I am in favour of a subjective system run by the norns and the commonsense helpfile that Phred suggested. At the very least this system could be tested for a month and then we check player opinions afterwards.

That's not true at all. You can play a game where you can still affect others without completely getting rid of competition. That's what I wish Lusternia could be, I actually liked when people used to come raid Angkrag and I could defend it with a demesne. What I didn't like was spending all my online time trying to get essence or kill mutts. Honestly, can you not see the difference between affecting your competition and destroying it all together?

Killing someone isn't so bad.

Killing someone to the point that they no longer want to log in, is.

I don't see this as a being a commonplace thing. In fact, I see it as something that should be taken very seriously, and should happen rarely at best. So, I don't understand why so many are worried, personally, and are bringing up quests, guards, etc.

This is focused on the very small amount of cases where players (maybe one, or two) whose activity is overly obnoxious in harming particular groups or individuals, to the point it hurts the game.

This shouldn't be something the administration would have to deal with every day, like an issue, bugs, or designs. It would be something to seriously consider by the administration if a person is indeed 'griefing' to that point of harming the game, and even then, Estarra has commented on them being given a warning, first. If they don't follow that warning, then they are punished.

How is that possible? After you kill someone once, bam, suspect.

Untrue. If I (hypothetically) am being targetted by a group of individuals, then I am less able to seek recourse against their actions. I'm killed by PersonA, so I'm safe from them for 30 days. Then PersonB kills me. Then PersonC, then PersonD. And so on. If I am not a skilled fighter then I am unlikely to be able to do anything about this.

Karma becomes ineffective, because if these people are targetting a few individuals, they won't have long suspect lists, and I (being only 1 person) will not have enough karma to curse more than 1 or 2 of them. And since I am being targetted, the possibility of raising Karma in the first place becomes more difficult as well.

I'll point to Nokraenom's post.

Give an example of a non-skilled/innocent person who has had this happen to him or her.

Give me the name of an innocent person first

After all, so and so did call my mother an elderberry!

How is that going to change?

The way it has been made to sound, the subjective grief system would target a player who took things "too far." If spread out amongst a group of people, I don't see how this new system would change anything. If anything, I think the new system would support it because you wouldn't have to go "as far" if the "workload" is spread between multiple parties.

I've gone through something similar to that as well, it seems like a way for those "grief" players to get around the avenger system, I got killed by 3 people, and almost by a 4th, in a close number of days, for the same reason, they were friends wanting to help each other ground someone into the ground.

If something IS implimenting it will need to be in the hands of the admin to be effective, not another system, because these same "grief" players have found a way, as Nok, has said to get around this... they'll find a way around a new system as well.

Fine: the name of the non-skilled/combatant who didn't assist with raids.

Get back on topic. This is not about who has been 'griefed' or not and demanding names - Estarra is asking how excessive griefing should be handled by the Admin, if at all. Input relating to her question would be far more helpful than the usual arguing that is typical to the idiots section of this forum.

Me, way back when. Mmm, Rockholm...

Edit: And to get back on topic, I think it's a good idea, which is why I've been debating the points raised to show that it's not.

I remember someone mentioning someone who took commodities from Magnagora and got killed to level 1 or something.

The situation Athana just mentioned.

On this thread you have 3 examples of people getting hurt to a really nasty level.

If all three of those situations were being done by the same person, I think the admin would see them as a problem.

I think Estarra got a good answer from Phred. I'm going to stop posting now as I've said enough I think.

I wonder how this new system would address groups of people. For example, let's assume a group is raiding X versus a single person raiding X...

The single person will definately stand out versus the group counterpart even if they are doing the exact same thing. For example, let's go back to my beloved Angkrag examples:

If 12 Magnagorans (as a group) attempt to raid Rockholm for dwarves and kill 65 guards and some dwarves in the process is it the same as 1 person raiding Angkrag who kills 65 guards (of course, in small bunches) and dwarves. Would all 12 people be peaced just as likely as the 1 person?

Anyways, my whole "conspiracy theory" of where all this hate/grief comes from aside I do have the utmost respect for the administration and if Estarra has decided that the griefing in question is the issue that should be adressed (instead of what caused it) I have to support the subjective decision. Although griefing really can't be defined and only able to be "recognized when you see it", I believe the administrator in question will be able to recognize it when they see it.

This wasnt the aim of the question, I dont think. The situation is more of "If twelve people are sitting one south of the Ravenwood wisping and killing anyone who comes near because they can and theres no one to stop them, is it as bad as if just me and munsia do it?"

Thats what you really meant to ask, right?

Well, I've never been one south of the Ravenwood so I'm not sure.

But yes, something on this note. I've always felt that people tend to associate more "grief" with lower numbers. The bigger the group, the easier it is to hide in it and be less responsible.