[Slydria]

Here's what I think I'd like to see in this system:

- Rolls should be for doing something extraordinary or in a contest most of the time. You do not need to roll dice to tie your shoelaces but you would trying to open a lock while not being noticed or trying to arm wrestle someone.

- Bonuses and penalties to rolls should not be dictated by the gameplay stats (since some stats are basically mandatory, 99% of players being able to be good at "Skill" checks wouldn't be particularly interesting).

- Encouragement for players to take penalties. (Such as getting more points to allocate if they take penalties, like a D&D point system when assigning stats.)

- Discouragement for players to only use their "best stat" in a situation all the time. (Maybe like a "stale move" penalty where if you keep using the same kind of check, it gets a -1 for each subsequent use in a row for the rest of the encounter.)

- Some kind of common ground rules so contests don't go on forever by default. For low stakes situations, it'd probably just a matter of one and done anyway. For prolonged encounters like a fight, maybe you'd want to consider things like: a "three strikes" rule where if you get three successes, you "win" the encounter and have the situation go your way (as long as it's reasonable). Or a "turn limit" in case the dice decide to be spiteful.

- The idea of actions, reactions and turns (for prolonged contests). 1 Action & 1 Reaction = 1 Turn. For example, in a barfight: I swing a punch (Action) and you try to duck it (Reaction) and either do so or get bopped based on the result, that's the end of the turn. It is then your turn, you then throw a bottle at me (Action) and I try to block it with a nearby table (Reaction).

[Kazzy]

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

Historically, the community has proved that it has difficulty in policing itself. Either meta-grudge or people just being bloodthirsty and not even considering that anything they wish to do to someone elses character, they too should automatically be opened to. No homebrew system of rules that gets suggested is going to be as all-encompassing as having a referee on site to make calls, and we're inevitably gonna run into the issue of things nobody planned for, happening. And to make a ruleset that accomodates for absolutely every little impossibility is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, everyone's biased in one way or another and time is finite. Being 100%? I don't think most people should even be considering conflict.

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

[Skimmy2]

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

Historically, the community has proved that it has difficulty in policing itself. Either meta-grudge or people just being bloodthirsty and not even considering that anything they wish to do to someone elses character, they too should automatically be opened to. No homebrew system of rules that gets suggested is going to be as all-encompassing as having a referee on site to make calls, and we're inevitably gonna run into the issue of things nobody planned for, happening. And to make a ruleset that accomodates for absolutely every little impossibility is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, everyone's biased in one way or another and time is finite. Being 100%? I don't think most people should even be considering conflict.

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

The current rules in place, and rules that will replace it, are explicitly so that a GM is not required to handle every spar under the sun, or every DL1 duel and squabble you can think of. It is left into the hands of the players how they wish to roleplay their conflict as consenting adults, the rules merely exist for when a consensus is not reached.

what you are suggesting, is to just remove the entire Conflict rules page and slap on a "Call a Mod if you both can't agree."

[Snake]

Isn't that the point of mods anyway? To moderate?

There should be a baseline of decency, a strict reminder of how SL2 works in terms of conflict, and the rest is based on how good friends you are with your opponents, otherwise, mechanics and/or GM intervention (in a hopefully healthy manner).

There's no need to overly complicate this or make it too leash-tight, because otherwise, why even say we can genuinely fight anything other than NPCs or eventmin mobs?

[Poruku]

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

[...]

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

95% of conflict is very small-scale and doesn't require any mediation. But anything large that involves multiple people on two sides of a conflict, yeah sure. Like, one bad guy versus a bunch of people is mostly fine. Four bad guys versus a bunch of people is where it starts to become more useful to have mediation. But honestly, even then the GMs should only come into play when there is a disagreement on things.

In my experience conflict starts mostly because a group is made with the intention of creating conflict. This includes Geladyne, which is a military state and it makes sense they would want to do conquest. And of course, antag groups like the marauders. The issues often arise from individuals who are part of the overall conflict but don't agree with its direction or specific events or don't like losing. But I think it's not fair to say that all or even most conflict is started in bad faith, usually it's either out of a desire to stick to the IC of your group or character, or it's because you specifically wanted some conflict.

[Lolzytripd]

i just want to point out

Danger Level 1: Existing on Korvara.
Danger Level 2: Lingering in areas beyond the Outskirt maps of nations, remaining in a scene with clearly hostile individuals in such areas.
Danger Level 3: Lingering in areas further than the Highway maps from another nation, such as the Deep Wastes and Tundra. Actively inciting others in DL2 areas.
Danger Level 4: Would likely never be warranted outside explicit consent.

DL3 is incredibly fucky to make accessible to 'lingering in a specific map' and will incite impossibly heated drama because for a lot of characters, limb loss and maiming (such as loss of a leg/legs, loss of tongue, blinding, partial paralysis, both hands, etc) is tantamount to character death ANYWAY. I've even had that 'joked' about to me ('not dl4' 'sorry dl3 still lets me break your spine') and is why my characters are, as a rule, 'DL2 at most and I carve out exceptions for specific scenes with people I trust'.

For one, the consequences of those losses can fucking SUCK. Muteness, for instance - I've tried to play nonverbal characters both on siggy and in other settings and it is HELL to get good RP while playing them (both because of their limitations and how they're treated - most RP is incredibly heavy on talking, and people sometimes just outright ignore a nonverbal character. there's a reason most nonverbal characters either disappear or end up sidestepping it with sign language/becoming verbal again), and losing the ability to walk or meaningfully interact with things will make it virtually impossible to participate in most events or even reasonably participate in any standard gameplay. Also, not everyone actually wants to play out that level of disability in the first place. This is before logistical issues like playby changes or reconfiguring a character's build to reflect their permanent injuries.

