The administration feel that protection of -48 hour Gangsters will encourage more players to remain within the game and as such deem it unethical for anyone to kill them. I say why not make it impossible?

There is no basis in real life Mafia history of Dons and Bosses being shot over this and it is roleplay faux pas that it should ever arise. Therefore I would like to suggest that the same protection awarded to Thugs and Petty Thieves is extended for the first 48 hours of each new account.

~G~rin.

Having hardcoded protection for -24's but not for -48's have very real applications to gameplay.

In a major war, having pro'ers available to pro 24 hours after restarting is a huge benefit to a smaller group in a war situation. If the protection for 48's were hardcoded, it would require a change in the ability of a gangster to shoot at 24 hours thus making 'force of numbers' a far more important factor in a large war... rather than strategy and 'work' (the ability of one side to keep enough numbers online).

It's debatable which has the greater pro's, I'm not sure which I feel personally, but I can see a viable and understandable reason to retain the current system as is.

If the only reason to change it is 'some people get the timing wrong and get shot', this is down to a mistake made and I can 100% justify to myself OOC and IC killing them for it.

There is no basis in real life Mafia history of Dons and Bosses being shot over this as in real life Mafia they are not restrained by the rules of a game, where shooting at things gives you a boosted wackstat. While we should aim to roleplay to the greatest extent we can, some things are simply down to game logistics and while we can/do try (and mainly achieve) to roleplay around them.. it will always be the case.

Although i agree with Grin's point that it would simply make life easier to an extent. I have to disagree.

This game, This thing of ours is built around respect and being able to follow simple instructions. If you cannot follow a simple instruction, such as: Don't shoot a -48, then to be quite honest you don't deserve a second chance, in my opinion anyway. I also agree With Godfather Deimne's point on Pro' wackers and their vitality in times of war.

So although it would make life easier, i believe it would benefit the game much more left the way it is. And that people should learn to listen to orders handed down from their superiors.

What are the reasons for not killing -48 hour Gangsters?

I mean I'll happily discuss any legitimate RP reason for it but we simply don't have one. It is an IC decision made for OOC reasons.

This makes me conclude that this should not be a player issue, but an admin one.

~G~rin.

If the admins should ever decide to go down this route, which I can't ever see to be honest. The 48 hour thing is easily solved. We've seen it done before in certain situations infact. Players (new ones) can be given 48 hours protection from the moment of sign-up. This is immediately broken should they shoot, range, whatever.

I tend to agree that this is an OOC driven rule, that we are users have come to admin IC. Really though, there is no actual reason that I can see that it shouldn't be code handled. This isn't just based off today's discussions, it's a view I've always held.

On one hand, there is no reason players shouldn't be able to follow it, BUT if 24 hours is coded, why not 48 given that their protection can easily be broken should they take certain actions (like I say, shoot, range, PP, etc).

we *as users

I can see many reasons to have the 48 rule...

- give new users time to figure out the basics of the game
- give users time to look at the leaders available and make an informed decision on who to pledge their life to
- allow for situations where a specific CL is not online

Looking at it from an IC pov, it gives the potential for more new members to a family/city who could prove to be the next 'grin'... I mean 'great'.

I'm not suggesting that having the 48 hour rule in place will/does have a dramatic impact on the retention of new players, but I can't see how it has the potential to ever hurt it. So from an IC pov I see potential benefits and no negatives to it.

Sure, the RP'ing of it has been tweaked to suit it, but the rule was introduced (I'm assuming here, I wasn't actually around when it first came in.... but it has certainly been retained from my POV) for IC reasons of an OOC nature. This can just as easily be applied to the vast majority of roleplay descriptions for the actions we take on a daily basis (be that a godfather out snatching a purse or a Don out jailbreaking a goomba from another city out of jail) due to the fact that we're playing a game and not REALLY being mafioso. Some give and take has to be allowed/expected to accomodate the restrictions placed on us by the gameplay.

