Just gotta post...

[samarium]

Re: Just gotta post...

Xor, do you not see now why people frown upon /anon levelling? I'm not even saying that your specific case was spurred by use or lack thereof of /anon. Just addressing the broader rudeness issue. And anybody who has been playing long enough (Beastmasters especially) should know how sensitive camp location/capacity is at times.

And please don't tell me that crap about not wanting to be bothered by tells for Raises. If you don't want to help Raise, fine, that's your prerogative. Just be honest! "I'm sorry, I'm busy right now" or "I'm sorry, but I'm tired" or even just a simple "Sorry, I just don't want to deal with that right now." And if they persist beyond reaon, just /blist. It's not a difficult concept unless you suffer from some kind of virtual social phobia. -.-)

Granted, jerks will always be jerks, but the least we can all do is make it easier for non-jerks who take the time to check areas and read /seacom's before occupying a camp. Besides being a tool that SE gave us for a purpose, it's just common sense and common courtesy. Kinda off-topic, but I was actually pretty offended by the trashy "it's a game and I can do whatever I want" attitudes and replies that Samarium got in that other thread.

The whole spirit of that Golden Rule thing, ya know?

Goodness no, let's not rehash that fight, as much as I agree with this stance on /anon, it's worth more to me to not see another flame thread on it.

-sam

[TaruBST]

Re: Just gotta post...

Many people believe BST should not exp in a spot that regular PT exp.
I've had worse experience.
There was a time when a regular PT came after me and killed all my pets so that I can't exp.
There was a time when a regular PT came after me and /tell me to move to some place else.

[Harrison]

Re: Just gotta post...

Many people believe BST should not exp in a spot that regular PT exp.
I've had worse experience.
There was a time when a regular PT came after me and killed all my pets so that I can't exp.
There was a time when a regular PT came after me and /tell me to move to some place else.

Which is kind of ironic. Normal parties think BST can exp anywhere when it's the normal exp parties that have more options than BST.

[Reauland]

Re: Just gotta post...

Hi all

Something that I've always found helpful is this using the search comment to list out as best as possible where my camp is and what I'm charming/fighting. I used to consider this just proper bst etiquette to inform others of where I was before they wasted a trip. Recent experiences in Wajaom Woodlands have changed my mind on that score.



I also had a party show up and begin camping on top of me last week. The real hell of it was I'd seen one of their member port in at the Ley Point (my camp, and had been for about 1 1/2 hrs, totally vacant) and run right past me. It was that same guy that later had the nerve to start /emoting in my direction.



I shrugged it off until about 30 minutes later when the multi-checks and /emotes got the best of me, at which time I asked them.



/sea all <me>? Comment [Please check it.]



When this didn't seem to faze them, I proceeded to systematically despawn every Colibri that popped until they left out of (I assume) frustration.



I highly recommend having that info in your search comment, as not only will it make other bsts aware of your camp, it really legitimizes your reprisal against an inconsiderate party.

[Marai]

Re: Just gotta post...

If it makes you feel any better...

My last day in day in that camp (the upper one) a pt came in, camped on top of me (and yeah, I wasn't /anon *and* I had camp location in comments). Pain in the okole... but when I protested I received a tell that the mobs belonged to whoever could get them.

A bit more rudeness and a death cause I needed another pet and there was none left (and no raise of course).... I saw red.

Too many levels of being pushed around *after* carefully avoiding pt areas.

A few 70+ buddies came down and another beastmaster from the lower camp joined in. We took *everything* for about an hour 'til they left. We might have relented earlier, but I was getting some "hahahah" tells... and that red haze in front of my eyes wasn't going anywhere.

Never did that to a pt before... but damn it felt very, very good!

It's at the point where I will take a camp, *any* camp that doesn't have pt-aggro no matter how slow the xp, over one that does. I play to pit myself against the game, not against rude players. This kind of inconsideration is very much a result of overcrowding, and SE needs to re-think their population levels >.<.

[Kholdstare]

Re: Just gotta post...

If it makes you feel any better...

My last day in day in that camp (the upper one) a pt came in, camped on top of me (and yeah, I wasn't /anon *and* I had camp location in comments). Pain in the okole... but when I protested I received a tell that the mobs belonged to whoever could get them.

