Rules of Warfare

[Nohadon]

2 hours ago, MacThorstenson said:

oderation guild. 

This guild is composed of a few parts. 

The first is the Unbiased part. This would probably be the smallest amount of people and those people would have cut all ties that they could be a member of. They could still be considered ambassadors to that guild. They would take up the mantle of impartiality and be impartial in all matters of inter guild business. 

The second would be the House of Guild Representatives. This would have a rep or two from each guild that would be allowed to bring issues and advise the unbiased people. Basic representation things. 

The third would be made up of anyone who wanted to be a mediator. Any one who wants to could, without renouncing all guild connections, be a mediator between inter-guild things between two different guilds. Lopen could do it between the liebrary and the LA, Archer between the ghostbloods and the DA. and so on. So long as their involvement was agreed on before hand, and they didn't have any ties to the involved guild, they could mediate. 

The difference between the mediators and the Unbiased Ones, would be that the mediators have to be decided on before hand. If you want a mediator, they have to be notified before the thing starts so that they can prepare and make sure that they have time and so on. They couldn't break in on a conflict at any given moment, and issue decrees. Only the Unbiased ones are allowed to do that, even then when they don't abuse their power

I 100% agree with this. The House of Representatives sound like a fantastic idea, as does the meditator faction, though it is unlikely that we would get members for the unbiased faction

[Archer]

I stand by my view that the most valuable (dueling-wise) thing that can come of this is the mediators who can choose the effect of offensive actions. That way it elevates combat from 'I drop a bomb and it kills you' to 'I drop a bomb' 'upon reflection and analysis of the victim's defences, the bomb is disrupted by the sheild'. Much fairer that way, and funner. 

[Kidpen]

Just now, Archer said:

I stand by my view that the most valuable (dueling-wise) thing that can come of this is the mediators who can choose the effect of offensive actions. That way it elevates combat from 'I drop a bomb and it kills you' to 'I drop a bomb' 'upon reflection and analysis of the victim's defences, the bomb is disrupted by the sheild'. Much fairer that way, and funner. 

I one hundred percent agree with this.

[Nohadon]

29 minutes ago, Archer said:

I stand by my view that the most valuable (dueling-wise) thing that can come of this is the mediators who can choose the effect of offensive actions. That way it elevates combat from 'I drop a bomb and it kills you' to 'I drop a bomb' 'upon reflection and analysis of the victim's defences, the bomb is disrupted by the sheild'. Much fairer that way, and funner. 

of course, but you'd think it would go without saying not to god-mod. usually the person just describes the attack, lets the other person respond, and if it collides describes the effect. like so:

Person A: I cast aon sheo, Aon sheo flies off towards Person B

Person B: I attempt to block aon sheo

Person A (or Mediator): The gleaming red Aon hits person B, doing (either) x points of damage (or) it begins to feel hot, then explodes with red light, hurting Person B

[Lord Meeker]

21 minutes ago, Nohadon said:

of course, but you'd think it would go without saying not to god-mod. usually the person just describes the attack, lets the other person respond, and if it collides describes the effect. like so:

Person A: I cast aon sheo, Aon sheo flies off towards Person B

Person B: I attempt to block aon sheo

Person A (or Mediator): The gleaming red Aon hits person B, doing (either) x points of damage (or) it begins to feel hot, then explodes with red light, hurting Person B

The moderators decide once a person is dead? Or do we have a certain amount of like HP?

[Nohadon]

9 minutes ago, Mraize said:

The moderators decide once a person is dead? Or do we have a certain amount of like HP?

that is something we have to decide, if we want to use a HP system or use moderator estimation

[Lord Meeker]

6 minutes ago, Nohadon said:

that is something we have to decide, if we want to use a HP system or use moderator estimation

Perhaps a combination of both is needed. 

[Nohadon]

so, back with the scenario:

Person A: I shoot Person B in the leg

Moderator: Person B is not fast enough to dodge a bullet, and is close enough that it is less than likely to miss, so he is hit in the leg, losing 12/100 HP, being given the "wounded" debuff (-2hp each turn, and -2 to physical attacks involving the injured leg) 

this scenario would make sense as it shows the HP from an RP perspective, and makes the fights more understandable with turn-based combat. I'll make a thread on alleyverse combat

[Lord Meeker]

22 minutes ago, Nohadon said:

so, back with the scenario:

Person A: I shoot Person B in the leg

Moderator: Person B is not fast enough to dodge a bullet, and is close enough that it is less than likely to miss, so he is hit in the leg, losing 12/100 HP, being given the "wounded" debuff (-2hp each turn, and -2 to physical attacks involving the injured leg) 

this scenario would make sense as it shows the HP from an RP perspective, and makes the fights more understandable with turn-based combat. I'll make a thread on alleyverse combat

That sounds perfect and balanced. 

