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

Dev Disco wrote:

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.

You heard it from the big man, scrap the torture one.

Disco, for future reference can you please (in another thread preferably so as to not sidetrack discussion here) define or provide examples of acceptable vs. unacceptable torture? "Excessive" is one of those words that's really hard to nail down insomuch as one person may define trimming their nails too close as excessive while another may not think it's excessive until their captor starts playing jumprope with their intestines.

Last edited by corypx on Tue, Jul 27 2010, 18:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Gaston wrote:

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

you must not know what counts as peoples IC view as valid reason to PVP, I was attacked once by someone for looking at them in hide.(and I think even the DM was like wtf....)

once a group of people was attacked because they were standing on the road in amia forest, a person walked up asked them to move off the road, they said go around and they all started to kill eachother.

my fear is this will degrade into a roaming PVP server if people sign this thing, person A attacks person B, and C,D,F join in and kill perosn A, well then next time person A see any of B,C,D or F he can just out right gank them
assuming they signed the thing,he does not have to show intent to attack or let them back down and he has a RP reason....they killed him

I just dont want to see the server get more OOC drama saying people are being griefed when the follow this waiver to the letter and would not be braking rules as the player waved them or as I said degrade into a arena RP server of he killed me, so I kill him.

I don't think the waiver was meant to work like that. There still should be a valid roleplay reason behind the PVP, for instance you can't walk up to someone and tell them to step aside and then kill them if they refuse simply because they've signed a waiver.

I think the waiver applies to characters with long standing grudges and such, so you can sneak up and gut them like the dirty-fiendish dogs they are as opposed to giving everyone the right to pound you into oblivion for the lulz.

Gaston wrote:

You heard it from the big man, scrap the torture one.

Disco, for future reference can you please (in another thread preferably so as to not sidetrack discussion here) define or provide examples of acceptable vs. unacceptable torture? "Excessive" is one of those words that's really hard to nail down insomuch as one person may define trimming their nails too close as excessive while another may not think it's excessive until their captor starts playing jumprope with their intestines.

Last I heard, the rule was 'don't mix solids and fluids'.

Hence it's okay for Va to have a placeables widget that spells out his name in blood since there's nothing but blood when I use it, and it was okay for Heart Hat Day to exist because I didn't at any point mention blood in, on or around said cardiac millenary.

If you're going to chop limbs off, think lightsabres, leaving a nice clean dry stump.

Wouldnt it be easier if you just told the person that you were not comfortable this certain RP OOCly?

one of my issues with this, not trying to point anyone in particular out there are a few of you.....some people like to just go pretty mad. I tried to back down ICly against a shifter using lies to confuse me, such as saying halt while attacking. after about half an hour or training as it was the arena, I was about to RP and got randomly attacked again, and I oocly said // for god sake cut it out. and it stopped. after I was told ask ICly O_o no names will be named here but I RP even in the arena bro. was fun though I admit that ^_^

however screwing around in a duel isn't what worries me, afk coup de gras worries me. *returns, is dead, loses XP, doesn't know what happened, no screenie, no raise, etc.*

You could always add similar lines to the effect in OOC notification in the Bio of your character as the waiver. It'd be easier to see and readily available so people don't have to tab out.

I am not squeamish, nor do I mind bad things happening to my characters but I don't believe in blanket permissions. 99% of the time I'm fine with something. I don't mind waiving them every time if I have to by sending someone a tell, "Hey he's being a jerk, feel free to smash him." etc etc. Its the 1% of the time that this would be abused that it would bother me. I'd rather have the 1% that these were intended to cover be covered than not. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the sentiment and that I am telling you all to not waive these things. I've had some problems in the past with freaks, I'd rather not have new ones.

as has been said in a different thread, some people believe amia is disneyland, they arn't here to see people chained up with barbed wire...etc...I was going to go off on one there O_o

but yea your forgetting the ones that don't watch horror films. thus I agree with disco.

I ...think that is a good point.

I believe i will Copy-Paste the Waiver thing into my Character's Bios. That would surely help.

