GrayRoad Posted Apr 19, 2011, 8:18 pm	Since Joel has admonished me about planning to vote about the regional PvP issue if I don't have a strong position on the issue, I've decided to try to care. Since the vote may be coming soon, I need to do my homework. Also, since I am unlikely to be south of GW (with a major presence at least) for many months, the proposed change doesn't really affect me right now, but, I like to plan for the future. On one level I don't have a problem with what is proposed, I know the risks if I decide to go south, but what concerns me is the concept of griefing. I've pasted a paragraph below that Grograt posted in a thread back in 2009 related to deathracing and it looks to me to be a good basic definition, but I can interpret it to mean that almost any PvP can be griefing, particularly this part of the definition: "* The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the gameplay of another person." We've had some people say that being intercepted negatively impacts their gameplay, so am I griefing if I intercept them? I've seen several of the pro-PvP group argue that it is a good community and we wouldn't pick on less experienced players. I tend to think that anyone south of GW is experienced enough for me to attack and if I wan't to attack them I should be able to. Is that griefing? What if I decide to attack them repeatedly to either gain money or experience? What if I am trying to drive them out of the south for my own nefarious purposes? If I decide to red everyone I can and blow up their cars (assuming I could ever develop the skill to do that), is that griefing since it seems to be frowned upon by the community? What if I did it often? What if I use throw away cars and gangers to hassle someone that intercepted me once? Why would my swarm of bubba's out for vengeance for their brothers and sisters be considered griefing? Or would it? I don't see any of the above as griefing. Does the community? The answer to this could sway me to one side or the other... or I could sell my vote I suppose? Would it be worth a car cannon, now that it has been unnerfed. (Sorry, just had to pull both contentious issues into one post). Let's be careful out there... 'Griefing' or 'Griefer' as taken from Wikipedia: Griefers differ from typical players in that they do not play the game in order to achieve objectives defined by the game world. Instead, they seek to harass other players, causing grief. In particular, they may use tools such as harrying, hurling insults, and exploiting unintended game mechanics. Griefing as a gaming play style is not simply any action that may be considered morally incorrect. Though the staff of each online game defines griefing in a manner that best fits their game, certain criteria must be met for an action to be considered griefing. An act of griefing involves the following three types of actions to be considered grief play * The use or abuse of a game mechanic that was not intended by the game's developers. * The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar unintended game mechanics. * The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the gameplay of another person.
*sam* Posted Apr 19, 2011, 8:42 pm	There is a definition of griefing, as I define it, in the Darkwind FAQs. GrayRoad said: We've had some people say that being intercepted negatively impacts their gameplay, so am I griefing if I intercept them? Not necessarily. If you make sure that you don't unnecessarily waste their time, slaughter their gangers, or verbally taunt/abuse them, they have very little argument against you. GrayRoad said: I've seen several of the pro-PvP group argue that it is a good community and we wouldn't pick on less experienced players. I tend to think that anyone south of GW is experienced enough for me to attack and if I wan't to attack them I should be able to. Is that griefing? What if I decide to attack them repeatedly to either gain money or experience? What if I am trying to drive them out of the south for my own nefarious purposes? The same applies as my previous answer. I don't think anyone playing the bad guy this far would survive long, however. The other players would stop them. GrayRoad said: If I decide to red everyone I can and blow up their cars (assuming I could ever develop the skill to do that), is that griefing since it seems to be frowned upon by the community? What if I did it often? Yes, that's griefing. See my definition in the game FAQs. GrayRoad said: What if I use throw away cars and gangers to hassle someone that intercepted me once? Why would my swarm of bubba's out for vengeance for their brothers and sisters be considered griefing? Or would it? If you were wasting their time, insulting them etc. then yes. If you did it in a good roleplaying way, then no. It is conceivable to have genuine vendettas without being a griefer. Darkwind FAQs said: What is the definition of "griefing" in DW, and what are the punishments? Griefing is considered to be any action intended to irritate and harass other players, rather than in pursuit of game objectives. See Wikipedia: griefer. Similar to other online games, the typical form of griefing is to verbally abuse and/or unnecessarily taunt other players while attacking them. Since Darkwind has permanent character ("perma-death"), the unnecessary slaughter of other players' characters may also be considered griefing. In the forum, it's specifically not acceptable to post personal details about the real life of another player, without their consent. A unique form of griefing in DW that doesn't exist in other games is "time griefing". This is where a player or players use up all of their timeouts, or vote for an increased turn length, and then continually run the game timer for its full per-move allowance for no other reason than to delay and annoy their opponents. By its nature (socially constructed), griefing is a grey area that is hard to define precisely. Each suspected case of serious griefing is therefore investigated separately. For example, if two players belong to opposing factions and legitimately hate each other in-game, slaughter of opposing players may be legitimate. Punishments for repeated griefing range from in-game fines or the seizing of vehicles, up to and including account cancellation.