Elanthipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

2016-10-29T03:32:43Z

MRTSCR: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

[[GM Lyneya open office - 10/15/2016]]: a log of the discussion that GM [[Lyneya]] hosted

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:36, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
I would like there to be clear and consistent rules regarding aggressive but non-damaging magic/abilities. We say kicking, punching, slapping grants consent to be engaged in PvP by the "injured." Thumping also grants consent when the sole consequence is the inability to speak for a time, yet stunning, sleeping, and paralyzing renders the person incapable of ANY action for a time and they seem to be generally allowed and do not grant consent. Likewise, non-damaging hostile magic like debuffs have had fuzzy rules set to them.

Regarding the changes to depart/grip mechanics, I like this change. I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore.

Consistency and sensibility about what can be forcibly wedged into consent could also use a bit of cleaning up. You don't own a room and can't commit violence to someone for being in 'your' hunting spot if they're not interfering, taking your loot or killing your critters - however, apparently you CAN commit violence if against someone if you give them clear warning you will kill them for doing actions such as speaking or gwething and this has been upheld as allowed. On a similar vein, you can of course kill an empath who is healing your opponent or others who are aiding her or him, but I've also witnessed it be allowed to kill clerics for raising a dead body or empaths for healing a dead body. These can be grey areas for sure, but is there a reason they need to be? --[[User:NECKHOFF|NECKHOFF]] ([[User talk:NECKHOFF|talk]]) 01:09, 2 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with NECKHOFF on all accounts. I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive. Other death/resurrection mechanics to increase death's difficulty would be welcome, although we should consider them carefully. I'm especially concerned that if death causes too much permanent damage it will make griefing more prevalent. As for the clarity of the rules, it would be nice to have some kind of chart somewhere. Finally, I would especially like to see some clarity on the rules of harassment. I realize that what constitutes harassment may be best left as a judgment call, but some kind of general guideline about how often one person can attack another would be welcome. --[[User:PRIMEQ|PRIMEQ]] ([[User talk:PRIMEQ|talk]]) 21:04, 3 September 2016 (CDT)

:"I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when '''99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken.''' Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore." "I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, '''the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive.'''" While it's true that altered and otherwise exotic items are exponentially more common today than 20 years ago, the conclusion is invalid. 20 years ago losing any significant item was much more painful because the likelihood of replacement was slim. Furthermore the time spent to earn any item was relatively much higher. Put simply there are more items now but both the value and rarity of those items is considerably lower. Perhaps more significant is that being graverobbed now requires a great deal of carelessness. Since the latest safeguards were put into place I've seen very little graverobbing of anything meaningful. The few instances that occurred involved unexplained mismatches between the quality of items carried by the character and the experience of the player. Redesigning important game systems to fit characters who, uh, receive extravagant gifts from strangers, would be counterproductive. Games that are both overly easy and lack dynamic content quickly become boring. DR is a resource-limited, slow-changing game with a comparative dearth of both content and players. Removing graverobbing would end one of the few dynamic and challenging aspects of the game. Leave it alone.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

::I'm skeptical that something as safeguarded and secure and idiot-proof as you argue it has become still provide any kind of dynamic challenge. As you mentioned, it's really something that inexperienced people suffer more than anything. At that point, why bother having it there at all? Who does it benefit? It fails to create a challenge for those who want more risk or danger, and it fails to create anything exciting and fun for people who dislike losing their stuff. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 02:48, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:::You haven't actually countered MRTSCR said but more, IMO, proved his point. Graverobbing my character would decimate me as I've spent years building up the unique non-altered items I have. However, it would be 100% my fault if I lose them now with the mechanics in place to prevent loss (not even counting the bonding potion capabilities). If you remove this aspect then the fear of loss would be removed 100% and cause additional careless behaviors that I don't think would benefit the game.--[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 00:45, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

::::Alternatively, by removing the rare potential chance to lose things you've spent years building up players might be more prone to taking chances/risk, because then the risks would be more short-term and palatable. Along with this, and similar to the discussions GMs are having where if every magic user has X feat, should X feat just come baked into the magic system as a whole, if the system is so foolproof and softened that it's essentially impossible to have happen, what value is there in keeping it around? What benefit does the game provide by offering the potential to decimate a _player_? Whose enjoyment is improved as a result? --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

I agree that there should be clearly defined and consistent rules surrounding PvP and consent policy. The details of the consent policy should be made completely available via the POLICY verb and not something that also requires the browsing of multiple NEWS items to supplement the information. PvP stances should be updated and the GUARDED stance should be removed completely. If a CLOSED player initiates an attack on an OPEN player their stance should be set to OPEN for a set period of time. If a CLOSED player attacks another CLOSED player the stance should not be changed as it should be considered RP conflict. Likewise, if an OPEN player initiates an attack on a CLOSED player for any reason it would not affect their stance, even if they choose to retaliate (within "X" minutes, preferably). --[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]] ([[User talk:WHITEBEAUTY|talk]]) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with this. Closed/guarded players attacking only when they're assured victory by a massive rank difference is a longstanding problem. "Consent" with constant GM mediation was never a great way to manage PvP. But now there are fewer and fewer GMs online, and their time could be much better spent elsewhere. It's clearly time for something new.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

:[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]], one problem I see with the proposed mechanics change to switch a player's PvP stances based on triggers is that an open profile character may perform non-combat actions (e.g. slap/kick/thump) or insult the closed-profile player into attacking and still be within the grounds of consent which shouldn't trigger an automatic opening of profile per the gist of your proposal. --[[User:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|UNFINISHED-USERNAM]] ([[User talk:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|talk]]) 21:51, 27 September 2016 (CDT)

===I personally wish the PVP could be tweaked as follows===

Your combat stance also dictates how you see others in the game.

For example if you are guarded or closed and attack an open without a consent, that open player is allowed to report you if they wish. In other words, your PVP stance keeps you beholden to your choices. A Guarded/Closed character should always be at risk for getting reported if they attack without consent. This would remove the first strike many Guarded/Closed enjoy versus opens. Furthermore, it would help put an end to the guarded/closed baiting of opens. Opens would still be stuck with the same rules they currently have to follow. They would be able to attack other opens, but would have to gain consent to attack guarded/closed. I feel like its far more fair to make Guarded/Closed characters play and adhere to the very policy they are choosing. --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

One of the main problems the game faces today, in regards to PVP: GMs don't know the difference between CONSENT and Unconsented PVP. If I AIM at someone, ADVANCE on someone, or cast a spell on them, I've given them consent to attack me, but I haven't attacked them in regards to un-consented PVP. Just because I've done an action that grants someone else consent on my character, doesn't mean I've PVP'ed them in an unconsented manner.

Also, PVP ON/OFF. If you're PVP ON, then you attack other PVP ON no problem, and can not attack PVP OFF. If you're PVP OFF, you're saying I don't want physical violence whatsoever. However, if a PVP OFF attacks ANYONE, they are set to PVP ON. Nice and clear cut, easy peasy. --[[User:WILLN1|WILLN1]] ([[User talk:WILLN1|talk]]) 08:00, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:This ^. So much this. The current GM's seem clueless about the difference between what a CONSENTABLE action is, and a what a REPORTABLE action is. Non-damaging spells are NOT reportable currently, but they do grant consent. Simplifying the policy will make this less of an issue, but GM's understanding whatever policy is in place, and enforcing it properly is still key. --[[User:IVORYTOWERNECRO|IVORYTOWERNECRO]] ([[User talk:IVORYTOWERNECRO|talk]]) 8:28, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:How does this ON/OFF plan address a person who is actively harassing and acting like a jerk if their PVP OFF? --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===PvP policy is too legalistic===

At the end of the day, what matters is that players are having a good time and not necessarily that they are adhering to the rules. A player staying within the letter of policy while griefing someone else is still spoiling the community. Neither should players fear engaging in PvP shenanigans unless they're acting in bad faith. Some guiding concepts could be considered in lieu of hard and fast rules.

A) Consent is implied. The game world is interactive, and one of the ways to be interacted with is PvP. Unless a player is stanced Closed, it is not a policy violation to initiate PvP with them.

B) Consent can be withdrawn. If a player does not want to engage in PvP and they 1) make that OOCly clear and 2) refrain from provoking the other party, aggression stops. Violating this rule nets a warning, full stop. If you want people to play along, they need to be enjoying themselves.

C) Staff can say "no fault, knock it off" in any circumstance without additional justification.

In either B or C any stolen property must be returned and consent ends - unless someone was killed. In that case the party killed can try to score a kill in revenge, then consent ends.

A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind.
--[[User:JULIAN|JULIAN]] ([[User talk:JULIAN|talk]]) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:There are two showstoppers with this idea. First, demands on staff time would be significantly increased if all situations were open to interpretation. Second, it would enable rather than discourage policy griefers, who could cry foul and avoid consequences any time they end up losing. In short, more labor intensive and more open to exploitation. We need to move in the opposite direction on both counts. --[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:35, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

=== PVP, Consent, Taking Death Too Seriously & Reducing Reporting ===

I haven’t been to any of the pvp/consent meetings, but I was shown a log from one. This is what stands out to me:

Lyneya says, "We want to cut DOWN on the need to report."

This isn’t the first time a GM has said it, IG, on the forums, at a con or wherever. You can be doing fun or important stuff for the game, or you can use all of your time policing the game. Most players would say they want the former, but for some when their text character gets into a conflict and killed then they report and end up perpetuating the latter.

Consent and pvp policy are ultimately a question of punishment. A conflict ensues in game, in character, ranging from a legit reason to no reason at all. A text character dies. The player of the dead text character wants the other player to be punished. The punishment doesn’t add to the roleplay environment. It doesn’t facilitate future roleplay, although it might deter legit roleplay along with griefing. It’s disproportionate. That is, “depart full” and 15 minutes versus game lockouts.

We could add to this that DR has always had a problem with players taking character death too seriously. This is partially the fault of policy itself. There’s a feedback loop where the rules treat it too seriously, so the people take it too seriously.

The core problem with consent policy is not the violation of consent. It’s not killing a text person. It’s the player/GM fallout. The wasted time of staff. The negative impact on the roleplay environment. People afraid to play characters that conflict. Players afraid to play bad guys and players afraid to play good guys who fight bad guys. Hiding behind policy, lawyering with policy, baiting people into breaking policy or baiting them into gaining consent. Navigating a mountain of red tape for a Cleric to fight a Necromancer in a roleplaying game.

If the goal of the consent policy rewrite is to reduce reporting, then it’s important that new rules and restrictions are not added. Not a single new restriction. The more reportable offenses there are, the more violations, the more people are going to report.

Many people have expressed a desire for clarification of the rules, ending the “gray area.” Everyone who has played a controversial character has experienced a time when they thought they’d have consent, only to find out they did not. If not that, all the times they avoided RPing conflict when they did have consent out of uncertainty and fear that they’d be reported.

Meanwhile the rules that already exist, the ones that are black and white, don’t stop people from reporting. I know GMs have had to deal with assists by people who had their profiles set to open and got killed. A lot of reports for unconsented pvp that get ruled a no-GM fall into this category as well. Policy wasn’t broken, but someone reported anyway. All the rules, all the clear policy in the world, isn’t going to stop upset players from reporting when their text character gets in a fight.

So a clear list of rules, verbs or actions that require consent wont necessarily reduce reporting. A list can’t hurt, of course. However, if those rules are more strict than they currently are, for example to make casting any spell require consent or any interaction require consent, then they will stifle roleplay. And they’ll most likely increase reporting, too. The same way the closed/guarded/open profile system didn’t end consent reports and didn’t neatly separate the people who wanted to pvp from the people who wanted to play conflict-free characters. Instead, policy wasn’t changed for the closed profiles. New rules and policy further muddied the waters. For example, people feeling they were free from consent because they were closed. Open people reporting.

