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

Problem is that they dont.

Maybe you could highlight it with a little colour then? I've heard that it makes it easier to read and process for the brain.

This
You
Just
Put
some
colour
in
it

You people have all made this ten times more complicated than it needed to be, and now purpose is lost and obfuscated, rendndering the thread worthless. First time for everything, I guess.

I still stand by my statement of being open receptive from RP from DMs/Players, and the things that go along with it, and just ask for /tp me. I'll be nice, because I'm not really a jerk and fix what I can. Sorry you feel its ruined Tormy.

TormakSaber wrote:

You people have all made this ten times more complicated than it needed to be, and now purpose is lost and obfuscated, rendndering the thread worthless. First time for everything, I guess.

True. It was remarkably simple. But simplicity is akin to subvertability in some eyes. Hearts are likely in the right place, but that doesn't help much.

I don't think an HTML list would be possible or enforceable, since the players themselves would not control their own entries AND because this is a player initiative and thus it's our responsibility, not the staff's. So having a staff member just to organize or maintain an HTML list seems silly when it's not their problem. Nevertheless, the idea might have to be entertained to simply make this work.

I'm coming up relatively short on ideas to rescue this initiative short of simply strictly enforcing a removal of all waivers with addenda. Which, hey, I can't do. And I don't think the staff wants to get in the middle of the stupid complaintfest that would cause. Nor do I feel like opening a parallel site to handle the list, it raises too many issues as well.

Basically ideas on an easy fix would be welcome. I'm not coming up with much.

Unsure. PM Every Guy who made an addendum and ask point out that they need not add anything?

Hm... No, That's silly. Let me think out something.

There is no solution. The thread is worthless, to player and DM alike. I can do nothing with your muddled list of "ifs" and "Buts".

For the record, this is the server I'm most familiar with that does the "Waivers" bit.

http://bgtscc1.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=438

That looks like a much better implementation. Make a blanket waiver, have people sign their names. No room for added clauses. Simplicity at its finest.

Unsure. I still want to have something 'Signed'.

In that form, They accept 'everything', Not certain parts.

People are overthinking this. If the rule is broken fix it. A "waiver" means nothing.

You say the rules are broken; But they are not.

The waiver proves that They are, Indeed, Working as intended - And that the power to Waive them exists.

762 wrote:

People are overthinking this. If the rule is broken fix it. A "waiver" means nothing.

The rule isn't broken. This is an implementation for mature people to skip past the necessary evil of OOC. A note for people to sign and say "I am mature, nand I can handle what comes at me. Should my character deserve offing, please do so. My consent is not needed and you need not sully the roleplay by mucking about with giving me an "out". Simply have at me and we will solve it as warriors."

The rule still exists and indeed SHOULD still exist. This is a way for people to say "I understand the rule as it is, and my default answer to every situation involving this rule is "Yes, you may PVP me.", so you can preclude the discussions and get to the chopping."

And people who don't agree with it, for whatever reason, are implicitly immature? Nice shot.

I did not say the rule was broken, Svensk. But a lot of people seem to, hence the superfluous need to complicate an already complicated rule with extra paperwork, and an additional need for a would-be attacker to figure out who will allow what.

I maintain this will undermine enforcement further, which is already inconsistent.

Never said that, once again, stop putting words in my mouth.

Why can't we do an official one?

TormakSaber wrote:

This is an implementation for mature people

The words are there.

Anyway yes, official is the only way it will work.

Dwagin wrote:

Why can't we do an official one?

The spirit of the thing is a gentlemens' agreement between players. It was never designed or intended to be something put in place or managed by DMs. If the staff wants to take its own initiative to do something along these lines I would be thrilled, but I don't think it's fair to come up with 'a good idea' and then ask other people to handle it. As it stands it's still salvageable if someone would be willing to go through and just delete any posts with addenda on them, but again that's asking more than I am warranted to.

Basically a big point was not to ask staff to do anything and show that we're big boys and girls and can wipe our own butts. Asking for an official one really defeats this purpose.

762 wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

This is an implementation for mature people

The words are there.

Anyway yes, official is the only way it will work.

You're seeing what you want to see.

An [x] for mature people does not necessarily mean that all mature people would use [x], just that ideally only mature people would use [x]. That is, there can still be mature people that do not use [x]. Being that the word "for" implies purpose, it's also very possible the implementation might be used by immature people.

You can read anything as condescending, if you really want to.

Thread's long since been derailed from ovearching topic and any real progress. Mind if I lock it, Gast?

before you lock, if you will, I decided to remove my entry on the waiver because, you pretty much have to get the go ahead in game from them anyway to avoid later pain due to the actual rules.

thus it is entirely useless, imho.

It is not useless. And this thread should stay open because there is still time to save the waiver project.

Let me throw out one more idea.

