TMO resort to hacking in VP

[47shadesofgay]

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

I agree with your statement. However, I didn't make a distinction between how the server should work, and how it does work.

Sounds like you believe you're playing project1999, while everyone else is here for EverQuest.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Lots of words cant hide bullshit. Sorry.

Using an exploit to benefit an individual = punishment for the individual.

Using an exploit to benefit a guild - guild punishment.

There was a TMO officer present the entire time. Nothing was done. People can say whatever they want after the fact about how they feel; I dont care about how people feel, I care about how people act.

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

Your guild used his exploits to gain an advantage. Therefore, you should be raid suspended. Don't be retarded.

Given the severity of a raid suspension, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it would be prudent for the decision maker to do some fact finding.

If it can be reasonably shown that the leadership knew and blessed the obvious abuse of an IP exemption, yes you can put a raid suspension onto the list of possible outcomes. That is not in dispute.

Note: I am NOT commenting as to whether or not TMO's leadership knew of and supported such uses. I was not there, and I am in no position to draw conclusions on that question of fact. I am merely elaborating on what I feel is due process in producing an outcome for the situation.

What I take issue with is the notion that incidental beneficiaries should be punished for actions that were not controlled by them. For example, if it is shown that Aiaus was acting along and surreptitiously, then it would be unfair to issue punishments to the rest of the guild. If you're going to assign vicarious liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior), it must be fairly done.

A prime example of an unfair application would be Perun's ninja looting of CT. To punish all of IB for Perun's actions, which clearly exceeded his authority and right, was unjust. (See: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=79)

[SamwiseRed]

Ele complains about non-classic features such as /shownames

defends not classic insta poof

interesting..

[getsome]

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

What I take issue with is the notion that incidental beneficiaries should be punished for actions that were not controlled by them. For example, if it is shown that Aiaus was acting along and surreptitiously, then it would be unfair to issue punishments to the rest of the guild. If you're going to assign vicarious liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior), it must be fairly done.

A prime example of an unfair application would be Perun's ninja looting of CT. To punish all of IB for Perun's actions, which clearly exceeded his authority and right, was unjust. (See: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=79)

Everquest is not ruled by a court of law.

MFer exploited and his guild directly benefited.

btw your examples are fucking stupid. so I am playing football and I commit an infraction. Instead of moving my team back 10 yards, just make me line up 10 yards back.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Ele complains about non-classic features such as /shownames

defends not classic insta poof

interesting..

He is discussing the mechanics, not defending him. I suggest you read the entire thread to fully understand his positions. Most notably these posts:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...&postcount=246

Originally Posted by Elethia

All IP exemptions should be erased, and reapplied for with stricter proof.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...&postcount=444

Originally Posted by Elethia

If you are wanting to talk about plugging (using /q and ip exemption and/or second account/computer) in general to remove yourself from an in-game situation in which you would otherwise die, then yes that should be an infraction. I don't think there is a disagreement between you and me on that point.

If you have seen my other posts in this thread, I said all ip exemptions should be wiped and reapplied for with much more stringent proof. Additionally, I would like to see /q leave you in game the full 30 seconds or 3 minutes if engaged/aggro even with an exemption. Another solution might be to hard code the server to not allow another account to log in within 30 seconds to 1 minute other another account coming from that ip address. This would still allow people to play together, but prevent quick disconnects and reconnects. However, transferring items between accounts gets negatively affected. But there should be some trade off to prevent abuse.

The transferability of ip exemptions (since it stays with the login account) also plays a role in account sales/trading being a bonus and advertised as such in the ECT forum. When it should be used for its intended purpose of allowing 2 or more people to play from the same location, which is otherwise blocked.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...176#post894176

Originally Posted by Elethia

If the coding prevents the abuse in the first place, then it means less enforcement is needed. The enforcement is a finite resource.

[getsome]

As for Perun ninja looting CT.

Perun was a Raid Leader of IB.

Perun should have been banned and IB disbanded.

Or you get a server like we have today.

[finalgrunt]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [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.

[finalgrunt]

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

As for Perun ninja looting CT.

Perun was a Raid Leader of IB.

Perun should have been banned and IB disbanded.

Or you get a server like we have today.

Disbanded? No. Suspended? Yep.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Everquest is not ruled by a court of law.

It is, however, run by individuals that openly welcome reasoned arguments. I understand that recrimination tends to be your first resort when you don't agree with something, but not everyone works that way.

Originally Posted by getsome

MFer exploited and his guild directly benefited.

btw your examples are fucking stupid. so I am playing football and I commit an infraction. Instead of moving my team back 10 yards, just make me line up 10 yards back.

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.

[Mortiiss]

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.