Ok so I was just thinking about it, besides warmaster and good vs good stun serves such a little purprose. Why not have it so that whenever someone is stunned you can still take a few pieces of equipment without taking their life? It'd be better when you have a good having to fight a good due to cabal warfar and would give another option to the game, challenges might be for certain things. "I'll fight you, but if I win I get this." "Fine, but if I win I get this!"
So Joe beats up Bob, knocks him down to stun.
He looks and sees that Bob has the circlet of divinity that he's been looking for.
blackmail bob circlet
Joe decides to spare your life, at the expense of your circlet of divinity!
We could have it so you could take a max of 3 items, nothing from the inventory unless you have peek. Any suggestions for the idea?
I suggested that you be able to make wagers prior to a challenge... be it a piece of equipment or gold a while ago. Basically you put up whatever you are going to bet and confirm it...a message is sent to the other char with your offer and then they put up their counter offer if they agree...final message back to original char to make sure they agree the counter offer is good enough for them.
I don't remember exactly how it went, but essentially I decided that would be better played out via RP than something to hard-code into the game. Like... a Warmaster that is beyond his prime and functions as a judge instead (happens all the time in reality, ex-fighters becoming referees and what not). I mean, I wouldn't agree that it should be completely one-sided as far as who decides what is being risked...my 3 items could be trash and yours could be unique...no one would agree to that bet. If you really want to take that rare by force... I would be inclined to say that you are gonna have to kill them and RP through it.
Goodie does not mean nice, or even socially acceptable (Pamiyn was a great example of this). If you win, and you want the gear say so. Sometimes I will just call someone out "I get that for winning." If they agree, you become nicer, always offer a chance at "get backs", if they dont you do no have to travel with or accept challenges again.
Better leave this one to RP.
It's more perfect since you can lie and cheat, and escape with items after you lose the challenge.
You can also kill them, after they do not give you the item and take it.
Well giving that advice Mya you should be careful to define the difference between sneaky char, and trashy player. Sometimes that line can get muddled, but there is a thin line between a good thief/liar, and a dick player. Just be careful not to be on the wrong side of that line or you will find your playtime here greatly muddled with hate, anger, and the stereotypes of the dark side.
I mainly thought it'd be used in cabal warfare where a goodie has to fight against another goodie. He doesn't kill him but can still attempt to weaken him and perhaps show him the error of his ways. Perfect example would be if Knight was at war with Warmaster right now and Heureush had to fight another good.
I'm not sure if the restriction is still on neutrals for agressive pk, but with this a neutral thief with mercy perk could go for the stun and take equipment he couldn't normally pry and can't aggressively pk you to get.
Betting on a challenge was a bad example since yes that can easily be rp'd.
See but in warfare so few people are going to agree to anything with opposing member. The bad part is that is just some fallout from the cabal choices you make, my suggestion is be BRUTALLY careful, at least this type of warfare will teach you not to spam 
you are correct. I was not overreacting. I was merely stating you should be wary of that line, and set limits your char will not pass, that you as a player very well could do so easily. This will go miles (or Km) towards keeping you IC while playing.
I will give you a free advice. F0xx style.
Use "WE". When we use "you", people then to think that you are personally attacking them. As with WE, you drag the blame/responsibility into yourself and the group. Suddenly it looks like you are supporting them, and that you suffer the same problem, thus creating Empathy.
Just watch F0xx butter me, while totally ignoring the points.
To sum up:
"I was merely stating you should be wary of that line, and set limits your char will not pass"
Looks better as a :
"I was merely stating we should be wary of that line, and set limits in our char will not pass"
But enough of this, i have no business in giving you advices on RL subjects. 
Don't you mean you have no business giving us advice
I do not care if people feel I am targeting them. Anyone who feels they are being targeted by a blanket anti-trash statement needs to feel that way lol. People who act questionably are usually the first ones to explode, and get defensive while those of us who keep the group in mind usually offer constructive critique on the matters at hand.
:eek:
She knows our secret. We're dead 
Character Reputation is a large part of FL, as is in real world. That is why I always advise to never ever tell people who you play. Your characters should not taint the reputation of your next.
It spoils the game for me when I learn that, some random PC that I have a grudge is XYZ player. And that he is now playing ZYX.
So in short to answer you Nameless, take a chill pill :OP
I can usually understand Mya's posts, but the jump from the legit advice Nameless gave me to this just threw me off completely.
From my experience you have to react to Mya as if she was a hideous mole on a hot girls face. You stare for a second, not knowing wtf to do, then you get to the rest of whats in front of you and pretend the mole never existed.
PS- I am just playing (mostly) Mya is a great addition to fl, and she DOES generate some very useful tidbits from time to time.
yeah, eff'n ninja. am I right guys?
but no really, you stun me, and try to blackmail me- im going to do all i can to make sure you die. hell, i will maybe even leave that eq you wanted by your corpse, just sayin...
To sum up:
"I was merely stating you should be wary of that line, and set limits your char will not pass"
Looks better as a :
"I was merely stating we should be wary of that line, and set limits in our char will not pass"
wow, im not stoned or anything- but this blew my mind- or err, us mind or whatever. hehe 
I just want to know when Mya started giving grammar lessons, did I miss something?