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.
To Vow or not to Vow
Started by Hrulgin on Jan 26, 2005 · 58 posts in thread
Hrulgin (#1)
Vogar Eol (#2)
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.
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 (#3)
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?
I mean, after level 30, if you're still abusing everything, than you're pushing your luck on the game anyways, right?
Vogar Eol (#4)
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."
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 (#5)
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 (#6)
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.
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 (#7)
i like to see the vow thing for only RP purposes.
Jorelani (#8)
What exactly is the reason for vow again?
Isabelle (#9)
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.
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 (#10)
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.Hrulgin wrote: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.
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 (#11)
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?”
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?”
Nellwyn (#12)
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 itArureal wrote:Let each Guild set its own requirements for the vowing ceremony.
Arureal (#13)
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 (#14)
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 (#15)
what if you have limited vows? like 3 vows max. This would encourage players to vow wisely.
Vogar Eol (#16)
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.
Celeborn says, "Vogar Eol vowed for that jerk? What was he thinking?"
That is what I hope to avoid.
Hokuten (#17)
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 ^_^
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 (#18)
too harsh.. we want to encourage people to help newbies, not scare them off :p
Hokuten (#19)
"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 (#20)
Agreed. Give me a big stick and let me loose.
Zidane (#21)
maybe you could mix up J.C. and vow together 
Isabelle (#22)
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)
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 (#23)
i agree with isabelle on the remove part on the vow but then what happen? Can you still level?
Vogar Eol (#24)
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.
Those penalties could be reinstated for a period of time after leaving your master.
Gilgolad (#25)
Kind of like a Jedi and his Padua learner.
Or a Knight and his Squire.
Or a Knight and his Squire.
Isabelle (#26)
or a sorceress and her apprentice
Hokuten (#27)
@Isabelle - I tend to disagree with that one. A sorceress would likely have some abilities specific to herself or her craft that she would pass on to her apprentice. As it stands now, a paladin could vow for a mage. To make your analogy more accurate, what about restricting vows to those sharing a class as the vower? I'm still surprised about how many paladins I meet who don't know about Laying of Hands. Taking this a step further, what about giving each class an ability (similar to what LoH is for paladins) that could only be learned from someone who vows for you? Not sure how feasible that would be, but it's something more than what we have now.
- Just my thoughts ^_^
- Just my thoughts ^_^
Quintos (#28)
Hokuten: That is an interesting idea, but how about change it to have 2 extra (relatively weak) skills per class. One would be for those who have the same class, the other for those of a different class. A warrior may pass to other warriors an extra skill similar to equilibrium, but would pass to a mage a skill which increases their mobility. I would also restrict vowing to tri-avs (or possibly tri-classes...but not much difference), as we have plenty of these around as it is. I would also reinstate the levelling cap before vow at either 10, 30, or Av (can't multiclass without a vow). When you are vowed for, you would gain 4 skills. A warrior would learn both the enhanced equilibrium (which is weaker than regular equilibrium) skill and the increased mobility skill (which would be pretty weak).
Note: The first class of the vowee would have to be one of the classes of the vower.
Note: The first class of the vowee would have to be one of the classes of the vower.
Hokuten (#29)
I think that might make things a bit complicated, and too many people would cry "unfair" if they got vowed for by someone with a skill they find to be useless. Besides - none of these abilities would be new, they'd just be ones that already exist. These abilities would be paramount to the usefulness of a character. Equilibrium is a great example of this ^_^
Here's how I see it working out...let's say Player 1 wants to vow for Player 2. Player 1 must be a tri-av, and Player 2 must be one of the classes that Player 1 is (so if Player 1 is a White Magician, (s)he can't vow for a Druid). Player 1 (White Magician) vows for Player 2 (Paladin). Yay! Now Player 2 can level beyond 10, exit the Newbie Guild, and enter Alora as a happy member of our community. Now Player 2 isn't a full-fledged Paladin yet, because (s)he can't actually *use* Laying of Hands yet. Under the guidance of Player 1, Player 2 learns about the game. Player 1 teaches Player 2 about ooc, auctioning, guilds, and other subjects of interest. In addition, Player 1 helps Player 2 with a bit of equipment here and there.
