Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

... sit down, kick back and relax, and talk about anything that doesn't belong on one of the other forums.
Eol
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:34 pm

Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Eol » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:54 pm

I feel like there's something wrong with the warranting rules. However, I will acknowledge I still don't understand a portion of the rules.

The International Waters of Wotmud
---
Historic territorial claims and regulation of hunting by justice clans produced a game where no one could be hunted anywhere. Meanwhile, current warranting rules are fixated on "deregulation" and have essentially produced a world in which nothing is a crime/can be punished as long as its outside of a borderstone.
---

The new warranting rules have been very good in a number of ways.

1. Historic warrants were often trivial and focused on trash talking from far away cities. There was nothing face to face about it.
2. Clans seem to be slightly more open to removing warrants - this may be a cultural change rather than due to the rules but historic warrants were eternal.
3. Anyone who got warranted anywhere could be warranted everywhere.
4. Every clan historically forbade hunting in their territory and virtually all territory was claimed. The end result was that justice clans couldn't pursue their core function without always running aground of another clan's rules.
5. There was somewhat constantly the feeling that everyone was a lawyer.

What inspired this post.
1. Lancers receive mail (regularly) describing an "event" - usually violence in some sort of Borderland/contested territory. Can't call it a crime because there are no rules outside border stones.
2. The events often have a question of whether they were intermixed with light-dark-PK. They range from accidental to purposeful stabs, misplaced quakes, whatever.
3. Lancers inevitably warrant someone. Or think someone deserves to be warranted but we reread the rules, post passive aggressively and then do nothing.
4. The word "darkfriend" inevitably gets bandied about because calling someone a darkfriend is theoretically a loophole to get around the warranting rules. There's no real definition of a darkfriend given but they can be blanket warranted.
5. Optional: Elysia makes herself the clan Immortal to more easily pardon people we wrongly warranted.

Now I ask you - are the Lancers truly at fault if we are contacted by a person who themself clearly didn't understand the rules. :lol:

I feel like we've produced a problem that didn't previously exist.

That said - I want to come back around to the thing I don't understand.

Whenever it comes up that we can't warrant - we're often told we can do some sort of other RP punishment. Banishing. Fining. "Consequences". None of this makes any sense to me. I'm pretty sure that in several of the instances where we wanted to warrant someone we were told we could banish them instead. This may be before the 2nd rule update below, but the rules clearly state we can't banish as a way to circumvent warranting rules and we can't banish for activities outside of our borders. I've seen people fined but again - they were fined for a crime that happened outside of the borders so how were they fined. Do the Lancers owe Fermin 1000 crowns (cause I already spent it)? And how would we even be entitled to the Fermin fining money when it was Deimon who was attacked. Where I'm going with this is - some of these punishments were clearly proposed as solutions for "out of border crimes" when in fact the rules suggest nothing can be done for these actions? That would be a violation of of 7b below.

I've started and stopped writing this post a few times but its hard reducing it down to its key elements or figuring out what the solution is when so many organizations may have different perspectives. What I wondered is - have we stripped clans of their agency by reducing their territories to be too small?

I've wondered about bizarre scenarios - what if Warder Pairs started hunting CoL in the Borderlands outside the stones. What's to stop them? The Peace of the Borderlands? I tried looking that up on Google. Who do I a Shienaran Lancer assist if this happens?

Or how about - what if at the end of a PK in a door I killed all of my team mates in a door. Let's say I did it today on Eol and tomorrow on an unclanned. What if all the people I kill are unclanned so no one can warrant me. What if the Lancers refuse to punish me (..like *cough* Civil Watch *cough* though think we know the Imms would). Can an unclanned character have a roleplay violation? If the unclanned character doesn't intend to be a darkfriend then should they have the right to pursue such an activity ie. they are conducting themselves like a darkfriend but they are not a darkfriend? Should clanned characters who do bad activities simply be punished by the Imms/their clan if the activity is a violation of their core roleplay - even if no warrant is given for it? I'm aware that for some of these there are straight forward answers but it seems like there are people at present who can be killed in the "in between" places and nothing will be done for them and that seems wrong.

