Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-22, 09:06

Sign in to follow this  
nisbo

How the Over strict rules Damage character loyalty

Recommended Posts

nisbo    33

Three men meet, and through discussion and common ideals become good friends. They travel together. Risking their lives constantly for each other, fighting wolves, the undead, and creating a strong bond. They learn to trust one another with their lives and act to protect each other with their lives.

They run across a pair of strangers, who speak of how important they are, who constantly escalate trying to get a rise out of the three. soon the three are taken hostage by the two, they had wasted all their ammo do defend each other from the wolves in the last town over they would not let each other die. 

They are taken by the two kidnappers away, forced into silence upon punishment of death.

Bound by rope and knelt down in a field the three are asked one by one their names and what they are doing together. 

When they reach the Third man they, claim he is part of a group and slash his leg open. Trying to get a truth that didn't exist from him.

One of the men then declares one man will die, out of the three and that the three travellers had to decide.

The three agreed to not be playing these men's sick game and would not give the two kidnappers a name, not wanting to  give up on each other. Not willing to sentence one another to certain death.

The two are outraged at this and decide to pit two of the travellers against each other. To see who would live. The two travellers loyal to a fault, only more so now seeing that each would not give up the other.

They are given knifes and told to fight. They try to buy more time each not wanting to hurt the other, first by refusing the fight, then when told that they would both die if they didn't start the fight. They made out to fight while making sure not to hurt one another.

The kidnappers again are furious at the comrade and loyalty the travellers show to each other firing a bullet into the leg of one of the travellers. Who falls to the ground. outrage hits the second fighter and he charges the armed man, to protect his friend from further harm. And perhaps if he has to, give his life. So his friends can be let go. and the kidnappers can have their sick game finished.

 

so this is the story in which  there were two bans, given. 

One for the "combat logging" + "Ghosting" of one of the two men

and the other is "NVFL" for the man who tried to save his friends by giving the kidnappers what they wanted

Now if you look closely at the dynamics of the situation the three men knew one of them had to die, (OOC they were told that the kidnappers thought it was allowed) and one of the three decide to protect the other two.

 

This is where i think the rules fall short. Allowing for a situation, that expects a selfless act but punishes it unless it is done in all but one way a straight up "kill me" which by the rules technically is NVFL but most likely would not be punished. Kinda a silly thing to be upheld but i guess there are grudges out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliv    1569

Seeing as this Verdict was just handed out and appeals can still go up, I wont be commenting on this. I do not like the practice of discussing open reports or things that can still go to an appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oyface    309
Posted (edited)

It's a very complicated matter with a lot of grey areas, but in this scenario you wrote (assuming it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) I'd say it should be perfectly fine as long as it's a permadeath. Seeing friends go down like that can be really good for plot/character development.

But doing something like that, which you know will get you killed, and still playing on the same character would just be ridiculous.

Edited by Oyface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodoo    367

What @Oyface said above sums it up.

i havent seen the report so dont know all the details but had a perma death occured id say its not NVFL. 

As it stands currently NLR for instance doesnt make alot of sence with being allowed to remember who killed you and acting injured. Taking a bullet to the head for instance, am i supposed to slur my words and act dump on respawn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolle    2456

The situation you describe, if perfectly truthful is against the rules, multiple in fact.

 

6.1 You must always have a valid in character reason which would justify a hostile situation. 

Taking three random and unknown people as hostages and playing a sadistic game on them for no apparent reason is not what I see as a valid reason. Stuff like that could be done to long standing enemies that have hurt you or your group before, not total strangers. And no, "my character does things like that" is not a valid reason to bypass this rule.

 

8.1 You must do everything in your power to keep your hostages alive and in relatively good health.

8.3 When making demands to people attempting to rescue the hostage, they must be unambiguous and reasonable. For example, you cannot demand that somebody puts their own life at risk or else the hostage will be shot.

You may not force your hostages to kill each other, that is an unreasonable demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix    1057
5 minutes ago, Rolle said:

The situation you describe, if perfectly truthful is against the rules, multiple in fact.

 

6.1 You must always have a valid in character reason which would justify a hostile situation. 

Taking three random and unknown people as hostages and playing a sadistic game on them for no apparent reason is not what I see as a valid reason. Stuff like that could be done to long standing enemies that have hurt you or your group before, not total strangers. And no, "my character does things like that" is not a valid reason to bypass this rule.

It's a case by case matter, I agree with Rolle here.

I would absolutely let two of my arch-enemies fight eachother to death. It was done before in one of @Roachs Videos of Season 4 where @Undead demanded @Buddy to take a knife and cut his friend open or else all of his other friends would die as well. 

