AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Keep your responses civil and leave your attitude at the door or there will be consequences. Apparently, several warnings are not enough of a message to some people.

Admittedly, whenever a DM makes a condescending post nowadays, his name appears to be Hudson, so those messages might have to go both ways.

Lets try and work to make things better, rather than argue about whether they're ok or not as they are. Things can always be better. How does this sound for a suggestion on wording?

Rules:
Muling is wrong, do not do this.
Twinking is wrong, do not do this.

Definitions:
Muling is the passing of an item from one character to another character owned by the same player, with the intention to gain an unfair advantage.
Twinking is the supplying of gold or items to a character without IC reason.

Effects of this wording:
Intention for an unfair advantage means that accidental passing of items is not muling under this definition.
Twinking in it's current form, for reasons previously mentioned in this thread, is counter-intuitive. It doesn't really line up with how characters act IC, how commerce might work, and is too strict for perfectly legitimate IC actions to take place. This new version now ties it in to distinction between IC/OOC motivation.

I am quite welcoming to suggestions as those that offer them here or in PM's hopefully realise.
Repeatedly spouting one liners about things being wrong without any suggestions for possible imporvement isn't helpfull and gives us nothing to work with.

I think with the current rules and mindset it's quite hard to twink as most gifts will just be considered that. It's also hard to set precise rules beyond a loose guideline of gold value for each level (Or maybe something like don't pass epic/+5 items to someone under level 15 or if the receiver can't use it don't give it (As M&M already stated)). If anyone has a good idea I am all ears though. I would like a rule update for twinking that would put people's mind at ease even moreso as it isnt an issue for the team.

Quote:

Again, we don't need to wait for a merchant PC to be stripped (although claiming that nobody, in the 10+ years Amia has been up, has never been wrongly punished for these, is utter ignorance and arrogance, both)

I can read the DM forum where these cases are (should be) logged and I haven't seen a single case of twinking there. So yes, I think I can safely say twinking isn't a great concern of the staff where muling clearly is. And I don't think we can clarify the muling rule much, the only issue there is unintentional muling through a merchant pc but we are well aware of that possibility and we know who the merchant pc's are.

Hudson, what do you think of my suggestion?

I think your suggestion doesn't address the kind of balance we're looking to see, Gobbles. While it may leave little to interpretation, it also leaves a great amount to abuse. I could then, within those rules, gift everything a person would ever need to a lower level character so long as I provided an IC reason. Which would be very easy to do when covering the larger OOC reason of, "I just want to make my friend strong."

I think you're looking at the bare minimum. Its a good place to start, but I don't think its sufficient.

See my last post, also.

There are a couple ways we could go about this, in the effort to make the ruling less subjective.

1.) Start at Gobble's bare minimum, where you're emphasizing the need for IC reasoning.
2.) Set a hard limit on the value of items that can be given, even if ample IC reasoning is presented.

In its current form, its something like this:

Which gives the DM's ample freedom to really target the malicious cases, rather than push gift-giving down. And we have been successfully nabbing twinkers and mulers, without hitting civilian casualties. Its true, that for as long as I can remember, we haven't ever stripped someone that didn't deserve it. We have certainly bumped across someone who had mistakenly possessed an item of theirs long ago, or some cases that look like twinking, but are actually heavily IC and even meaningful.

However, that being said, it seems that most players are worried that they'll be accidentally incriminated. There's really little we can say as DM's to convince you that its not a problem. That our human understanding trumps what is admittedly a vague ruling. And it has been successfully doing so for a very long time. So frankly, I can't quite agree that this is something that needs to be altered in order to prevent a serious issue. Because it has been a successful system, and the current DM team is well-practiced in dealing with it.

If you're seeking to change this rule, you're going to upset some camp of people on this server. If you make it too open to abuse, you're going to irk the DM team. If you make it too strict, you're going to upset the generous PC's.

That being said, I welcome and support the attempts from the playerbase to try to submit a more clear-cut rule.

I don't see a need to keep the rule too tight either.

As an example, I see no reason why members of some factions could not be issued superior equipment when compared to independent adventurers for completely legitimate IC reasons. There are perks to being organized. If a leader or a city or other faction-maintaining entity can afford to equip warriors better than what solo adventurers can get by working alone, they are obviously very successful at what they do and I would see it as a legitimate perk of joining an organisation.