I update my bio too often to bother with putting the waiver in there, or at least in full.

I suggest something simple and quickly readable, like:

"Waive: Backdown, Forewarn, Captivity, Torture, Immortality."

Oh, and: bring it on, bitches. Waiver waives.

Being lazy again and haven't read everything, so hopefully I won't be repeating something. Anyway, this is a fine idea however the thread is already far too long and far too specific to be of much practical use. I suggest coming up with a simple code people can append to their character names in-game. For example ~RWCTI~ where R equals requiring a chance to retreat, where W is a warning, where C is captivity, where T is graphic torture, and where I is immortality with each letter present indicating that player wishes to waive that right. So say I was cool for everything with Ukre except torture and forced captivity, I would have Ukre Cobcruncher ~RWI~ as my in-game name. It might be unaesthetic to some but names are OOC anyway, we may as well make them functional.

EDIT: Should probably add an entry to the in-game journal and in the OOC waiting section too, indicating what the code means. If people want to be more specific than the standard code they could have say, * or some other symbol at the end indicating to check their bio entry.

Dwagin wrote:

You could always add similar lines to the effect in OOC notification in the Bio of your character as the waiver. It'd be easier to see and readily available so people don't have to tab out.

Best idea in this thread yet. So simple yet we've all missed it. This makes the implementation 100% more practical imo.

BloodNAshes wrote:

Being lazy again and haven't read everything, so hopefully I won't be repeating something. Anyway, this is a fine idea however the thread is already far too long and far too specific to be of much practical use. I suggest coming up with a simple code people can append to their character names in-game. For example ~RWCTI~ where R equals requiring a chance to retreat, where W is a warning, where C is captivity, where T is graphic torture, and where I is immortality with each letter present indicating that player wishes to waive that right. So say I was cool for everything with Ukre except torture and forced captivity, I would have Ukre Cobcruncher ~RWI~ as my in-game name. It might be unaesthetic to some but names are OOC anyway, we may as well make them functional.

EDIT: Should probably add an entry to the in-game journal and in the OOC waiting section too, indicating what the code means. If people want to be more specific than the standard code they could have say, * or some other symbol at the end indicating to check their bio entry.

Oh god, please don't add that junk to your character's name.

How bout you just PM the person IG and ask them if you can do such?

Gaston wrote:

Dev Disco wrote:

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.

You heard it from the big man, scrap the torture one.

Disco, for future reference can you please (in another thread preferably so as to not sidetrack discussion here) define or provide examples of acceptable vs. unacceptable torture? "Excessive" is one of those words that's really hard to nail down insomuch as one person may define trimming their nails too close as excessive while another may not think it's excessive until their captor starts playing jumprope with their intestines.

Um, I'm not sure he could provide and example of excessive torure as then he'd be breaking his own rules xD

I imagine an example could be done, without breach of rules especially if it was by a DM, expressly for providing a guideline.

I suggest that everyone who wants this, updates their Bio on toon. You don't have to write the wall of text just simply make few marks. Like in the very begginging of bio write:

1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x (or any combination)

And everyone intrested in this will know that:

1x is The protection of a reasonable chance to back down from from PvP in-character.
2x is The protection of indication of intention to attack.
3x is The protection of forced release after 24 realtime hours of captivity.
4x is The protection of gory/graphic torture.
5x is The protection of "immortality" insofar as I allow DMs to permakill my characters in the interests of moving the story-arc of the server along.

It's way easier to learn 1-5 numbers than to ask or check forums all the time.

Click to enlarge.

just write the full thing out in your bio.. there is no need to memorize some stupid number system.

Last edited by Logicality on Wed, Jul 28 2010, 13:24 PM, edited 1 time in total.

After seeing all the disclaimers in posts in that thread, I was suddenly reminded of how much I hate putting disclaimers up due to their tendency to break the spirit of the original statement and their inability to address all possible concerns. So instead, here's this, which covers absolutely everything:

I wrote:

edit once more: rather than add any conditions, being that this is more or less a gentlemen's agreement, I'm just going to say... don't be a douche. If you are, the experience is ruined for both of us.