A bit more rudeness and a death cause I needed another pet and there was none left (and no raise of course).... I saw red.

Too many levels of being pushed around *after* carefully avoiding pt areas.

A few 70+ buddies came down and another beastmaster from the lower camp joined in. We took *everything* for about an hour 'til they left. We might have relented earlier, but I was getting some "hahahah" tells... and that red haze in front of my eyes wasn't going anywhere.

Never did that to a pt before... but damn it felt very, very good!

It's at the point where I will take a camp, *any* camp that doesn't have pt-aggro no matter how slow the xp, over one that does. I play to pit myself against the game, not against rude players. This kind of inconsideration is very much a result of overcrowding, and SE needs to re-think their population levels >.<.

Sad as it is, this is what it comes to. Destroying the exp productivity of the area in the hopes that they leave is the "new MPK." And personally, if It ever came down to it, I'd gladly get some buddies and ruin someone's exp if they decide that their leveling is more important than mine. If they protest, I'd use the same excuse they gave me "all yellow mobs are up for grabs."

As "sink to their level" as it is, it becomes necessary at times. If one intends to clean up a mess, he or she must get dirty as well.

[Tomatoes]

Re: Just gotta post...

It's hardly "necessary," as you put it. Saying it is, is just a false and childish way to justify what you're doing. It's just a fact of life that you will run into retards on occasion.

What they're doing is called unfriendly (and even rude) competition. What you're describing crosses into the area of harrassment.

Be the bigger man (or taru).


P.S. I also think it's laughable that people are expecting normal PTs to check BST /seacoms before choosing an xp spot. Although it would be nice/ideal, it's just not going to happen. Many people simply aren't aware of how BST operate. Another irony is that BST discovered the Wajaom spot before normal PTs did, as far as I know (I wandered into that spot a few days after the expansion came out; wouldn't surprise me if some BST on another server found it the day ToAU was released).

[Reauland]

Re: Just gotta post...

To me, it's not so much the expectation that a party leader/members check for a bst comment as it is the justification for reprisals if they show up and proceed to be rude.

After all, ignorance is just a dodge, not a "Get out of Jail Free" card. I may not play Blm, but how long will the excuse of "I didn't know you guys pulled so much hate. I'll voke more" hold water in the face of downtime from a dead blm?

In short, what I'm getting at is if a party shows up, camps on a bst, and proceeds to actively seek to drive them from their camp, a bst is totally justified, in my opinion, to do everything in their power to ruin/slow the xp of that party. Parties do exactly the same thing simply by competing for pulls. That, accompanied by the fact that bsts are generally somewhere between 5-7 levels higher than a competing party, makes for a fairly level playing field between the two. If I were in a situation where a party showed up and began xp-ing off my pets, I'd not hesitate to turn my pets on themselves, despawn them, whatever it took to make the party aware that their presence is unwelcome.

And thus it is that maybe (just maybe) they'll think twice before they waste both their party's time as well as their own again in the future.

[Tomatoes]

Re: Just gotta post...

There's a huge principle difference between "actively competing for pulls" and griefing. Sounds corny as hell, but two wrongs don't make a right and you know it.

I can understand you feeling frustrated and wanting to react, but you can't suddenly make that into a justification.

[Reauland]

Re: Just gotta post...

There's a huge principle difference between "actively competing for pulls" and griefing. Sounds corny as hell, but two wrongs don't make a right and you know it

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. The philosophy espoused by even the very designers of the game we so enjoy is "yellow means fair game." In the scenario I laid out in my previous post, I am now competing for xp. If I'm in an area where I have already established myself, and if it is, as quite a few areas are, only capable of supporting one xp party, be it norm or otherwise, I choose to take what xp I can. Under such circumstances, I do see that as a justifiable competition between myself and whoever has decided to ignore my needs in favor of their own.

In my opinion, griefing would be my taking note of these inconsiderate individuals and making it a point to follow them wherever they go in the future, killing their xp mobs for my own enjoyment.

In short, I'll never view acceptable(never intentionally MPK'd anyone) methods of defending my camp as "griefing."

[Tomatoes]

Re: Just gotta post...

I'd like to hear how you rationalize "systematically depopping mobs" and/or getting some higher level friends to lockdown a camp for the primary purpose of frustrating others is considered "acceptable methods?"

