I hope this policy carries over to the arena when people are scripting and the "if your wearing a faceplate with an animal on it is removed" let's have it fair across the board.

maybe the constables should participate in some RP once in awhile too, maybe have some sort of evidence before they go arresting people.

Well, so much for my "Bad guy", or "griefer" according to the above, making a return. Unfortunately you're literally shutting down the one interesting thing left in this game. No more bandits, no more thieves or muggers that jump out of nowhere and beat you up FIRST and then try to sell your stuff back to you, and you know, kick off some rp conflict. What am I supposed to go around and be like "You look rich! do you care about us poor people? no? I guess I'll rob you then!". Yeah, warning them will really make it easy to rob them. And yes, "I'm a bad guy that wants to rob and kill people" -is- a character, and -is- something that brings life to a world.

Congratulations carebears, you've finally gotten the game you wanted. But I've no interest in playing a carebear game where the good guys can't lose. As the playerbase shrinks again to only those that want to pve and melodramatic saturday morning cartoon bad guys, I'm sure it'll be fun patrolling for pretend bad guys as constables and legion and coming up with new stitch patterns for everyone else. You've basically turned TEC into castle marrach.

I've played this game for 22 years on and off, but I won't be returning as long as this policy is in place.

So long folks,

-Player of Othento (Good and Bad guy), Sagnus (Bad guy), Ilkilyn (Bad Guy), Gydon (Good Guy), Hodde (Good Guy), and Jurgen (REALLY bad guy)

This is an amazing policy! You and your team rock Sid, you have more then earned a sub. I love we are bringing RP back to an RP game!

I am going to take the post and react to it piece by piece. Caveat, this is how I am interpreting what was written in the policy. If I have misread or misunderstood anything, I apologize and hope the staff would correct my mistakes:

----"While Open World PvP is allowed, TEC is an RP-required game. “Griefing” can be characterized by a distinct lack of effort on behalf of the violating player to initiate and engage in any kind of RP prior, or building up, to IG attacks."----

This clearly states PvP is still allowed, as it always has been. The reminder here is that the RP must support the actions and conflict that is occurring. The RP should either be attempted prior to the attack, IE a bandit comes out of the woods and engages the target, then maybe states, "Stop and pay the toll or you will be beaten and robbed." Like Highwaymen of old use to do. OR, as the words "building up" implies, that events have occurred prior to the conflict which would logically support an interaction of the nature. "So and So looked at me so I beat their ass" isn't going to fly anymore, nor should it.

----"Detailing exactly what "RP is" would, of course, be difficult. But it is easy to spot when it takes place. If, without provocation, you walk up to someone and attack without reason other than "I wanted to" or "I'm a bad guy", that's not RP. Dialogue, emoting, discussion, possibly even an opportunity to extract themselves from the situation depending on their response, are all types of RP that could take place."----

Again, all they are saying here is that affording the person an opportunity to role-play is the end goal. Griefing is not role-playing. Attacks and banditting are viable paths, so long as you are role-playing and not griefing. 

----"Are there limited situations where none of those things could take place in the moment, but a backstory has led up to the encounter? Yes. But if your sole, or even primary, reason for your character's existence is violently attacking others or continually robbing them blind, you're probably a griefer." ----

So this is clearly stating if there is history that is a build up to conflict, then the conflict is valid by their policy and the RP is already established. But playing a bandit to solely bandit and do nothing but bandit is not going to fly anymore. The reason? Probably because the fact you can sleep for long periods of time and never come across anyone gives you an unfair advantage against those who are trying to stop those types of crimes. The argument "Well, law-keepers could camp out like the bandits do and wait" isn't really valid when you can sleep a character in a prepositioned spot for months IRL and then wake them, hit a mark, then sleep after a short time. Since there is no evidence left at the scene and your character no longer technically exists in the world, it puts the bandit at a completely unfair advantage over those who would track, investigate or apprehend the bandit.

----"If you're not sure, staff would be happy to have a 1-on-1 conversation with you to help you define this further.

Report instances of suspected no-RP attacks to @report - Discipline Bugs.

Offenders of this policy will be given progressive time outs in Nowhere, which could end in character deletions or becoming banned." ----

All they are saying here is if you are unsure ahead of time if what you are going to do or plan to do is griefing, ask them. They will help figure out if it is or isn't. They are also showing how to resport "SUSPECTED" instances of no-RP attacks. What I get from this is that they will then look at the logs of what happened, have a discussion with the parties involved (separately to keep identities hidden) to get their input and let them explain their IC reasons for the conflict. Then, AFTER the details have been collected, then they make a decision and if there was a lack of RP or IC reasoning, then punishments would be handed out from there. But a report doesn't mean a Nowhere ban automatically. I would imagine most of the reports they get are going to be unfounded, meaning there was IC reasons and the conflict was valid and warranted.