Part of the trouble is that DL3 is actually an insanely broad category to put into one single 'stage' of permitted injury, and being coerced into it is already not a pleasant possibility given how strong social pressure can be - let alone an entire area permitting it because you made eye contact with the wrong person.

Anyway. That's the only point I really wanted to make - but I do like the idea of being able to deploy scene descriptors/scene locks as a player and want to highlight that! It'd be an incredibly useful tool for more than just conflict!

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

Historically, the community has proved that it has difficulty in policing itself. Either meta-grudge or people just being bloodthirsty and not even considering that anything they wish to do to someone elses character, they too should automatically be opened to. No homebrew system of rules that gets suggested is going to be as all-encompassing as having a referee on site to make calls, and we're inevitably gonna run into the issue of things nobody planned for, happening. And to make a ruleset that accomodates for absolutely every little impossibility is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, everyone's biased in one way or another and time is finite. Being 100%? I don't think most people should even be considering conflict.

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

This was why I originally signed up to be an eventmin, small and large scale conflict assistance,  its not what the role is in its current state, most of the duties are at the moment story telling and pve content distribution not conflict management

And I'm not sure that its fair to ask eventmins who are uncomfortable with managing pvp conflict rules to do so, and as they are not on the moderation team this would expose them to flak as a losing side may accuse them of favoritism

[Shujin]

even if the mods are meant to oversee every little thingy (Which I disagree with, its annoying on all fronts), we need a clear reference point for them to point at, for their sanity too else its just going to be endless discussions or fuel for the Usual SL2 Member crashout to start doxing people or the other wonderful things people of this community maturely have handled in the past, such as sharing private information, faking screenshots, etc.

While obviously not everyone does that crap, it has happend often enough over the smallest things that us having some actual serious and pretty on point rules are required to lessen the load on Mods and player alike. Something thats not too handholdy cause that just messes with realism in RP and stagnates it, but fair and most importantly clear enough, that there is little room for discussion.

Everything else is just the worse timeline. Mods should only be required in rare cases and then to just clarify, in the most ideal scenario.

[Trexmaster]

Alright! We got the new shiny Conflict Rules done! Let's go over them and see what they addressed.

Starting from the very top: 

Foreword

The Big Disclaimer

The conflict rules are special. If you and your conflict partner mutually agree, you can play out a conflict in whatever manner you desire. The rules below are for instances where participants CANNOT come to an agreement.

• Remember that mutual respect and a willingness to compromise goes a long way.
  
• Remember that conflict is supposed to be fun. If you don't think you'll have fun participating in a conflict or otherwise don't want to, it's your job to speak up and say so! No one will know otherwise.
  
• These rules may not cover every possible situation. Consult Modmail or a GM when things are unclear.
  

Huh. Well, that's fair I guess? First line in tells me that these rules aren't even meant for everyone. They're just meant for people who can't agree with each other. Inflexible, one might say. Alright then.

Moving on!

What is 'conflict'?

This term will be used frequently. Conflict is defined as any serious scenario that results in violence, or other similar serious consequences, against one or more player character(s).

What does 'interactive' mean?

Interactive RP means RPing in a way such that the other party is not simply a target for your actions; when you are establishing the context of a conflict, the other party should have a chance to react and reply.

• For example, attempting to start a conflict out of the blue by randomly punching a person is not interactive, because the person you are punching may not have acknowledged your intent or even your existence at that point.
  

Here's the rest of the Foreword, just for posterity. I appreciate that Dev went in and clarified what 'interactive' meant, so points for that one. That's one thing in the OP I had reservations about addressed already. Still a bit vague for my liking but at least it provides a clear example of what the intention is, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

Now to move onto

Steps of a Conflict


There are usually three phases that a conflict will go through; Context, Resolution, and Aftermath.

Context

Conflict should be set up via context, which is Interactive RP between both parties. It is why the conflict is occurring, for example;

• Character A is robbing Character B.
  
• Character B insulted Character A, and Character A didn't like that.
  

This is also where the Danger Level (aka DL) is established, as well as giving Intent to Capture if desired. (See relevant sections.)

Resolution

The actual conflict part of the conflict, where we play it out and determine what happens. There are several ways you can do this;

• Player VS Player (PvP)
  
• Dice Rolls
  
• Pure RP
  

None of these options are mandatory. Ideally, you and the conflicting party will come to agreement on the method by discussing it.

• If agreed upon, you can use multiple rounds and/or multiple options. For example, you could do 1 PvP match and 1 round of dice-influenced RP, where 1-1 would be a draw, etc.
  
• In any instance where you cannot agree or otherwise don't know what to do, 1 person on each side can roll a d20, with the highest roll being the 'winner'.
  
• You can use this to pick which method the conflict follows, and/or the results of certain actions taken during Pure RP, and/or the ultimate result of the conflict.
  
• Keep in mind this is just a fairness option and a last resort. If people in the conflict are constantly disagreeing, it may be a sign that following through with it is a bad idea, or that certain people should sit it out.
  
• To reiterate; do what you both think would be fun. If both parties can't agree on what would be fun, consider not going through with the conflict. If IC circumstances demand that you have to go through with the conflict, consult a GM.
  

See also: Conflict Etiquette - Resolution

Aftermath

What happens afterwards.

• Any consequences of the specified Danger Level can be applied here if the victor chooses. (Such as stealing items, etc.)
  
• In general, unless there was Intent to Capture, both parties can go their separate ways afterwards. (See Rule of Avoidance section.)
  

A few references later on in the rules so I can't quite fully dissect this part by itself without citing future segments. I'm sure Context will be more clear once I've read through what it's referencing. Mostly on the 'Intent to Capture', feels pretty important that's hard to be unclear on.