This example came to mind because at some point when I went for a yet another hiatus from Amia, Gagis used all of his spare epic loot and other good gear to equip members of the Eternal Order. Back then I had to reserve most of the stuff for characters over lvl 25, but I don't really see how issuing good equipment for lower level members of the faction would have been bad either, especially stuff that would have been abundant standard issue gear for higher level members such as phoenix plates etc.

Oh, sorry Yoss. For some reason, your message didn't pop up stopping me from posting, heh.

I'm not sure what update you're referring to. Send me a PM?

Many of the rules have been rewritten a bit and will be in an update to the module coming very soon. I was already going to ask for feedback on this and the wording of other rules, too, but once everyone is looking at the same thing.

Silvarus wrote:

I don't see a need to keep the rule too tight either.

As an example, I see no reason why members of some factions could not be issued superior equipment when compared to independent adventurers for completely legitimate IC reasons. There are perks to being organized. If a leader or a city or other faction-maintaining entity can afford to equip warriors better than what solo adventurers can get by working alone, they are obviously very successful at what they do and I would see it as a legitimate perk of joining an organisation.

This example came to mind because at some point when I went for a yet another hiatus from Amia, Gagis used all of his spare epic loot and other good gear to equip members of the Eternal Order. Back then I had to reserve most of the stuff for characters over lvl 25, but I don't really see how issuing good equipment for lower level members of the faction would have been bad either, especially stuff that would have been abundant standard issue gear for higher level members such as phoenix plates etc.

Silvarus, if they can use it then you can pass it on according to the current rule and there is no problem. If they can't use due to item level restrictions it doesnt make sense to pass it on as it won't do them any good. It just weighs them down. I honestly don't really understand how you consider that a tight rule or hindering you equiping your faction mates. It shouldnt hinder you at all as you are allowed to pass them whatever they can use (as long as you don't pass it to your own alts but that'd be muling instead of twinking.)

Equipment isn't an issue at all with twinking as you can use it, or can't (And we added 2 levels leeway there so a level 12 char can be given a lv 14 item as he/she is 'almost there'.

Gold and things without an item level restriction can be an issue though and we need to see how we can polish up the rule for that.

The rules are 8 years old ... That alone is a reason to adjust and modify them to make them EASIER to understand.

I think we all agree with you on that so, when you see the new base ruleset in the update, feel free to open a topic (if you get to it before I do) and ask for any feedback on what you think might need to be more clear.

You've given the best answer in the course of this entire topic

We'll re-open this discussion following the updates.

Yoss and the designers have great things coming up.

The rules thread has been updated with the following:

Quote:

Twinking - Twinking is defined on Amia as the act of giving items or gold to another, for out of character (OOC) reasons; reasons that are not justifiable with in character (IC) / in game (IG) circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to:

Giving away the items from a retiring (or already retired) character's inventory to an active character with out DM supervision or explicit approval being given through the request forum.
Giving away items or gold to 'out of game' friends (even if they are 'Amia' friends) without clear IC / IG reasons.

Anyone caught twinking (the twinker and the twinkee) is subject to discipline up to and including partial or full item stripping and/or temporary banning from the game.

Re-opening for any discussion / clarification that may be required (though it's a much more succinct rule now).

... wasn't that already the rule? What was the change? Or was it just a change in language to make the existing rules clearer?

Changed the language to make it clearer and ditched the vagueness of "sufficient RP reasons" etc. and removed the item level / gold amount restrictions and added the retiring/retired characters stuff.

So pretty much all of it is different

O, gotcha. So... my level 30 character now could totally trick out her IC allied lowbies, regardless of the level difference or gp value of the gifts? Like for example, if Kaithan had a bunch of snazzy uber gear that she wanted to give to the Armathora, she's no longer obligated to care about level difference, so long as her IC justifications are sound?

So our characters aren't allowed to give away their equipment to friends/associates when they die?

Glim wrote:

Twinking is..... Giving away the items from a retiring (or already retired) character's inventory to an active character with out DM supervision or explicit approval being given through the request forum.

