AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Waiver of Rule-Based Protections: Discussion

Last edited by Fabian on Wed, Jul 28 2010, 16:23 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, let me preface by saying, I've caught up on the legalese on page one, and a couple of my points have been covered.

Gaston, That is all well put and by the way, welcome to Amia. I wanted to respond to this particular post because I think it touches on many topics that this waiver raises that I think are abosolutely important to cover. What you hand waive are issues of ultimate concern, not only from the perspective of players that wish to opt out of the securities, but the overall environment that comes with a server focused on RP, not PvP.

Gaston wrote:

Peeves wrote:

I think doing so on a case by case basis works. If we had everyone on Amia post in this topic, keeping everyone organized would be too difficult.

Also, headaches about PvP... Do not want.

Definitely, last thing I think anyone's after is PvP nightmares.

While I say I can do case-by-case basis, I also feel like that is allowing me to metagame somewhat. I can do it, but I have to know the situation is arising in order to affirmatively waive my protections, meaning I will be ready for an attack, even if I make no actions. I'll still have my finger hovering over HIPS, Tenser's, or Greater Sanctuary. Even if I don't, I'm still expecting the action and am wired for it, and I feel this gives me unfair OOC information that may change the outcome of events.

The reality is that this will allow players to meta using these waivers as permission to attack without RP reasons. You're also creating a dangerous situation for the waivee as a victim of PvP. Those who have not waived these protections are immune to repercussions inflicted upon waivees via those protections. Lastly, this is going to sequester a lot DM's time trying to referee situations. The OOC statement at the end is also an appropriate but misleading. A character can simply state that he's of chaotic alignment and in RP terms is a perfectly viable cause for aggression, "..my god hates your god." Because of this, and you all know this, the gaming lawyer in all of us will come out.

As an aside, hostility flagging has many roots for it's purpose, not least of which is balance. Because Dev Crit is in the game, 75% of the players are 1 hit away from dying. In the case of casters, without flagging hostility, half or more of their column of pvp viable spells are useless; and using TS to flag hostile is not a balance solution for this.

Gaston wrote:

I highly doubt everyone in Amia will post here anyway- I expect at most a small contingent of players who make this leap of faith in their fellow player. If the response is large, then it may be worth the staff's time to consider an organizing method for it since it would clearly be something of significant interest to the playerbase. While the organization of waivers may be a problem, it isn't yet. You don't get a meat freezer when you buy a few pounds of meat on sale, but once you buy a side of beef you need a new place to chill your meat. I hope that potential organization isn't a deterrent, but is rather merely seen as a bridge that would be nice to reach and one which will be crossed when it is reached.

I agree that most folks will not sign this waiver, or Amia would be a PvP server instead of story driven. The players on Amia are, in great part, a family. There are some who are probably player/power driven, rather than character/story driven and this caters to them to a T.

Gaston wrote:

This isn't really meant to encourage or foment PvP, rather to let some people play without the safety harness that the staff has been gracious enough to provide the players in the form of the rules. If we (the signors) end up getting burned by it, I expect us to be mature and take our lumps. If it turns out it's a nuisance and of little benefit then I wholeheartedly support just switching back to individual waivers. For now, I hope it has enough potential that it gets a chance to develop and stretch itself and see just how high it can fly.

In all honesty Gaston, this paragraph needs to be an example of well thought out marketing.

In conclusion I just want to say that the waiver itself is not a bad idea. However, it has a lot of non-tractible abuse potential from both sides of the fence; waived and non-waived PCs. You're right, this would not generate a PvP nightmare, however, the nightmare will come from the DM staff in policing these gray areas, which will become arguable precedence... and it all becomes a slippery slope from there.

..and my personal feelings as far as protections, Disco should release a list of waivable protections.. and at the beginning of conflict, folks can //waive prots in public. It's all or nothing in my mind. Selecting what's waived and what's not throws us into more gray areas, as Izaet's discussion is revealing.

PvP has occured on Amia for a long time with excellent stories and RP involved. I've personally seen several "PvP" encounters happen solely as RP. I just don't see this as a necessary enhancement to PvP.

All this allows folks to really do, that you can't do via /talk, is agress with no prior notification.

Of course any comments are welcome. I'm just trying to think in terms of worse case senario and heading off a potential pandora's box.

Cheers!

