Shadowe

Been done before, defences have been beefed up, but if someone wants to try to put the splat on Huntington Manor, they are more than welcome to. If plot actually needs it to be damaged or destroyed, I am even happy to offer up suggestions on how to do it. Otherwise, anyone is welcome to give it their best shot.

Sort of done before, vaguely. But as long as someone is willing to risk collateral damage (I can assure you that I don't want Brian, Richard's chauffeur/bodyguard/mentor to be hurt), they're more than welcome to take a shot.

Lumping these two together, because they're basically the same thing - HELL YES. If someone wants to attack properties owned by Huntington International, they're more than welcome to (including theft of military hardware and any number of other funky gadgets and gizmos - heck, he has a production suit of battle-armour ready, so if a new "hero" wants to "find" one, that's fine by me!). About the only restriction I'd put on it is that I be warned in advance if it's the lab in IP. Other'n that, make stuff up! Huntington own stuff all over the world, and in several zones in Paragon. Prime bait.

Again, lumping these together, too. This one gets a slightly quieter "hell yes!" Not because I don't want it to happen, but because I'd like a small level of oversight on what is done to the poor souls involved.

Basically, I didn't make a big company for the purpose of locking people out of causing trouble - it's there to be the appropriate victim and target.

Which means it's fine when it's something that a group of heroes found a clue for, or someone on a pirate radio band broadcast the threat. But when it's someone telepathically contacting the whole city to tell them about the bomb, or a news broadcast on CNN (or any other situation where everyone would be aware of it), then it's too much.

Not trying to start an argument, but I am aware that there is a mild risk that this question could do, so I'll say now that this is meant to be purely in the spirit of enquiry, because I seem to be misreading something of the meaning behind the quoted post:

I'm not sure what "RP a superman OOC" means. It's an oxymoron. If you're OOC, you're not RPing. Conversely, if you're RPing, you're not OOC. I think my inability to discern your meaning, CB, is causing me issues with the rest of your post.

Allow me to clarify. It seems to say "don't RP a superhuman hero if you're either a) not able to involve yourself in every plot going or b) not willing to involve yourself in every plot going, if it would be IC for that character to get involved in those plotlines. If you do choose to RP a superhuman hero and then refuse to provide rationalle behind that hero's involvement in plotlines, instead asking for plots to be cancelled or toned down, you're a god-modding jerk".

Now, if that is what you're saying, then fine, though it is a bit of a kneejerk reaction. As someone who does have a superhuman hero, it is, indeed, my responsibility to provide IC reasons why he doesn't get involved in some plots that he becomes aware of - usually, he's too busy at work, or is investigating something somewhere else and trusts other heroes to deal, Bob's your Uncle, Fanny's your Aunt.

However, and we've discussed this before, in a great deal of depth, probably with no satisfactory outcome, because we don't have a GM (or even several, really), there isn't someone we can turn to for adjudication on gameworld logic. Instead we have to rely on our own sense of proportion and restraint to try and keep the Unionverse sane and realistic for ourselves and others.

The instant we start a plot, we're affecting the game world. While the Unionverse is largely a coherent whole, the reason we've been able to do so successfully is that the majority of plotlines are small scale.

Picture the following two plot ideas, if you will.

1) A mind controller has taken control of several hundred Council (who have in turn reprogrammed some of their robots), and is planning to use them to strike against Paragon.

2) A mind controller has taken control of an entire neighbourhood (say... King's Row), and is planning to sell the population into slavery overseas.

Plot 1 is simple and really doesn't affect the game world very much, since that's the sort of thing the Council would do anyway. It's just a tweak of motivation.

Plot 2, on the other hand, if it works, changes the game world significantly. It's the sort of thing that any hero worth their salt would take action on the instant they become aware of it. I'd personally consider it too big, because there is no way I could clear it with every possibly affected player in advance, and there's no way everyone would agree to accept the outcome, especially if I was nasty and just said "it's happened, what are you gonna do?".

Plotlines are a two-way street. A plot-runner doesn't have to consider every single RPer's response in advance, but neither do they have the right to change things that drastically affect other characters. Conversely, other players who don't want to get involved in a plot do need to have a reason not to get involved, whether that's a personal reason or something agreed with the plot-runner or whatever. It works best if the player can manage that themselves, certainly, but there is still an obligation on the plot-runner not to throw "bigger is better!" plots around.

Thanks, Arcana. That's pretty much the flaw I saw with it, also. I did point out that I considered it "possible grounds", and that it perhaps merited discussion, not that I think there is any actual legal basis for a discrimination suit to be levied.

I will point out, though, that the legislation does not make any bones about where individuals " treated less favourably than [they] treats or would treat others" are actually based. As such, yes, the English legislature is in a position whereby if a company offers different (and less favourable terms) to someone (or many someones) in England compared to the terms for the same service that they offer anyone anywhere else in the world, that company is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

The other point against it as a possible argument is that NCSoft do not prevent players based in England from purchasing US accounts. They therefore do offer equal terms to people in England, but people in England may choose to forego that option and purchase an EU account instead. The argument against this point is that the instant the server lists are merged, those terms must become identical and not offer any specific advantage or favourable terms to either NA or EU account holders. The argument of many on these boards is that they are offering advantageous terms to NA subscribers, by virtue of the knowledge that they will not undergo a forced change of "community identity" as a result of the change, whereas the EU subscribers are not being offered parity.

So your point is that a EULA > The Laws of the Country under which that EULA is administered?

Legal fail.

And the point of the Equality Act is that you're flat out NOT ALLOWED to (as you put it) "piss off" the (alleged) 10% of your player base on the basis of their nationality.

Very bold statement, and not one I would expect anyone to be able to back up unless they admit that they are a Professor of Language Studies (or equivalent) at a major University and know (not simply guess, but know) that the other player is not a similar Professor.

I'm still sniggering over "FloatingFatMa".

Essentially "Bob's your Uncle" means "and we shall achieve success".

The full phrase is, indeed, "Bob's your Uncle and Fanny's your Aunt", though to be accurate "Fanny" is a female forename - it is only relatively recently that it has come to mean something... else... that is not what the filthy, filthy Americans use it to mean.

At work we used to have a (now deceased) customer called Fanny Tickler. Which should be pretty funny on either side of the pond.

Though not as amusing as the gentleman whose full name would get me in trouble with the moderators. But his first initial was F, his middle name was Yu and his surname was Man.