Could we have killed this person? Is this initiation valid?

[Defiance]

[video=youtube]

The initiation happens within the first three minutes. The initiator is unarmed and puts his hands up. 

Could the party being initiated on have killed this man immediately? He initiates but does not pose a threat. The rules seem unclear here. 

If the answer is no, then could he have been killed after the initiated party began receiving shots? Is this person immune to KOS? I'd like clarification from the staff team, preferably WITH evidence from previous reports.

Edit: For the record, I wasn't involved in this event. I'm just curious because I honestly do not know what would be accepted.

Edit2: I've added a second question: Is this initiation valid? Hyde brings up the point that hostile actions (initiations) should be clear and unambiguous. Isn't this objectively unclear and ambiguous?

[Guest]

In my opinion, If what he says is correct and a group of people told him to go initiate on the larger group, I do not think they get KOS rights as they are not part of his group.

And the Large group would of gained KOS rights on Marvin, As he was the one who initiated on them, Giving them the threat to their lives.

Ill just wait till another person confirms my info.

Good question

[AndreyQ]

Yes, he is the one initiating therefor you gain kos rights on him too even tho he does not pose a threat.

[Unknown Entity]

RP wise, I'd say no.

It's a very weird situation rule wise, but in the end, this is an RP server. He was obviously scared, and was doing it very well. By the rules, yeah most likely, but it would be a dick move.

[Defiance]

RP wise, I'd say no.

It's a very weird situation rule wise, but in the end, this is an RP server. He was obviously scared, and was doing it very well. By the rules, yeah most likely, but it would be a dick move.

So shooting him is a dick move but initiating without posing a threat isn't? I get that it's an RP server, but there are two sides to this coin. 

It's a really clever way to initiate, and I feel it puts the initiated party at a huge disadvantage, especially if they are concerned with RP. Definitely a weird situation.

Additionally, if he DOESN'T initiate, then the group that forced him to initiate gets to execute him for non-compliance. It's kind of a really shitty situation for Joffrey, but Joff was in their comms and I'm sure agreed to it OOC. Maybe.

[BostonRP]

If I'm understanding this correctly, you have KoS Rights, as he had initiated.

Instead of straight up killing him, I would roleplay with him a little bit, then execute him if you want to. Other than that, let him live and let the story continue.

[Ron]

Yes you gain KOS-rights if someone initiates on you but RP is the main goal. 

Why would you cut down on rp options? If he puts hands up: get him and get hostile!

[Guest]

According to this statement in the rules, 

Under the KOS section:

Killing another player must always be justified by the role playing and the actions specified in this rule; there are several situations where you can kill another player:

You have to make contact with the target before initiating a hostile action against it. You must make your hostile intention clear and unambiguous and state each demand before you can harm the victim(s) for non-compliance.

It seems perfectly clear that you do indeed gain KOS rights on the person who initiated. However seeing that he surrendered almost immediately after he initiated, it does seem like  an unnecessary feat. However to me, the initiation may seem like a false initiation since the KOS rules stated at the "hostile intention clear and unambiguous'.

In my opinion, you can kill him if you wished too. However, it seems that the initiation may be quite invalid and killing him is an optional step.

[Defiance]

This probably isn't the place for my personal opinion on the matter, but the way I view initiations is that they're the FINAL straw. If you initiate, then you aren't expecting more RP. That's the bottom line. If you initiate, you must be ready to face the consequences. There's a huge difference between hostileRP, which provides more RP, and initiations, which serves to provide an opportunity for combat/hostage scenarios.

If one person, unarmed, initiates upon a group of people, then can't we just assume that you're surrounded? You either surrender, kill him and run, or just run. I'm not going to stand there and give this person hostileRP when he just granted us KOS rights on him within thirty seconds of making contact.

I've no hard feelings at all, but I just feel like encouraging further RP in this situation is disingenuous and doesn't make any sense to me. If someone initiates on me, then they've made up their mind. Unless baited into doing otherwise, initiations should be the last option. In this scenario, it was the first. I'd most likely have killed this person.

---

According to this statement in the rules, 

Under the KOS section:

Killing another player must always be justified by the role playing and the actions specified in this rule; there are several situations where you can kill another player:

You have to make contact with the target before initiating a hostile action against it. You must make your hostile intention clear and unambiguous and state each demand before you can harm the victim(s) for non-compliance.

It seems perfectly clear that you do indeed gain KOS rights on the person who initiated. However seeing that he surrendered almost immediately after he initiated, it does seem like  an unnecessary feat. However to me, the initiation may seem like a false initiation since the KOS rules stated at the "hostile intention clear and unambiguous'.

In my opinion, you can kill him if you wished too. However, it seems that the initiation may be quite invalid and killing him is an optional step.