I will end saying to cory, I believe I do know the op from other servers and he's very experienced with PvP mechanics and balance in nwn as are a handful of recent additions to the server.

Goddamnit.

If you do not like it, DO NOT SIGN THE WAIVER. Then the rules still apply.

Last edited by Dwagin on Wed, Jul 28 2010, 15:28 PM, edited 1 time in total.

MoshingChris wrote:

I'll sum it up:

Don't agree to the Waiver if you don't have faith in your fellow players. I have faith in my fellow players and the DM team, hence I agreed to waive certain protections. Footnotes are not required.

I have faith, but the protections are there for a reason. Human fallibility exists.

I also dislike guilt trips and other forms of emotional coercion (Edit: OOC ones. IC ones are great.)

Now - We just need people to Remove those silly addendum's.

Go Edit your posts. ><

Very_Svensk wrote:

Goddamnit.

If you do not like it, DO NOT SIGN THE WAIVER. Then the rules still apply.

Shouting down someone discussing in a topic about discussing said topic isn't awesome.

One's points should stand on their own, and not need championing.

The reason i am hostile in this topic. Part 1
--------------------

@Dwagin - The big problem here is that, While folks sign it saying "I waive off the protection", They make silly addendum's to circumvent the entire idea.

It's voluntarily
It Comes in a variety of Choices.
Why must we add more text to circumvent the choices we make? Why dont we just 'Not' Cross- said Option.

-This- is why I am shouting down at people.

Don't shout down at people. I really don't want to clean this topic.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Why must we add more text to circumvent the choices we make? Why dont we just 'Not' Cross- said Option.

Peer pressure. Not wanting to feel a nancy. Not wanting to seem like a bad RPer, but still being concerned that said wording is inadequate. Personal reassurances of self. All kinds of reasons man.

Now getting back on to the exact topic,

I've always -assumed- that During a DM event a set of other rules apply. The DM sets the tone. The DM says how your character reacts to a situation. (Your PC feels uneasy) and that is how it is. If Its your job to act out how that manifests. This also means during those events your characters can be permanently changed by what happens, I see it as a sign of respect for both the DM and my own roleplay to Role With the Punches in that way. To me, licking the wounds and exploring the depths of the character's mind/soul is the most intriguing part of the RP experience. Characters inward struggles are my absolute favorite treat.

The idea of this waiver is good I think, but the way its put forth feels to me like little more than gentlemanly agreements to the course and conduct of war. I say fie on that. Lead by example, Roleplay how you feel is right. You don't have to say or do any more than that, I don't need a merit badge pinned on me saying, "Hey its okay to RP with me, to beat up my characters, to capture me." If they happen, they happen. I take my licks and my characters react accordingly with DM's and other PCs. That is just me and how I play. Its a game, we're here to have fun... I feel segregating ourselves by making thems and us'es is not going to help that.

Last edited by Glyph on Wed, Jul 28 2010, 16:33 PM, edited 1 time in total.

after much, much thought about this, i'm going to put something like

"feel free to attack me from out of the blue if you want BUT please tell first to make sure i'm not afk >_< also you need RP reason to do so."

and people are still waivering the tourture regardless of what disco said so -maybe- you should think about that one people before someone bans you.

ed: if that RP reason happens to be because of a deity choice so be it =) shouldn't be so easy to survive a conversation with a banite.

Dwagin wrote:

...Its a game, we're here to have fun... I feel segregating ourselves by making thems and us'es is not going to help that.

Well said.

The Waiver is in no way a segregation thing at all. Its merely letting others know that you waive the protections provided which means RP doesn't have to be moderated by Out of Character rules. And it is moderated. If i didn't waive my right for an OOC out, Gabes Paladin would have to give me an Out of some sort for my Necromancers undead summon. Thats just silly. Because I find protectionist mentalities innane, puerile and boring i've chosen to waive my right to them, which is providing an example.

Now I know, for example, that if my Mulhorandi Taur encounters John X's Gargel the Necroprancer, I don't have to hold back. I can now attack, attack, attack which would be the first instinct of my character, but which under the rules would have me subjected to a ban for not offering an out. If John X has agreed to the waiver that is.

Saying that what I said is an emotional guilt trip means you are looking to far into it, and you should take a step back from the server if your tying that much emotion into it. You chose to take what i said in a negative light and thats upto you, but it was intended as a positive one. I trust the player base to make the correct decisions regarding the respect I am affording them. If they cannot bring themselves to afford the same respect thats their issue, I don't hold it against them because, I am offering my entire vault up on a silver platter regardless.

