To Vow or not to Vow

[Hrulgin]

First..let me post the relevant part of the vow helpfile:

Vow that the specified character is worthy to take his/her place on
the mud. This will allow them to use global channels. You will be
responsible for the players actions until he/she reaches level 30,
so make sure he/she is educated and skilled.

When I first started DL, I thought the Vow system looked like a great idea, and still do. The problem, as I see it, is that the rule quoted above is not enforced. Many people will just vow anyone that asks for it, without knowing anything about that person. My question here I suppose is: What is the POINT of the vow command? If nobody is being mentored by their vowers, and the vowers are not being held responsible for the vowees initial behavior, I just don't think there IS a point. Many new platers are simply confused by the whole vow thing, and since it doesn't really mean anything anymore, why have it?

As I see it there are only 2 options: Either a) Start enforcing vow as stated in the helpfile, or b) Get rid of vow altogether.

[Vogar Eol]

This is a topic that has been discussed before, purticularly on the old forums. AND it is a good topic.

Why do people complain about people like Kiasyn using public channels when they carelessly vow for people? Why can ANYONE over the level of 30 (in a single class) vow for other people? We have Tri-avs that aren't responsible enough as is. You honestly think a level 30 can be trusted with a command such as vow?

People don't NEED to be vowed for to level. That is a commonly held belief, which is false. I have atleast one char that has never recieved a vow. Not being vowed limits your use of the Bank, Public Channels, and Auction. Other then that, it doesn't do much to a character.

How people stop vowing others untill such a time as they are sure they are responsible? They have newbie chat, observe their use of it. If they act like Kiasyn on newbie, why give them the other channels too? Why allow them to auction items that spam the mud? That is what you are doing by senseless vowing.

[Zach]

I agree, but I believe that after you reach a certain level of not being vowed for you should automatically get vowed for by yourself or be able to vow for youself. It would take the place of "Said person has vowed for him" in the who to be "Said person is responsible for his own actions"

I mean, after level 30, if you're still abusing everything, than you're pushing your luck on the game anyways, right?

[Vogar Eol]

Do you know how many Tri-avs push their luck constantly?

If no one vows for you, you should NOT become automaticly vowed after a certain level. That in and of itself says: "If I want to be annoying and abusive on public channels, thats okay. I just have to level more first."

[Hrulgin]

Vogar is right, -way- too many tri-av type people are constant pains in the nether regions. I mean, joking around is one thing, but some people constantly abuse the rules, annoy other players etc etc etc... I guess my point is that if you are going to make someone -eventually- responsible for the actions automatically, then what is the point of vow? let them be annoying jerks responsible for the own actions all along, and maybe they will get in trouble. Although I seriously doubt it.

[Jerardo]

The vow rule is more of a 'suppose-but-not-do' thing. Doubtly anyone is going to 'want' to be responsible for anybody they don't know.. but should the new character have a disadvantage on the channels/auctions/etc? If this rule is enforced, would anybody vow for anyone? Level 30 is not much.. but should be enough for a newbie to learn the game. Most new characters are of existing players though. My opinion is that if 1 character on account gets vowed for.. the account should have commands that of a vowed character.

Anyway, since I don't think everyone would (or even want to) follow through the vow command, maybe it'll be good to just eliminate the disadvantage of not being vowed for.

[lingolas]

i like to see the vow thing for only RP purposes.

[Jorelani]

What exactly is the reason for vow again?

[Isabelle]

1) having a mentor to guide a person, and give them help
2) by being vowed for, this person is saying you have learned enough to continue along with the game, and may now use things such as auction and chat


it doesnt really work out that way, but in theory, its nice


i like asheron calls idea of monarchys, rather than 'you vowing for a person' -- 'a person swears allegience to you'

--and may unswear allegience if the patron does not fulfill their responsibility.

you get 9 max people under you, who in turn each may get 9 people under them, and theres a little formula thing setup that allows a person to gain 'ranks' based upon the structure under them.

[Nellwyn]

As I see it there are only 2 options: Either a) Start enforcing vow as stated in the helpfile, or b) Get rid of vow altogether.

I suggest getting rid of the current vow system all together because there are only a few in addition to myself who are actually enforcing it anyway and unless 'accountability' takes place, the situation won't resolve itself.

There have been a couple times that people who I don't even know, ask me to vow for them. Then when I ask a simple question as to, "Well, you have any alts that I know?" they simply say, "Nvm. Will ask someone else." Then they end up getting vowed for by someone anyway

Concerning what others are commenting on tri-avs, it's a matter of opinion. Yes, there are tri-avs who are annoying enough, but perhaps because they have their opinions like everyone else? That's just it, it's one thing if they are being rude, it's another if they simply state their opinion about something and it offends someone. I can honestly say that there are two tri-avs who are truley rude on OOC. I won't mention names.

