[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you don't need camp rights to kill a mob, you just can't kill a mob to which another player has camp rights.

'First come first served' doesn't seem to be a legislated rule.

Ok, this seems to be the crux of it: you're not saying you need to kill a PH to take a camp, just that you need to kill a PH to prevent anyone else from taking that camp.

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: and thanks for entertaining my position in a courteous manner, Loramin. You truly are a gentleman.

I try (and often fail) to be civil, but it's easier to be respectful when dealing with esteemed posters such as yourself.

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also Loramin, why did you snip out the section on how a camp is considered 'held'?

I did, but to be fair I added ellipsis, the international symbol of "and I'm going to skip some stuff here".

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You do realise the part you removed affirms the very point I am arguing? It's not your camp until you kill a spawn?

It says 1) kill ph/room to hold camp
2) if someone wishes to contest camp you need to maintain a presence

2 is not triggered unless condition 1) already exists; a camp needs to be held to be contested and to be held you have to had cycled ph/room.

Not quite. It says "if the placeholder or placeholders for a spawn are being killed, that 'camp' can be considered held by the player doing the killing". The key point is that it does not say "the only way a camp can be considered held is if you kill a PH", it just establishes that if you are holding down the camp you get to keep it.

I then quoted the parts I quoted because they support my argument [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In any case, if I'm up to speed now I think your position came off as being more extreme than what you're actually advocating. You're 100% in agreement with everyone else on everything (including whether stealing the camp is wrong or not), except that you're saying "look, if two people show up to unspawned spawn point there's nothing in the official rules saying that the guy who was there first gets it". I tried to make a case for why you're wrong, and I think I made a decent one, but as you noted it required a bit of cherry-picking and the rules certainly don't out and out say "first come first serve".

In practice, I think we'd all be a bit surprised if Bob (in my example) showed up hours ahead, waited patiently, and then got sniped, and the staff did nothing. Assuming Bob was respectful to the staff and (just for the sake of argument, I would never actually expect this) has fraps showing things, I would expect that the staff would come down on Fred.

But I have to admit that, like many things rules-related, it's not crystal clear, and my predictions of how the staff would handle it may be wrong. One more reason to make my wiki rules project next on my to do list ...