Also I figured out a pretty easy way to use my Journal for the waivers so I'll use that.

I think the right to back down OOCly because of ECL should be ditched entirely and always have but I don't agree with the way this is going down, also necros V paladins if they back down thats just, lol...

its going to take one person with the waiver assassinating one without it to really anger somebody. providing I am at the keyboard it won't be me but I hope you see my point and remember your not waiving the rules.

now, if your saying once you have RP reason to attack you have no choice as an official ruling to say // plz don't kill me im level 2 I didn't mean to call you a halfbreed >_< // I am ALL for it. =)

In light of all the arguments, this could go on literally for ever. I think I've come to the thought, let the playerbase manage it themselves, so long as no 'golden' rules are broken; in the case of torture. See how it goes and let the DM's make a determination on how much this affects RP and their time committed to sorting encounters out.

I personally will not fill out a waiver.. not because I'm against the idea, but because I'm don't like the idea of stealthed fishers for waivees looking for prey. If it's a drow on a surface raid.. jump me.. no sweat.. Those lines, to my knowledge, have been in the game and don't need prior RP, i.e. banned pcs from cities are also KoS.

As for segregation, I feel that there will be some of that happening. Additionally, Dwagin's point on peer pressure is an issue even without the waivers.

Let Gaston and those folks who want to try, give it a whirl. Let the DM's see how it pans out and what the fallout will be. If it's handled responsibly and not abused, it might enhance things. If it turns out to be too much of a hassle and takes away from event time, the DM's can always put on the kabosh and end it.

Dwagin wrote:

Peer pressure. Not wanting to feel a nancy. Not wanting to seem like a bad RPer, but still being concerned that said wording is inadequate. Personal reassurances of self. All kinds of reasons man.

... ...

That is just me and how I play. Its a game, we're here to have fun... I feel segregating ourselves by making thems and us'es is not going to help that.

This is exactly my issue with the waiver. Not what's on it, but that it's a very clear and OOC dividing line.

Because of that quite a few will use it as a "I'll RP with these folks because they're hard core RPers" or "Those people just want mindless pvp, so I'll avoid them." This isn't a commentary on people here specifically (I'm far too new for that), but as gamers in general. It just, in my head, goes back to that whole "pvp gmaer" / "pve gamer" polarization that people have in other games.

In my opinion (and I saw it shared somewhat further up) If you want to give people (globally speaking) permission to do something to your character just put whatever that is in your bio and be done with it. If you run with a group you want to give that permission to then talk with them and give permission. Done and done.

The other thing that comes to mind with this Waiver is that it's a way to say "We don't agree with the rules, therefor we're making a social group where they do not apply" I don't think I really agree with that premise. Granted it may not be the intent as I know nothing of what led up to this waiver.

Granted, I'm the new guy here, and really don't have a clue who 95% of you are yet.

Erroch

As a complete aside, the ones of you I have met so far have been pretty top notch in my three evenings of playing on the server so far.

Fabian wrote:

I personally will not fill out a waiver.. not because I'm against the idea, but because I'm don't like the idea of stealthed fishers for waivees looking for prey. If it's a drow on a surface raid.. jump me.. no sweat.. Those lines, to my knowledge, have been in the game and don't need prior RP, i.e. banned pcs from cities are also KoS.

That's about my take on it. If I get jumped and killed I don't personally care if I see the RP leading up to it as long as there is RP leading up to it, Just flag me hostile so my spells work and go to town. I just don't care for 'random' pvp. Everything else I'm handling on a case by case basis. (Read: I'm very much echoing Izaet's opinion that there better be RP in it for me if I'm going to get stuck in a cell for a week)

Quote:

Let Gaston and those folks who want to try, give it a whirl. Let the DM's see how it pans out and what the fallout will be. If it's handled responsibly and not abused, it might enhance things. If it turns out to be too much of a hassle and takes away from event time, the DM's can always put on the kabosh and end it.

I should echo this as well, by all means, some of this I do like, it's more the perceptions it causes that give me caution. If it works, roll with it. just please put it in the bio so it doesn't require a forum search to figure out who's giving player permission to do what.

