1. no

2. no

3. no

4. maybe, situational.

5. no.. just not a blue name absolute newbie.

6. yes, but a single instance is not harassment.

7. no, no both.

8. yes. If you suspect someone of botting, or afk scripting, @report them. There's not many good reasons, IC, for you to randomly attack someone who's just not responding to you.

You put a lot of thought into something that is not open for discussion. Any sort of pvp outside of an arena/ludus is defined as griefing and you're the worst person in the world if you think otherwise.

I would like to raise a question. Given how much the game has changed since its inception, how the incentive structure have evolved over time, what players mark as milestones.. is there even a place for unsolicited PvP in TEC anymore? I would be very curious to see if someone could make a solid argument for why it should continue to exist beyond historical precedent or tradition. I would make the case at this point in the game, with the direction things seem to be going moving forward, it's more of a headache than it's worth.

In the past, people would have made a case about pursuing certain types of roleplay. Bandits would say I want to play a bandit, and bandits mug. In that TEC, I said more power to you. But over the years, characters have gone from walking around with a 2t lorica, an iron weapon, a couple hundred ranks and a sense of adventure, to thousands of talents of rare priceless one of a kind gear tailor made for their characters, superior quality retalq weapons, tens of thousands of rank, and strictly regimented routines designed to produce hundreds of talents in profit weekly. The role almost everyone wants to play is successful wealthy warrior who almost always wins, and when they lose the consequences aren't any deeper than a nap. The investment use to be much lower, and as a consequence you felt like you were losing much less when 'tragedy' did strike. That's just not the case anymore, and as far as I can tell the game is headed in a direction where this investment is only going to get larger and more dear.

As far as I can tell, there are probably two forms of acceptable banditry. There is choreographed, the type where multiple parties work together to carry out a scene that produces a particular result for the purposes of an event or arc. And there's the sandbagger, the bandit who 'puts up a fight', but ultimately lets the 'victim' win. Otherwise, with the incentive structures at play in todays TEC, a bandit attack is a setback of hundreds to thousands of hours of time and effort.

There's also the possibility of a volunteer system. Set yourself up with a tag, you can identify people with it on, and they you. This is probably one of the better ways to handle the problem overall, as it limits the pool to only those who want to participate. Like the points above, I don't know if an argument can be made against this. Once upon a time perhaps one could be made about immersion, but again, TEC has changed so much from what the game originally was I don't know if those hold water any more beyond tradition.

Personally? I say nix involuntary PvP and develop a much more robust PvE system, with the E primarily coming from the GM's themselves. Then you could have players who play bandits, and GM's who play victims. I could and would certainly make the argument there is much more possibility, variety and depth in that then could come out of any surprise PvP combat interaction.

But I'm curious what others thoughts are.

Cheers! 

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out. My feedback is as follows:

A) Trial System and player voting - I actually like the idea of this for things outside of NPC crime. If someone is caught robbing patricians in the heights, normal jail system should be the go to (I have thoughts that jail needs an overhaul, but that's a post I gave a long time ago). I think for NPC crime the jail times should not be too disruptive, and should amount to about 15 min tops for robbery of NPCs. For PC related crime, I like the idea of putting punishment "To the people" but only AFTER a trial has occurred. A trial would be a neat idea and fun RP session/event, though I am not sure what all that would look like. Specifically, how much realism are we talking about here. Is the crime being investigated as if it was a real city with thousands of people in it? The biggest issue we have is that immersion wise, there are lots of people milling around in game in the cities and towns, but we only see the named PCs or PNPCs. So do we go with the immersion that a constable at the Toga would see thousands of folks a day so one particular person would not stand out, or do we go with the mechanic that the constable sees every named PC that comes through? Things like that would need to be clarified for the trial system to work.

B) Voting on Laws - I think a relook of the Laws as a whole could be done. I think an update is in order, considering where we are now a days. The most important thing, though, is the laws and their punishments should be easily accessible to folks, whether it be a details help page or a codex in various locations folks can read about them. For players voting on what laws to enact or not? Who knows how that would work. But I think a council discuss and relook the laws (OOC, not IC) should be done.

C) PvP topic - I know that this will come as a shock, but I don't think PvP should be restricted mechanically in the game. I do like the idea of a non-mechanical PvP flag on players names on the Who list (turn them red maybe) who turn the flag on to indicate "I enjoy and welcome PvP type interactions." I think Green should be the normal no flag at all basically a neutral stance, and I think there should be another color with a flag to indicate "I detest PvP and really do not want to be involved in it." such as Yellow or something. Mechanically though, the flags do nothing but indicate to someone OOC what the stance is by the player for that character.

