Hadden - Dialachad drama

[Vostok]

Less /list, not more

[Tecmos Deception]

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

The only clarification I can see within the thread is someone saying the rule is unenforceable and Deru saying that corpsing is evidence of someone lying about drops. Again, supporting that corpsing is merely an example of the rule and not the rule itself. He doesn't really seem to clarify it anywhere else in the thread.

Can you point me in the right direction? Or are you talking about him clarifying the wait list rules?

He doesn't clarify it. He said he was going to, but then never did. This seems like proof that Deru himself didn't consider the statement he made clear. Why would he plan on elaborating (again, even though he never actually did) if everyone already understood what he said?

A separate line of reasoning also shows the rule he stated to be unclear. The rule as written would yield ridiculous results in some circumstances (like someone farming misty guards having to yield their camp after getting am 11pp spear because "well you got the item you were here for, now it's my turn!"). So it certainly wasn't intended to be applied in the broadest sense possible.

The example we have right in the rule addresess a lore+no drop item, which of course you couldn't continue to camp to loot a 2nd one yourself without corpsing (which, if there is someone else waiting for the camp, would cause you to lose the camp anyways, since dying/zoning/LD forfeits a camp). However, possibilities like letting someone else loot the 2nd drop or letting the 2nd drop rot aren't addressed, and those things don't conflict with other rules so they aren't unreasonable possibilities that would need to be considered.

The other example given is about tranix crown. Deru says players should petition to find out if the item people were after drops. That's pretty silly. I really doubt GMs want to be checking who got what item when on a regular basis, and even then the player can argue they weren't actually after X drop but they really want Y drop.




Not. Clear.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

y'all done summoed Mendens Avatar at Hadden camp. shame on you guys

What is that, anyways? I thought maybe I could figure out a way to make a character with an underscore in the name, but I couldn't [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[PabloEdvardo]

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What was your setup like?

2 big ass CRTs, a couple old beige keyboards, and we used "phoneline home networking" so we could dial-up on one machine and share the connection throughout the house.

[doubledgedboard]

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

The example we have right in the rule addresess a lore+no drop item, which of course you couldn't continue to camp to loot a 2nd one yourself without corpsing (which, if there is someone else waiting for the camp, would cause you to lose the camp anyways, since dying/zoning/LD forfeits a camp). However, possibilities like letting someone else loot the 2nd drop or letting the 2nd drop rot aren't addressed, and those things don't conflict with other rules so they aren't unreasonable possibilities that would need to be considered.

This is a great example. e.g. when farming nets, the rare drop is a LORE item that I have no interest in. I'll be damned if I'm going to give up a camp just because another of the LORE drops, preventing me from getting the common drop I came for.

[Tilien]

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

He doesn't clarify it. He said he was going to, but then never did. This seems like proof that Deru himself didn't consider the statement he made clear. Why would he plan on elaborating (again, even though he never actually did) if everyone already understood what he said?

A separate line of reasoning also shows the rule he stated to be unclear. The rule as written would yield ridiculous results in some circumstances (like someone farming misty guards having to yield their camp after getting am 11pp spear because "well you got the item you were here for, now it's my turn!"). So it certainly wasn't intended to be applied in the broadest sense possible.

The example we have right in the rule addresess a lore+no drop item, which of course you couldn't continue to camp to loot a 2nd one yourself without corpsing (which, if there is someone else waiting for the camp, would cause you to lose the camp anyways, since dying/zoning/LD forfeits a camp). However, possibilities like letting someone else loot the 2nd drop or letting the 2nd drop rot aren't addressed, and those things don't conflict with other rules so they aren't unreasonable possibilities that would need to be considered.

The other example given is about tranix crown. Deru says players should petition to find out if the item people were after drops. That's pretty silly. I really doubt GMs want to be checking who got what item when on a regular basis, and even then the player can argue they weren't actually after X drop but they really want Y drop.




Not. Clear.

You brought up 2 "ridiculous" results. Since you're going to stubbornly deny that a stated rule is to be read as is I'll leave it at this response:

A) This applies to camps for specific items, while this may itself be vague so are many rules. I'd agree that applying this type of rule to xp camps or cash camps would be ridiculous and isn't within the scope of the rule.

B) Selling loot rights. This rule says if you get an item drop and sell it you've lost camp. Clearly stated in the "if the item drops, your camp is over" portion of the 1 sentence rule. Don't think people follow it? Petition them. I've never had to, I've never had a problem with people and camps. IDK where all this drama comes from.

Also the Tranix case he says if you have reason to believe, i.e. you already have evidence that they've gotten a drop. Which is the enforce ability issue, not a clarity issue. For example if Hadden only drops a pole or ear, and you see a non-pole holding Hadden go down the camp holder has gotten their earring.

You can argue it's a bad rule, or a rule no one TRIES to enforce, but it is the current ruling. If I had to I would petition on it, but it's never come up. I'm done now.

[Mblake81]

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

2 big ass CRTs, a couple old beige keyboards, and we used "phoneline home networking" so we could dial-up on one machine and share the connection throughout the house.

two, or more, computers?

what were the speeds like trying to share a single phone line back then, I remember mine being terribly slow surfing the net but EQ didn't require all that much.

[Mblake81]

edit.

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2001 4:40 pm

a lan modem is the way to go.

my dad uses one for his office. you access it through an ip address to change login information. whenever 1 computer trys to access the internet it auto dials. once it's activated, any computer on the network can get on the net.

I had to mess with it because I was getting email addresses for his employees setup somewhat recently.

the modem plugs into a ethernet port.

I'm amazed that my dad has a network for his office. he's a cpa and can bearly use a computer beyond what he has to use

Rather ignorant of dial up networking, we didn't have one until cable came through and used separate phone lines for each. So you could run multiple computers off a single phone line, works well enough for to send/receive EQ it would seem. I was just getting into computers during the tail end of dial up.

[completionist]

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

looks like ole <IRONBORN> got POPPED.

[PabloEdvardo]

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

two, or more, computers?

what were the speeds like trying to share a single phone line back then, I remember mine being terribly slow surfing the net but EQ didn't require all that much.

two computers, win xp most likely

The internet was insanely slow, but just like you said, fine for two instances of EQ