Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Then there is always the possibility that TEO is the Goons. This whole treaty is a front for their true intentions of world domination and destruction.

Spoken like a true capsuleer. Your tin-foil hat shines true my friend.

You are right though, the Goons will come. Its something we wont be able to stop. However, with GWs plans of slowly escalting the player base over several months, I wonder how much this will effect their ability to swarm over territory in the early game. But thats a discussion for another thread.

I think the whole concept of what griefing will and will not be, and how it will be handled by both players and GW has been beaten to death. Until more information comes out, I see no point in carrying on with speculation. As far as this treaty goes, I've already said I like the idea in spirit (it appeals to the RPer in me). We'll see how effective it could potentially be in the coming months as Ryan & Co. release more info about the game and its mechanics.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius: Are you willing to acknowledge that there might be cases where you believe that a group is engaged in widespread griefing, but other signatories to this proposed treaty disagree? In such a case, what would you expect the other signatories to do?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, it just looks like an honest attempt to decide collectively, as those who have invested early with time and money, that we will work together to keep the world a great place for all to enjoy within the design intents of GW. If you don't agree with GW's design intents, then I'm really confused why you are here.

We've all seen games ruined by groups whose primary enjoyment in a game comes from reducing the enjoyment of others. They aren't even acting with indifference towards how others feel about the exchange. They can only be pleased when they know that others are unhappy.

Yes, it will be dangerous to stand against such groups. I understand that it is easier to pretend philosophical indifference or (even better) outrage than to take a stand. History is replete will well-meaning cowards who watch quietly on the sidelines as tyrants rise. And they all learned that eventually the focus of the tyrant that was 'not my problem' becomes 'my problem.' But, by then, there are no allies left to help them.

The method of the destruction of the game is immaterial. It could be anything, but 'kill everything in sight' is a very common tactic of these anti-social bullies.

What is being asked is are you willing to take a stand when the time comes to keep the game enjoyable for multiple play-styles. That's all. Nothing more. Can you be counted on if the worst happens?

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

The Empyrean Order is not a front for another group seeking to take control of the game. We honestly want the game to grow and florish. I personally think that it should be a communal choice on if the treaty is excecuted.

Goblin Squad Member

Micco wrote:
...'kill everything in sight' is a very common tactic of these anti-social bullies.

Out of curiosity, would a KOS attitude within ones territory make a nation/settlement/CC griefers?

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Saying that such a treaty will give the people who thought of it domineering control over the rest of the community is like saying the Kyoto accord actually made anybody do anything.

It's a treaty. That's all. Nobody's agreeing to become Andius' little slave.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Andius: Are you willing to acknowledge that there might be cases where you believe that a group is engaged in widespread griefing, but other signatories to this proposed treaty disagree? In such a case, what would you expect the other signatories to do?

Personally I find this treaty way to binding, but a definite starting place.

Some areas of the treaty are questionable.

Kicking someone on the final boss. I know its not a well liked thing, but there are times when its unfortunately required. Case in point person takes a nap and you can't wake them up for an extended period. Person fails to follow simple instructions which leads to numerous trips to visit Pharasma. Person is extremely disruptive to party dynamics via a variety of behaviors that we should refer to as extreme jerkihood.

Killing a numerically inferior force with a numerically superior force. I recall my days in another universe where a numerically inferior guerilla squad would run rampant through thier enemies territory killing indiscriminately and inevitably the aid that would arrive to eliminate this problem would have superior numbers. I've also seen numerically inferior forces defeat numerically superior forces with clever tactics including two people holding a keep being sieged by well over 30 people by using mass applied spells like acid rain and cloudkill.

In many of these cases especially if the people are not well liked it would be held against them despite thier entirely justified behavior. Also people do this thing called lying that can unfortunately tarnish the reputation of a person who is already held in low esteem convicting them of a crime they are in fact innocent of.

Goblin Squad Member

As I stated earlier, my company already has an anti griefing pledge in our own charter. It actually predates this treaty idea.

I have also pointed out the issue I had, when your leader slipped and questioned my bandits robbing from the poor. This I felt was an overt action, going beyond the stated goal of anti griefing and actually trying to curtail more than just griefing.

When asked for a concrete definition of griefing, we were told that the definition would be determined on a case by case basis. That is by its very nature a corrupt system, ripe for favoritism and abuse.

I have laid out where I stand, and it is so telling that my treatise on the inherent corruption of any government has been proven once again.

When I first conceived of The UnNamed Company, I envisioned that we could be contracted by any leader, regarless of alignment, because power corrupts all. We are "UnNamed" because those that are "good" aligned would not want to sdmit that they hired us or they would want us to act in a discreet manner. But in our day to day adventures, we are bandits.

