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

Please post any discussion relating to the Waiver of Rule-Based Protections thread here.

Topics I would like to tackle:

What are general player thoughts on this waiver?

What rules, other than those posted in the thread, might be good candidates for waiver? Why?

Should a player have the right to revoke the waiver at any point? If so, how? If not, why?

As well as anything else you would like to cover. Thanks!

Hope you got the DM's "go for it" before making that thread. Otherwise its pretty much completely unoffical and likely to be ignored.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Hope you got the DM's "go for it" before making that thread. Otherwise its pretty much completely unoffical and likely to be ignored.

I asked before making it. If it's too much of a hassle anyway I don't mind going back to the old way of waiving my protections as they come up. Just thought this might be more convenient and a way I can show respect for my fellow players.

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.

I'll clarify.
It's a nice idea, but a little bit of a time sink.
You are walking along, and want to RP the 'exception' stuff with Aaaaaaii M. Aloothoar. Instead of just asking, you go to the forums and check if they've posted here. My point here is that it's needless time spent.

(Please note that there are some RP's that we do NOT allow, regardless. See: Rules)

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.

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.

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.

Again, your thoughts are very much appreciated and I hope I can respond as well as can be hoped. Thank you!

I think its a bad idea, keep it the same for everyone to keep it easy.

the rules are not that bad that we have to have a topic to list if we want them to be skiped over on us because its made to work where 4.IC Actions lead to IC Consequences. trumps 3. You must give the other party a reasonable chance to back down from the PvP In Character.

Peeves wrote:

I'll clarify.
It's a nice idea, but a little bit of a time sink.
You are walking along, and want to RP the 'exception' stuff with Aaaaaaii M. Aloothoar. Instead of just asking, you go to the forums and check if they've posted here. My point here is that it's needless time spent.

(Please note that there are some RP's that we do NOT allow, regardless. See: Rules)

Quote:

It is up to the staff whether these waivers are:
- Valid
- Permanent or Temporary
- Retractable in lone incidents (one-time revocation of waiver)
- Retractable on a permanent basis

Part of the thread is an innate request to allow people to waive the protections listed therein. If the powers that be decide that a rule cannot be waived, I'm hardly in a position to argue! Though I would really, really like to allow players to waive a good number of restrictions provided they don't impair RP.

And there's nothing preventing you from asking Aaaaaaii M. Aloothoar if he'd like to waive any protections- but honestly, how often has that happened? This also helps to serve as a prompt for people who might like to do such a waiver. And if people don't ask and don't check, it's a pretty good bet they'll default to standard server rules, in which case there's no problem anyway. I see it more as an 'optional' tool that players can use, not something they have to check. After all, if a player follows the rules as posted, the waivers aren't even an issue. And they can ask at will. And, at the end of it, if they want to check the waivers, the option is there for them so they don't alert the person of their intentions.

I don't see it as a time sink unless it becomes excessively long and bogged-down in rulings and exceptions. In which case it's completely untenable for a PW anyway and should die in a fire.

Again, very valid concerns. Thanks for the discussion!

I will sign when, and only when, my waiver is only applicable to others who have signed the waver. Those who don't sign the waver are hiding behind ooc protections and therefore I have no desire to help their metagaming at all.

corypx wrote:

I think its a bad idea, keep it the same for everyone to keep it easy.

the rules are not that bad that we have to have a topic to list if we want them to be skiped over on us because its made to work where 4.IC Actions lead to IC Consequences. trumps 3. You must give the other party a reasonable chance to back down from the PvP In Character.

And in relation to the other suggested waivers?

Secondly,

Gaston wrote:

...if a player follows the rules as posted, the waivers aren't even an issue. And they can ask at will. And, at the end of it, if they want to check the waivers, the option is there for them so they don't alert the person of their intentions.

So you can, in fact, keep it the same for everyone and have this option- one of the rarest of rare times when you can have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to muck about with waivers and exceptions, just follow the rules as written and you'll be unaffected. If you want to check, it's available. But at the end of the day, someone who "keeps it the same for everyone to keep it easy" is 100% unaffected by any waiver they haven't made themselves.

Azarius wrote:

I will sign when, and only when, my waiver is only applicable to others who have signed the waver. Those who don't sign the waver are hiding behind ooc protections and therefore I have no desire to help their metagaming at all.

This is a good point of discussion.

