Ulwyn ninja looted my quillmane cloak after I camped it for days.

[Ulwyn]

if you are online i need your character names so when the gm gets to me i can take care of this.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Notice it says "the group (and thus raid/guild) that is merited the kill has rights to the loot." It does not say "the players", it says "the group". The alt is not in the group. The alt is not even in the game at this point and thus cannot be considered part of the group that is merited the kill.

It's great that Ulwyn wants to do the right thing and get the OP his loot, but according to that link he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

Also notice this:

This quote defines Veeshan's Peak as the only non-disputable zone, unless at some point between the time of that post (December 2011) and now South Karana was also made non-disputable. This further invalidates the claim that precedent was set according to the link, because that link applies to non-disputable zones. It's right there in the quote. It specifically says "If a mob is killed in a non-disputable zone."

You cannot use that link as precedent for this situation.

Of course admins can alter or ignore these "rules" whenever they want. Each case really should be examined individually. I think people in this thread are trying to apply rules meant for raids to non-raid zones and mobs.

My personal thought: Once a corpse goes public it's fair game. If you want your alt to get the loot from a mob have that alt make the kill, or plan the kill out better so there's less chance of someone else looting while you log your alt and run to the corpse.

At the risk of a massive derail, a group, for our purposes, can consist on a single person. Two people can kill a mob, and log one of them over to an alt while the other "awards" the loot rights to the alt. Why is that allowable, yet a single person logging over isn't?

Further, the ninja-looting incident that sparked the Rogean quote was in VP. A non-disputable zone. This does not limit the analogy. It enhances it. During a raid, a single individual, in a non-disputable zone was punished for ninja looting. Why would the rules be LESS stringent in a CSR zone?

The only material point is that there are special rules for a "raid" versus a single person. I posit that there is no such distinction.

I argued this point here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=29 and here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=39

I believe your definition of group is incorrect. I believe we should use the word in the general sense, and NOT in the everquest "click FOLLOW" sense. Under the colloquial use of the word group, players and not characters own the rights to the mob.

Also, there can be no distinction between a raid, a group, or an individual as far as the rules are concerned for our purposes. If I raid the Isle 1 Princess in sky and the corpse unlocks can ANYONE loot it? What if a 6 man group kills her? What if I solo it? This distinction will become EXTREMELY important with Lodizal.

YES, it is SMART to have someone watch the corpse, but we are debating the legal point not what is smart.

Finally, even IF the alt is not "merited" the rights to the kill the killing CHARACTER (owned by the same player that owns the alt) says: "I hereby grant full loot rights of this mob to XYZ (Alt). Surely, that must be allowable? If not, what happens if I solo, say, the paw buster and tell my monk friend in the basement to come get his pipe? Can another monk walking by loot it consequence free? The corpse unlocked afterall and the person I "awarded" the kill to couldn't have solo'd it.

[Hasbinlulz]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Labyrrinth]

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

....

Which reminds me of a bard named Hallertau, and his bitch cleric wife Xorena on Rodcet Nife....

I couldn't stand either of those two, ugh. They were the whiniest, rudest, most self-entitled asses ever

[Alarti0001]

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

the bottom line is Im workin on getting your item back to you. You can whine and cry til it happens or you can calm down til it happens, the latter would be nice. I apoligized once, that should be enough it's a game. I'm sorry I accidentally took your pixels but I'm doing the right thing about it.

If true chill out nizz!

[casdegere]

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

I couldn't stand either of those two, ugh. They were the whiniest, rudest, most self-entitled asses ever

Nah, Autotune has them beat by a long way. Dat guy never shuts up.

[Nizzler]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If true chill out nizz!

I shut up about 7 pages ago lol.

[azeth]

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

I shut up about 7 pages ago lol.

only because you're an amateur and haven't set your preferences to show 40 posts per page!

[Arclanz]

You ninjalooted and got caught; and got called out. So rather than rerolling, you decide to mitigate damages by giving the stolen property back. Fine.

This is certainly better than just keeping it/rmt/whatever. But only time will tell what you actually do with it since everything here is just idle chatter.

First thing I thought of was "page 8." Not sure anyone remembers that or even heard of it; but the story made it to EQComic.

Other ninjalooters...ahem, I mean "reputable" folks here seem to back you up; and chastise the OP. ROFL.

[Alarti0001]

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

I shut up about 7 pages ago lol.

Didnt refresh my browser i showed 1 page when i posted ;(