Ulwyn ninja looted my quillmane cloak after I camped it for days.

[Hitchens]

I don't think it's your reputation that has suffered as a result of this thread.

[fadetree]

He killed it on his MAIN, for his ALT to loot. I don't recognize his inalienable right to retain his item while he logs out and gets his alt. I don't think looting an obviously rare and needed item off of a corpse you didn't kill is a cool thing to do either, but I don't think he could claim he still had a looting lock on the corpse once he logs off the character that killed it.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

He killed it on his MAIN, for his ALT to loot. I don't recognize his inalienable right to retain his item while he logs out and gets his alt. I don't think looting an obviously rare and needed item off of a corpse you didn't kill is a cool thing to do either, but I don't think he could claim he still had a looting lock on the corpse once he logs off the character that killed it.

Please check my post earlier in this thread. Loot rights belong to players not characters.

[azeth]

You must have your "no drop" filter off, I can't imagine you accidentally clicked through the loot verification window.

Which reminds me of a bard named Hallertau, and his bitch cleric wife Xorena on Rodcet Nife. This guy was in my group, during a Lodizal raid (which I assembled on the sole condition that the map piece for the eyepatch was mine and the remainder lotto'd) and after we killed I instructed him to loot it up/link the loots and give me the corpse.

So I suddenly see the giant turtle carcass vanish, and I ask, "hey I thought the map was 100% drop rate?" and Hallertau responds "this map?" and links it. He ends up claiming he didn't have his No Drop filter on, and got off scott free.

I of course being 13 at the time bitched and whined via /petition so hard that I ended up suspended.

[MrSparkle001]

An alt that is incapable of killing a mob for it's loot has sole claim to the loot after the corpse goes public?

There is no official word on this yet, but I disagree.

Ninja looting is not a raid dispute. It is an individual basis. If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone, the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot.

Notice it says "the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot." It does not say "the players", it says "the group". The alt is not in the group. The alt is not even in the game at this point and thus cannot be considered part of the group that is merited the kill.

It's great that Ulwyn wants to do the right thing and get the OP his loot, but according to that link he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

Also notice this:

Zones deemed Non-Disputable will have no CSR interaction on raid disputes. We will not respond to or take any action on raid disputes involving these zones. Currently the only zone that this applies to is Veeshan's Peak.

This quote defines Veeshan's Peak as the only non-disputable zone, unless at some point between the time of that post (December 2011) and now South Karana was also made non-disputable. This further invalidates the claim that precedent was set according to the link, because that link applies to non-disputable zones. It's right there in the quote. It specifically says "If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone."

You cannot use that link as precedent for this situation.

Of course admins can alter or ignore these "rules" whenever they want. Each case really should be examined individually. I think people in this thread are trying to apply rules meant for raids to non-raid zones and mobs.

My personal thought: Once a corpse goes public it's fair game. If you want your alt to get the loot from a mob have that alt make the kill, or plan the kill out better so there's less chance of someone else looting while you log your alt and run to the corpse.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Notice it says "the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot." It does not say "the players", it says "the group". The alt is not in the group. The alt is not even in the game at this point and thus cannot be considered part of the group that is merited the kill.

It's great that Ulwyn wants to do the right thing and get the OP his loot, but according to that link he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

Also notice this:

This quote defines Veeshan's Peak as the only non-disputable zone, unless at some point between the time of that post (December 2011) and now South Karana was also made non-disputable. This further invalidates the claim that precedent was set according to the link, because that link applies to non-disputable zones. It's right there in the quote. It specifically says "If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone."

You cannot use that link as precedent for this situation.

Of course admins can alter or ignore these "rules" whenever they want. Each case really should be examined individually. I think people in this thread are trying to apply rules meant for raids to non-raid zones and mobs.

My personal thought: Once a corpse goes public it's fair game. If you want your alt to get the loot from a mob have that alt make the kill, or plan the kill out better so there's less chance of someone else looting while you log your alt and run to the corpse.

At the risk of a massive derail, a group, for our purposes, can consist on a single person. Two people can kill a mob, and log one of them over to an alt while the other "awards" the loot rights to the alt. Why is that allowable, yet a single person logging over isn't?

Further, the ninja-looting incident that sparked the Rogean quote was in VP. A non-disputable zone. This does not limit the analogy. It enhances it. During a raid, a single individual, in a non-disputable zone was punished for ninja looting. Why would the rules be LESS stringent in a CSR zone?

The only material point is that there are special rules for a "raid" versus a single person. I posit that there is no such distinction.

I argued this point here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=29 and here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=39

I believe your definition of group is incorrect. I believe we should use the word in the general sense, and NOT in the everquest "click FOLLOW" sense. Under the colloquial use of the word group, players and not characters own the rights to the mob.

Also, there can be no distinction between a raid, a group, or an individual as far as the rules are concerned for our purposes. If I raid the Isle 1 Princess in sky and the corpse unlocks can ANYONE loot it? What if a 6 man group kills her? What if I solo it? This distinction will become EXTREMELY important with Lodizal.