Would people go for it if it was simply a list of all waivers possible under the rules, with the simple statement that any deviation from the provided form could/would cause the entire waiver be considered null and void as between the players?

Like Logicality put it, mature people might not sign the waiver. It's meant to be for a playstyle that lends itself to mature players. That doesn't mean mature people don't exist in other playstyles.

I think this might have to be called a 'test run' of the thing and have a new one that's slightly longer to cover some of the misconceptions that have cropped up and handle the big concerns. And that only a minimally-alterable form would keep things sane and organized. I'm willing to put the work into it if people are willing to give it another round.

I can't believe you guys are giving up on the idea because a couple of people want to seem tough but are too scared to do it properly.

'sign an x for the ones you want, any waivers are treated as a mere request and can be ignored'

done.

let me rephrase that since I didn't really make it clear, the PvP waivers are useless, waivers on immortality and such are not, and as it goes you don't want to be ganking people without first asking for an on sight pvp agreement ingame and screenshoting it as proof for possible later greivences people can dish out because some people in this world are pure evil. however in principle the pvp waiver is ok, and I think and always have done, that OOCly backing down from a battle is lame, do it ICly or just run if its banites or something.

so in short abolish the OOCly backing out of combat rules for better RP, not including OOCly raises after said battle these should stay to avoid XP loss agro, and everything else is just a toy....didn't really get the set up for that one but whatever =)

this will (hopefully if that ever happens) end the days of "i'll tear your throat out" "oh yea, your mother was a wilderbeast" "// ecl?" "O_o *runs away.*"

ed: im not scared of doing it properly im worried about acting on the waiver and getting done for it because I forgot to screenie them saying OK you can kill me, and then they report me for ganking which I never never randomly walk round killing people randomly. if you honestly think im scared ask glyph to pvp a level 30 and watch me get pwnt. no fear.

Not everyone has unlimited play time. Currently, I struggle to get on, and when I am on, may disappear at a moments notice. I know there are others who play whilst on call for work. The ability to walk away from anything oocly with a quick "//got to go, sorry!" is a must. If you remove this out from the rules, you make cheaters out of normal players.

// sorry got to go//

is not

// sorry your too high level please don't decapitate me for saying rude things about your mother.//

ie there should be no problem if you are logging.

Glyph wrote:

// sorry got to go//

is not

// sorry your too high level please don't decapitate me for saying rude things about your mother.//

ie there should be no problem if you are logging.

This is how I see it as well.

Didi wrote:

Not everyone has unlimited play time. Currently, I struggle to get on, and when I am on, may disappear at a moments notice. I know there are others who play whilst on call for work. The ability to walk away from anything oocly with a quick "//got to go, sorry!" is a must. If you remove this out from the rules, you make cheaters out of normal players.

This isn't excerpting anything from the rules. No removals can be made or altered by mere player waiver. This is merely an activation of clauses already contained within the rules.

Glyph wrote:

so in short abolish the OOCly backing out of combat rules for better RP, not including OOCly raises after said battle these should stay to avoid XP loss agro, and everything else is just a toy....didn't really get the set up for that one but whatever =)

this will (hopefully if that ever happens) end the days of "i'll tear your throat out" "oh yea, your mother was a wilderbeast" "// ecl?" "O_o *runs away.*"

ed: im not scared of doing it properly im worried about acting on the waiver and getting done for it because I forgot to screenie them saying OK you can kill me, and then they report me for ganking which I never never randomly walk round killing people randomly. if you honestly think im scared ask glyph to pvp a level 30 and watch me get pwnt. no fear.

Uh... when were the OOC raises even brought up as a waiver topic? Never advocated those to be waived. The rest of that... I really can't extract the core of the analysis so I'm pretty much left with "nuh uh".

i'm just saying if you got rid of those in the official rules people would most likely get very angry about that cause if some random comes along they lose XP. I know it wasn't in the waiver.

as for the rest of that, its mainly because of dev crit, you could not be looking at the screen and *wham* your dead because someone with the waiver just ran at you with no tell. provided you both have the waiver in your bio, which I no longer do.

(obviously they need RP reason to attack you but still this is just a possible and lame outcome.)

I prefer to arrange anything like this myself, and, i'm pretty sure those goblins in cordor the other day had their fingers on screenshot ready to tell on us once we carved them, no names will be mentioned but luckily this was managed ICly, just. without non permissioned pvp. though one of them had the waiver, they kept ducking in pvp safe areas.

Continuing with my "Second Draft" idea. Here is the suggested revised post and form:

Gaston wrote:

This is a thread created for the sole purpose of letting people waive the protections provided under the Official Rules as posted here, on a player-as-a-whole basis. Any protections waived are only waived as they apply to your characters.

Only the protections listed herein may be waived. All protections may only be waived or not waived. Any deviation from the form that changes the content or applicability of the waiver will be treated as though the entire waiver has not been made.