And then I edited this post, and subsequently got rid of it, prompted by the fact that I agree with one of Mosh's posts here.

Vhalus_VoA wrote:

just write the full thing out in your bio.. there is no need to memorize some stupid number system.

Yeah right. The wall of text is always better than something simple. Having 1-2 lines of text is definatelly worse solution than having 20 lines. *clap clap clap* :roll:

Stupid number systems are stupid. Walls of text are stupid.

"Waive: Backdown, Forewarn, Captivity, Torture, Immortality."

Minus the quotes, that's 59 characters, and I'm pretty sure it's easy to tell what it means.

I copy-pasted the entire waiver into my Char's bio. It's emopty anyway, and this filled it up nicely.

This has become silly now. People are justifying their choices.

Its really simple people

Tick the boxes you agree to, don't tick the boxes you don't agree to.

Things like "I feel i'm a good enough storyteller" or "You need to provide me with" and "Blah blah blah I don't actually get the point of this at all" defeats the purpose of having an agreement. All it reads as is "Heres my justification for choosing some options but not others and I feel the need to defend my decision so other players don't look cooler than me"

Go back, clean your posts of your justifications, you don't have to Justify a waiver of protectionist rules because those rules take precendence anyway.

My feeling on this now is that its gone from being a collective effort by players to strengthen the roleplay on Amia, to just another +1 thing that Amians are well known for.

Dissapointed Chris is dissapointed.

With all those footnotes I wont see it as waving anything, but instead will treat them as those who did not sign waivers. I am not interested in ooc bickering about footnote technicalities in a fantasy game.

On a sillier note, notice how everyone has this: "The protection of a reasonable chance to back down from from PvP in-character"

Quote:

With all those footnotes I wont see it as waving anything, but instead will treat them as those who did not sign waivers. I am not interested in ooc bickering about footnote technicalities in a fantasy game.

Bingo.

Logicality wrote:

"Waive: Backdown, Forewarn, Captivity, Torture, Immortality."

Minus the quotes, that's 59 characters, and I'm pretty sure it's easy to tell what it means.

Or this.

Quote:

Waiver of Rule-Based Protections Form for Amia

Player Name: Very_Svensk
Character 1: William (Bill) Johnson.
Character 2: Tristan
Character 3: Gael'Ean Kille'Raheal

I hereby waive the following Rule-Based Protections in respect to my characters listed above:
[X] The protection of a reasonable chance to back down from from PvP in-character.
[X] The protection of indication of intention to attack.
[X] The protection of forced release after 24 realtime hours of captivity (My character may be held in captivity indefinitely).
[X] The protection of no graphic/gory torture.
[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.

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.

This is mine - And I saw some People adding the Permadeath thing. I Liked it, and Added it.

Quote:

*I will always expect at least some kind of RP before or after PvP. If you are going to preform assassination on one of my toons by sneaking or waiting me to rest, I still want to be informed.

Dead - You cannot Cross to waive off the protection, and add an addendum to have the protection. One or the other, Has cake, OR eat cake

MoshingChris wrote:

This has become silly now. People are justifying their choices.
Its really simple people
Tick the boxes you agree to, don't tick the boxes you don't agree to.
Things like "I feel i'm a good enough storyteller" or "You need to provide me with" and "Blah blah blah I don't actually get the point of this at all" defeats the purpose of having an agreement.

Yes but you have to understand that many of us are not sure if some douches are going to abuse this. Therefore, some of us are giving extra conditions such as "I can be held captive as long as someone is RPing with me frequently" or "If you are going to pop out of nowhere, kill me, and pop back, without any RP, I want to know that there was a reason behind that." People are waiving rules to improve the fun for everyone, not to lessen the fun for themselves. Being held captive for a month without RP is not fun.

@Svensk the point is that i dont want to be randomly killed for absolutely no reason. What is the point of that? If you are going to take advantage of me waiving the rules, sure thing, but provide fun. Waiving the rules should provide more fun. Killing someone random without any interaction just becouse you read that you can, and walking away is very lame and I will not roll with that for there is no point.