Suggesting that something like the 48 hour rule HAS to be hardcoded to be effective is a point of view I can't quite get my head around. The only reasoning I can see to it is "it stops people who can't control themselves, can't follow rules or who make mistakes from making mistakes". Hitting a 48 is a skill, one that even when well trained/practised can lead to mistakes. It's a risk whenever it's approached. If a hitter is willing to take that risk, they might get the reward... but they know the risk in doing so.

Leaving it non hardcoded provides us with gameplay advantages in times of war (my main issue with the hardcoding of 48 hour protection), the ability to decide when the 48 protection is being abused and remove it ourselves (disrespect, etc) and a further non hardcoded check on the morals/rule following/patience of our members and hitters. If I make a rule, regardless of what it is, I expect the people who have chosen to work with me to follow it without the rule having to be hardcoded in for them.

I can't see any negative to leaving it non hardcoded (I hate killing a good member over it, but it's a known risk they choose to take with clearly known results) but do see negatives to hardcoding it.

I don't want to get into a debate of the rights and wrongs of the 48 hour rule but I don't think that the argument that it doesn't harm new user retention is beyond question.

The first 48 hours of some new user's lives now must be petty after petty.  They don't even have to work for an invite, if they're not too fussy which crew they end up in (and how many new users will be?).

As I've said elsewhere, the thing that hooked me in the .org days was the fact that I knew that I could die at any time, unless I earned my place in a crew (this was the days when all crews were choosy), and that I needed a combination of luck and diplomacy to stay alive.  I doubt that I'm alone in that.

We all know that user retention could be much better yet we plod along with the status quo, rules and policy-wise.

Anyway, apologies for taking what is a suggestion slightly off track.

Great suggestion, one i was planning on making myself. I think the equation is very simple, coded stipulations which ensure the concept is not abused by either side:

The general pretext - The ranks could follow the same path as now,with gangster at 24 hours, with the alteration that they physically cannot be shot at until the 48 hour mark. However, certain actions would void this protection:

1. Joining a family. This maintains the current state of play should a war arise

2.Shooting/pickpocketing. This preserves the rule as it is now

3. In excess of 10 forum posts. This one will no doubt be debated,but I am of the opinion that if one has time to contribute to the forums, then they have time to find a family also.

4. Second username in one master account. The person is no longer 'new' and 48 hour protection is not absolutely necessary.

I don't think shooting ranges should warrant losing protection, if we were using that as justification then earning a gun would be a far more logical reasoning for losing protection; clearly that's ludicrous.

To give some background on the 48H rule for anyone who is unaware; it was originally implemented by players as a temporary measure (because crewleader numbers were low I think). This was later added to by admins because it was deemed to be a more effective method of retention; hence the defense boost to -48s, the markings in profiles, and the colour coded obits.

I would agree that this has essentially become an ooc/admin rule and as such it makes little sense to be enforced by players. I appreciate the argument that it teaches self restraint, control and even patience; but I could suggest far more rp-valid rulings which would serve the same purpose.

Again, I do appreciate that this is a game, and certain things we must compromise on. For example the 'average' made guy is unlikely to know the exact structure and members of a syndicate across the country in LA; but as far as the game goes it would be impossible. However, this is something which would make a difference in the way that (i) we could maintain the rp side of things (ii) the effects of the 48h rule wouldn't be compromised.

It's a fairly known fact that I am in the vehement opposition section of the 48H rule, but isn't out of any frothing at the mouth trigger happy reasoning - I just can't be made to see how it makes any RP sense. If I trawled through every documented case of a made guy dying in the Italian/American Mafia during the prohibition era, I would wager that I could count on one hand the number of guys who were killed outright for clipping an unmade guy.By far the most common situation was that any murder was conveniently overlooked thanks to the mob putting pressure on the media and lining the law's pockets. In occasions where there was significant heat; a made man would lie low and some unfortunate associate would be the fall guy. Only very rarely was there any real consequence for a made guy when a sit down was arranged and he would be made to pay some compenstation to any affected parties.

Unless a mob war was on the horizon, a made man would have to work very hard to get himself killed. I understand within the realms of this game it would not be conduvcive to allow mades to run riot in real life, (where it was a case of using your immunity to exert absolute pressure on those below you rather than a case of more responsibility etc.) but I feel this suggestion is the ideal compromise. It maintains the protection of newer players whilst bringing in a realise sense of accurate rp.

