Quote:
Originally Posted by ELance
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.
EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.
|
An addendum to this post (can't edit it any more):
But what policies? All I said was the GMs encouraged players to share and gave warnings for killstealing. This could be accomplished by a post on the message board, "share", and occasional monitoring of players for killstealing when petitions were made You seem to be trying awfully hard to argue this one point. Two understandings about this that I have: 1) the only case of this I have seen on Project 1999 the GMs answered the petition in 10 or 15 minutes...not exactly short-staffed, but again it hardly matters, cause 2) my understanding in classic is players had to fend for themselves. A warning would only be issued for killstealing if a GM witnessed it, and in order for them to witness it they would likely have had to have been notified about it after one or more killstealings had already happened. I read a post on newsgroups about the AC camp in SRO...the consensus was that you had to fend for yourself, GMs wouldn't sit there for hours and hours, and you would have to compete with other players for damage. Why do you think it is bad to compete with other players for damage? On a private server I would expect it would be even more free-wheeling, and as I understand it in 1999 it was... first engagement was the law of the land; kill-stealing as later was acknowledged as grounds for a warning, but only if a GM saw it...and they likely wouldn't have seen anything but malicious and intentional killstealing, not the usual close-call and incidental kind.... My question is why you think and wish that the GMs should protect players from other players as it were. You don't like a virtual world, and wish to live in a controlled environment?
11-07-2018, 06:22 PM
Hybrid Mode