What are the arguments in favor of giving players the option of only having the waiver apply on a quid-pro-quo basis? What are the arguments against it?

Are the players who don't sign it metagaming? I don't think so. I think some people enjoy the OOC protections since they're not here to PvP or build an empire on the skulls of fallen players. And I feel that anyone who does sign it isn't "better" than others, they simply have chosen to show a large degree of respect and deference to their fellow players in trusting them with such a waiver. Some of my best friends have never engaged in PvP and never will, and I very carefully worded the waiver in a way that they don't have to change the way they RP at all- it only allows people to remove some of the OOC protections if they feel comfortable with doing so. Very much designed for enhancing, not restricting RP.

The purpose of this isn't to divide the players into the "I can RP hardcore lol" and the "PvP is bad keep me out of it" camps. That's not the intent at all. I would much rather it help build a foundation of trust among fellow players than let people start segregating themselves based on who they think is "better".

I have an argument. This is a PG-13 server, and you don't know who's watching/spying on you at any time. You agree to the rules and code of conduct when you join the server or the forum. As such, you must adhere by said rules and code of conduct. You don't get to waiver them because you feel like it.

ok I'll try not to be be rude but you joined the forums today, how long have you been playing here and if so how many times have you been around PVP?

I sit in a zone filled with stupid PVP and I do my best to try and babysit both IC and OOC so if crap hits the fan OOC I can jump in and also inform the DMs but if the rules change from Character to Character it will just cause more problems.

Amia forest where alot of PVP goes on you have some times 5+ people who would jump into the PVP well you may want people to not do indication of intention to attack or reasonable chance to back down from from PvP in-character but what about the others who might jump in, if someone just runs up and blasts you in the face what about the other rules

5. You must give the other party clear IC indication of your intentions to attack, and make sure they have reasonable time to react and possibly back down IC.

6. You must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions. You can do this with the tool in your inventory or through the player list.

7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol.

if your saying just come up and rape without saying anything others cant react within the rules like hostiling, so then your spells wont work because they did not set you to hostile because you blasted someone in the face and they cant stand around trying to hostile you as you kill thier friend you cant say anything.

I might have worded it poor but its a idea that will just fail and cause problems, trust me I know I sit in amia forest allday if I know one thing its stupid PVP and OOC drama from it.

Well, that's actually two arguments, but it means you've got more points that I have to touch on, so it's better for your position.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

I have an argument. This is a PG-13 server, and you don't know who's watching/spying on you at any time.

Excellent point, and one I did not in fact think of when planning this out. This may be a good argument to invalidate any waiver of the "no excessive torture RP" rule. But how would it apply to the other three that are suggested?

Selvec Darkon wrote:

You agree to the rules and code of conduct when you join the server or the forum. As such, you must adhere by said rules and code of conduct. You don't get to waiver them because you feel like it.

From the rules:

Quote:

7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however.

It's already established that a player can waive the right to PvP protocol by essentially violating the protocol. Must I chug a Bull's Strength potion every time someone hostiles me to affirmatively waive my right to warning, or may I simply tell them they don't need to warn me and may stalk/attack me at thair leisure? I find the second option preferable, since it means that nobody breaks rules and the DMs don't have another headache to deal with that they would if the rules were strictly interpreted in their existing form. A forum waiver is merely a permanent, ongoing version of option 2 which will prevent me from gaining OOC information about your impending attack should you choose to utilize it.

Secondly:

Quote:

16. Regarding capture of player characters: Characters can be held for a maximum for twenty four (24) real life hours against the OOC will of a player. With OOC approval from the captured player, the detainment can extend indefinitely. After 24 hours, if the captured player wishes to be freed, appropriate IC arrangements must be made for the freedom of the detained character regardless of the current Ic situation.

An OOC waiver is already explicitly allowed within the rules for capture. Again, the forum posting is merely an ongoing waiver so I'm not repeating myself every time I get captured, and to give other players the information so they may plan accordingly.

Thirdly:

Quote:

3. You must give the other party a reasonable chance to back down from the PvP In Character.

4. IC Actions lead to IC Consequences. If you initiate a conflict (by insults or thievery, for example), you can't expect to get away with it. You cannot ignore other players' RP or declare it null.

