You mentioned that those games "will always have those loopholes." My argument is that that simply isn't true, but the mechanics have to be more complex than "if x, then y". Social interactions and repercussions in an environment where death isn't permanent (or at least not immediately permanent) means that consequences have to be weighed differently.
There will always be ways to cause grief. =)
As there should be, but griefing needs to be redefined, too. Look at
SotA, perfect example of how inappropriate expectations and perspectives shape interactions. "You harassed me and stalked me and kept popping my trapped pouches or kill stealing or looting my kills, etc. You're a griefer!" Okay, fine, but they also use that same word when, "You killed me in a free-for-all zone I opted into visiting that I didn't need to? You're a griefer!" Or, "You made me lose in a competitive environment that I explicitly agreed to be a part of? You're a griefer!"
Personally, I see two forms of griefing:
heavy and
light. The
heavy griefing is the obvious kind: stalking people, utilizing slurs and what most people would consider general harassment. I would also lump exploits and hacks as heavy griefing.
Light griefing, on the other hand, would be using in-game mechanics
as intended to engage in behavior that may cause duress for some players. PKing, stealing, pirating ships, demanding taxes or tribute or holding people up on highways, etc. Even stealing animals/dragons and demanding ransom. These are all game mechanics that are allowed, but aren't as straightforward as "I killed you" or "I stole this." The social interaction involved (ie, extorting people to license their ships or they will be pirated, luring a dragon away and messaging the tamer for a ransom to get it back) creates another level of quality to the action. It becomes something far more personal, and that's where light griefing exists.
Getting other players to recognize this difference is key.
UO got away with it, at first, because everything was so new; now we're in this weird place where MMOs are the norm, but the social engineering taking place is still in its toddler stages. We want players to do cool things with what we're building, but don't know how to get them to do it. Organic incentives to work together for mutual benefit is key to making that happen, while complex reputation/flagging mechanics allow those incentives to be pursued at the players' pace, not the developers'.
One cannot code without direction... I wonder who is setting the current direction for PvP as a whole?
I'm with Dodgy on this. I'm fairly certain Chris is getting free reign on this part of it. It's fairly clear Richard isn't involved, and I doubt Starr is making huge contributions on this topic. Recall card combat and how long Chris had to run with that before they came out and publicly apologized in one of the hangouts (back when I still played).