[Discuss] Banning Characters

[John P. Murphy]

On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Timothy Collett wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Tom Vogt wrote:
>> Ban her for wearing inappropriate socks to your dinner party, if you
>> want. You can be as arbitrary as you like, as long as the other  
>> PLAYER
>> knows that the reason isn't his inactivity. What you do to his
>> CHARACTER I don't care about, the Inalienable Rights are there to
>> protect players, not characters.
>
> So, just to clarify:
>
> The reason for the ban has to be something legitimately IC like:
> "You rejected the Crown's authority & insulted the Royal Arbitrator.
> You poorly managed your city & Duchy. You were given many chances to
> change, but did nothing. You were asked to step by the Queen, but did
> not. Now you must be forcibly evicted."
>
> ...which should be acceptable even if the player in question
> *believes* he is being banned for inactivity?

I think that precisely the reverse is true: The important part is  
making sure that the player knows that it's not because of his  
inactivity.  You don't want him thinking, "Aw man, if only I'd had  
less of a social life and logged into BattleMaster more, my character  
would still be a Duchess."

John


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss