they want to take it to CvC then a) please step away from your PC and cool down, its just a game and b) ask a DM.
Pickpocketing, unless we have made changes to the system, should only be done with a DM around anyway, as the default Obsidian system is utterly ludicrous, to the point you can pick pocketed full suits of armour and other utterly stupid things.
If another PC wants to ruin your reputation, that is a very RP focused thing. If your reputation gets shattered to the point you want to CvC, you ask a DM.

You're ignoring the last bit where the point is... DMs don't want to deal with CvC and will likley not approve of it. The offensive action is sanction by deafult by the though cocenquace to the offensive action is prohibited by default and likley not to get approved anyhow cause of DMs not wishing to deal with it, time, and general whines.
Don't ignore problems by saying they aren't there and please do answer the rest of the questions from that post as they are very likley to happen.
We want a new rule, fine, let make it a good one?

[Swift]

In this instance a "good one" seems to simply be one that players can rules lawyer their way around to leave things in the same place they are now.

No thanks.

I'd rather we just ban it completely.

Maybe a few more idiotic CvC incidents is all we will need to get there. Fingers crossed.

[kid]

I don't think that's what everyone else want tho. No, not like it was before and request for celerity are just the thing that would prevent rule lawyering. Lets foresee possible hick ups and solve those now?

[Veilan]

I have a hard time believing that the problem with people causing a headache with the current rule is the current rule.

[oldgrayrogue]

OK. I love conflict in RP between PCs. Over the years playing on different PWs I have been involved in a lot of CvC or near CvC. Here in ALFA, just with my PC Corio I gave premeditated CvC notice to DMs regarding like 4 PCs I think -- one was Mick's PC Dawn, who was the Bonnie to his Clyde. CvC can be fun. A lot of fun. Playing evil can be fun. A lot of fun. Playing a do gooder who hunts down evil can be just as much fun. In order for it to be fun though, it requires maturity and mutual respect between players. This is what is often lacking in CvC encounters in ALFA.

The consent rule as simply stated by jmecha in a prior post is needed because ALFA players have proved time and again that they often lack the maturity as players to engage in CvC without it devolving into a drama fest that saps the will of the DMs and other Admin involved. Where players have that maturity it is not an issue. Bastian a PC played by Ksiel on BG in the SE group CvCd all of us at one point or another. It was great fun and ultimately lead to the death of his PC. Never once an issue. Jmecha's elf PC (forget his name) and my PC Voric had a nonlethal CvC in the back room of a tavern. We laughed about it in tells after commenting to each other on what a fun scene it was and how we couldn't wait to see how things between them played out. Why? because the players all acted maturely and respected each other OOC. We trusted each other to play things IC and were mature enough to accept the consequences ICly of our PCs actions. We accepted DM judgment, when it was required, and did not argue incessantly or bring charges when things did not break our way.

The consent rule is a substitute for players either refusing or being incable of acting maturely and with mutual respect towards each other. It puts the onus on the players to arbitrate their own IC dispute and forces them to come to consensus on how to resolve the conflict, without the need for DMs and a big debate on the AR forums. Basically, it forces players to do what we all really should be doing without the rules -- play nice with each other. I remember my first potential CvC encounter in ALFA. My elf ranger Thoron was butting in to a private convo between some other elves and Mr. Duncan sent me a tell saying his PC was going to go hostile on me. I shot him a tell back and said thanks for the warning bring on your worst. Turns out they didn't fight at all. Afterwards I sent him another tell asking him to please give me warning in the future if the hostilities would continue. He said of course, thanks for being so cool about it, but he did not think it would continue, was more of a heat of the moment thing. At the time we did not even know each other as players. No issues. Handled maturely and with mutual respect. DMs never even heard about it I don't think.

The consent rule sort of forces you to do this. What we all really should be doing anyway as a matter of etiquette. Not having an "appeal" forces you to act reasonably and maturely and not push that off onto someone else to sort out.

A quick and final word of the questions regarding players "hiding behind" the CvC consent rule. I chuckle when I see these questions. It is a legitimate question but the answer is obvious. The consent rule is clearly an OOC rule. Hiding behind it without RPing your refusal of consent ICly is metagaming pure and simple. People need to go back and read the definitions of metagaming and cheating etc. We are "superior" RPrs on ALFA who should all know this intuitively after all. If it happens I would suggest players take a screen shot, clip the log and refer it to the PA who will be able to deal with it swiftly and appropriately.

A related issue raised by this debate is issues caused by people playing evil PCs, especially open evil that is RPd like an antagonist towards other players. This takes a special breed of player. One who is very willing to accept the consequences of his PC actions. One who also accepts what will likely be the inevitable death of his PC at the hands of PC or NPC forces of good. Open and antagonisticly hostile evil rarely survives long, be it in a band of orcs or a cosmopolitan center like Baldur's Gate. It takes an especially mature and respectful player to RP this type of character without causing a lot of bad feelings. Maybe we should make such PCs by approval only, like special races, to ensure that those playing them have the requisite qualities to do so without causing a bunch of OOC drama.

[Xanthea]

The consent rule sort of forces you to do this. What we all really should be doing anyway as a matter of etiquette. Not having an "appeal" forces you to act reasonably and maturely and not push that off onto someone else to sort out.

