Coup de Gras: @trust to kill
Not: Thank you sir, may i have another and another

The @trust could have followups signalling the player what they were about to do so there could be no surprises. Maybe its not part of the fully-auto @trust system either.

not sure if this breaks any rp opportunities that might be afforded by a longer death. But if you want a quick, honorable death, this could work, right?

Can anyone see a solution to that? Because this is a pretty cool idea.

Sends a message to the player. Do you agree to allow Name to execute you without a fight? Y/N

type y

You have agreed to allow Player to execute you without a fight. Are you sure? Y/N

type y

First player gets the message: Name leaves his/her fate in your hands.

Or something like that.

Although after seeing what everyone else has suggested, that sounds more simple.

ie.,

Seven types - execute bruce

he sees: Do you really want to execute Bruce?

enter yes/no

seven types - yes

Bruce sees: Seven would like to execute you. Are you ok with that? (ROFL)

enter yes/no

Bruce types - yes

Seven sees: Bruce would like you to execute him now. (HAHAHA) Please enter an emote to describe the execution in ten lines or less.

Seven enters badass execution text

Badass execution text is sent to the room giving Bruce the chance to see it at least.

Bruce dies.

Ok. Maybe not this. But i giggled a lot typing it. But a variation of the escort command could work right? it always asks for permission and a command like this could be abused in combat so only out of combat could apply.

Lethality would be determined by the attacker's @lethal or weather they use the attack or kill command like usual.

This way the receiver can 'just give up' but the attacker can chose how to handle this, kill or KO. Could be interesting if someone resigns themselves to be executed then wakes up a prisoner. Or you could do a two step execution. Insta-KO them then snap their neck.

How about… @Submit?

No idea how such a simple idea got complicated...lol

@holdback 60

sit

Voila!

For example. Imagine a gang taking on the leader of another gang. They have them outnumbered and the enemy gang leader submits and sets @holdback 60. The winning gang decided that their newest pledge should do the honors. And.. they cant! Because the enemy gang leader is still more powerful that the new pledge.

You are about to fight someone.

You @request-execution

Person gets a prompt to accept/deny.

They:

- Disconnect

- Say Yes

- Say No

- Don't respond

While this is happening you do other stuff, like attack them. They try to hold a weapon but the command doesn't go through because they were in a prompt.

You spam @request-execution, forcing them into prompts and preventing them from reacting to the fact that you are posture kamikaze attacking them while they aren't holding a weapon.

In general that style of things is something we avoid almost 100% of the time. We only use prompts when YOU execute something, or when an admin needs to teleport you around and requests you allow it.

There are ways to avoid having to use a prompt but it still leaves this 'request' hanging for the player to never respond to, and that causes weird bugs 5 minutes later when they still haven't responded or if say, five people try to request to execute someone at the same time– who gets the execution? The last person to request? The first?

The @trust system would be a better place to integrate this, or in a system similar to that.

(Sorry, had to correct it.)

Doh well...lol