And yes, as long as you have IC reasons for providing friends/fellows ina faction/city or what have you - it's okay.

Glim wrote:

The rules thread has been updated with the following:

Quote:

Twinking - Twinking is defined on Amia as the act of giving items or gold to another, for out of character (OOC) reasons; reasons that are not justifiable with in character (IC) / in game (IG) circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to:

Giving away the items from a retiring (or already retired) character's inventory to an active character with out DM supervision or explicit approval being given through the request forum.
Giving away items or gold to 'out of game' friends (even if they are 'Amia' friends) without clear IC / IG reasons.

Anyone caught twinking (the twinker and the twinkee) is subject to discipline up to and including partial or full item stripping and/or temporary banning from the game.

Re-opening for any discussion / clarification that may be required (though it's a much more succinct rule now).

This clarification makes me happy and smiley. Why? Because some people are just not familiar with server and/or game and don't understand what items they have access to in order to make their character rock. If a new player makes a fighter that dies in one hit, and another player with a fighter of the same race and level steamrolls everything, it can be very discouraging... Helping out a noob is best done IC, I agree, but sometimes you just gotta help OOC. Sometimes you don't have the 12 hours needed to explain everything in character, show the noob where the items are they need, and show them how to make the money needed to buy the items. Sometimes it's best to say "Hey look, I can get this item for you that will really help. Eventually you'll figure out how and where I got it, but for now just have fun." We should be able to go get the item and give it to them so they can have fun again and not die all the time. And we should be able to do it without being skerd of our inventory being emptied.

Richard_Edmund wrote:

So our characters aren't allowed to give away their equipment to friends/associates when they die?

You are, but you have to get DM oversight for that. Retired/retiring/dieing/dead characters can will things to other characters etc. but because that's generally dealing with a large amount of items, that one does require DM oversight or a request and approval on the forums.

Is it just a matter of quantity, then, as regards retiring characters? I mean, I understand the motive because there's no reason not to give away all your stuff when you retire so there's no meaningful IC decision/tradeoff. But hypothetically, I could give away all my stuff even if I kept playing; so the phrasing does not seem to stop all the kind of behaviour you might want it to stop.

The above just concerns retiring characters who are still present IC to hand out the stuff or have just died with the appropriate precautions made. It is obvious when long or suddenly dead characters are concerned and people just want to put useful stuff into rotation with no IC means to pull it off. "Hey, I got an old PC with Cloak of Fort +5, lemme log on."

So it's a matter of precision; of whether you want to target retiring characters because of the quantity (rule does not catch all cases of huge quantity) or because they would need NPC help (rule would not apply to retiring characters who are still present and active in game before retiring).

I don't mind it, though. It's reasonable that there's DM oversight when transferring loads of epic gear on permadeath, as long as it's just a formality and there's no actual standard to meet (as in, players don't need to justify why they're giving this exact stuff to that exact PC).

All in all, excellent change, doing away with unnecessary nannying and potential for accidental transgression.

Muling needs an equivalent change, though; you have been very strict about it even with perfect IC justification and no balance concerns so far. Why not: the same item can move between PCs of the same player as long as the entire chain of transactions is justifiable IC. If player A's PC aX has Boots of Speed, player B's PC bY has a Vorpal Blade and player A's PC aZ has Crown of Domination (all epic items of somewhat comparable value), it should not be a big deal if aX and bY trade Boots and Blade, and then aZ trades bY's Boots for his Crown. It's a fair trade that makes sense IC. You cannot entirely eliminate an element of OOC calculation, but I wager that already happens with trades - players probably already make OOC deals behind their IC deals every now and then.

I mean, it's already the rule for Job system items; generalising it to cover all items would not be dangerous, and more importantly, it would prevent accidental muling (which has had unfortunate merchant PCs stripped in the past, IIRC - even if the DMs knew it was an accident, the rules are rules and their hands are tied).

Liz wrote:

O, gotcha. So... my level 30 character now could totally trick out her IC allied lowbies, regardless of the level difference or gp value of the gifts? Like for example, if Kaithan had a bunch of snazzy uber gear that she wanted to give to the Armathora, she's no longer obligated to care about level difference, so long as her IC justifications are sound?