[MacThorstenson]

Also moderators would have the final say in non cannon scenarios. Realmatic  debates on fight threads are annoying. 

[MacThorstenson]

I would like to ask if people would be allowed to challenge others in a free form combat scenario. In the event that someone wants to have a more flowing fight, similar to a book.

[Lord Meeker]

I agree with Mac on both of these points.

[Archer]

2 hours ago, MacThorstenson said:

I would like to ask if people would be allowed to challenge others in a free form combat scenario. In the event that someone wants to have a more flowing fight, similar to a book.

How about if both sides agree, then they can limit the moderator's influence (make it so they're only there to witness and settle arguments). This would be agreed to at the start of the fight.

 

I agree with the non cannon scenarios statement as well.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Archer

[Nohadon]

22 minutes ago, Archer said:

How about if both sides agree, then they can limit the moderator's influence (make it so they're only there to witness and settle arguments). This would be agreed to at the start of the fight.

 

I agree with the non cannon scenarios statement as well.

100% agree with these statements, as well as @MacThorstenson‘s post

[Lord Meeker]

Here check this out. It is a formal way to do dueling and such.

[Archer]

Here's my proposal for the agreement, updated with the ideas we've proposed.  @Nohadon

Spoiler

We the undersigned, in fidelity to the 17^th Shard, in adherence to its rules, and with the aim of maintaining the high quality of experience for all members, do hereby agree to the following terms (herein referred to as the Agreement).

A guild is herein defined as any group with three or more members. For counting purposes, each member may only claim membership in one guild at a time.

The conflict zone is defined as the area wherein violence is permissible.  

Violent action (violence) is defined as any action that seriously harms another member, for example assassination and/or murder. The limitations on violence do not apply to areas outside of the conflict zone.

Non-combatant is defined as any member with non-combatant status, either by self declaration or virtue of their position.

Combatant is defined as any member governed by the rules in the Agreement, who is not a non-combatant.

A neutral zone is defined as any area wherein violence is prohibited.

Spying is defined as a member's viewing of material of a guild, that said guild had a reasonable expectation of privacy to, using false pretenses. 

A public vote is defined as a vote that any member can vote in. It is to be easily accessible and open for an appropriately long period of time as to be an accurate representation of the opinion of the community. Any guild's request for one must be accommodated by the House. 

1.       Non-combatants are prohibited from, and exempt from, all violence. They can not be assassinated, murdered or maimed. They can not assassinate, murder or main. Any member who is not a part of a guild that is part of the Agreement is automatically given the status of a non-combatant. Any member of a guild that is part of the Agreement may choose to become, or revoke their status as, a non-combatant via a public declaration. The status of non-combatant is forfeited if a non-combatant undertakes violent action. A member's status of non-combatant is to be revoked by the House if a member is found to be spying.

2.       Any area that is not the Social Groups, Clans, and Guilds, Role-Playing or Introduce Yourself! sections, or a PM, is a neutral zone. Any topic or PM wherein the first post declares it to be a neutral zone, is a neutral zone. Any topic or PM wherein the creator of the topic or PM intentionally declares it not to be a neutral zone, loses its status as a neutral zone.

3.       Any violent action must be overseen by a mediator. A mediator’s decision may be overruled and/or altered by a majority vote by the members of the Mediator’s Guild, on the basis that is bias, flawed, or incomplete.

4.       The actions of the signatories to the Agreement, are overseen by the Mediation Guild. The Guild is comprised of the following branches:

a. The Unbiased. This group’s members should have no loyalty to any guild, be impartial, and disconnected from any guild’s operations. Their purpose is to provide a final judgement on any ruling appealed to them, oversee the actions of the combatants and ensure order in maintained. An unbias may be removed from their position by a unanimous vote from the House and/or a public vote which garners at least 90% support for the motion.

b. The House of Guild Representatives. This is a group made up of two representatives from each guild. Their purpose is to meet to discuss inter-guild business and promote the good of the 17^th Shard.

c. The Mediator’s Guild. This is a group made of any member who is fit to be an impartial mediator for interactions between members. In violent interactions they are mediating, they are incorporeal and immortal. Their purpose is to mediate violent interactions to provide a fair outcome. Their role is decided by a unanimous consensus of the combatants.

