TMO resort to hacking in VP

[47shadesofgay]

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

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)

The actions of TMO members and leadership casts a direct light on every other member in the guild. The same applies to FE, and any other voluntary establishment.

It seems that TMO members such as yourself are continually bemoaning the fact that your peers and your guilds leadership actions have reflected upon you poorly and so you resort to coming to these very forums, to this specific sub-forum, designed for rants and flames, in order to defend yourselves and ask that you not be punished as a whole for an individuals action. Yet you still remain guilded.

Members such as yourself openly speak out and voice your dissent in matters that you don't agree with, yet you willingly continue to remain a member of this guild, knowing full well that it can only tarnish your very own reputation. Yet you still remain guilded.

So I ask you, being the reasonable man you claim to be, what exactly is it you want of us? Forgiveness for willingly being a member of a guild that exploits game mechanics, has a leader that openly states he loves training and griefing players from other guilds, and officers who openly flaunt your guild's coffers to taunt opposing players?

The only thing you come close to deserving deserve is is pity, but that would be unreasonable, since you could leave under your own will at any time.

You've made your bed, now lie in it.

[getsome]

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

Generally, under vicarious liability, illegal activities are never held to be under the scope of duties. This is essential to the concept. If a pest control worker sets a house on fire to get rid of all the pests, such an action was not within the scope of his duties.

Similarly, I suggest that a lone individual exploiting to assist the guild is not, and can never be, within such a scope. However, if it was blessed and supported by the leadership, that becomes a different story entirely in which guild-wide punishments can then be brought into play.

If you want to play lawyer, then how about we use racketeering as the charge.

Under the current federal doctrine of vicarious criminal liability,
an organization is held criminally responsible for crimes
committed by its agents within the scope of their employment and
with the intent to benefit the organization

See Developments in the Law-Corporate Crime: Regulating Corporate Behavior
Through Criminal Sanctions, 92 HARv. L. REV. 1227, 1247 (1979) [hereinafter Developments].
For a general discussion of this area, see
Brickey, Rethinking Corporate Liability Under the Model Penal Code, 19 RUTGERS L.J.
593, 629-34 (1988).

[47shadesofgay]

I'm still waiting to hear TMO's official stance on the use of this exploit.

The lack of response may well say more than an official statement ever could.

[Cochonou]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Enough talk, now let's give some judgment there. Uthgaard, where are you ??

[getsome]

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

Bring TMO up on RICO charges.

it does fit.

[Ele]

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..

Please show me where I defended it.

[quido]

ITT: Vigilante madbads resort to trying to do the staff's job for them.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by RipinpeaceTMO2013 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it is about like when IB found out Tmo was using hoops to kill shit. When we started doing it, THEN it turned into a exploit.

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

You mean when TR got them nerfed.

Trakanon 8/24/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWX2adECIk8
"Let's get it nerfed"
"Use Hoops, Get it nerfed"
"Let's get Hoops nerfed"
"Get it nerfed, do it right now"
"So retarded"
"Yeah, that is why it needs to be nerfed"


Patch with Ivandyr's Hoop nerf 9/10/2011, two weeks later.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=48145

RIP where did you go? You never responded to defend your assertion.

[Hurley]

Jeremy you are better than this.

[quido]

I still don't see why they haven't reversed the overkill changes to lifetap resists.