So, one of my players opened the door on the Gentlemens' Agreement. . . .

[NiteCyper]

Page five-inating.

I can think of no cogent examples where an Ascended Glitch [...] are feasible, positive outcomes.

...If I understand you correctly, I aver that they are all positive outcomes. That's the point of an Ascended Glitch. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you seem to have caught on to what I originally intended with the article. I made a big conclusion-jump.

If you're honestly of the opinion that:
a) a TPK by Shivering Touch (or other poorly-defended Big Red Button option)
b) an ever-escalating arms race between DM and players
c) retroactive bans on materials already on character sheets and
d) singling out an individual player for retribution or booting from the campaign
are all POSITIVE OUTCOMES, then I'm not sure that we have enough common ground to continue a reasonable discussion.  I would consider every single one of those a negative outcome, personally.  That's why I created this thread in the first place.  I was seeking input on legitimately positive outcomes.

I make the exegesis difficult to read, because I think that it's better if you try to understand what I mean before I explain it, to hone your intuition:

We're not on the same page. And by page, I refer to subject, not opinion. "They" in "I aver that they are all positive outcomes" refers to Ascended Glitches, not those things that you listed. I totted that the second sentence (and the quote excerpt) denoted that.

[Unbeliever]

Semi-related: stop acting like a gentleman's agreement is somehow "more civilized" or "better" than a ban list. It's a ban list with a different name, and slightly less consequence for breaking it..

I think the term has gotten distorted or expanded in the course of this thread or in general.  A few posts up I indicated what I thought the archetypal example of one would be. 

[ImperatorK]

Déjà vu?

[InnaBinder]

Déjà vu?

How so?

[ariasderros]

Déjà vu?

How so?

Do a board search of "Gentleman's Agreement".

It's been argued about the content thereof, and even definition thereof. Let's just say once or twice, but mind that that would be said in a sarcastic tone.

Of course, I'm saying this to people who routinely participate in said discussion.

[ImperatorK]

Déjà vu?

How so?

I recall a similar thread made by you that I participated in some time ago called ""Skip to the END": Handling players bypassing the setup for the main villain". You posted a problem and then disregarded whatever anyone said based on your opinion and "advice previously given by the BGs".
This thread looks like a repeat. Although I hope I'm wrong.

[InnaBinder]

Déjà vu?

How so?

I recall a similar thread made by you that I participated in some time ago called ""Skip to the END": Handling players bypassing the setup for the main villain". You posted a problem and then disregarded whatever anyone said based on your opinion and "advice previously given by the BGs".
This thread looks like a repeat. Although I hope I'm wrong.

I'm disregarding any solutions that were dismissed in the original post - as in, things I'd already considered as suboptimal before receiving any input from any forumites.  I don't find that terribly inconsistent.

EDIT: Was there something constructive you wished to add to the thread, or was the tongue-clucking the extent of your opinion on the matter?

[ImperatorK]

I tend to not bother giving advice when I know it will get ignored. Seeing your response I know this thread is going the same way as the last one. I'm not interested in talking to a wall.

[InnaBinder]

I tend to not bother giving advice when I know it will get ignored. Seeing your response I know this thread is going the same way as the last one. I'm not interested in talking to a wall.

Filed under "I" for "Irony", I guess.

[McPoyo]

JJust because it's already been thought of before coming to the forums for advice doesn't mean it isn't the "best" way.

[ImperatorK]

I see no irony in my post.

[zook1shoe]

I'm disregarding any solutions that were dismissed in the original post - as in, things I'd already considered as suboptimal before receiving any input from any forumites.  I don't find that terribly inconsistent.

EDIT: Was there something constructive you wished to add to the thread, or was the tongue-clucking the extent of your opinion on the matter?

i don't know what happened before, and i'm not trying to 'take sides' but you (InnaBinder) should not insult people that are attempting to help you in any sort of constructive way, which i feel that ImperatorK was originally trying to do here, until things broke down.

back to the topic....

NNot to mention, in this case, there is a player who has clearly chosen to dilate the social construct of the gentleman's agreementin this game. Any other form of "behave like a civilized person and don't break the power level everyone wants" will work as ineffectively as it has in this case.