Here's where things start to split...
Let's say Player 2 doesn't cause any trouble and advances to level 30. Woot! Now (s)he can use Laying of Hands like a real Paladin! All is well, and another happy newbie joins the ranks of erm...Alorians.
Now for the fun part...Player 2 decides that (at lv. 25) (s)he is capable of one-(wo)man armying Alora. After a successful spamming spree, Player 1 decides not to risk his/her neck by vouching for this newbie any longer. Using the "unvow" command, Player 1 removes Player 2's ability to use any of those unlocked channels. Poor Player 2...now his/her bio lists just why the vow was taken away, in the words of Player 1. Here's where Player 3 comes into the story ^_^
Player 3 meets all of the requirements for being able to vow for Player 2. After some discussions and promises to be a good boy/girl, Player 2 gets vowed for again. However, Player 2 gets to wait an extra (30-25=5) FIVE levels to use Laying of Hands. Instead of getting it at lv. 30, (s)he has to wait until lv. 35 as punishment for being stupid.
So what happens if Player 1 only unvowed out of spite? Player 2 can bring the matter up with a Caretaker, who will issue a FINAL and BINDING decision on the matter.
"But Ten," you ask, "what if Player 1 is a horrible vower and never helps Player 2?" Glad you asked! Player 2 can use the "renounce" command to appeal to the Caretakers to crack down on Player 1.
Before anyone says it - abuse of the system will not be tolerated. If you're caught trying to do such a terrible thing, punishment will be swift. Tri-avs will have their characters purged of all equipment and newbies will get banned for a few days to cool off a bit.
As for what abilities you would get, I'm not proposing *new* abilities, so much as perhaps just something you wouldn't want to not have. Equilibrium would be a good one...not sure about other classes...
Here's how I see it working out...let's say Player 1 wants to vow for Player 2. Player 1 must be a tri-av, and Player 2 must be one of the classes that Player 1 is (so if Player 1 is a White Magician, (s)he can't vow for a Druid). Player 1 (White Magician) vows for Player 2 (Paladin). Yay! Now Player 2 can level beyond 10, exit the Newbie Guild, and enter Alora as a happy member of our community. Now Player 2 isn't a full-fledged Paladin yet, because (s)he can't actually *use* Laying of Hands yet. Under the guidance of Player 1, Player 2 learns about the game. Player 1 teaches Player 2 about ooc, auctioning, guilds, and other subjects of interest. In addition, Player 1 helps Player 2 with a bit of equipment here and there.
Here's where things start to split...
Let's say Player 2 doesn't cause any trouble and advances to level 30. Woot! Now (s)he can use Laying of Hands like a real Paladin! All is well, and another happy newbie joins the ranks of erm...Alorians.
Now for the fun part...Player 2 decides that (at lv. 25) (s)he is capable of one-(wo)man armying Alora. After a successful spamming spree, Player 1 decides not to risk his/her neck by vouching for this newbie any longer. Using the "unvow" command, Player 1 removes Player 2's ability to use any of those unlocked channels. Poor Player 2...now his/her bio lists just why the vow was taken away, in the words of Player 1. Here's where Player 3 comes into the story ^_^
Player 3 meets all of the requirements for being able to vow for Player 2. After some discussions and promises to be a good boy/girl, Player 2 gets vowed for again. However, Player 2 gets to wait an extra (30-25=5) FIVE levels to use Laying of Hands. Instead of getting it at lv. 30, (s)he has to wait until lv. 35 as punishment for being stupid.
So what happens if Player 1 only unvowed out of spite? Player 2 can bring the matter up with a Caretaker, who will issue a FINAL and BINDING decision on the matter.
"But Ten," you ask, "what if Player 1 is a horrible vower and never helps Player 2?" Glad you asked! Player 2 can use the "renounce" command to appeal to the Caretakers to crack down on Player 1.