I wouldn't agree to doing it to strangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pepe Jones    62

Well I mean it's a lot easier if you just ask for permission first before they started the game. There are plenty of people in the community who care more about RP then dying IG and will usually grant you it and have a bit of fun. However if you don't have permission then you can get into some hot water obviously. So they definitely should have asked first, or just had you use your fists instead. Though just saying that the rules are over strict and complaining that your report didn't get people banned for three days isn't going to change anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle    346

So you mean this report here,  I'm pretty sure it covers all the bases.
If I rushed a man with a stick and got sprayed down that's NVFL there's no escape but certain death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   81

I'm with @Pepe Jones here, this whole situation might easily have been avoided with a few "//" permission requests, seeing as how the hostile RP was violating some pretty basic rules of hostage care. 

In short, sounds like two bandits provided some "OK" RP (not bad, just not phenomenal) and screwed up handling hostages for the sake of some weird "sociological experiment" (lolwut), and one of the hostages decided to suicide-jump several guys with automatic weapons, KNOWING he wasn't going to make it, after what sounds like a lot of bad-quality interaction from both sides. It's textbook NVFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hebi Kotei    302
Posted (edited)

While it is not against the rules to have hostages fight, it is against the rules for the hostages to die as a result of the initiators commands, like you described. If he wanted this to take place, ask permission OOCly by using the "//" prefix. Since there is no proof on the actual report and the conflicting POVs they could not punish for such an action because you cannot take one members word over another, that's standard, next time try recording while playing.

The combat logging is self-explanatory.

For the NVFL, the person who died in this situation knew that he was going to die unless he killed his friend, the order still stands regardless of the fact that the initiator was breaking the rules. He went willingly towards his initiators with a knife while they were holding assault rifles, if you thought your character wasn't going to die here then you're not the brightest bulb on the chandelier, last time I checked is that what he did is NVFL, plain and simple.

While I agree that the rules are too strict in some cases and in some places, I do not agree in any shape or form that this situation that the verdict is not fair because it is. If your friend disagrees with the ban, tell him to post an appeal.

tl;dr

  • It is NVFL
  • // could've solved all of the issues on the hostage takers side
  • Record all in-game situations like this and maybe it will not end up in a WvW situation
  • Verdict is fair
Edited by Hebi Kotei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is fucking retarded. If it's good RP. Let it be. I feel as if the rules do end up creating a lot of restrictions. And thus it's how we have gotten into the same cycle of people not wanting to get banned or fear of getting reported. So they take someone hostage, take their shit, and let em go. And the people who are taken hostage don't want to do anything for fear of getting banned or reported. It should be all based off good RP and not of NVFL or some immersion breaking permissions. If RP is solid and the sacrifice isn't a dumb "go on without me" even though you have a clear window of escape and just want to stay behind to get in a fight. Then it should be OK.

 

Tell me. Let's put yourself in the situation of the guy who rushed with the knife. Would you be a pussy and back down? Or would you want to go out in a noble sacrifice?

 

Excuse my strong use of vulgar words. I feel it gets my point across better that way.

Edited by Combatsmithen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goku    61
19 minutes ago, Combatsmithen said:

Tell me. Let's put yourself in the situation of the guy who rushed with the knife. Would you be a pussy and back down? Or would you want to go out in a noble sacrifice?

Honestly? I don't know what I would do. From what I've read here, if I was to take the place of the guy who was willing to die a "valiant" and "noble death", I probably wouldn't do anything because lets be realistic here, I've only just met these guys while I wouldn't sentence anyone to death, I sure as hell wouldn't want myself to die for someone I barely know, would you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beni    686
52 minutes ago, Combatsmithen said:

This is fucking retarded. If it's good RP. Let it be. I feel as if the rules do end up creating a lot of restrictions. And thus it's how we have gotten into the same cycle of people not wanting to get banned or fear of getting reported. So they take someone hostage, take their shit, and let em go. And the people who are taken hostage don't want to do anything for fear of getting banned or reported. It should be all based off good RP and not of NVFL or some immersion breaking permissions. If RP is solid and the sacrifice isn't a dumb "go on without me" even though you have a clear window of escape and just want to stay behind to get in a fight. Then it should be OK.

 

Tell me. Let's put yourself in the situation of the guy who rushed with the knife. Would you be a pussy and back down? Or would you want to go out in a noble sacrifice?