Correct. We've removed the GP limit, we've removed item levels, quantity, etc. The only thing is that you have to have an IC reason for giving items away. We'd prefer it to be a good reason, but as long as the reason is there. So, equipping faction buddies is a perfectly legitimate reason.

As long as they are two active characters, giving a lot of items from person A to person B isn't really that great a sin. The net epic items in the current playerbase remains fixed. The real sin is when players fish out alts to provide this kind of trade, alts who have been retired or inactive. That's basically a reintroduction of loot into our current player count, and that's what we've explicitly said to not do. So, other than, that, as long as you have an IC justification, you're fine.

If you whip out a retired character to give all your items away, but still come up with an IC justification, that's not okay. It's the only time when it isn't, really-- unless you have DM oversight.

What constitutes a retired character, exactly? There are only a handful of DM-permakilled PCs on Amia, and most have just been kinda dropped. Suppose I play an old character for a week again, then give out his stuff, and then play for a week longer - that's not exactly a retired or inactive character, but rather a character doing something in the middle of a bout of activity. What transparent and explicit standard will you apply to me?

I am playing Devil's advocate with the example, but given how many people have semi-inactive characters that they like to log onto every now and then for nostalgia and perhaps always meant to give away their coolest memorabilia so history lives on, it's probably a relevant question in practice. Perspectives differ, too: I have PCs I haven't logged on with for a year that I consider to still be active

You can always say "If you're uncertain, better ask a DM" - but that obviously only works if players do ask a DM, and you can hardly hold them accountable if they don't unless you've given them clear standards to judge by.

I know I am still holding onto an old halfling merchant/entertainer of mine who has, not epic gear, but unique DM event rewards (a Deck of Hazards too, woo) that I have been just waiting to auction off or put into circulation at some fitting opportunity. He's not "retired" as such, I just haven't played him. The same goes for my drow (though he would need approval anyway, since it's DC stuff I want to pass on).

You're right to pick up on that distinction. Amarice noticed the same thing.

It's really friggin' tough to write a rule over a subjective matter without leaving something to subjectivity. We could either take a minimalist stance, like we have, or we can make a specific and somewhat arbitrary definition on "retired." The latter ends up devolving a 'simpler' rule into a series of definitions, and it can become way more complicated than necessary.

It's easier to say it like this: If you dig out a character for the sole purpose of giving his items away to one of your active friends, you're in the wrong. And this is something we have the tools to catch. This kind of suspect situation is the one we'll ask questions about: When you and your buddy are playing two faction characters, and your buddy has 3-4 items from one of your alt PC's that was never actively around during your buddy's existence, and that alt PC was never played again.

If it makes the players more comfortable, we can come up with a clearer definition on the 'retired' clause.

Yeah, I get why you'd want to be vague. I don't know, myself; it's pretty obvious what the intent is, but where to draw the exact line is fuzzy. My concern is that a rule, by its nature, is supposed to both protect players from DM opinion and allow DMs to punish without personal bias.

As a player, I should always be able to know, 100%, whether I am following the letter of the law or not - and if I am, I must be able to trust that even if the DM team was replaced overnight by evil aliens who just wanted to punish players, the rules would protect me. On the other hand, as a DM, whenever I see something I think is iffy, I should be able to check in the rulebook if what I see falls into the "punish" or "ignore" category and apply it mechanically - or be nice, if the situation calls for.

DM judgement should only ever apply in favor of a player, after all; you don't need to write down everything that is acceptable, because you're free to go with the Rule of Cool. But it can't work the other way around: a rule that amounts to "it's not clear if what you're doing is illegal, but if a DM thinks so you will be punished" always carries the potential of injustice.

You have three options, actually: the two you outlined, or simply dropping retirement clause altogether and going succinct by virtue of laissez-faire. I prefer the third option on principle, but you can argue for any of them.

I am not sure if it's a problem in practice. It might not be. But I can honestly say I don't know how it would apply to my characters; I don't consider them retired, just inactive, but I'm sure someone else would disagree with good reason. And I do intend to get that Thayvian greatsword out into active use one day. (Personally, I am happy to ask you when the time comes, though.)

