HELP ME ROGEAN!!

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

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.

This only applies if conditions/rules don't change.
GMs changed conditions and rules on a whim placing at harm people who were safe before.

[Glenzig]

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

This only applies if conditions/rules don't change.
GMs changed conditions and rules on a whim placing at harm people who were safe before.

Nope. The reason there was risk is because there could be a rule change at any time and without prior warning. This was always the case. It still very much applies.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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.

It doesn't. But GMs is the sole force that creates and enforces the law around here. More than that they create and enforce conditions as would be gods (something that is not normal in RL world unless in case of a major disaster). Therefore they are ultimately responsible for anything that may or may not happen that is not covered by current rules and conditions. They carry the ENTIRE burben.
By NOT forbidding account trade from day one they essentially ALLOWED it. They bare responsibility for ill consequences that happen to people that occurred, AFTER GMs changed the conditions and the rules.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

Nope. The reason there was risk is because there could be a rule change at any time and without prior warning. This was always the case. It still very much applies.

If they would only change the rules - that would be fine.
But they changed the conditions. Therefore - they are responsible for this mess.

Imagine that you bought a house in a area that has 10% chance of earthquake. Yeah you took the risks. But then the local authorities performed a weapon test nearby that increased seismic activity of your region by so much that it now becomes 50% chance of earthquake. Who is responsible?

[nilbog]

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

Yeah you took the risks.

Who is responsible?

risk : the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen

I said this in 2012:

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

I have always been opposed to characters being sold or traded. Alas, opposed is not the equivalent of condemned; at least not yet. My official stance to date has been these instances are 'frowned upon'.

When I initially launched the server, there were far more pressing matters on which to attend than policing trades. However, cases of players petitioning they were cheated on deals involving shared or traded accounts, I have declined to offer my assistance. Character sales or trades currently fall under 'at your own risk' situations.

That being said, there will come a time where this is against server rules. I hope that time is sooner than later, but heed this warning. Do not have your account in escrow, trade, or consignment for extended periods of time.

You might ask, how can we stop this? Whether it be through linked forum accounts, access codes, etc, I would prefer to prevent these situations than to seemingly condone them.

Own risk. Who is responsible? The owner of the risk, I'd say.

That being said, I have nothing to do with GMing or player accounts. But, risk <> safe.

[Nirgon]

Is there a risk in asking for the emu/account info to be reset given prof?

[Whirled]

Caveat emptor

[Glenzig]

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

If they would only change the rules - that would be fine.
But they changed the conditions. Therefore - they are responsible for this mess.

Imagine that you bought a house in a area that has 10% chance of earthquake. Yeah you took the risks. But then the local authorities performed a weapon test nearby that increased seismic activity of your region by so much that it now becomes 50% chance of earthquake. Who is responsible?

You're creating scenarios to fit the need of your argument. The only problem with that in this case is that none of that applies. Read Nilbogs post. There is your answer.

[daasgoot]

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

It doesn't. But GMs is the sole force that creates and enforces the law around here. More than that they create and enforce conditions as would be gods (something that is not normal in RL world unless in case of a major disaster). Therefore they are ultimately responsible for anything that may or may not happen that is not covered by current rules and conditions. They carry the ENTIRE burben.
By NOT forbidding account trade from day one they essentially ALLOWED it. They bare responsibility for ill consequences that happen to people that occurred, AFTER GMs changed the conditions and the rules.

i despise your logic.

[Tuffpuppy]

I just don't see the harm in assisting people on a case by case basis. Even if it takes a month or three, people have spent a long time on their characters just to get it stolen from them it just doesn't seem fair. But all accounts need to be suspended until it is resolved at least.