PvP - Revision history

Bink: /* What to do about a traitor? */

2026-03-22T11:58:26Z

What to do about a traitor?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 22 March 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach ADA and try to convince her of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If ADA agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach ADA and try to convince her of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If ADA agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

	* '''If you kill another player character without ADA's sanction, she will expel ~~the perpetrator~~ from the Resistance.'''		* '''If you kill another player character without ADA's sanction, she will expel you from the Resistance.'''
	* If you bring evidence to ADA that someone deserves killing, she can be convinced to lift this protection (but will not take action directly for you). ~~This~~ will ~~always~~ be ~~done with the target character's knowledge~~ and a chance to defend themself.		* If you bring evidence to ADA that someone deserves killing, she can be convinced to lift this protection (but will not take action directly for you). The target character will be informed and given a chance to defend themself.

	=== Checking in ===		=== Checking in ===

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.

Bink: /* What to do about a traitor? */

2026-03-22T11:57:39Z

What to do about a traitor?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 22 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach ADA and try to convince her of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If ADA agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach ADA and try to convince her of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If ADA agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

			* '''If you kill another player character without ADA's sanction, she will expel the perpetrator from the Resistance.'''
			* If you bring evidence to ADA that someone deserves killing, she can be convinced to lift this protection (but will not take action directly for you). This will always be done with the target character's knowledge and a chance to defend themself.

	=== Checking in ===		=== Checking in ===

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.

Bink at 22:13, 7 March 2026

2026-03-07T22:13:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 7 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It's expected that conflict will occur between ~~player~~ characters, with disagreements over how the resistance should be conducted and its actions towards AIs and human groups. We expect the primary mode of ~~Player vs Player~~ conflict to be political and social, but that sometimes things may spill over into physical conflict.		It's expected that Player vs Player conflict will occur between characters, with disagreements over how the resistance should be conducted and its actions towards AIs and human groups. We expect the primary mode of PvP conflict to be political and social, but that sometimes things may spill over into physical conflict.

	If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".		If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".

Bink at 22:13, 7 March 2026

2026-03-07T22:13:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 7 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It's expected that conflict will occur between player characters, with disagreements over how the resistance should be conducted and its actions towards AIs and human groups. We expect the primary mode of Player ~~vsa~~ Player conflict to be political and social, but that sometimes things may spill over into physical conflict.		It's expected that conflict will occur between player characters, with disagreements over how the resistance should be conducted and its actions towards AIs and human groups. We expect the primary mode of Player vs Player conflict to be political and social, but that sometimes things may spill over into physical conflict.

	If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".		If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".

Bink at 22:13, 7 March 2026

2026-03-07T22:13:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 7 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It's expected that conflict will occur between player characters, with disagreements over how the resistance should be conducted and its actions towards AIs and human groups. We expect the primary mode of ~~pvp~~ to be political and social, but that sometimes things may spill over into physical conflict.		It's expected that conflict will occur between player characters, with disagreements over how the resistance should be conducted and its actions towards AIs and human groups. We expect the primary mode of Player vsa Player conflict to be political and social, but that sometimes things may spill over into physical conflict.

	If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".		If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".

Bink at 16:10, 28 October 2025

2025-10-28T16:10:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 28 October 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".		If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".

	~~The resistance leadership~~ recognises that sometimes violence and other dubious means will be needed to accomplish the goals of the resistance. Crimes against people who aren't members of the resistance will never be punished by ~~the Resistance~~, though the system you're resisting against may take action and it may sway public opinion of you and the Resistance as a whole. Violence against other members of the resistance will need to be justified, but provided no permanent harm is done and they're not permanently deprived of any property it's likely that things can be smoothed over. Killing another member of the resistance without prior consultation with ~~the resistance leadership~~ is extremely likely to result in expulsion from the resistance (which will mean no longer being a player character).		ADA recognises that sometimes violence and other dubious means will be needed to accomplish the goals of the resistance. Crimes against people who aren't members of the resistance will never be punished by ADA, though the system you're resisting against may take action and it may sway public opinion of you and the Resistance as a whole. Violence against other members of the resistance will need to be justified, but provided no permanent harm is done and they're not permanently deprived of any property it's likely that things can be smoothed over. Killing another member of the resistance without prior consultation with ADA is extremely likely to result in expulsion from the resistance (which will mean no longer being a player character).