----"We understand the desire to play less savory characters, but there needs to be substance and thought past solely aggressive behavior. Please make sure your violent villains are role played, and do not fall into the griefing category."----

This is the second time in the post the staff has explicitly said there is a difference between conflict and griefing. Conflict is allowed, as it always has been. PvP is allowed, as it always has been. Griefing is now pointed out and they are expressly saying it is not allowed. You KNOW what griefing is. I can't think of a single game that expressly allows griefing. Almost all of them have some type of stipulation in place to that limits the ability of one player to ruin the experience of another excessively, whether through some sort of administration or mechanics. The staff is saying that violent villains are allowed in the game, just make sure you are role playing that. Role playing is not a character design or a character history. Role playing is actively engaging with other players. The most recent bandits captured (the plates), I have never seen them in game in the past 4 years I have been playing. Thats not to say they couldn't have been role-playing, but no one I talked to had any idea who they actually were prior to their execution. Everyone Jageris talked to around that time had any idea who they were. So were those players role playing a character? Or were they making the OOC decision to avoid characters in the game to limit their ability to get caught IC? Would a bandit avoid the city? Probably, It would make sense. Was that a character decision, or was it a player decision to do so to provide them an advantage in the game?   

Another indicator is attacking someone IC and then taunting them OOC. It almost seems like a bleeding over of the IC/OOC divide we are supposed to try and maintain. We all get attached to our characters in some way, its how we provide believable and meaningful reactions to what is going on in the game. It doesn't mean we are the character, it just means we empathize with the character. But when folks are doing things In game, and then going to OOC channels like Discord, Skype, or other ways to communicate and taunting the player of the character......well, you have crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed. I have had arguments in game between my character and another, where they were all out screaming at each other. But it never crossed into the OOC realm. In fact, I went out of my way to make sure the other person was okay with how the scene was going. They were and we went with it. And I checked with them because this is a game and it should provide enjoyment for all those involved. Just think of it like the Wiccan Morality statement, "Do what ye will but harm ye none." Play your character and have fun, but the other party should also be having fun. If they enjoy having their character jumped along the road and beaten to hell, with all their items stolen, then drive on and have fun. But if not, maybe a discussion needs to happen.

The staff could have said no PvP. They could have created PvP tickets similar to PK tickets so that you had to provide your reasoning ahead of time (effectively killing banditing all together). They could have said No bandits, no criminals, no one playing on the wrong side of the law. But they didn't. This policy doesn't limit anything in the game that wasn't already expressed. IC actions should have substantive IC reasons. Thats all they are saying. If one character has beef with another, THATS enough IG reason for conflict to occur, because it makes sense and has IC reasons and motives behind it. But one character beating the shit out of another for purely OOC reasons, or for something flimsy like "I play a bad guy so I mug people on the road" is going to need more.

Those asking about whether this applies to constables, I would say yes, it applies to everyone. Don't feel like any one group is being targeted, they aren't. This is a framework they want everyone to follow. With constables, their IC reactions are a product of reacting to the actions of another player. So yes, if a player commits a crime, it is within the constables RP to take them into custody. The constables aren't creating the RP, they are reacting to it. That is akin to saying "My character is jumping yours on the road to Vet because its in their character and role-play, but you don't have any reason to fight back because your character is a nice person." Thats not going to work. If a law is being broken, a warrant is being served, or a suspect is being chased, then yes, the constables have the IC reasoning to apprehend the suspect. That conflict is in direct response to the initial action of the one breaking the law, therefore there is enough "build up" in an RP/IC sense to warrant the interaction.

If the staff clarifying a point of contention in the community and asking you to Role play in an RPG is making you so mad, I am really not sure what to say. But I am just shocked that Owner of the game and the GMs of an RPG asking people to RP and validate their conflict with substantive IC reasoning is being met with such hostile resistance. 

Thank you Siddhe for this update.

Randomone i like a lot that you have said but don't agree with everything. 

1. Do I believe PvP should be in the game? Yes

2. Do I think you should be knocked out from PvP? Yes

3. Do I think you should be put in a coma and looted? No

I don't agree with the notion, a bandit pops out and says "give me your stuff or get beat up" would justify the amount of RP needed to K'o and loot. Just my opinion

The people complaining about this change. Why are you mad that you can't knock people out when you want and loot them? That isn't RP and part of the game.

You complain about the constables and what they do to you when YOU do something bad. 

Outcome of a bandit getting caught. 4-12 hours in jail and when you get out, you have all your stuff.  Done.