Before anyone says it - abuse of the system will not be tolerated. If you're caught trying to do such a terrible thing, punishment will be swift. Tri-avs will have their characters purged of all equipment and newbies will get banned for a few days to cool off a bit.
As for what abilities you would get, I'm not proposing *new* abilities, so much as perhaps just something you wouldn't want to not have. Equilibrium would be a good one...not sure about other classes...
Isabelle (#30)
i don't want anything that relies on caretaker intervention.
instead of skills, you could use experience, like 1 percent of experience that the apprentice gains, is given to the master/mistress as a 'payment' for their teachings.
to prevent abuse, no player would be able to vow for more than X amount of players at a given time, if you want to vow for someone over your 5? max players, you would need to drop one.
note: any experience gain would only be given if the players are connected, no logging off for a month, then coming back in to gather your xp.
and it should never be enough to really make or break you, if 1 percent is too high, lower it. (50 xp per apprentices gained level)
players should be able to vow or unvow at their leisure, the patron takes no responsibility for apprentices who decide to leave them.
So at no time would a patron be given a penalty, only the apprentice will suffer the penalty if they "break their allegiance"
if the patron removes an apprentice, the apprentice would not suffer any penalty. It's only when an apprentice is the initiator of the broken allegiance, that a penalty is inferred.
instead of skills, you could use experience, like 1 percent of experience that the apprentice gains, is given to the master/mistress as a 'payment' for their teachings.
to prevent abuse, no player would be able to vow for more than X amount of players at a given time, if you want to vow for someone over your 5? max players, you would need to drop one.
note: any experience gain would only be given if the players are connected, no logging off for a month, then coming back in to gather your xp.
and it should never be enough to really make or break you, if 1 percent is too high, lower it. (50 xp per apprentices gained level)
players should be able to vow or unvow at their leisure, the patron takes no responsibility for apprentices who decide to leave them.
So at no time would a patron be given a penalty, only the apprentice will suffer the penalty if they "break their allegiance"
if the patron removes an apprentice, the apprentice would not suffer any penalty. It's only when an apprentice is the initiator of the broken allegiance, that a penalty is inferred.
Kiasyn (#31)
i am never ever ever vowing for anyone ever again
Hokuten (#32)
I only used the idea of intervention to keep people from doing something stupid. If you know that the possibility of losing everything you've worked so hard for is out there, you're less likely to try and risk it all just to spite some newbie who hasn't really hurt you at all.
Caretaker intervention in times of unfairness isn't exactly an alien concept. If you're being threatened, or if some player is abusing the system - you get the Caretakers involved. Dropping a player who is troublesome penalizes them (by removing OOC and their ability to level), so it's *entirely* possible for someone to abuse that. Abuse of any kind becomes the problem of the Caretakers, doesn't it?
Caretaker intervention in times of unfairness isn't exactly an alien concept. If you're being threatened, or if some player is abusing the system - you get the Caretakers involved. Dropping a player who is troublesome penalizes them (by removing OOC and their ability to level), so it's *entirely* possible for someone to abuse that. Abuse of any kind becomes the problem of the Caretakers, doesn't it?
Isabelle (#33)
thats right, which is why, when we brainstorm new ideas, i first say 'OK, how can we make this, so that there is 'no' abuse possible'
i don't want caretakers being 'needed' for day to day gameplay.
i don't want caretakers being 'needed' for day to day gameplay.
Hokuten (#34)
How do you propose abuse be limited? My idea was to create a bit of "mutual risk" to prevent people from trying to work the system to their advantage. The person vowing risks losing their stuff if they cheat, and the vowee risks being slowed down by lack of certain channels. Vowing should be a very serious process, because it helps new people learn the game and builds something close to a community.
Vogar Eol (#35)
I can think of only a handful of times in the past when one player actively has looked at another player, taken pity on them and their weak understanding of the game, and then done their best to help improve their understanding.
For the most part, help has been extremely basic. "Here is a good couple places to level. Use this to help you heal. Here is a little better gear. Attack the mobs like this." Yes, that does help someone out. It does not count as a complete mentoring, however.