So, moving to Resolution. Nothing's mandatory, huh? Don't go through with the conflict if you can't agree? Wait, I thought these rules were for people who couldn't agree in the first place? Why are the rules telling me not to use them if I can't agree? 

I'm starting to think a lot of this could've just been replaced with a single sentence. 'Contact a GM if you cannot agree on how to resolve a potential conflict' and leave the rest as defining danger levels along with a few other things I haven't quite gotten to yet, like the new ruling that you can't just execute people off low DL captures.

Oh well. Let's move on. To actually address the contents of Resolution: 'in any instance where you cannot agree or otherwise don't know what to do, 1 person on each side can roll a d20, with the highest roll being the 'winner'.'

So, the rules define the default here then as rolling an unmodified d20, but only if both parties agree to even do that in the first place. That result only happens if people somehow agree to still have the conflict but cannot agree on how to do it, yet then agree to just roll the d20s. By itself this doesn't really solve anything unfortunately. It'd be nice if the rules defined what even happens when a GM is called in, do they just force you to roll the d20 anyways if the conflict has to happen? Otherwise tell you 'hey don't do this conflict anymore' and provide steps for deescalation?

I can't say I'm too happy that we settled on coin tossing to resolve every conflict that isn't an agreement between individuals in regards to its potential outcome(s). That to me just sounds like giving up. It's better than absolutely nothing, sure, and I certainly appreciate the efforts to try and create a functional system by which to facilitate conflict, but this ain't seeming like it to me chief.

Moving on to Aftermath, it's largely more citations to other parts of the rules I haven't gotten to yet. Pretty straightforward from the sound of it, I'll reserve judgement for when I get to those parts in question. 

Now onto the

Rule of Consent

 Conflict participants must, prior to the resolution of a conflict, agree to a Danger Level for it, which determines the potential consequences for the 'losing' side.
Danger Levels (aka DL)
Level 1: Simple non-life threatening injuries.
Level 2: Robbery
Level 3: Serious injuries, which can be fully recovered from over time. (Broken limbs, etc.)
Level 3.5: Maiming (IE, limb loss, tongue loss). Destroying a vampire or lich's body (IE, non-permanent character death). ⚠️
Level 4: Permanent character death OR permanent character imprison, etc. ⚠️


 Danger Level 1 is assumed for any instances where a DL is not specified or clearly implied.

• All RP carries this as its minimum Danger Level. You can't outright refuse someone's intent for DL1 conflict so long as there is proper Context established.
  

 Danger Level 1, 2, and 3 have no permanent consequences, and as such they can be implied and consented through IC channels. (Mainly for the comfort of immersion.)

• For example, if Character A says "Your money or your blood!" to Character B, we can reasonably assume they are implying the DL is 2/3. If Character B continues to engage in the RP without attempting to flee, etc., they are implied to have consented.
  
• Another example; Character B is insulting Character A, and Character A says "You better shut up before I put you in the hospital.", but Character B does not listen and continues to insult them - then Character B has consented to the conflict. This rule is not a shield; IC actions have IC consequences.
  

 Danger levels marked with ⚠️ carry the potential of permanent consequences and as such require specific consent in LOOC; for example, you cannot say IC "I'm gonna kill you." to 'imply' DL4. You must communicate in LOOC and receive a confirmation from the other party about the DL of the encounter.

• This is true even if a player's profile suggests they are one of those Danger Levels by default! (We don't want people to claim the DL they listed in their profile was just a joke after the fact.)
  

 Once consent is given, it cannot be revoked, except through the willingness of the other party, or through GM intervention. If you do not want to face the consequences of a Danger Level, do not consent to it.

• Just because consent is given for a particular danger level, it doesn't mean that the victor must follow through. (For example, if DL4, the victor is under no obligation to actually kill the loser.)
  
• Consent only applies for the specific conflict encounter. (IE, just because someone consents to being robbed once does not mean they are giving consent to be robbed in future encounters.)
  

Starting from the top: woohoo! DL 3.5! Some more points for that one. Another misgiving addressed and rectified by carving out a section of the Danger Levels to avoid having people's characters permanently marred due to the original lumping together of all injuries into one Danger Level. One thing I'll say is kinda strange though. Destroying a vampire or lich's body is lopped into 3.5? I kinda get why but that's pretty explicitly something they just sorta come back from, maybe a little worse in the head for it but they don't suffer any permanent consequences bar getting beat up in rapid succession afterwards in the case of Vampires. I'll chalk it up to so people aren't allowed to just murder you because you technically won't die for good from it. Fair enough in that case.

Alright, so still DL 1 minimum as before, but wait, now we've got a new line nearby. "Danger Level 1, 2, and 3 have no permanent consequences, and as such they can be implied and consented through IC channels. (Mainly for the comfort of immersion.)"

Huh, ok. So somewhat similar to the old line of "For Level 1/2, consent may be given through IC roleplay that explicitly implies that the other party is about to be, for example, punched or robbed." 

Except now we've lost the 'explicitly' next to 'implied'. Now it's pretty vague what implying consent means beyond not leaving the scene immediately upon having someone suggest conflict at you. I think I get the intent here, don't keep talking shit because you can and will get your ass beat for it. That's reasonable. What's less reasonable is now you'll have potential situations in public spaces where someone decides they feel like swinging on you when you're in an RP with someone else. What do you do? Ditch the RP because you're forced to do so or otherwise get your ass kicked because your luck isn't the greatest on a d20?

I know what this one's going for. I feel like it could use some more depth. To perhaps at the very least clarify that for example, if it's in a heavily guarded area you likely cannot just go breaking people's limbs without very quickly being detained for trying, if you even get the attempt in the first place. Not defining any kind of security inherent to locations in these rules means some murder limb breaking hobo has casus belli to dust your knee caps because you're chatting at the Vale, and your only recourse is to vacate the premises or pray god's on your side with a d20. The greater the DL attempted the higher the danger should be in successfully carrying it out.

