I agree with the third. There is a significant portion of the combatant base that is pretty docile when they are losing, but are all about strutting about like idiots when their org is on top.

Mulligan and Patrovsky define griefing in online environments such as virtual worlds as “purposefully engaging in activities to disrupt the gaming experience of other players” (Mulligan
& Patrovsky, 2003)

SPECTACULAR INTERVENTIONS IN SECOND LIFE:
GOON CULTURE, GRIEFING, AND DISRUPTION IN VIRTUAL SPACES
By Burcu Bakioglu, Indiana University

....

Hacking into user accounts; illegal distribution of a script-theft hack; a series of grid
(world) crashes . . . SA Goons, the group held responsible for these activities, was banned in
2004. Hacking of the world map to feature regions with crude and offensive names, not to
mention getting one of them to display a naked, ejaculating Bobby Hill image from the King of
the Hill television series on the world map, another series of SIM (region) crashes . . . Voted 5
(V5), the group held responsible for these activities, was banned in 2006 (Minstral,
“Skywriting,” 2006; Minstral, “Crocodile,” 2006). Anshe Chung, the first real estate tycoon in
Second Life, who was featured in the May 1, 2006 issue of Business Week, was attacked during
her CNET interview with flying penises, followed by a SIM crash (Miller, 2006). Room 101, the
group which claimed to be behind it, published the video of this embarrassing event on
YouTube. Digital Copyright complaints were filed against the offending accounts in 2006
(Terdiman, 2007). Patriatic Nigras crashed seventeen SIMs in a swastika pattern in 2007 (Sklar,
2007). Individual accounts have been banned on an hourly basis since then.

Welcome to the mysterious world of griefing.

.....

I will employ game theory and cultural studies to show how grief play (type of game
play) and griefing (disruptive cultural activity) are two interrelated, yet distinct, activities. I argue
that griefers – those who practice grief play – ultimately end up engaging in potentially
subversive practices that residents recognize as griefing, which ultimately has social, cultural,
and economic consequences.

.....

For example, when griefers are targeting residents who are leading alternative sexual lifestyles, such as Ageplay (which refers to activities that involve engaging in erotic encounters with avatars that resemble children), Goreans (who enact the relationships between masters and slaves), or those who engage in BDSM (from bondage and discipline, dominance and submission), the daily activities that these residents engage in clash with the magic circle of the grief play that takes place in Second Life. Kalevala Chevalier, a Goon who has an avatar in the shape of a poorly scripted zebra, explains that even though their purpose is to disrupt the daily activities of the groups that they are targeting, they almost always try, at least initially, to conform to the standards of a region.

For instance, if they are in an Ageplay sim, they will go to the SIM appearing to be sexually-charged children and concede to the requests of the Ageplayers, but, “when the owner of the land has bouncing on his lap, transform into a zebra and ruin whatever perverted fantasy engaged in.” In other words, while aiming to disrupt the daily activities (and thus the culture) of the residents of Ageplay sims, they do, at least temporarily, engage in these daily acts which they aim to disrupt. Grief play, then, becomes a disruptive cultural act because not everyone is aware of the existence of the magic circle that has been set up, a circle which ultimately exerts its own cultural values that are quite different than those that were initially set up by the Ageplayers.

Although the activities of the griefers have social and economic repercussions within the culture of Second Life (some even more dramatic than this funny little hoax and may even result in copyright violation complaints and law suits), griefers insist on linking their actions primarily to notions of play, claiming that their activities target the idea that “Internet is serious business,” thereby implying that Second Life should not be taken seriously but should only be considered within the context of play.

Dibbell, J. (2008). Mutilated furries, flying phalluses: Put the blame on griefers, the sociopaths
of the virtual world. Wired, 16, p. 90-97.

Man, we don't stay and fight and we get told we're lame for leaving, but we stay too long and fight, we have no self-control

Lose Lose boo

Was it the same person who said both?

What? Raiders at least get to defend themselves on ethereal.

Uh, but that's assuming again it's the type of raid that requires defending yourself, or staying put. For one person hit and runs, you don't want to try and defend yourself, you just move on.

With the hilarious amounts of power we all have, throwing up gravity and distort is more than enough to catch hit and runners (who don't raid at 2 AM PST). It's already done on non-prime, shouldn't be an issue on prime.

Distort & gravity. Throw up liveforest for good measure (though not necessary). Especially given how bloody large Prime territories are, said person is not getting out.

I'm aware. The point I was trying to make is that forests have to go to that length, where cities really do not. We shouldn't have to. It's that disparity that bothers me. Power really isn't a huge issue, but conceptually, it's silllllllyyyy.

Man, we don't stay and fight and we get told we're lame for leaving, but we stay too long and fight, we have no self-control

Lose Lose boo

Just off the top of my head. The avenger system seems to protect people from being griefed on prime in a way that almost everybody accepts as OK. So, I suggest we tweak the system that works already, and allow it to protect those non-combatants who really don't deserve to be killed.

Players can apply for non-combatant status in front of Avechna. For say... 2 OOC weeks they are probate. They cannot do any conflict quests, attack any organizations' mobs, raid villages, PK other organizations' players in neutral or enemy territory, etcetera. They CAN defend their villages/organization territory, influence villages, PK in uninfluenced villages, etc.

After 2 weeks they gain avenger protection in neutral territory off prime, the exception being astral. If they ever break the earlier rules of being a non-combatant they lose their status and have some probation period, maybe, a month or two OOC where they cannot apply for protection again.

Any very clear flaws in the idea? It could be pretty difficult to mechanically code in, if all the ways of negatively attacking another organization were banned to non-coms... :/