What we need are people willing to put time and effort into identifying real newbies, and then teach them the ins and outs of how the game works. I know I have done this for atleast three people, and it greatly helped them understand the game.
How many people have you vowed? How many of the people you have vowed understand the game as fully as you do?
For the most part, help has been extremely basic. "Here is a good couple places to level. Use this to help you heal. Here is a little better gear. Attack the mobs like this." Yes, that does help someone out. It does not count as a complete mentoring, however.
What we need are people willing to put time and effort into identifying real newbies, and then teach them the ins and outs of how the game works. I know I have done this for atleast three people, and it greatly helped them understand the game.
How many people have you vowed? How many of the people you have vowed understand the game as fully as you do?
Zidane (#36)
i have to agree with vogar eol on the helping part. i have help plenty in my guild (The Forsaken) and newbie with just about everything i know.
Inviting wrote:For more help in the game just type guild apply The Forsaken and ill make it worth wild.
Faloric (#37)
When I started playing Dark Legacy, I was level 10, and could not advance, and I kept asking for three or four days to get vowed for by someone. I tried not to be too pushy... 
I have also tried to behave myself with all of my characters.
Now, when I make alts, I have gotten vowed within five minutes of asking just once, and only one other person (Gaitika, I think) asked me who I was. I feel that it is too easy to get vowed for these days, and I agree with most statements above regarding the need to change vow. Although I thank those who have vowed for my recent alts (I ask for vow mostly so that I can use auction to share my gains from my adventures in a way that brings in some small money...), I applaud Gaitika for asking. I also apologize for not responding when asked, as my character had just been vowed right before I was asked.
I will have to think on the ideas presented here, and see if I can add anything constructive to them.
I have also tried to behave myself with all of my characters.Now, when I make alts, I have gotten vowed within five minutes of asking just once, and only one other person (Gaitika, I think) asked me who I was. I feel that it is too easy to get vowed for these days, and I agree with most statements above regarding the need to change vow. Although I thank those who have vowed for my recent alts (I ask for vow mostly so that I can use auction to share my gains from my adventures in a way that brings in some small money...), I applaud Gaitika for asking. I also apologize for not responding when asked, as my character had just been vowed right before I was asked.
I will have to think on the ideas presented here, and see if I can add anything constructive to them.
ShanaArkai (#38)
i like the idea of giving a vower JC powers over their noob. and add in some kind of a warn system. a noob would be able to get 5 warning from other players before their vower would have to put them in time out. if the vower did not adhear to his responsibilitys to teach the noob right from wrong he would be maked for jail time. so say Nimisis vowed for Eltain back when he started, and eltain made a few other players mad, they all give him a warning, which would have to have a real reson in it. once eltain got 5 warning nimisis would have to jail him within an hour (only counting time they are both online) or be jailed himself for neglect.
also any vower that dosnt spend atleast 1 hour online with his noob must pay a fine and relinquish his responsibilitys. (i know i spelled a lot of stuff wrong but oh well)
also any vower that dosnt spend atleast 1 hour online with his noob must pay a fine and relinquish his responsibilitys. (i know i spelled a lot of stuff wrong but oh well)
Kiasyn (#39)
hmm so i could vow for people who didnt want me to then jail them? neat..