The hint of segregation and "we who sign waivers are better than those who do not" is my favorite aspect of this. I hope it prevents repeats of what I dealt with IC a year ago or so. My PC engaged in a PvP with a drow raider and held his own until almost to victory until the fatal Dev Crit (which never got complaint from me). I was then taken into Ultrinnan and placed in a cage and interrogated for surface information. I willingly gave a slanted and skewed testimony in order to purchase freedom, and to my shock and surprise, I was actually given freedom instead of murdered in cold blood (my PC wouldn't be worth a Lolthlite sacrifice), or at least held me captive for several days and tortured me for the entertainment value or to verify, under threat of pain, that the information I delivered was true (it was).

It was a moment that really bothered me for a very long time. My first thought was probably what many here who sign this waiver had - did they not kill me because they think I'll complain, or are afraid that I'll cause an OOC fuss for them, like so many others do? Do they think I'm not mature enough to handle it?

And for me, personally, I had an extra, even bigger concern - was I not murdered because the players knew I was a DM, and therefore thought that by killing me, there would be some butthurt DM retaliation on my behalf? This contributed to my decision to just not play PCs while I am a DM, because of how it appears to antagonize and intimidate people into walking on eggshells around me.

I still have anxiety over the outcome of this encounter. It is in big part why I signed this waiver.

Dwagin's comments about leading by example and roleplaying how you feel is right being all that you need did not work for me. They were not all that I needed. A waiver may not work, either, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

I am aware I reference a specific incident here, but I do so in a good and favorable light because I did have fun with it, regardless of the fact that I came out feeling guilty and ashamed as though I had done something wrong.

THE only reason I haven't signed and put that in my bio is simply that, if you RP it with me theres no problem whatsoever anyway, i'm not going to go crying to the DM's saying you killed me unfairly or gave me no time to buff once we established there will be combat, I don't care about that, what I care about is the RPly reason you are attacking me, and if you suddenly come out of the trees and (somehow

) strike me down I WILL demand to know why at least OOCly, if the reason is "im bored" there will be issues. also rest in the arena, attacking a mage preparing his spells for TRAINING is not a friendly action, expect ICly consiquences. rest elsewhere sure impale me.

I guess lets see what happens. I will be adding my waiver to my bio so bring on the fun =) also permadeaths no way am I giving that right away, I did not spend ten hours gaining a level the other day to suddenly die. if I have to die to end the counts life or some such so be it but I am holding onto that one, lore wise aswell because your deity can infact bring you back unless you lose faith or its "your time" =)

I also never never never sign anything that looks -that- law like until I've read it for about a week. force of habit.

Quote:

as long as there is RP leading up to it

yes! exactly that, no sudden ninja death, although and please correct me if im wrong, assassins CAN with DM supervision carry out a hit against a target WITHOUT tells.

I think it's just going to encourage ganking myself. The rules are enforced too inconsistently as it is, and I anticipate this will cloud the issue even more and make things worse.

I signed the waiver because offering your arch nemesis an OOC out, or approaching them, making your presence known and then instigating PVP seems silly. That and I think characters actions should have consequences to worry about as opposed to *Bang dead, alive five minutes later.* And if people feel the need to gank* my characters I'll simply stop roleplaying with them from that point on. I didn't sign the waiver to put a bullseye on my head, and I don't think that's what it's for.

*Not even knowing my character just doing it for the 'lulz'

Last edited by Glyph on Wed, Jul 28 2010, 17:54 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Quote:

Do not resort to PvP (Player vs Player) battle without ample IC (In Character) reason. Senseless player killing will resort in harsh punishment. Simply being evil is not reason enough to kill someone. If you do enter into RP inspired PvP that results in deaths of any PC (Player Character), you ->MUST<- provide an OOC raise for that character (either by yourself, or arrange for someone else to do it)

in green is why you should be careful.
in red is what i'm worried about.

perhaps we should say people are KO unless you need something more than a raise dead scroll, I was a little confused at people saying my familar "was with kelemvor now" O_o its called magic bro.

762 wrote:

I think it's just going to encourage ganking myself. The rules are enforced too inconsistently as it is, and I anticipate this will cloud the issue even more and make things worse.

There's two three mostly divergent thoughts in this statement:
1. This will encourage ganking.
2. The rules are enforced inconsistently.
3. Cookies are good.

