THE GRUPO INCIDENT (legitimate discussion)

[cian2]

I think Grupo is heinously scummy, and I think everyone who helped gear him would agree - he essentially took advantage of his guildmates to gear it, and took advantage of the community to exp it. Not to mention the Grupo pugs are THE reason the pug rules were changed, for the worse. I also think ringers are a problem that cheapen the game and this is the most blatant, shameless type of ringer.

However, I can't sit too far on my high horse really, my alt benefitted from his pugs as well. Technically he's not breaking any rules, and ultimately if he wants to do it, and people keep exping it for him, well... who do we really have to blame

I do think any item deleted should be returned by GMs. The GMs should be here for the players. After some recent GM decisions that I, uh, disagreed with, I'm glad to see this one went over without a fight really.

 

[Wulamdar]

I believe rules are rules. When the policy states clearly that stolen items are stolen and will not be reimbursed, but it is then decided that if you fiddle enough with a character's equipment, it will be restored, it strikes me as a bad decision. Even more so when there are tools already implemented that aim exactly to prevent that kind of abuse that the victim opted not to use. The staff explained their reasoning behind their decision; I disagree with it, but it's their call, so be it.

Your rules argument is a front, and it's hypocritical. You've never sped? You've never stolen anything? You didn't drink, smoke, or gamble until the appropriate age? You've never done illegal drugs? You've never cheated? Get the fuck out of here.

You have underlying reasons for feeling how you do, and the 'rule' is not the main one. The rule doesn't even state anything about not restoring deleted items. It says guest lock won't allow items to be deleted, but goes on to specify that only stolen items will not be reimbursed. Deleted is not the same as stolen.

A character got their items deleted. That's terrible. It doesn't matter what character it was or the fact that it was preventable. The action happened. The staff has the ability to fix it. Fixing it is the better option.

I don't see what ridiculous accusations of jealousy bring to the debate. Do you really believe casual players sit in a dark corner away from the cool kids and glare at established/hardcore players with mad envy in their eyes? Come on.

To an extent, yes. Maybe not that extreme, but they are definitely envious and want the gear that they see on those players. That's why they invest time in the game. They want to improve their character and get to that point. They lust after those items, to one degree or another. That's why people can lead a PuG raid somewhere and claim an item for themselves while the other 16 players are WILLING to go on the chance that a) an item not claimed will drop, b) it will be something they can use, and c) they might actually win a roll. It doesn't matter how slim their shot is. A shot in a million is better than no shot.

 

[Minerios]

Your rules argument is a front, and it's hypocritical.

I think you're mistaken about the meaning of hypocritical. I'd be hypocritical if I insisted the rules be enforced while at the same time requesting special treatment for myself or someone else. I don't.

You have underlying reasons for feeling how you do

Let's make a deal: you tell me what you think and I tell you what I think. I won't pretend to know what you think and you won't pretend to know what I think. Sounds good?

Deleted is not the same as stolen.

In this context, I find the difference irrelevant. YMMV.

 

[Silosobi]

In this context, I find the difference irrelevant. YMMV.

And this is exactly why there is a debate. There is a huge difference between item theft and item deletion. Theft has a much more common and understandable motive, since the thief directly benefits from the action. Additionally, in the case of theft, the damage done is usually far far less. Most characters wear mostly no drop items, which a theif can not benefit from, someone that just maliciously deletes in general is going to do far more damage to the character's progression.

If you can't seem to grasp this, I don't know what to tell you. If you think the rules should extend to include not reimbursing malicious deletion of characters or all their gear, you are suggesting a rule change, not reinforcement of a current rule.

 

[Wulamdar]

I think you're mistaken about the meaning of hypocritical. I'd be hypocritical if I insisted the rules be enforced while at the same time requesting special treatment for myself or someone else. I don't.

You want the rules to be enforced but will break some on occasion. You don't like hypocritical, I'm sure there's a better term to describe that situation.

Let's make a deal: you tell me what you think and I tell you what I think. I won't pretend to know what you think and you won't pretend to know what I think. Sounds good?

You think the gear shouldn't be reimbursed based on the rule. The rule doesn't state that deleted items won't be reimbursed. Therefore the rule doesn't apply. You using the rule as a reason to justify non-reimbursement is a front. I think you have other reasons for feeling the way you do.

In this context, I find the difference irrelevant. YMMV.

It is completely relevant. If someone stripped the character of its dropable gear it wouldn't even be an issue and the guest lock policy would stand. That's not what happened. And that's why the gear was restored.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I'm just telling you how it is. 8)

 

[Wulamdar]

If there was no guest lock in place, if there was no policy, if Grupo's info was still shared in the same manner: would you still think he should suffer his loss and 'learn from his mistakes'? Can you answer that question honestly? That goes to anyone who feels the gear shouldn't be restored.