Everything else here is fine, nothing to say, as it's largely the same as it was before. Clear consent is needed for permanent consequence as always.

Moving on to

Rule of Avoidance

Conflict tends to beget conflict in retaliation. This is a beneficial thing, except in cases where it creates repetitive cycles of revenge over a short period of time. The Rule of Avoidance is designed to allow a proper period of time for conflict RP to be digested and for the players involved to breathe.

 For 24 IRL hours minimum following a conflict, a conflict between two parties that has been resolved should not be restarted, even by other parties.
Example
Character A and Character B got into a fight. Character B lost, but got healed by a doctor. Character B should not then immediately go find Character A to try and run it back.
This includes actions that may serve as Context to a conflict, such as Character A finding Character B and taunting them, etc.


 In the same period of time, other characters should not pursue a character involved with intent to retaliate.

Example 1
Character A and Character B got into a fight. Character C, who is Character B's best friend, hears about it and wants to beat up Character A. While Character C's motivations are understandable, they should refrain from immediately starting another conflict with Character A over it.
In instances where this happens through unavoidable circumstances or coincidence, one way to play it off would be for Character A to say something like "Ha! Maybe I'll take you on next time. Gotta wash B's blood off my knuckles first, though."

Example 2
Guard D was there at the time and tried to arrest Character A for the fight. Character A beat up Guard D and got away. Guard E should not immediately try to hunt down Character A to arrest them.

As with most aspects of the Conflict Rules, if both parties are mutually willing, this rule can be waived. Character A and Character C can get into a fight right away if they want to, but if Character A's player doesn't before this 24 hour period is up, there is no obligation. 

Exceptions

There are certain situations where this rule can be a hindrance rather than helpful padding.

If a conflict involves the occupation of a location within a town, follow up attempt(s) to remove the occupation are permitted so long as the following are met;

1. A reasonable interval of time has passed since the last attempt. (No hard definition. Depends on speed of RP. Assume 1 real-life hour minimum.)
   
2. Participants on the liberating side do not include those who have already participated in the failed attempts (without permission from the occupying party); participants are defined as players and so include anyone who already 'fought' on an alt.
   
3. Occupying party are not preparing to leave the scene of the conflict by the time the next follow up attempt would be made.
   
4. If mechanical combat is being done, let people heal and repair as needed before or after attempts.
   
   

Example: Occupation

An antagonistic character(s) has forcibly occupied a building in a town; in this case, a bar. The first attempt to subdue/remove them failed. 

After a reasonable interval of time, the occupying party is still at the bar and haven't made any suggestion that they're going to leave. A follow up attempt can be made, since time has passed and the conflict situation is being extended by continued occupation.

The intent of this rule is to prevent eternal occupation by an antagonistic force, and to give the guards of such a place a way to logically interact with the scene, without being overly limited by the rule of avoidance.

Please contact Modmail if guidance is needed, should a complicated situation arise.

Alright, let's see. This is a rule I had issue with before in its vagueness and thus ability to be weaponized rather than actually doing what it was intended for. Reading the first few lines I immediately notice the period's jumped from 12 to 24 IRL hours. Fair enough, 24's a bit more reasonable to give everyone involved time rather than just the folk in the applicable time zone to have been awake for it.

I also appreciate it clarifying that the rule is targeted toward the conflict itself, rather than the individuals. Meaning other parties cannot instigate the situation in question.

Let's skip along to the Exemptions portions.

First one, occupation of an area. Not setting a hard definition but says to assume minimum of 1 hour, so there's technically a hard definition. These rules don't seem so sure of themselves.

I feel like 'a reasonable interval of time' should actually have a hard definition. Yes, the speed of RP is certainly something to consider but people's time is valuable. It shouldn't be made nebulous how long people are meant to wait to continue a conflict, if nothing else just make it clear that it means 1 hour, bar intervention by the mod team.

Even if I honestly don't see the occupation exemption coming up much if at all.

Moving on!

Scene Locking
When establishing the Context for a conflict scene, the scene is considered to be in a Scene Lock until it has finished. 

Scene Lock Means...

A Scene Lock means that only those participating in the scene before it was locked can engage with it, meaning;

1. The Scene Locked scene cannot be seen, interacted with, or joined by characters who happen upon it later. Only those who were participating in the scene prior to it being locked.
   
2. When a Scene Locked scene is concluded, there is an assumed time gap between its conclusion and when any participants of that scene exist IC. As an example, after a robbery concludes, the robber and victim do not suddenly pop into existence. If you are not a participant of a Scene Locked scene, but are nearby when it ends:
   • Do not attempt to immediately react to any characters who were a part of that scene. They aren't there for the moment; the scene was locked.
     
   • Do not claim you saw who did what. You couldn't have; the scene was locked.
     
   • Do not claim you saw what happened. You wouldn't be able to; the scene was locked!
     

What defines a 'participant'?

1. A character who is actively taking part in roleplay with the conflicting characters before the conflict starts.
   
2. A character who is actively roleplaying in the immediate vicinity of where the conflict starts, even if it is not necessarily with the participants. (Immediate vicinity being capable of seeing the scene from where they are.)
   

What if a participant leaves?

1. If a participant leaves the scene for whatever reason, they are no longer participating and thus excluded from the scene. Prior to the Scene Lock's conclusion, they shouldn't run to try and get help, as anyone who would try could not due to the Scene Lock.
   
2. Please apply basic logic, however. If they're only leaving the scene area to alert someone two rooms over, it may not constitute leaving the scene. (This only applies for being in the same general area.)
   
3. As always, if you cannot reach a compromise, consult a GM.
   

How to know if a scene is Scene Locked?