Yeah. It looks like our best option will be to define retired characters. We'll discuss it up top, and see if we can come up with a simple but effectively clear rule.

Last edited by IronAngel on Wed, Jul 30 2014, 22:47 PM, edited 1 time in total.

One more thing! I promise this is my last question on the current rule:

What exactly is the problem/behavior you intend the retirement clause to prevent? Is it a problem you have already encountered and want to stop, something you really fear would start occurring with the changed rule, or something that you just think would be iffy if it happened (but you don't suspect it will)?

Because I don't see the connection between the updated general rule and the retirement clause. Let's face it, it concerns epic level gear; there's enough normal high-end gear in circulation not to need a retired character to twink a newbie. And moreover, a newbie does not need items he can't use, so it's not a matter of unfair advantage. So none of the scenarios I can think of seem relevant:

1) Level 5 wants Cloak of Fort +4. Old rule: illegal. New rule: legal for active PCs, illegal for retired. But the item is common enough not to need a retired PC to get it, so the retirement clause seems superfluous.

2) Level 5 wants Cloak of Fort +5. Old rule: illegal. New rule: legal for active PCs, illegal for retired. But how often do you expect retired characters to give up their epic gear to twink lowbies instead of their high-level buddies? Once or twice a year? And since the lowbie cannot use the epic gear but will hit epics after a few weeks' wait, we move on to:

3) Level 30 wants Cloak of Fort +5. Old rule: legal for everyone. New rule: legal for active PCs, illegal for retired. At this point, the new rule is actually more restrictive - it used to be legal to give epic gear from retired PCs to epic PCs. This implies that the previous rule caused problems if it needed to be tightened. Did it, then? How often did it even happen? Is our module balance currently off because retired PCs gave away masses of epic gear to their active epic buddies? (I know Kalliniel inherited a share of Al'Tustra's epic gear, but it had no impact on server balance since I never used it for anything or sold it.)

If it was not a rampant phenomenon, the retirement clause does not seem to address any actual problem that I can think of. (The only other thing I can think of is gold - but that is equivalent to scenario 1 in that active epics have enough gold to cover all the needs to a leveling-up PC without drawing on the retirement pool.)

Don't take this as me having an issue with the rule. With the appropriate clarification, I'm sure it's fine - certainly a change for the better. I am just trying to get to the bottom of what you really wanted to achieve with the rule, so that the most efficient formulation can be found.

I gotta say something cause I am sitting here about to blow my f'ing top.

Seriously ... SERIOUSLY do we really need the DM team to spend another couple days debating and discussing what everyone can agree to as a dam definition of retired?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!

SERIOUSLY?????

We've nothing better to do like say... get bugs fixed, run events, read and comment on requests, keep areas up to date to reflect lore?????

OMG!

Simple answer, yes. Because if you don't, you'll be creating more problems than solving them. Not that any other facets of DM volunteership aren't greatly appreciated― they are.

Because the time it takes you to vote Yes or No on a rule poll takes too much time from bug fixing? It's not like you need more than one competent person to iron out the details and propose a formulation; I don't know how you share responsibilities, but you must have some system. I imagine the DMs who actually asked for feedback and are responding to it are somewhat interested to handle that part.

I would argue that rules are at least as important as bug fixes, too: nobody leaves a server because of an annoying glitch, but one injustice is enough to rile up most people.

If its that complex for you or for anyone who reads it then there are some simple answers for you..

1. Don't give away any items.
2. Ask for a DM to supervise the situation
3. Post a request in the request forum about the item/gold give away.

I'll be flat out honest here there shouldn't have to be a need for this rule in the first place, but do to the nature of online games and the lack of maturity by some of the players who play them we have to make it known that:

1. Yes we watch this
2. If you abuse it, then you will get disciplined.

Retired
Def. A person or character who is no longer active by choice or by force.

Retired by choice
Def. A person or character who was decided to not be actively played of involved in the server anymore.

Retired by choice in relation to twinking
Def. A person or character who was decided not to be played anymore and then brought back not to be played again as an active part of the server but only to hand over items/gear and then only to be retired (see def. 1) again.

Retired by force
Def. A person or character who was permanently killed or made unaccessible by a DM decision.