As Corpyx noted above, you can in fact waive your right to back out of a conflict through your IC actions. However, I would like to affirmatively waive Rule 3 so that under no circumstances can a DM interpret an encounter as one where I was denied a proper IC out- after all, a DM might not have been present for the leadup roleplay where I foreclosed my out. In truth, waiver of Rule 3 is largely a convenience for DMs since they're the ones who have to check if you waived Rule 3 by application of Rule 4 anyway- you know full well if a player has foreclosed any way out of a conflict, but the DM who just showed up might not and an affirmative waiver is quicker and easier than verifying proof (and worse, what if you forgot to take screenshots of the leadup RP? Then you get in trouble for your legitimate and very good RP which foreclosed that out!).

As always, good concerns. I think you may have stumped me on your first point. It'll take minds wiser than mine to find a good counterargument there.

Yes, okay. Those are clear enough, I have no issue if the rules state that they can be waivered. But the major issue I have is waivering of content that could breach the PG13 rule. Essentially, graphical torture, and anything else of similar concept.

I mean, Peeves makes an excellent point, it better to do on a case by case basis with the other stuff, but if your going to do it this way you need to remove the right to waivering anything that breachs PG-13 standards, graphical torture, adult roleplay etc etc, should they be apart of said waiver. They can't be waivered, and should not be waivered, as they breach the standard the server runs on.

Remove those waivers, and I'll have no issue with what you doing here, beyond thinking that personally it's rather inefficent.

At a glance, I appreciate your initiative, Gaston. I'm happy to see a relatively new player taking such an active interest.

Anything like this waiver will have to be purely player maintained and will only be on the level of a gentleman's agreement.

Gaston wrote:

As Corpyx noted above, you can in fact waive your right to back out of a conflict through your IC actions.

I think you mixed up your words abit

Waive is to do so voluntarily, with what I stated as 4. IC Actions lead to IC Consequences. If you initiate a conflict (by insults or thievery, for example), you can't expect to get away with it. You cannot ignore other players' RP or declare it null.

is the player forfeiting the other rules, being non-voluntarily

if you summon a undead in amia forest, we may ask you to unsummon it and leave, if you say no, we kill it and you assuming you put up a fight, because you forfeit your right to backdown from PVP by not unsummoning it.

the rules are not all asking people in PM if its ok to PVP them, all of the rules are played out IC, so a Waiver is pointless as your IC actions can do it for you and not mess around with the rules.

corypx wrote:

ok I'll try not to be be rude but you joined the forums today, how long have you been playing here and if so how many times have you been around PVP?

Ok I'll try not to be rude but if you'd checked the other thread you'd notice three characters under my name. Second, this is a sockpuppet account created expressly to discuss things in relation to my characters. I do not want my normal forum account associated with my characters so that any ingame interactions will not color responses to discussions I take part in on the forums.

corypx wrote:

I sit in a zone filled with stupid PVP and I do my best to try and babysit both IC and OOC so if crap hits the fan OOC I can jump in and also inform the DMs but if the rules change from Character to Character it will just cause more problems.

So your complaint stems from the fact that people choosing to waive protections would create problems for players who have taken it upon themselves to tattle. Can the players involved not take care of themselves? Yes, this WILL make it harder for people who try to be rules hawks because it's not your job to make sure I don't get screwed by another player breaking the rules. That's my character and my job. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I think you're trying to extend your umbrella of protection a little farther than is warranted.

corypx wrote:

Amia forest where alot of PVP goes on you have some times 5+ people who would jump into the PVP well you may want people to not do indication of intention to attack or reasonable chance to back down from from PvP in-character but what about the others who might jump in, if someone just runs up and blasts you in the face what about the other rules

In that case where hostilities have commenced Rules 4 and 7 clearly override any warning rights your attackers have, whether they be warned of attacks from you or from your defenders or anyone else who jumps in.

corypx wrote:

6. You must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions. You can do this with the tool in your inventory or through the player list.

I never said this could be waived. If you'll read between the lines you'll notice I never once endorsed waiving of hostile flagging or said it was a good idea. Hostile flagging is universally a requirement I think needs to be in place for PvP.

corypx wrote:

if your saying just come up and rape without saying anything others cant react within the rules like hostiling, so then your spells wont work because they did not set you to hostile because you blasted someone in the face and they cant stand around trying to hostile you as you kill thier friend you cant say anything.

