TMO resort to hacking in VP

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Everyone here (even TMO) admitted this was cheating and exploiting. You carry on deflecting your embarassment by saying "hey admit your guild cheats". How do you want me to admit something that never happened? I'm sorry to disappoint Villexo and you here, but we didn't know about this, this cheating is so fucking obvious that who ever was on Aiaus was retarded enough to do it 50 times in front of our raid.

I think the point, at least one of them, that he's trying to make is that many people are trying to impute wrongdoing onto every single member of TMO because of the actions of a single person (or a select few persons). If that is the case, then it would be equally valid to turn right back around and do the same thing to FE. Perhaps you and the majority of your leadership were unaware of such a tactic, just as some in TMO were. However, it is completely disingenuous to think that the abuse of IP exemptions has not occurred to some degree or another on both sides. That said, the degree of abuse may differ, but it has ben readily admitted that his abuses were likely the most severe to date.

What I find most interesting is that Elethia has gone so far as to agree with you that Aiaus should be punished. The only real difference seems to be in what the punishment should be (stripping the exemption and suspending versus banning or raid suspending the entire guild).

He's attempting to met you halfway and actually discuss and debate the issue, yet he is being dismissed as if he were in complete denial that anything wrong has happened at all.

[Tanthallas]

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

I think the point, at least one of them, that he's trying to make is that many people are trying to impute wrongdoing onto every single member of TMO because of the actions of a single person (or a select few persons). If that is the case, then it would be equally valid to turn right back around and do the same thing to FE. Perhaps you and the majority of your leadership were unaware of such a tactic, just as some in TMO were. However, it is completely disingenuous to think that the abuse of IP exemptions has not occurred to some degree or another on both sides. That said, the degree of abuse may differ, but it has ben readily admitted that his abuses were likely the most severe to date.

What I find most interesting is that Elethia has gone so far as to agree with you that Aiaus should be punished. The only real difference seems to be in what the punishment should be (stripping the exemption and suspending versus banning or raid suspending the entire guild).

He's attempting to met you halfway and actually discuss and debate the issue, yet he is being dismissed as if he were in complete denial that anything wrong has happened at all.

Lots of words cant hide bullshit. Sorry.

Using an exploit to benefit an individual = punishment for the individual.

Using an exploit to benefit a guild - guild punishment.

There was a TMO officer present the entire time. Nothing was done. People can say whatever they want after the fact about how they feel; I dont care about how people feel, I care about how people act.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Lots of words cant hide bullshit. Sorry.

Using an exploit to benefit an individual = punishment for the individual.

Using an exploit to benefit a guild - guild punishment.

There was a TMO officer present the entire time. Nothing was done. People can say whatever they want after the fact about how they feel; I dont care about how people feel, I care about how people act.

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

Your guild used his exploits to gain an advantage. Therefore, you should be raid suspended. Don't be retarded.

Given the severity of a raid suspension, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it would be prudent for the decision maker to do some fact finding.

If it can be reasonably shown that the leadership knew and blessed the obvious abuse of an IP exemption, yes you can put a raid suspension onto the list of possible outcomes. That is not in dispute.

Note: I am NOT commenting as to whether or not TMO's leadership knew of and supported such uses. I was not there, and I am in no position to draw conclusions on that question of fact. I am merely elaborating on what I feel is due process in producing an outcome for the situation.

What I take issue with is the notion that incidental beneficiaries should be punished for actions that were not controlled by them. For example, if it is shown that Aiaus was acting along and surreptitiously, then it would be unfair to issue punishments to the rest of the guild. If you're going to assign vicarious liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior), it must be fairly done.

A prime example of an unfair application would be Perun's ninja looting of CT. To punish all of IB for Perun's actions, which clearly exceeded his authority and right, was unjust. (See: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=79)

[getsome]

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

What I take issue with is the notion that incidental beneficiaries should be punished for actions that were not controlled by them. For example, if it is shown that Aiaus was acting along and surreptitiously, then it would be unfair to issue punishments to the rest of the guild. If you're going to assign vicarious liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior), it must be fairly done.

A prime example of an unfair application would be Perun's ninja looting of CT. To punish all of IB for Perun's actions, which clearly exceeded his authority and right, was unjust. (See: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=79)

Everquest is not ruled by a court of law.

MFer exploited and his guild directly benefited.

btw your examples are fucking stupid. so I am playing football and I commit an infraction. Instead of moving my team back 10 yards, just make me line up 10 yards back.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Everquest is not ruled by a court of law.

It is, however, run by individuals that openly welcome reasoned arguments. I understand that recrimination tends to be your first resort when you don't agree with something, but not everyone works that way.

Originally Posted by getsome

MFer exploited and his guild directly benefited.

btw your examples are fucking stupid. so I am playing football and I commit an infraction. Instead of moving my team back 10 yards, just make me line up 10 yards back.

If a player commits an individual offense that is not within the scope of his duties, say wearing the wrong shoes with his uniform, he is individually punished. If the offense is committed within the scope of his duties, then the greater whole can be liable. I suggest you take the time to acquaint yourself with the topic in the link I provided. The concept might seem less "stupid" if you understood it.

[falkun]

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

If a player commits an individual offense that is not within the scope of his duties, say wearing the wrong shoes with his uniform, he is individually punished. If the offense is committed within the scope of his duties, then the greater whole can be liable. I suggest you take the time to acquaint yourself with the topic in the link I provided. The concept might seem less "stupid" if you understood it.

It was within Aiaus' scope of duties to stay alive and rez teamates. To stay alive, he Copperfielded, then he came back and to the best of his ability attempted to rez teamates. Your argument is moot.

[quido]

Where's Option, FE officer, for comment? Option, I want to hear what you think about instapoofing characters.