So is this a valid initiation? He did clearly surrender right after the initiation. It just seems really strange to me and this isn't the sort of initiation I'd ever orchestrate because it seems so unclear and confusing.

[AndreyQ]

I also agree with the OP here. The way I see it is that if you decide to initiate on someone then you expose yourself to the danger of getting killed. In this particular situation it seems like FFL has put Joffrey to initiate on those people. The initiator knew what was doing and knew the danger of initiating on someone.

[Melvin]

I believe that you are able to kill Joffrey for the first few moments after he initiated. However, after he pleaded for his life, he would become a compliant hostage and is unable to be killed.

Admittedly, his initiation should be bordering on invalid as he did not state his hostile intentions but nevertheless, it was one of the funnier initiations

[Nik]

Definitely a funny initiation

Kinda clunky and a weird way to do it, but fun nonetheless

I knew I should've lit Joffrey up though lol

[Defiance]

For the record, ain't no reports going to come out of this or anything like that. This is just for clarification/discussion. Everyone involved seemed to have enjoyed themselves with this scenario, and the RP on the side of the initiator was top notch.

We love the French and want to keep fighting them in the future. <3

[Jellydonut78]

That was my favorite initiation I have ever seen. The RP itself seems to be a great initiation, I think they could have killed him, but they didn't have a reason to. I think that he was acting as a messenger of sorts saying "If we don't all put our hands up they will shoot us" As far as the rules go this seems like a bit of a grey area, It is slightly unclear who is doing the initiation. I think this should be allowed as it made for an interesting bit of role playing from all involved. I think they would have gained KOS rights, even though he posed no threat. Seeing as how his hands were up, he would have no reason to lie about a group telling him to initiate on them. Overall, strange situation according to the rules, but RP is great.

After he said put your hands up, I would have been like "You and what army". 1 guy initiated on like 10, gotta give props for that.

[Dustup]

I was wondering this myself after watching this (wasn't involved with this at all) and the video posted in the failed robberies thread.  I have some questions that are probably best made in this thread as I think they are on point with the OP's question, and the initiation seemed to confuse the people involved (I am guessing this was intended, hats off to the French), just want some clarification before others start trying to imitate this form of initiation in one form or another.

I don't know the background to the video and whether he was actually a hostage or pretending to be one (*looks at the sks on Joffreys back and the stacks of ammo in his inventory*) but in a situation like this, assuming he wasn't really a hostage, what would stop someone doing this and pretending to be forced to initiate with their hands up and then pulling a weapon out and shooting anyone who didn't comply revealing that they are in fact a form of inside man?

Now lets say he was a hostage, is it a reasonable demand to make someone go and initiate on your behalf like this?  Aren't captors supposed to protect their hostages from external threats, and isn't this essentially creating an external threat towards the hostage?

Would it be considered rule-play given that a person or group could simply keep initiating by forcing a hostage to initiate on their behalf or someone could pretend to be a hostage being forced to initiate knowing that the hostage (either actual or pretending) would essentially be protected by the rules if this was a form of initiation that was considered to not grant KOS rights for the party being initiated on?

[Yoshi]

The way that the initiation was performed, constructively speaking, was interesting, but highly flawed. The fact that the group used an inside man to initiate would've definitely and immediately caused for confusion right away. The fact that he was unarmed and stated "I have a proclamation to make. You are to put your hands in the air, and drop your guns on the ground, as you can see, starting a few seconds after the 1 minute 15 second mark in the video.

The rules state this:

http://puu.sh/mmtae/6aed772da7.png[/img]

I'd like to highlight this portion of that statement, which seems to have been missed here:

http://puu.sh/mhSKC/21be73aafe.png[/img]

After watching the initiation, and seeing the way it was performed, I am convinced that it was performed appropriately. The man can certainly initiate with no gun, as long as he were to add this to his statement: "...or you will be shot by the men who are currently surrounding this town." By not stating that there was a consequence and stating that there were people with guns allied to him by deception, posing as if he had been forced to act, whom of which had forced him to do this. This was not 100% clear, and was highly deceptive, causing a large amount of confusion in the beginning. Although the people reacted correctly, this was only by luck, and others were still killed for this.

I like the scene that this created, as it was clever, but this was a very wrong way to go about the initiation. It's not 100% wrong, nor is it 100% right, as it could use improvement in clarity and fluidity. Overall, I would say no, this was not a proper initiation. KoS rights were barred in the beginning to to the ambiguity of the presentation of the initiation.

I hope this answers your question in full. Please let me know if there is any clarification needed.

