CLOK BBS

Just going to keep this short and sweet. I will not be returning after my 5 day ban is up. It's pretty clear that there is a large bias against me in the playerbase. Whether it is deserved or not matters little at this point. I'm too tired to care. For transparency I will be posting the contents regarding my ban here for those who are uninformed. I've been on the other side of the barrier too many times to count, so hopefully this is appreciated.


Hi *,

I noticed Cili got 3 PC kills on Wednesday so I looked into the
situation to see what was up, as I always try to do in CvC situations. 
I can understand why Cili (or most anyone really) would choose to go
investigate and potentially involve themselves in what was going on at
the time, but killing all three of those PCs without any interaction,
particularly when two of them were leaving with the corpse of their
ally, was pretty excessive and went against some of the guidelines in
our policy.  Here are the details I've put together:

==========

Date: 12/04/2024
Time: 14:13 (ish)
Location: Outside Jackdaw Trail

==========

CvC situation summary:

- Cili heard about someone having their pack stolen at a caribou trail
and snuck over to investigate.
- At the head of Jackdaw Trail, Cili (in hiding) observed three Dunwyr -
Eir, Lysse, and Siegmaer - delivering verbal warning threats of violence
to a hunter - Spive - about repercussions of overhunting, or hunting
wolves of Wildhaven, and telling Spive to pass the threats on to others.
Spive was complying and passing on the messages and did not seem to be
in any great distress, given the situation.
- Cili made an attempt to kill one of the Dunwyr without warning from
hiding with a significantly lethal attack (three-channel sorcery), then
moved away. The Dunwyr attempted to search out their attacker.
- Cili returned, made a second casting from hiding, and killed Lysse.
- Eir began dragging Lysse's corpse away from the scene, with Siegmaer
following. Cili stalked and cast at Eir a time or two, then cast at
Siegmaer and killed him, then cast back at Eir and killed her.

==========

Policy violation: "Assaults need a reason. [...] Attacking another PC
should have a solid and believable reason behind it, and that reason
should be specific to the target."
Situational explanation: There was no specific threat against Cili.
Spive was not under physical attack and was cooperating, and not in any
apparent significant distress, nor was he a friend or ally of Cili's. 
Making an initial attack to try and break up or take control of the
situation, and/or scare off the Dunwyr, would have been fine. It could
have been played from there. Killing all three of them without any
interaction at all nor retaliation on their part, over a non-physical
encounter that did not specifically involve Cili, particularly as two of
them were atempting to drag a corpse away from and leave the scene and
situation, was undeniably excessive.

Policy violation: "Killers should not corpse camp."
Situational explanation: Once Lysse was killed by Cili, Eir (who had not
attacked or retaliated during the encounter) tried to drag Lysse's
corpse away from the scene. Cili's proceeding to kill Eir as she was
dragging a corpse away was excessive.

==========

To be clear, it wasn't the fact that Cili attacked that is the issue.
The issue was the excessive action of killing all three of them without
any interaction or specific personal involvement in the situation,
particularly when two of them were attempting to leave the situation
with one of them dragging the corpse of their ally.

In order to enforce the importance of the CvC policies, I'm giving your
account a temporary 5-day ban.  Please try to exercise more care in any
future CvC encounters.  I know you haven't been happy when being on the
receiving end of excessive CvC situations, so I hope you'll keep those
experiences in mind to try and temper your own actions in any future CvC
encounters you find yourself involved in.

-Rias
My first response...

Hello,
    I appreciate the explanation. I'd like to share my point of view on the matter. I am NOT trying to have any of your decisions repealed, as that would be insulting to the amount of time you took to analyse and detail the situation. However, I would like to have a conversation on this matter, since we do seem to be entering a time of conflict between factions. I am quoting parts of the policy as it relates to CVC and explaining how things came across to me. Hopefully this can result in a new draft to help clarify.