	=== What to do about a traitor? ===		=== What to do about a traitor? ===

	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach ~~the resistance leadership~~ and try to convince ~~them~~ of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If ~~the leadership~~ agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach ADA and try to convince her of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If ADA agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

	=== Checking in ===		=== Checking in ===

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.

Fortycakes at 18:32, 24 September 2025

2025-09-24T18:32:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 24 September 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:

	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

			=== Checking in ===

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.

Fortycakes at 18:31, 24 September 2025

2025-09-24T18:31:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 24 September 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".		If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".

	The resistance leadership recognises that sometimes violence and other dubious means will be needed to accomplish the goals of the resistance. Crimes against people who aren't members of the resistance will never be punished by the Resistance, though the system you're resisting against may take action! Violence against other members of the resistance will need to be justified, but provided no permanent harm is done and they're not permanently deprived of any property it's likely that things can be smoothed over. Killing another member of the resistance without prior consultation with the resistance leadership is extremely likely to result in expulsion from the resistance (which will mean no longer being a player character).		The resistance leadership recognises that sometimes violence and other dubious means will be needed to accomplish the goals of the resistance. Crimes against people who aren't members of the resistance will never be punished by the Resistance, though the system you're resisting against may take action and it may sway public opinion of you and the Resistance as a whole. Violence against other members of the resistance will need to be justified, but provided no permanent harm is done and they're not permanently deprived of any property it's likely that things can be smoothed over. Killing another member of the resistance without prior consultation with the resistance leadership is extremely likely to result in expulsion from the resistance (which will mean no longer being a player character).

			=== What to do about a traitor? ===

	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.

Fortycakes at 18:31, 24 September 2025

2025-09-24T18:31:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 24 September 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".		If you ''plan'' to engage in physical PvP you '''must''' inform a referee. If physical PvP emerges from a situation suddenly then you don't need to inform a ref before taking action, but if there's contention over the rules and no ref was present then the benefit of the doubt will go to the "defender".

	The resistance leadership recognises that sometimes violence and other dubious means will be needed to accomplish the goals of the resistance. Crimes against people who aren't members of the resistance will never be punished. Violence against other members of the resistance will need to be justified, but provided no permanent harm is done and they're not permanently deprived of any property it's likely that things can be smoothed over. Killing another member of the resistance without prior consultation with the resistance leadership is extremely likely to result in expulsion from the resistance (which will mean no longer being a player character).		The resistance leadership recognises that sometimes violence and other dubious means will be needed to accomplish the goals of the resistance. Crimes against people who aren't members of the resistance will never be punished by the Resistance, though the system you're resisting against may take action! Violence against other members of the resistance will need to be justified, but provided no permanent harm is done and they're not permanently deprived of any property it's likely that things can be smoothed over. Killing another member of the resistance without prior consultation with the resistance leadership is extremely likely to result in expulsion from the resistance (which will mean no longer being a player character).

	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.

Bink at 15:47, 24 September 2025

2025-09-24T15:47:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 24 September 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.		If you believe that a player character is deliberately working against the resistance, or is so egregiously reckless that they're doing harm to the cause, you can approach the resistance leadership and try to convince them of your case, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves. If the leadership agrees then their protection will be lifted and you will be able to take action against them. Essentially by succeeding at social and political pvp, you can enable physical pvp as an option.

	While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another ~~character~~ is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.		While we expect disagreements, it's also important that participants feel comfortable playing. We recommend "checking in" out-of-character after intense social conflict. Clashing with other player characters over plot is fine, but pursuing conflict while they're minding their own business is discouraged. If you believe another player is pursuing conflict with you to a level that's not justified by your character's actions then you can talk to the [[refs]] and we'll arbitrate.