TMO resort to hacking in VP

[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.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

What we have so far is proof that one of your member clearly cheated and exploited IP exemption to the benefit of your guild. That person should be banned, period.

When I don't follow TMO, is all the support to that person since the beginning.

"Everybody does it. Or at least on red. So it's ok!".

By doing so, you're all adding up to the guild suspension case. Because it's not just a solitary act. It now looks sanctionned by your leaders. And the risk seems too big to be worth defending such blatant exploit, at least from my point of view.

Aiaus should be clearly punished. I cannot account for the arguments made by my guildmates. I've said it before, but I clearly do not believe that two wrongs make a right here.

At no point have I justified the abuses in question. The point I made early on, which seems to be causing much contention, is that I said I am unsure if a permanent ban would be consistent with how similar cases have been handled. I never said a ban absolutely should be of the table, simply that I am unsure if it is warranted.

[getsome]

tmo cleric scope of duty = rez , heal

tmo cleric actions = rezzed tmo toons in VP

tmo cleric had the correct shoes on.

so thanks for agreeing with me. the offense was committed within the scope of his duties, thus the greater whole can be liable.

[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.

[Drob]

If the TMO cleric used this exploit to avoid dying to a bunch of dragoons in OT, then he should get an individual punishment. Since he helped your guild gain an unfair advantage in a raid situation, your whole guild should be suspended.

It's pretty simple if you don't overthink it.

[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.

[Mortiiss]

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

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.

Post a fraps, never seen this happen. I can tell you, historically speaking, we do not support cheating of any kind.

Now, with evidence in mind:

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

Could you please let us know TMO's official stance on the use of this exploit please Zeelot? We're dying to hear it.

[finalgrunt]

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

Aiaus should be clearly punished. I cannot account for the arguments made by my guildmates. I've said it before, but I clearly do not believe that two wrongs make a right here.

At no point have I justified the abuses in question. The point I made early on, which seems to be causing much contention, is that I said I am unsure if a permanent ban would be consistent with how similar cases have been handled. I never said a ban absolutely should be of the table, simply that I am unsure if it is warranted.

Well I'm sure many of your members condemn such behavior (I bet many weren't even aware of it). The issue is more about some of your leaders defending it here. Because they represent you and the rest of your guildmates.
It doesn't paint a good picture on the rest of you for sure.

As for what happens on red, I don't think it matters, it's a seperate server, with its own community and purpose. Devs will handle it the way they want. But on the blue server, which is a PvE server, exploits which give you an unexpectedly easy interaction with content has always been punished/forbidden.

[falkun]

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

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.

And now we're back to getsome's comment that your examples are utter bullshit. This is a game with rules and no real property is damaged because of someone's in-game actions. Thus getsome's NFL example is much more appropriate: you break an NFL rule on the field, your team backs up 10 yards, you don't wear your pink sweatbands during breast cancer month, the commish fines you (individually)

[quido]

Maybe we should just lie and claim we had no idea it was happening, like you! I have seen it with my own two eyes - sorry I don't have a fraps. If you thinking I'm making this up, you don't know me very well obviously.

Whatever happens with Aiaus, I hope this drama will help to eliminate the concocted double standard you guys are presenting. If you guys want to instapoof and the staff says that's Ok for now, let's do it - you'll get owned =) And if nobody can do it anymore, that's fine with me too - you'll have an even tougher time next time we train Nexona on you for hours and hours.

But stop with the fucking bullshit please, liars. Your people have been doing this for weeks and if you don't know that, you're maybe not liars but you're fucking retarded.