I think PvP needs to be open to allow for reasonable interactions between characters in the game world. The easiest example I can give is, if you have a mechanical constraint on PvP interactions between characters, that might lead to the harassment of individuals because of the lack of ability for repercussions. You see it online all the time. Anonymity and lack of accountability causes people to act in some very crappy ways to each other. Its the "What are you going to do about it?" type behavior. For instance, if someone is being a total jerk to someone in thoughts or in the Toga, the aggrieved party should be able to punch them, fight them, etc. Should their be repercussions? Absolutely. I think the ability for violence to occur between characters does keep interactions among characters to a reasonable, realistic RP versus the "untouchable" asinine stuff I see in other games.

As for your posed Questions:

1) Should PvP always be allowed in any scenario?

- I think it should be allowed for everyone, minus Blue names. I think we all can agree a real newbie should not be the target of PvP unless they are really inviting upon themselves. (Like someone using a blue name to torment or harass someone) 

2) Should PvP be limited to specific areas?

- No, it should be a possibility everywhere. Just some areas the punishment for the PvP might be a bit more. Example: You fight a priest in the Temple after an argument, probably a harsh punishment. You punch someone out front of the Toga after drinking and having an argument? Probably a slap on the wrist and told to go sleep it off. 

3) Should PvP be limited to specific orgs?

- Nope, but some orgs it would be a bit more expected just due to the nature of the org. The Auxilii, I would guess extremely minimal PvP. Constables, I would expect it a lot based on the fact they have to enforce the laws.

4) Should PvP be allowed to characters that do not respond to spoken text or tells?

- This is getting into the area where IC and OOC are crossing. I think IC actions should have IC consequences, but I also think OOC should be handled OOC. As much as I don't want folks taking an OOC disagreement into IC, I don't want the inverse either. If 2 folks go at it in Discord, then one of the players takes their character and beats up the other person's character, I think that is wrong and should punished (hence the PvP needing reasonable IC support to avoid this). But I also think if you know someone is botting (an OOC thing really), then there shouldn't be an IC response to that. I think you should alert the staff and move on. Here is why. From an IC perspective, the person is actively doing something. They are fighting enemies, recalling locks, sewing fabric, etc. The IC response should be "Oh, I tried talking and they ignored me..." and your character adjusts their view of said toon based on that. But attacking them because you know OOC they are "not helming the ship" so to speak, is technically using OOC gained insight to take advantage of a player IC, which is metagaming and frowned upon here since it is RP enforced. 

5) Should PvP be limited to characters of a specific rank?

- Nope

6) Should "harassment" include attacking, looting, and/or verbal abuse? Is a single instance of any of these harassment, or does it denote multiple, repeated incidents over a specific period of time?

- I think the trouble her is when you define something too much, people use that knowledge to skirt the definition just barely. Basically, by limiting the grey area for "harassment" you open people up to arguing that one person thinks something is harassment and another does not. I think for a definition, you could use "repeated attempts at interaction or specific interactions in which the character or player has expressed a desire to avoid or cease." Open to redefining it though

7) TEC is defined as a PG-13 game. Should this be revised down to PG or G? Should we denote that rating for each player? Perhaps a permanent tattoo or magical evaluation emote like think-net but for pvp flags.

- I think PG-13 is fine. I do think if you know a player is under 18 though, you should be avoiding some topics and things in game. 

And responses to your griefing:

Griefing is the act of chronically causing sudden annoyance to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay.

The urban dictionary definition of griefing splits this into parts:

1: Training, or angering hostile mobs to chase you at another player. This is named because the chain of mobs looks like a train.

- Hard to do in TEC so I think it is moot. Though, I guess you could kind of do this. Like, if you knock out a mob and carry it somewhere to release on an unsuspecting character who you have reason to believe is afk. That's the only way I could see this occurring in game just due to the nature of the mobs wandering.

2: Camping, or killing a player, then killing them again at their point of death or the spawn.

- Replace Kill with KO and you got something, though the Turtles/Bees in the Broken Tower do this, so we have NPCs griefing toons in game. LOL 

3: PVP stalking, or stalking a player and continuing to kill them. This is similar to camping, but occurs with the same player for a long period of time.

- See previous response

4: Chat spamming, or adding random text or profanity into the chat.

- I don't see this in TEC very often. I guess someone people would say that OOC is used to spam sometimes, but I don't see it. I could see harassment if someone asks to not be involved or the target of a discussion and it continues, but not griefing, no.

6: Preventing a character from moving.

