Best Server Community Sin--Wait, Nevermind

[soup]

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

*sighs* I thought that I could get at least someone into a philosophical discussion about how different people determine what is just or unjust in different situations. Guess this is nothing but your standard forum troll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trying to turn a camp dispute on a EQ emulator's forum into a deep philosophical discussion on the subjective nature of morality might be asking a bit much. Just sayin'

[h0tr0d (shaere)]

Just because someone disagrees with you, or takes a different stance then you doesn't make them a 'douchebag'. I hate that term. Some middle schooler finds out what it is and starts using it, and here we are. Actions speak louder then words, including actions here.

The bottom line is, if your not at the camp for what ever reason, it is no longer your camp.

I agree with this, but say someone is camping say Raster for an extended period, their router burps or whatever, and they go linkdead. They log back in within minutes, as soon as their character is no longer active on their server and allows them to log in. They log back in, and you are now at the camp. Different ways different people handle it, as we see here. I would also point out there are people playing who would take advantage. They claim to 'have been there', or they gate to bank, or transfer a lore item, and come back to farm. As to the point of helping people cr in fear, and they turn around and stick it to you. One reason the rules do exist. Losing your camp can be unfortunate, but the people that arrive in the 30 seconds you are gone legitimately, are not 'douchebags'. Just as the people who lose a camp and are frustrated are not as well. There are people who use the rules to hide behind poor actions, but these rules also protect against people who act poorly. You cannot blame the OP for being disheartened, or frustrated, or the original camper. Just as you cannot blame the camp-taker(s) in their taking of the camp, when no one was present. The real key is how you handle yourself. I didn't read in the OP that the camp-takers were the scum of the earth, my take was more he would have been the good samaritan, and wishes others would be as well. While I agree with that sentiment, he has a right to his opinion, and doesn't deserve venom for feeling this way. And the people who argue what the rules state do not deserve it either, because it wasn't as if he merely moved 10 feet, or they caused his death.

Would be an interesting poll, "What would you do?"

The bottom line is, if your not at the camp for what ever reason, it is no longer your camp.

Player X trains Player Y. Player Y dies, and is no longer at the camp. Tough luck Player Y?

Player X has the camp. Player Z asks for help in the next room, to avoid death, or they ask for res, or cure, or something. Player X goes to help, is gone a mere matter of seconds. They arrive back at camp and Player Y claims it is now theirs. Tough luck Player X?

It isn't always so cut and dry. The best rule is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Treat others as you would like to be treated. I would like to think we would be encouraged to help others, to help with that cr in fear, or hand the camp back to the poor soul. Instead we wish misfortune or ill upon others, so that we can benefit. Sad. The overriding rule is "Play nice." People often quote 'rules' which are mostly part of the F.A.Q. here, or clarifications posted on the forums.

And folks, trust me on this. If you ever lose your camp to an unfortunate incident, such as network issues, use your corpse. If you arrive at a camp, and a player claims they have been there and just died to X reason, use the corpse. Example: You are camping Dino, and suddenly you find yourself with a spell bug. Or you go Linkdead for no reason. You log back in 30 seconds later, bound there or nearby. Someone else tries to claim your camp. If your corpse says res timer is 2 hours, 58 minutes to expire, your chances of getting the camp back increase. Just because you die at a camp doesn't mean you lack the capability of holding it. Personally? if I see a corpse with 2 hours 5x minutes on it, they get the benefit of the doubt. I may watch to see if they can in fact kill it the next try, and will inform them. If I see no corpse, eh well they may be trying to pull a fast one and take the camp.

Have fun in game folks.

[Phragmar]

Originally Posted by h0tr0d (shaere) [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just because someone disagrees with you, or takes a different stance then you doesn't make them a 'douchebag'. I hate that term. Some middle schooler finds out what it is and starts using it, and here we are. Actions speak louder then words, including actions here.



I agree with this, but say someone is camping say Raster for an extended period, their router burps or whatever, and they go linkdead. They log back in within minutes, as soon as their character is no longer active on their server and allows them to log in. They log back in, and you are now at the camp. Different ways different people handle it, as we see here. I would also point out there are people playing who would take advantage. They claim to 'have been there', or they gate to bank, or transfer a lore item, and come back to farm. As to the point of helping people cr in fear, and they turn around and stick it to you. One reason the rules do exist. Losing your camp can be unfortunate, but the people that arrive in the 30 seconds you are gone legitimately, are not 'douchebags'. Just as the people who lose a camp and are frustrated are not as well. there are people who use the rules to hide behind poor actions, but these rules also protect against people who act poorly. You cannot blame the OP for being disheartened, or frustrated, or the original camper. Just as you cannot blame the camp-taker(s), when no one was present. The real key is how you handle yourself after it. I didn't read in the OP that the camp-takers were the scum of the earth, my take was more he would have been the good samaritan, and wishes others would be as well. While I agree with that sentiment, he has a right to his opinion, and doesn't deserve venom for feeling this way. And the people who argue what the rules state do not deserve it either.