We are motivated by greed. We care about nothing but making a quick and easy coin. Our motives are clear and honestly pure.

We will sign no such treaty, because there maybe more profit to be made outside of it. Any anti griefing we practice will be by our own code of conduct and not by some agreement, unless you are offering to pay us to do something we would likely do anyway.

Announcement: January will mark our official Griefing Contract Discount.... You read that right... All griefing contracts in the month of January will be at a 20% discount. Just link to this thread when placing your order.

Cheers!!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
As I stated earlier, my company already has an anti griefing pledge in our own charter. It actually predates this treaty idea.

This proposal is not talking about how you manage your company or what you agree to do (or not do) during 'normal times.' TEO is just asking who out there will agree to be there if the future of the game is at risk. Clearly you guys aren't. No biggie.

'Bluddwolf' wrote:
We are motivated by greed.

You and everyone else, my friend. You and everyone else.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Micco wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
As I stated earlier, my company already has an anti griefing pledge in our own charter. It actually predates this treaty idea.

This proposal is not talking about how you manage your company or what you agree to do (or not do) during 'normal times.' TEO is just asking who out there will agree to be there if the future of the game is at risk. Clearly you guys aren't. No biggie.

'Bluddwolf' wrote:
We are motivated by greed.

You and everyone else, my friend. You and everyone else.

Lust yes please.

Wrath a lot.
Greed not so much...
Gluttony Ewww.
Sloth who doesn't enjoy a lazy day sometimes?
Pride well I do like riding a T-Rex they make great mounts.
Envy hey look at that shiny that guy has I wants hi.. my precious!

Goblin Squad Member

Micco wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
As I stated earlier, my company already has an anti griefing pledge in our own charter. It actually predates this treaty idea.

This proposal is not talking about how you manage your company or what you agree to do (or not do) during 'normal times.' TEO is just asking who out there will agree to be there if the future of the game is at risk. Clearly you guys aren't. No biggie.

'Bluddwolf' wrote:
We are motivated by greed.

You and everyone else, my friend. You and everyone else.

The future of this game is more at risk from gold farmers and micro transactions than griefing. It is also more at risk if it goes free to play at some point after launch. It is even more at risk if it does not deliver what it promises.

I have seen MMOs destroyed by those, never griefing. Even in games like Age of Conan and EvE Online, where griefing ran rampant, they both survived. AOC was more in danger because the Devs out right lied about the game features, right up to the day of launch. EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.

As I said earlier, write a treaty that pledges we will not buy gold from farmers or items from a MT store, and I'd sign that in a blink of an eye.

Goblin Squad Member

Here is a question, if someone keeps killing the player with an ∞ bounty on them would that be considered griefing? Say, for example, player A is killed by player B. Player A happens to be very wealthy and influential. Player B was a hired assassin sent by who knows who. Player A wants player B to suffer for the inconvenience that player B inflicted upon his person. So he puts a bounty on his head and states that Group C may be one who can collect because they are very good at that sort of thing. Now Group C is really good and kills Player B in about an hour, player A does not think that it is good enough. So, player A keeps putting bounties on player B's head and group C keeps collecting often within a few hours or perhaps a day or so later. Would you, in respect to the proposed treaty, consider that griefing and lay down the mighty hand of all who withhold the treaty? If so, upon whom?

Goblin Squad Member

@Darnell what a delightful question. Tony discusses that very issue in depth in his blog. He has also established a website with forums to deal with it.

Please note that the website linked in his blog is to the old, now dead forums. The link I just provided now is the correct site.

Goblin Squad Member

This is a really cool idea. I plan on being lawful evil and it would totally go with my character concept to have reasons to hold esteem over the "common criminal", which are griefers more or less.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
The ability to use discretion in defining what exactly constitutes griefers rather than hard black and white policies is what makes player enforced anti-griefing superior to GM/Admin enforced anti-griefing policies.

My question was mostly aimed at that. However, thank you Blaeringr, Tony is a continuing inspiration to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Rokolith wrote:
This is a really cool idea. I plan on being lawful evil and it would totally go with my character concept to have reasons to hold esteem over the "common criminal", which are griefers more or less.

I really hope the last part of your statement was said tongue in cheek.

Goblin Squad Member

"The surest way to defeat your enemy is to become them, and thus be defeated."
- Kacan Moraphis, Chief Abbot, Monastery of the 36th Order

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:

"The surest way to defeat your enemy is to become them, and thus be defeated."

- Kacan Moraphis, Chief Abbot, Monastery of the 36th Order

Absolutely! And that is why espionage will be so valuable.