I also want to add that the typical 'true' newbie on average isn't that annoying - they are simply lost as far as the game goes so it's easy to define them as being annoying when that are actively asking questions that us 'old players' think they should try to search for the answer themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that, but I have witnessed tri-avs being very sarcastic with 'true' newbies. I see those who are established on the game as being far more annoying/rude themselves than a newbie because they think they know everything. I agree with what a lot have already said in the posts - vowing shouldn't be determined by a certain level.

If anything, players shouldn't be allowed to vow. Perhaps caretakers/JC's could take on that role.

[Arureal]

A: How can the vow system be fixed if we do keep it?

I like what Vogar Eol said, “Why can ANYONE over the level of 30 (in a single class) vow for other people? We have Tri-avs that aren't responsible enough as is. You honestly think a level 30 can be trusted with a command such as vow?â€

[Nellwyn]

Let each Guild set its own requirements for the vowing ceremony.

I like this idea a lot. Perhaps add a setguild rank option for those who are allowed to vow within that guild? Perhaps only members can vow for another member in the guild and not someone out of it? Then when someone acts/speaks inappropriately, then the guilds are held responsible and perhaps suffer a fine of some sort. Could add a little RP into it as well. Could explore the options there. If that (vowed) person has left the guild - perhaps they lose that vow? Thus having to earn it back? We could make vowing more important in the MUD if we did so. I like it

[Arureal]

Nellwyn, I am glad you liked and expanded on the concept of guild involvement in the vowing process because you are a guild owner. I would like to hear what other guild owners think of this also. I like your suggestion of losing a guild vow upon leaving that guild. It could also be used as a disciplinary tool for guilds, get out of line and get your vow suspended.

[Gerret]

I think, if they don't change anything else, caretakers, should be able and being willing to, remove someone's vow, and make it impossible to be vowed for until they show sufficient improvement in character behavior to be vowed for again.

[lingolas]

what if you have limited vows? like 3 vows max. This would encourage players to vow wisely.

[Vogar Eol]

How many characters have been vowed for by Vogar Eol? Sticking with the letter of the law, I refuse to vow for someone I don't know well enough to like and trust. I will not let just anyone carry around my good name.

Celeborn says, "Vogar Eol vowed for that jerk? What was he thinking?"

That is what I hope to avoid.

[Hokuten]

Okay, here are my thoughts.

1.) The right to vow becomes tri-av only.
2.) You may have 5 characters under 30 vowed for at any given time.
3.) Since you're taking responsibility for their actions, you automatically recieve 1/2 of any jail time they happen to accrue.
4.) In case of troublesome newbies (rampant murderers, etc.) I propose a new command: Warn <playername> <reason>. This command would send a message to the vower that their newbie is causing problems.
5.) As an extension of the above, I propose another new command: Unvow <playername> <reason>. The unvowed newbie gets a warning as to why they were unvowed, and until they are vowed for again the reason will be listed in their whois.


Abuses of the system would lead to automatic resetting of the offending vower to level one, and a full purge of their account. Since the player obviously doesn't understand newbies, he/she gets the chance to be one again.

Harsh? Probably - but it's an idea ^_^

[Kiasyn]

too harsh.. we want to encourage people to help newbies, not scare them off :p

[Hokuten]

"People" have failed the newbies, so the system is broken. If the player base was more responsible, this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. It's time for a more harsh system, because the freedom we have now has been exploited far too many times.

[Vogar Eol]

Agreed. Give me a big stick and let me loose.

[Zidane]

maybe you could mix up J.C. and vow together

[Isabelle]

player1 should be able to ask player2 for a vow
player2 (higher level) may vow for said player1

player1 may remove vower at their discretion
player2 may remove said underling at their discretion

something should exist to make it desirable to have a patron and underling hierarchical system.

something should also exist to make it desirable to not leave a master for another. (such as penalties which wear off over time)

[Zidane]

i agree with isabelle on the remove part on the vow but then what happen? Can you still level?

[Vogar Eol]

You have been able to level without being vowed at all for about 2 years now. Only problem is that if you are not vowed you can't use the bank, public channels (including auction)....ect....

Those penalties could be reinstated for a period of time after leaving your master.

[Gilgolad]

Kind of like a Jedi and his Padua learner.
Or a Knight and his Squire.