Would be an interesting poll, what would you do?



Player X trains Player Y. Player Y dies, and is no longer at the camp. Tough luck Player Y?

Player X has the camp. Player Z asks for help in the next room, to avoid death, or they ask for res, or cure, or something. Player X goes to help, is gone a mere matter of seconds. They arrive back at camp and Player Y claims it is now theirs.

It isn't always so cut and dry. The best rule is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Treat others as you would like to be treated. That is my opinion, and all I have to say on this.

/sermon off

This is generally accurate on enough levels that I feel like chiming in to confirm. I'm not advocating that the rules should be changed or that all VD members should have ropes placed about their necks and be hanged until dead, and I don't expect any great cultural upheaval among this server community over this incident. Moreover, I certainly don't have any delusions of stirring moral conviction in those of you who have made it abundantly clear that you prefer moral bankruptcy. But for everybody else, I believe that striving toward a higher good is a worthwhile undertaking, and that means talking about it.

I've avoided using religion or a religious basis for a number of reasons, one of which is, frankly, that it's just another thing to be flamed for. Anyone who has studied Jewish or Christian theology (and probably others) doesn't need me to tell him where the analogies are in this discussion. Having said that, however, and acknowledging the impediments it brings with respect to those who for whatever reasons legitimate or otherwise will not consider any reasoning that has even the least hint of religious influence, I'll readily admit that the golden rule is powerful.

To speak more broadly, however, especially if you're someone who has some reason for disliking Jesus Christ, what ever happened to virtue? [This is a rhetorical question.] Angry as I was over the incident, and as vehemently as I would advocate that good people must contend against these kinds of things, I may have taken it for granted that everyone else had an understanding about what it is to be virtuous. I've certainly done my share of stupid, evil things. I can't pretend I've never stolen a kill in the whole time I played EQ, or trained anyone, or worked all manner of nefarious deeds in guild politics, not to mention a litany of cruelty to people in different arenas, so I don't want anyone to think that I believe I have some kind of moral high ground just because I've taken the position I have or because I feel strongly about it. I'm just another guy on the internet.

But there's a difference between right--I mean right, as in righteous, not correct--and wrong, and it's not the same difference as between legal and illegal. The whole crux of my argument is that where those distinctions overlap, as here, right must be preferred to wrong, and good preferred to evil, before any consideration of legal or illegal.

[Klyre]

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

But there's a difference between right--I mean right, as in righteous, not correct--and wrong, and it's not the same difference as between legal and illegal. The whole crux of my argument is that where those distinctions overlap, as here, right must be preferred to wrong, and good preferred to evil, before any consideration of legal or illegal.

That was very nicely said, but when we are talking right and wrong or righteous or leagal, I wonder why you had to mention people by name in your OP as well as the guild they belong to. Could it not be considered wrong to have put these people through this ordeal when all you originally wanted was to know if leveling up would result in similar events? could you not have found out what you needed to know by not bringing the whole comunity down on the people who were involved?

Its done, and I don't say that you have done wrong, right or any other. Consider next time what you are really after.

[Humerox]

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

But there's a difference between right--I mean right, as in righteous, not correct--and wrong, and it's not the same difference as between legal and illegal. The whole crux of my argument is that where those distinctions overlap, as here, right must be preferred to wrong, and good preferred to evil, before any consideration of legal or illegal.

another thing to consider is that is "whoosh" material for the "art thou mad, brosef?" crowd.

also there is a large population here that played classic EQ nuzzling a teat, and they - in particular - are the ones that don't have the slightest clue about what classic EQ community really was.

[azeth]

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

there is a large population here that played classic EQ nuzzling a teat

i still play classic eq while teat nuzzling, can i getta hell yea

[Humerox]

hell yeah, lol...

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Moreover, I certainly don't have any delusions of stirring moral conviction in those of you who have made it abundantly clear that you prefer moral bankruptcy.