Historically Regret (an Accepted) stole a heron from PK at camp. Ran up DF, down gap, Wastelands etc. Tower would still punish this, but today no warrant could be forthcoming from Fal Dara even though she robbed a group camp with a Lancer in it.

I really think we've created something that overly resembles the wild west. I don't have a true solution. In some of these situations it seems like the clanned people are theoretically supposed to get as wild as the people committing the crimes. Historically clanned people were supposedly not supposed to attack people unless they had a warrant but in this new world we could brawl it out in the Blight with a wilder who attacked members of our party for using earth quake.

I've tried coming with a "the perfect idea" - but I don't have one. The problem is awful crimes are still awful crimes even when they are outside border stones. One of my ideas was that warrants given for crimes outside border stones can only be temporary ie. they must be removed at 7 days from the crime. The other solution was to define "darkfriend" behavior - which is problematic. I wrote the below - but its still awful and doesn't fit with the rest. I tried to tie the idea of "direct negative effect" - ie. you had to be there for it though that doesn't protect others adequately. And what would a "Cause of the Light" be - I think we have an idea of what they would represent but defining it would be very annoying. Lancers would likely settle for our territory having no northern border - just a southern border, but this was already rejected.
--------
When an event occurs in which (a) you or a groupmember are personally negatively affected through violence or theft (b) OR the "Cause of the Light" is directly negatively affected by a human players actions (c) BUT the activity occurs in neutral territory (d) and it doesn't fit the main passage warranting rules then an applied warrant is removed at 7 days from the "event" unless an Immortal agrees it should be retained.
--------
Anyway - can anyone think of a way fix the wild west side of the warranting rules?
------

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=300
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, unless that wanted is a known male channeler or dark friend, or in the case of *oL, someone grouping with a Tower channeler in Amador.
4. You can not warrant people for serving warrants on their wanteds in neutral or treatied lands, including for attacking you due to face-off mechanics; not including targeted stab or charge.
5.(a) You MAY attack and pursue any person attempting to serve a warrant on a group member without being warranted in return, provided that such pursuit does not enter the homeland of the person who attempted to serve the warrant.
5(b)To avoid doubt, if any member of your group has been attacked by someone, you may pursue that person unto their death, so long as you do not enter that person's homeland. Similarly, if you pursue an attacker, that attacker is then free to retaliate against you, unto your own death. Neither side of such conflict is entitled to lay any warrants if the actions did not take place in their respective homelands.
6. Subject to your clan's policies (as approved by your Watcher), blanket warrants ARE permitted. See the section on blanket warrants below. Male channelers and Darkfriends can and should be warranted at will.
7.(a) You may not attempt to make a rule for any area outside of your nation's control, which borders are marked by border stones.
7(b) You may not make a rule that refers to actions outside of your nation's borders.
7(c) Narrates and IC chats are taken to have occurred in all homelands simultaneously.
8. If someone fulfills the pre-set conditions for a pardon, you must pardon.
9. Banishments cannot be used to circumvent warranting rules.
10. Banishments must be proportionate in relation to the issue at hand.
E.g. banishing an entire clan for 6 months because someone made a comment on narrates is not ok, but banishing an entire clan over repeat law breakings within your nation and an unwillingness of that clan's council to punish their clanmates can be appropriate.

*Note - there are more rules at the above link but the heart of the rules are captured in the above.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11527

WARRANTING
The recent thread regarding the Sal Cav laws has led to various policies being clarified at Watcher level.
At the outset, it must be noted that Sal Cav did follow correct procedure in this matter. The below is simply a result of subsequent discussions.
Henceforth, the very clear intention behind all warranting rules is this:
With the exception of warranting rule 1 - attacks on your own person - see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=300, you may only enforce your nation's laws for actions that occur WITHIN your own borders, which borders are marked by borderstones. Let us know if you can't find or don't have borderstones for your nation.
You may only BANISH someone for law-breaking actions that occur WITHIN your own borders and which banishments are to be commensurate with the incident.
You may not rely on treaties to cross-warrant people.
You may choose to blanket warrant/banish certain clans - if you're not sure if this one applies to you, please post in your forums or mail the Immortals.
It is fully intended that much more of the map be contested lands, not subject to any rule.
It is intended that a player, no matter how notorious, cannot suffer warrants or banishments from lands in which he or she does not commit any crimes.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11527

Elysia
Posts: 7907
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:29 pm

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Elysia » Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 pm

Eol wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:54 pm
5. Optional: Elysia makes herself the clan Immortal to more easily pardon people we wrongly warranted.
Hey, I resemble that!