Note: I was a part of this situation, sort of, in the fact that I was in communications with several of those present, but couldn't do anything once I arrived due to both being >500m from the area at the time of initiation and had no plan of action as I was the only one remaining, whom had not been initiated on or killed. I did watch the spectacle with binoculars and had the situation recorded from my standpoint in the hills above the town. It was quite the tense and helpless feeling. Thanks to Zoya for being a babe and not initiating on me, even though she was clearly in communications with the initiators towards the end of the event, calling out mine and another random's position with her. (Which is what I figured was the case from the get-go)

[Defiance]

The way that the initiation was performed, constructively speaking, was interesting, but highly flawed. The fact that the group used an inside man to initiate would've definitely and immediately caused for confusion right away. The fact that he was unarmed and stated "I have a proclamation to make. You are to put your hands in the air, and drop your guns on the ground, as you can see, starting a few seconds after the 1 minute 15 second mark in the video.

The rules state this:

http://puu.sh/mmtae/6aed772da7.png[/img]

I'd like to highlight this portion of that statement, which seems to have been missed here:

http://puu.sh/mhSKC/21be73aafe.png[/img]

After watching the initiation, and seeing the way it was performed, I am convinced that it was performed appropriately. The man can certainly initiate with no gun, as long as he were to add this to his statement: "...or you will be shot by the men who are currently surrounding this town." By not stating that there was a consequence and stating that there were people with guns allied to him by deception, posing as if he had been forced to act, whom of which had forced him to do this. This was not 100% clear, and was highly deceptive, causing a large amount of confusion in the beginning. Although the people reacted correctly, this was only by luck, and others were still killed for this.

I like the scene that this created, as it was clever, but this was a very wrong way to go about the initiation. It's not 100% wrong, nor is it 100% right, as it could use improvement in clarity and fluidity. Overall, I would say no, this was not a proper initiation. KoS rights were barred in the beginning to to the ambiguity of the presentation of the initiation.

I hope this answers your question in full. Please let me know if there is any clarification needed.

Note: I was a part of this situation, sort of, in the fact that I was in communications with several of those present, but couldn't do anything once I arrived due to both being >500m from the area at the time of initiation and had no plan of action as I was the only one remaining, whom had not been initiated on or killed. I did watch the spectacle with binoculars and had the situation recorded from my standpoint in the hills above the town. It was quite the tense and helpless feeling. Thanks to Zoya for being a babe and not initiating on me, even though she was clearly in communications with the initiators towards the end of the event, calling out mine and another random's position with her. (Which is what I figured was the case from the get-go)

This does help out A LOT, although I'm not sure if it answers everything. I think dustup brought up a lot of really interesting questions that are worth considering.

You could mark this as solved, but I'd hesitate to say that the discussion is anywhere near from over. I'd love the opinion of more staff with this question, although I understand completely that they're busy with reports and things of the sort. Perhaps you could direct a few in the direction of this thread?

[JoffreyRP]

After reading some responses I think I've got an idea of what I personally think would be the ideal solution here. (also I agree I didn't do my initiation 100% ...oops..forogt to state clear consequences."Or you will be shot")

Anyways.

This guy runs up to you and initiates, and CLEARLY shows HE isn't an immediate threat. Therefore, he has declared himself, a Hostile component, but he is complying with you.

Now that you have a complying hostage situation, you, as the owner of the newly aquired hostage, would counter-demand that the hostage "call his boys off of us now, or you will die."  

Now the hostage has to call off the attack, or face death.  If the OG attackers start shooting, it shows NVFL for their group member, and is then in my opinion a rule break.  

The original hostile folks should begin hostage negotiation immediately.

That's my 2 cents anyway.. dunno if I have it right.. lol

[Nik]

-snip-

That's actually a super cool way to do it.

To be honest that never crossed my mind and I wish it did at the time, could've made for some sweet negotiation rp.

But how would we know that those men weren't forcing you to do this and how would we know that they just wouldn't kill you to IG? You didn't have much and you said they didn't give you there name, which makes it seem like you and the group weren't friends. So I don't think there was anyway for us to know that you were actually with them and they weren't using you.

I guess because you complied they would have to look out for you, so if we took you as a hostage it would've worked, ruleplay wise. But RP wise I still don't think there was any way IG for us to know that and are only course of action was either run or comply and since we only saw you some choose to run.

[Yoshi]

This does help out A LOT, although I'm not sure if it answers everything. I think dustup brought up a lot of really interesting questions that are worth considering.

You could mark this as solved, but I'd hesitate to say that the discussion is anywhere near from over. I'd love the opinion of more staff with this question, although I understand completely that they're busy with reports and things of the sort. Perhaps you could direct a few in the direction of this thread?

I'll be sure to solve it, as your original question seems to have been answered, I'll take into consideration Dustup's questions here. I would like to encourage the other Community Helpers to take part in this, if you would. Although Hyde has already given this a go.

-snip preface to question-

what would stop someone doing this and pretending to be forced to initiate with their hands up and then pulling a weapon out and shooting anyone who didn't comply revealing that they are in fact a form of inside man?