As an aside, this is my personaland experience and I know not everyone is like me but when I first joined this game there was no 48 hour rule. On my first account, I didn't find a family and was shot at gangster. On my second account, I survived a shot before dying. On my third account, I survived a shot before finally finding a family.

Was I put off by this? Christ no, I loved the excitement and I felt INSPIRED, I wanted to succeed and be in the shoes of the guy who was taking the shots. It brought a real 'what happens next' and added to the already vibrant atmosphere. It's what really endeared me to this game. I'll be honest, had I joined in an atmosphere where I was given 48 hours to join a family; and even then I was given around 7 mails advising me what to do and who to join, I'd have probably joined a family and gone ia. Where is the element of risk? Where is the element of excitemet?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not obtuse enough to suggest that shooting at new players will lead to increased user rentention, but I don't necessarily think that overcoddling newcomers does either. In a community such as this, where the vast majority know/are friends with the admin staff - it's good. It creates a shared sense of responsibility whereby we all care for the wellbeing of the game, but in such an environment it is easy to become overly concerned with things like user retention. As a result this means the game loses some of the 'mafia atmosphere', and let's not forget that is WHY newcomers are here, they want to pretend to be a mobster.

As far as user retention goes... as a long time player, sure, I'm all for seeing it increase... but as an honest player I'll happily admit, screw you guys! I'm going to do what's best for me and my character. It's the admin's job to look after that side of things and while I'm willing to try and assist from an OOC pov, I'm not going to compromise my RP/IC actions just to aid it.

As I said at the start, my biggest concern with this proposed change is the impact it can/would have on gameplay. If a -48 has hardcoded protection up until shooting/joining a family... it simply leads to a situation where a pro'er sits outside a family with an invite in hand and when a pro shot is needed they accept the invite, get their perm auth and begin pro'ing. Given that these < made characters can't even be seen in family lists now, it makes spotting/removing pro'ers in a time of war a real nightmare. While my initial concern is not to overly benefit shear force of numbers, this switch (imho) would overly benefit a 'hit and run' style attack (relative to the current system).

The point that the fact that you could die added to the excitement, yet suggesting a change to make it so that even if breaking common rules such as respecting superiors you retain 48 hours hardcoded protection doesn't really make sense to me.

I'm not suggesting that the current system is perfect, as it has been debated for such a long time I believe it's fairly obvious that it's not. I'm just concerned that hardcoding the 48 hour protection is the wrong way to go with it. I personally prefer the existing system to a hardcoded one and believe if it is to change (which some appear to feel very strongly about) it requires a more drastic reworking from the ground up rather than a small tweak to the timeline on the hardcoded protection.

I think the main issue is why is this rule here? As we know, it's not for in-char reasons but is OOC based. I know we've all grown to live with it and work around it. We can even RP the fact that it allows our shooters to show restraint, make sure they aren't making errors and so on. However, the whole game is based around this very concept, we don't need the -48 rule to RP that. It's a theme that runs through the game.

As it is, this seems like fuzzy middle-ground, with 24 of the 48 being coded, and the rest falling on the players. I can't fathom a reason for it being like this except the fact that at one point the grace was extended to 48 hours as a temporary solution and has now stayed because it became preferred by admins without it ever being coded properly and the onus fell onto the players. To me though, the fact it's always been handled this way isn't reason enough not to address it now that it is pretty much a fully fledged game mechanic/ruleset anyway.

As has been outlined, the 48 hour protection can easily be broken by certain actions and we've seen this before when temporary protection has been given to players by the admins (presumably the same code that turns them red in obits, so I guess it's there). I can understand the scenario mentioned where you get someone not joining a family until their "shoot" time, thus ensuring protection.

However, isn't this already possible where during a war a non-affiliated gangster can sit unponsored intentionally and earn a gun, not choosing to join a family until they want to pro. All the while, they (should) have existing protection under the player-imposed -48 banner? (genuine question, I may have missed something in my thinking...) Granted, families in the war can resort to a blanket shooting of any unaffiliated -48s in this case if they think they're assisting enemies.