And no. The GMs are hardly the designers of the game. It's just that their hands are tied most of the time, so all they can do is fall back on the "yellow is fair game" statement. The designers certainly didn't envision the cutthroat tactics you condone as necessary or legitimate, or they wouldn't have bothered implementing the claim system (as imperfect as it is).

The philosophy espoused by even the very designers of the game we so enjoy is "yellow means fair game."

Philosophy? Come off it. Anyone who has been playing this game long enough knows it's not that clear cut. If you're goint to cite something, then try to make it a credible source. Everybody knows GMs in this game are unreliable and inconsistent in their determinations.

I see this kind of reaction so often these days. "Gee, HNMLS X bots/hacks, so it's ok for us to do it too." It's shit logic coming from shit morals.

Double Post Edited:

To me, it's not so much the expectation that a party leader/members check for a bst comment as it is the justification for reprisals if they show up and proceed to be rude.

After all, ignorance is just a dodge, not a "Get out of Jail Free" card. I may not play Blm, but how long will the excuse of "I didn't know you guys pulled so much hate. I'll voke more" hold water in the face of downtime from a dead blm?

In short, what I'm getting at is if a party shows up, camps on a bst, and proceeds to actively seek to drive them from their camp, a bst is totally justified, in my opinion, to do everything in their power to ruin/slow the xp of that party.

Okay, first of all, BSTs and all players in general are totally justified in doing everything in their power to accomplish their goals within the TOS. Not even going to bother with your ridiculously apples/oranges BLM analogy. But I would like you to define "proceeds to actively seek to drive them from their camp". Please don't say they're taking your mobs or stealing your camp, because the camp doesn't belong to you any more than it does to them. Same goes for the mobs. The only legitimate thing you can do is work out an agreement (imo, the preferred way, though not always realistic. or even better if it's "resolved" through /seacom, but again, not always realistic) or simply not be a pussy and just compete for pops, fair and square.

Want some more sensible analogies?

depopping colibris = delay of game (if you don't follow sports, this is a penalizable violation... warning > free throws > ejections or similar, depending on the game)

getting high level friends to fuck up a camp = recruiting pro football players into a collegiate ballgames.

Both are illegal as determined by the governing bodies of each particular sport. In our case, the governing body is SE (as sad as that is). Now this could possibly be my opinion here, but I'm fairly sure that holding mobs and/or depopping for the purposes of harrassment will get you sent to Mordion sooner or later and is not viewed as legitimate reprisal by the ppl that govern our game.

[Reauland]

Re: Just gotta post...

I'd like to hear how you rationalize "systematically depopping mobs" and/or getting some higher level friends to lockdown a camp for the primary purpose of frustrating others is considered "acceptable methods?"

For the record, I said "anything within their power" - not their LS's power, nor their pals'. And as far as defending a camp goes, it's an excellent way of getting a point across that, while it may frustrate, is by no means the reversal of time investment that an MPK would be. In this context, I use "acceptable" to indicate in compliance with the TOS. I'm not griefing. I'm not making it my goal in life to hamper their gaming experience every time I see them. In the end, all I'm doing is defending my camp in the gentlest and firmest way I'm able.

And no. The GMs are hardly the designers of the game. It's just that their hands are tied most of the time, so all they can do is fall back on the "yellow is fair game" statement. The designers certainly didn't envision the cutthroat tactics you condone as necessary or legitimate, or they wouldn't have bothered implementing the claim system (as imperfect as it is).

Philosophy? Come off it. Anyone who has been playing this game long enough knows it's not that clear cut. If you're goint to cite something, then try to make it a credible source. Everybody knows GMs in this game are unreliable and inconsistent in their determinations.

Well, while the GMs themselves not being the actual designers of the game is an inarguable point, they are paid by the designers/owners nonetheless, and as such their policies/enforcements = company policies/enforcements, both to my way of thinking as well as anyone who's ever dealt with a business. When people complain about receiving crappy tech support from AOL for example, do they blame people working the farmed-out job somewhere overseas, or do they blame the company that employs them? Furthermore, in my opinion, "cutthroat" would be a term that more aptly describes a party that will intrude on anyone else's camp, be it a party or a soloing bst, knowing full well that the camp can't support both.

