Dueling Ethics ~ Please all give your opinions

FargoBear

There's been some discussion about the ethics and legality of certain types of dueling. So I thought I'd highlight some instances and let people sound off on whether they think they should be allowed or disallowed. Here goes:

1: Player A has been attacked and is down to 20 health. He visits Player B's town and unequips his weapon and knocks himself out to get 48 hours of time without being dueled.

2. Player A has been attacked and is down to 20 health. He visits Player B's town and keeps his weapon, but is knocked out, as he had planned, to get 48 hours of time without being dueled.

3. Player A and Player B agree to a duel. Neither party knows the other's stance, and both have their highest-powered weapons and fighting gear equipped.

4. Does your answer change if the players are in allied towns?

5. Same scenario, but now both unequip their weapons. So it's hand-to-hand combat. Legal or illegal?

6. Would your answer change if they both equipped the same weapon, like a precise pepperbox revolver or a clay jar? (In a sense, are we basing ethics and legality on the amount of damage that can be inflicted.)

Thoughts?
 

Denisero

My opinion certainly changes when we are told that good xp is hard to come by so that yes, certain players will duel players in their sister town after telling them to bank their cash. But nice try.
 

FargoBear

OK, you did nothing to address my questions, Denisero. I am trying to have an actual conversation with people, not drudge up conflicts in that other thread.

I am *actually* interested in hearing people's thoughts on the questions.
 

Denisero

1: Player A has been attacked and is down to 20 health. He visits Player B's town and unequips his weapon and knocks himself out to get 48 hours of time without being dueled.
That is fine. That is player A's choice.

2. Player A has been attacked and is down to 20 health. He visits Player B's town and keeps his weapon, but is knocked out, as he had planned, to get 48 hours of time without being dueled.
That is fine as it is still Player A's choice.

3. Player A and Player B agree to a duel. Neither party knows the other's stance, and both have their highest-powered weapons and fighting gear equipped.
That is fine as it is both their choice and the outcome is not predetermined.

4. Does your answer change if the players are in allied towns?
Yes. Allied towns should not be dueling each other. If you are allied then why? This is just highly abusable.

5. Same scenario, but now both unequip their weapons. So it's hand-to-hand combat. Legal or illegal?
Same as scenario 4

6. Would your answer change if they both equipped the same weapon, like a precise pepperbox revolver or a clay jar? (In a sense, are we basing ethics and legality on the amount of damage that can be inflicted.)
I don't really see how this is different from scenario 3.

Now here is a question of ethics and actually addresses the scenario that was brought up.

If Player A and Player B are from sister towns. The members pass back and forth freely. Player A states they want to do this because dueling opponents are hard to come by unless they travel 2 hours away from home.

Player A tells Player B that they are going to duel them and to bank their cash. Player B then disarms his weapon to ensure Player A wins. This is not a one time occurrence. This happens repeatedly between several players of both towns all the time. Would that be ethical?

Actually this thread is moot. Players can post their opinions but in the end it is game staff that will decide what is ethical and what is not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Azuk

There is no such thing, people will always do what they can to bend rules and exploit what they can to lvl faster or get better stats.

You will then get the well I did it for this reason just to try and justify their actions

If you want to be knocked out then get a quest where you need to duel an NPC unequip everything and knock yourself out there should BE NO NEED to do it via anyone else
 

FargoBear

If one was unequipping, it wouldn't be a fair fight in most instances. There are exceptions to that, of course. HolySatan was known to unequip his Hernando's sword (95-125) because few would duel him with it. So he'd equip a 14-20 sharp razor and still win. Equipping the lower-leveled weapon was a way to get people to duel him, since he would win some of those challenges.

I agree with some of your points, and wouldn't necessarily disagree with others. It's just that there are gray areas.

A couple followups for you then.

You indicated that Questions 1 and 2 were permissible. And I agree. However, I have heard it surmised that it still may be considered power leveling, because Player A is giving Player B the experience points when he knows he can't win.

RE: Mootness: I would disagree. I'd actually like a game admin to pipe in and let us know their views on the legality of some of these. If they take the time to define the gray areas, I'm all for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Romelis

there is no alliance feature isntalled in this game, so technically there are no allied towns

so this "allied towns should not fight rule" doesnt exist
 

Denisero

Fargo, I say they are permissible because Player B knows nothing of the intentions of Player A. It is just another fight to Player B. It is one thing for Player A to go into a fight knowing they can't win and another thing altogether to conspire with Player B to farm xp. Since Player B knows nothing of Player A's intent to duel them there is no ethical problem.
 

John Rose

there is no alliance feature isntalled in this game, so technically there are no allied towns

so this "allied towns should not fight rule" doesnt exist
It does not exist if we talk in terms of de jure.
However by de facto, it does exist.