Darnell wrote:
Here is a question, if someone keeps killing the player with an ∞ bounty on them would that be considered griefing? Say, for example, player A is killed by player B. Player A happens to be very wealthy and influential. Player B was a hired assassin sent by who knows who. Player A wants player B to suffer for the inconvenience that player B inflicted upon his person. So he puts a bounty on his head and states that Group C may be one who can collect because they are very good at that sort of thing. Now Group C is really good and kills Player B in about an hour, player A does not think that it is good enough. So, player A keeps putting bounties on player B's head and group C keeps collecting often within a few hours or perhaps a day or so later. Would you, in respect to the proposed treaty, consider that griefing and lay down the mighty hand of all who withhold the treaty? If so, upon whom?

There's another thread at http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pdoi?Yet-another-alternative-approach-to-ganki ng that went over this topic as well. You might go look.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Harad Navar wrote:

"The surest way to defeat your enemy is to become them, and thus be defeated."

- Kacan Moraphis, Chief Abbot, Monastery of the 36th Order

知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆

- Said by someone older, wiser, and who sold more books

Goblin Squad Member

That may be, but I can't understand a thing they said.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Waruko wrote:

知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆

- Said by someone older, wiser, and who sold more books

Loosely translated:

"If you know your enemy and you know yourself, your victory will be assured. If you know yourself, but not your enemy, for every victory you achieve, you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither yourself, nor your enemy, you will succumb in every battle"

-Sun Tzu

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kard Warstein wrote:
That may be, but I can't understand a thing they said.

Always add "Proficiency: Internet" to your character sheet folks.

Goblin Squad Member

Waruko, Andius, etc, is this essentially a proposal to agree to mass, coordinated action in response to a mass, coordinated threat?

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:
Waruko, Andius, etc, is this essentially a proposal to agree to mass, coordinated action in response to a mass, coordinated threat?

I can't, nor will I speak for Andius and you can ask him, we hardly ever agree. But yes that is what I'm suggesting. Andius should not be the leader of such a coordinated action, nor do I think the treaty suggests it. It's a coalition. There would a war counsel. There would have to be AGREEMENT on what is a threat. No one man can "pull the trigger". This again is not an anti-griefer treaty meant to be abused to "police" PFO. Sometimes there are threats even the "largest organization" can't handle alone. Rovagug was not beaten by a single god, hence again why I named the treaty such.

It should be a thing that should NEVER be enacted unless its under DIRE circumstances and hopefully it should never be used. Ever.

Goblin Squad Member

So this is nothing more than a mortal form of the pact the gods had to create (even if unofficially) to defeat Rovagug. Cheers on your name choice. The gods hold no love toward each other, but when Rovagug was/is free, they chose to all fight together against the greater evil.

Noble in ideals...the difference, as others here have already mentioned, is that the gods have a concrete target, Rovagug. "Griefers" is a very amorphous subjective one. I cannot imagine the gods would have worked well with each other in such conditions either. The result of such an attempt would have been clear fractures in beliefs...that would look quite a bit (or exactly) like the alignment system as we know it.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, this is sure to end the random PKs. Everyone who wanted to make random people upset will instead focus on the guilds that signed this treaty.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius, I think the problem here is one of definition. That is, how does one define griefing? One man's griefing is another's wise play.

I do think some things go beyond the pale of all reasonable gamers, but so might some reactions by the signatories to your accords. Can you be specific about what you want to address and how you propose to address it? Without making me go read a different forum?


Bluddwolf wrote:
Micco wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
As I stated earlier, my company already has an anti griefing pledge in our own charter. It actually predates this treaty idea.

This proposal is not talking about how you manage your company or what you agree to do (or not do) during 'normal times.' TEO is just asking who out there will agree to be there if the future of the game is at risk. Clearly you guys aren't. No biggie.

'Bluddwolf' wrote:
We are motivated by greed.

You and everyone else, my friend. You and everyone else.

The future of this game is more at risk from gold farmers and micro transactions than griefing. It is also more at risk if it goes free to play at some point after launch. It is even more at risk if it does not deliver what it promises.

I have seen MMOs destroyed by those, never griefing. Even in games like Age of Conan and EvE Online, where griefing ran rampant, they both survived. AOC was more in danger because the Devs out right lied about the game features, right up to the day of launch. EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.

As I said earlier, write a treaty that pledges we will not buy gold from farmers or items from a MT store, and I'd sign that in a blink of an eye.

There will be micro transactions, that has been known since the kickstarter started, more or less. it is a sound buisness model. this game wont be free to play in the usual sense, if implemented at all. if they do a free to play thing it will be something along the lines of you can play your character, but you can not train or advance at all untill you buy training time. Dancey has stated repeatedly anything in the cash shop will not be pay to win items. and honestly, i have never seen a cash shop ruin a game in the manner you speak, and here is why,

IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD THE ITEMS IN THE CASH SHOP THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE! DON"T WHINE ABOUT IT BEING PAY TO WIN WHEN YOU HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE SAME! CASH SHOPS AND MTX IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO STOP GOLD FARMERS.

