Open comment period, proposed changes to ALFA's CvC policy:

[Zelknolf]

So if the problem is drama and to not force players into CvC that they don't want and/or won't have fun playing, how about this:

If two players meet and one player wants a CvC, they tell the HDM (with a screenshot that you're together) and the other player. The other player gets two options:
Option 1 is accept the CvC. No complaints about how "in character" the event is can be made. The CvC can't go to the PA. The target of the CvC has "signed off" on the legitimacy of violence, in essence, and thus the attack is just fine. DMs need only be involved if NPCs are present when the attack takes place (with the old common sense rules there). If no DMs are around for the fight, logs go to the DM team for posterity.

Option 2 is refuse the CvC. Both PCs are then bound to never again do any harm to one another, directly or indirectly (can't attack; can't burn down the house; can't burglarize them; can't equip or persuade someone else to carry out the violence; can't launch PR campaigns about it -- the characters don't seem to be able to interact in character without killing each other, and at least one player won't have fun doing that, so the agreement is to not interact).

If the CvC is somehow plot-centric (target PC holds a plot device item, for example), option 2 comes with surrendering the MacGuffin, and the surrendering player has "lost" whatever fight for the purposes of that plot (which is signed off on by the DMs, and they make sure that it's all in character and plausible and such).



And then tech implements systems to inform about this stuff if it ever spots PCs toggling hostility on one another, so ignorance isn't a defense. We also have player events-- so melee attacks without some magical reason (e.g. dominated) or hostility can be (and probably should be regardless) logged. Spells with the hostile flag set only target hostile creatures anyway. And so we're pretty well informed if anyone tries to circumvent things.



I figure that we have a few situations that this can resolve:
Both players want to fight -> Great! They fight.
One player wants to fight -> Whatever! The other guy "loses" and they neither has to worry about the other again.
One player thinks the other guy is a metagamer/player killer/total jerkface -> Whatever! They stop playing together.
One player actually is a metagamer/player killer/total jerkface -> The burden of proof for these cases is usually impossible to actually produce, and the investigation would probably result in a lot of unproductive argument. They're not allowed to fight, so jerkfacery is contained. PA office has an easy out (no tangible consequence came from the conflict) if a complaint comes anyway.
As the previous line, but with a MacGuffin changing hands -> Some drama, but less than currently. The consequence is a lost plot device, not a lost character; if PA needs to get involved, there's at least less bad blood in it because both players have less skin in the game.

[Regas]

If the CvC is somehow plot-centric (target PC holds a plot device item, for example), option 2 comes with surrendering the MacGuffin, and the surrendering player has "lost" whatever fight for the purposes of that plot (which is signed off on by the DMs, and they make sure that it's all in character and plausible and such).

If there's a plot there needs to be a DM, and DM supervision. This is exactly the issue. Some ass hat of a player umpteen levels higher than the other ones barges into an ongoing dm plot and demands the plot item or whatever else needs done to spoil the fun of everyone else. A big part of the issue with player conflict is a handful of players just don't care how their actions affect others.

We are not going to be able to eliminate PA and DM involvement in player conflicts. The policy is going to get reworded a bit- and let me be clear that consent or a dm approval/supervision doesn't allow players or dms to act with impunity, biased or unfairly.

We have got to get away from trying to play against one another though (except when members want to do that with one an other), and all the discussion seems to be focused on how we can twist these rules to keep doing the same stupid stuff that's causing the issues. It just isn't working. I see few options beyond no CvC at all or we just start ejecting folks that can't get along with others. Neither option is very appetizing to me.

[Zelknolf]

We have got to get away from trying to play against one another though (except when members want to do that with one an other), and all the discussion seems to be focused on how we can twist these rules to keep doing the same stupid stuff that's causing the issues. It just isn't working. I see few options beyond no CvC at all or we just start ejecting folks that can't get along with others. Neither option is very appetizing to me.

I'm not sure how we're going to get away with having people not "play against" each other for as long as we're allowed to play characters with directly-opposed goals and ideologies, or characters who represent significant threats to their neighbors. Worshipping Shar or Talos is illegal everywhere but in Thay with good reason, and folk were plenty justified in throwing a Faerûn-wide party when Bane died, but we have stacks of players who want to play those characters and be the black-hatted unapologetic evil in their play time. Not we'd be able to ban that-- games with "no evil characters" policies just have black-hatted evil with "chaotic neutral" written across the top in blue crayon, and even when people make good faith efforts in playing a bunch of good guys, reality produces wide scopes of actual values and practices, some of which will offend the ethics and sensibilities of others attempting the same.