This was years ago and these kinds of things still happen. How much additional reporting, and for how many more years, would new rules and restrictions end up creating?

If the problem with consent is actually consent in and of itself, if the goal is to create a roleplay environment without conflict or pvp, then by all means expand the consent rules. Make all spells and abilities that impact a character require consent. People will probably still continue to use these for a long time and you’ll see an increase in reports, but eventually people will learn that you can’t cast a spell on someone else without consent. Maybe at the end of some years there will be slightly fewer reports at the cost of sterilizing a major roleplay vector in the game.

You could even eliminate all consent-based reports by implementing a coded consent command, similar to the ‘consent’ command that already exists for certain verbs like sacrifice. Before a character can attack another, use any spell on another, or do any of the things that might be rolled up in the new consent policy. DR could become a MUD like those that don’t have pvp outside of arenas and you’d never have to deal with a consent-based report ever again.

Many people would like that. They’d like a game free of theft, pvp, and character conflict in general. Many of us also wouldn’t like that. That’s not the game we grew up with and got hooked on. If the game were like that when I came back as a F2P, I would have just kept a F2P character to chat casually on. I never would have resubscribed. I might as well add here that when I returned to the game I found that player stealing almost never occurred any more, for various reasons, from stealing/perception balance tweaks to plat inflation to open profile mechanics. Player stealing was dead. People rarely stole, Thieves didn’t plague the ferries, I’d stand my F2P in main areas for days with pockets full of plats and no one would touch them. Player stealing being the crux of the Thief guild and my favorite pastime, as well as player stealing being the main catalyst of conflict roleplay (even beyond the Necro element), this was enough to make me stay F2P. It was also enough to turn me off playing a Thief as a F2P and when I did resubscribe. Any changes to consent and pvp policy that limit character conflict or further restrict consent would feel very similar.

If the problem is people reporting and wasting GM time because their text character died then it’s a problem you can’t flat out solve with a policy rewrite. No matter how strict, lax, black and white, or gray the policy is. This is a player/culture problem, similarly to how AFK scripting (see the scripting policy discussion page) is a game design problem. If you want people to report less then you need to disincentive reporting. You need to shift player culture away from reporting. As far as a policy rewrite is concerned this means fewer reportable offenses, thus fewer excuses to report. Not more.

Maybe in the policy itself you could explain to players – this is a violent game. It’s a game with a lot of death. You’re gonna die a lot, probably dozens or hundreds of times, in your career playing it. You’re gonna get killed by mobs and players. You’d better get ok with that quick.

And instead of encouraging people to report immediately, which is the way current policy reads, you could emphasize reporting as a last resort. A thing to do when you’re being terrorized, not when someone casts a random spell on you or shoots you with an arrow you after you insult their mother. Being killed without consent, or with blurry consent, is not a big deal. It’s a game, it’s mostly populated by adults, dust yourself off and go on your way. Maybe a rule was broken, but it can be handled without wasting staff time. If you’re being harassed, well, there’s a harassment policy.

I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

Something to consider is a bounty system, in lieu of a reporting and consent system. Allow players to place plat rewards on peoples heads, and you'll have an interesting system that would encourage roleplay and discourage griefing. In tandem, jack up the justice penalties for murder exponentially, to discourage people from randomly attacking other players (percentage of wealth modified heavily by circle and skill discrepancy of victims). Keep the current profile options, but make them a guideline and less of a rule. Ultimately, in your face behavior modification is a good thing (unlike gweth smashing remotely, which hopefully if that comes back it requires melee range, being unhidden, and invokes a 30 second roundtime). But built in game checks can prevent abuse simply by way of discouraging people from getting too crazy with their destructive rampages.
--[[User:Ashbomb|Ashbomb]] ([[User talk:Ashbomb|talk]]) 03:42, 27 October 2016 (CST)

=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

I wish the penalty was reduced from using things such as gwethsmashers or thump could be reduced from 24 hours or instead of being locked open if you're closed, you be locked to guarded? Because I know that IC I have wanted to use gwethsmashers before but haven't because I am terrified of being a target for 24 hours. Would 2-3 hours work better instead? It gives the chance for the person to retaliate without being targeted for the next 24 hours when the gwethsmashing only lasts six hours.
:I thought the gwethsmasher locked to open time was 4 hours but I've not done it so could by 100% wrong. Also, if you pull off a smash or thump you have won a stat contest which means you don't have much to worry about (in most cases). This doesn't provide consent to anyone but the smashed/thumped. I don't see the need for changes to this. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (CDT)
:I wouldn't mind seeing this go, mainly because I'd like to see more people using gwethsmashers. I think a lot more people would use them, except (like you said in your case) many people are afraid of being locked open. I'm not 100% sure what the intent was initially, if it was intended to deter people from using gwethsmashers or not. However, that seems to be the result. It would be nice to see smaller characters being able to spark up conflict-driven RP this way without necessarily inviting anyone to kill them for any reason (including without roleplay).

:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)

:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.

:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

::I disagree that thumping should be consent. Same goes for gwethsmashing if/when it doesn't actually destroy a gweth. Part of the reason thumping/smashing exists is to allow players to police bad player-to-player behavior (vs it being an IC action). Giving someone the green light to harass someone in an exciting new PvP way would be counter to the spirit of that. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (CDT)
:::There are offensive and defensive ways to handle disruptive behavior. Defensive methods include leaving a room, using gags/squelches, and removing one's gweths. Offensive methods include thumping, smashing, and attacking. Being closed/guarded is a choice to be protected from conflict by policy, i.e. to play defensively. Therefore only defensive options should be available to closed/guarded characters.
:::Regarding OOC vs. IC, enforcement of this requires GM monitoring and intervention. Policy reform should include the goal of minimizing the need for GM intervention. Furthermore, history has clearly shown that players will use thump and smash for both IC and OOC reasons. This is unfixable as a significant portion of DR's population believe staying IC means saying things like "gods" and "pigeons." In short they do not truly differentiate between IC and OOC motivations. Therefore any practical policy change will anticipate that players will use thump and smash for both IC and OOC reasons.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 22:32, 28 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

2016-10-26T04:35:40Z

MRTSCR: /* PvP policy is too legalistic */

[[GM Lyneya open office - 10/15/2016]]: a log of the discussion that GM [[Lyneya]] hosted

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:36, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
I would like there to be clear and consistent rules regarding aggressive but non-damaging magic/abilities. We say kicking, punching, slapping grants consent to be engaged in PvP by the "injured." Thumping also grants consent when the sole consequence is the inability to speak for a time, yet stunning, sleeping, and paralyzing renders the person incapable of ANY action for a time and they seem to be generally allowed and do not grant consent. Likewise, non-damaging hostile magic like debuffs have had fuzzy rules set to them.

Regarding the changes to depart/grip mechanics, I like this change. I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore.

Consistency and sensibility about what can be forcibly wedged into consent could also use a bit of cleaning up. You don't own a room and can't commit violence to someone for being in 'your' hunting spot if they're not interfering, taking your loot or killing your critters - however, apparently you CAN commit violence if against someone if you give them clear warning you will kill them for doing actions such as speaking or gwething and this has been upheld as allowed. On a similar vein, you can of course kill an empath who is healing your opponent or others who are aiding her or him, but I've also witnessed it be allowed to kill clerics for raising a dead body or empaths for healing a dead body. These can be grey areas for sure, but is there a reason they need to be? --[[User:NECKHOFF|NECKHOFF]] ([[User talk:NECKHOFF|talk]]) 01:09, 2 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with NECKHOFF on all accounts. I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive. Other death/resurrection mechanics to increase death's difficulty would be welcome, although we should consider them carefully. I'm especially concerned that if death causes too much permanent damage it will make griefing more prevalent. As for the clarity of the rules, it would be nice to have some kind of chart somewhere. Finally, I would especially like to see some clarity on the rules of harassment. I realize that what constitutes harassment may be best left as a judgment call, but some kind of general guideline about how often one person can attack another would be welcome. --[[User:PRIMEQ|PRIMEQ]] ([[User talk:PRIMEQ|talk]]) 21:04, 3 September 2016 (CDT)

:"I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when '''99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken.''' Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore." "I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, '''the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive.'''" While it's true that altered and otherwise exotic items are exponentially more common today than 20 years ago, the conclusion is invalid. 20 years ago losing any significant item was much more painful because the likelihood of replacement was slim. Furthermore the time spent to earn any item was relatively much higher. Put simply there are more items now but both the value and rarity of those items is considerably lower. Perhaps more significant is that being graverobbed now requires a great deal of carelessness. Since the latest safeguards were put into place I've seen very little graverobbing of anything meaningful. The few instances that occurred involved unexplained mismatches between the quality of items carried by the character and the experience of the player. Redesigning important game systems to fit characters who, uh, receive extravagant gifts from strangers, would be counterproductive. Games that are both overly easy and lack dynamic content quickly become boring. DR is a resource-limited, slow-changing game with a comparative dearth of both content and players. Removing graverobbing would end one of the few dynamic and challenging aspects of the game. Leave it alone.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

::I'm skeptical that something as safeguarded and secure and idiot-proof as you argue it has become still provide any kind of dynamic challenge. As you mentioned, it's really something that inexperienced people suffer more than anything. At that point, why bother having it there at all? Who does it benefit? It fails to create a challenge for those who want more risk or danger, and it fails to create anything exciting and fun for people who dislike losing their stuff. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 02:48, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:::You haven't actually countered MRTSCR said but more, IMO, proved his point. Graverobbing my character would decimate me as I've spent years building up the unique non-altered items I have. However, it would be 100% my fault if I lose them now with the mechanics in place to prevent loss (not even counting the bonding potion capabilities). If you remove this aspect then the fear of loss would be removed 100% and cause additional careless behaviors that I don't think would benefit the game.--[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 00:45, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

::::Alternatively, by removing the rare potential chance to lose things you've spent years building up players might be more prone to taking chances/risk, because then the risks would be more short-term and palatable. Along with this, and similar to the discussions GMs are having where if every magic user has X feat, should X feat just come baked into the magic system as a whole, if the system is so foolproof and softened that it's essentially impossible to have happen, what value is there in keeping it around? What benefit does the game provide by offering the potential to decimate a _player_? Whose enjoyment is improved as a result? --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

I agree that there should be clearly defined and consistent rules surrounding PvP and consent policy. The details of the consent policy should be made completely available via the POLICY verb and not something that also requires the browsing of multiple NEWS items to supplement the information. PvP stances should be updated and the GUARDED stance should be removed completely. If a CLOSED player initiates an attack on an OPEN player their stance should be set to OPEN for a set period of time. If a CLOSED player attacks another CLOSED player the stance should not be changed as it should be considered RP conflict. Likewise, if an OPEN player initiates an attack on a CLOSED player for any reason it would not affect their stance, even if they choose to retaliate (within "X" minutes, preferably). --[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]] ([[User talk:WHITEBEAUTY|talk]]) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with this. Closed/guarded players attacking only when they're assured victory by a massive rank difference is a longstanding problem. "Consent" with constant GM mediation was never a great way to manage PvP. But now there are fewer and fewer GMs online, and their time could be much better spent elsewhere. It's clearly time for something new.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

:[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]], one problem I see with the proposed mechanics change to switch a player's PvP stances based on triggers is that an open profile character may perform non-combat actions (e.g. slap/kick/thump) or insult the closed-profile player into attacking and still be within the grounds of consent which shouldn't trigger an automatic opening of profile per the gist of your proposal. --[[User:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|UNFINISHED-USERNAM]] ([[User talk:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|talk]]) 21:51, 27 September 2016 (CDT)

===I personally wish the PVP could be tweaked as follows===

Your combat stance also dictates how you see others in the game.

