QUOTE:


The principle of autonomy: Only the player himself is allowed to write about his knight or persons (NPC – Non player characters) in the environment of that knight. The inventer of an NPC holds all rights of this special NPC. Nobody else has the right to decide what this knight or one of his NPCs shall do or think (An exception is made if things really occurred, e.g. in a battle).
Included is the right of your own words. No other knight or NPC can hear the words of a knight or a NPC if their owner didn't intended this.

In addition to previous rulings we have it here within the rp rules themselves that permission CAN be given for one player to write the actions of another.

The only difference here is that because of the number of people involved and the probable length of the storyline we have done this permission ahead of time so that the storyline can move along at a good pace.

Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
The player of Seighin Cumhaill takes the approach of attaching the message "Posted with Permission of Player of X" at the top of any message violating that Player's privilege.

So you could place such a message (naming the players assenting to the violation) at the top.

So I would like to see a statement from the Mods to the following effect:

QUOTE:
1. Certain of the RP rules can be modified by agreement of all players whose characters (PC and NPC) are named in an RP post.
2. Modification of the rules can be arranged by negotiation with the mod team, on a per-thread basis.
3. Where a rule modification has been agreed, posts must state the modification and list the players who have agreed to it at the top . This is the only OOC statement permitted in an RP post.
4. Fraudulently claiming agreement to a rule modification is a serious offense and players responsible will be banned.

I don't have a problem with this, with the exception of item three. Public posts should not be required. Were you to state within the RP as stated, it would itself be, as you say, a violation of the rp format which maintains no OOC is allowed. If this is required, it should be in an OOC topic such as this one, not in the thread itself which should retain its rp format. However I still don't view it as something that should be required when... again... mods were consulted prior to this beginning.... and this thread itself was a notification that such an arrangement had been set up with the noted storyline thread.

At this point we're setting up additional hoops for players to jump through in order to participate in rp, for reasons that largely are already accounted for by the mods and the game itself. Any concern of "back room dealing" was specifically addressed when it was Denis to whom the players involved write their permission to, a player who would not be in the storyline and was of another nation just to remove any remote impression of favoritism.

As I see it, it comes down several main questions:

1) Are the RP-mods respected? When rulings by rp-mods are made they should be respected. If they aren't then basically what we say is that there's no point in having them at all, except as a weapon to attempt to use against other nations.

2) The mods exist to police rp, and to educate when violations occur. If confusion develops that is what the mod team is there for to step in and insure things run smoothly.

3) Are we, as a community, in favor of supporting the growth of rp, or restricting it to the bare minimum by binding it with as many narrowly defined rules as possible until it basically snuffs itself out. In this case specifically steps were taken to address these issues... based on the recommendation of an RP-mod. This should be sufficient for everyone.
- If we are 'bare minimum- arguments only- support of rp.. Why do we have it at all? Get rid of it totally and simply run the game as an OOC strategy war-game where at least the "respect" rule would tone down the insult hashing.


If the answer to all of this is that the RP-mods are not trusted and respected to police the rules and act in the best interest of the game and rp within the game. And if we are working to restrict rp as much as possible to the "you're an idiot" "no you are" format. Then I respectfully request that when this ruling is made it is made as an all or nothing matter.

Perma-ban me, or lets work to bring exciting new elements of storytelling to the game without setting up additional *checks* that serve primarily to reinforce the idea that somehow the RP-mods are themselves not to be trusted to do their jobs.

All of this has been done fairly, as far as I can tell (essentially following the process I subsequently suggested, excepting 3).

However, it's not just a matter of it being done fairly, but also it should be seen to be done fairly.

And so it should be made more transparent. Hence my suggestion (part 3). I'd be happy for this to appear at the start of the thread (and also if/when extra players join in the group RP, or players leave it) instead of in every post.

It's necessary to consult the mods prior to doing this (as you have) but it's not sufficient. In my view, you need also to announce the variation (and the fact that the players involved have agreed) to the KH community.

which is the entire point of posting this thread to begin with....

Though I disagree with the principal.

In response to being asked why I 'disagreed with principle' via PM (and having decided some elaboration was warranted: We do not require wiki-leaks for RP-mod oversight.

There is a literary interest in keeping exactly who will be in the storyline hidden from the public. Consider that with five posts there have already been almost 200 readings, and there were 80 even when there were only two posts in the thread that were my early lead ins to the storyline. Some people might want to be revealed later on as surprise, perhaps even people from other nations for example. That more that one RP-mod has a list of the players who have given their permission, which was given individually by each player via pm, should be enough. We should not set extra rules based on some kind of paranoia that the RP-mods can't do their jobs... when as you yourself have said, the steps you suggest were already taken excepting the one we disagree on... and even THAT was done except for listing out the players would would be involved.

Charles Hart wrote:

QUOTE:
Unfortunately, and I realize this was the fervent hope of one of the posters in this thread, the issue *has* been discussed with several RP-mods, and I do have the approval...

The RP mods did not confirmed they give you the approval so far. This is a very grave accusation, if proves that you lied about this and you should expect to be banned.

Charles Hart wrote:

QUOTE:
Additionally it has been previously ruled that an NPC of another character cannot be used "..without that players consent.."

Obviously you don't understand what role-play is. It's about your character role, not the entire server roles.

The player of Seighin Cumhaill would have a lot to contribute to discussion about multi-author posts, and I will suggest it. However I can almost 100% guarantee that her player will nothing to do with a thread that involves people accusing each other of "knowing nothing about RP" (which both Charles and Greg have accused each other of, so it's symmetric), therefore I request that such accusations cease forthwith.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
Charles Hart wrote:

QUOTE:
Unfortunately, and I realize this was the fervent hope of one of the posters in this thread, the issue *has* been discussed with several RP-mods, and I do have the approval...

The RP mods did not confirmed they give you the approval so far. This is a very grave accusation, if proves that you lied about this and you should expect to be banned.

Yes it is, which if course you know is baseless, and which of course you will keep repeating regardless because that's just who you are.

I have a little question here:

The sense of a rule in a game is to ensure that no one is unfairly treated. I am currently trying to understand who is harmed by the RP from Charles?

Or is it more important to follow the rules than playing a game with each other? We can send every post to a lawyer before posting it or make a discussion council, whether this post is worth posting or anyone has queries with it.

Of course no-one is harmed by the post from Charles.

In large part this is becuase Charles has followed an entirely proper process to authorise the waiver of the rule.

So that others can do the same, and so that they can avoid a situation in which someone is harmed, the waiver needs to be documented.