... Uh, what? This more or less shows you don't understand the topic. I'm saying I'm in favor of allowing players to remove some of the barriers to that hostile action- basically letting the other players jump in faster provided they still hostile you. The waivers are only applied applied to actions taken by other players against the signor, i.e. you. A player cannot use them to walk into a situation with nonconsenting parties and nuke them with no warning. I'm not even sure if I'm reading what you said correctly because I can't extract meaning from that giant runon sentence.

corypx wrote:

I might have worded it poor but its a idea that will just fail and cause problems, trust me I know I sit in amia forest allday if I know one thing its stupid PVP and OOC drama from it.

Please, please reread what I've been saying. I can't argue when the opposing assertions just ignore everything I've said before.

Yossarin wrote:

At a glance, I appreciate your initiative, Gaston. I'm happy to see a relatively new player taking such an active interest.

Anything like this waiver will have to be purely player maintained and will only be on the level of a gentleman's agreement.

This really is the intention. Not trying to create rules here, or to change the way things are run. I just wanted to create a basic option where people who enjoy playing without some of the protections can make a public declaration so other players don't get screwed when they indulge us by sliding on a couple rules (all of which I am asking if it's okay to waive anyway).

It's not trying to force people down some new path, force stupid PvP, or cause headaches. I'll be waiving whatever I can publicly anyway- at least whatever is allowed. Anyone who wants to do the same is free to do so.

Basically:
If I am within the rules to waive a rule, I will do so.
I will post any waivers I make publicly so that people I RP with can point and say "Look Mr. DM, he said he waives his protection in thread XYZ". I'm more than happy to deal with the misconceptions, complaints, and naysayers who think my waiver is up for discussion if it saves even one other player from getting in trouble with a DM on my account.

And thank you very much for your evaluation and comments.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Yes, okay. Those are clear enough, I have no issue if the rules state that they can be waivered. But the major issue I have is waivering of content that could breach the PG13 rule. Essentially, graphical torture, and anything else of similar concept.

I mean, Peeves makes an excellent point, it better to do on a case by case basis with the other stuff, but if your going to do it this way you need to remove the right to waivering anything that breachs PG-13 standards, graphical torture, adult roleplay etc etc, should they be apart of said waiver. They can't be waivered, and should not be waivered, as they breach the standard the server runs on.

Remove those waivers, and I'll have no issue with what you doing here, beyond thinking that personally it's rather inefficent.

Quote:

It is up to the staff whether these waivers are:
- Valid
- Permanent or Temporary
- Retractable in lone incidents (one-time revocation of waiver)
- Retractable on a permanent basis

The instant a staff member says "You cannot waive the protection against graphic torture" that waiver is dead, no questions asked. As I said, I am in absolutely no position to argue what can and can't be waived. All I want to do is waive what I can and post public evidence of an ongoing waiver so that other players may take advantage of it and refer to it in the case that they do take advantage of it and get stopped and questioned by a DM for behavior that appears to violate the rules.

Hopefully DMs won't have to say what you are or aren't allowed to waive, but that's probably far too optimistic a hope to be true. I think this could really help out those people (like Yossy.. I think?) who appreciate getting assassinated and would rather not have the preliminary OOC warning.

I regularly espouse all over these forums that I'm willing to waive all of those personally, so this is just an affirmation. It is also a token show of support, too, because I decided a year ago or so that being a DM and having an active PC is a severe conflict of interest for me because I'm so aggressive at forcing change that I would constantly be hamstringing my IC actions with, "Are they going to call DM knowledge on me for doing this, even though I don't really know but made the guess anyway because I'm just that good?" and that's no fun.

So while I am a DM I won't really be playing a PC, anyway.

Oh look.. I was right!

Yossarin wrote:

At a glance, I appreciate your initiative, Gaston. I'm happy to see a relatively new player taking such an active interest.

Anything like this waiver will have to be purely player maintained and will only be on the level of a gentleman's agreement.

This is how it is on every server I've seen it put to, and it worked remarkably well. Amia is currently the only server I've ever seen make it a contentious point. All other servers agree to it almost universally, immediately.

[

corypx wrote:

if your saying just come up and rape without saying anything others cant react within the rules like hostiling, so then your spells wont work because they did not set you to hostile because you blasted someone in the face and they cant stand around trying to hostile you as you kill thier friend you cant say anything.

