Petition to restructure the CR's restrictiveness

[Cdls]

But you read too much into the CR in the sense that it's a CR breech to not be true to your character. It's been said a million times that you should be asking yourself, "Is it too easy to have my own character trade with my own character?" Yes. It is. If it's too easy, don't do it and you're not in breech of the CR. There is NO rule that says you have to be entirely true to your character if it's goingto make you break the MAIN point of the CR which is to keep your characters and the knowledge they possess seperate.

If this is the case then why do so many people that come to the forums seeking advice as to what to do when their chars meet get the following:

Just have one sleep
Dont let it happen
And so on


If what you say is true Missy, shouldnt the response to their questions be something like:

If you feel you can play it out fairly and in an individualistic fashion, then just do so. PD will monitor and contact you if they feel that something isnt right.


Or something along those lines?

[Missy]

But you read too much into the CR in the sense that it's a CR breech to not be true to your character.

I don't know where people get the idea that that's even a CR breech. When they say being true to your character/consistent, they mean he shouldn't spontaneously start cursing out everyone in town if he's actually a nice business like guy who does banking all the time. And no, he shouldn't do that if your other character suddenly arrives in town wanting to cause a war, either. [EDIT}They're saying if you know you dislike a certain character in game that shows up in another town where another of your characters happens to be, but you would ordinarily trade with anyone, you shouldn't refuse to trade with the guy because you know through your other character that the guy rips people off. I wish I could point to the person who said "But isn't it a CR breech if you're not playing your character just to avoid breaking the CR to begin with??" That was the dumbest thing I've ever heard people start saying on here. That's what started this whole mess. It is NOT a CR breach to keep your characters seperate. It is not a CR breech to keep one asleep so that you don't break the REAL points of the CR. Period. It's not.



It becomes difficult to tell when a player is making up excuses so that they can just take an easy way out and allow their chars to work together. One thing we use is "how often" does a person do that? If they do it often it's likely that they need to try harder not to be involved in those situations.


When I joined the PD eons ago, one of the questions was to explain what would be a good example of why your characters would be working togethr? My answer was this------

.) Are there any circumstances in which multiple characters of the same
player working together are not violating the capital rule? Explain

No and yes. Most cases your characters should not be working together,
deffinately not, if it is for the players personal gain. While there are
rare instances where characters must work together. Such as character A
joins Cult Mech and climbs to the top of the ladder, character B joins
Quillanoi govt, in the end both the cult and the govt join together for the
benefit of quillanoi. Both characters in the beginning strove to climb to
the top of the work force. Thus, both characters, a and b would be working
for the same goal. I can see that as legitimate. BUT only if the joining of
the two groups was ~not~ forced, by the player of the characters; IE having
both characters push for the joining of the two groups.

I quote. "Rare instances." I handed that application in in 2004. Rare instances. Lately, for a lot of people, it is seeming an every day occurance. People seem to not even TRY to keep their characters seperate ever since people started saying that it was a CR breech to avoid your chars personality to avoid breaking the cr. Gods.

BUT only if the joining of
the two groups was ~not~ forced, by the player of the characters; IE having
both characters push for the joining of the two groups.

And that means, I better find out that some character NOT belonging to you, is the one who made the suggestions that the two groups join. Or I better find out that some character was threatening yours, that you HAD to join the groups. And I better not find out that it was your friend from Yahoo who you once made the statement to that, "I would like to see Cult Mech become Quillanoi's government, but I think people would think I was cheating unless someone else suggested it." And I better not find that you have 6 different pairings of two or more characters through-out the game, all trying to be in orginaztions together. If it is such a RARITY, which it IS because I can do it. Then there's no reason a person should have six different pairings. Not even five. Not even four. Maybe three though it's still unlikely. Maybe two. But more t han likely, only one or two instances is actually even close to really trying to keep their characters seperate and keep in line with the CR.



That's just always been my take on it. Of course Im a hardass so...

[Cdls]

Actually Missy, you do not come off as a hardass at all. That was actually the sanest thing I have heard mentioned in regard to what I posted. That is the idealism that I think should be posted more clearly in the WIKI, not the conflicting idea that it currently has.

I know that the WIKI states:

* You are not allowed to have more than one character in the same organization.
* You are not allowed to have more than two characters on the same location.
* You are not allowed to ask friends out-of-character to help you with something in-character, or to quickly log in to help.
* You are not allowed to attack the same character by several of your own characters.
* You are not allowed to spread maps or other in-game information by out-of-character means, like your own website.

Although these rules help as simple guidelines, it should be emphasized that they do not replace the Capital Rule as such.

All you really see is "you are not allowed" constantly, even though at the bottom it states that it is just a general guideline, people get the impression thats all thats looked at.


Honestly Missy, I think your last post should be C&P'd to the end of the rule section of the wiki, at least to clarify the what the CR is about.