I know that comes across as being a jerk, unfortunately there is no nicer way of saying it. If you can't fork out the money on occasion, then you are in the game for a free ride only, you contribute nothing to the game, the community, or the company that made the game, and make no mistake, it is all about making the money.

pledge to not use the MTX may as well be a pledge not to support the game at all with the kickstarter, the monthly subscription, or any other means of monetary payment to goblinworks.

now that that rant is over, i will discuss this treaty of andius's with my guild mates, but I am in agreement with Dak from PAX and will argue against it as this is far to ambiguous for my taste atm and can easily be viewed as grief in itself if misused, which I foresee happening far to often.

regardless of any treaty i will fight a greifer with the rest of you, but to band together like this and hunt down a small minority ( literally 3 or 6 people ) could be considered griefing and not solve the problem, it would only cause it to fester and them to come back with a larger force if grieifing and ruining the game really was the point of them buying the game in the first place.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Details like that are not available because the treaty isn't written yet!
The idea is for interested parties to participate in drafting it.

Goblin Squad Member

Waruko wrote:
Skwiziks wrote:
Waruko, Andius, etc, is this essentially a proposal to agree to mass, coordinated action in response to a mass, coordinated threat?

I can't, nor will I speak for Andius and you can ask him, we hardly ever agree. But yes that is what I'm suggesting. Andius should not be the leader of such a coordinated action, nor do I think the treaty suggests it. It's a coalition. There would a war counsel. There would have to be AGREEMENT on what is a threat. No one man can "pull the trigger". This again is not an anti-griefer treaty meant to be abused to "police" PFO. Sometimes there are threats even the "largest organization" can't handle alone. Rovagug was not beaten by a single god, hence again why I named the treaty such.

It should be a thing that should NEVER be enacted unless its under DIRE circumstances and hopefully it should never be used. Ever.

You pretty much have the gist of it. This is not a treaty to police every little issue of the game. TEO will do that as it sees fit, on it's own, without the assistance of every other guild in the game. Attaching those efforts to some from of group decision making would only bog us down.

This treaty is not meant to deal with an evil baron who takes bounties over and over, or random gold farmers, or even someone who runs around teabagging and jeering at newbs, and killing everyone they see.

This is meant to deal with:

A. A large or massive organization that is determined to be a griefer organization.
B. Many such smaller organizations either in great quantities, or in smaller quantities working together.

Great quantities would probably entail a third or more of the server's population. Enough to have a noticeable effect on the game's culture. And a large group would be a group or coalition of groups about the size of 7th Veil, PAX, or TEO. Or of course anything larger than that.

What is Griefing / Overly Aggressive Behavior

First of these are MY definitions. Personally I think having a group declared a griefer organization should be declared by some form of council using a 2/3rds or 3/4th majority vote. Beyond that I think we should make it so everyone is allowed to back out of the Treaty of Rovagug should they wish to do so. So we won't be forcing anyone do adopt TEO's views, or even the views of a multi-organization council on what is and isn't griefing.

To me Griefing is: Any time someone's primary motivations for doing something is purely to cause suffering to others. Things that DON'T fall under this category for me are things done for personal gain, things done as part of a war, things done to protect others etc.

Where I would see the need for the Treaty of Rovagug to be envoked is if groups FREQUENTLY partook in actions such as the following against MANY neutral parties:

1. Killing neutral parties for no reason. Such as you are riding along on a horse with nothing in your inventory in neutral territory, they kill the horse, run up, and then immediately kill you. You have no war or prior grievances with this group. They don't try to rob you, or maybe they do search your inventory and determine you have absolutely nothing, or nothing they have an interest in taking. Then they kill you anyway just because they can.

2. Honorless Robbing. "Pay 5,000 gold or die! Thanks for the 5,000 gold, now we are going to kill you anyway!" Not only is this harmful for the community but you evil groups should be ESPECIALLY keen to deal with such behavior. Because if it goes unchecked nobody will pay any bandits anything.

3. Veterans Targeting Newbs. Groups that spend great deals of time in newb areas taking part in any evil action primarily perpetrated against newbs. This does not apply to a group that notices many wealthy caravans traveling to starter cities and start targeting those. This does apply to groups that steal copper coins from all the newer players in the starter areas when they are dealing in hundreds of gold. Where the line is drawn is an issue of judgement.

4. Abusing Game Mechanics. Using server crash bugs. Staying lawful good but slipping chaotic evil acts such as stealing kills, or body blocking someone in to a corner and demanding payment before they are let go, or pushing someone out to an NPC spawn with non-lethal attacks and then letting the NPC's kill them because they went afk a few minutes, through loopholes in the alignment system on a frequent basis. Hopefully most of this behavior is dealt with by admins and GM's but we should be dealing with any that slips through the cracks/actively combating them with the /report feature. Most of Bluddwolf's concerns like macro farming gold would fall into this category.

5. Trolling / Destroying the Culture of PFO. "U Mad Bro?" "Welcome to Pathfinder Online!" (Said after killing someone.) Teabagging or spamming the laugh emote after winning a fight. Suggesting people hassle someone who is suicidal or has emotional issues. (Not that ANYONE from any groups would ever do that.) Or just incredibly frequent use of insulting / antagonizing comments at people in major chat channels or the forums.

In Summary.

Let me again state this would not be a decision made by any one person or organization. The point of this treaty is not to police the actions of every tiny group or individual. It is to identify large groups with CONSISTENT behavior issues, and deal with them.

Yes, EVE and Darkfall have survived with a culture where all these issues are commonplace. If you are content with this game having a culture similar to that of EVE or Darkfall then don't sign this treaty. If you think these groups should be dealt with by "fighting fairly" with even numbers vs. even numbers, then don't sign this treaty. If you are terrified that these groups may target you out for signing this treaty and you will be forced to defend the ideals you believe in, then don't sign this treaty.

If you think that behavior has no place in the culture of PFO. If you want to take a firm stance against it. If you are ok with standing alongside TEO, and being targeted out by the scum of the gaming community for taking a firm stance against them. If them targeting you rather than newbs actually sounds APPEALING to you, then help us create the terms of a treaty you will be willing to sign.

You don't need to promise to sign the finished product. Just help this movement by declaring that you support the idea of a treaty meant to unite the community against griefing and overly aggressive behavior. That you don't want this game to end up like EVE or Darkfall and you are willing to take a stand to see it doesn't.


Keovar wrote:

Details like that are not available because the treaty isn't written yet!

The idea is for interested parties to participate in drafting it.

I understand that but the whole idea leaves a poor taste in my mouth, it is a double edge blade that can do as much harm as good.

Perfect example, new guy and 5 of his friends, group show up, they buy the game, the training time they need to grow in power, then start griefing, for the sole purpose of ruining the game, do not see them making the commitment required to do that. problem solved it self. if they do waste the money, knowing full well they will eventually be banned, bounty system solves problem and they eventually get banned, problem also solved, a few minor exceptions, this treaty scares off a few punks, goons, griefers, what ever, it was a deterrent at that time.

group B, same size, looking to buy the game, and have a good time, but decides to research it first, sees this treaty, either thinks griefing is a problem, and refuses to buy and goes elsewhere, or they decide anyone whom signed this treaty will grief the player viewing it and his friends for disagreeing with their play style, don't agree on what griefing is, misunderstanding in either case, players leave that would have otherwise been shinning members of the community.

Goblin Squad Member

Group C,D,E,F, and G- Looks at this game, finds this treaty, and sees the name of every major group in the game on it. Sees a well outlined treaty that gives a loose definition of griefing agreed upon by the members of this convention. Realizes that this game has a culture different than that of UO, EVE, and Darkfall and gives PFO a try where they might have not tried an Open World PVP game otherwise.

Imagine how helpful it would have been back in the debates on this game's decision to go Open World PVP if we could have shown them a treaty signed by all of the game's largest groups saying we will take a stand to make sure this game doesn't end up like the negative experiences they've had before.

Advertizing this game doesn't end with the kickstarter. The negatives you are kind of grasping to find are far outweighed by the very real positives.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with the principle of what this treaty is trying to achieve. I do think it needs to be named something that is seen as non-legally binding, such as a pact or oath or the like. Some people may think naming it a 'treaty', and thus being legally binding (if that means anything in game), is too restrictive to their characters.

I think the term 'griefer and griefing' needs to be put down in stone, and actions taken against characters that are beyond those meanings need to have unanimous agreement fronm all signatories. If this agreement is aimed at goonswarm and the like, this should not be too hard to do up front.

Andius has gone down this path a few posts above, but I personally think items 1 & 2 may cause issues. In both cases, it is likely a hired assassin could have a contract to kill the target, and they're just toying or extorting them before doing the deed. Bad assassin etiquette, but should be dealt with via IC means and not via a meta-game agreement such as this one.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:

I agree with the principle of what this treaty is trying to achieve. I do think it needs to be named something that is seen as non-legally binding, such as a pact or oath or the like. Some people may think naming it a 'treaty', and thus being legally binding (if that means anything in game), is too restrictive to their characters.

