Mob Camping Rules

[Frieza_Prexus]

I respect your reasoning, however my key point lies in Rogean making a specific statement in regards to the looting being an individual versus raid level offense.

I mentioned earlier that you could limit the context of his post to that of a raid situation, but I explained why I felt it was more generally applicable.

Ultimately, my main point is that here the specific rule will override the general. Even if there are holes in the general rules, it seems to me that Rogean's statement applies more specifically here than any other statement or rule. Even if the specific did not override the general, there is precedent value in what he said. In effect, he has overturned any conflicting rules.

I chuckled at your comment about the Supreme Court, but here it is not only Rogean's province to say what the law is, he also gets to say what it should be. It simply, for the previous reasons, seems clear to me that he intended the law be as I have stated it.

My argument becomes a strawman only if there is a difference between raids and groups (or the individual). I submit that there is no difference at all in the ownership of loot rights.

The definition of ninja looting on live, while possibly helpful for context, is ultimately not much use here I believe. Rogean defined it as taking anything you've not be assigned rights to (albeit within a raid context: See above that I do not differentiate on this context).

I rebut the dropped bag analogy because it has been explicitly recognized by the authorities as "at your own risk."

You do have a point in that we don't know what the law is or will be until an authority has clearly spoken on it. I believe that has occurred, but I recognize that there are contextual questions lingering for some thus dampening the "iron-cladness" of the statement.

BONUS: Amelinda ruled Perun's CT ninja looting as a raid offense. Rogean, as far as we know, did not rule on it. Did the Appeals Circuit of Amelinda rule correctly? Does the refusal to grant certiorari by the Supreme Court of Rogean indicate a new direction for P99 law? If the Supreme Court of Rogean endorses this view, what is the current state of the law outside the Amelinda Circuit? Whatever will the Ambrotos and Bort Jurisdictions do in light of this? Finally, what does Anthony "Nilbog" Kennedy have to say about all of this? STAY TUNED.

[Swish]

young camp lawyers

[Hitchens]

Was a pretty good thread, but I think it really boils down to just differences of opinion.

[Yanomamo]

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

Amelinda ruled Perun's CT ninja looting as a raid offense. Rogean, as far as we know, did not rule on it. Did the Appeals Circuit of Amelinda rule correctly? Does the refusal to grant certiorari by the Supreme Court of Rogean indicate a new direction for P99 law? If the Supreme Court of Rogean endorses this view, what is the current state of the law outside the Amelinda Circuit? Whatever will the Ambrotos and Bort Jurisdictions do in light of this? Finally, what does Anthony "Nilbog" Kennedy have to say about all of this? STAY TUNED.

This is hilarious.

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

young camp lawyers

[Tricky Beverage]

Yeah, Xasten, just about everything you just said sounds right to me. Admittedly, I also think that you're correct on what Rogean said: it looks to be pretty on point here, and it's all we have to go on. I only believe that he could not have meant the rule in his thread to apply literally and generally because the result would be nonsensical (e.g., the absurd VP training result I used as an illustration).

The only point you make that I take minor issue with is this:

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

I rebut the dropped bag analogy because it has been explicitly recognized by the authorities as "at your own risk."

The fact that authorities have recognized bag dropping as an "at your own risk" activity isn't a reason to reject it as a valid analogy to the present case. The fact that it is an "at your own risk" activity is precisely why I think the two situations are parallel.

It's interesting that Amelinda later ruled practically the exact same scenario Raid Interference. I wasn't aware of that. I'd be curious to see what Rogean has to say about that, but likely it's just semantics at this point (in which case, only you, me, and maaaayyyybe Hitchens care).

But yeah, at this point, Hitchens is right. I think you and I now disagree on only minor points of opinion. I have nothing to say yours is any less correct than mine.

[Ele]

I don't understand how people are equating dropping bags/items on the ground and looting a mob you didn't kill are the same thing, when they are completely different.

Scenario A:
Player takes his 60 mage main and a lowbie rogue to Ass/Sup for a mask. Mage camps it for a few hours and a second weight reduction bag drops. He leaves it on the body to log on his rogue to loot it. Player B shows up in the time it is taking Mage to switch characters. He sees the camp is empty and no one else in zone. Player B observes the bag on the corpse with the timer ticking. Player B loots it.

Player B has just ninja looted the corpse in accordance with the rule as he did not kill the mob and no one gave him the rights to loot it.

Scenario B:
Same facts, but this time Mage dropped the bag on the ground instead of leaving it on the mob's corpse and started logging over to his rogue alt to pick up the dropped bag. Player B rolls up and sees a bag on the ground and picks it up.

Player B did not ninja loot, but picked up an item on the ground. According to the rules this is fair game, albeit bad taste not to give it back if the rightful owner shows up.


These two situations while similar require completely different rules for application to the facts. One is a case of ninja looting (looting something on a mob you didn't kill or rightfully participated in killing or received permission to loot). The other is a case of picking up something on the ground, which has been stated as "at your own risk".



To the people claiming that once a mobs loot timer is lapsed (i.e. "the body is open"), you guys should sit in Trakanon's lair and see how far grabbing a tooth off an open body gets you on P99.

[Zereh]

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

Looting a corpse, that you did not kill, without permission, is the very definition of ninja looting and it is against the rules of the server.

Done and done and done.

^^ This!

Don't loot something if you didn't kill it, unless specifically told otherwise.

Quit looking for an excuse to try and justify shitty behavior.

[Scavrefamn]

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

You've given up your claim to the camp by logging out.

[Daldaen]

Claim to camp is given up. Not to an already killed mob. Mob corpses are yours always IMO. Especially when it isnt even close to rot, you shouldn't even touch a corpse unless you ask the person who killed it if you can.

[Handull]

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

So if this server ever implements the 'hand items to mobs, mob drops those items on death' mechanic, does that mean it would be a sanctioned 100% safe way to transfer items? Give to mob, kill mob, log alt to loot?

No, because the server can still crash and/or the login server goes down and/or your end of the internet craps out and you are out of luck. just find someone you can trust to xfer stuff, or do what i used to do and offer a random lowbie stranger plat and/or buffs after a successful xfer.