... Uh, what? This more or less shows you don't understand the topic. I'm saying I'm in favor of allowing players to remove some of the barriers to that hostile action- basically letting the other players jump in faster provided they still hostile you. The waivers are only applied applied to actions taken by other players against the signor, i.e. you. A player cannot use them to walk into a situation with nonconsenting parties and nuke them with no warning. I'm not even sure if I'm reading what you said correctly because I can't extract meaning from that giant runon sentence.

ok lets make this easy we will go over some of the rules

this rule cant be waved or that counter/trump the other.

5. You must give the other party clear IC indication of your intentions to attack, and make sure they have reasonable time to react and possibly back down IC.
so this rule cant be because of make sure they have reasonable time to react

6. You must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions.

if you dont give any hints as you might wish to attack like drawing a weapon,threats or some emote to hint you want to crush him you wont know who will join in the fight so you wont know who to hostile

7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however.

so lets say you dont emote to every because the person because signed that waiver and give no real hint of about to attack like I said befor, its not thier job to hostile you if your allready attacking someone The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it

Bob is a necromancer in amia forest, Sam is a druid,they argue about undead, sam also signed your lil waiver, Bob does not have to give any hint to the others in the forest hes about to use hostile spells on Sam
so other dont have time to hostile Bob, well as soon as Bob casts one hostile spell if he only hostiled Sam and other go to attack Bob they can do so without hostile because Bob must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions(not the defenders,Rule 6)(Rule 5 make sure they have reasonable time to react them hostiling you if you choose not to befor you attack)

Gaston wrote:

corypx wrote:

I sit in a zone filled with stupid PVP and I do my best to try and babysit both IC and OOC so if crap hits the fan OOC I can jump in and also inform the DMs but if the rules change from Character to Character it will just cause more problems.

So your complaint stems from the fact that people choosing to waive protections would create problems for players who have taken it upon themselves to tattle. Can the players involved not take care of themselves? Yes, this WILL make it harder for people who try to be rules hawks because it's not your job to make sure I don't get screwed by another player breaking the rules. That's my character and my job. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I think you're trying to extend your umbrella of protection a little farther than is warranted.

if you played here for even a fraction of the time some of the people here have been, you would know when OOC problems get out of hand DMs ask people what happened so they can sort it out,would you tell the DM its not your job and tell them to flip a coin on who is right. you call it being a tattle or rule hawk I call it ensuring fairplay, and helping deal with problems when a DM might not be on.

Gaston wrote:

corypx wrote:

if your saying just come up and rape without saying anything others cant react within the rules like hostiling, so then your spells wont work because they did not set you to hostile because you blasted someone in the face and they cant stand around trying to hostile you as you kill thier friend you cant say anything.

... Uh, what? This more or less shows you don't understand the topic. I'm saying I'm in favor of allowing players to remove some of the barriers to that hostile action- basically letting the other players jump in faster provided they still hostile you. The waivers are only applied applied to actions taken by other players against the signor, i.e. you. A player cannot use them to walk into a situation with nonconsenting parties and nuke them with no warning. I'm not even sure if I'm reading what you said correctly because I can't extract meaning from that giant runon sentence.

ok lets make this easy we will go over some of the rules

this rule cant be waved or that counter/trump the other.

5. You must give the other party clear IC indication of your intentions to attack, and make sure they have reasonable time to react and possibly back down IC.
so this rule cant be because of make sure they have reasonable time to react

6. You must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions.

if you dont give any hints as you might wish to attack like drawing a weapon,threats or some emote to hint you want to crush him you wont know who will join in the fight so you wont know who to hostile

7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however.

so lets say you dont emote to every because the person because signed that waiver and give no real hint of about to attack like I said befor, its not thier job to hostile you if your allready attacking someone The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it

Bob is a necromancer in amia forest, Sam is a druid,they argue about undead, sam also signed your lil waiver, Bob does not have to give any hint to the others in the forest hes about to use hostile spells on Sam
so other dont have time to hostile Bob, well as soon as Bob casts one hostile spell if he only hostiled Sam and other go to attack Bob they can do so without hostile because Bob must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions(not the defenders,Rule 6)(Rule 5 make sure they have reasonable time to react them hostiling you if you choose not to befor you attack)

Gaston wrote:

corypx wrote:

I sit in a zone filled with stupid PVP and I do my best to try and babysit both IC and OOC so if crap hits the fan OOC I can jump in and also inform the DMs but if the rules change from Character to Character it will just cause more problems.

