Revamping the Warranting Rules
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
Can ds rogues join in the yoga too?
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
Silly Rig, you can't do yoga in a dress!
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
I think this is part of the problem I have understanding the system. As a teacher, I'm quite familiar with a tiered discipline system. However, I don't understand how the banishment/warrant system constitutes one. How is a banishment a lesser punishment? If one is warranted, they can't go to that place or they'll be attacked and hunted. If they're banished, they can't go to that place or they'll be warranted, attacked, and hunted. I'm sorry, but this is not tiered discipline. It's a loophole to abuse warranting which is why I agree with this:They are there to fill in the holes of the warrant policy for lesser punishments.
Players are currently thinking, "I can't warrant for x, so I'll banish indefinitely for it. It's only a matter of time before they break it. Not always to be rude, but because indefinite banishments are unreasonable. When people see no end to the punishment, they think there's no hope and continue to break rules. It's like telling you kids they're grounded forever. It's fairly ineffective.I guess when I read the rules and see something like "You cannot warrant for a player assisting a fellow member of their clan when you are trying to serve a warrant upon the wanted" I read it as, a clan member is going to defend their clan member, don't punish them for it.
As for a fix:
Banishment Rules
1) Banishments cannot be given out for more than 3 days to allow for investigation.
2) After 3 days, either a legal warrant must be issued, or the banishment is automatically lifted (no notification of lifting needed).
3) The banishment cannot be re-issued for the initial infraction.
Last edited by sati on Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
If you are banished, you cannot go to that place, but you will not be hunted and killed elsewhere. Stay away and youre safe. If you are warranted, you can be hunted and the warrant served almost anywhere. Being clanned causes you not to be hunted in certain areas owned by other clans, but if you follow a clans rules you probably wont be banished or warranted and there is no issues!
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
Banishments for a week or so make sense.
Warrants are fine as they currently are.
You guys just need to get over yourselves.
Warrants are fine as they currently are.
You guys just need to get over yourselves.
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
This is about trying to close loopholes, make rules easier to understand, and improve.
Hope, I agree with that small difference, and understand your point. However, it's true in legal terms, but the difference is negligible in practice. No one with a warrant is ever really hunted, with exceptions of Male Chanellers.If you are banished, you cannot go to that place, but you will not be hunted and killed elsewhere. Stay away and youre safe. If you are warranted, you can be hunted and the warrant served almost anywhere.
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
I think the warranting rules are fine.
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
There are other impacts of banishmnets over warrants:
1) You don't have to complete a quest to have it removed, it's time based. Time is a relatively difficult concept on WoTMud because a history of punishments indicate people often just play alts, and let the banishment ride out, which you can't do with warrants in quite the same way.
2) Mobs don't aggro you, as noted by somebody else. This isn't just helpful in one 'region', as often clans either a)take mobs with them somewhere to do things or b)have mobs in other regions of the world.
3) Characters can still group in other areas of the world. So for example you're banished by Col A for something, Col B is your friend, but he can still group with you to smob in Andor.
4) Give a person the opportuntiy to show they can obey the laws of a given land, without the more serious impact of a warrant.
I agree that a banishment should not be completely open ended, but I don't agree a week is some sort of maximum limited. At best I'd say a month should be the lowest defined limit of a maximum as see point 1). If banishments really, desperately need to be reformed (and I don't think they do, it's just recent events have inspired a limited number of people to argue that every single rule on the game must be set in legislative stone), then a maximum limit could perhaps be set, and that the defined period of a banishment must be mailed to the character within 1 week of the banishment starting (it's a game, people need time to check forums).
To be honest a huge part of this argument in favour of reform to current banishment and warranting rules seems to be predicated on the idea that it's unfair that a warrant in a certain part of the world can have a bigger impact on what a player wants to do on a game, but happily skips over the root cause which is the choices a person makes result in the punishment given. We already have a system in place for appealing if you feel that the choices you make are unfairly punished. What we don't have is a system whereby you can do what you want in any part of the world and escape the RP consequences.
1) You don't have to complete a quest to have it removed, it's time based. Time is a relatively difficult concept on WoTMud because a history of punishments indicate people often just play alts, and let the banishment ride out, which you can't do with warrants in quite the same way.
2) Mobs don't aggro you, as noted by somebody else. This isn't just helpful in one 'region', as often clans either a)take mobs with them somewhere to do things or b)have mobs in other regions of the world.
3) Characters can still group in other areas of the world. So for example you're banished by Col A for something, Col B is your friend, but he can still group with you to smob in Andor.
4) Give a person the opportuntiy to show they can obey the laws of a given land, without the more serious impact of a warrant.
I agree that a banishment should not be completely open ended, but I don't agree a week is some sort of maximum limited. At best I'd say a month should be the lowest defined limit of a maximum as see point 1). If banishments really, desperately need to be reformed (and I don't think they do, it's just recent events have inspired a limited number of people to argue that every single rule on the game must be set in legislative stone), then a maximum limit could perhaps be set, and that the defined period of a banishment must be mailed to the character within 1 week of the banishment starting (it's a game, people need time to check forums).
To be honest a huge part of this argument in favour of reform to current banishment and warranting rules seems to be predicated on the idea that it's unfair that a warrant in a certain part of the world can have a bigger impact on what a player wants to do on a game, but happily skips over the root cause which is the choices a person makes result in the punishment given. We already have a system in place for appealing if you feel that the choices you make are unfairly punished. What we don't have is a system whereby you can do what you want in any part of the world and escape the RP consequences.
Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
I had a nice post all written out as I was going through the thread. Then my computer froze and the draft is no more. 
I'll try again in a few hours.
I'll try again in a few hours.Re: Revamping the Warranting Rules
In such circumstances it is legitimately acceptable to smash [1] a small plate.Elysia wrote:I had a nice post all written out as I was going through the thread. Then my computer froze and the draft is no more.