There are really only two options if talking to the problem player doesn't fix it (as was indicated beryearly in this thread): ban it, or use at back against the pcs. Doesn't have to be rampant, but dropping a pc or two every couple fights may force the group to do something about it.

Honestly, if he isn't mature enough to correct a disruptive behavior when it's brought up in private, he isn't mature enough for anything but a ban list or nerflist.

Semi-related: stop acting like a gentleman's agreement is somehow "more civilized" or "better" than a ban list. It's a ban list with a different name, and slightly less consequence for breaking it..

i like this as a perfect option #2 after trying to be civil as Unbeliever suggested

[InnaBinder]

I'm disregarding any solutions that were dismissed in the original post - as in, things I'd already considered as suboptimal before receiving any input from any forumites.  I don't find that terribly inconsistent.

EDIT: Was there something constructive you wished to add to the thread, or was the tongue-clucking the extent of your opinion on the matter?

i don't know what happened before, and i'm not trying to 'take sides' but you (InnaBinder) should not insult people that are attempting to help you in any sort of constructive way, which i feel that ImperatorK was originally trying to do here, until things broke down.

back to the topic....

NNot to mention, in this case, there is a player who has clearly chosen to dilate the social construct of the gentleman's agreementin this game. Any other form of "behave like a civilized person and don't break the power level everyone wants" will work as ineffectively as it has in this case.

There are really only two options if talking to the problem player doesn't fix it (as was indicated beryearly in this thread): ban it, or use at back against the pcs. Doesn't have to be rampant, but dropping a pc or two every couple fights may force the group to do something about it.

Honestly, if he isn't mature enough to correct a disruptive behavior when it's brought up in private, he isn't mature enough for anything but a ban list or nerflist.

Semi-related: stop acting like a gentleman's agreement is somehow "more civilized" or "better" than a ban list. It's a ban list with a different name, and slightly less consequence for breaking it..

i like this as a perfect option #2 after trying to be civil as Unbeliever suggested

I was neither trying to insult anyone, nor finding anything constructive in his commentary regarding the topic of the OP.

[NiteCyper]

Here's noting the discussers and their stance, for statistical reasons and to help newcomers get oriented.

Terminology:
Retaliation: Individual means only against perpetrators. Anti-individual means against the group as a whole.
In-game: "making sense within the story".
Negligence: Do nothing; make no difference; don't care.
Let it ride: Allow. Opposite of banishment.
Counter: Defend against.
Banishment: A.K.A. disallowance.
Talk: it out with the player, implying asking the player to suppress their own power level. Out-game unless otherwise stated. Group means telling the group the situation. Related to the next term.
Ask: Part-way between banishment and talk, asking perpetrators to cease and desist.
See: Claims to second/concur with/hold the same stance/opinion as...[another poster].
Nerf: Related to counter.
Boot: to expel from the group by authoritative decree

(click to show/hide)

• InnaBinder: anti-counter, negligence, retaliation (group and individual), pro-banishment, and talk.
  
• Ziegander: pro-talk/disallowance and retaliation.
  
• kitep: pro-talk, individual retaliation, anti-counter
  
• altpersona: pro-retaliation
  
• Dragonmaster: pro-retaliation, anti-talk, pro-counter
  
• veekie: pro-retaliation (anti-individual), anti-talk (group), pro-counter, these, and pro-nerf.
  
• Solo: pro-surprise attack (retaliation)
  
• NiteCyper: pro-counter (anti-individual), pro-talk (in-game), retaliation (in-game), nerf, and let it ride
  
• McPoyo: pro-retaliation, and pro-banishment or nerf
  
• Jackinthegreen: pro-talk, banishment, and retaliation
  
• Unbeliever: pro-banishment*, pro-talk, let it ride, retaliation (group), pro-nerf, counter, anti-boot
  
• Halinn: pro-retaliation
  
• Cagemarrow: pro-counter
  
• awaken_D_M_golem: see Dragonmaster
  
• wotmaniac: pro-retaliation and "nip[ping of] that shit in the bud"
  
• ariasderros: pro-retaliation*, anti- has a sour history with talk, see skydragonknight and veekie
  
• midnight_v: pro-individual retaliation
  
• whitetyger009: pro-counter/punishment
  
• skydragonknight: pro-let it ride, counter (in-game), see veekie, pro-retaliation (in-game), pro-talk, pro-ban, and nerf-neutral.
  