I think that a rule that you must give people an OOC warning that if they continue to do the same things that they're doing then your character may attack theirs solves the same thing without the headache of people being able to refuse it. That covers spontaneous situations without a history between the two. Premeditated situations should still require a DM though.

Player 1: "If your character keeps insulting mine then I may attack you."
Player 2: "Ok. Noted. Thanks." *character spits and walks off*

I've had that exact situation happen before and it worked out like a charm, everyone being perfectly mature about it. If they continue to do the same thing after an OOC warning then they're implicitly consenting to a conflict.

[t-ice]

+1 to ogr's wall of text. (Although I don't agree with "Open evil on application only".)

[Witchdoctor]

How about areas or zones where pvp is not allowed? The carebears can stay there and the other areas are free game so to speak. Of course dm's will have npcs act accordingly and if you believe the npc(s) in question did not then take that to the sitting admin. should be a quick process to determine outcome regardless. Pouring over too many rules is silly and conterproductive to the fun the people who pour all the hard work into alfa try to promote.

Want a dangerous, realistic type fantasy world? Well you are not going to satisfy everyone so just to protect the dm's sanity then make the rules hard fast and simple to follow.

Would like to think CvC could happen without a dm but thinking on it that would not be wise for many reasons.

[Wild Wombat]

<snip>How about areas or zones where pvp is not allowed? The carebears can stay there and the other areas are free game so to speak.<snip>

What, I'm back less than a week and already there are restrictions on where I can go?

(Joke that wouldn't have been "inside" 7 or 8 years ago.)

As for the subject matter, I am withholding all opinions on most things for as long as I can stand it. Having opinions leads to flame wars and some folks might remember how much I hate flame wars. Darn things can even sneak up on a Care Bear and before he knows it he is a smoking cinder for Mother/J'kin to light a cigar with.

Not that I ever got in a flame war with Mother. I know better than to fight a battle I can't win. (And WW and J'kin became bestest friends, the end.)

[Adanu]

I've only had problems with one or two players in my time here. I'm mature enough to let IC be IC and vice versa. If someone has it out for me, I usually ignore them and avoid them.

But sometimes that isn't enough, and we need a way to deal with that, unless people WANT players around here to leave from being griefed.

[Swift]

No need to worry Wild Wombat, the flame wars of old have been extinct for years. This and the spell thread are about as heated as it gets now.

I got your joke

[Galadorn]

<snip>How about areas or zones where pvp is not allowed? The carebears can stay there and the other areas are free game so to speak.<snip>

What, I'm back less than a week and already there are restrictions on where I can go?

(Joke that wouldn't have been "inside" 7 or 8 years ago.)

As for the subject matter, I am withholding all opinions on most things for as long as I can stand it. Having opinions leads to flame wars and some folks might remember how much I hate flame wars. Darn things can even sneak up on a Care Bear and before he knows it he is a smoking cinder for Mother/J'kin to light a cigar with.

Not that I ever got in a flame war with Mother. I know better than to fight a battle I can't win. (And WW and J'kin became bestest friends, the end.)

I got it of course. And sometime after you left WW, I self-proclaimed myself the ALFA Carebear in your honor. We need more around here. It's really great to have you back. See you again Hobart, soon enough.

...aaaaand to avoid once again sidetracking a thread (even if it's for a very valid reason)...

...CvC? Some love it, unfortunately some look for it, as some self-satisfying notch on a virtual belt - at least that is MY FEELING ABOUT IT. Go ahead, tear me apart, but i've been around a long time. Seen them all. The worst part is "they" can openly deny that very easily and make a hundred claims that CvC/PC-death happened for a "valid reason" by emphasizing any number of dozens of reasons that can never really be fully proven since rarely only the victim (who some will also assume is "bending" a truth to look more favourable) was witness to what actually happened.

I KNOW this is not the case all the time. But relaxing CvC rules will feed the above i promise.

I have many examples listed off in another thread of this kind of thing along side many other examples that I gave long ago in several threads about a CN Tempus Beserker I played that had a half dozen FULLY 100% VALID and accepted and DM approved reasons to commit CvC against another few PCs in ALFA 1, that I did not follow through with, and through fun and interesting RP sometimes over weeks or months, no one had to die, instead a longer and much more epic "anti-relationship" was formed for both parties. Most of the other players admitted openly they were trying for full PK on my PC. One such incident was in the blatant face of realtively long term OOC badgering against me on forums and in chat - childish idiot basically. Point is, I fully and honestly 100% know that at least "I" can find a way to avoid CvC/PKing another PC no matter what. While still staying in character. It's not that hard.

I am no mind reader... but the FEELING I get... is... the CvC/PKing that ever results, very much depends on, if the attacker "really" wants to bark out his or her "CvC accomplishments" to others also so inclined.

Most interesting part of all these thoughts? I want CvC in ALFA very much. But I want everyone to do it for the RP not for the notch or some juvenile bragging rights which I get the FEELING some do it for.

But I also want ice-cream every day.

I ain't gonna get all of the above ....not by a long shot.

Like kid said: "more clarity"

Like Regas said: "this thread is for suggestions to change the policy to accomodate ALFA best!"

go team