I think the term 'griefer and griefing' needs to be put down in stone, and actions taken against characters that are beyond those meanings need to have unanimous agreement fronm all signatories. If this agreement is aimed at goonswarm and the like, this should not be too hard to do up front.

Andius has gone down this path a few posts above, but I personally think items 1 & 2 may cause issues. In both cases, it is likely a hired assassin could have a contract to kill the target, and they're just toying or extorting them before doing the deed. Bad assassin etiquette, but should be dealt with via IC means and not via a meta-game agreement such as this one.

The "For no reason" part in the name of #1 exempts assassins and mercenaries. A contract is a reason.

An assassin has no reason to rob someone before they kill them. Neither does a mercenary. That is just ridiculous.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

The "For no reason" part in the name of #1 exempts assassins and mercenaries. A contract is a reason.

An assassin has no reason to rob someone before they kill them. Neither does a mercenary. That is just ridiculous.

How do you know there is or isn't a reason though? Will you ask IC or OOC? Will you accept the murderers word if they say 'I had a contract'?

I agree. It is ridiculous that someone would get extorted then killed. But it can happen and it should be an IC offense, dealt with IC by the appropriate means and not by meta-game agreements. As an example, an assassin that worships Thamir could certainly do both these acts.

Don't feel like I'm attacking your points either. I agree with what you're doing, but just think they need to be nutted out thoroughly beforehand. I'm not part of any organisation yet, so I'm not going to logon to the TEO website and clutter that up either.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Darsch wrote:
Keovar wrote:

Details like that are not available because the treaty isn't written yet!

The idea is for interested parties to participate in drafting it.

I understand that but the whole idea leaves a poor taste in my mouth, it is a double edge blade that can do as much harm as good.

Perfect example, new guy and 5 of his friends, group show up, they buy the game, the training time they need to grow in power, then start griefing, for the sole purpose of ruining the game, do not see them making the commitment required to do that. problem solved it self. if they do waste the money, knowing full well they will eventually be banned, bounty system solves problem and they eventually get banned, problem also solved, a few minor exceptions, this treaty scares off a few punks, goons, griefers, what ever, it was a deterrent at that time.

Individuals and small to medium groups are not the proposed targets. Those can be dealt with by the systems you mention plus whatever method of reporting griefers GW gives. We're basically talking GS-style organized griefing.

Darsch wrote:
group B, same size, looking to buy the game, and have a good time, but decides to research it first, sees this treaty, either thinks griefing is a problem, and refuses to buy and goes elsewhere, or they decide anyone whom signed this treaty will grief the player viewing it and his friends for disagreeing with their play style, don't agree on what griefing is, misunderstanding in either case, players leave that would have otherwise been shinning members of the community.

I don't find this a particularly plausible example, but if they are doing the research to see the treaty then they'd see that it is meant to deal with a much larger group dedicated to disrupting the entire game.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
How do you know there is or isn't a reason though? Will you ask IC or OOC? Will you accept the murderers word if they say 'I had a contract'?

It's not like the members of this contract have to track down each individual member who ever does anything we consider griefing. We don't need to ask at all.

If we note consistent behavior we consider griefing we can deal with it on a case by case basis. There really isn't much questioning whether groups like Goons, Darkfall's Fallen Lords or Gentlemen's Club etc. are griefers / overly aggressive or not. And in situations where it is far more questionable I doubt the greater consensus of the members of the treaty would be to move against them.

If we notice that members of an assassin or mercenary group are randomly killing a lot of people. We aren't going to question it too much. If we notice they are randomly killing a lot of people that logged into the game for the first time within the past few hours, and not many people who would have reasons to have contracts put out on them. If we notice they are trash talking those people with obviously troll type comments. If this organization is large and having a serious impact on the game. Then we will likely hold a vote on whether we should move against them as a group or not.

This is why I want to intentionally keep the terms open to a bit of interpretation. So people can use their brains.


Andius wrote:
Waruko wrote:
Skwiziks wrote:
Waruko, Andius, etc, is this essentially a proposal to agree to mass, coordinated action in response to a mass, coordinated threat?

I can't, nor will I speak for Andius and you can ask him, we hardly ever agree. But yes that is what I'm suggesting. Andius should not be the leader of such a coordinated action, nor do I think the treaty suggests it. It's a coalition. There would a war counsel. There would have to be AGREEMENT on what is a threat. No one man can "pull the trigger". This again is not an anti-griefer treaty meant to be abused to "police" PFO. Sometimes there are threats even the "largest organization" can't handle alone. Rovagug was not beaten by a single god, hence again why I named the treaty such.

It should be a thing that should NEVER be enacted unless its under DIRE circumstances and hopefully it should never be used. Ever.

