English

The problem is that your reading is not accurate much less your understanding. In RL there is no PvP vs. non PvP zone. No technical obstacle is hindering abuse and aggression, rather ethics and the rule of law.

The question Salazar raised was about competitiveness, not ethics. There is no competitive gain in shooting down unarmed diggers quite similar to a sniper's shootout which clearly is far from bravery.

The question Tyneetryk raised was indeed about ethics as followed by him/herself. They have their more general value anyway- Everywhere people have the ability, and sometimes the power, to act abusively, which ought not be murder in the first place. The mere technical possibility yet is no excuse for inappropriateness on different levels - where clearly RL abuse, not to speek about murder is a different class compared to any kind of questionable actions inside a game.

Thus the analogies, not equations, were indeed as accurate as fair. Nobody becomes a good and respected PvP Fighter by shooting down unarmed diggers or newbies on trek, and such behaviour is not likely to earn a lot of respect by anybody except a few. And it is at least doubtful that FFA zones are a wholesale license for harassment and bullying.

Clearly any attacks on players in LoU or Nexus are not violations of rules by themselves. And attacks at the supernodes are not disputable except under the aspect of wisdom not to create lose-lose conditions.

Nevertheless ruthless bullying may constitute violations even here. Obviously done for no other reason than causing grief etc. might collide with principles of gameplay as aggreed to in the EULA and possibly constitute violations. I encountered situations where CSR judged in this direction and acted accordingly.

Yet, where I agree is that those discussions have been raised again and again over the years with few result. I think one should pay a bit attention to the fact that here, different narratives and views upon gameplay are in collision. While I have no real solution for, I think that mutual understanding might at least help to mollify the conflicts and take some of the heat and bitterness out of them.

I have the impression that a number of players dedicated to a tough style of PvP gameplay are stemming from worlds of egoshooters and similar, often highly competent in interface usage and knowledgeable of all sorts of tricks (even the less licit ones), and are looking at their player characters as more a technical instrument, drawing satisfaction from speed and virtuosity while not only not caring about killing or being killed yet drawing satisfaction out of the thrill and the adrenaline rush caused thereby. That is clearly nothing bad, and a legitimate way of gameplay in Ryzom.

On the other hand, there are players who are strongly engaged in roleplay and PvE as well as in social activities in the game. They may identify quite a lot with their ingame character, even more than identifying with a literary character when reading novels or watching movies. This way of diving into the virtual world is called immersion, and players engaged in such style of gameplay are rather living than just playing the course of events their character is going through.

It is obvious that there is much potential of clashes between these very different narratives. An immersed player will experience attack and abuse of the character much alike real abuse and violence (though on lesser degree) , and take offense accordingly, even if it was never meant that way. On the other hand, "tough players" will see such reactions as spoilsports' and whiners' ones and may even feel invited to double their efforts to demonstrate the virtues of "real play".

While there is no easy solution (as the conflicts over years reflected in tales and forums demonstrate), I think mutual understanding might help at least to some extent, as well as some restraint when insisting on what one considers a right.