Bon (#40)
ok get real people there is no problem with voiw if you dont want to hear what people are saying on ooc and such TURN IT OFF or ignore them OR go RP sense you want it used for a rp reason why dont you just go into goddamned rp mode? then you dont have to hear a damned thing ok? good and without vowing you cant use certin things such as YELL so if your pet is in a differant room and you want it to come into your room your basicly screwed unless it already has a pet hoop or you have enough favor as a level 4 (unlikely)
Gilgolad (#41)
That is quite possibly the best rant i have ever heard because that MAKES PERFECT SENSE! Kudos to Bon. If ya don't wanna hear it TURN IT OFF.Bon wrote:ok get real people there is no problem with voiw if you dont want to hear what people are saying on ooc and such TURN IT OFF or ignore them OR go RP sense you want it used for a rp reason why dont you just go into goddamned rp mode? then you dont have to hear a damned thing ok? good and without vowing you cant use certin things such as YELL so if your pet is in a differant room and you want it to come into your room your basicly screwed unless it already has a pet hoop or you have enough favor as a level 4 (unlikely)
weems (#42)
Gilgolad wrote:That is quite possibly the best rant i have ever heard because that MAKES PERFECT SENSE! Kudos to Bon. If ya don't wanna hear it TURN IT OFF.Bon wrote:ok get real people there is no problem with voiw if you dont want to hear what people are saying on ooc and such TURN IT OFF or ignore them OR go RP sense you want it used for a rp reason why dont you just go into goddamned rp mode? then you dont have to hear a damned thing ok? good and without vowing you cant use certin things such as YELL so if your pet is in a differant room and you want it to come into your room your basicly screwed unless it already has a pet hoop or you have enough favor as a level 4 (unlikely)
Actually it doesn't make any sense at all, and largely ignores the entire point of this thread.
Vow was originally intended as a certain kind of mentoring program, where new people could get taken under somebodies wing. The problem is that it is not seen as this anymore, so the result is that everybody just gets vow'd instantly.
That is not a problem in of itself. The issue is that if vow isn't being used for this purpose, why does it even exist?
Two solutions:
1. Remove vow completely, allowing everybody to use ooc and other such channels at creation.
2. Revamp the entire vow system.
Silvanos (#43)
And I, quite predictably, disagree with Bonn's rant. Aside from the weirdness of ideas etc, the main point behind all this discussion is that people actually want to improve something about the game. The concept of vowing could mean so much more, and help structure the way newbies learn about the game. But no, if you have something to say or improve upon: DONT, I REPEAT DONT! Ignore your inner urging to express human intellect, kindness, and ingenuity. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG! Literally take your head, and shove it into the sand. Once all problems arent visually perceivable, they go away. No really, they do....trust me.
(Personal aside: if Bonn advocates ignoring things you have a problem with...then why oh why would he post about it instead of just ignoring it)
(Personal aside: if Bonn advocates ignoring things you have a problem with...then why oh why would he post about it instead of just ignoring it)
Gilgolad (#44)
OK, i think you guys just hate Bonn and out of that ground are commited to disagreeing with everything he says. Therefore he disagrees with you. (Therefore you are actually both in agreement not to agree with each other thereby completly contradicting your feud.)
The point he was trying to make was that some people do not want to be vowed for out of the fact that they don't want all those channels. I've heard it before.
"HEY! I didn't want to be vowed for!!!"
"Sorry man, just figured at level 40 you needed a vow by now. Sorry that i didn't realise my mistake until it was to late."
Instead of not being vowed for, do as Bonn had said, because alot of times that person is trying to RP, and should just turn on the RP mode.
The point he was trying to make was that some people do not want to be vowed for out of the fact that they don't want all those channels. I've heard it before.
"HEY! I didn't want to be vowed for!!!"
"Sorry man, just figured at level 40 you needed a vow by now. Sorry that i didn't realise my mistake until it was to late."
Instead of not being vowed for, do as Bonn had said, because alot of times that person is trying to RP, and should just turn on the RP mode.
Quintos (#45)
Bonn's post was, from what I can understand of it, off-topic and, in my opinion, idiotic. He completely ignores the point of the topic and insteads rants about how people who don't want to be vowed for should just accept it and go into RP mode? Perhaps their wishes not to be vowed for should just be followed. If you're vowing for people without even talking to them, you are plain stupid; vowing, as its supposed to be, is a pledge to take responsibility for a new player and, as such, should not be done so lightly. If you talk to them and they tell you they don't wish to be vowed for, you're just a plain asshole. I believe that vowers in either of these situations should be punished severely.Hrulgin wrote:Many new platers are simply confused by the whole vow thing, and since it doesn't really mean anything anymore, why have it?