 

[Minerios]

You want the rules to be enforced but will break some on occasion. You don't like hypocritical, I'm sure there's a better term to describe that situation.

You are conflating game rules and real life examples as well as the fact of breaking rules and facing the consequences of breaking rules. Moreover, sharing Grupo's account doesn't break any rules, so this line of reasoning is irrelevant.

You think the gear shouldn't be reimbursed based on the rule. The rule doesn't state that deleted items won't be reimbursed. Therefore the rule doesn't apply. You using the rule as a reason to justify non-reimbursement is a front.

To the best of my knowledge, the rule doesn't state anything about maliciously deleting items from an account that isn't yours but to which you have access through legit means. Hence a judgment call must be made; I make mine based on the fact it is clearly stated items lost through player action won't be restored and you are responsible for what happens to your characters when you give access to someone else. Staff thought other arguments held more weight and ruled differently than I would have; I disagree, but once again, it's their call.

I think you have other reasons for feeling the way you do.

I don't. I don't expect you to believe me, but I don't.

If there was no guest lock in place, if there was no policy, if Grupo's info was still shared in the same manner: would you still think he should suffer his loss and 'learn from his mistakes'? Can you answer that question honestly? That goes to anyone who feels the gear shouldn't be restored.

I make no qualms about it: yes, I believe he should "learn from his mistakes". Silo said in his last post that he thinks the debate hangs mostly on the difference between selling and deleting items: for me, it hangs on the question of responsibility for your account. The rule repeatedly states you are responsible for your account. In my view, this includes giving access to someone who backstabs you. *shrug*

 

[Sateru]

For the record, only I ever had info to Slaariel

I had Slaar info for a few glorious hours. Your record is tarnished.

 

[Wulamdar]

To the best of my knowledge, the rule doesn't state anything about maliciously deleting items from an account that isn't yours but to which you have access through legit means. Hence a judgment call must be made; I make mine based on the fact it is clearly stated items lost through player action won't be restored and you are responsible for what happens to your characters when you give access to someone else. Staff thought other arguments held more weight and ruled differently than I would have; I disagree, but once again, it's their call.

You should read the policy then. It doesn't state anything about restoring deleted items, regardless what context you place on the end. It also clearly states items stolen will not be reimbursed, not 'items lost through player action won't be restored' or any other wording you can come up with to make it sound vague enough to include deletes.

I don't. I don't expect you to believe me, but I don't.

You claimed you wanted the rule enforced, and admit even if there was no rule you are still against restoring. The rule to you is moot. It doesn't matter if its there or not you still disagree with the restore. That's why I made that claim. It was worded quite direct and came off as condescending, I'll admit.

I make no qualms about it: yes, I believe he should "learn from his mistakes". Silo said in his last post that he thinks the debate hangs mostly on the difference between selling and deleting items: for me, it hangs on the question of responsibility for your account. The rule repeatedly states you are responsible for your account. In my view, this includes giving access to someone who backstabs you. *shrug*

It doesn't concern you at all. Do you still play? Are you affected by the restore? If you really don't have any underlying reasons other than 'it's his fault someone deleted his stuff' then you shouldn't care either way. Certainly not enough to post arguments against the restore. To me that signals there are other factors that motivate you to spend time voicing your opinion. And the rule doesn't 'repeatedly state you are responsible for your account.' It says it once. Not that it matters. But you clearly haven't even looked at the rule recently and are just using it to reinforce how you 'feel' about the situation.

 

[Minerios]

You should read the policy then. It doesn't state anything about restoring deleted items, regardless what context you place on the end. It also clearly states items stolen will not be reimbursed, not 'items lost through player action won't be restored' or any other wording you can come up with to make it sound vague enough to include deletes.

From the policy question thread (bolding mine):

Re: General Reimbursement of Items:
We do not reimburse players for stuff they looted with the wrong character/destroyed/accidentally gave to their pet under any circumstances. (Players make mistakes. You learn from them)

You claimed you wanted the rule enforced, and admit even if there was no rule you are still against restoring. The rule to you is moot.

Au contraire: this exact situation isn't covered by the existing rules, but I based my reflection on the existing rules and how they provide guidelines to deal with that situation. Some of those rules seem to me to apply to the situation.

It doesn't concern you at all. Do you still play? Are you affected by the restore? If you really don't have any underlying reasons other than 'it's his fault someone deleted his stuff' then you shouldn't care either way. Certainly not enough to post arguments against the restore. To me that signals there are other factors that motivate you to spend time voicing your opinion.

I like the fact GMs here usually do a pretty good job at laying down the rules, explaining them and applying them. You keep trying to frame this as a personal gripe I have with Silo/Grupo, which couldn't be farther from the truth. What I am concerned with is the integrity of the rules. I don't like the feeling that rules are bent to the good will of the staff, and it's the feeling I got early on in this debate. My unease has been somewhat eased by the explanations various staffers have provided (especially since I expect these explanations to be the benchmark of similar decisions in the future, should it become necessary). I would have dropped the matter since yesterday if accusations that I and others who share my views in total or in part are somehow motivated by jealousy or darker motives haven't been made with a straight face.

