TMO resort to hacking in VP

[maverixdamighty]

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

ITT: TMO justifying cheating.

[Godefroi]

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

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

lol good one m8

[Godefroi]

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

Visceral let's trade penis pics

i only hit on fake eq chicks like elebrewia

[quido]

I play Glitterati sometimes...

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by 47shadesofgay [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Why? Because I enjoy it. Sure, I take issue with a lot of things, but I voluntarily associate because I find net benefit in it. Of course, I suspect you already knew this; you just wanted to frame the situation as if I were coming here for some sort of absolution. I desire nothing from you, least of all pardon.

@Falkun: I do not dispute that Aiaus clearly abused his exemption. The question is what is to be done in this situation, as there is some precedence for the stripping of exemptions, but not (to my knowledge) the banning of characters for such a use. This may not fall under the two boxing punishments because of this statement:

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

Note, the statement does NOT excuse what was done, it merely, to me, raises a question of what is the proper punishment in light of no explicit sentencing guideline and in consideration of the existence of precedence (albeit, from Red).

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

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).

I'm going to stop you before you hurt yourself. I suspect you did not read the article that you just lifted the text straight out of. (found here: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/c...text=lawreview) Which is titled: Vicarious Criminal Liability of Organizations: RICO as an Example of a Flawed Principle in Practice.

If you had taken the time to even read the title of the work after you blindly Googled, you would note that the publication was arguing strongly against strict liability for employers/principles for ALL actions of the employees/agents. All I did was cite an analogous principle to persuasively support my point. In trying to one up me, you cited a publication that argues my very same point: blanket liability for the actions of an individual who has no blessing from his leadership can be manifestly unjust.

RICO is not immediately analogous as it requires long term patterns of abuse, whereas the principle I cited was immediately applicable via analogy.

[47shadesofgay]

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

Why? Because I enjoy it. Sure, I take issue with a lot of things, but I voluntarily associate because I find net benefit in it. Of course, I suspect you already knew this; you just wanted to frame the situation as if I were coming here for some sort of absolution. I desire nothing from you, least of all pardon.

@Falkun: I do not dispute that Aiaus clearly abused his exemption. The question is what is to be done in this situation, as there is some precedence for the stripping of exemptions, but not (to my knowledge) the banning of characters for such a use. This may not fall under the two boxing punishments because of this statement:

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

Note, the statement does NOT excuse what was done, it merely, to me, raises a question of what is the proper punishment in light of no explicit sentencing guideline and in consideration of the existence of precedence (albeit, from Red).



I'm going to stop you before you hurt yourself. I suspect you did not read the article that you just lifted the text straight out of. (found here: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/c...text=lawreview) Which is titled: Vicarious Criminal Liability of Organizations: RICO as an Example of a Flawed Principle in Practice.

If you had taken the time to even read the title of the work after you blindly Googled, you would note that the publication was arguing strongly against strict liability for employers/principles for ALL actions of the employees/agents. All I did was cite an analogous principle to persuasively support my point. In trying to one up me, you cited a publication that argues my very same point: blanket liability for the actions of an individual who has no blessing from his leadership can be manifestly unjust.

RICO is not immediately analogous as it requires long term patterns of abuse, whereas the principle I cited was immediately applicable via analogy.

Make no mistake, I know it's not me personally you want the pardon from, but it would be incredibly disingenuous given the post I was replying to and indeed many others you have made on this forum and in the past that it is a pardon and pity that you are after.

I'm sure that in the end you will get neither. Enjoy those net benefits. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[47shadesofgay]

that it is not a pardon*

[falkun]

You can argue the precedent for punishments until Judgment day, Xasten. I've already listed the rules and the punishments Rogean has told abusers/exploiters/cheaters they should expect. If Aiaus and TMO get anything less then they should thank the mercy of P99's CSR.

Since you already have and accept the justification for the individual ban, you just need the justification for how an individual ban can be extrapolated to a guild suspension. A train brought by a single person has caused guild suspensions outside of VP. Now VP is different, training rules do not apply, but global rules are applicable even in VP. That is the justification for a guild suspension. "May Sirken have mercy on your soul."

[47shadesofgay]

I also love that you are seemingly setting up the GM to get your desired ruling and outcome, as evidenced by your tells in game.

If I were Sirken, I would be furious with you for playing me.

[quido]

I bet zone/worldserver logs have evidence of people instapoofing. I bet Sloan's tune would change if the staff could confirm this point.