A Rule Clarification

[Viper3X 1056]

Today I would like to clarify a rule that was previously in a grey area and somewhat undefined. In recent times, a few bans have arisen from the confusion associated with this rule, and I hope that this explanation will clear any misunderstandings. Anyhow, onto the clarification. We have recently encountered many arguments among the playerbase regarding the act of logging in to defend your home/base. After a brief discussion between staff members, we came to the decision of allowing settlement inhabitants to log in to defend their homes if proper RP is performed beforehand. While some may disagree with this decision, it only makes sense for guards or inhabitants to wake up and/or be alerted by the uproar of an attack. This does not apply to every situation, but it encompasses a majority of raids. It is highly encouraged that a defender signals for help through an RP emote before warning their friends in Skype or TS (or any other form of communication), as failure to do so could result in punishment. Keep in mind that this rule only applies to people that would be present in the settlement in RP. In other words, you cannot use this as a method to call for help from an outside source that would not be near you in RP.

 

Unfortunately, this is one of those rules that is difficult to enforce, and it is enforced differently depending on the viewpoint of the GM handling the matter. However, rather than it being an actual "rule," it is more of a recommended suggestion in order to avoid OOC conflict or claims of meta-gaming. Additionally, we will not be adding it to the rule page (as it falls under meta-gaming). This is simply a clarification for the community, and I encourage you to all follow it accordingly.

[SparehoeCakes 547]

Woot, Thanks for the clarification!

[Evilbanana5757 154]

...

 

Yay.

[Lego XBOX 915]

Yes, and I suppose it should also be discouraged to raid when none of the inhabitants are there, online or offline.

[DragoonCrow 346]

Is this a rule that's being taken in effect now or does people who have been banned in the past be unbanned because of this? 

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

I was banned for with an appeal in two weeks because this rule was not clarified. We've spoken with mau5 and now my appeal date is shortened to one week but for future reference I'm glad this clarification exists at least...

[Viper3X 1056]

Is this a rule that's being taken in effect now or does people who have been banned in the past be unbanned because of this? 

We are adjusting player's bans to reflect this change.

[Aislin 4354]

I would assume screaming "HEY WE ARE ABOUT TO GET ******* KILLED" would count as sufficient RP?

[Silent™ 552]

Strange how there have been so many more problems with OOC flaming and metagaming, and all that junk. Back in 1.0, this stuff rarely happened.

 

I guess us Top-hatters were just better at sorting these things out without the need of bringing in the entire GM team. What do the rest of you older members think about this?

[Lago 2572]

Probably depends on how big the place is.

[Aislin 4354]

Strange how there have been so many more problems with OOC flaming and metagaming, and all that junk. Back in 1.0, this stuff rarely happened.

 

I guess us Top-hatters were just better at sorting these things out without the need of bringing in the entire GM team. What do the rest of you older members think about this?

 

I think you are 100% incorrect. We've always been complaining, that's just human nature. OOC flaming and metagaming has always been a problem on the server, always will be. We deal with it, that's how we've always done.

 

I can always link to the threads about the Alras-Dwarf war back in 1.0 if nobody believes me.

[Silent™ 552]

I think you are 100% incorrect. We've always been complaining, that's just human nature. OOC flaming and metagaming has always been a problem on the server, always will be. We deal with it, that's how we've always done.

 

I can always link to the threads about the Alras-Dwarf war back in 1.0 if nobody believes me.

 

I'm not saying that there was none of this crap back then, I'm simply saying that there has been an increase in it ever since we moved to Asulon. There has always been OOC troubles, but they have increased quite a bit over the past year and a bit, to the point where we've got Viper, and other staff members, having to make posts and get involved in the OOC flame wars. Back in Aegis, our staff didn't have to address this problem nearly anywhere near as much as they do now. There has always been meta-gaming yes, but like I said, these problems have sky rocketed since 1.0.

[spqrSancus 175]

It rocketed with the increase of player base. I believe I am correct in saying that back in Aegis, you did not have nearly as many players as you do now, which, need I say, is now over 1000 all in all.

[PH4NT0M 3]

Thank you for the clarification! I hope players will start to, if they were not already, follow this.

[Ned Lud 1260]

What do you plan to do about the hundreds of alts that players seldom ever play, but simply use as "extra meat" whenever a war erupts and their Team Speak buddy needs an extra body? I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more alts that no one ever sees active except in war-time. I know back in Asulon we saw a lot of this with the orcs, players that were never around yet suddenly logged in all passionate to take part in a raid or a battle.

 

Team Speak and Skype are just furthering the destruction of this server.