In all seriousness, I was the Lancer imm, then Feneon became your imm, then Feneon was gone and I took back over, then I went on break, then I posted I was back and well, here we are, almost 2 years later.

Lancers and Gaidin are two clans I keep trying to "get rid of" and I seem to fail. every. time! ;) :P

Murg
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:17 am

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Murg » Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:12 am

Seems like a question of jurisdiction. The real world also has this! If you commit a crime in international waters, things get complicated.

I find the world of the Wheel of Time actually kind of weird in that every nation has clearly defined contiguous borders in the map in the books, but in reality I don't think a bunch of medieval societies would have much in the way of borders at all. In fact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewgab ... a76bf452e4

No opinion on how it should be done in a MUD, but it's for sure an interesting topic.

Kiltwich
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:05 am

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Kiltwich » Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm

Murg wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:12 am
Seems like a question of jurisdiction. The real world also has this! If you commit a crime in international waters, things get complicated.

I find the world of the Wheel of Time actually kind of weird in that every nation has clearly defined contiguous borders in the map in the books, but in reality I don't think a bunch of medieval societies would have much in the way of borders at all. In fact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewgab ... a76bf452e4

No opinion on how it should be done in a MUD, but it's for sure an interesting topic.
It gets a bit more complicated than that -- certain entities, such as the dragonsworn, Thiefbane, White Tower, and Children/Hand of Light, don't have a jurisdiction....or more accurately, claim all lands everywhere at any given time is within their jurisdiction (to a large extent).

However, even within the strict justice clan jurisdictions where they apply clearly to acts within their own borders, there are still issues, or appear to be due to lack of outward public communication.

I believe the larger problem is how things are handled, and how certain "groups" have different rules applied to them.
To illustrate, let's take three examples:
Fermin stabbing Deimon
Lorret stabbing Relena
Unnammed character stabbing unnammed person in unnamed main city as the ToL post about it was deleted.

In the first, There are no DS in the room, and the stab was in response to an insult over global and highly intentional. Fermin given a temporary banishment from FD as punishment.
In the second, There are DS in the room and fighting, and the stab alleges to be an oopsie wrong target. Lorret being called a darkfriend and calls everybody everywhere to warrant him as such.
In the third, a ToL post is made about the act, and call for warrant and banishment of said character, and then the post is shortly after deleted and never mentioned again with said stabber appears to have been pardoned.

Now, there is likely some things that happened behind the curtains (especially in the third example), but the similar breaking of similar laws with very different punishments being handed out is an issue. There may be a bit of the "if you can't pay the fine, then do the time" going on to make whole of the situation that hand, but the larger issue of similar sorts of crimes being handled in such vastly different ways does appear to be very lopsided.

The main lines that I can draw are punching up vs punching down.
Against some of the most elite pkers, there is much more likely to be a lenient punishment, as said player could very well make the MUD hell for the players that decided to warrant them.
Against the pkers who generally don't fall into that category, harsh as harsh can be because the player generally doesn't have an in-game recourse so they can suck it.

And that's where the clan imms and Staff should have some level of involvement to have some degree of equal enforcement of justice against wrong doings, intentional or otherwise -- which I believe they largely do for the clearly egregious acts, but even in the lesser-so stuff that aren't clear rule violations, there are still issues of fairness, which is what I believe the original post is trying to get to.

Fuujin
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:54 am

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Fuujin » Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:07 pm

I think my two biggest issues are 1. the lack of player input/discretion or ability to move borders (particularly between nations that do have conflicts over borders like Tear/Mayene/Illian 2. The fact that in trying to keep borders "similar" to book borders it's created situations which make no gd sense in a game.