1 and 2 are related but 3 isn't, even though I totally agree with you on it. Putting aside that chocolate-chippy goodness for now, I don't feel like it would encourage ganking. People still have to either:
A. Follow the rules as written, or
B. Check for a waiver.
Nowhere does it say "You may kill anyone at any time for any reason". This seems to be a recurring error that people keep seeing in here, even though it doesn't exist.

I've stated it two or three times and I'll state it again, and I'll try not to shout:
This waiver does not, cannot, and will not ever have the ability to waive the fact that PvP must have a reasonably justifiable RP reason and cannot under any circumstances be mindless ganking. It does not, cannot, and will not ever have the ability to waive the requirement of a hostile flag. If you're going to jump someone, hostile them either immediately before the attack or an hour beforehand so their OOC buff response wears off. But have a good RP reason.

I am not the judge of what a good RP reason is- I've killed shifters for being in kobold form in a kobold dungeon (derp), and I've seen people refuse to stab someone who summoned undead in their holy temple. It's inherently a subjective analysis and I've seen people who can and will argue for either a tight or loose interpretation of it with valid points on both ends.

You can't waive the protection of hostile flags. You can't waive the protection of attackers having a good RP reason. I'm really tired of saying this.

Glyph wrote:

I also never never never sign anything that looks -that- law like until I've read it for about a week. force of habit.

I'm totally not a lawyer. Totally. *shifty eyes* *shifty eyes* *shifty eyes* *run*

Unfortunately Yoss, you have a point. A very good point.

Glyph wrote:

Quote:

Do not resort to PvP (Player vs Player) battle without ample IC (In Character) reason. Senseless player killing will resort in harsh punishment. Simply being evil is not reason enough to kill someone. If you do enter into RP inspired PvP that results in deaths of any PC (Player Character), you ->MUST<- provide an OOC raise for that character (either by yourself, or arrange for someone else to do it)

in green is why you should be careful.
in red is what i'm worried about.

perhaps we should say people are KO unless you need something more than a raise dead scroll, I was a little confused at people saying my familar "was with kelemvor now" O_o its called magic bro.

Er... how does this in fact relate to any of the things that have been waived? Not one of these protections has been waived or been advocated to be waived. This is like yelling at me for including beef in your omelet when I made it with ham and cheese.

Quote:

I've killed shifters for being in kobold form in a kobold dungeon (derp)

that I can agree with XD

by the way I personally am not seeing this as "kill anywhere anytime etc" BUT the first time I read it I did, its the way you've worded the waiver.

that, comes from the actual rules section so i'd assume it should be relevant -_- I am saying im worried you won't get your OOC raise. if you got an OOCly problem with that fine but I have not waivered any OOC raise. ed: yet.

Glyph wrote:

Quote:

I've killed shifters for being in kobold form in a kobold dungeon (derp)

that I can agree with XD

by the way I personally am not seeing this as "kill anywhere anytime etc" BUT the first time I read it I did, its the way you've worded the waiver.

that, comes from the actual rules section so i'd assume it should be relevant -_-

Relevant overall, yes. Relevant to the content of the waiver, no. Since I believe those protections you cited can't be waived at all I specifically avoided trying to waive them. The one I had a question on (torture) was answered and removed. Never tried to turn the place into an arena server, I just know that I have also had instances like Yoss had on other servers where someone's RP was restricted by OOC rules and I felt like I was at fault for it. A lot of people are concerned that this will diminish RP, whereas its purpose and desired effect is an enhancement of RP. And I was quite careful to only focus on things which require players to stop their RP flow at some point, not things which don't interrupt RP flow or ensure there in fact IS an RP flow.

provided RP remains intact I wouldn't worry about it =) incase you haven't noticed i'm not the brightest spark in the lamp, i'm trying to establish just what the heck has and has not been waivered. protection from intention to attack can mean nearly anything. from jumps down off a cliff and sneak attacks you without warning to not buffing before an obvious combat situation.

Last edited by Dwagin on Wed, Jul 28 2010, 19:04 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Edit: Sorted it out with Chris on msn.

You're living in a perfect world, Gaston (whoever you really are). You're assuming that just because the rule is written it's as good as gold in any situation.

However the rules are only as effective as the DM team's consistency in enforcing them, and this is what I believe this will undermine further. Already I've seen the PvP rules flagrantly violated, screenshots sent in and the violator gets nothing. Others I've seen given excessive punishment for the most trivial deviation from the lettering of the rule, while keeping in character and in the spirit of the rule.