- I could see this being done via guarding to prevent people from moving outside of a legitimate PvP type interaction. So yes, this should be one of the griefing criteria. I would also 

7. Sniping. This is normally not <a class="autolink" href=" removed link ">griefing, but is a form of the PVP stalker. At what point does archery constitute griefing?

- A case of "I know it when I see it." Not a great answer, but this is also why I feel a committee should be formed with players, staff, and hell, even some non players for 3rd party objective takes on things to discuss grievances people bring up.

8. Is disrupting scripting or AFK botting greifing? As a botter, this is the main point I have issue with the current pvp policy. Personally, I think disrupting AFK botters should always be allowed, and characters should need to provide evidence they are not afk botting by actively interacting with other PCs in an IC way that would not be obviously scripted. But that's just my own opinion.

- Thats a tough one. I think what the intent is, is the key here. If I as a player figure out what words, phrases, or actions would disrupt your script AND you are present while the scripting is occuring, I could see it as harassment when done 1 or 2 times. It would turn to griefing when it is done repeatedly. 

Summary:

A) PvP needs to stay and should not be restricted. If we are excepted to RP our toons, then we need to able to action them as the character would. But I think a staff and community gaze on things will keep the interactions where they should be based on location, toons involved, and the history or situation it occurred.

B) Harassment - Harassment is always bad. And though our definitions may vary on specifics, I think we can all agree that purposefully disrupting someone's gameplay or enjoyment (without just cause) is not a good thing. We are pretty much all adults, we all play the game for fun. If you have issue with someone, just ignore them. Let people alone to enjoy the game as they see fit. If you want do devious things, get consent. Find a group that enjoys similar things and run with that as a group. Just don't force your idea of fun on other people because they may not enjoy it. TEC is big enough to accommodate everyone. Be respectful to each other, avoid people you can't get along with, and the game will be a better place.

C) Griefing - Here is my take on griefing and yes, it is a broad definition. Griefing is when someone is seeking to purposefully disrupt the immersion, purposefully hinder the game play, or attempts to cause grievous harm to the character or player while remaining free from repercussions, all of which WITHOUT the consent of the individual. I think in TEC, being a RP enforced game, you have to take into account what the motivation was for actions in game. Are some actions justified? Yes, absolutely, but the intent or perceived intent is what is the real key here. Was information gained from IC? I think if information is gained and employed OOC against someone IC then that should carry a bit more punishment since you are metagaming and sorta working the system. I know no one likes to hear it, but "I know it when I see it" is kind of relevant here. But I also think it should be a discussion among a group so that one person's very limited idea of griefing or another's very broad definition isn't the limiting factor. it really should be a discussion.

I think my biggest factors for griefing are:

- Is it a one time or multiple time thing? Does the intent behind the actions serve an IC purpose or does it seem to be an OOC reason?

A lot of times you know when someone is doing something for OOC reasons because the IC justification is flimsy at best. Is the action normal for the character or not? Is the interaction justified or does it seem to be grossly out of proportion?

- Is the person relying on a lack ability to responsd to avoid punishment?

This is the area I have most issue with. If the person is committing a crime or action against someone, and then either avoiding logging in, or sleeping right away to avoid being caught or responded to, I think its griefing, because you are using a mechanic to avoid any kind of response to your character. If you are a bandit, cool, play a bandit. But don't be sleeping them 20 paces from an attack you just committed to avoid being found. I think the lack of evidence in the game actually benefits the grieving party because there is no way to catch someone outside of the victim specifically seeing them do it. Since no evidence is left at the scene of the crime and the NPCs around do not interact with crimes being committed outside of Constables/Soldiers, you are left with the question of "How do you find out what happened?" Any evidence of the crime is then seen as the staff using their power to target the perpetrator because how ELSE would evidence be introduced into the world? There are no fibers from the cloak dropped. No rumors from the crowd. There is no way to actually interact with witnesses to things outside of staff playing them. So the trouble here is how do you make it fair and balanced since it relies totally on GM/SG input? I always ask myself "Is it reasonable that X would occur or that Y would have seen/known that" for games and events I have every run. Then, I make an educated guess as to the probability of that being true, and then I use a dice roll to determine yes or no. That takes as much bias out of the reaction as I possibly can without just tossing a dice and saying "Did they solve it or no?" I think the same could be applied to TEC, but it would take Staff interaction, trusted player input and transparency to avoid the almost universal response of "they are targeting me" or "they only found me because the staff hates me." Hell, I remember when bandits attacked a person on the road in a plate, and then bitched and moaned because turns out, they attacked someone and he beat their asses. they immediately went to Discord and started complaining that that person should not have been there at that time. How the hell are you going to claim OOC abuse when you initiated the entire interaction, but were on the losing end?! Just ludicrous.