Mate go home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Emerald Knight said:

Honestly? I don't know what I would do. From what I've read here, if I was to take the place of the guy who was willing to die a "valiant" and "noble death", I probably wouldn't do anything because lets be realistic here, I've only just met these guys while I wouldn't sentence anyone to death, I sure as hell wouldn't want myself to die for someone I barely know, would you?

 

He says they became all great friends. Also. People in the military die all the time for people they don't know. They die so people have the freedom to burn our flag. Think about that. They die so for the country that allows people to disrespect said country.

37 minutes ago, Beni said:

Mate go home. 

You're telling me to go home? Good RP is Good RP and nothing can change that.

Case by case basis my friend. Case by case basis. If it's clear that the sacrifice was pointless and didn't make any sense and fit with the RP, it should be an NVFL. But the sacrifice in this case indeed did make sense and fit with the RP.

Edited by Combatsmithen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nisbo    33
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Oliv said:

Seeing as this Verdict was just handed out and appeals can still go up, I wont be commenting on this. I do not like the practice of discussing open reports or things that can still go to an appeal.

I don't look to pick a fight about it i don't want you to bring any verdict into it its about the rules more than the people hence the storytelling narration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And its more of a question, of if you are to chose between three options.

To try to kill a friend while risking death

To sit and have your friend killed along with yourself

Or  to sacrifice yourself for your friend's in a way to give you a chance at revenge

? which would you choose? And does it conflict with the rules?

Oh and to explain, the three travellers build a brothers in arms kinda bond. standing united. hence the lack of in fighting when they were told to choose one to die. 

(thanks for the replies it's nice to see peoples opinion's)

Edited by nisbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QuinQuam    5
6 hours ago, Combatsmithen said:

This is fucking retarded. If it's good RP. Let it be. I feel as if the rules do end up creating a lot of restrictions.

Excuse my strong use of vulgar words. I feel it gets my point across better that way.

The rules create certain restrictions for the function of ensuring that there's quality RP on the server and they also set a certain standard for said RP. Rolle pretty much summarized that.  "Good RP" is also subjective; there's a lot of factors to consider (character motives, execution of those motives, etc etc). It makes much more sense for a character to engage in such hostile RP with a valid reason for such actions such as past connections with bad blood... but in this situation, I'm not too sure myself.

Also, I find that using vulgar language often detracts from your main points instead of supporting them, but each to his own, yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   44

If ya gonna die then you gonna die, might as well go out with a bang. Rule Shields, tut tut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matusmanis    20

I ll have to agree with OP in this case. Technicaly it is a NVFL, but one that makes complete sense. Hostage takers stated that one of them will die. Hostages did everything in theyr power to protect theyr lives and lives of theyr friend (which is a rate sight these days) for as long as they could and everything they did was out of purely in character motivation. When it got to the point that they could no longer avoid death one ofmore them atacked hostage takers knowing he will not survive thus giving in to hostage takers main demand that one of them must die. I could easly see this event happening as such IRL.

 

Btw just think, if someone told you someone is going ot die and its goinfg ot be your brother/sister/wife/daughter...  wouldnt you at the very least try to trade your life for theyrs? I sure as hell would

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, matusmanis said:

I ll have to agree with OP in this case. Technicaly it is a NVFL, but one that makes complete sense. Hostage takers stated that one of them will die. Hostages did everything in theyr power to protect theyr lives and lives of theyr friend (which is a rate sight these days) for as long as they could and everything they did was out of purely in character motivation. When it got to the point that they could no longer avoid death one ofmore them atacked hostage takers knowing he will not survive thus giving in to hostage takers main demand that one of them must die. I could easly see this event happening as such IRL.

 

Btw just think, if someone told you someone is going ot die and its goinfg ot be your brother/sister/wife/daughter...  wouldnt you at the very least try to trade your life for theyrs? I sure as hell would

Exactly. It's good RP. Let it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darra    138
Posted (edited)

The man sacrificed his life to save his friends.  If he had been a soldier who threw himself on top of a grenade, he would have been honored with a posthumous medal.  Perhaps we need a "role-played" NVFL or something similar that comes with no punishment or at the most a caution.

Would it have been NVFL if he had instead volunteered to be the one to die?

I'm sorry the RP didn't go the route the hostage takers desired.  But, as I've been told in the past, we can't always control the direction our RP takes. 