So your complaint stems from the fact that people choosing to waive protections would create problems for players who have taken it upon themselves to tattle. Can the players involved not take care of themselves? Yes, this WILL make it harder for people who try to be rules hawks because it's not your job to make sure I don't get screwed by another player breaking the rules. That's my character and my job. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I think you're trying to extend your umbrella of protection a little farther than is warranted.

if you played here for even a fraction of the time some of the people here have been, you would know when OOC problems get out of hand DMs ask people what happened so they can sort it out,would you tell the DM its not your job and tell them to flip a coin on who is right. you call it being a tattle or rule hawk I call it ensuring fairplay, and helping deal with problems when a DM might not be on.

I think it might be in the interest of civil discussion to not call people out based on how long they've been a member of the server. His idea is no less valid for his status as a new player, and at least two DMs seem to like it.

I have a problem with the being held indefinitely one. If I were to waive that one I for one would need an addendum to it specifying that I could be held indefinitely so long as RP was progressing. If I'm being held for a month in a cell and the people I'm being held by are not providing any kind of interactive RP for my character, than that character is essentially dead for me, a complete dead end. There is plenty of RP that can happen in captivity but that does require RP.

I'd imagine that falls under

Quote:

I reserve the right to request DM intervention if I feel any person is taking advantage of this waiver to abuse me in an OOC manner. I recognize that this waiver precludes me asking for any punishment based on actions taken with respect to this waiver.

Izaet wrote:

I have a problem with the being held indefinitely one. If I were to waive that one I for one would need an addendum to it specifying that I could be held indefinitely so long as RP was progressing. If I'm being held for a month in a cell and the people I'm being held by are not providing any kind of interactive RP for my character, than that character is essentially dead for me, a complete dead end. There is plenty of RP that can happen in captivity but that does require RP.

I was a little iffy on this one but I'm all for taking the bad with the good. Would I like to get stuck in a Guantanamo situation? Not really. I could accept it, but in the end I think my enemies will respect the fact that I'm another player and I'm much more fun out on the lam than in the dungeon. I've never even seen a character held for more than a couple hours IC anyway.

That being said if they say "We lock you up forever lol" you can bet that I'll be trying to engineer a jailbreak every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Eventually you'll get out, it's just a matter of patience, good RP, and a DM who is sick and tired of hearing your escape schemes.

Maybe not the last one.

corypx wrote:

Gaston wrote:

corypx wrote:

Words here

words here

ok lets make this easy we will go over some of the rules

this rule cant be waved or that counter/trump the other.

5. You must give the other party clear IC indication of your intentions to attack, and make sure they have reasonable time to react and possibly back down IC.
so this rule cant be because of make sure they have reasonable time to react

6. You must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions.

if you dont give any hints as you might wish to attack like drawing a weapon,threats or some emote to hint you want to crush him you wont know who will join in the fight so you wont know who to hostile

7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however.

so lets say you dont emote to every because the person because signed that waiver and give no real hint of about to attack like I said befor, its not thier job to hostile you if your allready attacking someone The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it

Bob is a necromancer in amia forest, Sam is a druid,they argue about undead, sam also signed your lil waiver, Bob does not have to give any hint to the others in the forest hes about to use hostile spells on Sam
so other dont have time to hostile Bob, well as soon as Bob casts one hostile spell if he only hostiled Sam and other go to attack Bob they can do so without hostile because Bob must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions(not the defenders,Rule 6)(Rule 5 make sure they have reasonable time to react them hostiling you if you choose not to befor you attack)

OK I see a valid point in this English teacher's nightmare of a paragraph, and will attempt to translate it into comprehensible English.

The problem he sees is that if you attack one person who has waived their right to warning, and a group of other people wish to respond. They are not obligated to hostile before their immediate response, although according to the rules they must hostile as quickly as they are able to. This would indeed cause quite a headache. (possibly not as much as attempting to read the post I'm translating from, but that is another issue. PLEASE PROOF READ YOUR POSTS.) However, a person does not -have- to attack without giving proper warning just because the person they are attacking has waived their right to be warned. They can still give warning and the chance to back down IC, however if they do choose to attack without warning they are making a choice and they must also live with that choice...so they get raped by that guys friends...they probably shouldn't have attacked the guy in the first place then.

corypx wrote:

if you played here for even a fraction of the time some of the people here have been, you would know when OOC problems get out of hand DMs ask people what happened so they can sort it out,would you tell the DM its not your job and tell them to flip a coin on who is right. you call it being a tattle or rule hawk I call it ensuring fairplay, and helping deal with problems when a DM might not be on.