You pretty much have the gist of it. This is not a treaty to police every little issue of the game. TEO will do that as it sees fit, on it's own, without the assistance of every other guild in the game. Attaching those efforts to some from of group decision making would only bog us down.

This treaty is not meant to deal with an evil baron who takes bounties over and over, or random gold farmers, or even someone who runs around teabagging and jeering at newbs, and killing everyone they see.

This is meant to deal with:

A. A large or massive organization that is determined to be a griefer organization.
B. Many such smaller organizations either in great quantities, or in smaller quantities working together.

Great quantities would probably entail a third or more of the server's population. Enough to have a noticeable effect on the game's culture. And a large group would be a group or coalition of groups about the size of 7th Veil, PAX, or TEO. Or of course anything larger than that.

What is Griefing / Overly Aggressive Behavior

First of these are MY definitions. Personally...

Most of point number 5 is just plain pointless to consider grief imho, it is easily ignored. Hell half the time someone is tea baqging you you will not see it and it leaves them open to an attack. Get over it. I hate it too but I wont complain about it.

Welcome to pathfinder is a nice play on "Dark Souls General". love the reference. U mad bro comments? Really? So what if someone says it? ignore them and move on. It just shows how much of an idiot they are and is easily ignored with no ill effects on you. Using something like this treaty to hunt them down for doing it just plays right into their scheme. realy expect people to accept a call to hunt down someone because they said something you don't like? to me that is greifing.

Goblin Squad Member

Darsch wrote:

Most of point number 5 is just plain pointless to consider grief imho, it is easily ignored. Hell half the time someone is tea baqging you you will not see it and it leaves them open to an attack. Get over it. I hate it too but I wont complain about it.

Welcome to pathfinder is a nice play on "Dark Souls General". love the reference. U mad bro comments? Really? So what if someone says it? ignore them and move on. It just shows how much of an idiot they are and is easily ignored with no ill effects on you. Using something like this treaty to hunt them down for doing it just plays right into their scheme. realy expect people to accept a call to hunt down someone because they said something you don't like? to me that is greifing.

Personally I choose not to tolerate that behavior our allow people to make that the face PFO shows to new players coming into this game.

People shouldn't have just "get over" members of the community acting in such a manner. People who have the strength and determination to do something about it should.

Goblin Squad Member

I have started a new topic for organizations interested in sending representatives to The Convention of Rovagug.

I think I am going to withdraw from this topic as I have already clearly stated all that I feel needs to be stated. TEO will be organizing it's points and proposals for the actual convetion, rather than debating them with those uninterested in the idea of this agreement. Any more specific questions can be sent to me in a PM.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Waruko wrote:
Skwiziks wrote:
Waruko, Andius, etc, is this essentially a proposal to agree to mass, coordinated action in response to a mass, coordinated threat?

I can't, nor will I speak for Andius and you can ask him, we hardly ever agree. But yes that is what I'm suggesting. Andius should not be the leader of such a coordinated action, nor do I think the treaty suggests it. It's a coalition. There would a war counsel. There would have to be AGREEMENT on what is a threat. No one man can "pull the trigger". This again is not an anti-griefer treaty meant to be abused to "police" PFO. Sometimes there are threats even the "largest organization" can't handle alone. Rovagug was not beaten by a single god, hence again why I named the treaty such.

It should be a thing that should NEVER be enacted unless its under DIRE circumstances and hopefully it should never be used. Ever.

if this is something that is to only be enforced if something dire is growing and threatening the PFO community i think this is a bit premature to start making a treaty. lets build a community first maybe things will work them selves out or GW will create a system to deal with it. but if the worst case does come to pass in time i think then is when the guilds and groups need to come together to solve the problem.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

So... A treaty to stop griefers from griefing by all banding together and fighting them?

While that sounds like a nice idea. I think you fail to understand what griefers are about to begin with. They are get off on annoying other people and disrupting their fun. And there is no way you can counter that by validating their choice by stopping everything and all band together to fight them.

I've have had some experience with this in Shadowbane. Where a guild was having their fun by randomly killing people everywhere.

Eventually all the major guilds ended up in an alliance to "take them out". All normal play was stopped and all we did was attacking their cities.

Most of the time their leaders would post triumphantly about all of this on their site. Until eventually they got bored and left.

So... Success you would say? Only problem is who really ended up loosing that conflict?

The griefers had a lot of fun by provoking everyone else into reacting.

And now everyone left is essentially in one nation for the server. So basically all RP and conflict is dead. Making it a somewhat dull sandbox game. After a couple of months I personally gave up on the game because nothing was happening.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I have started a new topic for organizations interested in sending representatives to The Convention of Rovagug.