• Kethrian: pro-counter, talk, retaliation (individual), and nerf.
  
• Complete4th: pro-retaliation (out-game), and pro-banishment or nerf
  
• littha: pro-counter
  
• zook1shoe: Switzerland
  
• sirpercival: pro-counter
  
• ImperatorK: condescendent
  
• nijineko: pro-retaliation and counter
  
• Xzerios: pro-counter
  
• FlaminCows: pro-ban, pro-retaliation (individual)
  

Trivia: veekie and ariasderros are pro-contract. I second veekie. I was going to say the same thing that veekie said about "contracts", in my first post.

A synonym for banishment is forbiddance. Elided (mostly): reinforcement of stance, ambiguity, and "arms race".

[ariasderros]

ariasderros: pro-retaliation

Minor point: I am Pro-maintaining contract.

As far as "retaliation" goes, I have no advice to give. I dealt with something similar, and I didn't handle it well enough to say what does work. Nor can I know that there is a solution. Just that I have found out that I don't know how to handle it when I count on people being mature, and am disappointed.

Clicker-Training maybe?

[InnaBinder]

JJust because it's already been thought of before coming to the forums for advice doesn't mean it isn't the "best" way.

If a poster were to come seeking help on building a skill-based combatant, specifying that he really wants to play in that particular game, and laying out in the first post that both Tome of Battle and the factotum were not valid options at that particular table, would telling said poster a) find another game b) try a swordsage or c) build a factotum be helpful advice, in your eyes?  If yes, why?  If no, could you (generic "you") explain the difference in the situations?

[McPoyo]

JJust because it's already been thought of before coming to the forums for advice doesn't mean it isn't the "best" way.

If a poster were to come seeking help on building a skill-based combatant, specifying that he really wants to play in that particular game, and laying out in the first post that both Tome of Battle and the factotum were not valid options at that particular table, would telling said poster a) find another game b) try a swordsage or c) build a factotum be helpful advice, in your eyes?  If yes, why?  If no, could you (generic "you") explain the difference in the situations?

It was asked for how each of us would handle it in the most effective manner appropriate. If everyone's answers are already the ones the OP has thought of, then maybe the OP is looking for an answer that doesn't exist as far as effectiveness goes. There's been a ton of variants of the same fours answers given, which are pretty much the limits to what can be done. Getting upset at a forum for not giving a magical fifth answer that no one thinks could possibly be useful so they never mention, is not particularly good posting etiquette.

Edit: Also, your example doesn't work. It's not the same at all. This is more like a poster posting two builds and going "which is best for x? I have two builds, but are there others that would do x better? What would you use for x?", and then all the replies being "I'd use build 1 because y makes it better at x" or "I'd use build 2 because z makes it better for x", and then the OP being upset that no one gave a third build.

[InnaBinder]

Getting upset at a forum for not giving a magical fifth answer that no one thinks could possibly be useful so they never mention, is not particularly good posting etiquette.

Have I said I was upset?  Could you show me where?

[McPoyo]

Getting upset at a forum for not giving a magical fifth answer that no one thinks could possibly be useful so they never mention, is not particularly good posting etiquette.

Have I said I was upset?  Could you show me where?

Nearly every post for page 4 and 5 you have made has had a frustrated and annoyed tone to the verbiage to me. Re-reading through them, I can see where that may not be so, but it's far from how it came across.

[skydragonknight]

*ignores the noise*

Perhaps some clarification is necessary then? Is this a simple survey of potential answers (which at this point has about reached its limit and you can likely end the thread soon) or are you in search of the best answer for your specific situation? If the latter is the case, then would you mind providing more context on the game and the players? There's a difference if you've known the guy for a while and he knows your play style, or if he's new to the group. Or if it's an entirely new group.

How well you know the person, how well you get along, how well the group gets along...determines whether you approach the guy as a personal friend, "one of the guys", an associate (perhaps a friend of a friend), or just as a GM and will focus our answers towards the ones most applicable to the actual situation.