1. It is highly recommended to use the Scene Lock prop from the Player Props menu to visually show this!
   
2. In the event that there is no visual indicator, either ask the participants in LOOC, or if you are a participant, inform people in LOOC when they attempt to interact. (Then put down the player prop so no one else has to be told.)
   

Why Scene Locks Exist

The following is an example of how this rule works in practice:

Example

1. John begins conflict with Mary with the intent to rob her.
   
2. The two roleplay the scene and some resolution is made (PvP or RP) with John being the victor.
   
3. Part-way through this, a random bypasser, David, sees the scene unfolding OOC.
   
4. Although David may be a character who would like to interfere and stop Mary from being robbed, they cannot, because they were not an active participant when the scene began. For the scene's purposes, David is not even there, and they see nothing going on in it.
   
5. John being the victor takes some Murai from Mary. Despite entering the aftermath, the Scene Lock's time gap prevents David from doing anything.
   
6. John leaves the area. David may not pursue them - they don't even know that John was here.
   

Although this interaction could ICly take only a few moments, it will take longer than that to RP. The longer a scene goes on, the higher the chance that someone will come across it. This provides a major disadvantage for antagonistic characters due to the tendency for people to dogpile as more and more people become aware of what's going on.

This rule also prevents scenarios where less well-intentioned players will OOCly alert their friends that they need help IC during conflicts.

Exceptions to Scene Locking
The following are some scenarios in which the Scene Lock rule would not apply.

1. Conflicts happening in very public areas, such as the middle of a town, or inside of a public building. (If an NPC saw you robbing someone in the square, they'd probably tell someone.)
   
2. Conflict scenarios which started in ways that would draw a lot of attention from outside parties. (For example, conflict which started as someone blowing a building up.)
   
3. If all participants of the conflict scene agree to waive this rule for it.
   

Ah, Scene Lock rules, let's see what's changed from when I looked at them in the OP...

The definition of a Scene Lock is made more clear than it was before, stating that it's not only when conflict begins, but clearly stating that it's simply whenever a scene is inaccessible to new arrivals due to the circumstances involved. An important distinction, as it applies to more than simply conflict.

I largely agree with how participants are defined, and the rules following their departure. This is all pretty standard stuff in other roleplaying spaces I've been in, and stands to reason when it comes to following a consistent timeline in an RP. When a Scene Lock is in place, it's effectively locked in time. So it doesn't make sense for anything outside of it to affect it or vice versa until it's concluded.

I like to think most people should be able to understand the logic behind the Scene Lock, especially as illustrated by the example provided. So I won't get too much into that.

The exemptions noted are also reasonable, and again very much in line with the standards largely accepted in many other spaces when it comes to scene locks. You can't put a public area into stasis due to how many people are potential participants, or areas that already have a lot of people around otherwise. Allowing for those involved to waive a scene lock is OK. People should have the right to allow others into the scene if they really want to, and everyone consents.

So no complaints on this part for me, this is standard stuff.

Fleeing

 When a conflict concludes, if another conflict scene with a third party would begin as a consequence, the participants have the option to flee following the Aftermath of the first scene.

• Fleeing the area means you leave the area; if you're in a town, you don't flee to your hotel room IN the town, you flee the town.
  

 If and only if the conflict took place within a town's main area, AND the conflict was not an attempt to capture the fleeing party, the third party can contest the fleeing attempt. Both parties roll 1d20 until a higher roll emerges; if the fleeing party wins, they flee. If they don't, then they must take part in the conflict with the third party first. (DL of this secondary conflict must still be agreed upon, however.)

• If using mechanical means of resolution such as PvP, all involved must be allowed to heal/repair first.
  
• If the fleeing party is also the victor of the second conflict, then they can flee. No additional attempts to contest can be made.
  
• A town's main area is defined as a town's main map, specifically within or near a concentration of its buildings; it does not include outskirts areas of the town, such as those outside of its walls.
  

Example
Character A and Character B got into a battle in the middle of town. Guard C is there and wants to arrest Character A, who was the aggressor.
Because this would begin another conflict scene, Character A may choose to flee the area instead. Of course, this is likely a crime, and may have consequences later.


Following someone fleeing, the Rule of Avoidance is in effect. The fleeing party should not return to the fled area, others should not pursue them until that period of time has elapsed.

Flee rules! Ah how I fondly recall what first got them made. Good ol' Burn Up Winged Serpent > Move to map border > Flee Round 0. Classic quote from Dev 'Why participate in a fight if you're just going to run away immediately'? I like to think we're all on the same page now. Let's actually read.

Pretty straight forward so far. If you flee, you have to leave town, not somewhere in town.

Now the first part here is only for the town's 'main area'. It also specifies that the original conflict cannot have been an attempt to capture. So third parties cannot double dip a capture attempt. Reading further..........huh.

So we've downgraded from the original rules and turned this into flat d20s? Let me explain a little: In the past, the Fleeing Rules had modifiers depending on WHERE you were fleeing from. Cities had higher negative modifiers to your attempts to flee due to heightened security, and the wilderness was easier to flee in because nothing's impeding you. In this case the variation could be where in the city you're attempting to flee from.

Now we have people throwing out unmodded d20s until someone wins whether you're in the pub or Castle Geladyne.

Allowing a heal/repair is fair enough for if people are wanting to do it mechanically, as is limiting capture attempts to avoid the past meme of having one dude get into 5+ battles of attempted captures in rapid succession.

Still not happy that there's really nothing given to define how people are meant to resolve conflict other than flipping a coin if mechanical isn't desired.

Capture's up next and pretty relevant to this part.

Capture
Capturing a character means taking them into custody. For example, you may attempt to capture a character as part of an arrest.

Intent to Capture must be expressed in LOOC when establishing the conflict, at the same time that DL is determined. (IE, tell the person in LOOC "If I win, I intend to arrest your character and take them to the Telegrad jail.")