I think I am going to withdraw from this topic as I have already clearly stated all that I feel needs to be stated. TEO will be organizing it's points and proposals for the actual convetion, rather than debating them with those uninterested in the idea of this agreement. Any more specific questions can be sent to me in a PM.

And then he left the room..... Some times debates get heated, storming off doesn't stop the debate and it doesn't bring anyone to your side of it.

I will discuss, in a more respectful manner (no joking in it) a few points:

Quote:

This is meant to deal with:

A. A large or massive organization that is determined to be a griefer organization.
B. Many such smaller organizations either in great quantities, or in smaller quantities working together.

What if these small or large groups are actually formed into a settlement, and happen to be Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil (I bet the bar scene there is a hoot!...oh wait, no joking)?

Don't these settlements have a right to exist? Why would Neutral or Chaotic Neutral have a collective interest against them?

I know you may say they are griefing in large scale, but that is what their alignment might tell them to do, and it is still based on a definition that all don't hold.

Quote:
1. Killing neutral parties for no reason. Such as you are riding along on a horse with nothing in your inventory in neutral territory, they kill the horse, run up, and then immediately kill you. You have no war or prior grievances with this group. They don't try to rob you, or maybe they do search your inventory and determine you have absolutely nothing, or nothing they have an interest in taking. Then they kill you anyway just because they can.

Game mechanic issue here: "Corpse Husking" is the only way to tell what they have in their inventory. Unless there is some way for us to tell what they have, in a less violent way, I doubt any will volunteer they have a +4 ring of protection in their pocket.

Quote:
2. Honorless Robbing. "Pay 5,000 gold or die! Thanks for the 5,000 gold, now we are going to kill you anyway!" Not only is this harmful for the community but you evil groups should be ESPECIALLY keen to deal with such behavior. Because if it goes unchecked nobody will pay any bandits anything.

I'm not sure what game you are coming from, but this is standard practice and self policed. It was certainly established in EVE that all ransoms are honored.

Game Mechanic Issue: EVE had a means of bringing a player to an inch of his/her ship's life and to hold them in place. Ransoms only work when the threat of death is certain and the death is more costly than the ransom. Neither of these mechanics are suggested in PFO.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Infinite Bounties is a form of griefing in this treaty

Even though this is a game mechanic set up by GW, the signatures of this treaty should have to agree that they would not sanction the concept and use of infinite bounties.

You speak of excessive aggression, but how about excessive punishment?

Just because GW will allow it, doesn't mean we have to agree. Further more, as Croudforgers we are supposed to have a say..... I say will kill this idea before it finds its way into the game.

I may repost this over at Andius' other thread, but I'd hope he'd think better of that and just debate it here. PMs are not a solution, because this discussion needs to see the light of day or few if any will sign it.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
1. Killing neutral parties for no reason. Such as you are riding along on a horse with nothing in your inventory in neutral territory, they kill the horse, run up, and then immediately kill you. You have no war or prior grievances with this group. They don't try to rob you, or maybe they do search your inventory and determine you have absolutely nothing, or nothing they have an interest in taking. Then they kill you anyway just because they can.

Hmm. Who determines reason?

People may forget who they've wronged, or someone may be paying them to target someone.

This is a tricky one.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:

...To me Griefing is: Any time someone's primary motivations for doing something is purely to cause suffering to others. Things that DON'T fall under this category for me are things done for personal gain, things done as part of a war, things done to protect others etc.

...

Recommend your definition should avoid depending on psychology or divination to know what another's motivations might be. Unless the motivation is stated you can have no knowledge of someone else' motivation, and even if they say such-and-so' is their motivation you have no way to determine whether they were lying.

There are few forms of Justice so prone to miscarry as vigilante justice, Andius.

If you are to represent Law and Good you are taking on the burden of Proof. Proof is not hearsay, not impressiion, nor even the incidence of coincidences. Proof is proof. Innocent until proven guilty.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
And then he left the room..... Some times debates get heated, storming off doesn't stop the debate and it doesn't bring anyone to your side of it.

I'm not storming off. I'm simply not going to waste my time addressing the point of every random person who walks in here and offers an opinion.

I do not much care if there are those in this community who oppose such a measure. I expect this agreement will anger a great many people. Nobody likes it when someone ruin's their good time even if that good time is at the expense of others. This convention is not for them, and I will not waste my time debating whether we should make it or not. This agreement WILL BE CREATED whether TEO is the only group to sign it or not. I am inviting other groups to take part in creating terms they can agree to. If that is not something that interests them then they need not attend.

If you are interested in the convention, prepare your proposals and choose your representatives. If you, you have no interest in such an agreement or debating the terms. Then I bid you good day.

51 to 100 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization All Messageboards