It isn't so much a case of not adding anything to the thread Kidaen, more the fac that Thorgal, Murphy and everyone on the IRC chat room who dared disagree with Brylle's viewpoints even slightly is extremely sick of seeing it bring it here after she realised she was losing the argument and subsequently ignoring the people (or at least me) who were of differing viewpoints.

Some of don't use the IRC (for good reason) and have not been a party to the discussion.

Even so, doesn't mean we can't be utterly sick and tired of hearing Brylle go on about it.

Ah, indeed, I'm sorry, I forgot reading the forums is mandatory, My most heartfelt apologies.

Then don't read the thread.

Kidaen, to people as addicted to IRE as we are - reading the forums, sitting in manses chatting on clans, sitting on the IRC chat room and having half of Lusternia in your contact lists for instant messaging IS mandatory.

Now to get back on topic, here is pretty much the summary of what I said at the end of the IRC discussion before getting blocked.

The boiling down of Estarra's post. We acknowledge that insults can be a valid reason for pk, but we will never actually encourage that to be put forward as a reason for pk, as we know the kind of abuse that tends to breed, and it will generally not be considered a RP reason for pk if the Issues system gets put in, because placing the burden of deciding wether an insult is pkworthy or not on the heads of the admin is pretty much retarded and is virtually impossible to judge accurately the state of mind and psyche of said characters at said time.

This thread isn't about me. As I said at the beginning, this has come up several times, and I've cited Estarra's post to people before.

Most recently people have said that I've read it completely wrong. Unlike many people in the world in general (and this forum in particular), I actually sometimes question my opinions, and *gasp* sometimes even bother to find out if I was mistaken all along. If I've misunderstood what Estarra had said (and if I've misunderstood people in here in general), I'd like to actually know that. So that's why I'm asking. That's why this thread.

Honey, I wasn't losing, we were going in circles. It had degenerated to "yes it is" "no it isn't". So I just stopped feeding that, it wasn't going anywhere. It's just so pathetic that you claim victory just because I realized it was not going to be resolved and stopped. As I said at the time, I ignored you so that I wouldn't be tempted to keep up the argument.

If Estarra says that I misunderstood, then fine, I'm big enough to accept and admit that. That's why I'm *asking*. Because maybe I was wrong all along, and I prefer not to misuse a citation. I like to actually deal with facts. Imagine that.

At the same time, I don't trust *you* to know what the facts are. So I'm going to the source of the quote to find out if I was wrong in my understanding of it. At the same time I'm trying to learn more about what other people think on the issue in a reasoned dialog (or as reasoned as the forums get anyway).

The idea that she brought the topic here (where Estarra can see it) because she was "losing" is ludicrous. There was nothing to win or lose, no one listened to anyone else. Everyone just sat around projecting their own neuroses into each other's intentions, then proclaiming victory for having done so. No one actually talked about what Estarra said, let alone what she meant.

In other words, just like here.

The point is, that it does not matter, it's nice when people have a reason to kill you, but they don't need one. I always tried to only kill for a reason, i.e. raiding, defending, influencing, but not everyone does that, it's just not required.

If Estarra's thoughts on this don't matter, then why are you guys trying to hard to argue that your interpretation is the right one?

I like knowing Estarra's thoughts on things, even if they don't change how things happen in the game in a huge way. I also like knowing if I share an opinion that Estarra has about a particular issue.

And contrariwise, I like knowing if my opinions are at odds with the creator's. I'm just a curious person.

It doesn't say anything about actions (though the verb "include" means it doesn't exclude them either); so I suppose there's some ambiguity. But I think it's going too far to say Lusternia is a "roleplaying not required" MUD based on that. I do wish they'd make the language more explicitly "roleplay required" though.

It would be funny if if you didn't feel like killing someone, and you still wanted to show them a lesson, you could instead BEATDOWN said target. It would work a lot like DECLARE but once you got them down to 0 health it peaced them instead of killing them, not only peaced them but made them possibly unable to speak for one Day or something, because they got beatdown so badly that normal healing methods will not work.


So how fun would that be!!!

That is correct pretty much. I don’t personally feel on a philosophical level that insults are a valid reason for PK as a general rule. However, I understand how others might feel otherwise. But the point of the discussion from which you quoted me was that it is difficult to rule upon RP-valid reasons to PK because: (1) any ‘ruling’ on RP is subjective, (2) one individual can’t be assigned to all issues that arise so there’s the hazard of inconsistency, (3) it’s a slippery slope allowing one insult through and denying others, (4) the administration would constantly be subjected to accusations of ‘favoritism’ and ‘bias’ whenever we would judge whether an RP reason for PK was justified or not.



I’m not quite sure I follow that. I don’t think insults are a valid reason for PK as a general rule. That said, I could conceivably be convinced otherwise on a case-by-case basis. However, as mentioned before, it’s a slippery slope. If someone called another a ‘traitorous, no-good, cowardly, child-beating, puddle of pond scum’, should I investigate the entire context of the conversation? Should I investigate if the target of the insult actually started the insults? Maybe the target deserved to be called that? Should I make a judgment? No, if we had an issue system, I would make a rule that insults are not a valid reason to PK. Not so much because I feel there can never be an RP reason to PK for an insult, but rather because an RP-valid reason to PK for an insult would be so rare and so subjective (in my judgment) that it would not be worth allowing any precedent through.

Anyway, we don’t have an issue system as people have pointed out. We have the Avenger/karma system. Non-prime planes are open PK. It is true that RP isn’t ‘enforced’ (and lucky for many of you that the admin doesn’t spend all its time judging your RP). If you read a few posts upwards from the one you quoted me, you’ll read my following statement:



(Emphasis added.) Note the intent here is to give the person the benefit of the doubt, whether the "RP reason" was an insult, revenge for being jilted, dishonoring their guild, etc.

Is the Avenger and karma system perfect? No. Could it be improved? Probably. Has it worked the way I envisioned? Mostly--the Avenger wasn’t doing what was intended as Lusternia turned into a free-for-all-all-the-time because people were gaming the system. It wasn’t until we added karma (as much as people may argue this) did we see a dramatic curb in PK to the point where we felt it was at an acceptable level.

Thank you for your time, Estarra. I appreciate the thought you put into your reply, and I'm happy to know that I wasn't totally off base.

I do understand about how and why you've implemented the mechanics you have, and I think that, for me at least, the level of PK is acceptible. Though I know others have problems because they're bashing or whatever...

Anyway, thanks.

Thanks for that estarra, it appears we've been arguing with each other, but both agreeing in part to what you orgiinally said.

Now, lets go pwn some noobs....

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I can see the argument starting up in a few weeks and people quoting more of Estarra's latest post to the point Let's hope not.

I prefer people to have a reason to pk, but realise some will just make up their own lousy ones if it suits them to. I'd prefer it if more people just faced off and argued a bit in-character instead.

I can't see anyone replying to Ialie's point though... beatdown. Hehe... very cool idea actually. The idea would need tweaking, but it's an interesting alternative to pk. Hard to balance... but the idea is fun

I've said from the very start that killing someone because they said a naughty word to you is just about the most pathetic excuse there is. If you want to kill me, fine, but come up with a better reason or just admit that you like killing.

That said, I would hate even more for us to turn into such a governed place that we need permission to do what we want to do. I just have to hope that a little maturity shines through, I guess, and put up with those people who have inch-deep reasons for killing someone.