On the other side, I agree that justifying choices and unchoices is lame. As Chris said, either pick it or don't.

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.

@ Dead - This part protects you from 'Grief and abuse' .

Well if the condition of killing becouse you can and may, and no other reason is provided by this rule, then fair enough. No further conditions and explanations are needed.

By the way, whats with hunting rules? I presume that this still doesnt mean that people can kill you and take your hunting ground right?

Im going to grunt a little over Bella Rose's waiver.

Because it's the same issue here - You try to eat cake, and Have cake. Cross those you want, And don't cross those you dont want.

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 added footnotes to mine (actually I copy/pasted someone else's because they worded it nicely) because those are things that were discussed in -this- thread and I believe are relevant and implied in the waiver, but I did feel the need to state them explicitly so that someone could not go back later and say "it doesn't say that anywhere" my two footnotes consist of a basic: set me to hostile first, and I'm willing to be held captive so long as rp continues.

I have faith in -most- of my fellow players or I would not have added myself to the waiver at all, however, most is not all and there are always people out there who will ruin a good thing.

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

And, You basically don't agree to the 24/h rule of capture if you demand they RP With you during 24/hours.

Great. So now if I haven't waivered my protections, I am subject to all this horsecrap? Just let it be.

Very_Svensk wrote:

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

And, You basically don't agree to the 24/h rule of capture if you demand they RP With you during 24/hours.

I'm saying that if they are going to capture my character and keep them in captivity that is OK with me but yes I am going to demand RP because by capturing me they have completely limited my characters interactions to themselves. I'm not saying that they need to be on every second of every day but Role Play of some sort needs to be happening, on at least somewhat of a regular basis for the duration of the captivity. Otherwise they have essentially killed my character, because I don't know if you're aware or not...but it's not very much fun to just sit in a room and talk to yourself. Also I have not approved permadeath for my characters be it DM or player driven RP. Indefinite captivity with no RP might as well be Permadeath.

Izaet wrote:

Very_Svensk wrote:

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

And, You basically don't agree to the 24/h rule of capture if you demand they RP With you during 24/hours.

I'm saying that if they are going to capture my character and keep them in captivity that is OK with me but yes I am going to demand RP because by capturing me they have completely limited my characters interactions to themselves. I'm not saying that they need to be on every second of every day but Role Play of some sort needs to be happening, on at least somewhat of a regular basis for the duration of the captivity. Otherwise they have essentially killed my character, because I don't know if you're aware or not...but it's not very much fun to just sit in a room and talk to yourself. Also I have not approved permadeath for my characters be it DM or player driven RP. Indefinite captivity with no RP might as well be Permadeath.

This means that you do not waive that rule.

Silvarus wrote:

This means that you do not waive that rule.

No, if i did not waive that rule then I would demand to be released after 24 hours regardless of weather or not RP would be forthcoming.

Do not waive the rule. 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. It is just damn confusing and silly.

Izaet wrote:

No, if i did not waive that rule then I would demand to be released after 24 hours regardless of weather or not RP would be forthcoming.

You can continue imprisonment that includes RP without especially waiving that rule. This is kind of the whole point of completely waiving these.

Well....I included that in there because it is something that is important to -me- if that is not important to you that is fine. If you choose to ignore my waiver because I included a footnote...that's fine too. If you continue to argue with me about it then I will simply revoke all of my waivers because I'm starting to get sick of you guys giving me crap over it. Because the point of these waiver is to enhance fun and the flow of RP, and you guys are just serving to piss me off.

Izaet wrote:

Well....I included that in there because it is something that is important to -me- if that is not important to you that is fine. If you choose to ignore my waiver because I included a footnote...that's fine too. If you continue to argue with me about it then I will simply revoke all of my waivers because I'm starting to get sick of you guys giving me crap over it. Because the point of these waiver is to enhance fun and the flow of RP, and you guys are just serving to piss me off.