Retired by forcein relation to twinking
Def. A person or character who was is no longer and active part of the server due to a DM/plot ruling and is logged on ooc only to hand over items/gear and then only to be retired (see def. 1) again.

and Iron, sure as sh%^ the first time we put a hard number to it, people will complain and/or use that to skirt the rules..

What defines retired? A week with out playing that character? A month? Six months?

Some one who doesn't play often will get shafted, or someone will use it to log on for an hour to 'keep them active' so that they can later on dump their stuff off on a friend.

Albeit, this is my RL job every day so I can't be shaken.

Well this got out of hand.

Here's my proposed amendment. It's brief, succinct, and should give players a very clear understanding. Please let me know if this is unclear:

Quote:

Retired or Retiring characters are characters who you have or are shelving with the intent never to play that character again, or who have been permanently imprisoned or killed by NPC's.

For anyone who wishes I can write out a 10 pages definition with all eventualities.

Mind though anyone who says yes to this will have a written exam about it to double check if you properly read it.

Exactly, msheeler: rules are supposed to define the absolute, measurable limits of acceptable. If it's 6 months, then it's 6 months, and there's no DM effort wasted in subjective judgement, nor is there a chance of controversy. Whatever you rule, people will skirt around the edges. Because that is the border between acceptable and prohibited, and there's no reason they shouldn't.

We need to remember that a rule is your license to punish people; on the flip side, it's the players' bulwark against your whims. That's why it's so critical that everyone, DM and player alike, can see the exact literal meaning as clear as day and appeal to it - because the spirit of the law and the letter of the law must be one.

If the definition is as minimal as "only brought back to twink" I could circumvent it by also doing a quick Spires run while I'm at it. The only thing I can see working unequivocally across the board is a timer; 6 or 12 months of not logging in, and then a week or two of activity to be considered "reactivated" again.

Hackums' version is fine, but it's also so lenient that anyone could go around it by claiming to have changed their mind and intending to play the PC again after all. Which raises the question: who is this rule going to stop, and why do they need to be stopped?

If a rule is too hard to define explicitly in writing, that's usually a sign that there's no clear consensus on its goal and interpretation, either. That's why I asked what I said would be my last question on the current rule: what are you hoping to prevent with this rule, and is it really worth the all the trouble to prevent? If you can pinpoint the exact behavior that you want to target with the rule, it's much easier to see the sufficient and necessary formulation of the rule.

The rule, as originally worded, does exactly what it needed to.

It points out that 'twinking' is watched, that it shouldn't be abused and that if people abuse it there are consequences. If someone is reading this rule and and trying to figure out what exactly they can give or donate to another player, then its a pretty safe bet that they shouldn't be doing what they are trying to do.

We are aware that it may be the case, and that that specific part will become difficult to enforce for someone who just wants to say, "Oh, but I never permanently removed my character."

But there are two far clearer examples outlined in the rule that we're looking to hit:
1.) Retiring characters. It's a far clearer example. Someone who's just like, "Screw this!" And tries to give all their items to someone.
2.) Characters who are permadead by DM plots who might be compelled to log on and give their stuff away. Willing away their items is totally a thing, just requires DM supervision.

Two potential problems that can be fixed through this wording. While we may not be able to actively go out and try to catch people who don't consider their characters retired, this rule isn't for us to chase bad guys with. It's to give our rule abiding players a clear understanding of what is acceptable and not.

Rule breakers will always be looking for ways to find loopholes. We'll deal with them accordingly. The wording and ruling is made here for people who are genuinely trying to follow the rules.

Bottom line, guys, we're aware of the problems that will come with enforcing it on our end, and we have our reasons for making it as we are.

What I was asking for, was if there was any subjectivity left in my amendment. Our goal here is to make it clear.

Well Iron, I do understand your concern.

I really do, seeing this very topic here is my RL job.

The problem is you cannot define 90% of rules (laws) in short sentences with covering them completely.

This is why law books are so frikkin huge.

Like definition of murder. Well that one is fairly simple. But even here it starts. The law starts to get sub defined. What is murder. What is the difference between murder and second degree murder and manslaughter.

You are not to harm someone. What is harm? When is someone harmed? When is someone severely harmed? When is someone minorly harmed?