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 19, 2011, 8:42 pm	This is one of the spark points on this conversation. You'll find that the PvP Opt In folks often have concern about griefing possibilities. PvP Open folks are of the opinion that DW is a tight community that would handle most of your examples by banding together and 'greifing the griefer' into submission. Additoinally, they'd point out the fact that you can bounty out of any attempted PvP intercept. Finally, someone would point out that the mechanism for an intercept is difficult enough that it'd be hard to consistently hit someone with enough regularity to really cause them any pain.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:02 pm	I really suck at the quoting thing with multiple paragraphs so I am going to bold Sam's responses to address them. Sam if I misquote you it is unintentional and call me on it. There is a definition of griefing, as I define it, in the Darkwind FAQs. Oops, sorry, forgot to look at the FAQ. It gives some examples, but as you mention in it, there are a lot of grey areas. Not necessarily. If you make sure that you don't unnecessarily waste their time, slaughter their gangers, or verbally taunt/abuse them, they have very little argument against you. I've got a problem with part of this, but I'll save it until later... The same applies as my previous answer. I don't think anyone playing the bad guy this far would survive long, however. The other players would stop them. I agree with this, good role play and community solution. I asked: "If I decide to red everyone I can and blow up their cars (assuming I could ever develop the skill to do that), is that griefing since it seems to be frowned upon by the community? What if I did it often?" Yes, that's griefing. See my definition in the game FAQs. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. I have a real problem with this. If someone intercepts me and interrupts my gameplay (I doubt I'll be the one to initiate a PvP encounter, but you never know). The only way I have to discourage them from bothering me is to red them dead if I am capable of doing it. Plus, I might decide to punish them by redding them as much as I can for a while. (This all assumes that I am ever able to do that, my PvP skills are notably lacking). If we aren't allowed to kill gangers then it isn't PvP in my book. If we are going to fight, let's fight, otherwise they are griefing me by wasting my time. In response to my question about trying to drive someone out of BL. If you were wasting their time, insulting them etc. then yes. If you did it in a good roleplaying way, then no. It is conceivable to have genuine vendettas without being a griefer. I can live with this except one of the ways I would try to drive them out is to red them, which I can't do because it is griefing. So, I guess this doesn't work for me either.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:03 pm	Crap. I suck at using bold fonts too, what a mess. Hopefully someone can make some sense out of what I just posted. Right now, based on Sam's responses, I would probably vote against the change because I don't feel I will be allowed to respond properly to a PvP attack on my gang. If I am attacked, I want to be able to respond with everything I've got including redding as many members of the attacking gang as I can. Since this is considered griefing, I will not be able to do that. A car cannon could still sway my vote though...
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:07 pm	Often on an edit you have to check the "format MbCode" box again-- I believe it defaults to OFF on an edit.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:09 pm	Many thanks, Korn!! My post is less crappy now.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:17 pm	Kornkob The Dude said: This is one of the spark points on this conversation.    You'll find that the PvP Opt In folks often have concern about griefing possibilities.  PvP Open folks are of the opinion that DW is a tight community that would handle most of your examples by banding together and 'greifing the griefer' into submission.  Additoinally, they'd point out the fact that you can bounty out of any attempted PvP intercept.  Finally, someone would point out that the mechanism for an intercept is difficult enough that it'd  be hard to consistently hit someone with enough regularity to really cause them any pain.  I don't have a problem with any of this. I think the grief the griefer is a good solution. My concern now is with some of the limitations imposed by the griefing policy. Part of what makes PvP interesting here is the permadeath. In other games, there really isn't much penalty for death so griefing is rampant. If we have to agree going in to not redding anyone, other than by accident, most of the spice goes out of it for me. If redding other gangers is considered griefing, then we really aren't talking about PvP, but some kind of negotiated arena match that one player generally won't want.