Creating a coterie of players who voluntarily choose to allow others to ignore the rule with respects to their characters complicates enforcement even further, and undermines the basic rule. I can see the situations unfold clearly in my mind.

Victim: //Dude WTF? You broke the PvP rules
Attacker: //Sorry, I thought you were on the list
DM: //Aw, it was an honest mistake.

And so on.

You obviously disagree with the PvP rules as is. So petition to change the rule itself, rather than undermining it this way and making its enforcement more difficult.

like I said get the rule to back down OOCly banished officially, -maybe- barring the impossible CR differences. maybe.

that way theres no random ninja's, no ganking, no "I misinterpreted the rules" (I watched that south park episode yesterday.....where cartmans a teacher...) etc. and, rivalrys should be IC anyway, the only reason for sudden combat I can think of RPly is deitys and factions, which you could put a waiver: example "anyone from BLACK may attack me without warning, providing you have a similar waiver against my faction/character."

immortality and capture is fair enough, but the PvP rules are going to get confusing imho. I have no quarrel with those who have taken the waiver in its base form, only the outcome this might bring.

I dunno if there's going to be a problem with DMs thinking people made mistakes. At least I will not take that as an excuse. This isn't part of our rules, but an extension to the mutual aggression pact as far as I'm concerned. You fuck up, you suck it up.

If you don't sign the waiver, don't sign the waiver. Simple.
This waiver is just to allow us who like our experience to be enjoyable in a different manner to have it so.

If you don't want to do it, you don't want to do it. Thats your choice and I personally won't hold it against you.

I can see where concerns of enforcement come into play here.

The Waiver is not nescessarily DM binding, and thus Amia's rules would still have to be applied in full. A couple of DMs have admittedly signed it for the player-side of matters, but that is still individual, not a DM group census.

The thing thats causing the angst Grymia isn't that people are for or against signing up.

Its that people are adding stipulations to their waivers which I see as creating their own set of rules. Thats not how this works. You waive the protections or you don't. If you've added stipulations I would suggest you, not you Grymia, would be better of not waiving your right to protection at all.

well, I ended up putting something close to the waiver in my new characters bio, other than ~RP~ and looks human thats all my bio is, a waiver explaining you can attack me, with RP reason, aslong as im not afk, end of. also the capture one.

i'm still not signing the other version of it though. to lawy and vague.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Rules say 'Hostile first' -ALWAYS-. So that footnote isn't required.

KrautBoy wrote:

If the roleplay continues you can continue to be in captivity and end it any time there is no rp with the 24hour rule. It makes no sense to waive a rule to reinstate a clause that is made for the exact same effect as the waived rule itself.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Now - We just need people to Remove those silly addendum's.

Removed my qualifications. I also decided to opt out of waiving the 24 hour rule, but if the RP is good I'd potentially agree to be held captive longer. So it remains at my discretion.

MoshingChris wrote:

The thing thats causing the angst Grymia isn't that people are for or against signing up.

Its that people are adding stipulations to their waivers which I see as creating their own set of rules. Thats not how this works. You waive the protections or you don't. If you've added stipulations I would suggest you, not you Grymia, would be better of not waiving your right to protection at all.

No the problem is that people have concerns that need to be addressed before they will fully waive their protections. Granted those concerns should be aired in this thread and not be included on that page. You are coming across as an ass. And your comment about "thats not how this works" is really inappropriate. -That- may not be how you see it to work but you are not yet the ultimate authority on -this-, and being as this is an agreement between players...it is ultimately what the players decide, individually or as a cohesive group. I understand that you are pushing for the cohesive group thing because it will provide a consistent frame of reference for anyone using the system. A better idea than telling people "either do it or don't" would be to address their concerns and explain how this situation or that, this section or that, already covers their concerns, or their concern is such that the waiver won't do much good for them. You are coming across as very aggressive and very hardcore, which may be perfectly fine in some situations, and it may be that you feel that if someone doesn't want to go hardcore with these waivers they can just go away. In my opinion it would be more beneficial as a whole to explain and be reasonable about why things are still protected, what is covered, what is not, what is expected. By doing it that way you will get more people to participate in the waiver and ultimately improve the flow of RP for more people rather than just a few.

Except he's right. IF you add A, B, C, D to it, you're not "waiving" anything. You're using it for e-penis.

TormakSaber wrote:

Except he's right. IF you add A, B, C, D to it, you're not "waiving" anything. You're using it for e-penis.

