TMO / BDA - Raid Alliance

[47shadesofgay]

Then again I was part of a guild that took their ball and went to play elsewhere.. so maybe it's over my head afterall.

Edit: Slight correction, I was driven off the server by TMO's amazing prowess* almost forgot!

[Hasbinbad]

is keeping a corpse locked until it poofs without looting anything illegal?

[Hasbinbad]

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

is keeping a corpse locked until it poofs without looting anything illegal?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

is keeping a corpse locked until it poofs without looting anything illegal?

I assume you mean within VP. A few of us have wondered that as well. I would suspect that the answer is yes because the looter locking the corpse does not have a right to loot the mob. It seems well established that looting a corpse you do not have rights to is improper and would likely fall under the server rules that also prohibit ninja looting. The owner of a corpse has absolute rights to a mob, and this should include the right to exclude others from it. For example, while it is unlikely, there do exist situations where a person might possess a legitimate interest in preventing someone from even seeing what is on the corpse. It seems that the right to exclude others from getting on a corpse is a natural part of owning it. For a collection of thoughts on the nature of owning mob corpses see here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=33

Note that the legality and practicality of locking a corpse are two different things. While it might technically be wrong, it's probably something that might be gotten away with due to insufficient enforcement.

It is not illegal to train a person trying to loot the corpse because training is explicitly authorized in VP, including for purposes of killing a person looting a corpse they own. However, only the training rules are suspended and not the rules concerning ownership of corpses.

[Woahnelly]

If you disagree with the shady shit that y

[Woahnelly]

Stupid iPhone! As I was saying, if you disagree with the shady shit that your guild does, why not denounce it? anytime a TMO member is caught blatantly exploiting, other members just dance around it or change the subject. You want a better server? Don't stand for this shit. The rules are obvious in this case, does no one in TMO have a moral code?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Stupid iPhone! As I was saying, if you disagree with the shady shit that your guild does, why not denounce it? anytime a TMO member is caught blatantly exploiting, other members just dance around it or change the subject. You want a better server? Don't stand for this shit. The rules are obvious in this case, does no one in TMO have a moral code?

I thought had made my stance clear. My apologies if I did not..

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus

Everyone has an absolute right and a reason to be upset about it. It's clearly a broken situation

Also, I denounced a similar use here:

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...&postcount=686
Aiaus should be clearly punished.

But I questioned the fairness of banning that particular individual for very specific reasons which, ultimately, proved rather...controversial. Those arguments can be found in the same thread.

Originally Posted by Woahnelly

if you disagree with the shady shit that your guild does, why not denounce it

I try and make it a point to do so whenever I feel it is appropriate. For example, what the individuals in question have apparently done with their IP exemptions was wrong. I like both of them a lot, and I respect their immense contributions to the guild, so please forgive me if I'm a bit light on the individual public floggings. Sometimes behaviors can be better changed with a fair amount of internal diplomacy, and I think that my goals of growing TMO as a fair and professional organization are more often better served without publicly singling individuals out.

It appears that someone has been caught red handed after being explicitly informed of the consequences, yet those clear ramifications were not applied. There is perhaps a satisfactory explanation to the situation's resolution, but there is, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety and inconsistency that should be dealt with.

To state it very clearly: I believe the community is absolutely right to have an extremely valid concern about the legitimacy of the server's rules enforcement in light of how such an apparent violation was seemingly handled.

[47shadesofgay]

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

I believe the community is absolutely right to have an extremely valid concern about the legitimacy of the server's rules enforcement in light of how such an apparent violation was seemingly handled.

x2

[47shadesofgay]

I am curious why you have referred to it as an "apparent violation" that was "seemingly handled" though.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

I am curious why you have referred to it as an "apparent violation" that was "seemingly handled" though.

Because the staff has not explained their reasoning yet. It would be, in my view, improper to fully assume that there exists no possible extenuating circumstance that justified their actions. Perhaps they know something we do not that materially changes the situation.

I think it would be unfair to use language that condemns staff actions when I do not have the facts as they see them. This is doubly true when I can simply point out a burning question to accomplish the same goal instead of assuming staff actions were ill-founded.

Thus, "apparent" and "seemingly" find a use. It's about starting with respect for the authority and intelligence of the decision makers.