*Ninesticks* Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:18 pm	Actually what Sam said was it may, or may not be, considered griefing. The context is vitally important for determining whether an action is considered griefing.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:21 pm	I can't see any problem with redding the gangers of a rival group in an encounter. The problem would come if you continuously hunt down this other player and red their gangers each time. Damn right. If I am in a fight with someone and I want them to resign, I may use the "hostages" that I have as collateral . . . I may give a warning, but that's about it. This method, for me, would typically be utilized only in a heated PvP match, where the other player and I are at odds, if they verbally resign a car but continue shooting with it, or if any other "unsportsmanlike" methods are evoked by him.
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:21 pm	Well I've certainly redded people on purpose, should I try not to let the door hit my ass on the way out?
GrayRoad Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:21 pm	*Ninesticks* said: Actually what Sam said was it may, or may not be, considered griefing. The context is vitally important for determining whether an action is considered griefing. That's not how I read it Nine (although I may have misinterpreted it) (Correct me if I'm wrong Sam). When he said "slaughtering their gangers" is griefing, that pretty much established it for me. If attacked, I would fully intend to slaughter the attacker if it is within my ability to do so (which it probably isn't but I would try).
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 19, 2011, 9:23 pm	Well lookee, there. Three posts within 60 seconds. You seem to have hit a vein, GrayRoad.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 20, 2011, 12:24 am	The Paranoid Tourist said: I can't see any problem with redding the gangers of a rival group in an encounter. The problem would come if you continuously hunt down this other player and red their gangers each time. But I guess that is my issue. I would want to hunt their gangers down and red them ever time. I see that as a deterrent to anyone else intercepting me. (or a god awful bloodbath, which could be fun too.)
GrayRoad Posted Apr 20, 2011, 12:34 am	Okay, to sum up. I'm glad Joel's earlier post jogged me out of my funk on this issue. Because now I have moved from not caring to being ready to take a position. I have two scenarios below and if either is considered griefing, I'll vote against the PvP/non-PvP regional change. If they are not griefing, I'll vote for the change. (My vote subject to change if someone bribes me with a car cannon). Scenario #1. Before I move into BL I make a forum announcement that if I am intercepted, I will attempt to red everyone in the gang that intercepts me and will hunt them for that purpose (may not really have the skills to kill anyone, but that isn't the point). Then, if I am intercepted, I will follow through and destroy cars and kill gangers whenever able against that player. I'll decide when to stop as well. Scenario #2. At this point, assume I am established in the south. "Generic Player" moves into BL. I send them a PM that says "Pretty nice ganger you have there, be a shame if something happened to him. Send me $1 million and nothing bad will happen from my gang." If they don't pay. I intercept and red until either they move out or I make my $1 million on bounties. To me both of these scenarios can be justified as role playing and don't seem to be griefing. But I'd like an answer before I vote on the change. Thanks.
theHumungous Posted Apr 20, 2011, 12:46 am	I'd venture to say going out of your way to red other player's gangers is griefing. Period. If they demoralize and say they're out of the fight, respect that. That also means, don't fire with demoralized cars. There's a lot of gray area, but trying to hunt someone down with only the INTENT of redding gangers IS griefing. The second scenario seems like griefing a bit too - but I think the community will determine who gets to perform extortion. I don't really agree with it, but - it would net you some enemies fast and would probably resolve itself.
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 20, 2011, 5:08 am	Sam's point is you might have a reason to red them - if they are enemies you want to do as much damage so they sue for peace, avoid you like the plague or simply are too weak to come at you anymore.
