Kinaed wrote:In terms of actual complaints I've fielded, crossover isn't actually the main issue. More, the issue seemed to be discomfort by other parties - for example, let's say Bob has Alt1 and Alt2 in a guild. Depending on the size of the guild, seekers and other guild members sometimes feel as if getting Alt1 upset is synonymous with upsetting the entire guild.
Except that's exactly what crossover is Kinaed. If you allow your feelings on alt1 to affect your actions on alt2, that is crossover. However that also applies in the opposite. If you allow your characters feelings towards alt1 to affect your actions towards alt2, you are equally committing crossover. I can think of plenty of times in the past where I'd rp with one of Takta's alt and get into a pissing match with them, but then meet up with another of their alts within the hour and be perfectly fine with them. It's all about separating feelings.
Kinaed wrote:The other thing that lead to complaints was that when a concept already exists, other players felt dissuaded from creating it. Sort of like checking census to help guild chargen - or potentially thinking they don't want to compete for customers with someone already established.
Here's the thing, staff have made a strong stance in the past when people have complained about Character 1 being to big of a merchant to compete with, and staff's general response has been "They've worked for that success, work to topple it as well." yet this is a clear cut case of people trying to circumvent previous rulings via other means.
I'm sorry, but without any actual recent cases being brought to the table, I find it utterly irresponsible that we are debating on changing a policy based on "Feelings" alone. This just seems like people wanting code to take care of their issues instead of taking care of it themselves. If you feel somebody is allowing feelings on alt1 to affect alt2's actions, do the proper thing and bring it up the staff, instead of trying get a blanket policy that will ultimately end up hurting the game. The game isn't large enough to support this kind of blanket policy.
I say this in regards to guilds such as the reeves and order. There isn't enough interest in playing either that we should dissuade those who wish to fill those roles even more... especially not when we allow free-roam mages and free-roam villains to wander about. You can play as many villains as you want outside of guilds and there's nothing stopping you, but you can't play free-roam knights and reeves without taking away from someone elses rp, which staff have frowned upon mind you, in the case of inquisitor's acting as if they were knights.
And no, I'm not presently biased in this matter. I have three alts, one of which is in a guild. I just think this is such a foolish initiative spurred by feelings versus actual issues.
Zeita wrote:I think there are too many grey areas and potentials for crossover, that it is a dangerous pool to wade around in.
If you do keep allowing it, I would make a rule that if one of your characters becomes a GL, then the other MUST leave the guild. That is the deep end of the pool for me.
If it is such a dangerous pool to wade in, why have we been wading in it for so long, particularly when we had more players in the past? If it such an issue, why is it only being brought up now. Perhaps the issue lies not in the game, but in its playerbase, a playerbase that as of recently seems to desire instant gratification versus work being put in.
And again, the matter with the GL is ridiculous. Staff can easily see if a GL is using their power to benefit an alt. Oh, alt2 suddenly was promoted to the highest rank and received a hefty stipend from alt1... that seems suspicious. In reality this is why second gls should be mandatory, as they can more easily watch a first gl and report such concerns. Plus if an issue does arise with alt2, the 2nd GL can handle it without concerns of crossover.
These are all concerns that are already taken care of by the crossover policy, and can be resolved if people just get a backbone and report such concerns.