Extended Griefing is prohibited

[Mack]

yep if im losing youre greifing, i think thats it

[Grimrock Litless]

This rule really boils down to intent, if the attacker is attacking someone for BOTH of them to lose something and never gain, that is grief, unless in the case of retaliation.

Rules are there so we get the idea of what we shouldn't do, the mods are the law at the end of the story, they determines if the person broke the rules of not.

I've seen lots of cases of griefing, most people who grief are obvious and in the end, gets a straight up ban, to get rid of their toxic from the game in an instant, because they all know, they are very bad for business.

[Poppy]

I hit you for 3 months : justified retaliation
You hit me for 3 days : unjustified griefing

See, its simple : all depends on your point of view.

[Captain Jack]

How do players report a case of Griefing? PMs direct to you CJ?

Will there be Griefing moderators in the future, much like forum mods? Or will this always be dealt with by Admin?

What are the consequences of Griefing? Warning, suspension, ban??

Since I am the only person handling such issues, it makes no difference if you use Contact form or PM. Contact forms though are better as they go through a structured system that retains everything in an organized manner and at an official state. PMs can be forgotten. So I guess that you should always use Contact Us link for reports.

I consider such issues limited. This limited issues are surely really hard to solve by someone inexperienced and someone without the required authority within the game. So it is safe to say that such issues will always be resolved by myself and no one else.

It will depend on the case. We have stopped issuing bans to regular players for some years now. The playerbase after all shows understanding in most cases and this allows us to rectify every case with fair penalties. Bans are only for those that fail to understand the rules and continuously violate them. Or for double accounts. This is quite a rare case to happen in PG. The important is to have an understanding with each other and try to preserve the community here by casting out behaviors, not personalities.

[Captain Jack]

How long is it long enough to make griefing extended/illegal?

I cannot answer this as every case is different.

If I wanted to give out some general guidelines, I would say that the following scenarios could be considered as good examples of sportsmanship:
-24 hours of onslaught for a fair warning
-3 days of onslaught for a harsh warning
-7 days of onslaught for an overkill

[Captain Jack]

By definition, it is not just time to my understanding.
More the intent.
If you are trying to keep an individual from returning to the game
that would be griefing.
If you have a few ships and are not worth hitting and you attack over and over at cost to you and no profit
that would be griefing
If you are hitting because you dont like someone personally
that would be griefing.
But I believe it is written so that ultimately it is the admins decision and not a group of griefers

I think this is a nice summary dman.
I believe that we most know when we or another player crosses the line.

[Captain Jack]

when it becomes non profitable for the attacker i suppose...

say you have a bully, you decide to drop all ships and just cut loose with voodoo of any kind, just as a goal of makeing them leave you alone in the long run.. So you start casting voodoo to waste thier clearing voodoo, just to cost them credits and cards and turns.. you do this for some time.. now the point that the recipiant gets the idea you arnt an easy target and you keep on going just to be attacking, thats when its extended greifing, in my view atleast

the profit here would be the bully leaving you alone, once that is accomplished then any further attacks on the same fellow would be greifing, thatis unless the attacker is somehow profiting like plundering ships or gaining a port or anything like that

This one is a very good and common example. Considering that someone is forced to update its gameplay to hunt down the bully, then you can expect everyone to be more sympathetic for the player who forced to update his gameplay. Which means that there will be understanding when the victim proceeds in non-profit attacks for days or weeks, till he makes his point.

Ultimately though, there can be no warranties. The bully might pause off, allow the victim to rebuild back to the prior case and hit back. That's not a problem if the bully hits back for profit. If however the bully continues this just to prove the point that I can continue pestering you, just because the game allows me to do this, then this is a griefing case.

Profit is the key word.

Here is a good example. You got a player who likes to run with big ships and a lot of fleets. This player however is an active player and spends a large part of its income to protect himself. Either though guild mates or his own activity. He keeps mindbar 24/7 and generally speaking, he is a hard target to take down.

What's the moral so far; This player do spends a lot to ensure his defense.

So, you have one person attacking him day by day. Continuously. Without success. Surely, the defense of this person starts to cost more. What probably is worse though, is the mentality that he is overtargeted, he wins and he is still targeted. That's not an issue though. The real issue goes for those who conducts the attacks.

Why he conducts them? Does he hope to catch him off guard? Does he make any profit? Does he have any chance to make a profit? Or he is simply making the life harder? Difficult answers that most of the time only the inner voice of each player can give. It becomes obvious that a lot of misunderstandings can come out of such cases. Misunderstandings that will be hard to resolve, even by administration.

However, there is hope. The most concrete answer can be given by simulating the event to real life. If you have trouble doing this, you can refer to historical events. This will produce the answer you seek. The answer is Roleplay.

For example
Roleplay the event, assume the boots of your character. There are many directions. If you dislike how it went, you can always "stage" the defeat of your character. You can even "stage" the death of your character if you want to start a new one. Like Charles Vane did. This is why he won that special, one-time, in-game achievement. As a highlight that there are always solutions that can be found by players. At this particular case, when someone wants to get rid of all past actions and start a new future, without having to start from 0, we expect understanding from every player and full respect to such a decision.

[Vane]

So, if a player targets someone for a raid and fails to break the defense. Then targets them the next day and fails, the next and fails etc. Each day for a week or more this would be considered griefing then correct?

Surely if we are to follow the "roleplay or think historically" aspect (which makes total sense) then a pirate would not waste his munitions on a plan that has failed continually.

[Shadowood]

So, if a player targets someone for a raid and fails to break the defense. Then targets them the next day and fails, the next and fails etc. Each day for a week or more this would be considered griefing then correct?

Surely if we are to follow the "roleplay or think historically" aspect (which makes total sense) then a pirate would not waste his munitions on a plan that has failed continually.

If he fails for a week then he should go back to FarmVille. PG is for intelligent people after all.

[Vane]

So, if a player targets someone for a raid and fails to break the defense. Then targets them the next day and fails, the next and fails etc. Each day for a week or more this would be considered griefing then correct?

Surely if we are to follow the "roleplay or think historically" aspect (which makes total sense) then a pirate would not waste his munitions on a plan that has failed continually.

If he fails for a week then he should go back to FarmVille. PG is for intelligent people after all.

I agree! But this query is more around the cost to him being high and profit being nil.