- Joined
- May 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,513
- Reaction score
- 3,018
- Points
- 403
- Age
- 26
- Location
- Regalia.
- Website
- conflee.tumblr.com
Hello everyone! Now, I don't want to make this a salty rant or anything, nor do I want the replies to do so, and I want to point out this is mostly my opinions, and how I feel on the matter. I want to here what others say.
Alright, so, to begin with. As far as I understand, the main reasons for House owners having full control over a character's existence more or less is for a few reasons. If the player randomly goes inactive, or is going fully against the house rules they agreed to when joining, or the player is hit with OOC issues either IRL stuff, or rule breaking etc. The ability to boot a player and have someone continue on is a little bit of a mess, and there are good reasons to do this.
However, there comes a shadier issue where this can be used to undo consequences for IC actions. Say a family suffers an exodus of members because a few members disown the family because of it's actions. Technically speaking, the house head can undo the consequences of their actions by voiding the characters, or replacing their players and having the actions voided. Which, in my opinion, is an issue.
If you screw up enough ICly that members of your house feel the need to publicly disown and denounce you, you deserve to suffer any ridicule or shame this brings to the house, ICly. Giving a player the power to entirely undo this with a wave of a hand and a little paperwork with the players and Noble Managers is too much power OOC.
My solution is simple: Essentially, if a character leaves a house for IC reasons, ownership of this character passes fully to the player. If a head of house wishes to contest this, they need to contact noble management and state how the player's reason for leaving is not valid. Management then get the other player's side of the story and decide who has final say over the character's existence and fate.
In interested in how people feel about this, especially nobles etc. Because as it stands I feel the system is slightly broken in this regard. Anyway, thats it, my simi-rant / discussion done.
Alright, so, to begin with. As far as I understand, the main reasons for House owners having full control over a character's existence more or less is for a few reasons. If the player randomly goes inactive, or is going fully against the house rules they agreed to when joining, or the player is hit with OOC issues either IRL stuff, or rule breaking etc. The ability to boot a player and have someone continue on is a little bit of a mess, and there are good reasons to do this.
However, there comes a shadier issue where this can be used to undo consequences for IC actions. Say a family suffers an exodus of members because a few members disown the family because of it's actions. Technically speaking, the house head can undo the consequences of their actions by voiding the characters, or replacing their players and having the actions voided. Which, in my opinion, is an issue.
If you screw up enough ICly that members of your house feel the need to publicly disown and denounce you, you deserve to suffer any ridicule or shame this brings to the house, ICly. Giving a player the power to entirely undo this with a wave of a hand and a little paperwork with the players and Noble Managers is too much power OOC.
My solution is simple: Essentially, if a character leaves a house for IC reasons, ownership of this character passes fully to the player. If a head of house wishes to contest this, they need to contact noble management and state how the player's reason for leaving is not valid. Management then get the other player's side of the story and decide who has final say over the character's existence and fate.
In interested in how people feel about this, especially nobles etc. Because as it stands I feel the system is slightly broken in this regard. Anyway, thats it, my simi-rant / discussion done.