I agree with Hrulgin that the vowing system, in its current form, is pretty pointless in its current form and should either be completely taken out and, possibly, be implemented into the family or guild systems.
weems (#46)
I would still disagree with that, because it turns into a veritable pissing contest of who gets to have their name stamped into your biography permanently. This pisses people off, including me.Gilgolad wrote:OK, i think you guys just hate Bonn and out of that ground are commited to disagreeing with everything he says. Therefore he disagrees with you. (Therefore you are actually both in agreement not to agree with each other thereby completly contradicting your feud.)
The point he was trying to make was that some people do not want to be vowed for out of the fact that they don't want all those channels. I've heard it before.
"HEY! I didn't want to be vowed for!!!"
"Sorry man, just figured at level 40 you needed a vow by now. Sorry that i didn't realise my mistake until it was to late."
Instead of not being vowed for, do as Bonn had said, because alot of times that person is trying to RP, and should just turn on the RP mode.
voska (#47)
then vowing should be limited to i think 3 ppl tops, that is if u wish to have it revamped
ShanaArkai (#48)
another idea i was thinking of was the ability of the newbie to config -allowvow that way if you dont want a certain player to vow for ya you turn it on till the one you do want to vow for ya is ready to vow
Quintos (#49)
...or we could just punish those who vow carelessly as they should be punished...ShanaArkai wrote:another idea i was thinking of was the ability of the newbie to config -allowvow that way if you dont want a certain player to vow for ya you turn it on till the one you do want to vow for ya is ready to vow
Bon (#50)
oh it was off topic? im sorry i was assuming we were taling about vowing HOW "idiotic" of me look my point was made and it was hardly off topic and all of your sugestions would not improve the game it would make it more of a pain see if you dont vow odds are you will have newbies running around asking for a vow every 5 seconds and you will ignore them anyways or you will go rp or turn off the channels i dont give a damn what you do with vow but if you do you need to make somethings aviable without it such as yell thats the main one
weems (#51)
Then your official stance would be the removal of vow, yes? That way everybody gets access to all the channels at the start, without having to worry about getting a vow.Bon wrote:oh it was off topic? im sorry i was assuming we were taling about vowing HOW "idiotic" of me look my point was made and it was hardly off topic and all of your sugestions would not improve the game it would make it more of a pain see if you dont vow odds are you will have newbies running around asking for a vow every 5 seconds and you will ignore them anyways or you will go rp or turn off the channels i dont give a damn what you do with vow but if you do you need to make somethings aviable without it such as yell thats the main one
Bon (#52)
no not access to all channels just the basics newbie and yell and auction they shouldnt get any others untill vowed for
weems (#53)
Bon wrote:no not access to all channels just the basics newbie and yell and auction they shouldnt get any others untill vowed for
......................
Wow. Your lack of understanding is amazing.
Isabelle (#54)
having a set level of say 10 before you can converse to the world would be reasonable if vow was removed (as it currently functions)
Nyneave (#55)
Hokuten wrote: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 ^_^
Otay i havent really read past here yet so i just want to get this out.the unvowing would be great but to have the reason in their bio?that i dont really like
Lhile (#56)
I think the reason should be in their bio. It would warn other people about them so that would help their decision on whether they should vow for them or not...These rules would certainly make the vowing system actually helpful.
Isabelle (#57)
i'd rather just see a 'family' / or 'hierarchical structure' used as i have mentioned in some old old posts.
you take in an underling - you get x number of underlings max
those underlings get x number of underlings each, etc, etc
you may remove an underling, and they may rid themselves of you
when they rid themselves of you, they are penalized for x number of days before they can choose a new 'master / mistress'
you are not penalized for removing an underling
I would like to see that as a standalone feature - no guilds, no families
just this hierarchy
you take in an underling - you get x number of underlings max
those underlings get x number of underlings each, etc, etc
you may remove an underling, and they may rid themselves of you
when they rid themselves of you, they are penalized for x number of days before they can choose a new 'master / mistress'
you are not penalized for removing an underling
I would like to see that as a standalone feature - no guilds, no families
just this hierarchy
Nyneave (#58)
why not guilds, families, AND this hiearchy?(spelled that wrong didnt i?)