I can understand with the former, to a degree, why that discretion was taken away from players given the past, but I think with all the changes to the game, which I feel includes the attitudes and behaviors of players as a whole, that we can loosen the reigns and give players more input in this and allow some flexibility/back and forth in certain circumstances.

The latter I think is a bigger issue. Obviously we want the game to draw from the books, but it's also a game. There's countless examples of things that aren't done the exact same way as in the books because things have to be gameified (or situations where it doesn't adhere to the books in a way that makes you just scratch your head and go wtf). I think borderstones are one of those things that sometimes senselessly adhere to the books in a way which makes no sense for a game. 2n of FD being the end of the border is absolutely mind boggling to the point I truly cannot fathom how someone thought that was a good idea. 6n of Tear being the end of our border makes no sense. In the books Andor and Cairhien occupy roughly the same territory and yet Andor in game gets this absolutely massive territory while Cairhien gets considerably less. And yes we can acknowledge that the way zones are set up does not create a perfect matchup to the books for game reasons while also acknowledging that, for game reasons, these borders shouldn't be so wonky. No clan should be limited to just a few rooms out their gate while others get whole zones.

(This is also where I'm gonna plug the fact that the Tairen major city of Godan should be put into the game connected to Tear's south gate and Mayene's west gate, make it wealthy, and make it a CTF or something. Also Shienar should have their capital of Fal Mora, mind boggling to me that they're the only clan who doesn't have their actual capital city in game. Also bring back Altara and give me Ebou Dar. That is all.)

Dixon
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:50 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Dixon » Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:51 pm

The fact that Lancer's border is 2n of Malk is nuts. Every major mob support up north gives an auto warrant for the Lancer's if you attack it. Lancer's were the ones that held the Gap in the books historically before Lan marched across the whole borderlands bringing everyone to it. I can see thing's that happen in Blight being a bit muddy about getting a Lancer warrant. The fact that whenever ANYTHING up north happens from FD to GK, and we get a mail about it to warrant the offending party, yet we have no real justification to the warrant because if you go 2n e or 2n w it's not our lands anymore is nuts.

Too much hand holding and not enough punishments. It has felt like for a long time that issuing a warrant on Dixon is pointless because if it was 3 rooms from Malk gate or up to gap/orch then it doesn't matter what they did. They can just ignore w.e pardon request we give them and cry to imms and poof its gone. Why have someone mail the clan about a warrant if they can just go "no I don't like that pardon quest" and the imms just wipe it away? How can we banish someone instead of warranting, when it clearly says we can't banish instead of warrant? How can we police anywhere that isn't inside Fal Dara, Dog zone, or on 8 rooms of dusty/fd road? Obviously i'm biased in this since it's my clan and the character that i'm on 90% of the time I play, but there has been many warrant threads that I just don't get involved in because it's pointless. We talk more about "are we allowed to do that?" than we do about "this guy just killed an AS in front of me with a Fade and Dreadlord and a fist of trollocs in the room."

Also want to be clear i'm just using that as an example and not trying to call out this most recent warrant. It's just one of many over the past 4-5 years since the rules were changed and those useless stones were added. Obviously the rules apply to more then just up north. Yet up north is where most of the "problematic warrants" seem to be appearing because everyone expects us to be able to police up to blight. I completely agree with Eol about there being more Wild West zones/things going on now. I also have no clue how to fix it without people crying that Lancer's hold too much power. I believe that is what contributed to the rule changing to begin with. "Lancer's are gatekeeping northern pk and can basically tell anyone they aren't allowed to pk up north." Not an exact quote but I remember something along those lines.

Loret
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:37 am

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Loret » Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:31 pm

Murg wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:12 am
Lorret stabbing Relena
just living rent free.

All jokes aside it's silly that Max instantly cried Darkfriend on TOL which could have some very real consequences for a character. Luckily, 99% of the playerbase recognized it for what it was (a comical accident) and exercised good judgement. What I always thought was interesting was you could do something and potentially get your whole clan in trouble for something you did. That was my biggest fear when I accidentally killed Relena was that they'd blanket warrant us or banish us or something because I'm an idiot. That affects more than just me at that point and that wouldn't be fun for others.