Capture attempts must have the same DL as any consequences the capture would have. (IE, tell the person in LOOC "If I win, I intend to arrest your character and take them to Telegrad jail, where we're going to smash their hand with a hammer (DL3).")

• Meaning that if a character is captured, the captor(s) cannot later decide the punishment will be something which exceeds the capture DL, except with the captured player's consent. (IE, if you capture someone in a DL1 conflict, you cannot later decide that you want to keep them in there forever, as that would be DL4.)
  
  

Example
Character A wants to capture Character B, because Character B is wanted for a crime.
Character A must know the consequences that Character B faces, and make sure the DL is known appropriately; if Character B faces execution or permanent imprisonment if they get captured, the DL for the conflict must be 4.
Character A must be prepared for the same level of risk that Character B has if they want to capture them.

If a character is captured, they are ICly taken to the place the player was told they would be taken. The character is then considered Imprisoned (see relevant section).

Alright, now we finally get Intent to Capture defined! Let's see...it's just 'I'm going to capture you' in LOOC. So, Capture is...wait. What? Huh.

Ok, I fundamentally disagree with this. Let me invoke dark powers and speak the name of Eternia. Capture in Eternia is generally equated the same if not worse to death. Granted this is largely because it means you're entirely at the mercy of your captor in a place with no such protections like Sigrogana Legends 2 has.

Looking away from the OOC factors, being captured ICly means you are at the mercy of your captor. They can just kill you, or worse if you're detained with no immediate means of escape. Having capture being Danger Level agnostic is quite frankly absurd. I get it, this game is meant to allow people to pick and choose their character's fates rather than have the IC circumstances dictate that. Having people get captured and go 'oh don't worry I'm abducted but I'm only DL1.' is of no comfort in the IC realm.

Someone risking capture is going to fight like their life is on the line, because it very likely is. I understand the expectation here is that the players would all collectively agree to avoid anything transpiring beyond the agreed DL despite the intention to capture. It's just very awkward ICly in cases that are not law enforcement.

For being arrested, sure. It makes senses that capture would be of an inherently lower DL. As those performing the captures are generally reasonable individuals just doing their job.

On the other hand, bandits or other such bad actors performing a capture is an entirely different story. Capture could mean being sold into slavery or trafficked. This is why capture being at such a potentially low DL doesn't make sense to me. 

To alleviate this, Intent to Capture should require explicit consent for Danger Levels lower than 3.5, if the capturing parties are not clearly law enforcement from a recognized group operating within their jurisdiction in an arguably lawful manner.

Otherwise I very strongly oppose the Capture portion of the rules as they stand. I only agree with the fact that a capture attempt must have the same DL as they intend to inflict upon successful capture. So DL1 into execution isn't a thing anymore.

Moving on...

Imprisonment
What is imprisonment?

• An instance in which a character is held in a place against their will for an extended period, usually as a result of Capture. Although it does include situations such as being 'put in prison', it can cover other situations, such as slavery, as well.
  

 If a character is imprisoned, it should be in service of further RP within a reasonable time period. (For example, being held for a trial.)

• When being held for a purpose, such as the example, 'reasonable time period' would preferably be 'as soon as possible'; because scheduling with other players is a factor, this is not a hard definition. However, in general, the expected wait time should not exceed more than a few OOC days.
  

 Imprisoning a character should not limit their ability to take part in RP scenes with others.

• This means that if someone is visiting the imprisoned character, the visitor shouldn't be denied from doing so, except at the imprisoned character's desire. (As long as the visitor makes their visit known, for example in a nation's ping channel, there does not need to be a player observing them.)
  • If visitors are expected to follow a certain protocol, please make sure that information is readily available, such as on a sign within the prison facility.
    
• This also means that, if the imprisoned character wants to RP with a guard, such an opportunity should be given to them. (Within reason - someone may not always be available.)
  

 Imprisonment of a character as a punishment should not be used as a means to 'soft ban' them.

• Extended periods of imprisonment are, in general, discouraged - it is preferable to use alternative punishments where possible.
  
• Characters who are imprisoned for extended periods without recourse may be afforded an escape or exoneration, if requested. (See section below.)
  

 Characters which are imprisoned should remain where they are imprisoned until they are released by the captor (or another guard, etc.), or are given approval for escape/exoneration RP.

• This means that you shouldn't decide you don't want to be locked up anymore and leave your place of imprisonment.
  

See also: Conflict Etiquette - Imprisonment

Ah, good, it clarifies slavery. That's nice. Reading on, we get to another refusal to place a hard definition on a time limit for incarcerating a player character. I liked it before when it was just 'do it in 24 hours OOCly or you better have a real good excuse for delaying it'.

Scheduling is indeed an important factor and getting another scene lined up with some people can potentially take well longer than 24 hours, an example of a 'real good excuse'. I get the spirit of this and why there's no hard defined time involved, but it'd be nice for there to be a limit to say 'if it's been this long without a resolution and no attempts to schedule, they're free to go'. 

Alright, I get that folks jailed up shouldn't be denied RP. It sucks. We did it terribly in the past. The only part I'm iffy on is always allowing visitors. Without any kind of defined grace period for a visit it can be pretty awkward. Since more often than not the moment someone learns of an arrest, they're off to visit. It's why back on G6 we'd generally limit visitation to the day after an arrest occurred just for things to cool down first, given prison stays tended to be around 3-7 days on average back then. Not ideal of course.

In this case it's more to give the captors some time to breathe rather than effectively having to continue the scene through dealing with visitors right after they just got done putting someone into prison. The grace period doesn't have to be a full 24 hours, perhaps just the ol' 12 would do. Just something so that the same people don't have to deal with it. I don't want anyone to get the 16+ hour guard experience I got on G6.