For example if you are guarded or closed and attack an open without a consent, that open player is allowed to report you if they wish. In other words, your PVP stance keeps you beholden to your choices. A Guarded/Closed character should always be at risk for getting reported if they attack without consent. This would remove the first strike many Guarded/Closed enjoy versus opens. Furthermore, it would help put an end to the guarded/closed baiting of opens. Opens would still be stuck with the same rules they currently have to follow. They would be able to attack other opens, but would have to gain consent to attack guarded/closed. I feel like its far more fair to make Guarded/Closed characters play and adhere to the very policy they are choosing. --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

One of the main problems the game faces today, in regards to PVP: GMs don't know the difference between CONSENT and Unconsented PVP. If I AIM at someone, ADVANCE on someone, or cast a spell on them, I've given them consent to attack me, but I haven't attacked them in regards to un-consented PVP. Just because I've done an action that grants someone else consent on my character, doesn't mean I've PVP'ed them in an unconsented manner.

Also, PVP ON/OFF. If you're PVP ON, then you attack other PVP ON no problem, and can not attack PVP OFF. If you're PVP OFF, you're saying I don't want physical violence whatsoever. However, if a PVP OFF attacks ANYONE, they are set to PVP ON. Nice and clear cut, easy peasy. --[[User:WILLN1|WILLN1]] ([[User talk:WILLN1|talk]]) 08:00, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:This ^. So much this. The current GM's seem clueless about the difference between what a CONSENTABLE action is, and a what a REPORTABLE action is. Non-damaging spells are NOT reportable currently, but they do grant consent. Simplifying the policy will make this less of an issue, but GM's understanding whatever policy is in place, and enforcing it properly is still key. --[[User:IVORYTOWERNECRO|IVORYTOWERNECRO]] ([[User talk:IVORYTOWERNECRO|talk]]) 8:28, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:How does this ON/OFF plan address a person who is actively harassing and acting like a jerk if their PVP OFF? --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===PvP policy is too legalistic===

At the end of the day, what matters is that players are having a good time and not necessarily that they are adhering to the rules. A player staying within the letter of policy while griefing someone else is still spoiling the community. Neither should players fear engaging in PvP shenanigans unless they're acting in bad faith. Some guiding concepts could be considered in lieu of hard and fast rules.

A) Consent is implied. The game world is interactive, and one of the ways to be interacted with is PvP. Unless a player is stanced Closed, it is not a policy violation to initiate PvP with them.

B) Consent can be withdrawn. If a player does not want to engage in PvP and they 1) make that OOCly clear and 2) refrain from provoking the other party, aggression stops. Violating this rule nets a warning, full stop. If you want people to play along, they need to be enjoying themselves.

C) Staff can say "no fault, knock it off" in any circumstance without additional justification.

In either B or C any stolen property must be returned and consent ends - unless someone was killed. In that case the party killed can try to score a kill in revenge, then consent ends.

A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind.
--[[User:JULIAN|JULIAN]] ([[User talk:JULIAN|talk]]) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:There are two showstoppers with this idea. First, demands on staff time would be significantly increased if all situations were open to interpretation. Second, it would enable rather than discourage policy griefers, who could cry foul and avoid consequences any time they end up losing. In short, more labor intensive and more open to exploitation. We need to move in the opposite direction on both counts. --[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:35, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

=== PVP, Consent, Taking Death Too Seriously & Reducing Reporting ===

I haven’t been to any of the pvp/consent meetings, but I was shown a log from one. This is what stands out to me:

Lyneya says, "We want to cut DOWN on the need to report."

This isn’t the first time a GM has said it, IG, on the forums, at a con or wherever. You can be doing fun or important stuff for the game, or you can use all of your time policing the game. Most players would say they want the former, but for some when their text character gets into a conflict and killed then they report and end up perpetuating the latter.

Consent and pvp policy are ultimately a question of punishment. A conflict ensues in game, in character, ranging from a legit reason to no reason at all. A text character dies. The player of the dead text character wants the other player to be punished. The punishment doesn’t add to the roleplay environment. It doesn’t facilitate future roleplay, although it might deter legit roleplay along with griefing. It’s disproportionate. That is, “depart full” and 15 minutes versus game lockouts.

We could add to this that DR has always had a problem with players taking character death too seriously. This is partially the fault of policy itself. There’s a feedback loop where the rules treat it too seriously, so the people take it too seriously.

The core problem with consent policy is not the violation of consent. It’s not killing a text person. It’s the player/GM fallout. The wasted time of staff. The negative impact on the roleplay environment. People afraid to play characters that conflict. Players afraid to play bad guys and players afraid to play good guys who fight bad guys. Hiding behind policy, lawyering with policy, baiting people into breaking policy or baiting them into gaining consent. Navigating a mountain of red tape for a Cleric to fight a Necromancer in a roleplaying game.

If the goal of the consent policy rewrite is to reduce reporting, then it’s important that new rules and restrictions are not added. Not a single new restriction. The more reportable offenses there are, the more violations, the more people are going to report.

Many people have expressed a desire for clarification of the rules, ending the “gray area.” Everyone who has played a controversial character has experienced a time when they thought they’d have consent, only to find out they did not. If not that, all the times they avoided RPing conflict when they did have consent out of uncertainty and fear that they’d be reported.

Meanwhile the rules that already exist, the ones that are black and white, don’t stop people from reporting. I know GMs have had to deal with assists by people who had their profiles set to open and got killed. A lot of reports for unconsented pvp that get ruled a no-GM fall into this category as well. Policy wasn’t broken, but someone reported anyway. All the rules, all the clear policy in the world, isn’t going to stop upset players from reporting when their text character gets in a fight.

So a clear list of rules, verbs or actions that require consent wont necessarily reduce reporting. A list can’t hurt, of course. However, if those rules are more strict than they currently are, for example to make casting any spell require consent or any interaction require consent, then they will stifle roleplay. And they’ll most likely increase reporting, too. The same way the closed/guarded/open profile system didn’t end consent reports and didn’t neatly separate the people who wanted to pvp from the people who wanted to play conflict-free characters. Instead, policy wasn’t changed for the closed profiles. New rules and policy further muddied the waters. For example, people feeling they were free from consent because they were closed. Open people reporting.

This was years ago and these kinds of things still happen. How much additional reporting, and for how many more years, would new rules and restrictions end up creating?

If the problem with consent is actually consent in and of itself, if the goal is to create a roleplay environment without conflict or pvp, then by all means expand the consent rules. Make all spells and abilities that impact a character require consent. People will probably still continue to use these for a long time and you’ll see an increase in reports, but eventually people will learn that you can’t cast a spell on someone else without consent. Maybe at the end of some years there will be slightly fewer reports at the cost of sterilizing a major roleplay vector in the game.

You could even eliminate all consent-based reports by implementing a coded consent command, similar to the ‘consent’ command that already exists for certain verbs like sacrifice. Before a character can attack another, use any spell on another, or do any of the things that might be rolled up in the new consent policy. DR could become a MUD like those that don’t have pvp outside of arenas and you’d never have to deal with a consent-based report ever again.

Many people would like that. They’d like a game free of theft, pvp, and character conflict in general. Many of us also wouldn’t like that. That’s not the game we grew up with and got hooked on. If the game were like that when I came back as a F2P, I would have just kept a F2P character to chat casually on. I never would have resubscribed. I might as well add here that when I returned to the game I found that player stealing almost never occurred any more, for various reasons, from stealing/perception balance tweaks to plat inflation to open profile mechanics. Player stealing was dead. People rarely stole, Thieves didn’t plague the ferries, I’d stand my F2P in main areas for days with pockets full of plats and no one would touch them. Player stealing being the crux of the Thief guild and my favorite pastime, as well as player stealing being the main catalyst of conflict roleplay (even beyond the Necro element), this was enough to make me stay F2P. It was also enough to turn me off playing a Thief as a F2P and when I did resubscribe. Any changes to consent and pvp policy that limit character conflict or further restrict consent would feel very similar.

If the problem is people reporting and wasting GM time because their text character died then it’s a problem you can’t flat out solve with a policy rewrite. No matter how strict, lax, black and white, or gray the policy is. This is a player/culture problem, similarly to how AFK scripting (see the scripting policy discussion page) is a game design problem. If you want people to report less then you need to disincentive reporting. You need to shift player culture away from reporting. As far as a policy rewrite is concerned this means fewer reportable offenses, thus fewer excuses to report. Not more.

Maybe in the policy itself you could explain to players – this is a violent game. It’s a game with a lot of death. You’re gonna die a lot, probably dozens or hundreds of times, in your career playing it. You’re gonna get killed by mobs and players. You’d better get ok with that quick.

And instead of encouraging people to report immediately, which is the way current policy reads, you could emphasize reporting as a last resort. A thing to do when you’re being terrorized, not when someone casts a random spell on you or shoots you with an arrow you after you insult their mother. Being killed without consent, or with blurry consent, is not a big deal. It’s a game, it’s mostly populated by adults, dust yourself off and go on your way. Maybe a rule was broken, but it can be handled without wasting staff time. If you’re being harassed, well, there’s a harassment policy.

I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

I wish the penalty was reduced from using things such as gwethsmashers or thump could be reduced from 24 hours or instead of being locked open if you're closed, you be locked to guarded? Because I know that IC I have wanted to use gwethsmashers before but haven't because I am terrified of being a target for 24 hours. Would 2-3 hours work better instead? It gives the chance for the person to retaliate without being targeted for the next 24 hours when the gwethsmashing only lasts six hours.
:I thought the gwethsmasher locked to open time was 4 hours but I've not done it so could by 100% wrong. Also, if you pull off a smash or thump you have won a stat contest which means you don't have much to worry about (in most cases). This doesn't provide consent to anyone but the smashed/thumped. I don't see the need for changes to this. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (CDT)
:I wouldn't mind seeing this go, mainly because I'd like to see more people using gwethsmashers. I think a lot more people would use them, except (like you said in your case) many people are afraid of being locked open. I'm not 100% sure what the intent was initially, if it was intended to deter people from using gwethsmashers or not. However, that seems to be the result. It would be nice to see smaller characters being able to spark up conflict-driven RP this way without necessarily inviting anyone to kill them for any reason (including without roleplay).

:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)

:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.

:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

2016-10-26T04:13:32Z

MRTSCR: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

[[GM Lyneya open office - 10/15/2016]]: a log of the discussion that GM [[Lyneya]] hosted

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:36, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
I would like there to be clear and consistent rules regarding aggressive but non-damaging magic/abilities. We say kicking, punching, slapping grants consent to be engaged in PvP by the "injured." Thumping also grants consent when the sole consequence is the inability to speak for a time, yet stunning, sleeping, and paralyzing renders the person incapable of ANY action for a time and they seem to be generally allowed and do not grant consent. Likewise, non-damaging hostile magic like debuffs have had fuzzy rules set to them.

Regarding the changes to depart/grip mechanics, I like this change. I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore.