Fargo, I say they are permissible because Player B knows nothing of the intentions of Player A. It is just another fight to Player B. It is one thing for Player A to go into a fight knowing they can't win and another thing altogether to conspire with Player B to farm xp. Since Player B knows nothing of Player A's intent to duel them there is no ethical problem.
Speaking of attacking people whom you know you will loose against:
I attacked MadAlice once, being 100% certain I could not win, but I challenged him for the hell of it. Despite all odds though, I won, simply because dumb luck would have it that my hp lasted longer than MadAlices hp.

Still, it's all about intentions as Denisero says. In my case, I did it for the hell of it all, seeing how I'd fare against #1 shooting skill player in the world.

Sometimes one gets lucky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FargoBear

Denisero, that's a great way to put it. And I'd agree with your assessment. Hefty, if you read this, can you get a clarification on that scenario. Regarding Questions 1 and 2, I mean.
 

Strange

Well-Known Member
I think all your scenarios should be allowed (including the allied towns - if two players consent to dueling each other there is no "conflict" between the towns, which is what allying prevents), but farming should absolutely not be allowed. It is okay for one to unequip their dueling gear and best weapon and duel another/have somebody duel them as long as the intention is not to farm.

However, if farming is outlawed then it comes down to the administration regarding how they should enforce it. They can decide to ban purposeful weakening of yourself to duel/be dueled (not right in my opinion) or only reprimand those they have "proof" that farming is actually taking place (communication via telegrams? only solid proof that can be captured, I think). Of course if they decide to take the hard proof route, that can be very easily circumvented so it is a tough issue. Or depending on the complexity of the logs of activity the game keeps, they can peek into people's dueling history, for example, and attempt to determine whether suspicious activity is taking place (not "hard" proof, but "proof beyond a reasonable doubt").
 

HeftySmurf

Denisero, that's a great way to put it. And I'd agree with your assessment. Hefty, if you read this, can you get a clarification on that scenario. Regarding Questions 1 and 2, I mean.
Im reading this at 8am, so i may not be reading it right but im a bit confused, explain it a bit more to me
 

Tame Bill Hickok

Scenarios 1-3 I think are OK.

Scenario 4(allies) is still OK, if it's not done too often. But then you would have to define "too often" and that would probably require a person to check for it.

Scenario 5(allies, hand-to-hand) I don't like. I think it should be illegal if done too often (but again, define "too often"...) Make all hand-to-hand duels illegal, then players would just unequip weapons to be protected from duels.

Scenario 6(allies, same weapon) I think is OK, if it's one player's best weapon. The weaker the weapons, the more I dislike it.

In summary, some scenarios I personally dislike, but other players can do them if they want. Some I think should be illegal, but it's probably too impractical to enforce effectively. Leave it to the honour system.
 

Violette LeDrunc

1: Player A has been attacked and is down to 20 health. He visits Player B's town and unequips his weapon and knocks himself out to get 48 hours of time without being dueled.

2. Player A has been attacked and is down to 20 health. He visits Player B's town and keeps his weapon, but is knocked out, as he had planned, to get 48 hours of time without being dueled.
For both of these, as Denisero pointed out, there is no collusion so I don't think there is anything wrong with it. It could be argued that them taking themselves out the the target pool for a couple of days is unfair to fighters, but there are always targets.

3. Player A and Player B agree to a duel. Neither party knows the other's stance, and both have their highest-powered weapons and fighting gear equipped.

4. Does your answer change if the players are in allied towns?
I can't see any problem with either of these. There is no reason why players from allied towns can not fight each other, or why players can't fight each other at times convenient to both. In neither case has the fight been fixed (ie; the outcome predetermined) so no one is cheating the rankings

5. Same scenario, but now both unequip their weapons. So it's hand-to-hand combat. Legal or illegal?

6. Would your answer change if they both equipped the same weapon, like a precise pepperbox revolver or a clay jar? (In a sense, are we basing ethics and legality on the amount of damage that can be inflicted.)
Again, these are equal fights and the outcome is not predetermined so I have no problem with it. It doesn't take very long in this game for fighters to get to the stage where their health might sustain them for only one or two duels. If the dueling is their main impetus for playing, I can see why people would do this (although I personally couldn't be bothered.)
 

Denisero

I think that point where any fight becomes unethical is when there is collusion. No fight should be fought with the winner already predetermined with both individuals aware of how the fight shall end. That would be called fixing a fight in the boxing world and is illegal. So why should not the same apply here?
 

Hellstromm

Denisero, are you asking for a change to the game's programming?
 

Denisero

No, I'm asking for people that duel each other with the outcome already agreed upon in order for them to farm xp to be stopped. That is not a programming change. That is a rule change.