limiting council per player

[Cosmo]

I'm just going to say that even if you never hit him, attacking someone in a group means the others in that group can warrant you regardless of where it is...the rules about warranting were removed and it is back into player control...the very fact that you got immortals involved raises red flags.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

It took radically action by staff to overturn the decisions made by the players and even still those players feel they were righteous in their wrongdoings.

As per Vehruer's confirmation. You are completely wrong. A big part of the problem is players holding these beliefs based on their personal feelings and not what is enforceable or fair. And then what happens is staff have to tell you that you are in fact wrong, you spend days debating it and telling staff you think the rules are stupid. Then six months later the same thing happens and the clan/whoever claim they were never told/didn't know despite staff repeatedly telling them they can't do it. What it really boils down to is that certain players don't care for fairness or rules, they just align themselves with their OOC friends, prejudices and 'feelings'.

Just because you group with someone, it does not give them immunity in any other nation or wilderness that is not controlled by your own jurisdiction. Otherwise you're just trying to be 'world police'.

Overall I was merely trying to highlight that people don't have to be council to abuse their power for OOC reasons.

[Ragyn]

Think Vehruer referred to this "Rodger wrote:
...the rules about warranting were removed and it is back into player control...the very fact that you got immortals involved raises red flags.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong."

when saying he was incorrect. Warranting rules were somewhat loosened and "blanket" warrants are now allowed again I think, ie. most nations warranting every seanchan they see, despite said seanchan not having broken their laws. I know I've been warranting every CoL/SS I've seen without one. Think a fair few Dragonsworn have also been subject to this.

1. You can warrant for any attack on your person anywhere in the mud, provided this doesn't breach any of the following rules.
2. You can warrant for any breaking of your nation's laws, provided these are in line with these rules.
3. You can not warrant people for being grouped with a wanted, or for defending someone they are grouped with if they are aiding their group members in self-defense (face-off engagements). This includes their immediate retaliation and pursuit, until the point you inform them you were in error while attempting to serve a warrant.

The rules aren't super clear if you are allowed to warrant people for attacking your group, but I assume if we can blanketwarrant then we can do whatever, but I could be completely wrong here, thats just how I understand the current version of our warranting rules.
Sounds like you attacked and killed a Tower member who was out smobbing with a Lancer? Seems like a weird choice with a shaky treaty that allows you to PK up north with mob support, if being allowed inside FD was important to you. Especially since your treaty had the 6th clause in it : 6) Any Seanchan army member who proves to be too much of a threat to our allies elsewhere will be addressed with the Seanchan army leadership, with necessary action taken up to removal of their welcome in our lands.

[Rodger]

Also since any clan can and perhaps should make a rule that attacking someone in their group is a warrantable offense at the option of the member involved. That is like a basic truth for any murderer - you look at the whole group and decide if you want them attacking you. I would 100% be stopped focused on smobbing and focused on killing someone if they tried that and I was leading. If it was a member of the Children of Light I would have second thoughts as they are allies...

The idea you can try to kill one member of any group and not face the group seems just terrible. But this is probably why I avoid joining clans that have warrant systems.

Having a Fal Dara warrant does make north pk very hard but that is in general good, and the idea that damane would be pking with Fal Dara as a base is very silly. So the entire Seancan treaty was bound to get modified as soon as channelers started coming north in numbers. I'd argue Dragonsworn Male Channelers would make more sense (at least to my mind).

[Vehruer]

A few follow ups -

The rules aren't super clear if you are allowed to warrant people for attacking your group, but I assume if we can blanketwarrant then we can do whatever...

I don't agree with that - the rules, to me, are clear about people attacking groups. I'm happy to add clarification to the rules if necessary, but, reading through them again, they seem to cover all permutations. The intention is that if you get hit by a game mechanic (faceoff), you can't go around claiming you were directly attacked. If you were singled out for a stab or a charge, then obviously that's not faceoff and you can warrant as usual.

I also note that you've mixed blanket warranting with attacking groups - these are very separate things.

Whilst you are correct that blanket warranting is allowed, that's been more of a common sense addendum. That should be added to the rule post though, so I'll flag that now.

For example, Tower members no longer need to wait for a Hand of Light to stab one of them before they can issue a warrant. Defenders and Companions, likewise.

Similarly, the Seanchan's base RP is more than enough reason for most clans to issue a warrant - certainly I would be surprised if the Tower chose not to, given the Seanchan's attitudes towards channelers!

Also since any clan can and perhaps should make a rule that attacking someone in their group is a warrantable offense at the option of the member involved.