This is really rude and inappropriate. This person stated above that this is an account made solely for this purpose they have been on the server much longer than just today.

i've noticed 3 dms signed waivers. Does this constitute an unofficial endorsement? Just wondering.

I'd also add this

[X] The protection of immortality insofar as I allow DM's to perma-kill my characters in the interests of moving the story-arc of the server along.

Adding that regardless Chris.

Yeah I added it aswell.

MoshingChris wrote:

I'd also add this

[X] The protection of immortality insofar as I allow DM's to perma-kill my characters in the interests of moving the story-arc of the server along.

Brilliant, adding it to the suggested list.

i'm not sure I agree with this. one thing I will say rouge's should have a breakout option. of course his heat will remain high if he doesn't stealth it. also on the same note rouges should be able to help free their friends at the risk of being caught themselves.

this isn't something thats going to go down well, who's idea was this? * (-_-) * * palm *

also I agree with the PvP but providing your not afk, and i'd rather there be an RP reason there attack, the chicken fight in family guy would never have been as epic as it was unless there was a reason they we're fighting. put that one in your wit or wisdom bit eh? say no to -censored apparently- indeed...*blinks*

so yea I have my hang ups about this.

I reserve the right to not do this yet.

ed: apparently poultry is an unacceptable form of communication...

Glyph wrote:

i'm not sure I agree with this. one thing I will say rouge's should have a breakout option. of course his heat will remain high if he doesn't stealth it. also on the same note rouges should be able to help free their friends at the risk of being caught themselves.

this isn't something thats going to go down well, who's idea was this? * (-_-) * * palm *

also I agree with the PvP but providing your not afk, and i'd rather there be an RP reason there attack, the chicken fight in family guy would never have been as epic as it was unless there was a reason they we're fighting. put that one in your wit or wisdom bit eh? say no to -censored apparently- indeed...*blinks*

so yea I have my hang ups about this.

I reserve the right to not do this yet.

ed: apparently poultry is an unacceptable form of communication...

I specifically never included the right to waive RP behind the PvP either.

Thus far the misconceptions are:
- This allows people to waive hostiling
- This allows people to waive having an RP reason behind PvP

While I appreciate your concern, I have to say it's been considered and specifically not included on the waiver list for those exact reasons. Including the Family Guy bit.

Well, this has been possible before, as well. It's been a matter of the players agreeing about it together.

A little thing on the torture RP thing. Mind that we have DMs who absolutely do not want to see heavy torture, as well as SD players who do not want to see it. So regardless of my own preferences I will whack people down for doing it in a public enough place if I hear a DM or a player complaint (those people you do not see), waivers or not. That is actually one of the main reasons the rule is there, to keep unwanted exposure to heavy torture in check. For that reason I can't say I like that bit of the waiver much at all. The rest are pretty much down to mutual agreement and there's little chance of grossing out unwitting SDs or DMs, or hurting the game or others. Mind that every DM should have free access to every area of the server at all times, so just telling them to "get out" doesn't work.

Nekhy wrote:

Well, this has been possible before, as well. It's been a matter of the players agreeing about it together.

A little thing on the torture RP thing. Mind that we have DMs who absolutely do not want to see heavy torture, as well as SD players who do not want to see it. So regardless of my own preferences I will whack people down for doing it in a public enough place if I hear a DM or a player complaint (those people you do not see), waivers or not. That is actually one of the main reasons the rule is there, to keep unwanted exposure to heavy torture in check. For that reason I can't say I like that bit of the waiver much at all. The rest are pretty much down to mutual agreement and there's little chance of grossing out unwitting SDs or DMs. Mind that every DM should have free access to every area of the server at all times, so just telling them to "get out" doesn't work.

So... it's okay if we're in a locked faction base and have warned the DMs and general area via OOC chat? Is that private enough? I mean I don't want to subject people to it if they'll throw up or quit playing or something, but it's a heck of a lot of fun if you get some imaginative people in there and can make for some seriously great RP. I for one would enjoy the chance and challenge.

