Something I Hadn't Heard Before!

[*Mr_Otyugh]

There was actually quite a bit of RP revolving about Kasha-Zephon thing among the triad, but they did rather agree that there was little to go by if she didn't want to testify, pursuing it would've been a massive waste of time for everyone involved with a clear outcome. Reactions were rather varied to even some being prepared to resolve to relatively unlawful methods. But in this particular case it was the more lawful elements whose chosen field of conflict was legal system, it proved to be a dead end until tangible evidences. Though I'm sure it probably didn't get out all that much after first few contacts.

Anyway, that's besides the point! I actually wanted to say that I'm a fan of conflict, but I also understand the general aversion to it. Conflict is one of those things that works really great if both players are being reasonable, and generally pursuit more the story than its outcome, though with the intended outcome as a guideline obviously. I do think it tends to generate a massive amount of story easily, but it's also true that it's one of the biggest sources of drama. Now I could of course get about the whole "Just take it IC and don't get so dramatic!" but that's a near religious chant that predates even SCoD, and I've never particularly noticed it to be quite that effective. I've been trying my best to approach it in other ways instead with a little more defined pointers.

[*rapsam2003]

but it's also true that it's one of the biggest sources of drama. Now I could of course get about the whole "Just take it IC and don't get so dramatic!" but that's a near religious chant that predates even SCoD, and I've never particularly noticed it to be quite that effective. I've been trying my best to approach it in other ways instead with a little more defined pointers.

It's fairly simple to just close down the matter - UNLESS someone has screenshot proof of harassment OOCly. That's all conflict involving combat should be, man. If someone wants to tattle-tale to the staff, then the answer should always be, "Without proof of harassment OOC, this is considered a legitimate IC PvP event. Enjoy!" If there is proof of OOC harassment, then take action.

But, really, every time someone initiates PvP (even if they follow the rules to the letter), the losing party ends up reporting it, it almost seems like these days.

I'm not sure what you think is restrictive about "communicate with the other party." Communication is key to any sort of fun prolonged conflict RP. The exact details, timing, and whether you want to do it mechanically or RP is really up to you and the other party's tastes.

Breaking entire flow of RP so folks can send a "Accept PvP?" tell ruins the whole mood. Furthermore, the idea that such a thing is even required means, more often than not, people just avoid it entirely. And people rarely accept the idea that, if PvP is about to happen, they should let it. Why? Because they know, if they sit there and say no, the rule is on their side. Even if they were the instigator, they know all they have to do is say no and it's all good for them.

[*Vehk]

Though in many ways SCOD is an amazing RP server, I do prefer the way Realm of Trinity handles CVC engagements; consent is still required, but it is handled in character. If you character is still combative, threatening, after it's been made clear the other character is ready to fight over it, that is consent right there.

Consent to PvP actions are defined as the following:

In Character: Threats, Rude comments, picking a fight, typing in an aggressive or attacking action (i.e. *John throws DudeÂ’s lute into a fire*).

If the character backs down and ceases hostility, you cannot attack them as there is no consent but they must move on/cease taunting or aggressive behaviour.

What many seem to dislike on this server though is how any CVC rp is instantly derailed by OOC chatter or bickering, it ruins the immersion. Such is best kept in character in my opinion, and if one party feels there was no IC justification it's a matter of sending the log to a DM.

[*ewe]

I mean openly mocking people, saying they have mental illness, etc. is as low as it gets in there. Also all the cussing and just general rudeness.

[*Mr_Otyugh]

Well, ewe, to be fair, there are two sides to the story. While your side is, and can be, construed as true. It neglects to represent two important aspects. Time and reason. The reason in this case refers to how you represent yourself, people aren't usually proactively seeking out things to act upon, they instead behave in a reaction to what the others say or do. Time in this case is about the evolution of those reactions over a longer span of time, due to the self-presentation.

Obviously I am putting no defense upon public rudeness, but what I am advocating is that we all tend to be a part in forming of how we are treated ^{(exceptions exist, some people are just plain rude)}. Much in the same way of how people will think of me for saying these words, or what I've said in the past. Some like me for what I say, others do not, and will react either strongly or not upon it. And to reiterate for those of whom may have missed the first portion of the paragraph: I don't defend public rudeness, and I think such needs to be better addressed.

[*Mr_Otyugh]

Though in many ways SCOD is an amazing RP server, I do prefer the way Realm of Trinity handles CVC engagements; consent is still required, but it is handled in character. If you character is still combative, threatening, after it's been made clear the other character is ready to fight over it, that is consent right there.

I'm not aversed to trying this out. IC consent does work in at least individual cases, it is a tried and true concept. Although then it needs to be better clarified as to what can be interpreted as a consent, and people will get really creative at that point.

[*Tomekk]

On the matter of PvP, its common knowledge that most people who play antagonistic characters also happen to be quite good at building them into efficient PvP machines... and at that point, a lot of people don't feel like engaging when their character is almost certain to lose mechanically.

Hence why I'd suggest more people just RP their fights out ;)

[*Sinlinara]

Tomekk is absolutely right, and it doesn't stop at just builds. There are some who will do the most ridiculous things just to win.

^{(Although I personally find RP 'battles' to be dull and unsatisfying no matter what the outcome is.)}

[*rapsam2003]

Though in many ways SCOD is an amazing RP server, I do prefer the way Realm of Trinity handles CVC engagements; consent is still required, but it is handled in character. If you character is still combative, threatening, after it's been made clear the other character is ready to fight over it, that is consent right there.

I'm not aversed to trying this out. IC consent does work in at least individual cases, it is a tried and true concept. Although then it needs to be better clarified as to what can be interpreted as a consent, and people will get really creative at that point.

This is the kind of thing I want!

[*MimiFearthegn]

But, really, every time someone initiates PvP (even if they follow the rules to the letter), the losing party ends up reporting it, it almost seems like these days.

.....................

Breaking entire flow of RP so folks can send a "Accept PvP?" tell ruins the whole mood. Furthermore, the idea that such a thing is even required means, more often than not, people just avoid it entirely. And people rarely accept the idea that, if PvP is about to happen, they should let it. Why? Because they know, if they sit there and say no, the rule is on their side. Even if they were the instigator, they know all they have to do is say no and it's all good for them.

This is actually where the rules come in - it makes it super easy to weed out the false reports when there are clearly defined do's and don'ts. We don't get that many false reports.

I get that saying something OOC breaks the flow of RP a little, but the flow of RP is going to be broken if everyone wasn't on the same page anyway.

Also, people hitting the hostile key at the same time by mutual agreement seems like a plus for a fair fight.

And, well, if they refuse PvP? They have to leave, so you "won" the argument anyway.