Consistency and sensibility about what can be forcibly wedged into consent could also use a bit of cleaning up. You don't own a room and can't commit violence to someone for being in 'your' hunting spot if they're not interfering, taking your loot or killing your critters - however, apparently you CAN commit violence if against someone if you give them clear warning you will kill them for doing actions such as speaking or gwething and this has been upheld as allowed. On a similar vein, you can of course kill an empath who is healing your opponent or others who are aiding her or him, but I've also witnessed it be allowed to kill clerics for raising a dead body or empaths for healing a dead body. These can be grey areas for sure, but is there a reason they need to be? --[[User:NECKHOFF|NECKHOFF]] ([[User talk:NECKHOFF|talk]]) 01:09, 2 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with NECKHOFF on all accounts. I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive. Other death/resurrection mechanics to increase death's difficulty would be welcome, although we should consider them carefully. I'm especially concerned that if death causes too much permanent damage it will make griefing more prevalent. As for the clarity of the rules, it would be nice to have some kind of chart somewhere. Finally, I would especially like to see some clarity on the rules of harassment. I realize that what constitutes harassment may be best left as a judgment call, but some kind of general guideline about how often one person can attack another would be welcome. --[[User:PRIMEQ|PRIMEQ]] ([[User talk:PRIMEQ|talk]]) 21:04, 3 September 2016 (CDT)

:"I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when '''99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken.''' Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore." "I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, '''the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive.'''" While it's true that altered and otherwise exotic items are exponentially more common today than 20 years ago, the conclusion is invalid. 20 years ago losing any significant item was much more painful because the likelihood of replacement was slim. Furthermore the time spent to earn any item was relatively much higher. Put simply there are more items now but both the value and rarity of those items is considerably lower. Perhaps more significant is that being graverobbed now requires a great deal of carelessness. Since the latest safeguards were put into place I've seen very little graverobbing of anything meaningful. The few instances that occurred involved unexplained mismatches between the quality of items carried by the character and the experience of the player. Redesigning important game systems to fit characters who, uh, receive extravagant gifts from strangers, would be counterproductive. Games that are both overly easy and lack dynamic content quickly become boring. DR is a resource-limited, slow-changing game with a comparative dearth of both content and players. Removing graverobbing would end one of the few dynamic and challenging aspects of the game. Leave it alone.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

::I'm skeptical that something as safeguarded and secure and idiot-proof as you argue it has become still provide any kind of dynamic challenge. As you mentioned, it's really something that inexperienced people suffer more than anything. At that point, why bother having it there at all? Who does it benefit? It fails to create a challenge for those who want more risk or danger, and it fails to create anything exciting and fun for people who dislike losing their stuff. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 02:48, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:::You haven't actually countered MRTSCR said but more, IMO, proved his point. Graverobbing my character would decimate me as I've spent years building up the unique non-altered items I have. However, it would be 100% my fault if I lose them now with the mechanics in place to prevent loss (not even counting the bonding potion capabilities). If you remove this aspect then the fear of loss would be removed 100% and cause additional careless behaviors that I don't think would benefit the game.--[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 00:45, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

::::Alternatively, by removing the rare potential chance to lose things you've spent years building up players might be more prone to taking chances/risk, because then the risks would be more short-term and palatable. Along with this, and similar to the discussions GMs are having where if every magic user has X feat, should X feat just come baked into the magic system as a whole, if the system is so foolproof and softened that it's essentially impossible to have happen, what value is there in keeping it around? What benefit does the game provide by offering the potential to decimate a _player_? Whose enjoyment is improved as a result? --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

I agree that there should be clearly defined and consistent rules surrounding PvP and consent policy. The details of the consent policy should be made completely available via the POLICY verb and not something that also requires the browsing of multiple NEWS items to supplement the information. PvP stances should be updated and the GUARDED stance should be removed completely. If a CLOSED player initiates an attack on an OPEN player their stance should be set to OPEN for a set period of time. If a CLOSED player attacks another CLOSED player the stance should not be changed as it should be considered RP conflict. Likewise, if an OPEN player initiates an attack on a CLOSED player for any reason it would not affect their stance, even if they choose to retaliate (within "X" minutes, preferably). --[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]] ([[User talk:WHITEBEAUTY|talk]]) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with this. Closed/guarded players attacking only when they're assured victory by a massive rank difference is a longstanding problem. "Consent" with constant GM mediation was never a great way to manage PvP. But now there are fewer and fewer GMs online, and their time could be much better spent elsewhere. It's clearly time for something new.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

:[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]], one problem I see with the proposed mechanics change to switch a player's PvP stances based on triggers is that an open profile character may perform non-combat actions (e.g. slap/kick/thump) or insult the closed-profile player into attacking and still be within the grounds of consent which shouldn't trigger an automatic opening of profile per the gist of your proposal. --[[User:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|UNFINISHED-USERNAM]] ([[User talk:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|talk]]) 21:51, 27 September 2016 (CDT)

===I personally wish the PVP could be tweaked as follows===

Your combat stance also dictates how you see others in the game.

For example if you are guarded or closed and attack an open without a consent, that open player is allowed to report you if they wish. In other words, your PVP stance keeps you beholden to your choices. A Guarded/Closed character should always be at risk for getting reported if they attack without consent. This would remove the first strike many Guarded/Closed enjoy versus opens. Furthermore, it would help put an end to the guarded/closed baiting of opens. Opens would still be stuck with the same rules they currently have to follow. They would be able to attack other opens, but would have to gain consent to attack guarded/closed. I feel like its far more fair to make Guarded/Closed characters play and adhere to the very policy they are choosing. --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

One of the main problems the game faces today, in regards to PVP: GMs don't know the difference between CONSENT and Unconsented PVP. If I AIM at someone, ADVANCE on someone, or cast a spell on them, I've given them consent to attack me, but I haven't attacked them in regards to un-consented PVP. Just because I've done an action that grants someone else consent on my character, doesn't mean I've PVP'ed them in an unconsented manner.

Also, PVP ON/OFF. If you're PVP ON, then you attack other PVP ON no problem, and can not attack PVP OFF. If you're PVP OFF, you're saying I don't want physical violence whatsoever. However, if a PVP OFF attacks ANYONE, they are set to PVP ON. Nice and clear cut, easy peasy. --[[User:WILLN1|WILLN1]] ([[User talk:WILLN1|talk]]) 08:00, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:This ^. So much this. The current GM's seem clueless about the difference between what a CONSENTABLE action is, and a what a REPORTABLE action is. Non-damaging spells are NOT reportable currently, but they do grant consent. Simplifying the policy will make this less of an issue, but GM's understanding whatever policy is in place, and enforcing it properly is still key. --[[User:IVORYTOWERNECRO|IVORYTOWERNECRO]] ([[User talk:IVORYTOWERNECRO|talk]]) 8:28, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:How does this ON/OFF plan address a person who is actively harassing and acting like a jerk if their PVP OFF? --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===PvP policy is too legalistic===

At the end of the day, what matters is that players are having a good time and not necessarily that they are adhering to the rules. A player staying within the letter of policy while griefing someone else is still spoiling the community. Neither should players fear engaging in PvP shenanigans unless they're acting in bad faith. Some guiding concepts could be considered in lieu of hard and fast rules.

A) Consent is implied. The game world is interactive, and one of the ways to be interacted with is PvP. Unless a player is stanced Closed, it is not a policy violation to initiate PvP with them.

B) Consent can be withdrawn. If a player does not want to engage in PvP and they 1) make that OOCly clear and 2) refrain from provoking the other party, aggression stops. Violating this rule nets a warning, full stop. If you want people to play along, they need to be enjoying themselves.

C) Staff can say "no fault, knock it off" in any circumstance without additional justification.

In either B or C any stolen property must be returned and consent ends - unless someone was killed. In that case the party killed can try to score a kill in revenge, then consent ends.

A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind.
--[[User:JULIAN|JULIAN]] ([[User talk:JULIAN|talk]]) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

=== PVP, Consent, Taking Death Too Seriously & Reducing Reporting ===

I haven’t been to any of the pvp/consent meetings, but I was shown a log from one. This is what stands out to me:

Lyneya says, "We want to cut DOWN on the need to report."

This isn’t the first time a GM has said it, IG, on the forums, at a con or wherever. You can be doing fun or important stuff for the game, or you can use all of your time policing the game. Most players would say they want the former, but for some when their text character gets into a conflict and killed then they report and end up perpetuating the latter.

Consent and pvp policy are ultimately a question of punishment. A conflict ensues in game, in character, ranging from a legit reason to no reason at all. A text character dies. The player of the dead text character wants the other player to be punished. The punishment doesn’t add to the roleplay environment. It doesn’t facilitate future roleplay, although it might deter legit roleplay along with griefing. It’s disproportionate. That is, “depart full” and 15 minutes versus game lockouts.

We could add to this that DR has always had a problem with players taking character death too seriously. This is partially the fault of policy itself. There’s a feedback loop where the rules treat it too seriously, so the people take it too seriously.

The core problem with consent policy is not the violation of consent. It’s not killing a text person. It’s the player/GM fallout. The wasted time of staff. The negative impact on the roleplay environment. People afraid to play characters that conflict. Players afraid to play bad guys and players afraid to play good guys who fight bad guys. Hiding behind policy, lawyering with policy, baiting people into breaking policy or baiting them into gaining consent. Navigating a mountain of red tape for a Cleric to fight a Necromancer in a roleplaying game.

If the goal of the consent policy rewrite is to reduce reporting, then it’s important that new rules and restrictions are not added. Not a single new restriction. The more reportable offenses there are, the more violations, the more people are going to report.

Many people have expressed a desire for clarification of the rules, ending the “gray area.” Everyone who has played a controversial character has experienced a time when they thought they’d have consent, only to find out they did not. If not that, all the times they avoided RPing conflict when they did have consent out of uncertainty and fear that they’d be reported.

Meanwhile the rules that already exist, the ones that are black and white, don’t stop people from reporting. I know GMs have had to deal with assists by people who had their profiles set to open and got killed. A lot of reports for unconsented pvp that get ruled a no-GM fall into this category as well. Policy wasn’t broken, but someone reported anyway. All the rules, all the clear policy in the world, isn’t going to stop upset players from reporting when their text character gets in a fight.

So a clear list of rules, verbs or actions that require consent wont necessarily reduce reporting. A list can’t hurt, of course. However, if those rules are more strict than they currently are, for example to make casting any spell require consent or any interaction require consent, then they will stifle roleplay. And they’ll most likely increase reporting, too. The same way the closed/guarded/open profile system didn’t end consent reports and didn’t neatly separate the people who wanted to pvp from the people who wanted to play conflict-free characters. Instead, policy wasn’t changed for the closed profiles. New rules and policy further muddied the waters. For example, people feeling they were free from consent because they were closed. Open people reporting.

This was years ago and these kinds of things still happen. How much additional reporting, and for how many more years, would new rules and restrictions end up creating?

If the problem with consent is actually consent in and of itself, if the goal is to create a roleplay environment without conflict or pvp, then by all means expand the consent rules. Make all spells and abilities that impact a character require consent. People will probably still continue to use these for a long time and you’ll see an increase in reports, but eventually people will learn that you can’t cast a spell on someone else without consent. Maybe at the end of some years there will be slightly fewer reports at the cost of sterilizing a major roleplay vector in the game.

You could even eliminate all consent-based reports by implementing a coded consent command, similar to the ‘consent’ command that already exists for certain verbs like sacrifice. Before a character can attack another, use any spell on another, or do any of the things that might be rolled up in the new consent policy. DR could become a MUD like those that don’t have pvp outside of arenas and you’d never have to deal with a consent-based report ever again.