Otherwise, I totally agree that guards should be roleplaying with the people they throw in the brig. I tried to do it where I could back in the day.

It is kinda funny though that imprisonment in Korvara is worse than G6 in that you can't even OOCly participate in the game anymore, since back on G6 we'd usually let people out if they asked to grind. Wasn't common, but it was an option.

But wait, hold up. Exoneration?

Escaping / Exoneration
Characters held for longer than 24 hours OOC time (even as part of a punishment for a crime, excluding DL4 permanent imprisonment) can request an escape or exoneration via Modmail.

• An Escape means the character intends to escape from imprisonment. (If you're escaping from a town's jail, this is probably a crime itself.)
  
• An Exoneration means the character's blame will be called into question such that it necessitates their release. (Perhaps through a lawyer's meddling, another suspect being taken in, etc.)
  
• Here is an example Modmail. Please make sure you include all of the bolded fields:
  

Example Escape Modmail

• Your Character (Including Key & Slot) - Rendyn Brownst (Devourer Of Souls, Slot 1)
  
• Reason For Imprisonment - Stole a sweetroll (DL2)
  
• Person Who Imprisoned You - Risu (Don't know her key)
  
• Time Frame Given By Captor For Imprisonment Duration - 1 week OOC
  
• Time Already Imprisoned - 2 days OOC
  
• Escape or Exoneration? - Escape
  
• If Escaping, Character's Plan For Escape - My character knows Old Man Joe's on the schedule during the late night hours. They're going to pretend to be sick to lure him into the cell and then knock him out, and book it out of Gelagrad under cover of darkness.
  
• Player Comments - I think the time frame for such a silly crime is excessive, so I want my character to bust out.
  

• Escapes carry more risk for the character, and are more likely to be approved regardless of current time imprisoned (so long as it exceeds the 24 hour OOC threshold).
  
• Exonerations result in guilt being called into question, and therefore the circumstances are more stringently examined; in general, it is more likely to be approved for situations where time already imprisoned is high, if the character didn't get a trial or alternative punishment offered, etc.
  

 Approved Escapes and Exonerations are considered to ultimately succeed. If an Escape, the Rule of Avoidance is considered in effect for the escapee's act of escaping.

• This means that, in an escape, the escapee will get away in the end. (Cooperation is appreciated in this matter.)
  
• The Rule of Avoidance does not include just the guards from the location you escaped from; it would include anyone attempting to apprehend the escapee for escaping, such as bounty hunters, others nations' guards, etc. (For example, if a character escapes from Duyuei and shows up in Telegrad, Telegrad guards should not approach the character with the intent of recapturing, etc.)
  • Similarly, the escaped character should be careful, moving around in disguise and/or avoiding appearing in public areas, if they're likely to encounter someone who would recognize them as a fugitive. (Remember that the Rule of Avoidance is not to be used as a metagamed shield. If you approach a Telegrad guard and go 'I just escaped from Duyuei prison!', you may very well be waiving your Rule of Avoidance, among other problems.)
    
  • It is recommended that any public notices of escape are not posted until after the Rule of Avoidance period has passed to avoid confusion that may arise from it.
    
• The details of the escape will be provided to the guards of the escaped nation after it happens.
  • The escaping player can provide their own RP paragraph detailing what the guards see when the escape is discovered, or if an RP scene was conducted with another guard PC, the guard PC can provide a report themself.
    
  • In instances where this is not provided by the escaping player, it will be provided by the GMs.
    

Ok, escapes I understand. That's always sort of been a thing just not clearly defined as it is now but exoneration? I want to say I get why that's given as an option to provide another avenue to fluff how someone managed to get out of jail. The fact that it's attached with the caveat that not only are the captors not given any say in whether that's how it goes down or not, but that all they can do is cooperate with the GMs if they gave the approval for an imprisoned person to be exonerated of the crime they were booked for...I dunno. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Escaping is one thing, but having the very reason they were put into jail made effectively null as a result of a GM ruling doesn't feel very conducive to roleplay. People got rat fucked by the circumstances changing from EM-fiat because the EM wanted things to happen a certain way and they begrudgingly agreed, and you know how that ended? The party that got forced to agree since left the game and had stopped playing the character after having the IC twisted to make their argument null. They built up a case and got told it was too good and got begged to let things continue, and they got screwed for it.

I'd rather not see that play out again with players being forced to agree to their characters being made out to be in the wrong, whether or not the source of exoneration is legitimate.

I believe the best compromise when it comes to the exoneration clause is that it should be made very clear that the means by which it occurred are not de-legitimizing the facts that led to the arrest. That it does not suddenly turn the guards who arrested them into frauds against their will OOCly with no recourse to clear their name in the aftermath. So I can only ask that if exoneration is considered, for this to be kept in mind so as to avoid tarnishing the IC of others as a result. I know they already are stated to carry more stringent examination but I believe it warrants emphasizing how impactful it can be compared to simply allowing the imprisoned a means of escape.
Otherwise, I believe the escape rules are fine.

Robbery

1. ...

Nothing changed in this section nor the rules on Undying Races. So that's it.

Before I close I want to comment on the Etiquette page given it has the following line:

For example, you could resolve it via best 2/3 PvP matches, or PvP + RP w/ dice rolls, or 1 PvP match and 1 RP w/ dice rolls with 1-1 being a draw. (Don't do something silly like switching your build to counter the other player's build if you go this route. You will be punished.)

 This sounds like a rule. Why is this not in the Conflict Rules page, but buried away in the Etiquette section? That seems pretty important to clarify that people are not allowed to swap their builds mid conflict to counter someone. How would something like build swapping even be monitored or enforced?