Outcome of someone that you K'o. They are in a coma for 48 hours, they now have to recover for another 48 hours, they lost all of their stuff and when they wake up, they have to wonder and see if you found their room and ransacked it for all that they had in there. 

I don't see  your point and see how this is a horrible way to have the game go since you're at the advantage, having a mask and there's a chance you will never get caught.  

Ikirax, I like your character and have been with you before. But your view on the changes and the outcome above which has happened often, hurts the community to benefit your pocket. (I am not saying you per se, just as an example)

You dueled the guy Ps something, (forgot his name) the other day and from the sound of it, you whooped him good. I don't doubt your skill at all as I have seen you fight. But he made a comment about how easy it is for someone with 100 ranks to defeat someone with a few thousand tcr. When it comes to Pank and Brawling, there is a huge advantage over all the other weapons. I started with my stave and had to get nearly 30 ranks to get 5s on brutes in the alleys. I learned one rank of brawling and punch and it was a 5. 

So you see, the other issue that goes along with this policy change is the need for combat balance. But within the balance there does need to be advantages with some weapons fighting others while at a disadvantage with others. So when the bandits that have been around for a few years go and pick on 5 month to even 2 year old players then get their ass kicked and looted really hurts and is annoying because all the time and effort that they put into their character is just wiped out. If PvP is to still be tough with the current policy, then there needs to be a way so that expensive items cannot be looted. Cause if I spend 125 a month and premium just to have my shit looted on me a week later is going to hurt a lot and what does the person get out of it? Nothing but an, I'm sorry this happened, do you need help to the baths or your room? 

Now as for the constables, I do agree that they need to be held accountable for their actions as well. If they are fighting in the Colosseum and constantly attack another "Player" then they need to be warranted for their action. More proof should be provided before warrants are executed. Maybe have npc constables roaming around that can generate information when there is an incident? This goes both ways so you don't get blamed for something you didn't do, just because you were in the vicinity. 

There was time for a change, and Thank You Siddhe for starting this push forward. It's not turning into a carebear game as people have said, but if that's the case, then I am all for it to see people come back to the game and hope to have 100 people playing at a time again. That is what success is. 

I believe Teddy Roosevelt had said, It's better to lose the limb and save the tree, than to try and save the limb and lose the tree. 

Remember this game is here for ALL of us, not just to protect a specific few. You can't expect to get away with loads of things and never have consequences.

I see both sides and understand the reasoning. But the game needs to grow and it never will with the current system and with people leaving because of no changes. 

Posted by: @murf89

Thank you Siddhe for this update.

Randomone i like a lot that you have said but don't agree with everything. 

1. Do I believe PvP should be in the game? Yes

2. Do I think you should be knocked out from PvP? Yes

3. Do I think you should be put in a coma and looted? No

I don't agree with the notion, a bandit pops out and says "give me your stuff or get beat up" would justify the amount of RP needed to K'o and loot. Just my opinion

Don't get me wrong, I think that is like a minimum of RP. I was more likening it to Highwaymen from the past who would at least give you the option of paying a "toll" prior to murdering you. A few (not all) bandit attacks were literally jump out, beat the crap out of them, loot, run away. 

My point was more that there should be SOME effort at Role-Playing during these things if it is one of those random, out of now where attacks. If there is a history of bad blood, being rivals, one stole the other's mate, or some other conflict between them, okay, yeah, maybe one party would jump the other party and not say a word. But that there is a build up of RP leading to the situation. Thats not a griefing because I would hope both parties would be aware of the fact they have enemies or people who are in such a contention that it could come to blows. 

And for clarification, conflict does not have to be physical. I mean conflict as any two characters who have something between them is used as justification for escalation of force. The event could have happened years ago, but the conflict is still there. Now, I am not saying every grudge should end in combat. But when you play your character there should be some indication that there is turmoil there.

Posted by: @eternal-admin

Detailing exactly what "RP is" would, of course, be difficult. But it is easy to spot when it takes place. If, without provocation, you walk up to someone and attack without reason other than "I wanted to" or "I'm a bad guy", that's not RP. Dialogue, emoting, discussion, possibly even an opportunity to extract themselves from the situation depending on their response, are all types of RP that could take place.

Are there limited situations where none of those things could take place in the moment, but a backstory has led up to the encounter? Yes. But if your sole, or even primary, reason for your character's existence is violently attacking others or continually robbing them blind, you're probably a griefer.

I am so saddened by this. This policy was bound to happen, given that the new owner of TEC has always played a carebear, so I can't pretend to be shocked.

I really wish that the policies of this dying game were dictated by the remaining players rather than one person who was automatically given ownership of the entire system. It's really disheartening.