Many people would like that. They’d like a game free of theft, pvp, and character conflict in general. Many of us also wouldn’t like that. That’s not the game we grew up with and got hooked on. If the game were like that when I came back as a F2P, I would have just kept a F2P character to chat casually on. I never would have resubscribed. I might as well add here that when I returned to the game I found that player stealing almost never occurred any more, for various reasons, from stealing/perception balance tweaks to plat inflation to open profile mechanics. Player stealing was dead. People rarely stole, Thieves didn’t plague the ferries, I’d stand my F2P in main areas for days with pockets full of plats and no one would touch them. Player stealing being the crux of the Thief guild and my favorite pastime, as well as player stealing being the main catalyst of conflict roleplay (even beyond the Necro element), this was enough to make me stay F2P. It was also enough to turn me off playing a Thief as a F2P and when I did resubscribe. Any changes to consent and pvp policy that limit character conflict or further restrict consent would feel very similar.

If the problem is people reporting and wasting GM time because their text character died then it’s a problem you can’t flat out solve with a policy rewrite. No matter how strict, lax, black and white, or gray the policy is. This is a player/culture problem, similarly to how AFK scripting (see the scripting policy discussion page) is a game design problem. If you want people to report less then you need to disincentive reporting. You need to shift player culture away from reporting. As far as a policy rewrite is concerned this means fewer reportable offenses, thus fewer excuses to report. Not more.

Maybe in the policy itself you could explain to players – this is a violent game. It’s a game with a lot of death. You’re gonna die a lot, probably dozens or hundreds of times, in your career playing it. You’re gonna get killed by mobs and players. You’d better get ok with that quick.

And instead of encouraging people to report immediately, which is the way current policy reads, you could emphasize reporting as a last resort. A thing to do when you’re being terrorized, not when someone casts a random spell on you or shoots you with an arrow you after you insult their mother. Being killed without consent, or with blurry consent, is not a big deal. It’s a game, it’s mostly populated by adults, dust yourself off and go on your way. Maybe a rule was broken, but it can be handled without wasting staff time. If you’re being harassed, well, there’s a harassment policy.

I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

I wish the penalty was reduced from using things such as gwethsmashers or thump could be reduced from 24 hours or instead of being locked open if you're closed, you be locked to guarded? Because I know that IC I have wanted to use gwethsmashers before but haven't because I am terrified of being a target for 24 hours. Would 2-3 hours work better instead? It gives the chance for the person to retaliate without being targeted for the next 24 hours when the gwethsmashing only lasts six hours.
:I thought the gwethsmasher locked to open time was 4 hours but I've not done it so could by 100% wrong. Also, if you pull off a smash or thump you have won a stat contest which means you don't have much to worry about (in most cases). This doesn't provide consent to anyone but the smashed/thumped. I don't see the need for changes to this. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (CDT)
:I wouldn't mind seeing this go, mainly because I'd like to see more people using gwethsmashers. I think a lot more people would use them, except (like you said in your case) many people are afraid of being locked open. I'm not 100% sure what the intent was initially, if it was intended to deter people from using gwethsmashers or not. However, that seems to be the result. It would be nice to see smaller characters being able to spark up conflict-driven RP this way without necessarily inviting anyone to kill them for any reason (including without roleplay).

:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)

:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.

:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

2016-10-26T04:13:10Z

MRTSCR: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

[[GM Lyneya open office - 10/15/2016]]: a log of the discussion that GM [[Lyneya]] hosted

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:36, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
I would like there to be clear and consistent rules regarding aggressive but non-damaging magic/abilities. We say kicking, punching, slapping grants consent to be engaged in PvP by the "injured." Thumping also grants consent when the sole consequence is the inability to speak for a time, yet stunning, sleeping, and paralyzing renders the person incapable of ANY action for a time and they seem to be generally allowed and do not grant consent. Likewise, non-damaging hostile magic like debuffs have had fuzzy rules set to them.

Regarding the changes to depart/grip mechanics, I like this change. I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore.

Consistency and sensibility about what can be forcibly wedged into consent could also use a bit of cleaning up. You don't own a room and can't commit violence to someone for being in 'your' hunting spot if they're not interfering, taking your loot or killing your critters - however, apparently you CAN commit violence if against someone if you give them clear warning you will kill them for doing actions such as speaking or gwething and this has been upheld as allowed. On a similar vein, you can of course kill an empath who is healing your opponent or others who are aiding her or him, but I've also witnessed it be allowed to kill clerics for raising a dead body or empaths for healing a dead body. These can be grey areas for sure, but is there a reason they need to be? --[[User:NECKHOFF|NECKHOFF]] ([[User talk:NECKHOFF|talk]]) 01:09, 2 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with NECKHOFF on all accounts. I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive. Other death/resurrection mechanics to increase death's difficulty would be welcome, although we should consider them carefully. I'm especially concerned that if death causes too much permanent damage it will make griefing more prevalent. As for the clarity of the rules, it would be nice to have some kind of chart somewhere. Finally, I would especially like to see some clarity on the rules of harassment. I realize that what constitutes harassment may be best left as a judgment call, but some kind of general guideline about how often one person can attack another would be welcome. --[[User:PRIMEQ|PRIMEQ]] ([[User talk:PRIMEQ|talk]]) 21:04, 3 September 2016 (CDT)

:"I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when '''99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken.''' Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore." "I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, '''the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive.'''" While it's true that altered and otherwise exotic items are exponentially more common today than 20 years ago, the conclusion is invalid. 20 years ago losing any significant item was much more painful because the likelihood of replacement was slim. Furthermore the time spent to earn any item was relatively much higher. Put simply there are more items now but both the value and rarity of those items is considerably lower. Perhaps more significant is that being graverobbed now requires a great deal of carelessness. Since the latest safeguards were put into place I've seen very little graverobbing of anything meaningful. The few instances that occurred involved unexplained mismatches between the quality of items carried by the character and the experience of the player. Redesigning important game systems to fit characters who, uh, receive extravagant gifts from strangers, would be counterproductive. Games that are both overly easy and lack dynamic content quickly become boring. DR is a resource-limited, slow-changing game with a comparative dearth of both content and players. Removing graverobbing would end one of the few dynamic and challenging aspects of the game. Leave it alone.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

::I'm skeptical that something as safeguarded and secure and idiot-proof as you argue it has become still provide any kind of dynamic challenge. As you mentioned, it's really something that inexperienced people suffer more than anything. At that point, why bother having it there at all? Who does it benefit? It fails to create a challenge for those who want more risk or danger, and it fails to create anything exciting and fun for people who dislike losing their stuff. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 02:48, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:::You haven't actually countered MRTSCR said but more, IMO, proved his point. Graverobbing my character would decimate me as I've spent years building up the unique non-altered items I have. However, it would be 100% my fault if I lose them now with the mechanics in place to prevent loss (not even counting the bonding potion capabilities). If you remove this aspect then the fear of loss would be removed 100% and cause additional careless behaviors that I don't think would benefit the game.--[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 00:45, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

::::Alternatively, by removing the rare potential chance to lose things you've spent years building up players might be more prone to taking chances/risk, because then the risks would be more short-term and palatable. Along with this, and similar to the discussions GMs are having where if every magic user has X feat, should X feat just come baked into the magic system as a whole, if the system is so foolproof and softened that it's essentially impossible to have happen, what value is there in keeping it around? What benefit does the game provide by offering the potential to decimate a _player_? Whose enjoyment is improved as a result? --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

I agree that there should be clearly defined and consistent rules surrounding PvP and consent policy. The details of the consent policy should be made completely available via the POLICY verb and not something that also requires the browsing of multiple NEWS items to supplement the information. PvP stances should be updated and the GUARDED stance should be removed completely. If a CLOSED player initiates an attack on an OPEN player their stance should be set to OPEN for a set period of time. If a CLOSED player attacks another CLOSED player the stance should not be changed as it should be considered RP conflict. Likewise, if an OPEN player initiates an attack on a CLOSED player for any reason it would not affect their stance, even if they choose to retaliate (within "X" minutes, preferably). --[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]] ([[User talk:WHITEBEAUTY|talk]]) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (CDT)

:I agree with this. Closed/guarded players attacking only when they're assured victory by a massive rank difference is a longstanding problem. "Consent" with constant GM mediation was never a great way to manage PvP. But now there are fewer and fewer GMs online, and their time could be much better spent elsewhere. It's clearly time for something new.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

:[[User:WHITEBEAUTY|WHITEBEAUTY]], one problem I see with the proposed mechanics change to switch a player's PvP stances based on triggers is that an open profile character may perform non-combat actions (e.g. slap/kick/thump) or insult the closed-profile player into attacking and still be within the grounds of consent which shouldn't trigger an automatic opening of profile per the gist of your proposal. --[[User:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|UNFINISHED-USERNAM]] ([[User talk:UNFINISHED-USERNAM|talk]]) 21:51, 27 September 2016 (CDT)

===I personally wish the PVP could be tweaked as follows===

Your combat stance also dictates how you see others in the game.

For example if you are guarded or closed and attack an open without a consent, that open player is allowed to report you if they wish. In other words, your PVP stance keeps you beholden to your choices. A Guarded/Closed character should always be at risk for getting reported if they attack without consent. This would remove the first strike many Guarded/Closed enjoy versus opens. Furthermore, it would help put an end to the guarded/closed baiting of opens. Opens would still be stuck with the same rules they currently have to follow. They would be able to attack other opens, but would have to gain consent to attack guarded/closed. I feel like its far more fair to make Guarded/Closed characters play and adhere to the very policy they are choosing. --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

One of the main problems the game faces today, in regards to PVP: GMs don't know the difference between CONSENT and Unconsented PVP. If I AIM at someone, ADVANCE on someone, or cast a spell on them, I've given them consent to attack me, but I haven't attacked them in regards to un-consented PVP. Just because I've done an action that grants someone else consent on my character, doesn't mean I've PVP'ed them in an unconsented manner.

Also, PVP ON/OFF. If you're PVP ON, then you attack other PVP ON no problem, and can not attack PVP OFF. If you're PVP OFF, you're saying I don't want physical violence whatsoever. However, if a PVP OFF attacks ANYONE, they are set to PVP ON. Nice and clear cut, easy peasy. --[[User:WILLN1|WILLN1]] ([[User talk:WILLN1|talk]]) 08:00, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:This ^. So much this. The current GM's seem clueless about the difference between what a CONSENTABLE action is, and a what a REPORTABLE action is. Non-damaging spells are NOT reportable currently, but they do grant consent. Simplifying the policy will make this less of an issue, but GM's understanding whatever policy is in place, and enforcing it properly is still key. --[[User:IVORYTOWERNECRO|IVORYTOWERNECRO]] ([[User talk:IVORYTOWERNECRO|talk]]) 8:28, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

:How does this ON/OFF plan address a person who is actively harassing and acting like a jerk if their PVP OFF? --[[User:DISCOTEQ21|DISCOTEQ21]] ([[User talk:DISCOTEQ21|talk]]) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===PvP policy is too legalistic===

At the end of the day, what matters is that players are having a good time and not necessarily that they are adhering to the rules. A player staying within the letter of policy while griefing someone else is still spoiling the community. Neither should players fear engaging in PvP shenanigans unless they're acting in bad faith. Some guiding concepts could be considered in lieu of hard and fast rules.

A) Consent is implied. The game world is interactive, and one of the ways to be interacted with is PvP. Unless a player is stanced Closed, it is not a policy violation to initiate PvP with them.

B) Consent can be withdrawn. If a player does not want to engage in PvP and they 1) make that OOCly clear and 2) refrain from provoking the other party, aggression stops. Violating this rule nets a warning, full stop. If you want people to play along, they need to be enjoying themselves.

C) Staff can say "no fault, knock it off" in any circumstance without additional justification.

In either B or C any stolen property must be returned and consent ends - unless someone was killed. In that case the party killed can try to score a kill in revenge, then consent ends.