I see this kind of reaction so often these days. "Gee, HNMLS X bots/hacks, so it's ok for us to do it too." It's shit logic coming from shit morals.

I once again disagree. Talk about apple and oranges . . . For this to apply, I'd have to be saying, "Gee, Party X camps on top of me. It's ok for me to camp on top of Party Y." I don't feel that way - never have, and for the record, I believe that the most scatological employment of logic I've yet seen here is you drawing this particular comparison.

Okay, first of all, BSTs and all players in general are totally justified in doing everything in their power to accomplish their goals within the TOS.

Thank you. I don't think I could have said it better myself. If you would be so kind, please point out anywhere in the TOS that it specifically declares my stated methods as being in violation. After all, if I'm griefing under the conditions we've set forward, so is the party, as we're mutually downgrading each other's playing experience, are we not?

Not even going to bother with your ridiculously apples/oranges BLM analogy.

Ok then. I will. Ignorance of style of play, soloing tactics, game dynamics, what have you, is fault that lies on the shoulders of people on both sides of the fence. I put up a comment; a leader either doesn't look for it (doesn't know), or ignores it (doesn't care). Their party arrives at my camp, I explain that I've been here a while already and the camp is not large enough to support another xp-ing entity. I further explain that "camp" comments aren't just for other bsts, parties could use them to great effect as well. At this point, the other party can either choose to incorporate this knowledge into their future play, or be inconsiderate asshats and hang out and slow xp to a crawl for both themselves and me.



Bad play equals bad play, regardless of whether it's internal party dynamics or your external dealings with others.

But I would like you to define "proceeds to actively seek to drive them from their camp". Please don't say they're taking your mobs or stealing your camp, because the camp doesn't belong to you any more than it does to them. Same goes for the mobs.

Well, as a case in point, a few levels back when I was xp-ing off Colibris, a party showed up and was unable to kill at a level of speed that they found acceptable. As the nature of a bst camp generally involves a good deal of running around, it had to have been fairly obvious that I was camping there, /seacom or no. Now, please bear in mind that this particular camp has more than adequate spawns to accomodate two parties(solo or otherwise). I was exclusively using the Pephedros as my pets, when what do I turn to see? This same party attempting to kill the bees. To the best of my knowledge, bees are a poor choice for an xp mob, given their Pollen spamming as well as the dangerous Final Sting attack, and I find it doubtful at best that anyone of a level sufficient to be xp-ing in Wajaom Woodlands wouldn't have long ago learned that; therefore, I'm fairly positive that they were attempting to pull the rug out from beneath my feet, in effect, engaging in one of the few remaining (and virtually impossible to prove) forms of MPK.



So yeah, I can totally see how I was in the wrong by wanting them gone after that.

The only legitimate thing you can do is work out an agreement (imo, the preferred way, though not always realistic. or even better if it's "resolved" through /seacom, but again, not always realistic) or simply not be a pussy and just compete for pops, fair and square.

I can and do work out agreements with parties and other soloing bsts, and I am always overjoyed to do so.



As to competing for pops, am I to understand that if you were in a party, had been in a party, and planned on continuing to be in a party at a particular camp when another party showed up, completely disregarding your presence, you wouldn't, after having tried to reason with them, employ any additional methods at your disposal were your overtures to fall on deaf ears? Once again, keep in mind that I'm taking the stance that "depopping" is not in violation of the TOS.



And lastly on this little section here . . .



I've tried (and still try) to reason. I've tried to turn the other cheek. I've walked away. But after 66 levels of having parties run roughshod over me at times. I-have-quite-simply-had-enough. Respect is a two-way street. Show me none, expect to see none in return. If that makes me a puss, then I stand guilty as charged.

Want some more sensible analogies?

depopping colibris = delay of game (if you don't follow sports, this is a penalizable violation... warning > free throws > ejections or similar, depending on the game)



getting high level friends to fuck up a camp = recruiting pro football players into a collegiate ballgames.



Both are illegal as determined by the governing bodies of each particular sport. In our case, the governing body is SE (as sad as that is). Now this could possibly be my opinion here, but I'm fairly sure that holding mobs and/or depopping for the purposes of harrassment will get you sent to Mordion sooner or later and is not viewed as legitimate reprisal by the ppl that govern our game.

