Ryzom

oldmess wrote:OK. Just a quick question since your declaration is so brief. The Yrkanis act is limited to Yrkanis at the moment and may possibly be extended to the other forest towns if problems occur there. Your statement seems to indicate that all Zorai and Fyros based towns will be affected. Is this correct?

darylq wrote:I choose to bear arms at all times, however, I have never attacked without cause. The Yrkanis Act proposes to attack any Kami bearing arms no matter their intentions; should this Act be ratified, I personally, and as many others as can be found will do the same for all Karavan in whichever city we may come upon them, no matter their intentions- just as the Karavan propose to do to the Kami in Yrkanis.

oldmess wrote: We should stop blaming the attackers and we should blame the victims? Right. Thanks for the suggestion, but we're gonna take a pass on that idea.

kuroari wrote:The "Victims" CHOSE to be attackable.

drop the idea and ur merely going oblivious to the fact that they are willing to be attacked regardles of when or where. - this is why i dont choose tagging. i dont wanna be killed in my own home.

i'm not overdramatizing, i'm saying IF.

oldmess wrote:Two points of clarification:

1. OOC - "bearing arms" or "being armed" is the RP phrase we've been using to mean "PvP tags on". It does not mean you have sword in your hand. I'm sure you knew that, but the way many seem to interpret this whole thing as an attack rather than a defense, it makes me wonder if they're getting that part.

2. Back IC - This act is not something that is waiting for anyone's ratification. It is not a governmental act. It is an act that will be enforced by those Karavaneers that are able and willing. So, you can assume it's already in place.

You seem to be extending your version of this beyond your own towns in this last statement. If I'm reading more into the phrase "in whichever city we may come upon them", then I withdraw this paragraph. But, if you attack us in the forest or lake towns, it will be an aggressive act. Any pretense of defense goes out the window. I'm not whining or saying you can't do as you threaten. Just being clear about who is defending themselves and who is being aggressive.

marct wrote:OOC: So I guess if you got mugged in the city in real life, you chose to get mugged right?

sehracii wrote:I am here to pledge my total support to this edict.

While not all Kamists are troublemakes, we have no other way to protect our citizens but to be indescriminate in our enforcement of this policy. If they do not seek violence, Kamists may enter our city unarmed when they wish to visit.


OOC:
The argument of "tags on" does not apply to an RP situation. Yes, I have my tag on. Yes, that means that I, the player at the computer, am willing to accept the fact that I can be attacked anytime and anywhere. IC however, that does NOT mean that Sehraci will just happily die in one nuke while crafting and go on her merry way. While you may argue there is not permanent death, there certainly is pain and suffering and Sehraci would take the actions necessary to prevent it from happening again. Hence this edict.