Groove Champion Posted Apr 20, 2011, 5:27 am	If you initiate PvP, you will be accused of griefing eventually. This is a universal truth that transcends Dark Wind. The only thing you can do is maintain your aggression within the bounds of the game world and avoid empty forum accusations and allegations as best you can. Good luck.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 20, 2011, 5:54 am	Your first scenario sounds reasonable to me, especially since you are sending out that warning. The second scenario is a little more questionable, though I am on the "not griefing" side of the fence. After all, since a gang can just pay your bounty to not fight you, your extortion attempt holds only minimal sway.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 20, 2011, 6:19 am	Please note: My comments do not necessarily represent Sam's, nor any Marshal's. I may have been around this game for a long time, but I certainly don't make the rules.
Groove Champion Posted Apr 20, 2011, 7:42 am	Here's the kind of reaction you can expect. ID 143437 (EDIT): Please note I point out only the player's reaction. This is not a PvP event and the incident was not planned.
*sam* Posted Apr 20, 2011, 11:43 am	GrayRoad said: Scenario #1. Before I move into BL I make a forum announcement that if I am intercepted, I will attempt to red everyone in the gang that intercepts me and will hunt them for that purpose (may not really have the skills to kill anyone, but that isn't the point). This is probably ok, depending on how you play it. GrayRoad said: Scenario #2. At this point, assume I am established in the south. "Generic Player" moves into BL. I send them a PM that says "Pretty nice ganger you have there, be a shame if something happened to him. Send me $1 million and nothing bad will happen from my gang." If they don't pay. I intercept and red until either they move out or I make my $1 million on bounties. To me both of these scenarios can be justified as role playing and don't seem to be griefing. But I'd like an answer before I vote on the change. This 2nd one is a bit tougher. I would like to see a game where people could play with enough maturity to accept a 'bad guy / protection racket' type scenario. Certainly it *should* be an acceptable play style. My hunch is that the major factor would be communication - making sure they know what your plans are, and that you even maybe let them away without total annihilation the 1st time around. Make it absolutely clear what your intentions are, don't waste anyone's time or insult them verbally. My answers must, however, be taken with this understanding: other players probably won't agree with me, and will cause a fuss, complain, report you as a griefer, and threaten to leave the game over it. It may be impossible to stand up to continued pressure if this happens. How does this sound?: before trying anything that you think may be considered griefing, send me a PM about it, and we can agree on how you'll play it for it to be ok. This has been done before (e.g., with goat's 'camp hostage' ploy). Then, if you play it as we agree, I will guarantee not to hold you as a griefer. I can't however promise that I won't at a later point decide that the tactic must be ceased.
*goat starer* Posted Apr 20, 2011, 12:35 pm	i think they are both fine... i would hope that in scenario 2 the player would immediately pm me and ask me to kick your arse until you retracted your generous personal protection plan!
GrayRoad Posted Apr 20, 2011, 1:38 pm	*sam* said: GrayRoad said: Scenario #1. Before I move into BL I make a forum announcement that if I am intercepted, I will attempt to red everyone in the gang that intercepts me and will hunt them for that purpose (may not really have the skills to kill anyone, but that isn't the point). This is probably ok, depending on how you play it. GrayRoad said: Scenario #2. At this point, assume I am established in the south. "Generic Player" moves into BL. I send them a PM that says "Pretty nice ganger you have there, be a shame if something happened to him. Send me $1 million and nothing bad will happen from my gang." If they don't pay. I intercept and red until either they move out or I make my $1 million on bounties. To me both of these scenarios can be justified as role playing and don't seem to be griefing. But I'd like an answer before I vote on the change. This 2nd one is a bit tougher. I would like to see a game where people could play with enough maturity to accept a 'bad guy / protection racket' type scenario. Certainly it *should* be an acceptable play style. My hunch is that the major factor would be communication - making sure they know what your plans are, and that you even maybe let them away without total annihilation the 1st time around. Make it absolutely clear what your intentions are, don't waste anyone's time or insult them verbally. My answers must, however, be taken with this understanding: other players probably won't agree with me, and will cause a fuss, complain, report you as a griefer, and threaten to leave the game over it. It may be impossible to stand up to continued pressure if this happens. How does this sound?: before trying anything that you think may be considered griefing, send me a PM about it, and we can agree on how you'll play it for it to be ok. This has been done before (e.g., with goat's 'camp hostage' ploy). Then, if you play it as we agree, I will guarantee not to hold you as a griefer. I can't however promise that I won't at a later point decide that the tactic must be ceased. I consider the above to be quite reasonable and it seems to me that actions I might consider taking to deter people from intercepting me would not be be likely to be considered griefing by Sam. Therefore, I will vote for the regional PvP. Many thanks to all the well reasoned opinions.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 20, 2011, 1:39 pm	goat starer said: i think they are both fine... i would hope that in scenario 2 the player would immediately pm me and ask me to kick your arse until you retracted your generous personal protection plan! Hey Goat, those are some pretty gangers you got there, be a shame if something happened to them.....