I figure we're probably not going to get everyone to join hands and skip down the road together (or at least won't do so reliably), and I'm not sure that offering one-off doses of CvC exceptions is going to reduce the time we waste on these conflicts-- two characters with reason to fight will continue to try until given some lasting resolution, and it'll be a marked increase in discontent and vitriol when these policies change who wins a CvC. I just think that it's better to provide some avenue to give a nerfed variety of "losing" the CvC that doesn't cost anyone their character than waiting for it all to blow up.

[danielmn]

A good point brought up earlier and that needs to be echoed, and perhaps put into the cvc rule:

If you continually antagonize other players, but hide behind the cvc policy, you will be charged with greifing. Period. You CAN play evil or good, and not antagonize other PC's. That's what NPC's are for. If you ARE going to antagonize others, pull an OGR and let the other player/s know beforehand, to make sure it's cool with them. If it isn't, don't. Let's all be adults, and quit these dickish bullshit power struggles. Don't really think it's that hard.

If a player/players are messing with your pc or faction, tell the dm team. I think that is a better alternative: the dm team might set something that is non-lethal up for the opposing forces.

[kid]

If a PC abuses these rules to antagonize others while hiding behind the CvC rules by not consenting, report them to the DM team, because under these rules, that would now likely be considered griefing.

That would give you just as many complaints and dealing with OOC bullshit.
We must mark a few hostille acts that mean "ok to CvC" to simply jump that hurdle.

[Swift]

If a PC abuses these rules to antagonize others while hiding behind the CvC rules by not consenting, report them to the DM team, because under these rules, that would now likely be considered griefing.

That would give you just as many complaints and dealing with OOC bullshit.
We must mark a few hostille acts that mean "ok to CvC" to simply jump that hurdle.

If players initiated less bullshit CvCs, we wouldn't have needed these changes in the first place.

We are trying to find a compromise between CvC being banned and the status quo that few in the DM team like.

Reporting a player for griefing is a far more straightforward issue for the DMs, ARs or PA than the amounts of crap they have to go through from a disputed CvC.

[danielmn]

If a PC abuses these rules to antagonize others while hiding behind the CvC rules by not consenting, report them to the DM team, because under these rules, that would now likely be considered griefing.

That would give you just as many complaints and dealing with OOC bullshit.
We must mark a few hostille acts that mean "ok to CvC" to simply jump that hurdle.

Complaints that would easily be more open and shut than our current policy, in which often weeks of time are devoted to. A simplistic log evidence of pc antagonization, and refusal of cvc should be extremely easy to identify and subsequently punish.

[kid]

If a PC abuses these rules to antagonize others while hiding behind the CvC rules by not consenting, report them to the DM team, because under these rules, that would now likely be considered griefing.

That would give you just as many complaints and dealing with OOC bullshit.
We must mark a few hostille acts that mean "ok to CvC" to simply jump that hurdle.

Complaints that would easily be more open and shut than our current policy, in which often weeks of time are devoted to. A simplistic log evidence of pc antagonization, and refusal of cvc should be extremely easy to identify and subsequently punish.

If I didnt know any better i'd think you dont know ALFA.
By that logic log evidence should just as easily determine cause for lack of cause for CvC.
However we debate on and on about that as well.
Anyway... Eh. Whatever. Never actually CvC and never really wanted to. But I like having the tension of it. And I like people being scared (including myself) when they should be. Hell I spent 3 month hiding under a bench cause of some Sharan cult. That was fun RP.

[for some reason all CvC insidents i've had since were with people connected to that one... odd... with those insidents I had a problem, but if I were to file complaints about griefing about those i'd get diddly and the hassle for the DMs/admins would have been just the same so... *shrugs* you can't solve people thinking other people are jerks, and you can't solve the hassle that makes]

[danielmn]

If a PC abuses these rules to antagonize others while hiding behind the CvC rules by not consenting, report them to the DM team, because under these rules, that would now likely be considered griefing.

That would give you just as many complaints and dealing with OOC bullshit.
We must mark a few hostille acts that mean "ok to CvC" to simply jump that hurdle.

Complaints that would easily be more open and shut than our current policy, in which often weeks of time are devoted to. A simplistic log evidence of pc antagonization, and refusal of cvc should be extremely easy to identify and subsequently punish.