Example: You waive the protection of having a warning before PvP. This does NOT mean that you can attack other people without a warning- it means they may attack YOU without warning.

Example 2: You waive the protection of not being held captive against your will for more than 24 hours. Your character may now be imprisoned for as long as the enemy character is able to successfully keep you imprisoned.

All waivers are considered permanent. Your waiver may be retracted in whole or in part by unchecking the relevant boxes, but any such retraction will not apply to any RP or PvP occurring before the retraction was made.

Any waivers in this thread can (probably) be considered valid. It is encouraged that you check these waivers regularly, especially before performing an action on a character normally restricted by a rule. If you do not know whether or not someone has signed a waiver or if you don't have time to check, assume they have not and play by the rules as written. This waiver does not alter any written rules, and you will always be safe if you play by the rules as they appear in the forum.

The following rules ARE NOT waived by this form in any way:

Quote:

2. All PvP must have a role-playing reason. PvP without a sensible reason is not allowed. Your character's alignment is not a valid reason for PvP. Summons, such as undead, are a valid reason but do not excuse you from the below protocol.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

12. Traps are considered PvP. Do not set them down to damage random people: you are responsible for your traps and their victims.

Quote:

If you do enter into RP inspired PvP that results in deaths of any PC (Player Character), you must provide an OOC raise for that character (either by yourself, or arrange for someone else to do it).

Any attempt to waive these or any other protections not within the form are void.

Please copypaste the form below and insert an X into each box you wish to waive.

Quote:

Waiver of Rule-Based Protections Form for Amia

Player Name:
Character 1:
Character 2:
Character 3:
(add or remove character lines as needed)

I hereby waive the following Rule-Based Protections in respect to my characters listed above:
[ ] The protection of a reasonable chance to back down from from PvP in-character.
[ ] The protection of indication of intention to attack.
[ ] The protection of forced release after 24 realtime hours of captivity (My character may be held in captivity indefinitely).
[ ] 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.

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.

Do not deviate from this form or make addenda or exceptions to it. Any player using this waiver to abuse a player in an OOC manner may be punished by DMs, as the protection against OOC harassment is not and cannot be waived by this form.

Example of abuse: A player who has signed the waiver is imprisoned indefinitely. The captor makes no attempt thereafter to RP with the captive for several days. The captor directly refuses all requests to RP with the captive. This most likely qualifies as OOC abuse.
Be mindful that this is only an example and is not a test for whether or not something is abusive. DMs determine abuse on a case-by-case basis. If a DM does not think you are being abused in an OOC manner, do not pester the DM or ask another DM. Remember:

Quote:

Not every decision of a DM will be pleasant for every player; do not argue the matter ingame, but discuss this with the DM via a Private Message in the forums. All DMs report to the Head DM, and complaints about a DM should be send to the Head DM or the owner.

To all players who read this thread: Please remember that there are still real people behind the characters. We have made this waiver out of respect for our fellow players, not for our own personal gain. We ask that we be afforded your respect as well and that you not use our waiver to try to discourage us from playing the game entirely.

Here's to the adventure ahead!

I'm annoyed that I feel I need to add so much legalese and flat-out explain away the scads of misconceptions people keep having about this, but if I don't the questions and misconceptions will keep coming up.

*sigh* wow...

ok, i'm gunna have to think about this one. not sure if I have another comment.

however, unless I missed it in there, there are PvP safe zones where you still can't attack anyone without a DM online watching over the events, and I think I should leave it there.

i sort of disagree with -blank- though, that means you could opt out of immortality after it happens.

ninja removal O_o let me rephrase, I disagree that you should be able to opt out afterward in all cases, but I do agree captivity should be one you can opt out of, after 24 hours...in the cases where you are left alone and expected to RP solo in a cage...what happens with that anyway your spawn point is a cage for a week?

Glyph wrote:

*sigh* wow...

ok, i'm gunna have to think about this one. not sure if I have another comment.

however, unless I missed it in there, there are PvP safe zones where you still can't attack anyone without a DM online watching over the events, and I think I should leave it there.

i sort of disagree with -blank- though, that means you could opt out of immortality after it happens.

ninja removal O_o let me rephrase, I disagree that you should be able to opt out afterward in all cases, but I do agree captivity should be one you can opt out of, after 24 hours...in the cases where you are left alone and expected to RP solo in a cage...what happens with that anyway your spawn point is a cage for a week?

It's more of a pre-emptive response to the fact that some people will try to opt out when they find out they don't like playing without the OOC net. The other one left opting out up in the air. As with everything, there's twin objectives:
1. Let players who would try to bail anyway do so without hosing RP or causing too many issues. Less DM work and fewer headaches. Someone'll bail eventually.
2. Prevent abuse by players suddenly opting out and claiming they were killed and never waived anything.
Since we can't prevent people waiving protections ingame, I don't think players have any power to prevent people from reinstating the waiver or retracting it. Best we can actually do is just state that if the waiver was in effect when the event happened, a person can't retract it and claim they were dealt with unfairly.

