A theoretically impossible to avoid CRB?

[Caesar]

You have to use OOC knowledge to have your chars avoid each other.
And if you do not do that, as such doing as the Capital rule tells you, you end up having two chars in the same location, which is CRB too.

So it is always a CRB.

[Genevieve]

So, for my official response to the thread, YES, it's theoretically impossible to avoid breaching the Capital Rule in that hypothetical instance, especially condering how the CR is worded.

But still, pretty girls crying is bad.

Awwwww Sorry

I really do understand, and agree that it without knowing the actual case information it is possible it wasn't a breach in the way we are normally watching for but we still had to act in the same way.

[Piscator]

I often wondered whether the CR should be enforced less strictly. Or rather, whether PD should attempt to prevent situations that make it easy to commit a CRB as strictly as they do now (for the CR itself can't be enforced). It appears from time to time that PD intervention is more hurtful to RP than a small CRB.

Of course that's sometimes unavoidable in an imperfect world.

[Genevieve]

By the way, having read some of the beginning of this thread, I have myself been in a situation whereupon I had NO CHOICE but to have my charries in the same place:

I had a Cpl in the Lad Empire who was ordered to march on a town another charrie of mine lived in. I couldn't warn that town, couldn't have my character leave, and did in fact get killed with the war -- this was before there was tiredness so my Cpl did just what she had to do - going in buildings one by one with her team and killing those ordered to. Since she didn't know the name of the character, I don't know FOR SURE that I killed my own charrie ... but sometimes you have to do what is IC even if you don't want to.

[Wveth]

I don't know FOR SURE that I killed my own charrie.

And that thought will haunt you for the rest of your days...

[Dudel]

By the way, having read some of the beginning of this thread, I have myself been in a situation whereupon I had NO CHOICE but to have my charries in the same place:

I had a Cpl in the Lad Empire who was ordered to march on a town another charrie of mine lived in. I couldn't warn that town, couldn't have my character leave, and did in fact get killed with the war -- this was before there was tiredness so my Cpl did just what she had to do - going in buildings one by one with her team and killing those ordered to. Since she didn't know the name of the character, I don't know FOR SURE that I killed my own charrie ... but sometimes you have to do what is IC even if you don't want to.

If this was a problem for me I'd have the one doomed in the genocide just sleep until death. At least I know why the died when I was checking another character, right?

As for the CR, WELL....

I've read old posts and old writings from older players, Jos himself, and y'all used to CR it UP back in the day. At least according to the current standards that is the CR.

So... I think what happened is there was AT LEAST one person being a major prick and HELLA breaking rules and grouping his characters etc, so then PD was all "F THIS SH- WE'RE STOPPING THIS NOW!" So they dropped some more aggressive interpretations of the CR BUT, because of this, its gotten a little O.o then again... there is no more major dickbag being unpleasant to be around.

I know of AT LEAST one or two players within the last few months who would and DID group characters or treat them as one being etc so I'ma pretend that avoiding my other characters isn't a CR.

Although its still anal-retentive.

Dudel has said his piece! (Again)

[BarbaricAvatar]

Actually, if you have two charries in one town for any period of time (especially two living there) that would constitute a breach. It just so happened she got talked to after interaction but it was a breach of the rule the whole time -- she should never have kept two charries in one town.

Wut? No, a player is allowed 2 chars in one town under the rules, they're just not allowed to work towards the same goals, or on each others projects.
Apart from a few tw..er..special players who abuse the rule repeatedly and aren't allowed more than one.
Three chars though is not allowed, no matter how good the player thinks they are.

However, PD recommends that you don't have more than one to a location as that way nothing can look suspicious in that particular area and the player isn't tempted to help pull the thief into prison "because no one else was awake".

Besides, if a player's unsure of how to deal with a situation while remaining within the rules, how hard is it to send a message to a PD member?

[sanchez]

It's never a CRB to avoid cheating.

The spirit of the CR is that you avoid gaining unfair advantage for your chars over the chars another player would have in the same circumstance by using ooc knowledge the other player doesn't have.

It's important to realise that whenever you play multiple chars interacting with eachother there is an intrinsic advantage that you cannot avoid with rp, not least in that it's you who decides when each char will be awake. You also know their strengths, personalities, goals, friends, etc. Only one person is controlling your chars, and you are making the decisions, not them. It isn't a good excuse to pretend otherwise.

[toon]

It's not CRB to have 2 characters in the same town, is it? You just can't have them working on the same thing and trying to reach the same goal. Or at least that's what I heard a while back.

[sanchez]

It's not CRB to have 2 characters in the same town, is it? You just can't have them working on the same thing and trying to reach the same goal. Or at least that's what I heard a while back.

Think of it this way: if the town, or group, shares resources or profits are distributed among members, and you have two chars who both contribute, they benefit eachother even if not directly. They influence the town in ways a single char couldn't. Likewise, you can have one indoors and one outdoors and still know what's going on. There are many ways in which it is not possible to avoid unfair OOC knowledge when you have two in one place.

[toon]

But if you are really dedicated to keep what a certain person knows, it can't be considered a CRB. ANd if the town is jsut a don't steal kill or crap liek that kind of town, you could keep them seperate. It's just not easy. It would be a better Idea to keep them in different towns, but not really necessary.

[Piscator]

Think of it this way: if the town, or group, shares resources or profits are distributed among members, and you have two chars who both contribute, they benefit eachother even if not directly.

Yes, but characters of different players profit from each other, too. The question shouldn't be if two character of the same player have an advantage from each other, but if they do more so than anybody else.

If someone passes around food, for instance, and gives everyone the same share (including one of his characters) it should be fine. If he passes the double amount, that's where intervention should happen.

[sanchez]

That's true Piscator, but consider a small or developing town. One of your chars can gather resources or trade while the other builds infrastructure, for example. That is something another player can't do. And both chars benefit without any exchange of resources.

[Caesar]

Yet again if that second of your characters would be replaced by another working on that road, you'd have the exact same progress.

And if yours doesn't end up there, another will. So it is unavoidable that your town will see the road-building character.

[Dudel]

And if yours doesn't end up there, another will. So it is unavoidable that your town will see the road-building character.

Although its still anal-retentive.

Dudel has said his piece! (Again)

....again