5.       Effects of death

6.       Combat between members must be overseen by a mediator. (This can be arranged by requesting one here LINK.) There are two classifications of combat:

a. Duels. These are acts of violence between two or more consenting members. Before the duel commences, all parties involved must agree to the rules that will govern their actions. (For suggestions of rules, see here.)

b. Assassinations. These are acts of violence against members that do not begin with negotiation of rules, rather they follow this set of base rules and any restrictions due to location, combatants or other factors that the moderator applies. The location of the violence is determined by the moderator based on the user's activity. For example, a member who has recently posted in a Dark Alley topic may be assassinated in PM that takes place in an alley, using the Mistborn magic system. 

The rules of combat, listed here, are to be followed.

7.       Any breach of the rules should be punished by the relevant branch in a fair and appropriate manner that considers and/or negates the effects of the transgressor’s actions and seeks to rectify them and deter further and/or future transgressions.

8.       The Agreement can be altered, suspended and/or terminated by a unanimous vote from the House and/or a public vote which garners at least 90% support for the motion.

Edits: I will alter it to accommodate requests. Eg. spying

Edited April 10, 2018 by Archer

[MacThorstenson]

I like it. 

I would request one thing to avoid abuse of a non combatant. Spying, while legal, forfeits any non-combatant protection if it is discovered. 

[Archer]

Done. The definition of spying might need clarification, but that's the gist of it.

[Lord Meeker]

16 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

I like it. 

I would request one thing to avoid abuse of a non combatant. Spying, while legal, forfeits any non-combatant protection if it is discovered. 

I as well. There are concerns I would like to voice. One: the Liebrary only has two members, and secondly: Some Shard members are involved in multiple guilds. Ex: GB and DA

[Lord Meeker]

Thirdly is the Arena Of Valor accepted as the place one goes to duel, a neutral place to settle scores and such?

[Archer]

14 minutes ago, Mraize said:

I as well. There are concerns I would like to voice. One: the Liebrary only has two members, and secondly: Some Shard members are involved in multiple guilds. Ex: GB and DA

For counting purposes, you're only part of one guild. If you're a DA and Ghostblood, you count only as the one you choose. If you have persons A, B, C, D, E, F and G and we're counting members here's how it works (example):

A is a member of guilds 1, 2 and 3.

B is in 1, 2. 

C and D in 3

E, F in 1.

G in 1, 2

To count guilds, we group it as E, F, G are in guild 1, so guild one exists. C, D, A are in 3 so it exists. But guild 2, although it has A, B and G in it doesn't count, because A and G are already counted in other groups. This is to prevent members spamming new groups just to increase their representation. They can still be part of the groups, and acts as rep for different guilds. This won't restrict that.

 

We'll just have to make an exception for the liebrary. I think three is a good number of official members.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Archer

[Lord Meeker]

That makes a lot more sense thanks!

[MacThorstenson]

On an unrelated note, let’s avoid posting anymore threads until the final product of rules, groups and or statutes are completed and agreed upon. We can’t delete threads, so let’s not post something that we may want to revise later. 

[Lord Meeker]

15 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

On an unrelated note, let’s avoid posting anymore threads until the final product of rules, groups and or statutes are completed and agreed upon. We can’t delete threads, so let’s not post something that we may want to revise later. 

Agreed.

[MacThorstenson]

What still needs to be done. this is a list that I have, if anyone else has a similar list, I recommend that we compare notes. Not in any order of priority.

• Finalize Mediator guild,
  • including choosing reps, unbiased and a few mediators
  • maybe polishing up responsibilities and power
• Finalize a system of combat,
  • This includes a system of punishments/consequences for dying.
  • How fights will be monitored.
• Get all the guilds to agree to @Archer's contract that he posted in another thread.

On the topic of consequences for dying, what if we attempted a permanent death system. If you are killed, that character is dead. (Maybe for dead characters we have an RP thread, like a formal place where you can see the dead character's souls, and RP with them from time to time if you want.) If you want to rejoin the RP, you will need to make another character.