They’re hoping to discourage literally every Seeker from taking tokens. I agree that it is a bit weird that there’s no additional punishment for those who pretended to agree, but on the other hand there really aren’t very many ways for players to punish other players to begin with. The only way to make it harsher without losing the point of this whole agreement is to punish them further out of the game, and that just wouldn’t be right.
My understanding of the agreement is that none of us plan to betray any other seeker, whether they are part of the agreement or not - and if any of us do happen to be betrayed, we will come on here to name and shame, so we can take collective action against them.
The idea, as I see it, is that other seekers who are not part of the agreement are put off from betraying any of us who ARE part of the agreement, because of the collective action we will take against them.
ETA: I am considering a normal attack, in the iron or moon league, as quite separate from this agreement though - I’m quite happy (well, you know what I mean!) for another seeker to try and pinch one token from me in a fair fight, and I am presuming the reverse is true.
edited by Lady Red on 5/10/2013
[quote=Anstruther Barron]Inpuin has attacked me, this is his 2nd infringement. I recommend extreme sanctions[li]
edited by Anstruther Barron on 5/10/2013[/quote]
Yeah, after I carelessly attacked someone I hadn’t realized was part of the agreement, I figured, might as well be hanged for a sheep…You’re still one token up on me, though :) [/li]
That may be your interpretation (and quite an even-handed one it is, too), but I don’t think it’s universal: I had been attacked by two members of the agreement before I’d even started collecting Searing Enigmas.
As I understood the agreement, the plan was to daisy-chain betrayals in order to get the maximum number of people advanced in the storyline as efficiently as possible.
Working out the daisy-chaining is a possible future goal, but it’s not the main point of the agreement: which is, to discourage betrayals of those in the pact by group retribution. Betrayal of those outside the agreement, without justification, would seem to be in poor taste, but isn’t specifically excluded - unless I misread the terms.
It hardly seems fair to exclude yourselves from betrayal and then still allow members to betray those outside. That’s just a gang of bullies.
To clarify, the following were my original intentions:
- If you’re not part of the agreement and you betray someone else not part of the agreement, then good for you.[/li][li]If you’re not part of the agreement and you betray someone who is part of the agreement, then you will face our retribution. You may seek forgiveness from the one you betrayed and get off of the black list.[/li][li]If you’re part of the agreement and you betray someone who is part of the agreement, then you will be kicked out of the agreement and face our retribution. You may still seek forgiveness, but since you effectively betrayed everyone involved, you’ll need to have a large number of apologies accepted. This does not seem likely to happen.[/li][li]If you’re part of the agreement and you betray someone who is not part of the agreement, then that is allowed but quite foolish. If someone seeks revenge against you for your betrayal, then that revenge would not be a betrayal in itself and thus would not be protected by this agreement. Also, since I assume that we don’t want to devolve into a terrible war between alliances, we’ll be much more careful about protecting you against further attack. This last statement is not codified, but it is human/mollusk/ocelot nature to be cautious (actually I don’t know about mollusks, are they cautious?).
I’m not going to change anything on the first post to reflect these clarifications — a changing agreement isn’t much of any agreement at all — but these are the rules that I, and I imagine many others, will be following.
And Erik, I am keeping an up to date list on the first page.
[li]
edited by Guy Scrum on 5/10/2013
I think you have over estimated the number of players at this level of seeking, most of them are probably in this pact.[li]
edited by Waffles54 on 5/10/2013
out of the 67 or so names listed in the first post, there’s 29 in the pact. which is nearly 45%. it’s not /terrible/ numbers, i guess.
besides, where else are the tokens going to come from but outside forces >:]
not that i’m entirely advocating candling outside the pact, but someone’s gotta get tokens somewhere if we’re ever going to see the candle.
edited by Spacemarine9 on 5/10/2013
List of civilized seekers updated: added Hamete.
[li]A little late to my noticing, but Inpiun apparently has been a very busy backstabber, has gotten myself as well.
Shadowhand just betrayed me; I betrayed them right back so they have no tokens at the moment, but for the record.
I just got 6 tokens from Zmflavius, and then quickly fled to Zee. If you see him, I suggest just using regular stabs.
Please add me to the agreement.
I have been falling off a bit in Fallen London and may find myself abandoning this particular quest eventually. I’d love to be useful to more determined Seekers if it comes to that; for now, though, I will persevere. [li]
Shadwhand took 25 of my tokens. I just. ****.
He had someone else cycle them. I have 2 tokens now. There is another agreement running.
He does tend to do that ;)
What do you mean?
edited by Inpiun on 5/25/2013
He has 2 tokens 2 hours later. Shadowhand either has a friend or an alt that stole it from him. Either that or he got greedy and betrayed someone else and A) has the knife B) got betrayed back forlike 30 tokens.
DAMMIT. The server was asleep yesterday or something, so I didn’t watch till now. I feel like ****.