also i would like to point out staff told gimabis multiple times to stop

alright, lemme make it reeeaaalllyyy clear here
1) sad frog makes an excellent point!
2) The rule would still be "subjective" and is unnecessary considering how many people neglect to read the rules
3) Archiving rulebreaking is already against the rules
4) This would actually just prevent people from camping entirely, due to the fear :P

@Human In this suggestion I have provided solutions to the issue. And an updated suggestion is warranted because it keeps on happening.

On a previous suggestion, a reply said: "targeted attacks would fall under harassment, as you are inhibiting their standard gameplay by repeatedly killing them because of a political outcome."

PvP in wilderness --is-- standard gameplay. And not a lot of people are targeted for no reason. 99% it is because of their nation affiliation. If they left their nation because they failed to protect them against "campers", that would lead to more interesting political situations then getting the "campers" banned. It's an abdication of responsibility on the part of nations who are supposed to be protecting their people. They don't want to negotiate to stop the attacks, reach a compromise or hunt down the hunters, they prefer to defer the dirty work to staff and laugh at how staff gets blamed and hated by everyone.

Imperial, you may think that "this may lead to interesting political situations"

In fact you are quite incorrect.

people camp and target for F U N not for any political gain, if you engage with them politically (if you make it that far) they will just say "no"

I'm usually all for nations and towns working towards solutions to their own problems, but there sincerely is very little that a nation or town can do to stop this from happening short of either never going outside their claims or setting up a patrol shift at all hours to guard the nation. Neither of these are good options, and they're basically what you're saying 1 or 2 pvpers should be able to force a vast number of people into. And the thing is that even war won't work, because someone could just ignore it and kill people at their town anyway. Changing how this is enforced would keep a few people from scoffing at the cost of making a large swath of newer players hate the server. It's simply not a good tradeoff.

If you want a staff input on this, Taakot had a wonderful response to the last time you brought this up, and Cam the time before.

For the second solution, I just don't think it's necessary, because it's not about killing people around claims, but instead about specific situations where harassment actually applies. If you think that harassment is only about stalking someone or threatening to kill them, you seem to be missing the idea of the rule.

Sincerely, please, drop this. It's not something that would actually help the community, and if someone is abusing the rule, then report it, and it will be dealt with.

Just stop banning people for killing people,very simple,its totally avoidable,I dont get why there is this minority of people that want to never die and make tickets and such about dying outside of your town.

Unban gimabis and everyone that gets killed for camping,assassinations,if political,made for loot,for fun,personal grudges all are proper reasons to kill someone. Dont get why someone should be banned over it

banned* not killed