 |
|  |
 |
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002 time: 00:24
|
|
Ok, this is starting to become a problem and will only get worse if someone doesn't try to squash it now:
We need to create some form of rule against posters controlling each others' characters. The charachter Thug was created by mrmitchell and thus should have been controlled by mrmitchell, not by History Guy. I think it was funny just like everyone else, but allowing History Guy to pull the character he clearly stated in a previous thread was DEAD back into life and then CONTROLLING the character and what he said and did is a problem...
It wasn't History Guy's character. 
The next thing to happen will be that mrmitchell is going to catch on to the idea and start controlling History Guy's characters... after a while no-one will be able to control anything of their characters anymore.
FURTHERMORE...
History Guy does NOT control the forces of nature, either! His attempts to do so are OBVIOUSLY part of a demonic pact by his character that the High Priest should have him tried for 
FAR WORSE, History Guy, in attempting to control the forces of nature to conveniently remove a character that was NOT HIS, effectively has chosen to CHEAT THE WILL OF LORD TOGAS in addition to controlling the fate of OTHER posters' characters.
IN ADDITION, History Guy has cheated THE ENTIRE TRIBE of the festival of watching the slave Thug be tossed over the waterfall each day.
Now, aside from the whole demonic pact (charge 1) and using a demonic pact to cheat the will of Lord Togas (charge 2), History Guy DID act in what he obviously believed were the rules operating over role-play (that he could kill anyone's character he wanted whenever he wanted however he wanted).
HERE IS THE CHANGE I PROPOSE:
- ONLY the poster which introduced and controls a character may speak for him, control his actions, and choose his fate aside from those powers given to Lord Togas and those he delegates those powers to (such as the High Priest, the Watcher, etc.).
It's a simple rule and will make roleplay a lot easier for those of us who don't feel like competing in the following manner:
A: "Your character just defected to me! "
B: "Oh yeah? Your character is now dying of the plague! "
A: "Oh yeah? Your other character just got hit by lightening! "
B: "Oh yeah? The character that defected to you just defected back, but he killed half your flock of cattle before doing so! "
etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pikesfan
|
|
I may have started this by creating the Undercook, first part of the Calamari household, then part of Mitchell’s. Should we extend this to not creating characters from other people’s households?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
F-PRO
|
|
Voorschoten, Zuid-Holland
Oct 2002 time: 06:24
|
|
I basically agree. However, I sometimes "quote" some of our fellow Spaniards in the Stone of Spain, even though they have never said what I quoted. I try to be as loyal to their character as possible, and they may object if they want to. So, can I still do this?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: Life and death has little meaning. |
So the possible investigation of Senor Pikesfans(?) death should be dropped.
However, Thug was property, and that was important!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
History Guy
|
 |
Reads too many books...
Oct 2001 time: 23:24
|
|
[OOC, I believe we are overlooking fact. Ancient Kings [b]did[/] care if they had a governor who was creating unrest and abusing his priveleges. Alexander the Great had many problems with such guys, and killed alot of them. If this is strict roleplay, we can either have 1) A completely corrupt government where there is no law, or 2) A more enlightened government, like that of Hammurabi or Alexander, which does indeed have a law and if you break that law you are punished. I prefer the latter.
If we follow the latter, we must actually create a system of laws. The Sumerians, the first civilization, always had a law code. If you commited murder, you were executed. If you threatened one's life, you pay the man money, or if you were an official under the king and abused your power, you paid alot or lost your position (if you weren't just killed).
Historically, leaders have always been mindful of the fact that a corrupt government which allows corruption in their ranks and it goes noticed by the public and creates unrest cannot stand. Machiavelli tells us this, and it has always been thus, as he notes. [/OOC]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pikesfan
|
|
O Señor Calamari,
I thank you for your concern for my uncle’s death, but I have already caught the badsquid and given him to the Wise and Just Despot, who will have the badsquid thrown off the waterfall. Please, you need not bother yourself about the matter any longer. My family will always gratefully welcome you if you or yours should ever decide to visit our valley in Los Piraneos.
Jordí Pikesfan
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pikesfan
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
ooc:
We could actually begin that during the ancient era.
Just as the Greeks did in their days of philosophy.
|
OOC
Well, no. We will 1. have to wait for philosophy to do this, and 2. it still could not be a poll during the age of Despotism. Instead, once we invent philosophy, some of us could be philosophers and have philosophical discussions about what would happen if we changed the laws. If the Despot, or the City Governor is enlightened, he will listen to us, but if the he is not enlightened, he will invite us to drink squid ink. 
Polls have to wait for Monarchy, where the city governors could poll among themselves, or for Republic, where we all as heads of families get to vote.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|