If I didnt know any better i'd think you dont know ALFA.
By that logic log evidence should just as easily determine cause for lack of cause for CvC.
However we debate on and on about that as well.
Anyway... Eh. Whatever. Never actually CvC and never really wanted to. But I like having the tension of it. And I like people being scared (including myself) when they should be. Hell I spent 3 month hiding under a bench cause of some Sharan cult. That was fun RP.

[for some reason all CvC insidents i've had since were with people connected to that one... odd... with those insidents I had a problem, but if I were to file complaints about griefing about those i'd get diddly and the hassle for the DMs/admins would have been just the same so... *shrugs* you can't solve people thinking other people are jerks, and you can't solve the hassle that makes]

Seeing as how I've dealt with these situations as both PA and AR.....I think I might know a little bit more of it.
Fine to voice an opinion, but from my own experience, judgements involving cvc are WAY more convoluted than simple logs showing antagonization, and then a hiding behind the cvc rule by refusal. B is simply more cut and dry than A. If you want to pretend it isn't, by all means. I say give it a whirl and see what happens and those that actually do judge these sorts of things can gauge how successful the change is.

[kid]

And I still say...
Making some behaviors a clear consent to CvC would reduce the burden on DM/admins even more.
Knowing that if you are RPnig agressively in some ways towards someone else is by default consent to CvC that would insure people are careful with their RP.
It would cut down a large part of even those complaints about griefing.
Honestly I dont think its easier to rule about one than the other but im happy to take your word for it.
Doesnt change the argument though.
Less complaints is even better.
It could be simple to compile such a list of behaviors imm and it would allow for more fluid RP.

[rorax]

I would just offer to prevent people from playing evil characters and by doing lower the risk for CvC.

Preventing CvC from OOC reasons would make it almost meaningless in some situations to play evil PC, specially when there is some kind of disagreement between toons.


Limiting people to play neutral / good characters would indirectly support this policy that CvC should be agreed by all parties.

[Swift]

Honestly I dont think its easier to rule about one than the other but im happy to take your word for it.

Because you have never had to rule on either.

I would just offer to prevent people from playing evil characters and by doing lower the risk for CvC.

Preventing CvC from OOC reasons would make it almost meaningless in some situations to play evil PC, specially when there is some kind of disagreement between toons.

Limiting people to play neutral / good characters would indirectly support this policy that CvC should be agreed by all parties.

Conflict is good and can, in the right circumstances, be great for RP.

Conflict such as "Well, he's an <race> and my PC hates <race> so I am going to kill him" or "He called me a funny name so I am going to kill him" is not good conflict, is not good for RP and is not good for the player on the receiving end, particularly when it is a higher level and the target has no reasonable way to defend themselves from it.

This reason, among others, is why the circumstances on when you can CvC are being clamped down on, because DMs are sick of seeing it.

[kid]

I said i'll take his word for it!
And thats not completely true btw... had pletnty of debates about CvC on BG forums... long long long debates. (:

Anyway, I still insist on giving some basic guidlines.
If you play a sharan and pray to shar infront of the spires expect persy to smite you. there should be no need for DM in such cases.
If you throw stones at Gregor Clagain, expect to have your head bashed in.

Just give some basic RP guidlines as to what is considered consent by defult in order to have less appeals for DMs and more fluid RP.
Some cut and dry stuff. Would help i think.

[rorax]

"He called me a funny name so I am going to kill him" is not good conflict, is not good for RP and is not good for the player on the receiving end, particularly when it is a higher level and the target has no reasonable way to defend themselves from it.
.

Could be very reasonable RP for evil PC.

There are endless examples of people who got stabbed because they laughed with the wrong man, or because they argued on parking space with someone they didn't know.

That's the point of being evil, that your full of yourself.

A thief who got insulted might plan sophisticated revenge , a evil barbarian would just axe you in the skull.


Lets take some examples of evil creatures?

Dragon(evil)
Ogre
Vampire
Bugbear


Do you think someone one of them would take it lightly if you'll tell him he is funny?

If you Swift were infront of Dragon or ogre, would you tell them they are funny?


I'll continue Kid's example, instead of OOCly forcing Gregor Clenage to be nice to people who mock him, just prevent people from playing him first place.

Gregor Clenage avoiding CvC and getting along with people who "joke" or "mock" him, well THATS THE BAD RP.

[causk]

ALFA is not a George Martin novel, but a dnd derivation. Which is at its essence still a collaborative dungeon diving/adventuring game. You define the character you play. If you are in constant conflict with other pcs, you cant claim its not your choice and you are just roleplaying properly. If you want to play a pillage/murder sociopath on the gregor clegane level, odds are you are playing the wrong game and lots of ooc annoyance will come of it.