Skirmish 'rules'

[Corvus Raaf]

I have lost count of the times that I have been told the 'rules' of skirmishes - yet whenever I ask that person to provide a link to said rule on the site, radio silence follows.

So...could someone please share the link with me?

 

[Alric Kuhn]

[member="Corvus Raaf"]

Skirmishes do not have rules.

 

[Ilias Nytrau]

[member="Corvus Raaf"]

No such rules exist. If they're not in the rules drop-down at the top of the site, they cannot be assumed to be in existence.

There should be no-one calling something 'rules' on this site, unless it is set in stone as mentioned in the above sentence. Otherwise, they are at best 'commonly held guidelines', 'suggestions', or 'precedent'... but they are not rules.

 

[Corvus Raaf]

[member="Alric Kuhn"] | [member="Ilias Nytrau"]

Many thanks for confirming this

 

[Via Dolorosa]

[member="Corvus Raaf"]

Like they said above, there are no rules to skirmishes. In the past, I have seen both sides agree on objectives and rules of a skirmish but that's it. Also, I've always been under the impression, since being told by numerous people, that skirmishes are usually more storyline based and a way for writers to interact with one another without having to deal with all the drama, B.S., and "crying foul" that have become the norm in Invasions.

 

[Hailyn]

[member="Darth Venefica"]
More and more recently they are used like invasions without consequences, in that they restrict participation from either sides of the thread. More often than not, I think this is what is being portrayed as rules to people such as Corvus when they do not really hold any weight.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Corvus Raaf"]
The only rule is that there are no rules.

 

[sabrina]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

No the one rule is, you don't take about the rules.

 

[Arumi Zy]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"] Well and not to talk about fight club