I am sorry if your rebuttal gets on your nerves. However we are quite concerned over the fact that the waivers fluently enhance gameplay if and only if they are clear without exceptions and clarifiaction. As soon as there is an addition they can not be used without an annoying OOC discussion.

This is not to piss you off, at least on my part. It is more or less the hope that a great idea does not fail because of a clear rule based contradiction. To elaborate:

Standing Rule: 24hr against will, then only per permission of you, the player.
Foot note: 24hr against will (you can not waive that part), then only per permission of you, the player.

They have the exact same effect when you look at the rule and your footnote. If I have to weed through every waiver like they were contract documents to see if there are loopholes or what the intent of your foot note is, then the waiver seems to be more of an ooc problem than a solution, harming a good idea. A good idea that was made to enhance the flow of RP, but to mark something as waived only to reinstate it as a footnote is not doing that. Just unmark that one cross and leave the rules you truely waive as so. I hope I did not piss you off.

All you are saying is that you would not enforce the rule by default as long as good roleplay is comming, that part I get, but it is still a bit silly to do it in the outlined fashion above. Even if I welcome your intent and understand what you mean.

Izaet has the point. Keeping the character captive indefinitely without any RP = forced permadeath. Not to mention that you cannot even sit in the cell becouse after reset, you will not respawn in the cell but at your home point. Which implies that unless there's someone from the faction/organization who can let you in or RP with you, you are completly unable to log on your toon. Sounds like permadeath to me.

If we are going HC on this rule waiving, as described above, then player can go HC aswell and assume that his toon starved to death, as noone brough him food in a month. It's simple. If there is RP going on, any kind of RP, DM emoting the rat and allowing me to train it, deity answering my prayers, other captives talking to me... I am alright with being captive for a century and more. As mentioned, this doens't have to be 24/7. But at least once in a 2-3 days. It's reasonable. But if I have to give up on playing my toon, becouse someone imprisoned him and left him there to rott, without any RP or anything, then I'll assume that he died and respawn at my home point.

Just be reasonable instead of going HC on the waiving.
And once again, Izaet has the point. This is to improve the fun. Not to finding the needle in hay and going medieval on eachother.

"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."

Regardless, I have spun in a circle enough now.

Well...in my opinion -noone- should be held indefinitely without some kind of consistent RP from their captors. In fact being held indefinitely against your will can in fact be a permadeath if the captor decides to be a butt and keep you captive until your character dies of old age. So by waiving this you are in fact waiving your right to be permakilled...by a player. Of course you can attempt to escape...however...that would be a bit difficult to do...if you can't RP with anyone. Now you could just leave and say you escaped but then you might as well have not waived it in the first place. Or I suppose you could just leave that character there...alone and bored...and go on and play another character and completely forget you even have that one, but that seems kinda dumb to me.

tl:dr: I would like to propose that my footnote be included as an expected part of the waiver.

Now your overcomplicating with unnescessary addendums. It says in clear writing at the bottom of the thing you quoted:

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."

If your not happy with your treatment, get a DM.

If you don't like that part of the Waiver, don't check the box, its -that- simple.

MoshingChris wrote:

Now your overcomplicating with unnescessary addendums. It says in clear writing at the bottom of the thing you quoted:

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."

If your not happy with your treatment, get a DM.

If you don't like that part of the Waiver, don't check the box, its -that- simple.

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.

This is a very simple footnote which covers more or less every "addendum" I've seen so far with a general statement that other players are still responsible for treating you fairly OOC. If you're thrown in a dungeon and people refuse to release you for a week with no RP at all, ask a DM if you can get out either through jailbreak or having the player informed that they need to release your character. i don't think any DM is so unreasonable as to look at the situation and not figure out someone is basically being a jerk and trying to effectively permakill your character.

Really, the waiver is designed in a way that you don't need to add all the garbage, and it's also structured in a way that people can ignore parts of it if people include silly, lengthy, or really any exceptions under a * (since as I've noted someone following the rules as written can ignore the waiver and still be totally safe). On my part I'm just going to ignore any waived protections that carry oneupsmanship.

Waiver of Rule-Based Protections: Discussion

Who is online