HELP ME ROGEAN!! - Page 23

Bardalicious · #**221** 08-13-2014, 07:17 AM

Quote:

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

3. GMs are trying to hide behind the rules to get of their shoulders the burden of taking responsibility that account trading was NOT forbidden from the day one. And I always knew this would come back and bite them in the ass, so when SMS system broke the old system - Gms now take no responsibility for the situation that they created and allowed to exist for years.

Amen.

Glenzig · #**222** 08-13-2014, 07:37 AM

Quote:

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

My 2 cents:

1. OP was shortsighted (even though I sympathize with his loss, I would never sell half an account myself)
2. The buyer is an obvious douchebag (If I have bought an account and somehow got something extra that wasn't intended for sale I would make sure to notify the owner/return the extras)
3. GMs are trying to hide behind the rules to get of their shoulders the burden of taking responsibility that account trading was NOT forbidden from the day one. And I always knew this would come back and bite them in the ass, so when SMS system broke the old system - Gms now take no responsibility for the situation that they created and allowed to exist for years.

How's that? They may not have banned people for account sales from day 1, but it was always known that it would be at your own risk. That's not hiding behind a rule, that's allowing people to suffer the consequences of decisions that they never supported to begin with. Which is what they always said they would do.

I guess it shouldn't really surprise me that people would ignore the "at your own risk" part of the deal. No reason anyone should have to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Kika Maslyaka · #**223** 08-13-2014, 09:47 AM

Quote:

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

How's that? They may not have banned people for account sales from day 1, but it was always known that it would be at your own risk. That's not hiding behind a rule, that's allowing people to suffer the consequences of decisions that they never supported to begin with. Which is what they always said they would do.

I guess it shouldn't really surprise me that people would ignore the "at your own risk" part of the deal. No reason anyone should have to accept responsibility for their own actions.

"at your own risk" was perfectly understood and was reasonable to a point under OLD CONDITIONS. And of before the risk was say 50%, when GMs changed the conditions the risk now 100%.
Its like allowing people to buy and sell bbguns while "warning" then that bbguns could pose "risk", and then one day, magically, turning all guns into real firearms which kill people outright, and going after the people for "possession of illegal firearms".
Gms changed the rules so what use to be reasonable risk into irreversible harm. This situation was easily predictable from day one. Account selling should have been forbidden from day one. GMs let it run rampart and when rules change (by their will), they now say "oh but it was never supported".

Glenzig · #**224** 08-13-2014, 09:52 AM

Quote:

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

"at your own risk" was perfectly understood and was reasonable to a point under OLD CONDITIONS. And of before the risk was say 50%, when GMs changed the conditions the risk now 100%.
Its like allowing people to buy and sell bbguns while "warning" then that bbguns could pose "risk", and then one day, magically, turning all guns into real firearms which kill people outright, and going after the people for "possession of illegal firearms".
Gms changed the rules so what use to be reasonable risk into irreversible harm. This situation was easily predictable from day one. Account selling should have been forbidden from day one. GMs let it run rampart and when rules change (by their will), they now say "oh but it was never supported".

No its not like that at all because actual lives are not involved. As you said, this situation was easily predictable from day one. So how does that absolve the player base from any repercussions? It doesn't. It put the onus squarely back on them where it was all along.

Man0warr · #**225** 08-13-2014, 09:54 AM

They said it wasn't supported straight away BECAUSE things might change down the road.

Ket · #**226** 08-13-2014, 09:57 AM

Quote:

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

No its not like that at all because actual lives are not involved. As you said, this situation was easily predictable from day one. So how does that absolve the player base from any repercussions? It doesn't. It put the onus squarely back on them where it was all along.

Onus. Funny word.

Highfalutin. Also a funny word.

The hell are we talking about again?

-Ket

arsenalpow · #**227** 08-13-2014, 10:43 AM

The level of risk is irrelevant to the discussion. The bottom line is there was a risk, OP took said risk, and OP is now paying the price. Staff should not intervene and OP should take cloki's deal and stfu.

Circa. · #**228** 08-13-2014, 10:47 AM

Anyone see my wizard Circa running around ?

chief · #**229** 08-13-2014, 10:49 AM

Playing on a login name which you don't own the eq emu info is dumb. There was a reason why people would buy the eq emu info and not just the login info. Have fun leveling up another character bro LOLOOL

zanderklocke · #**230** 08-13-2014, 10:50 AM

Quote:

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

Anyone see my wizard Circa running around ?

Not in awhile, but I did get Circa killed at raptors about a year ago. We were AoEing the island together and the named dino is pretty much out of range for a bard's AoE snare. He tried to pull it out of the kite, and all the other raptors came at him and killed him.