This is a neat move. It forms a complex initiation, which is what was attempted, as Joffrey has already admitted.

Now lets say he was a hostage. Is it a reasonable demand to make someone go and initiate on your behalf like this?  Aren't captors supposed to protect their hostages from external threats, and isn't this essentially creating an external threat towards the hostage?

This is a good point. This would in fact be placing your hostage in harms way. On the flip side, it can be seen as a demand by the captor, with a guarantee of protection. If the hostage fails to comply, he's risking death from the captors, which places this situation in a nice catch-22.

Would it be considered rule-play given that a person or group could simply keep initiating by forcing a hostage to initiate on their behalf or someone could pretend to be a hostage being forced to initiate knowing that the hostage (either actual or pretending) would essentially be protected by the rules if this was a form of initiation that was considered to not grant KOS rights for the party being initiated on?

This depends on the fluidity of the initiation and how organized and proficient the side of those aggressed are at dealing with a situation of this magnitude. With such a large group initiating on another large group, all seeming intermingled, with no distinct side, it would be hard to deal with this. If the aggressed side is altogether and not made up of a bunch of randoms, then the chance to retaliate is much more open and clear, making KoS rights easy to distinguish and deal with. Yes, technically KoS rights are granted during this initiation, but it is hard for any of the randoms involved to take part as they cannot distinguish a clear line between the initiators and the initiated.

After reading some responses I think I've got an idea of what I personally think would be the ideal solution here. (also I agree I didn't do my initiation 100% ...oops..forogt to state clear consequences."Or you will be shot")

Anyways.

This guy runs up to you and initiates, and CLEARLY shows HE isn't an immediate threat. Therefore, he has declared himself, a Hostile component, but he is complying with you.

Now that you have a complying hostage situation, you, as the owner of the newly aquired hostage, would counter-demand that the hostage "call his boys off of us now, or you will die."  

Now the hostage has to call off the attack, or face death.  If the OG attackers start shooting, it shows NVFL for their group member, and is then in my opinion a rule break.  

The original hostile folks should begin hostage negotiation immediately.

That's my 2 cents anyway.. dunno if I have it right.. lol

You're initiation wasn't completely clear, yes, but I'm not saying your RP wasn't amazing nor was I saying that I didn't think the method of initiation wasn't interesting. I just pointed out the one single flaw I was able to find. Not having understood this whole "OG attackers situation," I would love for some clarification as to what exactly happened in the event which led to this, as I was under the impression that you and the rest of your French had initiated on the Jackals and killed them, following up by rounding up the town and initiating on them as well.

---

Update. Accidentally closed. Reopened, but remains solved as mentioned earlier.

[JoffreyRP]

I don't really know what happened prior to that incident. I started recording when I logged on, Johnny told me they needed someone to initiate on the people there.. and I volunteered. On my run over there I just kind of "winged it". Focusing on making the situation the best possible for my survival. Initiating solo on 15 people is a solid way to die.

[Defiance]

I don't really know what happened prior to that incident. I started recording when I logged on, Johnny told me they needed someone to initiate on the people there.. and I volunteered. On my run over there I just kind of "winged it". Focusing on making the situation the best possible for my survival. Initiating solo on 15 people is a solid way to die.

I think what strikes me as odd about this initiation is that you're essentially forcing the people you initiate on to take YOU on as a hostage. By forcing yourself into this situation, you're both granting KOS rights and becoming a complying hostage. I could see this being a really cool tactic if the aim was to encourage RP, and I can imagine scenarios where this would be the case. 

Let's assume that the people you initiate on were to acknowledge the fact that you suddenly became a complying hostage. If they begin to act as your caretaker, then they're simultaneously NOT complying with the demands of their hostage, and the people surrounding the party initiated on can be killed for non-compliance. You're creating a scenario where YOU have to comply to demands, and they subsequently have to give you demands as well. It's a really confusing scenario.

I don't think I would encourage other people to initiate in this way. Even if you're being clear and ambiguous, this seems to be a form of ruleplay.  This is a really complex scenario and I've never witnessed anyone doing anything like this before. I'd imagine you weren't the first to do something like this, though and am curious as to whether or not anyone has heard of an initiation like this being done before.

[JoffreyRP]

Yeah I don't know whos done it before, I was just trying to find a way to not die lol I don't think i'll be using this as my "go to" tactic anytime soon lol

[Defiance]

Yeah I don't know whos done it before, I was just trying to find a way to not die lol I don't think i'll be using this as my "go to" tactic anytime soon lol

It's all good. I am trying to think of a way that you can do something similar to this and still abide by all the rules. I love unique initiations like this, and if I wasn't interested in doing it myself then I'd not have made this thread.