Jake Nikodemus Posted Apr 20, 2011, 2:58 pm	Joel Autobaun said: Well I've certainly redded people on purpose, should I try not to let the door hit my ass on the way out? I have redded people on purpose as well. It wasn't about trying to ruin the game for anyone, but enhancing my own enjoyment. Sweet sweet revenge. -Jake
theHumungous Posted Apr 20, 2011, 5:17 pm	Well. ok then. lol. Looks like I'm the nice guy. With all those responses I think I'm going to throw my white hat away. Oh. Damn. It's nailed onto my head. hah. Anyway, I'm open for PVP - I've been open for a long while - I strongly discourage redding gangers. I don't like doing it, and I don't like when it happens to me, but I won't consider it griefing. So, I recant my previous statements - extort away. I'll give you my cars, one bullet at a time.
GrayRoad Posted Apr 20, 2011, 5:49 pm	theHumungous said: Well. ok then. lol. Looks like I'm the nice guy. With all those responses I think I'm going to throw my white hat away. Oh. Damn. It's nailed onto my head. hah. Anyway, I'm open for PVP - I've been open for a long while - I strongly discourage redding gangers. I don't like doing it, and I don't like when it happens to me, but I won't consider it griefing. So, I recant my previous statements - extort away. I'll give you my cars, one bullet at a time. Heh. Well, to be honest, this is mostly theoretical for me. My guys still have trouble with the npcs in SS, so I doubt I'll be extorting anyone for a long time.
Cadimus Posted Apr 20, 2011, 6:01 pm	GrayRoad said: goat starer said: i think they are both fine... i would hope that in scenario 2 the player would immediately pm me and ask me to kick your arse until you retracted your generous personal protection plan! Hey Goat, those are some pretty gangers you got there, be a shame if something happened to them..... I got $10k on Goat!
theHumungous Posted Apr 20, 2011, 6:01 pm	Oh, well... in THAT case "Thar's a purty pheenx ya got dare." Oh Christ... I'm starting to talk like Johnny Go.
*goat starer* Posted Apr 21, 2011, 12:04 am	GrayRoad said: goat starer said: i think they are both fine... i would hope that in scenario 2 the player would immediately pm me and ask me to kick your arse until you retracted your generous personal protection plan! Hey Goat, those are some pretty gangers you got there, be a shame if something happened to them..... me too... especially 406 large guns sniper 4 john drummond... i am sure i have seen this on monty python protection racket
GrayRoad Posted Apr 21, 2011, 12:33 am	goat starer said: GrayRoad said: goat starer said: i think they are both fine... i would hope that in scenario 2 the player would immediately pm me and ask me to kick your arse until you retracted your generous personal protection plan! Hey Goat, those are some pretty gangers you got there, be a shame if something happened to them..... me too... especially 406 large guns sniper 4 john drummond... i am sure i have seen this on monty python protection racket Heh, I bet I haven't seen that in 30 years.
d0dger Posted Apr 21, 2011, 12:39 am	Honestly anyone with enough in game strength and time on their hands to try and run a protection racket has much more efficient ways that are far less hassle to make money. The only point to doing this would be to harrass the other player(s) and I imagine any individual(s) trying this would eventually have some 'vets' band together to give them a beating.