Wait, am I considered morally bankrupt because I choose to play by the rules, or because I don't choose to play by your made-up rules?

Because that's all this really boils down to.

You come in here with your holier-than-thou, self-righteous attitude and then call those of us out who don't play by your style of idealistic play? Because we are not doing what YOU think is morally right?

This is a game. We play to have fun. We all have our various ideas of what is fun for ourselves, but one thing remains consistent: it is NO ONE's place to tell me how I should have fun playing a game, so long as I am following the established rules. Not "hiding behind the rules" or "rules lawyers" as those who would rather pick and choose which rules to abide by might say. Following the objective rules set forth by the server administration team so that there would clear and concise rules of engagement regarding the majority of potential conflicts in a game designed with high demand, low supply, and as a huge time sink.

Perhaps you have fun playing Everquest stuffing your moral high ground down everyone's throat. Fine, I accept that. But don't come here all butthurt and call us out by guild and names when a bunch of us don't find that "fun". The rules are fairly simple... you have the camp until you can demonstrate you can no longer hold the camp. Then it's someone else's turn.

Sure, I would love to be able to die at a camp, come back, and have it handed back over to me when I get back with a friendly "Sorry, bro... here's some buffs... have at it again!". If you could magically guarantee me everyone would do that, then that would certainly be what I'd like to do for the victim when I encounter the same situation from the other side of the table. But if I relinquish the camp to the person who died to try to be a Good Samaritan, there is no guarantee that when I get the camp and if I am not able to hold it for whatever reason, that the next person who comes along will extend me the same courtesy.

So, over time, if I'm always the one giving up the camp, yet the same courtesy is not guaranteed to me, I'm going to get burnt. So I instead choose to look to the rule set that governs the server so that I can behave in the same consistent manner that I am expected to behave.

How does that make me morally bankrupt? It just makes me someone who chooses not to be a doormat and leave myself open to being taken advantage of by people who would not show me the same courtesy if I gave something up when I was not obligated to do so.

[Doubleplus]

Ah yendor has chosen someone else instead of replying to me. Interesting.

[Phragmar]

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

Wait, am I considered morally bankrupt because I choose to play by the rules, or because I don't choose to play by your made-up rules?

...

You ... call those of us out who don't play by your style of idealistic play?

...

But don't ... call us out by guild and names ...

...

How does that make me morally bankrupt?

...

(Edited to bypass flames, personal attacks, insults, etc., and to condense)

Here is an example of me saying you're morally bankrupt:

"YendorLootmonkey is morally bankrupt." Please direct me to where that appears in any of my previous posts. I think you're in a much better position to answer your questions about your own morality than I am. I don't really know you.

Secondly, I mentioned the guild by name and the members by name. If I understand it correctly, many of the arguments being raised by you and others are that the people who took the camp were within their rights and did nothing wrong. If this is so, they shouldn't be in jeopardy of suffering any community opprobrium from anyone. I told the story as best I recalled it. If you feel like I misstated something, the other people who were there can certainly feel free to clarify. But if the VD members were in the right, what consequence is it to them or the guild to be mentioned by name? I don't think anyone has a basis to accuse me of slander--I haven't said anything that was untrue (and if someone can point out to me that I have, let me know so I can correct it), so what exactly am I calling people out for?

But alright, I guess that's a little evasive. From my perspective, even if everyone were to immediately concede the point and we all agreed that the behavior of the VD members was wrong, I frankly don't think they can expect any meaningful retribution, and that was never the point. VD's reputation is what it is, and I'm the last person able to tell anyone conclusively whether it's good or bad. Even if my entire intent was to cause problems for the guild (and it's not--I don't know any of the members and have never had contact with any of them before this incident), I expect nothing would come of it; whether the guild as a whole are bastions of uprightness or the scum of the earth, I at least expect it to have a respectable level of solidarity. Give me a little credit here.

Darian - I expect VD members to be involved in the discussion just like anyone else; I certainly wouldn't want to deny them an opportunity to respond.

Odeseus asked me explicitly about my thought process and rationale when it comes to deciding to start this thread in the first place, and with apologies, I'm declining to go into details about every ticking gear in my head because it just doesn't matter. I think I explained my reasoning pretty thoroughly in the opening post, and I don't expect anyone else to get any benefit out of knowing every graphic detail of my thought process. Also, I can recommend some churches in the deep south if you need a background in spitting hellfire, since my anger at its worst is a far cry from that. Finally, sorry if this comes across as rude, but the questions smelled a little of trollbait.