"Randomly attacking other PCs is not allowed. Attacking another PC should have a solid and believable reason behind it, and that reason should be specific to the target."
    The three Dunwyr were out in force making threats and taking actions against hunters, and had been for a time, which included Cili. They were using baby-blue to convey the information over the crystals. The outpost has made it pretty clear that if you're not with us, then you're against us. With the Dunwyr becoming more active, it felt right to take a stand here. Being out numbered, Cili felt that stealth and swiftness was to her advantage. Eliminating these threats now would be beneficial for the outpost in the long term. Three less Dunwyr, three less problems.
"On the flip side: Potential targets should learn to walk away. If a threat is made and the target reacts dismissively or aggressively, it should come as no surprise when the situation escalates and the one making the threat follows through by attacking the one they threatened."
    The Dunwyr, after the first attack was made, seemed to make no attempt to retreat or otherwise take the threat seriously.  While the threat was not verbal, the danger was very much present. While the initial attack was very lethal, I as a player knew nothing about these character's combat skills, so yes, an all out attack seemed appropriate. Especially given that I was out numbered. I was prepared to be completely destroyed. I had no idea that things would go the way they did.
Killers should not "corpse camp" - that is, remain near their target's corpse with any intent to prevent or discourage the target from being rescued/revived. If the attacker continues to harbor any desires to further harm or impede their target in any way, they should leave the scene upon the death of the target and await a new incident where the roleplay of the conflict situation can be continued after the target has had time to recover.
    I did not make any attempt to corpse camp Lysse, Eir, or any others. Cili killed the three Dunwyr, who were all involved in the threats and incident. After they were dead, Cili left them. I was already stalking Eir before she decided to drag lysse from what I remember. At any rate, Cili's intent was to kill all three, even before Eir began to drag Lysse's body.

    It seems the only point of contention here, to me anyway, is the corpse camping. Do people who are very much directly involved in a faction based conflict get freebies because they're dragging a single corpse of someone involved in the conflict? In my opinion, if a group goes out and makes threats, then they should all be very prepared to encounter a force and even potentially have a party wipe. I would not expect us to take a raid to Shadgard, and just because one of us died, be granted immunity in our retreat. Unless that is what is expected due to the policies, in which case, I think it should be stated as such.

    It would benefit me greatly to know your opinion on my point of view of things, whether that be in a reply or change to the policy. Thank you again for reaching out.

My most recent response...

Hi again,
    Sorry for the late reply. Things seem to be pretty bad. A player quit, and apparently I have a history of abusing game mechanics and griefing now? My only friend these past ten years or so in your games have been my characters. It sucks saying goodbye. I'm sorry for having caused so many problems. I hope things get better.

apparently

That says enough. Have fun elsewhere. Though I honestly doubt you will. I've seen the pattern.

Sorry for the double post, but i forgot to add my actual point.

Good riddance. Not coming back means I don't have to do the same thing to you, so it's better on all counts. Seriously, guys. Don't do the same thing over and over, and then complain about bias when people react. It's gross. It's even worse when you then go publicly whine. People shouldn't feel like they cannot bring problems public if they really feel like they have nothing else to do. But those issues shouldn't be objectively your fault.

I do not feel we need to attack Sneaky over this; this fosters further negativity, so let's at least pretend we are polite and not angry.

I hope everyone takes both sides of this situation and realizes what "Bad Antagonism" is. This entire situation falls to Bad Antagonism, which is not understanding when antagonism is appropriate. Before you antagonize others in CvC situations, ask yourself questions: will this enrich a storyline? Will this be fun for only me? Am I interrupting RP that I am not part of?

A key point in Sneaky's response is that Sneaky has not really said "My character" instead of "I".

"While the initial attack was very lethal, I as a player knew nothing about these character's combat skills, so yes, an all out attack seemed appropriate. Especially given that I was out numbered. I was prepared to be completely destroyed."

"I as a player knew nothing". "I was outnumbered". These are from the player perspective, and though I am not in Sneaky's brain, I will admit that from the outside perspective, the fact that Cili did these things in hiding and ensured they would not be found (by leaving the room when people started to search instead of revealing herself) indicates that the player was NOT prepared to lose. The player did not WANT to lose. It feels very much that the player wanted three kills of Dunwyr under their belt by injecting themselves into a scene they were not part of to begin with.

"Potential targets should learn to walk away." is in the policies as well, but if you follow your potential targets, you are not giving them a chance to walk away. You are not ALLOWING them to walk away.

There is a lot of stuff to take from this that will help others become better antagonists. Being an antagonist is hard. It's often difficult to know when not to be a little gremlin just because you can be one. The important part is to ensure that fun is being had, not just by yourself, and that a story is being enriched. Otherwise, what is the point of antagonism?

It sucks that we lost 2 players. I do feel Sneaky has the potential to learn if educated, but maybe that is naive. Lysse also won't be coming back just because Sneaky is gone, unfortunately, so we have a net negative on all sides that I hope we can learn from.

Alaia wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:39 am I do not feel we need to attack Sneaky over this; this fosters further negativity, so let's at least pretend we are polite and not angry.