Where is Maultriss, overthrown FE officer, for comment? Maultriss, I want to hear what you think about instapoofing characters.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

It was within Aiaus' scope of duties to stay alive and rez teamates. To stay alive, he Copperfielded, then he came back and to the best of his ability attempted to rez teamates. Your argument is moot.

Generally, under vicarious liability, illegal activities are never held to be under the scope of duties. This is essential to the concept. If a pest control worker sets a house on fire to get rid of all the pests, such an action was not within the scope of his duties.

Similarly, I suggest that a lone individual exploiting to assist the guild is not, and can never be, within such a scope. However, if it was blessed and supported by the leadership, that becomes a different story entirely in which guild-wide punishments can then be brought into play.

[47shadesofgay]

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

Given the severity of a raid suspension, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it would be prudent for the decision maker to do some fact finding.

If it can be reasonably shown that the leadership knew and blessed the obvious abuse of an IP exemption, yes you can put a raid suspension onto the list of possible outcomes. That is not in dispute.

Note: I am NOT commenting as to whether or not TMO's leadership knew of and supported such uses. I was not there, and I am in no position to draw conclusions on that question of fact. I am merely elaborating on what I feel is due process in producing an outcome for the situation.

What I take issue with is the notion that incidental beneficiaries should be punished for actions that were not controlled by them. For example, if it is shown that Aiaus was acting along and surreptitiously, then it would be unfair to issue punishments to the rest of the guild. If you're going to assign vicarious liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior), it must be fairly done.

A prime example of an unfair application would be Perun's ninja looting of CT. To punish all of IB for Perun's actions, which clearly exceeded his authority and right, was unjust. (See: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=79)

The actions of TMO members and leadership casts a direct light on every other member in the guild. The same applies to FE, and any other voluntary establishment.

It seems that TMO members such as yourself are continually bemoaning the fact that your peers and your guilds leadership actions have reflected upon you poorly and so you resort to coming to these very forums, to this specific sub-forum, designed for rants and flames, in order to defend yourselves and ask that you not be punished as a whole for an individuals action. Yet you still remain guilded.

Members such as yourself openly speak out and voice your dissent in matters that you don't agree with, yet you willingly continue to remain a member of this guild, knowing full well that it can only tarnish your very own reputation. Yet you still remain guilded.

So I ask you, being the reasonable man you claim to be, what exactly is it you want of us? Forgiveness for willingly being a member of a guild that exploits game mechanics, has a leader that openly states he loves training and griefing players from other guilds, and officers who openly flaunt your guild's coffers to taunt opposing players?

The only thing you come close to deserving deserve is is pity, but that would be unreasonable, since you could leave under your own will at any time.

You've made your bed, now lie in it.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by 47shadesofgay [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The actions of TMO members and leadership casts a direct light on every other member in the guild. The same applies to FE, and any other voluntary establishment.

It seems that TMO members such as yourself are continually bemoaning the fact that your peers and your guilds leadership actions have reflected upon you poorly and so you resort to coming to these very forums, to this specific sub-forum, designed for rants and flames, in order to defend yourselves and ask that you not be punished as a whole for an individuals action. Yet you still remain guilded.

Members such as yourself openly speak out and voice your dissent in matters that you don't agree with, yet you willingly continue to remain a member of this guild, knowing full well that it can only tarnish your very own reputation. Yet you still remain guilded.

So I ask you, being the reasonable man you claim to be, what exactly is it you want of us? Forgiveness for willingly being a member of a guild that exploits game mechanics, has a leader that openly states he loves training and griefing players from other guilds, and officers who openly flaunt your guild's coffers to taunt opposing players?

The only thing you come close to deserving deserve is is pity, but that would be unreasonable, since you could leave under your own will at any time.

You've made your bed, now lie in it.

Why? Because I enjoy it. Sure, I take issue with a lot of things, but I voluntarily associate because I find net benefit in it. Of course, I suspect you already knew this; you just wanted to frame the situation as if I were coming here for some sort of absolution. I desire nothing from you, least of all pardon.

@Falkun: I do not dispute that Aiaus clearly abused his exemption. The question is what is to be done in this situation, as there is some precedence for the stripping of exemptions, but not (to my knowledge) the banning of characters for such a use. This may not fall under the two boxing punishments because of this statement:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Note, the statement does NOT excuse what was done, it merely, to me, raises a question of what is the proper punishment in light of no explicit sentencing guideline and in consideration of the existence of precedence (albeit, from Red).

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

If you want to play lawyer, then how about we use racketeering as the charge.

Under the current federal doctrine of vicarious criminal liability,
an organization is held criminally responsible for crimes
committed by its agents within the scope of their employment and
with the intent to benefit the organization

See Developments in the Law-Corporate Crime: Regulating Corporate Behavior
Through Criminal Sanctions, 92 HARv. L. REV. 1227, 1247 (1979) [hereinafter Developments].
For a general discussion of this area, see
Brickey, Rethinking Corporate Liability Under the Model Penal Code, 19 RUTGERS L.J.
593, 629-34 (1988).

I'm going to stop you before you hurt yourself. I suspect you did not read the article that you just lifted the text straight out of. (found here: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/c...text=lawreview) Which is titled: Vicarious Criminal Liability of Organizations: RICO as an Example of a Flawed Principle in Practice.

If you had taken the time to even read the title of the work after you blindly Googled, you would note that the publication was arguing strongly against strict liability for employers/principles for ALL actions of the employees/agents. All I did was cite an analogous principle to persuasively support my point. In trying to one up me, you cited a publication that argues my very same point: blanket liability for the actions of an individual who has no blessing from his leadership can be manifestly unjust.

RICO is not immediately analogous as it requires long term patterns of abuse, whereas the principle I cited was immediately applicable via analogy.