Decided Against Change the Taglock Rule!

Spoiler: First Argument: PvP bypass / grief is invalid!

Staff likes to argue that tag-locks are a PvP bypass and can be used for grief:

Which is not a valid argument for banning the use of tag-locks because it is already covered in the MyM Rules:

Not to mention the goddess statue in spawn has a right-click function that cures and removes all curses. It's true that not everybody knows this but surely someone would point it out to a distressed player.

Spoiler: Second Argument: Just ask permission is impractical!

Regardless as to whether or not you've had experience in Witchery or just heard about curses you would probably be very hesitant to allow someone to take your blood. It would be difficult to obtain permission and in my opinion part of the fun is sneakily causing people to spontaneously turn purple. (Wasn't me!). Not to mention the PvP aspect. If witchery is PvP and the only way to obtain a tag-lock is by permission or through PvP then do you expect your enemies to let you curse them? Or should you just chase them with a needle while they try to kill you? Sounds kinda silly when I put it that way doesn't it?

Spoiler: The Third Argument: It detracts from the mod!

This one belongs to me and I think it's pretty solid because tag-locks play a very large role in the magical world. First of all for all you muggles out there the function of a tag lock is to specify an entity for some sort of effect but these effects are not inherently hostile. Tag-locks can be used in cauldron rituals, circle magic, poppet magic, or simply to tell our owls where to deliver the mail.

Spoiler: The Suggestion:

I suggest a simply refining the tag-lock rule to be more specific and including a number of scenarios where it is and isn't okay to take a players blood. As a mock up to my suggestion I came up with the following ideas:

 

No idea why you spoiler tag these points it makes it harder to respond to and read in general.

First, taglocks aren't banned. You're more than welcome to collect taglocks from any consenting player.

You are not allowed to collect taglocks without the permission of another player. You are not allowed to collect taglocks from a staff member.

You actually point out why this is the rule in your arguement against the actual rule. You can harm and kill other players. If you wish to engage in PvP with another player it generally requires active consent, exceptions such as the Nether on Agrarian Skies do exist, but are incredibly rare and are always clearly marked at spawn.

 

I think you're twisting my intention behind my first argument. My intended argument was that the rule is redundant and overly specific therefore unnecessary.

 

interesting argument, my points:
i feel that specific taglock actions should be prohibited, not the shotgun eyes closed approach.
typical rules against specifics should suffice.
debating what constitutes "griefing" should be limited to loss or harm, not inconvenience issues.
to qualify the griefing issue, i'd like to hear what parallel modpacks, such as thaumcraft, having limits, what they are, and why they are applied.
one could argue placing a hungry node is griefing, for example, so those nodes should be banned, rather then monitored.
the spread of taint is obviously griefing the server would be another.
i'm sure there are pvp aspects (pun intended) to thaumcraft if abused, should they be included in this survey?
i'd prefer the players be given respect to not harass other players excessively, with penalties appropriate.
banning taglocks is a bit Myopic, and should be given a closer look.

the current rules, use /pvp if you wish to participate
wiki Griefing to understand our position.
(taken from F.A.Q.)

 

dupe post

 

As wyndman said, taglogs are not banned. Permission from the player must be given prior to getting their taglock. This is the same as opting into pvp. Even if the taglock is not for pvp, why would you want to violate their wishes to get the taglock? I'm not sure what the problem with the current rules are here.

 

red banner stating this has been decided against makes me feel this is a closed thread.
as i'm getting spammed in-game with "you have 1 unread message" i felt obligated to reply. (and change default? settings)
not sure if Keiran is attempting to troll, or honestly missing points.
the act of taglocking is not a PvP event, but is being classified as one. "this is the same as..."
arguing that point is showing your lack of familiarity with witchery.
better you cite the exact harms posed with the 10 curses?
arguing semantics is pointless, adding nothing pro or con. banned, prohibited, proscribed, bannable offense? pick one.
"why would you want to violate? their wishes to get the taglock"
If i announce my plan to take a taglock from a player, this does currently NOT constitute "consent" but intent.
if a player willingly opens a leech chest, is that considered consent?
if you need it explained in a more basic way.
think of it as Powergaming Vs Role Playing
should a vampire be allowed to feed off you, if it does 0 damage, if you have PvP toggled off?
the fear of harassment is preventing reasonable discussion working towards the aim of the thread.
should the players decide what is harassment, and what is in character role play?
that is really the point of debate.
and, bypassing pvp restrictions is the current rule, with the act of taglocking being the gray area.

 

I was attempting to be helpful and clarify to your points why the current rules make sense. I kindly suggest rethinking openings like this in the future.

Let me clarify further. A good analogy would be if a player walked into another player's claim. If the owner requests the other player to leave, then that player should honor their wishes (as per the rules page). Since there area is claimed in this analogy, there isn't even the possibility of grief unlike taglocks, yet consent is still needed to enter into personal space.

Anyways, the point is, the consent rule for taglocks is more about respecting another player's wishes about something personal just like in the above example, not about pvp/curse potential.

 

Since this was decided against several days ago, going over the semantics is a bit moot. I'm going to lock the thread for now.