No. He made a veteran player quit, and then was a baby about it. I'm not adding any more to this, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I have a shred of respect for this behavior.

My general rule is to not publicly share or discuss the details of these types of situations because of their sensitive and private nature. Since you (Sneaky) want the details of the situation to be open to the public, I'll share the below, which is the response I had begun drafting yesterday and decided to sleep on and revisit this morning.

Hi [Sneaky],

I don't know how to further clarify beyond the explanations and clarification I made in my original message. My approach to this situation was to err on the side of leniency, as it's the first policy issue to come up since the game's reboot with the introduction of a new policy document. For better or worse (I've heard sound arguments for both), I've always been hesitant to swing the banhammer.

However, if you're not able to understand why the incident was excessive and problematic given the game's setting, intended community dynamic, and policy, I think that's an indication that it would be best for everyone if you found another place to play. We keep the policy more broad to try and communicate its spirit rather than provide very specific points to be argued and lawyered over, or loop-holed. The spirit of the policy takes priority over its letter, which is one of the reasons I tend to give warnings and explanations first before moving to bans. Indicating to me that you don't understand or agree with the issues pointed out in this situation and recommending that the policy be clarified and updated for the specifics of this situation tells me that you're interested in the letter of the policy rather than its spirit. If that's still your stance after your many years in this community, I have to take that as a clear indication that it's going to continue to be a point of issue in the future.

As of now, your account ban is permanent. I'm sorry. I've had some fun and memorable interactions with you and your characters, as some of my own PCs, as some of my NPCs, and in various OOC settings as well. I've always appreciated your love of the game's setting and its lore, and your theories crackpot and otherwise. If I ever get around to writing some short stories in the setting, I'd love to send them your way if you'd be interested in reading them.

==========

Alaia brings up some good points. One thing I think bears discussing is the concept of "Roleplay Makes Right". This is an RP-enforced game where we expect everyone to roleplay to at least some degree, but at the end of the day, this game is still a game, with a community of real people behind the characters, which is supposed to be overall fun for all parties involved. We want the game to remain fun for as many people as possible and our community of players healthy and civil. This sometimes requires making some decisions that might not be exactly what you'd think your character would do in a situation.

As an example: Maybe I play a Shadgardian vigilante who lost his wife and children during the Corvus invasions of Shadgard, and he just hates all them dang Corvites with a blazing unquenchable fiery vengeance. Having that character RP concept does not give me license to just have him shoot any Corvites on sight without hesitation in any situation. There are still the policies to consider, and more importantly, there is still the community and the experience of the players behind those Corvites to consider.

Yes, it can feel awkward and clumsy to go against your character for OOC reasons, but when it's for the overall good of the community and health of the game, I think anyone who understands this game and its intended approach to community will agree that it's worth it. For those who disagree, this is not the game for you. From what I hear, there are plenty of free-for-all do-what-you-want MUDs, or RP-At-Any-Cost MUDs, out there. This isn't one of them.

Gorth wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:07 am

Alaia wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:39 am I do not feel we need to attack Sneaky over this; this fosters further negativity, so let's at least pretend we are polite and not angry.

No. He made a veteran player quit, and then was a baby about it. I'm not adding any more to this, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I have a shred of respect for this behavior.

Tact is something that I expect from everyone in our chat and forums. It's perfectly possible to communicate that you do not respect the behavior of, are extremely unhappy about, or vehemently disagree with, someone or something while retaining at least a basic level of tact. Stooping to personal attacks, petty comments, and name-calling derails the discussion with personal attacks and defenses, and unnecessarily flares tempers with no positive effect whatsoever. No more of that, please.

The only thing I want to add here is that while there will always be people who will get upset over IC consequences on an OOC level (not speaking of this case in particular, this is valid upset), making it a situation where you use a highly to extremely lethal attack (triple channel sorcery in this case) from stealth in a game where stealth is currently still very much overpowered as your first interaction in the scene is not conductive to the IC beyond starting a conflict without any preempt. A warning shot with an intentionally less-than-liable-to-be-instant-death attack would likely have sufficed if it lead to actual interaction beyond such. The mechanics offer a way to do this for raw damage casters and I honestly wish there were more subdual methods for the sake of nonlethal RP during a conflict between two player characters in general.

I wholly believe this scene would have lead to IC violence sooner or later regardless based on the context I do have, but it didn't have to end up immediate violence without initial IC interaction.