I would be more inclined to believing someone if they justified their actions with RP but, if they curse at you first in tells and give OOC reasons to be mad at you in tells, then they claim RP justifies their reactions, to me that's backwards and not RP driven, that's someone acting a fool and then falling back on RP as why they're acting the way they are. If you're going to RP, just stick with the RP and leave all the OOC stuff out of it all together, much more believable and less likely to be construed as personal vs RP.

For me the thing with warrants is it really cripples a character's ability to play the game in a way that's fun for them if it's something like Fal Dara where 90% of the pk is centered around now. I also think that if some people had it their way, they would go completely over the top with their modern policing techniques and warrant people into the ground. In my experience if someone warrants you, and then you hunt the people that warranted you to begin with, that never goes well either. Then the people that issued the warrant start scheming to keep you in trouble or double down on your punishment, and that's how we end up in another vicious cycle like we've seen in the past. I'm sorry but, not everyone can handle power lol. It is what it is. That's probably why IMMS stepped in to begin with because we used to live in the age of perma bans and poor char seperation. Now we just live in a time where poor char seperation is our biggest problem :lol:

I propose we shrink jurisdictions that way justice clans can attack whoever they deem worth attacking in those areas but, also gives others the opportunity to pursue warrants more freely (why have them if your hands are virtually tied everywhere). This also eliminates attacking someone in Lugard and fleeing to caemlyn and claiming they're safe. What if part of the caemlyn road wasn't warrantable for attacking people, but justice members could still attack you if they wanted. Zero repercussions, just rp consequences.

You have the southwest (you almost never see wanteds running around the sw, no reason to be there so they don't do it usually) because most people aren't active unless they have a salty alt that'll log on to warrant you if you attack someone in EF for example. You have murandy. Then you have places that just dont' have active justice clans and honestly you'll be able to just get away with stuff for a while. One of my favorite things is hunting wanteds. I wish we'd shrink jurisdictions and remove the long term consequences that tie up your playing time when you try and capitalize on a wanted.

I don't think people should stab wanteds while pking up north though.

Elyse
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Elyse » Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:56 pm

In light of the thread looking at things making lightside a hassle compared to ds, it does seem odd that the current warrant system provides such immunity to ne'er do wells. Dealing with a potential same side stab in the midst of cross-race pk is a tremendous pain. This is especially hard when the potential backstabber is nominally an ally, and may wait until there's a potentially high enough payoff to strike, otherwise pking normally. Making it difficult or impossible to warrant for such seems to encourage opportunistic sh**tyness, which surely can't be the goal.

In short, I'm less worried about abusive warrants than I am by people taking advantage of strict rules against warranting, and figure that in a word of declining numbers, we should make it easier to act against griefing and angle shooting, not harder.

And while I grew up in a world of "constant vigilance," and expecting that there is always someone out to stab you while xping, I'd hate to be the less experienced player now who is attacked while kiling trees or the like and is told "there's nothing we can do, its a free for all in the woods" when alerting the local justice clan. Same siding may be an inherent part of the game, but if you're going to do it, own the warrant that's likely to come with it.

Hieronymus
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:14 am

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Hieronymus » Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:11 pm

Kiltwich wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm
The main lines that I can draw are punching up vs punching down.
Against some of the most elite pkers, there is much more likely to be a lenient punishment, as said player could very well make the MUD hell for the players that decided to warrant them.
Against the pkers who generally don't fall into that category, harsh as harsh can be because the player generally doesn't have an in-game recourse so they can suck it.
Yeah, OR...OR... -- stay with me here -- the two situations were driven by different players with different levels of experience with the...interesting warranting rules...of the game and Shienaran Lancers in particular.

Situation 1) No Lancer involved in the PK, so initiated by a forum mail that immediately involved people via forums who have run up against the rules several times and are very familiar with them and knew a warrant wasn't going to be deemed appropriate on any kind of appeal. So it was banishment until X was satisfied and a warrant if banishment was broken in the meantime.

