Would EQ be better off without GMs?

[Hitchens]

There is no financial investment in the reputation of a character on a free server and there is no emotional investment in the reputation of a character you purchased on the forums.

[Corrodith]

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

The freemarket principle is being misapplied I believe. In a proper situation you have a recourse. The detriment to yourself for trolling or griefing is greater than the gain.

Xasten, while I am obviously invoking the free market principle here, I do understand that there are limitations to the types of recourses available and ability to transfer consequences to "destructive parties". I think, though, that in general, basic game mechanics create a level playing field where groups of players can leverage their relative organizational strengths to establish agreements in absence of GMs. When you put stuff like training on the table, it ends up making it much harder to compete in traditional ways via poopsocking and batphone races because it can turn into a 12 hour chess match once the training starts, and even for the ultra-hardcore this is not often viable due to play time constraints.

[Hitchens]

You're trying to turn free market philosophy into a panacea.

It is not.

[Corrodith]

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

You're trying to turn free market philosophy into a panacea.

It is not.

I'm sorry, was that an argument?

[Hitchens]

Yes, and if you don't figure it out you're just another preacher.

[Autotune]

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

whats to stop "individual C" griefing without a care in the world

Hello, I am Individual C.

[Frieza_Prexus]

For the majority, no Gms would undisputedly lead to community solutions, yes. That much is clear.

However, there is still the unaddressed minority with functional "veto power" in terms of abuses. There is little to no recourse against these individuals. Therein lies your problem.

[Autotune]

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

For the majority, no Gms would undisputedly lead to community solutions, yes. That much is clear.

However, there is still the unaddressed minority with functional "veto power" in terms of abuses. There is little to no recourse against these individuals. Therein lies your problem.

you act as if there is no problem to begin with.

[Corrodith]

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

For the majority, no Gms would undisputedly lead to community solutions, yes. That much is clear.

However, there is still the unaddressed minority with functional "veto power" in terms of abuses. There is little to no recourse against these individuals. Therein lies your problem.

What do we have now? A minority (basically 2 active individuals) who are GMs that have functional veto power in terms of abuse. There is *zero* recourse against these individuals.

Which is the better situation? IMO at least a player can be trained/griefed/ks'ed back. And a player doesn't have the power to literally stop you from playing the game on a whim.

[azeth]

i do think P99 would've been better off without in-game guide/GM enforced rules from the getgo.

but given the avg population (im seeing ~350 avg) I'm unsure if the "masses" who'd work to oust the inevitable griefers are actually present.