No that is an assumption you are making....I don't have an e-penis, I don't care to have one, I don't care who else has what. I put things into my waiver because they were valid concerns of mine, they were addressed and I removed them. Some people might be doing it for oneupmanship or e-penis points...other people really do have genuine concerns with it.

TormakSaber wrote:

Except he's right. IF you add A, B, C, D to it, you're not "waiving" anything. You're using it for e-penis.

Thank you for giving me such a clear example about why I and from reading a few others don't like the concept of this waiver.

Now don't get me wrong, I personally prefer a -far- more PVP enabled ruleset then Amia. I twitch whenever I lob a fireball into the middle of my own group and realize placement and calculated risk doesn't matter. But that's me, and that's not Amia. Differnet place Different game, different rules, and I accept that.

So here's a question, and since I'm replying to a DM's post, I'd honestly like to get a DM's answer to it.

We have player A (who I actually know and it a pretty good guy) who's made a waiver to the rules. This by posts from DM's appears to be more or less tennatively ok.

We have player B who's made her own more restricted waiver to the rules. This by posts from a DM (see above) is just an "e-penis" move.

Why is Player A's option to ignore the rules any more important and valid then Player B's option to ignore -less- of the rules?

I think Izaet has a very solid leg to stand on. Some people don't have multiple characters, so having one incarcerated for 48 hours with only sparse RP oesn't make much sense to me. This is one example of a 'grey area' that can enable further rules bendings/reinterpretations and really just complicate matters and deter good RP.

The more I look at it the more complications I'm coming up with. Basically we're adding paperwork to conflict and it's going to help shread immersion. Is my target on the waiver list? Is there anything in his bio? I better screenshot this incase that changes... What about his group members, are they all waivered as well? And how about this guy that wants to join the group, do we want a healer that's waived his RP before PvP protection?

Because really, if Cleric Smith has waived his protection and he's healing Fighter Bob in the abyss, Fighter Bob by association has -also- waived his protection because once Cleric Smith dies suddenly, that boss they were fighting is going to eat Fighter Bob's face. So it's not really just an issue one can ignore by "not participating".

I have one more question about all this, and pvp in general

whats the rule if they are clearly threatening and they un-hostile you, and are a shadowdancer? (thus its hard to re-hostile them)

if I wern't so tired I would have cast light but I wasn't thinking =)

means that the shadowdancer must not attack you until you are hostiled. if you cannot hostile the person with the tool, you can always use player list and set to dislike.

ah I see. good to know.

however, if see invisibility isn't doing the trick how do I check their bio for any waiver? that ones been bugging me...

I'm looking at the names on this list and getting a good idea for players that I can dole out pain to DMside. :twisted:

You're already a pig murderer, what more pain can you cause?

Leggomi Eggolas wrote:

I'm looking at the names on this list and getting a good idea for players that I can dole out pain to DMside. :twisted:

Bite me.

Seriously. I'm up for anything DMs throw at me, preferrably something that tests or challenges Xavi's faith. I'll most likely run from combat. :lol:

one o' y'all DM's already dev crited me with a cultist in that vampire shenanigans, what more are you planing O_o >=) (either that or a death spell, I got pwnt)

I, personally, won't be signing the waiver because I simply don't have the faith that people won't try to take advantage of it. I hate to say it, but it's true. To me, a tell or message is a pretty easy way to communicate if you want to plan something or something's coming up.

It's a good idea, and kudos to you for trying, but it's not one I can support or wish to involve myself in. I find some of the 'conditions' occur with or without the waiver as is, so it's somewhat redundant. Everyone's experience is different, though. So choose what you want to do.

Ramika wrote:

I, personally, won't be signing the waiver because I simply don't have the faith that people won't try to take advantage of it.

That's my concern as well, but we'll see what happens.

Why don't people use the format? It's suddenly a LOT more complicated.

Sign, or Dont sign, Or sign those you want waived, or -un cross- the rest.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Why don't people use the format? It's suddenly a LOT more complicated.

Sign, or Dont sign, Or sign those you want waived, or -un cross- the rest.

Because on the internet, everyone is a lawyer. :mrgreen:

I've already rehashed every concern in here a half-dozen times, so people may as well just read though my old commentary if they have a question. :lol:

Waiver of Rule-Based Protections: Discussion

Who is online