There's a lot of talk about these players with annoying characters being given chances for their enjoyment of the game but what about other player's who have to deal with these annoying people's? Does their enjoyment of the game count? If you know that by letting someone in you're going to create an atmosphere that is a little less enjoyable for the other players or your org, are you still required to let them in?

Let's say someone has a character who is regularly verbally or mentally abusive to even their allies. Let's say they tend to do things which make the whole org look bad. Let's say having them in the org is just an overall pain. Why should players feel OOCly obligated to give this player another chance? Another chance to do what? If this is a player that tends to do this pretty often, we're supposed to give them another chance to..do it again?

For most players, I wouldn't really say this applies but we all know a few where just the thought of having them in your org makes you groan. I suppose in these cases their should be a lot of restrictions on behavior set for even after they join any violation of which would result in instant expulsion. I don't know though. At some point there has to be some sort of consequence to bad behavior.

It's sooo much easier for people to just not let problems in than it is to convince them to remove the problem after it's already in. People feel much worse about the latter than they do the former, so "giving chances" for these problematic people is generally fatal because when you are subsequently proven right there is very little you can do about it. No one is obligated to let people in, although most should actually be given that chance.

Players have absolutely no right to join any org regardless of how much they wish to.

I say this as someone with thousands of RL dollars invested in Visaeris and a history of having to suffer ungodly amounts to get into Celest. I am a firm believer in orgs making people wait and wait and suffer and jump through hoop after hoop if they really want to join. "No you can't join for 5 IC years and you have to defend us and so on and so on" is a good start.

ICA=ICC.
In character actions = in character consequences

You should like you need a hug....


I think you are simplifying the current situation way too much.


I do find it odd how a certain person can object so fiercly yet cant be bothered to even speak to anyone in regards to why.

More than willing to discuss why! Feel free to ask.

Both of them are. Neither of them "refused" to attend any meeting. At least one of them couldn't, and I'm guessing the other would have if he could.

It's sad some days that my character is nicer than I am. I really could happily string Tajalli up.

I think I know what this is about, but I must have missed something important.

In any case, to address the original question, I think a distinction needs to be made between "making it very difficult to get in" and "making it impossible to get in."

If it were real life, I might feel differently, but since we're talking about an environment whose lands, organizations, people, interactions, and history all completely vanish if a janitor trips over a power cord, I don't think orgs should indulge themselves in the latter, largely because of the reasons Nirrti specified as well as the fact that taking people's in-game actions so seriously that someone would establish a permanent in-game consequence for them is dumb. I refer you to the Clumsy Janitor scenario. Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are debating whether or not a pretend person played by a real player pretending to be that pretend person should be allowed to join a pretend organization that they have committed pretend grievances against. When an org's enemy wants to join, I think it speaks well of said org to figure out what conditions would allow for such a thing rather than just making it impossible de jure (or de facto, for that matter).

At the same time, contra the "let people do whatever they want" position, I fully support an org's right to make the process difficult. All the points raised about in-game choices having in-game consequences, the RP factors involved, etc. are all valid and weighty. Players that have caused a particular org a ton of grief should expect to have a long, difficult road ahead of them if they want to be restored to that org and, as Noola said, they should be prepared for the fact that not everyone is going to treat them well, even if they complete this journey. I think it should be hard. I think it should put the character's desire to join to the test.

In fact, if the org has specific concerns about a player's behavior, they could even organize the hoops around those weaknesses. Go a full year without participating in combat, but during this year, also gather X amount of power for the nexus. Go a full year communicating through emotes only. I don't know; just shooting from the hip at this point.

The point is I vote that re-entry should never be made impossible, but players who have built up a history should expect it to be difficult commensurate with how much grief they've caused that org.

I think the right to simply reject someone should only be reserved for the worst of the worst cases (can't even put an example here).
Otherwise, everyone should be allowed to join an org after fulfilling reasonable requirements set before them, accordingly to their deeds beforehand.

Given that I'm not sure that this (otherwise productive and salient) thread needs to be derailed by more Glomdoring drama and I have more important things in my life going on than dealing with more Glomdoring drama, I'd really appreciate it if you edited out the portion of your post I didn't quote.

Everyone should be given the right not to have their names dragged in front of everyone else, warranted or not. Since the origin of this seems to be a personal matter in-game, it seems even less reasonable to talk about it publicly out-of-game.

And my concession to snarkiness: we don't want to be the next "Shayle and Xenthos", right?

The word "refused" was offered up by more than one person in regards to attending. And I am more apt to lean toward that given that person's constant attitude toward everything involving such.

Woah dude. Aren't you a bit psychotic today?

I agree 100% and not just cause you were in Irvine

don't think they were referring to you.

I personally find the opposite to be true.

I was more than happy to kick Visareis and Narsrim out when they broke the strict letter of the agreement, and other than some mild complaining, nobody really seemed to mind so much. (Other than Visaeris and Narsrim ofcourse)

I have a much harder time not letting the person in in the first place, than setting down some strict guidelines of what will get them removed.

I don't think anyone is entitled to join any organization they want in the game. If someone's going to choose to play the game in a way that makes people OOCly not even want to give them a -chance- to join their org, then they don't deserve anything because they probably haven't been very nice. And no one likes a meanie.

(And by meanie, I don't mean someone who raids and what not. I mean the people who truly go out of their way to just ruin playing experiences for others.)

With that said however, I don't think anyone could justify to themselves -never- letting someone in if they really repented and what not. I know I couldn't. But then I wouldn't be against booting them if they reverted to their old ways.

I mean, this is a game where you play with other people. Play nice and you open up options in the future. Play mean and you're really just hurting yourself.

He must be, considering this could easily be interpreted as an OOC threat. Otherwise, it is just an ill advised tantrum.

Let's all pick another day to air our collective laundry and go back to the theoretical discussion, shall we?

Like quite a few others in this thread, I've gone through the process of trying to reverse an attitude towards an org. I don't think it was unreasonable, especially given the changing nature (hehe) of that org. I can't explain how utterly exasperating and depressing that process was. Luckily, after a RL year a more reasonable consensus was reached, but even that was insanely difficult oocly.

What people rarely consider, I think, is the other side of the coin. What right does a group of players, however established or well-liked they may be, have to declare another person's roleplay is insufficient to access parts of the game? Moreover, what right do they have to say that they will never be able to change their role in the game, and are 'perma'-anything and blocked for RL years? RL years, if a game administration penalized you by denying you features on the scale of RL years, what magnitude of crime would you associate with it?

Should leaders be able to influence applicant character's roleplay and penalize contradictory or insincere attempts? Certainly. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be forced to forgive or like or accept another character just for ooc considerations, but I think that's quite distinct from blocking a change in roleplay entirely. Suggesting that is what alts are for is ridiculous. You should not be forced to abandon a character you may have spent thousands of dollars creating, not to mention time invested, simply because a group of characters decide you've been 'bad' IC. I'm not talking OOC issues, if you are OOCly stupid, like cheating/hacking/stealing/whatever, that's different. But IC choices should not lock you out of the game.

It's different in Lusternia to other places, because citizenship is absolutely everything here. Almost every minigame in the system (aside from aetherspace and miniatures, I think) is accessible only through being a member of a nation. Rogues are shortchanged in every respect. If there is a nation leadership that undertakes to permanently deny characters entrance, no matter what roleplay or events happen, the administration should step in and either remove them or revoke their control.

Yes, I feel strongly about this because of what I went through, and I bet there are heaps of others who had it 10x more difficult than I did. How easy is it for an in-game leader for instance, to declare someone should be excluded because of something they in actual fact have not done? What recourse does the applicant have? They can't show logs, or anything like that, they have to respond in-character, and there is nothing to say that in this frame of reference the process has to be fair or transparent. What if the leaders don't remember what happened years ago, and still react based on assumption or chinese whispers, is that reasonable to the applicant?

It's just so stupid to say that roleplay is only valid if it never changes. That by playing the game as encouraged, and becoming enemied to other organizations, you will not be able to ever change your original choices without EXTREME penalty - both mechanical, financial, and RP-wise. Do people even consider how difficult it is to surrender utterly your character's pride and self-respect, and beg and jump through hoops just to have a chance at joining another organization? Not just reasonably declare your changed intentions and demonstrate your new choices, but utterly debase yourself for forgiveness, then shower an organization in money, lose quite a significant amount of investment in skill losses, become 'permaenemied' to your old org and have to pay another small fortune for the grace of not being hated for changing your mind, and probably lose experience or time through some sadistic set of 'tasks' to please a set of characters. (Who even then will make your new life hell, for 'RP' reasons.)

Really, gods should be approving any joining process that has gone beyond 2 RL weeks, and in which the player government cannot find a reasonable solution. Something like an alternative - you can either appeal regularly to the government, or if they are hopeless, appeal to the better judgement of their patron.


How much more interesting and enjoyable to everyone involved is it to have a despised ally that you have a complex interaction with, than a despised and dismissed enemy that you don't interact with at all (aside from random pk)?

This is one of those things where you have to decide to what extent the actions of a player have affected other players.

If say, person A is an awesome fighter who is rarely defeated in battle, goes out and just tries to enjoy the game by raiding everyone week or so, being courteous with their fighting and is generally not a nuisance to the players of the opposing org, then sure, they should be given OOC considerations when wanting to join other orgs. Sure, ICly he may have been disliked by people because of their opposing RP, but this is still a game for the players and should be given a chance after reasonable requests have been fulfilled (1-2 RL weeks, X amount of gold/power fines to a reasonable extent, etc)

Now, let's say person B is just as capable as person A. However, person B likes to raid every single moment they are logged on, kill every single person (perhaps even novices) they find because of generic 'lol opposing org', gives bs to other people (like 'lol u suck @ combat') and is generally a nuisance to the players of opposing orgs (or sometimes even their own orgs), then why should they be given the chance to join yet another org to harass and drive off more players?

So you're saying Person A is like 99.99% of the Lusternian playerbase, and person B is an undisputed griefer and likely a recipient of administrative punishment?

Sure, my comments don't apply to those who have committed recent OOC infringements against Lusternia. I'm sure the Gods can pretty easily identify those anyway, and contain them if it is a problem for the game. (Newbie-killing, harassment, driving off players)

As for perceived griefers (fighting a lot), if the game administration decides they are not hurting the game in one nation, why would it matter if they switched? Who are you to decide that someone deserves administrative punishment, if you are not an administrator? If you don't want certain behaviour in an org, pass IC laws that prevent too much fighting (and doom your nation, but whatever). How is that the same as denying a feature of the game to another player because you don't like them at an OOC level?