YES, it is SMART to have someone watch the corpse, but we are debating the legal point not what is smart.

Finally, even IF the alt is not "merited" the rights to the kill the killing CHARACTER (owned by the same player that owns the alt) says: "I hereby grant full loot rights of this mob to XYZ (Alt). Surely, that must be allowable? If not, what happens if I solo, say, the paw buster and tell my monk friend in the basement to come get his pipe? Can another monk walking by loot it consequence free? The corpse unlocked afterall and the person I "awarded" the kill to couldn't have solo'd it.

[MrSparkle001]

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

Finally, even IF the alt is not "merited" the rights to the kill the killing CHARACTER (owned by the same player that owns the alt) says: "I hereby grant full loot rights of this mob to XYZ (Alt). Surely, that must be allowable? If not, what happens if I solo, say, the paw buster and tell my monk friend in the basement to come get his pipe? Can another monk walking by loot it consequence free? The corpse unlocked afterall and the person I "awarded" the kill to couldn't have solo'd it.

You, the character who made the kill, are still logged in. If would be different if instead of you telling your friend to come loot you logged off the character who made the kill and logged on an alt who had to run there and it took some time. Possibly if you announced in /shout or /ooc what you're doing it could preseve your loot rights, but to just assume that nobody will touch it without saying anything while you log your alt shouldn't preserve them.

This all should be settled on a case-by-case basis, and I do think the admins will make the right decision when these situations come up

I didn't reply to the rest because it will take some time and time is not something I have right now. I'll be back later. Questions like the definition of "group" are what's important. The admins know what they mean, it's all at their discretion.

[Tiggles]

Wow I just read this giant shitpile of a thread

Lets change the topic to RMT.

How much did that AON and Tobrins cost you Nizzler at lvl 6 new to the server.


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


[Mon Apr 02 17:30:29 2012] Nizzler tells you, 'hey there REDACTED, i just started on the server as a cleric, I came back from eq1 as a 60 cleric bad in kunark days and I was wondering if you're guild was looking for long term clerics for raids'[/b]
[Mon Apr 02 17:30:58 2012] You told Nizzler, 'certainly are looking for motivated long term clerics'
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] Players in EverQuest:
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] ---------------------------
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] [6 Cleric] Nizzler (Dwarf) ZONE: qeytoqrg
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] There is 1 player in EverQuest.

9 RL days later, Nizzler is asking my monk for PL and is level 34.
[Wed Apr 11 13:25:48 2012] Nizzler tells you, 'hey REDACTED, you plvlin for pp sir??'
[Wed Apr 11 13:28:34 2012] [34 Cleric] Nizzler (Dwarf) ZONE: freportn LFG

Little over 2 weeks later:
[Sat Apr 28 12:44:40 2012] [52 Vicar] Nizzler (Dwarf) LFG

3 weeks later:
[Tue May 22 14:27:06 2012] Nizzler says out of character, '57 cleric lfg'

2 weeks later:
[Tue Jun 05 16:25:03 2012] [60 High Priest] Nizzler (Dwarf)

[Servellious]

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

Wow I just read this giant shitpile of a thread

Lets change the topic to RMT.

How much did that AON and Tobrins cost you Nizzler at lvl 6 new to the server.


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


[Mon Apr 02 17:30:29 2012] Nizzler tells you, 'hey there REDACTED, i just started on the server as a cleric, I came back from eq1 as a 60 cleric bad in kunark days and I was wondering if you're guild was looking for long term clerics for raids'[/b]
[Mon Apr 02 17:30:58 2012] You told Nizzler, 'certainly are looking for motivated long term clerics'
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] Players in EverQuest:
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] ---------------------------
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] [6 Cleric] Nizzler (Dwarf) ZONE: qeytoqrg
[Mon Apr 02 17:31:05 2012] There is 1 player in EverQuest.

9 RL days later, Nizzler is asking my monk for PL and is level 34.
[Wed Apr 11 13:25:48 2012] Nizzler tells you, 'hey REDACTED, you plvlin for pp sir??'
[Wed Apr 11 13:28:34 2012] [34 Cleric] Nizzler (Dwarf) ZONE: freportn LFG

Little over 2 weeks later:
[Sat Apr 28 12:44:40 2012] [52 Vicar] Nizzler (Dwarf) LFG

3 weeks later:
[Tue May 22 14:27:06 2012] Nizzler says out of character, '57 cleric lfg'

2 weeks later:
[Tue Jun 05 16:25:03 2012] [60 High Priest] Nizzler (Dwarf)

LMAO.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I agree that situationally you may implicitly cede your loot rights. However, in a vacuum, the rules themselves clearly elaborate that if you did not kill the mob or have the rights granted to you that you do not possess those rights.

You may later have a ruling in your favor, but only after a factual inquiry by a decision maker, and only after putting your character "at risk."