You don't have the luxury of having a DM check the area at all times and faction areas are not as water tight as you'd think (because we make them not 100% water tight for other RP reasons).The best rules, after all, (this is a sort of a rule, since it's an agreement) are the ones that don't depend on certain conditions. You usually need a referee to check if the conditions are met, and for this waiver system you won't have one, since it's all based on mutual trust.

I really think you should just keep the torture bits on a sensible level (within the rules) and not go nuts. It doesn't ruin the RP if you leave a bit of the goriest bits away, you can still be creative about it. Just drop the "consent required" bit with the waiver, but keep the "graphic" out. The former only affects the people present (since consent would otherwise be required by the players under normal circumstances), but the latter may affect others who didn't sign the waiver, too.

Disco is a lazy chicken and wanted me to post for him this when I asked him to comment, btw: "Torture should have no place on Amia".

I wouldn't go that far, just far enough to keep it to a level where it's not excessively detailed.

I meant the excessive visual stuff, btw. For me that falls under the same header as sexual activities. You can't get a waiver for those either.

Tell me how is this going to be applied in game? Someone wants to pvp me, then I need to look through the entire forum to check the waiver, hope everyone else in the are will stop their RP while I do that. Do the pvp, provided I haven't been killed yet and then hope the person sticks to it and doesn't just start whining everyones head off? I highly doubt this will work. Either make those thigs fixed rules for everyone or we'll get a headache from it anyway. That's my view on it.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see this work, but past experiences have proven people just love cheating way to much and it only ever takes one person in a group.

Its hard enough to get people to stick to the rules we have now.

Other way around. If you want to Pvp and/or do all those mentioned things to 'Them'.

MoshingChris wrote:

I'd also add this

[X] The protection of immortality insofar as I allow DM's to perma-kill my characters in the interests of moving the story-arc of the server along.

No matter how wonderful this sounds to me, this would, in my opinion, end up in some major grousing among the playerbase. I see more sense in keeping this volitional, I'm sure the DMs can ask this from the players and those who agree, agree.

EDIT: [quote="Nekhyabouttorture"]

I wish people would still have the courtesy to ask if it's all right with them. It is a PG 13 server and no matter how much the kids see violence from the telly and internet these days, there are exceptions. Oh, and people younger than 13.

Its not that either I don't think.

To me none of these actually are a waiver of the rules, its just a commitement in force by the players committing to the waiver that they

1) shall not go OOC just because theres some gray area in how the pvp started.
2) believe, that the servers story arc is more important than the individual character.
3) are willingly allowing themselves to be sidelined on a character indefinetly aslong as RP is progressing in a prisoner/emprisoner fashion. This does not only have to happen in game, it can happen via forum story aswell.
4) will not whine because they lose.

Thats how I interpret the waiver. Its just effectively a waiver to be less about winning, more about the story.

Of course, but a lot of people won't be happy about getting their character permakilled by someone else's order.

Uncle-Opustus wrote:

MoshingChris wrote:

I'd also add this

[X] The protection of immortality insofar as I allow DM's to perma-kill my characters in the interests of moving the story-arc of the server along.

No matter how wonderful this sounds to me, this would, in my opinion, end up in some major grousing among the playerbase. I see more sense in keeping this volitional, I'm sure the DMs can ask this from the players and those who agree, agree.

It is Volitional. Thats the entire point behind the waiver, you do not have to add your name to the waivers, if you choose not to. For me personally I like that it is now known to the entire DM team that I'm willing to sacrifice my entire vault to continue the story of the server. I'm not attached to my characters like some folk are, they aren't a second life to me, if they die, I don't. The reason I said DM's only, is because the playerbase can't be trusted to handle it appropriately.

Oh, so the waiver is a personal thing like that? Oh, that's what the "I'm not trying to create new rules" meant. Will just update the form, then.

Yes, entirely personal. A bit like an expanded mutual aggression pact, which is in our PvP rules even.

But yeah, the points should concern personal matters that characters experience above all, and the stuff that affects other players needs to be balanced carefully. Such as the torture which I already mentioned above.

This doesn't concern cybering, twinking or any other rule, and also excludes rape and paedophilia, just to make it clear before anybody gets any ideas. Those are explicitly prohibited on Amia.

Waiver of Rule-Based Protections: Discussion

Who is online