I guess my point is that no matter what the set-up, the game characters are affected one way or another. The priority should be to ensure that if something is basically just an admin rule, then it should be coded.

I do agree with your point about -48s dying on occasion for disrespect. However, again, I don't see this as a reason to keep it. Currently, we are already in this boat with -24s, where they can get away with all the disrespect they like and we can do nothing. If the extra 24 hour wait to be killed for disrespect is an issue, then one solution off the top of my head is to set-up a hidden flag on those under the -48 hardcoded banner.

If someone is guilty of disrespect, then any current Godfather (or CL, or MM depending on how far you want to take it) has the ability to "put out an early hit" on them (ie, change the "killable" flag from "N" to "Y"), so to speak. Thus breaking their protection for them and ensuring they are killable immediately for disrespect. Putting out this hit would come with a notification to all peers, thus ensuring that it is not abused and if it is abused, punishment can be metted out accordingly.

Some will say that this still introduces aspects of play to the players' doorstep, which it does, but at least it is more along the RP lines (to me anyway). You are admin protected for 48 hours by default, fine, it's a game mechanic. You disrespect me, I will still shoot you. You join a family, you become fair game. You PP, you are fair game. You remain unsponsored for 48 hours but are a good boy, fine.

If the purpose of this extra 24 hour player enforced period is to test player discipline, then removal of any protection at all serves the same purpose.I can see both sides of this, and there are valid points on both ends. I think ultimately though, the players should work around game rules, not be relied on as part of the implementation. Zero protection, ok. 48 protection ok. 24 coded but you want 48...hmm.

Sorry if this post is a bit haphazard, I've basically just typed as the thoughts came in!

I feel the rule is necessary to fill a gap that simply cannot be filled programmatically. New users should be given the opportunity to learn the game without forcing them into a crew, even if they didn't get a chance to explore everything the first moment they signed up. Protection should also not be extended to those who do not deserve it; those who decide they will say whatever they feel like and disrespect every crewleader in the game.

Having certain actions voiding the protection doesn't solve the issues with a hardcoded rule either. First, which actions will void this protection? Will pickpocketing someone void this protection? Pickpocketing to me is as harmful as the "Admin Nerf Wack" - it is simply an action that provides the "Success!" without any real harm done. Others do not the same about it, and look at it as more of an attack. Should the admins be hassled every time the majority opinion changes on this?

A second issue I have with these voiding actions is that it requires their action to be done first. If I get a message that says "I'm going to kill one of your associates" I can't do anything about it until after my associate gets shot at. Why should I have to let this action happen?

My next issue with the voiding issues is simple; it doesn't eliminate some level of user enforcement. If one family is getting an abundant level of kills on those under 48 hours, how does it not look like they are actively going after under 48s in some fashion? Even should one die, does the action that voided their protection warrant that they are killable?

Is this system perfect? As Deimne said, no. An administrative solution will not be perfect either.

PedroRourke

I shan't get into the debate just throw a different idea out there.

Slight rank change.

You are thug for first 48 hours.

On joining a family you turn gangster. (For sake of wars let's say you still remain thug until 24 hours.)

Problems with this?

Pedro, I have to disagree that the gap can't be filled programmatically. As I mentioned, something as simple as a changeable flag would allow 48 hours protection for those that needed/cared to use it, yet also allow those that show disrespect to be punished by whatever level of player had the privilege (as I said, be it GF, CL, Mades, whatever). Infact, if this really is an issue, it is already in existence with the 24 hours pure protection we can do nothing about. This is another reason to fix it...sometimes a -24 does warrant being shot. Such a flag would remove this problem for those under 24 hours too.