Situation 2) Driven immediately by a Lancer present in the room for the stab, but hadn't played the game in a decade and wasn't accustomed to the (idiotic) warranting rules, so there was an immediate reaction/response before discussion. And know what? Don't blame them one bit. Makes sense. Whatever.

For the second one, our main question was around what *our* responsibility is in terms of telling PLAYERS their appeal options to Imms in OOC ways. We ended up deciding to tell Loret they could either RP their way out of it (pretty easily if it's an error acknowledged by Relena), or take the get-out-of-jail-free card despite in-game options. They took the easy way, which is fine, but offering the "appeal to Imms on an OOC basis on stuff that's largely based on bad OOC reasoning" requires us to opt out of basing our decisions on what our character would do if they saw a CoL stab a Sedai with spawn in the room. I'm still not clear anyone has any right to decide for us what we take in-character or out of character under those circumstances if "the solution" is purely OOC.

Personally, unless you do something like mandate providing everybody with OOC recourse (not my job as a player, imo) they have, I'm not going to feel too badly about not providing that information selectively, especially if it's technically been announced. It's tough to feel badly about that when the system doesn't really pass any basic test for reasonableness.

Rayven
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Something doesn't seem right about warranting rules

Post by Rayven » Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:29 pm

loret wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:31 pm
Murg wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:12 am
Lorret stabbing Relena
just living rent free.

All jokes aside it's silly that Max instantly cried Darkfriend on TOL which could have some very real consequences for a character. Luckily, 99% of the playerbase recognized it for what it was (a comical accident) and exercised good judgement. What I always thought was interesting was you could do something and potentially get your whole clan in trouble for something you did. That was my biggest fear when I accidentally killed Relena was that they'd blanket warrant us or banish us or something because I'm an idiot. That affects more than just me at that point and that wouldn't be fun for others.

I would be more inclined to believing someone if they justified their actions with RP but, if they curse at you first in tells and give OOC reasons to be mad at you in tells, then they claim RP justifies their reactions, to me that's backwards and not RP driven, that's someone acting a fool and then falling back on RP as why they're acting the way they are. If you're going to RP, just stick with the RP and leave all the OOC stuff out of it all together, much more believable and less likely to be construed as personal vs RP.

For me the thing with warrants is it really cripples a character's ability to play the game in a way that's fun for them if it's something like Fal Dara where 90% of the pk is centered around now. I also think that if some people had it their way, they would go completely over the top with their modern policing techniques and warrant people into the ground. In my experience if someone warrants you, and then you hunt the people that warranted you to begin with, that never goes well either. Then the people that issued the warrant start scheming to keep you in trouble or double down on your punishment, and that's how we end up in another vicious cycle like we've seen in the past. I'm sorry but, not everyone can handle power lol. It is what it is. That's probably why IMMS stepped in to begin with because we used to live in the age of perma bans and poor char seperation. Now we just live in a time where poor char seperation is our biggest problem :lol:

I propose we shrink jurisdictions that way justice clans can attack whoever they deem worth attacking in those areas but, also gives others the opportunity to pursue warrants more freely (why have them if your hands are virtually tied everywhere). This also eliminates attacking someone in Lugard and fleeing to caemlyn and claiming they're safe. What if part of the caemlyn road wasn't warrantable for attacking people, but justice members could still attack you if they wanted. Zero repercussions, just rp consequences.

You have the southwest (you almost never see wanteds running around the sw, no reason to be there so they don't do it usually) because most people aren't active unless they have a salty alt that'll log on to warrant you if you attack someone in EF for example. You have murandy. Then you have places that just dont' have active justice clans and honestly you'll be able to just get away with stuff for a while. One of my favorite things is hunting wanteds. I wish we'd shrink jurisdictions and remove the long term consequences that tie up your playing time when you try and capitalize on a wanted.

I don't think people should stab wanteds while pking up north though.
It comes off like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too when you make a post like this viewtopic.php?f=74&t=16821 and then get mad at people who follow their RP because you take their actions as a personal attack on you.

Locked