This very very soon escalates into pages and pages and pages of rules/laws.

Now could I write you a complete guide with strictly defined rules with all tweaks and eventualities? Sure, I work with that daily.

Would people manage to read this? No, they barely read through all the rules as it is.

To be fair most people wouldn't even understand half the law-definition glibberish.

In your own interest, it is best to have some general guidelines and rules and when you are uncertain in a specific situation, just ask.

It requires a little trust in us that we do not backbend the rules to kick you unwarranted in the nuts, yes. But why would we do that? We have no joy in punishing players and some DM even dread it. So we only do it if we feel something really went off the wrong way there.

We're not some robots. If someone feels a specific situation did not warrant a punishment one can talk to us still and things can be explained and questions can always be asked.

I know. And like I said, I don't have an issue with the rule - it could be a bit better, but it could be a lot worse. I was just trying to get at your motivation to see what the indispensable core of the rule was. Hackums gave two examples, but not the reason why you'd want to stop them. I understand why logging on with DM-enforced dead/imprisoned/exiled characters is bad. But what is the problem with retiring characters giving away all their stuff IC? It has been legal for the past 10 years; what rampant issues has it caused so far that you've now decided to stop it?

And if you really haven't experienced wide-spread issues before, if this is a change motivated by speculation on hypotheticals, I think you should consider whether you really need a rule that is hard to formulate accurately and does not actually target a real problem. I do not want complex, long rules - but simplicity is better achieved with minimal, laissez-faire rules rather than with unprecise summaries of very specific, unarticulated rules. We're not writing legislation for a country, after all. If something is kind of iffy but not catastrophic, then it's probably a good idea not to have a rule about it. Even good rules are bad rules when there's too many of them, so it's better to stick with the bare necessities.

I know most people get what I was trying to say, but I want to explain my perspective to msheeler one more time; the situation is pretty much this:
DM: "If you do X, I will punish you."
Player: "Alright, but how can I know whether I'm doing X?"
DM: "I can't exactly tell you, but you'll know when I punish you."
I do understand your perspective; you should have clear parametres within which you can exercise judgement as efficiently and fairly as possible, without stumbling on formalities or giving transgressors loopholes to escape through. But the player situation is different. Of course, I don't think you're out to punish people for the fun of it. But if we assumed that every DM and every player was always reasonable and could come to a consensus through negotiation, we would not have need for rules in the first place.

Again, the rule is a step in the right direction. It's good the way it is, if you've asked yourself the questions I posed and decided there's no better alternative. I did not say you need to add a formal definition of retirement; I merely asked whether something should be done about it or not. I'm mostly just curious to understand the motivation.

Now if we could only get the equivalent muling rule in place!

With Muling you have an even worse issue with nailing down all the details. You'd get a lawbook full of provisions and exceptions which we will never be able to fully catch.

So don't do it.If you know it's an item from your own alt stay away from it. Don't mythal your alts gear, don't borrow it, don't use it. Don't touch it.

If you didn't know the item you bought from the player merchant was from your alt because you gave it to someone else and he sold it to the player merchant then we can see that.

The only excuse for mulling is ignorance and with our tools we can see a lot of relevant information.

@ Hudson; It's not that simple, like Iron just wrote.

It is.

Mulling is quite clear cut to me.

The only thing that has to be considered is if the person that has an item from an alt on his/ her character knows if that item was from an alt or not but that has no bearing on the rule of 'Don't do it.' That question only affects what happens next. The amendment to the rule I can see is 'Dont knowingly do it' instead of 'Dont do it.'

There are no exceptions on Mulling rulewise as far as I know so we can keep the rule short and to the point.

The rule now is:

Quote:

Muling constitutes as follows: passing items and/or gold from a character to another, when both characters are in the possession of the same player. The characters being on different GameSpy ID's or CD keys does not negate the act being muling. The methods for this are varying, but any method where the items end up from one of your PCs to another, is muling.

I think it can be shortened to:

Quote:

Mulling constitutes knowlingly transferring an item or gold for any reason and by any means possible between two characters the same player posseses regardless of the account they are played under.

I disagree. I think Hudson summed up a common sense ruling.

Muling, Twinking, ILR, and the Like

Who is online