Regarding the voiding of protection. The code for this is already in place and used to determine whether someone shows as red or blue in the Obits. Given that this has remained unchanged for a long time, it seems a fair start point at least. I see the point you make about someone threatening to shoot your associate and not be able to do anything about it. Again though, a flag would fix this. You flag him, and shoot him. An alternative is that for -48s we just do not allow them to shoot until they are in a family, therefore if he threatens, he can be killed. If they breach 48 hours then they should have the option of course to shoot freely because they will no longer be under the protection banner.

I agree with your final point, it doesn't eliminate user enforcement. What it does do though is move what should be coding, into coding. As I say, this is already coded in to 24 hours, if the admins want 48, it should be coded, despite the fact we as a userbase have adapted to it. I understand your questions regarding abundant kills and whether voiding protection warrants killing, but they also apply to the current situation with -48s, red and blue obits and the possibility of a family going after the -48s.

The problem I see with "flagging" is that in a time of war, why would anyone NOT flag the people coming back so they can't contribute to the other side?

I brought up pickpocketing as an example of something that currently marks a person red should they die (I have not seen a change written about it, so if it has changed I am unaware). This person, who simply pickpocketed, is now considered killable. Because the system would not allow anyone to kill a person who has not voided this protection, what is to stop people from "testing" everyone under 48 to see if they are killable? "He must have done something to deserve it, as the game let me do it." Do we want to go down the path where we start hard-coding everything and remove thought from aspects of the game, one at a time?

PedroRourke

I have to agree with Pedro's point, specifically where he said:

Do we want to go down the path where we start hard-coding everything and remove thought from aspects of the game, one at a time?

I agree that the administration has already taken steps towards the protection of under 48s with the implementation, and it doesn't seem like too far a stretch to extend the existing hardcoded protection to include an extra day, but where does it end?

The fact that absolute protection is granted to a certain point and then a site wide player instituted protection for -48s has been enforced (regardless for the reasons, OOC or otherwise), gives players the choice to break the rules or not. By hardcoding protection in for these people, it takes away that choice. So if we set a precedent here, where would it end?

Some examples (and while these aren't ruled site wide with an iron fist, I've noted in my time here that most families do adopt these policies, but concede that not all may, but generally they're widely accepted):

Generally its regarded as disrespectful to buy out from one's family to go over to another (the exceptions being if a captain is being set up and the former CL/RHM isn't around to boot them, but in those cases it's prearranged) so why not remove the buy out option completely?

Setting up without authorization is considered rogue (of course, this opinion is usually decided by the victor when 'rogues' pop up during a war), so why not hard code a CL 'authorization' routine, similar to a request for permanent wack auth? No one is even given the option to purchase an HQ without this permission.

Pickpocketing, in the roleplaying sense, is an attack. Though it doesn't affect the character greatly other than the potential loss of 5,000 dollars, why not hard code a user interface option for the character to be open to pickpocketing attacks? Some cities have open rules on this, some cities say you must have permission before you do it, or to check the user profile. Why don't we remove this choice too?

My point is, I think the current system we have works. It gives users a choice... the ability to break the 'law' and the choices we make in this game are what make it different from other sites. While I understand the intent of the suggestion, and the amazing quality of replies both in support and against it, I'd personally like to see THIS aspect of the game carry on being a user supported initiative, and not an admin coded one.

The problem I see with "flagging" is that in a time of war, why would anyone NOT flag the people coming back so they can't contribute to the other side?

If you can only flag at 24 hours, this is no different to what we have now, where you can shoot every -48.

I can understand what both of you are saying about drawing the line and player choice/freedom. This is the point though, this -48 stuff is not player choice even if some like to think it is. It's an admin driven situation that should be handled out of character. We are half-way there already to a fully coded solution red/blue/-48 tags. If, one day, the players decided on a whim to scrap the -48, I would pretty sure that the admins would hard code it. Essentially, I think my concern is not with it being either one way or the other, it's the fact it's neither. I don't particularly care whether it's 0 hours protection or 48 hours protection, as I said, the issue for me seems to be that we have a fuzzy middle ground where there is no need for it.

actually grin it was sort of a unspoken law in the mafia world, it was more of a kill some street rat for no reason and if found out most likely your buissness empire would fall. but if you make it impossible for 48's to be killed disrespect will be heavy on their side and once they are 49 it'll be integrated into their gameplay and make this game a huge pool of disrespectfulls but i do see where you are coming from.

actually grin it was sort of a unspoken law in the mafia world, it was more of a kill some street rat for no reason and if found out most likely your buissness empire would fall.