This can't be done, as you cannot create laws for outside of your jurisdiction.

Please note that if someone attacks your group, you are well within your rights to chase them off, or even kill them if they don't run fast enough - see rule 3 that Ragyn quoted.

[Cosmo]

Point 3 of the rules really only cover you if you engage in the heat of the moment either through faceoff or re-actively to defend said group member. Realistically if someone serves a warrant on someone in your group you should stay out of it. As rule 3 clarifies, if you pursue the person even after coming to the knowledge that they're serving a warrant or whatever and had no intention of attacking you, then they would then have grounds to warrant you for attacking them.

Ie. *oL stabs FC in your group. Lancer chap might react quickly to attack the *oL but then realize only after the person is in fact *oL and it's not Shienar. Everyone stops fighting, Lancer chap avoids a *oL warrant.

However, if Lancer chap was like F$#& you *oL don't kill my group members and started trying to kill the *oL, then the *oL would actually be able to warrant the Lancer chap provided it all happens outside of Shienar.

[Enok]

The rules aren't super clear if you are allowed to warrant people for attacking your group, but I assume if we can blanketwarrant then we can do whatever...

I don't agree with that - the rules, to me, are clear about people attacking groups. I'm happy to add clarification to the rules if necessary, but, reading through them again, they seem to cover all permutations. The intention is that if you get hit by a game mechanic (faceoff), you can't go around claiming you were directly attacked. If you were singled out for a stab or a charge, then obviously that's not faceoff and you can warrant as usual.

That's still not covering the instance being talked about here.

Can a Lancer, or any clanned character, warrant someone for attacking a grouped ally (even if it's on foreign soil)? I'm guessing no.

Can a Lancer, or any clanned character, warrant someone for attacking a grouped ally (even if it's on foreign soil) if there's a treaty regulating this exact situation?

6) Any Seanchan army member who proves to be too much of a threat to our allies elsewhere will be addressed with the Seanchan army leadership, with necessary action taken up to removal of their welcome in our lands.

[Razhak]

Are these warranting rules supposed to be this complicated?

[Elysia]

Can a Lancer, or any clanned character, warrant someone for attacking a grouped ally (even if it's on foreign soil)? I'm guessing no.

Can a Lancer, or any clanned character, warrant someone for attacking a grouped ally (even if it's on foreign soil) if there's a treaty regulating this exact situation?

No to both. If you're an English guy hanging out with a French guy in Spain, and the French guy gets punched by an Italian, English law doesn't apply. Spanish law does. For unclaimed territories you simply can't go "hey, Caralain Grass people, this guy did this and that".

Also, game rules > all, so any treaty or law has to fall within game rules, unless Staff makes an exception.

The whole border stones thing was done so the map isn't divided up and there are actually unclaimed territories. This because previously, same siding was choked to death by players. Letting players choke same siding to death by making their laws apply to their groups in foreign or unclaimed lands goes against part of the things that we've been doing to make the game more dangerous. Some players just don't like dangerous and will try anything to curb things they don't like. Samesiding and samesiders are the most frequent victims.

Staff -likes- having that line of play around. While we would ideally like to see something like "kill seanchan" or "kill col" to make fighting multiples a bit easier, samesiding is here to stay, if we can help it.

[isabel]

This whole thing was clarified on our forums by an immortal (unrelated to the SS player's pardon - as Benito said, he was already pardoned immediately; the discussion was in the context of whether there should be a warrant at all).

This imm basically said no to a warrant for outside Shienar. But yes to taking individual action at our discretion and dealing with the consequences. A warrant should be a last resort, not first.

This resolves the RP dilemma of "doing nothing" vs the problem of "warrant outside Shienar" nicely I feel.

[isabel]

Some players just don't like dangerous and will try anything to curb things they don't like. Samesiding and samesiders are the most frequent victims.

I don't know who you're referring to here but I do think people who like DS pk and not same side pk aren't picking something "not dangerous" over "dangerous". The danger is what makes the game fun and exciting (though I feel it should be risky for both sides and there should be the option to fight back if you can - if it's just Razhak making life "dangerous" for newbie smobbers - then w/e, or Troika making Blight "dangerous" by running around with fear/charge, etc. it's just silly).

The reason lots of people don't like same side quite simply that you have to type 4-5 k xxx and especially on a slow link that's no fun, but more than that many of us who crossrace pk never learned that kind of pk. See how much DS used to complain about SS stabbers in Blight when humans were also there, since they had to spam 2 aliases.

Whatever makes the game less tedious AND more fun is good.