Let's talk some more apples and oranges. So there's a sport out there where both teams get a ball and can delay each other’s plays? In your analogy, I could be construed as being in violation by the simple act of having a pet if there's a party waiting for a pop, no? Obviously it doesn't matter whether I was there first or not, since I'm just a hindrance to this much more deserving team of Johhny-come-latelies. Conversely, perhaps we can define the teams to be party vs. mob. Do the sports to which you refer have anything in their rules to address four teams all playing on the same court, or do they simply rely on common courtesy as well as common sense to prevent such situations from coming about?

[Tomatoes]

Re: Just gotta post...

Gonna make my replies short and sweet, as this is getting annoyingly long:

For the record, I said "anything within their power" - not their LS's power, nor their pals'. And as far as defending a camp goes, it's an excellent way of getting a point across that, while it may frustrate, is by no means the reversal of time investment that an MPK would be. In this context, I use "acceptable" to indicate in compliance with the TOS. I'm not griefing. I'm not making it my goal in life to hamper their gaming experience every time I see them. In the end, all I'm doing is defending my camp in the gentlest and firmest way I'm able.

Harrassing others, whether it's for a single moment or "everytime you see them" is still harrassment.

Well, while the GMs themselves not being the actual designers of the game is an inarguable point, they are paid by the designers/owners nonetheless, and as such their policies/enforcements = company policies/enforcements, both to my way of thinking as well as anyone who's ever dealt with a business. When people complain about receiving crappy tech support from AOL for example, do they blame people working the farmed-out job somewhere overseas, or do they blame the company that employs them? Furthermore, in my opinion, "cutthroat" would be a term that more aptly describes a party that will intrude on anyone else's camp, be it a party or a soloing bst, knowing full well that the camp can't support both.

No. GMs have been shown time and time again to be unreliable as a guide for player conduct. For some players they have ruled one way, others another. To make it clear, they've had a policy of non-interference at times (most notably losing claim on NM>>yellow is fair) and have also done the opposite, by jailing players for holding mobs. Therefore, you can't cite them credibly. In this case, we are left to abiding as well as we can to the TOS and hopefully the spirit of the game.

I once again disagree. Talk about apple and oranges . . . For this to apply, I'd have to be saying, "Gee, Party X camps on top of me. It's ok for me to camp on top of Party Y." [/color]I don't feel that way - never have, and for the record, I believe that the most scatological employment of logic I've yet seen here is you drawing this particular comparison.

It should have been obvious, but I was speaking in the general sense that having something rude done to you, does not warrant that you should do the same in return, especially if your actions fall outside the rules of the game.

Thank you. I don't think I could have said it better myself. If you would be so kind, please point out anywhere in the TOS that it specifically declares my stated methods as being in violation. After all, if I'm griefing under the conditions we've set forward, so is the party, as we're mutually downgrading each other's playing experience, are we not?

PlayOnline Member Agreement 4.4f:
Harassing, tormenting, intimidating, pestering, obstructing, taking advantage of, or any way hurting or damaging other Users or any third parties or their properties utilizing the PlayOnline Service

www.playonline.com / Service & Support / Q&A / "What is harrassment?":
Harassment can take many forms. Many of these acts are aimed to hurt or anger a certain player and force them to leave the game. Harassment is an inexcusable act and should be taken care of. Game Masters (GM) place top priority on such calls.

- Verbal harassment:
Harassment via say, tell, party, shout, etc. to insult or discriminate against other players is prohibited in the game. Players who use certain character names in their messages can be treated as intention to harrass even if the offender was just joking.

- Harassment via actions:
Stalking, or any act done with the intent to disturb another player's game experience is not allowed. Also, distributing linkshells with the expressed purpose of discriminating certain players is also prohibited. Not only the player, but other unrelated players may have their game experiences disturbed due to over-population.

Please make note of the "intent" factor in the last section. Obviously, they're not going to specifically list out every single action that constitutes harrassment. Or the whole thing would be hundreds of pages long and still be incomplete. So if you're asking me to cite where it says depopping mobs is listed, then we're both outta luck here. Nowadays, as BST, we depop stuff all the time. The key here is purpose.