I disagree 100%. I would refer anyone who wants to argue that the Mob would police their own over the killing of a non-mafioso to an excellent portrayal of the matter in The Sopranos (sure, The Sopranos takes place 60 years after this game's time frame -- but the rules they are referencing were the same old rules of respect that are in play here). The relevant episodes are in season 3, starting at episode six (University) and continuing for the next few episodes. A quick summary:

One of the strippers at Boss Tony Soprano's business, the "Badda Bing" strip club, is found to be pregnant with the child of Made Man Ralph Cifaretto. When she confronts Ralph about this, he turns violent and savagely beats her to death in the parking lot of his boss's business. Tony, exiting his club to see what's going on, finds the dead body and punches Ralph before the rest of his crew are able to restrain him. The crew quickly sets to work attempting to cover up the murder.

The next several episodes deal with the scandal that erupts. Namely, that scandal is that Tony has performed the utterly unacceptable act of striking a Made Guy. No, the scandal is not that the man in question has made business more difficult for his boss by killing someone who worked for him. Tony's excuse of "he disrespected The Bing" by murdering someone in the parking lot and thus exposing it to potential police investigation rings hollow. Eventually, Tony is forced to apologize for his actions and makes up for his disrespect by promoting Ralph to become his newest Capo. Why? Because Ralph was a Made guy. This chick was not a mafiosa, so she was not worth considering. Let me say that again: even as an employee of Tony's own business, she was still nothing worth considering next to the fact that Ralph was a Made Man. If Ralph wanted to kill her and take the risks associated with that, by golly, that was his choice to make and you are utterly out of line if you attempt violence upon him for it.


I bring this up as a vivid example of something that can't really be put into words in a briefer manner. Killing mafioso because they shot an unsponsored -48 has absolutely no coherent in-character reasoning. Any boss that does this is acting completely out of character in their considerations. Even if you try to give an in-character justification by saying "it harms my businesses to have police scrutiny," that doesn't cut it. That's not a good enough reason for a real mafioso -- at least not when the person that killed the innocent victim is Made. A boss that enforces the current -48 regime is quite simply acting as an arm of the administrators, enforcing an admin-endorsed rule made with a mind to further out of character considerations.

I would greatly prefer if some hard-coded solution were offered to this dilemma. I don't think it's a positive to have a role-playing game where crew leaders are expected to be comfortable stepping out of character like this. In my opinion, the imperfections in either Noah Levenstein's or BoabyWan's proposals are much less severe than the imperfections of the current system. I don't think there's a perfect solution, but I do think there is a better way than what we have now.

Another possibility would be something like the current "report spam" function working as a disrespect-meter of sorts. After a 24 absolute protection period is over if enough people get offended by someone's antics they'll lose their hardcoded protection. Much like the "report spam" button, I doubt anyone would risk their accounts over fake reporting just to try to snag a few kills here and there. This would have all the upsides of the current hybrid system but would avoid the downside of schizophrenic RPing involved with enforcing the rule.

I bring this up as a vivid example of something that can't really be put into words in a briefer manner. Killing mafioso because they shot an unsponsored -48 has absolutely no coherent in-character reasoning. Any boss that does this is acting completely out of character in their considerations. Even if you try to give an in-character justification by saying "it harms my businesses to have police scrutiny," that doesn't cut it. That's not a good enough reason for a real mafioso -- at least not when the person that killed the innocent victim is Made. A boss that enforces the current -48 regime is quite simply acting as an arm of the administrators, enforcing an admin-endorsed rule made with a mind to further out of character considerations.

I think that's the nail on the head for me, Lucretia. Whilst we, as players, do support the admins...there is no real reason for this fuzzy area to exist other than the fact it is a hangover from a previous set of circumstances. If it's here to stay, lets do it properly and take it out of character and into the coding domain.