A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind.
--[[User:JULIAN|JULIAN]] ([[User talk:JULIAN|talk]]) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

=== PVP, Consent, Taking Death Too Seriously & Reducing Reporting ===

I haven’t been to any of the pvp/consent meetings, but I was shown a log from one. This is what stands out to me:

Lyneya says, "We want to cut DOWN on the need to report."

This isn’t the first time a GM has said it, IG, on the forums, at a con or wherever. You can be doing fun or important stuff for the game, or you can use all of your time policing the game. Most players would say they want the former, but for some when their text character gets into a conflict and killed then they report and end up perpetuating the latter.

Consent and pvp policy are ultimately a question of punishment. A conflict ensues in game, in character, ranging from a legit reason to no reason at all. A text character dies. The player of the dead text character wants the other player to be punished. The punishment doesn’t add to the roleplay environment. It doesn’t facilitate future roleplay, although it might deter legit roleplay along with griefing. It’s disproportionate. That is, “depart full” and 15 minutes versus game lockouts.

We could add to this that DR has always had a problem with players taking character death too seriously. This is partially the fault of policy itself. There’s a feedback loop where the rules treat it too seriously, so the people take it too seriously.

The core problem with consent policy is not the violation of consent. It’s not killing a text person. It’s the player/GM fallout. The wasted time of staff. The negative impact on the roleplay environment. People afraid to play characters that conflict. Players afraid to play bad guys and players afraid to play good guys who fight bad guys. Hiding behind policy, lawyering with policy, baiting people into breaking policy or baiting them into gaining consent. Navigating a mountain of red tape for a Cleric to fight a Necromancer in a roleplaying game.

If the goal of the consent policy rewrite is to reduce reporting, then it’s important that new rules and restrictions are not added. Not a single new restriction. The more reportable offenses there are, the more violations, the more people are going to report.

Many people have expressed a desire for clarification of the rules, ending the “gray area.” Everyone who has played a controversial character has experienced a time when they thought they’d have consent, only to find out they did not. If not that, all the times they avoided RPing conflict when they did have consent out of uncertainty and fear that they’d be reported.

Meanwhile the rules that already exist, the ones that are black and white, don’t stop people from reporting. I know GMs have had to deal with assists by people who had their profiles set to open and got killed. A lot of reports for unconsented pvp that get ruled a no-GM fall into this category as well. Policy wasn’t broken, but someone reported anyway. All the rules, all the clear policy in the world, isn’t going to stop upset players from reporting when their text character gets in a fight.

So a clear list of rules, verbs or actions that require consent wont necessarily reduce reporting. A list can’t hurt, of course. However, if those rules are more strict than they currently are, for example to make casting any spell require consent or any interaction require consent, then they will stifle roleplay. And they’ll most likely increase reporting, too. The same way the closed/guarded/open profile system didn’t end consent reports and didn’t neatly separate the people who wanted to pvp from the people who wanted to play conflict-free characters. Instead, policy wasn’t changed for the closed profiles. New rules and policy further muddied the waters. For example, people feeling they were free from consent because they were closed. Open people reporting.

This was years ago and these kinds of things still happen. How much additional reporting, and for how many more years, would new rules and restrictions end up creating?

If the problem with consent is actually consent in and of itself, if the goal is to create a roleplay environment without conflict or pvp, then by all means expand the consent rules. Make all spells and abilities that impact a character require consent. People will probably still continue to use these for a long time and you’ll see an increase in reports, but eventually people will learn that you can’t cast a spell on someone else without consent. Maybe at the end of some years there will be slightly fewer reports at the cost of sterilizing a major roleplay vector in the game.

You could even eliminate all consent-based reports by implementing a coded consent command, similar to the ‘consent’ command that already exists for certain verbs like sacrifice. Before a character can attack another, use any spell on another, or do any of the things that might be rolled up in the new consent policy. DR could become a MUD like those that don’t have pvp outside of arenas and you’d never have to deal with a consent-based report ever again.

Many people would like that. They’d like a game free of theft, pvp, and character conflict in general. Many of us also wouldn’t like that. That’s not the game we grew up with and got hooked on. If the game were like that when I came back as a F2P, I would have just kept a F2P character to chat casually on. I never would have resubscribed. I might as well add here that when I returned to the game I found that player stealing almost never occurred any more, for various reasons, from stealing/perception balance tweaks to plat inflation to open profile mechanics. Player stealing was dead. People rarely stole, Thieves didn’t plague the ferries, I’d stand my F2P in main areas for days with pockets full of plats and no one would touch them. Player stealing being the crux of the Thief guild and my favorite pastime, as well as player stealing being the main catalyst of conflict roleplay (even beyond the Necro element), this was enough to make me stay F2P. It was also enough to turn me off playing a Thief as a F2P and when I did resubscribe. Any changes to consent and pvp policy that limit character conflict or further restrict consent would feel very similar.

If the problem is people reporting and wasting GM time because their text character died then it’s a problem you can’t flat out solve with a policy rewrite. No matter how strict, lax, black and white, or gray the policy is. This is a player/culture problem, similarly to how AFK scripting (see the scripting policy discussion page) is a game design problem. If you want people to report less then you need to disincentive reporting. You need to shift player culture away from reporting. As far as a policy rewrite is concerned this means fewer reportable offenses, thus fewer excuses to report. Not more.

Maybe in the policy itself you could explain to players – this is a violent game. It’s a game with a lot of death. You’re gonna die a lot, probably dozens or hundreds of times, in your career playing it. You’re gonna get killed by mobs and players. You’d better get ok with that quick.

And instead of encouraging people to report immediately, which is the way current policy reads, you could emphasize reporting as a last resort. A thing to do when you’re being terrorized, not when someone casts a random spell on you or shoots you with an arrow you after you insult their mother. Being killed without consent, or with blurry consent, is not a big deal. It’s a game, it’s mostly populated by adults, dust yourself off and go on your way. Maybe a rule was broken, but it can be handled without wasting staff time. If you’re being harassed, well, there’s a harassment policy.

I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

I wish the penalty was reduced from using things such as gwethsmashers or thump could be reduced from 24 hours or instead of being locked open if you're closed, you be locked to guarded? Because I know that IC I have wanted to use gwethsmashers before but haven't because I am terrified of being a target for 24 hours. Would 2-3 hours work better instead? It gives the chance for the person to retaliate without being targeted for the next 24 hours when the gwethsmashing only lasts six hours.
:I thought the gwethsmasher locked to open time was 4 hours but I've not done it so could by 100% wrong. Also, if you pull off a smash or thump you have won a stat contest which means you don't have much to worry about (in most cases). This doesn't provide consent to anyone but the smashed/thumped. I don't see the need for changes to this. --[[User:RCHIGHT|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT|talk]]) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (CDT)
:I wouldn't mind seeing this go, mainly because I'd like to see more people using gwethsmashers. I think a lot more people would use them, except (like you said in your case) many people are afraid of being locked open. I'm not 100% sure what the intent was initially, if it was intended to deter people from using gwethsmashers or not. However, that seems to be the result. It would be nice to see smaller characters being able to spark up conflict-driven RP this way without necessarily inviting anyone to kill them for any reason (including without roleplay).

:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)

:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.

It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T04:35:19Z

MRTSCR: /* Some characters receive more AFK checks than others */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

:Being rewarded for "immersing yourself" is a nice thought. It's also completely unrealistic. There will never be enough GMs to babysit every character in the game to enable roleplaying-based advancement. Short of that, there is no possible advancement system that wouldn't incentivize AFK scripting.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

:It's worth pointing out that while the first few checks are IC, the checks you get before you're actually cautioned/warned/etc are grossly OOC and can include things like SENDs, bright yellow text, and other very blatant alerts. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (CDT)
::That is true, at least in some cases. Judging from the logs I've read the time between SENDs and a warning is very short.

::Let's imagine a paradigm where script checks were modified to be a full five minutes of unambiguous OOC SENDs. Would this be more palatable to new players? Would inattentive or unsavvy players miss less checks? Would it waste less staff time? Any change in those parameters would be insignificant. And certainly script checks would remain a failed solution to a problem that amounts to a red herring. It's time to try something different.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

===Some characters receive more AFK checks than others===
I haven't had an AFK check in over a year. I have friends who swear they've received five or more in that time. Still others claim they've never had a script check in their history of playing DR.
It's impossible for any player to know for certain what causes this, but I'll offer three hypotheses:
# Bad scripting. Generating scroll in popular rooms, hunting in impacted areas, etc.
# Revenge-reporting. Player A has undesirable interaction with character B, reports character B for scripting.
# Staff bias. Whether blatantly or implicitly, it's possible that disliked characters are selected for script checks more frequently.
1 isn't very defensible. But I had a look through my friends' scripts for troubleshooting purposes. They were stationary scripts that hunted in areas medium to low in popularity. Therefore #1 clearly can't explain all cases of frequent checks.
2 and 3 shouldn't be possible. Reporting shouldn't ever be accessible as a weapon and certainly not when there is the possibility of permanent rank removal. And AFK checks clearly shouldn't be a surreptitious way to remove undesirable players. A no-GM solution to disruptive scripting would cleanly eliminate these two possibilities.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T04:34:57Z

MRTSCR: /* Some characters receive more AFK checks than others */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

:Being rewarded for "immersing yourself" is a nice thought. It's also completely unrealistic. There will never be enough GMs to babysit every character in the game to enable roleplaying-based advancement. Short of that, there is no possible advancement system that wouldn't incentivize AFK scripting.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

:It's worth pointing out that while the first few checks are IC, the checks you get before you're actually cautioned/warned/etc are grossly OOC and can include things like SENDs, bright yellow text, and other very blatant alerts. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (CDT)
::That is true, at least in some cases. Judging from the logs I've read the time between SENDs and a warning is very short.

::Let's imagine a paradigm where script checks were modified to be a full five minutes of unambiguous OOC SENDs. Would this be more palatable to new players? Would inattentive or unsavvy players miss less checks? Would it waste less staff time? Any change in those parameters would be insignificant. And certainly script checks would remain a failed solution to a problem that amounts to a red herring. It's time to try something different.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

===Some characters receive more AFK checks than others===
I haven't had an AFK check in over a year. I have friends who swear they've received five or more in that time. Still others claim they've never had a script check in their history of playing DR.
It's impossible for any player to know for certain what causes this, but I'll offer three hypotheses:
#1. Bad scripting. Generating scroll in popular rooms, hunting in impacted areas, etc.
#2. Revenge-reporting. Player A has undesirable interaction with character B, reports character B for scripting.
#3. Staff bias. Whether blatantly or implicitly, it's possible that disliked characters are selected for script checks more frequently.
1 isn't very defensible. But I had a look through my friends' scripts for troubleshooting purposes. They were stationary scripts that hunted in areas medium to low in popularity. Therefore #1 clearly can't explain all cases of frequent checks.
2 and 3 shouldn't be possible. Reporting shouldn't ever be accessible as a weapon and certainly not when there is the possibility of permanent rank removal. And AFK checks clearly shouldn't be a surreptitious way to remove undesirable players. A no-GM solution to disruptive scripting would cleanly eliminate these two possibilities.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T04:34:18Z

MRTSCR: /* Discussion */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

:Being rewarded for "immersing yourself" is a nice thought. It's also completely unrealistic. There will never be enough GMs to babysit every character in the game to enable roleplaying-based advancement. Short of that, there is no possible advancement system that wouldn't incentivize AFK scripting.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

:It's worth pointing out that while the first few checks are IC, the checks you get before you're actually cautioned/warned/etc are grossly OOC and can include things like SENDs, bright yellow text, and other very blatant alerts. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (CDT)
::That is true, at least in some cases. Judging from the logs I've read the time between SENDs and a warning is very short.