And the rule doesn't 'repeatedly state you are responsible for your account.' It says it once. Not that it matters. But you clearly haven't even looked at the rule recently and are just using it to reinforce how you 'feel' about the situation.

I'll retract "repeatedly" if you wish, and replace it with "unequivocally". Is that good? And could you please stop trying to divine what I think and what I do?

ETA: It's about time we drop the issue before we bore everyone to sleep, isn't it? Can we agree to disagree and leave it at that?

 

[luciferblack]

Minerios isn't jealous in the least. He has turned down every offer of PLing I have ever issued, he would never take any gear upgrades I offered unless he earned them, he has never asked to bot a toon, and he has never sat AFK in a group leeching xp.

The problem with this situation is that someone was BLATANTLY irresponsible and knew full well what could happen, but their greed got the best of them... and was ultimately rewarded.

+1 for the ringer bots!

 

[Wulamdar]

I get in moods where I like to argue. Imagine if you caught me in one while I was drunk. It aint pretty.

 

[Minerios]

I get in moods where I like to argue. Imagine if you caught me in one while I was drunk. It aint pretty.

I'll try to catch you while you are in the "buddy" drunken phase then. It could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

 

[Silosobi]

@Minerios:Can you stop misquoting or bringing up rules out of context? Your most recent attempt is pretty obviously about individuals making mistakes on their own accounts. Someone maliciously deleting EVERYTHING is an entirely different situation.

You are fine to have your own opinion, but stop trying to act like the rules back you up, because they dont. Staff has already said that in these situations in the past, items/characters are restored. Now it has been made clear that is still the case.

 

[Nwaij]

@Minerios:Can you stop misquoting or bringing up rules out of context? Your most recent attempt is pretty obviously about individuals making mistakes on their own accounts. Someone maliciously deleting EVERYTHING is an entirely different situation.

Just for discussions sake: Could argue that YOU made the mistake to not use guestlock.

 

[eqjenius]

For the record, my posts were not meant as an attack on Slaar, Tao, Solo, or any of the other people who've felt targeted in this thread.

Solo was trying to xp his character in the easiest way possible. I don't begrudge him for this at all. I do the same thing and I expect most other players do as well. My interest is in the way the game is affected by policies and game design. I see no benefits to the game in players finding ways of exploiting game mechanics for character progression, but I do see a number of problems with it which I've already detailed.

Since I started playing SoD in 09, I've seen the population of the server decrease, and the average active player is further towards the end-game than my first year on the server: I.E., the character-base is aging. Are the changes I proposed going to immediately fix this problem? Of course not, but I do think they would improve the game environment itself, which is a good start.

 

[Wulamdar]

I've been playing since '05, and I've seen the population increase and decrease. It seems to maintain a pretty average level, though. The population is always going to be aging. That's the nature of the game. Some people argue it doesn't even start till 65. Others will argue you need to have 5 CoP to even really be effective. If anything, you should want MORE people getting to the top sooner. Most people play this game to slay dragons. The best dragons to slay are at the end of the game. Slowing down people because they get there too fast is going to ruin the game.

 

[eqjenius]

I've been playing since '05, and I've seen the population increase and decrease. It seems to maintain a pretty average level, though. The population is always going to be aging. That's the nature of the game. Some people argue it doesn't even start till 65. Others will argue you need to have 5 CoP to even really be effective. If anything, you should want MORE people getting to the top sooner. Most people play this game to slay dragons. The best dragons to slay are at the end of the game. Slowing down people because they get there too fast is going to ruin the game.

Not sure I see your logic here. Everyone having max tomes ~ No one having any tomes. If everyone was at the end game, progression wouldn't even be an aspect of the game. The reason the end-game dragons are the best dragons is because they are the most challenging and have the best loot compared to all the other dragons, so the most people have incentive to kill them.

The point isn't to slow you down, it's to give you more things to do so that you don't jump straight to the last dragon, slay it a few times and then move on having experienced little of the game's content.

 

[jew_nose_it]

Just for discussions sake: Could argue that YOU made the mistake to not use guestlock.

He did and he said he would be using it from now on. I don't know why this thread is still open.

 

[fuwok]

I don't think "gross xp prostitution" is a problem. If people think playing someone else's character to advance some other character of theirs is a good deal, let them do it. If they don't think so and want to do something sensible like start their own alt character to progress their character then they are still able to do that.

Nobody is forcing anybody to box someone's shitty alt paladin.

edit: I'm happy that the revert was done and since things like this basically never happen I don't think we need a slew of rules to try to prevent things like this from happening.