Also, the other party is not making any direct attempt to harrass you specifically, they are just competing for the same mobs as you. You on the other hand are taking actions primarily/specifically/intentionally to disrupt. If you try to smudge these two distinctions into the same brand of "mutually downgrading each other's playing experience," then I give up, as you would only be doing so out of stubbornness. Either that, or just sheer lack of comprehension.

Ok then. I will. Ignorance of style of play, soloing tactics, game dynamics, what have you, is fault that lies on the shoulders of people on both sides of the fence. I put up a comment; a leader either doesn't look for it (doesn't know), or ignores it (doesn't care). Their party arrives at my camp, I explain that I've been here a while already and the camp is not large enough to support another xp-ing entity. I further explain that "camp" comments aren't just for other bsts, parties could use them to great effect as well. At this point, the other party can either choose to incorporate this knowledge into their future play, or be inconsiderate asshats and hang out and slow xp to a crawl for both themselves and me.

Slow xp is bad, not illegal. Now why don't you find for me in the TOS where "ignorance of style of play, soloing tactics, game dynamics" is mentioned? Don't get me wrong, as I also feel the PT should just move on. My own LS normie PT went to kill Puks in Wajaom once when there was a BST there already. To my surprise, they opted right away to respect the BST already there and move camp without me asking them to. But this will not always happen and you can't expect it to.

Bad play equals bad play, regardless of whether it's internal party dynamics or your external dealings with others.

Agreed, but that's not the issue. To just label it bad play is obscure. There's a difference between bad play and wrong play, though the two may overlap.

Well, as a case in point, a few levels back when I was xp-ing off Colibris, a party showed up and was unable to kill at a level of speed that they found acceptable. As the nature of a bst camp generally involves a good deal of running around, it had to have been fairly obvious that I was camping there, /seacom or no. Now, please bear in mind that this particular camp has more than adequate spawns to accomodate two parties(solo or otherwise). I was exclusively using the Pephedros as my pets, when what do I turn to see? This same party attempting to kill the bees. To the best of my knowledge, bees are a poor choice for an xp mob, given their Pollen spamming as well as the dangerous Final Sting attack, and I find it doubtful at best that anyone of a level sufficient to be xp-ing in Wajaom Woodlands wouldn't have long ago learned that; therefore, I'm fairly positive that they were attempting to pull the rug out from beneath my feet, in effect, engaging in one of the few remaining (and virtually impossible to prove) forms of MPK.

Finally. Now this is what I would would consider a legitimate complaint. None of the other examples given previously in the thread amounted to actual harrassment of BST (rude tells, competing for pulls). At this point, I wouldn't care what you did in return, since we all know GMs can be slow/stupid. Personally, I would either file a GM call (more out of thoroughness than actually hoping for a good result) or just go do something else for a while. This is still a game after all, hardly worth waging virtual war over, especially if that means committing violations in return.

As to competing for pops, am I to understand that if you were in a party, had been in a party, and planned on continuing to be in a party at a particular camp when another party showed up, completely disregarding your presence, you wouldn't, after having tried to reason with them, employ any additional methods at your disposal were your overtures to fall on deaf ears? Once again, keep in mind that I'm taking the stance that "depopping" is not in violation of the TOS.

As explained above, their purpose is primarily competition. Yours is primarily disruption/harrassment. And no, I wouldn't employ any methods considered to be violations.

I've tried (and still try) to reason. I've tried to turn the other cheek. I've walked away. But after 66 levels of having parties run roughshod over me at times. I-have-quite-simply-had-enough. Respect is a two-way street. Show me none, expect to see none in return. If that makes me a puss, then I stand guilty as charged.

Good for you. Depopping as a means of retaliation, or getting friends to lock the camp down as the other poster did is still wrong.

Let's talk some more apples and oranges. So there's a sport out there where both teams get a ball and can delay each other’s plays? In your analogy, I could be construed as being in violation by the simple act of having a pet if there's a party waiting for a pop, no? Obviously it doesn't matter whether I was there first or not, since I'm just a hindrance to this much more deserving team of Johhny-come-latelies.

Not totally clear what you're saying here, but no, it wouldn't be a violation. Both "teams" have an equal right to claim the ball. Like I said above, at that point it just becomes competition.

Conversely, perhaps we can define the teams to be party vs. mob. Do the sports to which you refer have anything in their rules to address four teams all playing on the same court, or do they simply rely on common courtesy as well as common sense to prevent such situations from coming about?