::Let's imagine a paradigm where script checks were modified to be a full five minutes of unambiguous OOC SENDs. Would this be more palatable to new players? Would inattentive or unsavvy players miss less checks? Would it waste less staff time? Any change in those parameters would be insignificant. And certainly script checks would remain a failed solution to a problem that amounts to a red herring. It's time to try something different.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

===Some characters receive more AFK checks than others===
I haven't had an AFK check in over a year. I have friends who swear they've received five or more in that time. Still others claim they've never had a script check in their history of playing DR.
It's impossible for any player to know for certain what causes this, but I'll offer three hypotheses:
1. Bad scripting. Generating scroll in popular rooms, hunting in impacted areas, etc.
2. Revenge-reporting. Player A has undesirable interaction with character B, reports character B for scripting.
3. Staff bias. Whether blatantly or implicitly, it's possible that disliked characters are selected for script checks more frequently.
#1 isn't very defensible. But I had a look through my friends' scripts for troubleshooting purposes. They were stationary scripts that hunted in areas medium to low in popularity. Therefore #1 clearly can't explain all cases of frequent checks.
#2 and #3 shouldn't be possible. Reporting shouldn't ever be accessible as a weapon and certainly not when there is the possibility of permanent rank removal. And AFK checks clearly shouldn't be a surreptitious way to remove undesirable players. A no-GM solution to disruptive scripting would cleanly eliminate these two possibilities.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T04:08:19Z

MRTSCR: /* Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing */

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T04:08:01Z

MRTSCR: /* Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

:Being rewarded for "immersing yourself" is a nice thought. It's also completely unrealistic. There will never be enough GMs to babysit every character in the game to enable roleplaying-based advancement. Short of that, there is no possible advancement system that wouldn't incentivize AFK scripting.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

:It's worth pointing out that while the first few checks are IC, the checks you get before you're actually cautioned/warned/etc are grossly OOC and can include things like SENDs, bright yellow text, and other very blatant alerts. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (CDT)
::That is true, at least in some cases. Judging from the logs I've read the time between SENDs and a warning is very short.

:::Let's imagine a paradigm where script checks were modified to be a full five minutes of unambiguous OOC SENDs. Would this be more palatable to new players? Would inattentive or unsavvy players miss less checks? Would it waste less staff time? Any change in those parameters would be insignificant. And certainly script checks would remain a failed solution to a problem that amounts to a red herring. It's time to try something different.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T04:07:30Z

MRTSCR: /* Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

:Being rewarded for "immersing yourself" is a nice thought. It's also completely unrealistic. There will never be enough GMs to babysit every character in the game to enable roleplaying-based advancement. Short of that, there is no possible advancement system that wouldn't incentivize AFK scripting.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

:It's worth pointing out that while the first few checks are IC, the checks you get before you're actually cautioned/warned/etc are grossly OOC and can include things like SENDs, bright yellow text, and other very blatant alerts. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (CDT)
::That is true, at least in some cases. Judging from the logs I've read the time between SENDs and a warning is very short.

Let's imagine a paradigm where script checks were modified to be a full five minutes of unambiguous OOC SENDs. Would this be more palatable to new players? Would inattentive or unsavvy players miss less checks? Would it waste less staff time? Any change in those parameters would be insignificant. And certainly script checks would remain a failed solution to a problem that amounts to a red herring. It's time to try something different.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T01:26:15Z

MRTSCR: /* Discussion */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

Being rewarded for "immersing yourself" is a nice thought. It's also completely unrealistic. There will never be enough GMs to babysit every character in the game to enable roleplaying-based advancement. Short of that, there is no possible advancement system that wouldn't incentivize AFK scripting.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Scripting policy

2016-10-24T01:14:16Z

MRTSCR: /* Discussion */

==General Comments==
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. '''

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window.
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

==Discussion==
===Interfering with scripting checks===
Should there be a portion here about not interfering with scripts/bots/etc? In terms of penalties, skill reduction still makes sense, but should the loss of TDPs outside of that skill loss (aka: outright removal of stats) still exist? I don't know if there should be a definitive "you will always be behind until the next respec/stat-wipe in the game" situation. Also wondering if Plat's penalty going straight to 3 is still something that's useful. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (CDT)

===Thoughts on AFK scripting===
Some of my thoughts on afk scripting since there was a meeting about it recently.
<ol>
<li>I don't want it fully legal, the fallen comes to mind.</li>
<li>I don't want it too strict and harsh, the population of plat comes to mind. I think if the majority honestly wanted this full rp environment and no scripting plat would be full of people, but it's not.</li>
<li>I think a lot people are not really honest about it, want to stay off the gm radar, or want to gain favoritism with the gms so most discussion I see on it reeks of that. Most people afk script sometimes. Some do it 24/7 (which is bad) and the people complaining I believe are really just frustrated they will never catch up to people good at scripting. I don't really think it has much to do with impacting role playing or making the mud feel dead like they like to claim. </li>
<li>I'm very concerned about oversight and fairness if this policy becomes strictly enforced. God forbid a GM would warn one of their favorite players. I'm just being fully candid here.</li>
<li> I watch my screen for the most part but I will admit there are times I'm not completely paying attention. If policy was enforced very strictly. I would probably get warned at some point and I would go play another game. I'm not interested in gaining favoritism to avoid gms targeting me for a video game. If I was confident the checks were completely random, which I probably have no way of being, I might be more inclined to stay and take my lumps and adjust accordingly. However, it often felt in the past like certain players were immune from script checks or just were able to pass them even though they were afk. I imagine some have an elaborate system set up for it. I picture all kinds of alarms going off on their phone when they're getting checked. So, what it felt like always ended up happening is the power scripters and serious abusers always got away with it, the gm favorites always got away with it, and the average video game player got completely wrecked.</li>
<li>I think there would also be merit and making the game less necessary to script. 50 commands to mind lock a skill sometimes seems excessive. Why do you need 10 tools for forging? Just one example. Why not automate some of it on the backend so you can be afk while not actually typing anything in. Like, braid grass until mind locked. Isn't there some balance to be had here? I think simply going after punishing players with harsh punishments and not doing anything else is going to destroy the player base.</li>
<li>The penalties are way too harsh as well. If I got warned, I would cancel and play another game. That's just the way it is. On the flipside, people cancel because they can't keep up with scripters. So give them the ability to keep up with them without having to write such advanced scripts? I know it's such a delicate balance, you don't want it to be too easy.</li>
<li>Other ideas I've heard are to implement are xp and loot penalties if you're logged in for exceptionally long periods of time.</li>
<li>This would be a fair system. Implement automated script checks, take GM bias out of the equation for AFK scripting purposes. Every day everyone gets at least one script check. Would have to code some new ones to use in the beginning. It's fair but it will never ever happen because we all know it would completely annihilate the player base. That's the reality of the situation and I hope it's considered with whatever is done. I hope the focus is on making automation less appealing rather than punishing people for it.</li>
</ol>

--[[User:JWARK4|JWARK4]] ([[User talk:JWARK4|talk]]) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

:For clarification's sake, scripting is allowed to Plat. I agree that the penalty for getting caught afk scripting is a bit extreme. But scripting is 100% allowed. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (CDT)

: One of the GMs made a beautiful post on the official forums about how they did lots of AFK checks when they first started, but basically do none now. I think their post (http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Scripting%20policy/view/1350 and find the post by DR-RAESH) ties into points 4, 5, and 6. Their point was basically A) AFK checks take a while to perform; B) even when they identify an AFKer, there is paperwork; C) there are better places to spend GM time; and D) the root cause is not AFKers, but that the game encourages AFK scripting so much. To point 8, I feel it would unduly impact F2P players. I keep some characters logged in for very long periods of time, but that's a necessity since I don't have offline drain. Build up field exp during the day, then let it drain overnight. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 09:16, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other===
I think this policy enforcement needs to move one way or the other. The current middle ground of being mostly unenforced except against less complex scripts and used as a grudge tool by people is untenable. Given the manpower issues already being faced policy enforcement seems unrealistic and a pointless arms race that alienates paying customers. Doubly so when HLC and plat sales are flourishing. It seems like if anything you'd want more paying customers scripting part of the time for 4 years instead of the HLC they'll buy for a month before getting bored and moving on again. People complain about inflation (both skills and coins) but these problems are there regardless of scripting due to real money sales.

Look at the current state of the game, this is what the game is like with rampant scripting. Removing this policy isn't going to make it more rampant because it's going on already at extreme levels. We're at least a decade out from what this game looked like without extensive and prolonged scripting violations. It seems like we can try and return to that past which is a big financial investment and alienates both caught players and everyone else by making them wait on further delayed development. All this to gamble that it would become a better game (or more profitable from SIMUs perspective). Alternatively we're left accepting the state of things as they are. Cut free the manpower that goes into that now, salvage the dev effort that goes into maintaining TF. Focus on making systems that aren't more rewarding for scripts than manual play. As it is the scripters are paying for accounts and simu coins; they're helping keep the lights on. If they're only ATK 4 hours of every 24 it's still 4 hours with more people in the world to interact with and another face to create the crowd in the city street. (Yes yes, fallacy of the excluded middle, but the policy revamp discussion and GM comments really makes it seem like staying where we are isn't an option.)

There's already no keeping up with the Joneses and what we have now is ProgressQuest crossed with an ADHD test.
--[[User:SEPED|SEPED]] ([[User talk:SEPED|talk]]) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

: +1 [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

===Eliminate scripting policy when it isn't preventing others from enjoying the game, incentivize non-scripting tasks===
People should remember that the PLAYERS requested the skillcaps constantly be raised - the reason scripting is required is player skills are spread over multiple years or even a decade of character training. If people didn't want this massive gap and time investment, they'd be comfortable with the skill caps being lowered dramatically, and/or the nature of TDPs being changed such that 'train all the skills' wasn't the best way to play.

I'm fine with a complete elimination of the scripting policy so long as its activity is not preventing others from enjoying the game. Since that's a fairly difficult thing to blithely define, just update the policy to reflect as much -

1. Characters have no claims to hunting rooms. 
2. Update consent to reflect potential harassment (i.e., following characters and skinning/looting their kills, pointing them, etc. 
3. What have you.

Honestly, if the GMs/Devs are angry with the state of AFK scripters, they should incentivize people to do things other than script. That means game events, storylines that move, player interaction that matters. Players are to blame insofar as paying so heavily into revenue events, but the lack of stuff going on means that players fill the time doing something, anything. Given the lack of support for player lead RP events, it's no wonder players are scripting as heavily as they are, let alone the PvP rank disparity issues.

--[[User:JHALIASCLERIC|JHALIASCLERIC]] ([[User talk:JHALIASCLERIC|talk]]) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

===The incentives to script are too big===
Whatever the policy is, there is a huge incentive to scripting AFK. This is how you can advance your character.

Indeed, I dislike the separation of gameplay (actually immersing yourself, talking to people, walking around reading descriptions, etc..) from advancing your character (braid grass, read compendium, observe sky, predict, etc..). I don't think there is any immersion found in repetition of mind numbing tasks. If I overnight script, I can gain 0.25 of a rank in something! If I sit down and actively play the game, I do not advance. It is a system which promotes automation and further, you have a system which advancing is literally typing the same command over and over and over. That said, I don't think you will ever lose the automation, but you can merge the gameplay with advancement and then I will feel less incentive to script and to actually PLAY the game. Please do not punish me for wanting to play the game and also advance my character.
--[[User:ARCHIMEDIAN|ARCHIMEDIAN]] ([[User talk:ARCHIMEDIAN|talk]]) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)
: +1 --[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

The challenge is two fold: time to gain skills and perception. For the first, the game is measured in years. Given this, a new character will never catch up to a character decades old. The need to AFK script to catch up is then realized. Even with AFK scripting, progress is slow and takes year or more. As an example, when I returned from a rest I started forging. Two years later, and not doing AFK scripting, going to the forge and doing workorders I am only in the mid 200s. I am not complaining about that; just showing an example as to why some would AFK script to get to a point where they can make decent weapons, armor, or tools.

