Ugh. This is -

Ugh. This is -:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by TotW on July 7, 2000 at 14:04:51:

In Reply to: One fairly large point posted by Macheath on July 7, 2000 at 13:49:10:

Ugh. This is getting to be fairly complex. And I remember a good seventy posts on it, earlier. So, I'll leave it alone, except to say,

1. I see your point.
2. The only thing Arbiters regulate in cities is playerkilling.
3. I don't feel playerkilling should be regulated in cities for a variety of reasons (roleplaying related). I feel there is adequate historical justification (re: "realism") of societies that support this, so it is not so crazed a concept (to me).
4. If playerkilling is not regulated in cities, there is no need for arbiters.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. If I come up with something more (new) to contribute, I will.

Follow Ups:

I still don't see Imbrogno 14:09:48 7/7/2000 (4)
- and arbiters still don't Graham 07:39:15 7/8/2000 (0)
- Clarification TotW 14:31:14 7/7/2000 (1)
  - You're missing one very important point Imbrogno 14:38:31 7/7/2000 (0)
- a bit on duels... JARF 14:29:32 7/7/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> Ugh. This is getting to be fairly complex. And I remember a good seventy posts on it, earlier. So, I'll leave it alone, except to say, > 1. I see your point. > 2. The only thing Arbiters regulate in cities is playerkilling. > 3. I don't feel playerkilling should be regulated in cities for a variety of reasons (roleplaying related). I feel there is adequate historical justification (re: "realism") of societies that support this, so it is not so crazed a concept (to me). > 4. If playerkilling is not regulated in cities, there is no need for arbiters. > Anyway, thanks for your reply. If I come up with something more (new) to contribute, I will.