I don't know what you mean.

Double Post Edited:
You know what. I'm done with this thread. I still stand by all the points I made. But looking back on my posts, I've been rather rude to you in my replies/tone, which was not my intent. So I'm sorry for that and thnx also for remaining civil. I guess this is one of those hot button issue for me. I just hate when shit degenerates into eye-for-an-eye. With BST especially, we never know when idiot devs at SE will lend their ears to Allakhazam retards whining about BST again, whether we're in the right or not.

Anyway, regards. Best of luck to you all, and hope that these sort of incidents are kept at a minimum.

[Reauland]

Re: Just gotta post...

www.playonline.com / Service & Support / Q&A / "What is harrassment?":
Harassment can take many forms. Many of these acts are aimed to hurt or anger a certain player and force them to leave the game. Harassment is an inexcusable act and should be taken care of. Game Masters (GM) place top priority on such calls.

- Verbal harassment:
Harassment via say, tell, party, shout, etc. to insult or discriminate against other players is prohibited in the game. Players who use certain character names in their messages can be treated as intention to harrass even if the offender was just joking.

- Harassment via actions:
Stalking, or any act done with the intent to disturb another player's game experience is not allowed. Also, distributing linkshells with the expressed purpose of discriminating certain players is also prohibited. Not only the player, but other unrelated players may have their game experiences disturbed due to over-population.


Please make note of the "intent" factor in the last section. Obviously, they're not going to specifically list out every single action that constitutes harrassment. Or the whole thing would be hundreds of pages long and still be incomplete. So if you're asking me to cite where it says depopping mobs is listed, then we're both outta luck here.

So, in essence, someone waging a war of attrition against an entrenched bst doesn't imply that they "intend" for that bst to leave? Keep in mind, I'm only speaking to a situation where there truly are only enough mobs to support one xp party. This competition as you name it is of specifically the intent to force another player to leave. There's also the spirit of the game to consider. I would never in my wildest imaginings do something like this to someone else were the situations reversed, so am I failing to hold to the spirit of the game, or am I merely responding to someone else's infraction?

Slow xp is bad, not illegal. Now why don't you find for me in the TOS where "ignorance of style of play, soloing tactics, game dynamics" is mentioned?

To the very best of my knowledge, it doesn't. You, on the other hand, say:

In this case, we are left to abiding as well as we can to the TOS and hopefully the spirit of the game.

And at least to my mind, quality of play, alongside courtesy to others fall quite squarely within the spirit of the game. That spirit, in no small part, being one of cooperation.

None of the other examples given previously in the thread amounted to actual harrassment of BST (rude tells, competing for pulls).

Forgive me for pointing this out, but,

Harassment via say, tell, party, shout, etc. to insult or discriminate against other players is prohibited in the game. Players who use certain character names in their messages can be treated as intention to harrass even if the offender was just joking.

And lastly, what I meant by this:

Conversely, perhaps we can define the teams to be party vs. mob. Do the sports to which you refer have anything in their rules to address four teams all playing on the same court, or do they simply rely on common courtesy as well as common sense to prevent such situations from coming about?

was that there are no sporting rules that I'm aware of that address the matter of more teams occupying a playing field than it can adequately accomodate. In my redressing of your analogy, I equate the "teams" to consist of Party team vs. Mob team. If the court has room for one such competition, what rules address the arrival of two more teams competing for the same space? In my opinion, here's where the spirit of the game reenters the picture. All of a sudden we're off the pages of the rulebook and having to look at things in terms of common decency. In other words, "this team was here first," but they're willing to vacate the court once their game is finished. Given that our "referees" aren't omnipresent, wouldn't the matter be better addressed by the players themselves? What if the second team decides they're just going to attempt to bully the other guys off the court? Would you expect them(or him) to meekly step aside and seek their fun elsewhere?

In closing, I'd like to say that you seem to be a fair-minded individual, and it's been a pleasure debating you, inferences about my lack of comprehension notwithstanding. I can assure you I've understood your point of view, and I feel that where we truly differ in opinion is in what we feel constitutes harassment and how one assesses intent, the latter being a nebulous quantity at best in many cases.

If my methods do eventually earn me jail time, so be it, though I highly doubt that they will.