The second challenge is perception. No matter what the policy is or is not, some will perceive it as bad. Perception is also why some complain about 'keeping up.' Perception is the most challenging aspect to address. Some have the perception they cannot help in an invasion if they are low level. I am not against AFK scripting as I feel it does not affect my game play and it does not advance one as fast as someone perceives.

As others have stated, the game needs more events to draw people's attention. I know some items toward this are in the works and I applaud the efforts! I play the game because I enjoy it. I do enjoy interactions with others. If they do not answer, I treat them as NPCs and move on. I say remove AFK scripting policy.

--[[User:POPWEASEL|Dartellum Waddle, WarMage]] ([[User talk:POPWEASEL|talk]]) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (CDT)

=== AFK check methods ===

I would like Simu to find a better way to do AFK checks. I have failed one while at the keyboard simply because I didn't know that a bunny (or whatever it was) hopping in my room was a check! This was on my second day in the game (as a player, not character!), so I wasn't even aware that AFK checks existed. Even a few weeks later, when I was AFK checked again, it took me minutes to realize a leprechaun (or whatever it was) dancing in my room was an AFK check and respond. The verbiage is very poor in those checks. [[User:SHELTIM|SHELTIM]] ([[User talk:SHELTIM|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2016 (CDT)

===Do away with script checks, encourage self-policing===

Script checks are deeply problematic. Imagine being a new player and seeing a rabbit telling you to jump repeatedly. You don't jump because you don't see why your character would obey a rabbit. Suddenly you're in a policy violation room. How do you feel about this? Do you continue to give DR a chance, or does this make you uncomfortable enough to move on to a different game? I know what the answer was for a RL friend I'd briefly convinced to try DR.

Next imagine you've been working on your character for over 10 years. Through inattentiveness or neglect you fail a script check. Now you have a choice: Keep playing, knowing there's a risk you might lose years of training with a single mistake, or quit. For me it would be an easy decision. There are many who feel the same, as evidenced by the long history of players quitting DR after receiving AFK warnings.

Furthermore script checks and the resultant consults are poor uses of staff time. Doing away with script checks would free GMs up to work on new content for DR and fix game bugs. Most players would agree that this should be the priority.

AFK scripting isn't going away. The current overly punitive policy, despite ruining the game for many, has been ineffective. This is due to the inherent nature of DR as a text-based game with a time-intensive exp curve. History has shown that there is simply no way to eradicate or even significantly discourage AFK scripting.

We are then fortunate that AFK scripting is not the actual problem. The problem is scripts that are disruptive, AFK or not. Most players, myself included, prefer a game where most characters aren't unresponsive bots who generate scroll, steal hunting rooms, and generally cause frustration. Luckily these things are completely preventable.

How? Stop discouraging players from interfering with scripters. Make unresponsive characters fair game to attack. Roll this into the upcoming PvP policy reform. If players have to worry about their characters being killed, dragged, and generally abused due to scripting obnoxiously, this problem will self resolve. Players will script in out of the way areas to avoid conflict, or write scripts that do not cause disruption.

In this way no one would have the game-ruining experience of receiving an AFK warning. For the first time in DR history the frustration of dealing with scripters would be alleviated due to players being empowered to stop obnoxious behavior. With a crowdsourced solution, GMs will be able work on things that benefit us all.--[[User:MRTSCR|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR|talk]]) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (CDT)

Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

2016-10-12T05:43:04Z

MRTSCR: /* Discussion */

Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

2016-10-12T04:32:22Z

MRTSCR: /* Discussion */

User talk:PRIMEQ

2016-10-12T04:10:48Z

MRTSCR: Created page with ""I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the cust..."

"I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore."

"I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive."

While it's true that altered and otherwise exotic items are exponentially more common today than 20 years ago, the conclusion is invalid. 20 years ago losing any significant item was much more painful because the likelihood of replacement was slim. Furthermore the time spent to earn any item was relatively much higher. Put simply there are more items now but both the value and rarity of those items is considerably lower.

Perhaps more significant is that being graverobbed now requires a great deal of carelessness. Since the latest safeguards were put into place I've seen very little graverobbing of anything meaningful. The few instances that occurred involved unexplained mismatches between the quality of items carried by the character and the experience of the player. Redesigning important game systems to fit characters who, uh, receive extravagant gifts from strangers, would be counterproductive.

Games that are both overly easy and lack dynamic content quickly become boring. DR is a resource-limited, slow-changing game with a comparative dearth of both content and players. Removing graverobbing would end one of the few dynamic and challenging aspects of the game. Leave it alone.

Aaoskar

2016-08-13T23:57:48Z

MRTSCR:

{{Player character
| Player Name = Aaoskar Moonbender
| Status = a
| Race = Elf
| Gender = Male
| Guild = Moon Mage
| Instance = Prime
| Relative = Moonbender_Family
}}

{{Cat|Player Fortune's Path,Lunar Accord}}

Appearance

You see Lightwielder Aaoskar Moonbender, an [[Elf]]. He has an angular face with bushy white unruly eyebrows, pointed ears, vivid blue pupils set in Grazhir white eyes and a straight, broad bridged nose. His snow-white hair is very long and straight, and is worn loose. He has smooth sand-colored skin and a lithe build.

Dress: He is wearing a pair of jade and tyrium hairsticks, a snow-white brocade silk kimono with a somber black under-robe and some leather-thonged sandals.

Family: [[Moonbender_Family]]

Clan: [[Wind Elf]]

Guild: [[Moon Mage]]

Sect: [[Fortune's Path]] but considers himself to be a student of both [[Lomtaun]] and [[Tiv]].

Order: Once held a prominent position in the [[Order of the Iron Circle]], but now is no longer a member.

Background:
Aaoskar was a commoner who rose to great heights, becoming a general and a leader on the battlefield. With success, Aaoskar became to feel that he mastered the web of fate, but in time learned that he was entangled by the very forces he thought he had mastered. Discovering his disillusionment, Aaoskar abandoned his new won station in life and became a hermit, looking for a way to free himself from the entangling web of fate (however knowing that this may be an impossible hope).

Currently:
When Aaoskar is in the public (which is rare), he is often seen shaking his head in disappointment before quickly going back to his solitude in the wilderness.

Aaoskar's lecture on fate.

Every event is woven in the tapestry of fate. And while both the wise and foolish try to prove that they have freedom to direct their lives, the truth is, no one knows whether they are the master or the servant of fate. My advice if I may call it my own. Imagine that all that is other is bound by the web of fate, so that you may have compassion for those that suffer and for those who act foolishly...for they cannot do other than how they do. Yet, imagine that you, yourself, are unbound and able to lift yourself... and others from their misfortune.

Of course, it could just be that I am fated to pretend a dream that fosters compassion in me...for I do not know if I am the master or the servant of fate speaking to you. But whether fated or not, I hope this foolish idea invades your soul so that the world is better because of you.

It had been 420 years, 332 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer when the evil snert Cibym killed the mighty Aaoskar whilst he knitted a midnight black nightsilk tea cozy at Magen Road:

>
You call forth the dark will of the divine, attempting to malign Aaoskar's defensive ability.
Flickering shadows tear away from your fingertips, shuddering through the air toward Aaoskar!
Tendrils of malevolent darkness swarm around Aaoskar, intertwining with one another into a constricting cage. A strong curse settles over him, cemented by your will.

Roundtime: 2 sec.
R>
>
Ordaes just arrived.
>
Since you're attempting to feed more power into the spell pattern than it is capable of utilizing, you quickly work your way down to its maximal potential.
That won't affect your current attunement very much.

You begin chanting a psalm to invoke the Curse of Zachriedek spell.
>

You point a crooked finger at Aaoskar and garble an unintelligible curse.
A disturbing black radiance creeps over Aaoskar's insulated mask.
A disturbing black radiance creeps over Aaoskar's insulated vambraces.
A disturbing black radiance creeps over Aaoskar's insulated robe.
A disturbing black radiance creeps over Aaoskar's insulated hood.
A disturbing black radiance creeps over Aaoskar's insulated gloves.
A disturbing black radiance creeps over Aaoskar's targe.

Roundtime: 2 sec.
R>
R>
The flame opals adorning the triquetra symbol of your blighted gold bracelet flare with radiance, a sense of peace and restfulness spreading through you to ease your mental fatigue.
R>
That will disrupt less than a quarter of your current attunement.
You begin chanting a psalm to invoke the Aesrela Everild spell.
>
You begin to weave mana lines into a target pattern around Aaoskar.

Your formation of a targeting pattern around Aaoskar has completed.
>
You close your eyes, drawing your closed fist toward your chest.
Seconds later you swing your arm outward, pointing at Aaoskar as your eyes fix on him in a vehement stare.

Your spirit flows into waves of translucent energy that enwreathe Aaoskar, swarming around him malignantly.

Roundtime: 1 sec.
R>
>
That will disrupt less than a quarter of your current attunement.
You begin chanting a psalm to invoke the Aesrela Everild spell.
>
You begin to weave mana lines into a target pattern around Aaoskar.

>
Several bolts of flashing silver flame flare into view, churning around Aaoskar. With surprising speed, they swirl upward into the sky with a wailing shriek!
>
>
>
Streamers of glistening silver light trail in the air as bolts of flame begin to fall from the sky like miniature comets!

A bolt of holy fire strikes Aaoskar's targe and slams into his back, scorching his flesh.
Aaoskar is stunned!

>
Your formation of a targeting pattern around Aaoskar has completed.
>
You close your eyes, drawing your closed fist toward your chest.
Seconds later you swing your arm outward, pointing at Aaoskar as your eyes fix on him in a vehement stare.

Your spirit flows into waves of translucent energy that enwreathe Aaoskar, swarming around him malignantly.

Roundtime: 1 sec.
R>
Battlefront Medic Laveaux just arrived.

>
>
A bolt of holy fire strikes Aaoskar's targe and slams into his left leg, burning and blistering his flesh.

Battlefront Medic Laveaux prances west.

>
That will disrupt less than half your current attunement.
You begin chanting a psalm to invoke the Aesrela Everild spell.
>
You begin to weave mana lines into a target pattern around Aaoskar.

>
A bolt of holy fire strikes Aaoskar's targe and slams into his left leg, utterly immolating surrounding flesh and bone in a conflagration of roaring silver flame!
>
You feel fully rested.
>
>
Several bolts of flashing silver flame flare into view, churning around Aaoskar. With surprising speed, they swirl upward into the sky with a wailing shriek!
>
Aaoskar screams and falls to the ground grasping his mangled left leg!

>
>
Aaoskar sits up.

>
>
Streamers of glistening silver light trail in the air as bolts of flame begin to fall from the sky like miniature comets!

A bolt of holy fire strikes Aaoskar's targe and slams into his chest, utterly immolating surrounding flesh and bone in a conflagration of roaring silver flame!

* Aaoskar is slain before your eyes!
The black radiance fades from Aaoskar's insulated mask.
The black radiance fades from Aaoskar's insulated vambraces.
The black radiance fades from Aaoskar's insulated robe.
The black radiance fades from Aaoskar's insulated hood.
The black radiance fades from Aaoskar's insulated gloves.
The black radiance fades from Aaoskar's targe.
The swirling confines of malevolent darkness wane from about Aaoskar.

And the mighty Aaoskar did lieth dead whilst the Empaths of the Crossing labored over his slain body.