I think a rule in this spirit should be something like

"When entering mechanical conflict, you are locked into the build you are using for the duration of it. You cannot change your class, items, skills, item belt, Fated Enemy, Destiny, or any mechanical aspect of your character whatsoever."

Perhaps a bit difficult to enforce bereft of any tools that actually record what the entirety of a character's build is to verify they did not in fact change anything to counter the other person.

A counter can be as subtle as pulling up your Portable Smithy Kit and swapping to Silver Bullets against a Kaelnesian, or altering your Fated Enemy to Beast temporarily to catch Chimera Bands users out.

The lines drawn need to be clearly defined to effectively enforce something like this.

In Conclusion

I appreciate that Dev addressed some issues, like permanent injury, the fast track to execution from DL1 capture, and the ambiguity of what 'interactive' meant.

Yet, I don't think these rules are actually meant for anyone at all.

To use Dev's own words:

"Honestly inflexible people should not really be taking part in conflict nor standing in the way of it, is my opinion."

Precluded in the Conflict Rules by:

"The rules below are for instances where participants CANNOT come to an agreement."

So...the belief of the one who wrote all this is that those who cannot come to an agreement with one another should not be involved in conflict nor impede it, yet in the very beginning of the rules, states that said rules are meant for those people.

I cannot take it in good faith that someone who's writing rules designed for people they think shouldn't be doing what they're designing rules for at all are actually meant to help those people facilitate what the guidelines are intended to lead them toward.

I only hope to improve the RP space for everyone who's willing to respect others. Which is something I've come to notice is depressingly uncommon. Many are quick to dismiss others or speak poorly of them without care, to disregard how they might feel when it comes to conversation, and to the point of this topic, conflicts.

While Dev clearly is trying to impress upon others the need for a baseline mutual respect, which I appreciate, the unfortunate truth is that the rules designed are toothless. They do absolutely nothing for the people who actually need them aside from tell them 'consult a moderator' without any guidance for what to expect will happen. This makes life hard for both the ones subject to unwanted conflict AND the arbitrators trying to resolve it without any guidelines that are transparent to both themselves and the ones they're assisting when it comes to resolving disputes around starting conflict whatsoever.

Several steps forward were taken with these newer rules but I believe there's still a long way to go before they'd hold up to pressure. As it stands they serve no one. 

I'll concede that at the very least, it is helpful in providing clear rules on matters of imprisonment and escape, and clarifying the restriction of capture into execution. Otherwise it does not succeed in accomplishing smoother conflict where it'd be necessary, as was hoped.

As to what could be done to achieve that? I believe clearly defining how conflict is to be carried out between parties who cannot agree to the means of resolution is important. That it be more than throwing a d20.

I do not expect this would be a short undertaking. To create a proper system for managing conflict would require tailoring it so that players feel their characters are appropriately represented. As it is all too common that individuals will not respect the characters of those who aren't their friends. Demeaning them in ways such as insinuating weakness for losing to a younger character due to a mechanical build difference, or ignoring aspects of their character such as intimidating, supernatural factors that are brushed off in an insulting manner such as 'yawns'.

My ultimate goal with such a system would be to allow players to have that representation of their characters be universally acknowledged without the need for a player to respect the character, the system will represent them in a way that they are forced to respect what that character is. As it stands this isn't really feasible given everyone's roughly the same mechanically.

Until then, well. I wish luck to whoever has to arbitrate conflict.

[Raigen.Convict]

I know it won't matter but I agree on the angle of inflexible people should not go where conflict can happen. If you want a set series of events in your rp circling your character, you want to write a book not roleplay.

[Dezark]

I'll be blunt on that, I don't quite agree to it personally. If someone doesn't like conflict? Yes you shouldn't go to it, but we also exist in a setting and situation where conflict is ALWAYS happening, it doesn't matter when, where or why you will always find conflict, and your options are either to just sit aside and do nothing, be apart of the rp despite that dislike of conflict, or be the main target/cause for it.

Roleplay is the sense of writing a personal story for your character, each moment being like a chapter to said book on that and allowing things to expand out from there, aside for the people who have set ideas of how that story will go (antags/protag mindset folk) who either live by the sense that "I will die at the end of this" or "I will be the hero and die at the end of this" situation, will be normal for people especially more proactive ones seeking out to do events/activities to get plotlines set up for such. Even people unintentionally wanting power will do so, given the number of times I've seen people hound for positions of powers either out of IC want or a OOC want/spite of another party or something else. So I don't believe it the best remark to make on things personally so at least, but that's my thoughts.

In the term of the ruling stuff.. I've voiced it a few times to people that I felt the idea of moving things up a level to 5 while maiming became it own thing was too confusing but adding it as a .5 wasn't is.. dumb. I still find it silly versus doing that but it is what it is and end of the day I'm sure people will work past it somehow anyway and still find loop arounds to still do what they have before on term of disabling/heavily injuring/whatever to someone to make the point across despite it or w/e else. Exonerations on the other hand as trex said feels.. like you're the kid throwing a dodgeball at someone face tbh. I haven't seen any sort of the prisons get used anymore (Yokoshura lacking any and people just attacking each other wins again, the perks of no jail I guess?) so this feels.. particularly silly aside for perhaps that one Yokoshurian who managed to get themselves arrested in Geladyne. Rather than taking the time to work with players to figure out if you migh have a minimal extended stay to get judgement, you can now just.. get a GM to approve you walking out and that's it. I don't know exactly what brought this one on, as the escaping one makes sense especially looking back on early Korvara stuff when we had the super secret jail break and stuff that got ratted out the moment one of them were captured anyway, but neverless. The hand wave of "my lawyer is here to break me free" or w/e else feels.. dumb as Trex put it, and the idea of forcing any player to be in the wrong for something cause a request got approved is.. distasteful. It's an easy way to drive people away genuinely and just cause interest to be lost overall.