I'll state that really clearly since I know people will not read it properly or misinterpret it:
Players have no power to dictate when people may and may not waive their protections, and by extension players may not dictate when people may retract or make a waiver. Players cannot punish someone for retracting a waiver at any time. Players cannot prevent someone from making a waiver at any time.

Note that the waiver also protects players on the other end from this sort of abuse:

Quote:

I recognize that this waiver precludes me asking for any punishment based on actions taken with respect to this waiver.

You'd think I'd thought of all this already, since the waiver is entirely unchanged from its previous form. I just keep having to expand the definitions, examples, and clarifications, which will turn the thing into a legislative nightmare if more misconceptions mount.

This is also a problem.
People not 'Reading' The Actual Posts other players make. "WE" (Yes, me to) are to busy pushing our own point.
Disagree, Agree, Maybe agree, partially agree. Stop that - Focus on the fact that this Waiver "May actually enchant Somebody's RP Experience".

@ Gaston - The new Waiver example looks good. You even included the

Quote:

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.

Which is extremely good, Since a majority of the addendum's were considering "HOSTILE FIRST".

Examples

oshizo2 wrote:

PLEASE SET HOSTILE!!!!

Khylaria wrote:

(If it's a sudden attack, just set to hostile beforehand, that's quite enough for me.)

speedgrab wrote:

Hostile before any conflict and please continune to obey pvp rules other than those i have waiverd

To pick a few examples.'

Overall. I'm going to read it again, and search for anything that might cause more of those 'Extra stuff' people write.

Second Draft idea:

Clearing up misconceptions on an idea might be annoying, but it is important and this seems important to you to get done. Legalese is important, sadly. People's perception dictates reaction; if you can give them a precise glimpse at what you're shooting for it's always a good idea, especially if you're trying to help with a shift of the Amian way of doing things, sort of like coaxing? I dunno. I do like the new draft.. clear, concise, laid out in a good manner and explains things which might be heavy on the mind of potential ascribers. Amia's put a lot of -control- into the hands of the players of what happens to their characters for years with protections. It'll take time to show people its not.. a bad thing.

Gaston wrote:

Basically a big point was not to ask staff to do anything and show that we're big boys and girls and can wipe our own butts. Asking for an official one really defeats this purpose.

Unfortunately they will have to clean up messes from this anyways. Only other thing I'd add to what you got so far Gaston: I'm a BIG proponent of whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Mutual waiving should be required. If you wanna no OOC out PVP? (With RP reason of course), your arse has to sign off on being willing to do the same thing. That is the way a gentleman's agreement works imo.

To drag and expand something until it is almost worthless is something that is very amian. Of course it can be useful to a point, but as we see in this case the waivers idea seems to be dying instead of having been given a shot for those who would like to try.

I signed it. Its still my offical word and can be taken as such.
None of the stuff I signed for is rulebreaking.
Others don't like it, then thats nice, they can do their thing. If they feel like less of an rper for not signing, then thats not my fault, its theirs.

ed: i'm putting the oocly back down bit back in my bio, other than that i'm still not convinced. this was originally a longer post but it made no sense after re-reading. and if you want to ninja me tell or get a DM and I will not buff, end of story. the other parts of the pvp waiver and confusing me, and seam to be counter to the actual rules, i'd rather prevent any heartache by sorting this icly if possible but oocly if needs be.

Was the Original Post made by Gaston in the Waiver Thread updated with the new Outlook?

Very_Svensk wrote:

Was the Original Post made by Gaston in the Waiver Thread updated with the new Outlook?

I didn't know if the topic had simmered down yet. Further, I don't know if it would be more appropriate to create a new topic and let the old one be scrapped or just amend the current one. I'm leaning towards the former since it would handle all the erratad waivers and I won't mind re-signing if it'll be less of a hassle this time around.

ingame i've noticed no one oocly establishes anything anymore anyway, so I think you've set out a good example with this waiver, weather the waiver itself worked or not. as for rivals, again its not hard to remember who did something very mean ICly deserving of continued RP, and the attack on sight thing is near impossible because of pvp safe zones imho in any case.

either way theres alot more structured pvp happening recently from what i've seen, and alot more RP to justifiy such actions. I still think the capture and immortality are the real key aspects of this, the pvp changes though now discussed and clarified, no longer seam to apply.

imho, if I am solo and I run into someone (with null) who I think will probably kill me, running time XD. also not setting hostile first even to avoid metagaming is lame, don't. you need a DM for assassinations and sneaky kills like that are assassinations.

Waiver of Rule-Based Protections: Discussion

Who is online