Edited by Darra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Debalia    5
Posted (edited)

I can honestly see where this came from and I must admit I'm a bit sad that it was a NVFL that resulted in punishment as ICly there are very valid reasons to sacrifice yourself for someone else. My character I created a page for would surely sacrifice himself to save his daughter, assuming I find someone to RP her, which I'm sure would net me the same kind of punishment as that man. While NVFL is a rule I think is needed to avoid troll players always trying to sacrifice themselves or abuse a more lenient version. I think as long as a NVFL break caused a perma-death  then it can be phenomenal RP for all parties involved, and massively affect the morale, mental state, and direction the involved parties characters were at before they started the interaction.

Edit: I'm not encouraging anyone to break the NVFL role if the RP would benefit from it, just maybe it should be looked into somehow allowing this type of RP.

Edited by Debalia
My statement could have been interpreted that I want people to break the rule, which I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Debalia said:

I can honestly see where this came from and I must admit I'm a bit sad that it was a NVFL that resulted in punishment as ICly there are very valid reasons to sacrifice yourself for someone else. My character I created a page for would surely sacrifice himself to save his daughter, assuming I find someone to RP her, which I'm sure would net me the same kind of punishment as that man. While NVFL is a rule I think is needed to avoid troll players always trying to sacrifice themselves or abuse a more lenient version. I think as long as a NVFL break caused a perma-death  then it can be phenomenal RP for all parties involved, and massively affect the morale, mental state, and direction the involved parties characters were at before they started the interaction.

Edit: I'm not encouraging anyone to break the NVFL role if the RP would benefit from it, just maybe it should be looked into somehow allowing this type of RP.

Yep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    283
Posted (edited)
On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, Rolle said:

The situation you describe, if perfectly truthful is against the rules, multiple in fact.

 

6.1 You must always have a valid in character reason which would justify a hostile situation. 

Taking three random and unknown people as hostages and playing a sadistic game on them for no apparent reason is not what I see as a valid reason. Stuff like that could be done to long standing enemies that have hurt you or your group before, not total strangers. And no, "my character does things like that" is not a valid reason to bypass this rule.

 

8.1 You must do everything in your power to keep your hostages alive and in relatively good health.

8.3 When making demands to people attempting to rescue the hostage, they must be unambiguous and reasonable. For example, you cannot demand that somebody puts their own life at risk or else the hostage will be shot.

You may not force your hostages to kill each other, that is an unreasonable demand.

 

I read the OP and was gonna post this exact thing.

 

*Sigh*

 

I've had this happen to me in mod, didn't bother me when it was done right...sounds like a lot of roleplay in this specific event....if there was I wouldn't of reported the attackers but spoke to them in TS. ive done it in the past and ill continue it this way...however...

 

I've had this happen in ways in which there was little interaction at all, just captured told to be silent and then made to fight to the death. those situations felt like a sick OOC game that you'd get on a pub server. When that happened to me I talked to them first, luckily for me the people were knew and when I pointed out the rules they understood and were apologetic about it. So, of course didn't report it.  never saw them in reports so I assume they adjusted their play style.  

 

 

Roleplay is kinda something you have to be there to see in order to judge it, that is why you cant really report bad RP without a video.  just sayin.

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:43 AM, Darra said:

The man sacrificed his life to save his friends.  If he had been a soldier who threw himself on top of a grenade, he would have been honored with a posthumous medal.  Perhaps we need a "role-played" NVFL or something similar that comes with no punishment or at the most a caution.

Would it have been NVFL if he had instead volunteered to be the one to die?

I'm sorry the RP didn't go the route the hostage takers desired.  But, as I've been told in the past, we can't always control the direction our RP takes. 

The situation is kinda created by a rulebreak, so technically he was forced to show no value for his life by putting his friends lives above his. This was a lazy verdict and will be overturned in an appeal.

 

So don't worry about it lass.

 

 

 

::returns to his coffin and locks it so he may stay off the forums.::

Edited by SweetJoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prince    96

The rules here have been too tight since 2014 and it generated a report/ban happy community, this is nothing out of the ordinary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pussy    312
Posted (edited)

I think intentions matter, personally. It's not like they were making their hostages fist fight... they were using bladed weapons with a drastically increased opportunity to kill one another. I think it's kind of a shit thing to do, actually. Just because they didn't die, doesn't mean that the intention wasn't there by giving them combat knives. If you're gonna make hostages fight, I'd personally ask first and sure as shit not use combat knives. I wouldn't expect anybody to survive that fight.

As for the NVFL? Meh. It's a tricky situation, but phrasing your argument as "well wouldn't you sacrifice yourself in real life" isn't really how things get resolved. This is a video game, and sometimes the rules are there in the essence of fairness for everyone. 

So, there are parts of the verdict I disagree with. 

Edited by Pussy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×