Is this cheating?
Jim Carson
realm gold for real cash.
I was surprised when I came across the following link:
http://www.camelotexchange.com/daoc.asp
Which was found via the following link:
http://www.camelotexchange.com/PressRelease.asp
If what is alleged is true, is Mythic in the
right to shut this kind of thing down?
Blacksnow offers 1000 gold for over $100. Blacksnow's
very best volume discount seems too steep to me,
heck I give stuff away for free.
Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
a form of cheating?
How about selling accounts?
Rob Adams
news:f26cec66.02020...@posting.google.com...
> I have seen at least one poster in this forum request
> realm gold for real cash.
>
> right to shut this kind of thing down?
Nope, and I'd be really surprised if they could win a lawsuit. Even if the
EULA says players can't do this (I haven't read it!), most EULA's won't
stand up to a good team of lawyers with "free enterprise" on their side.
Mythic should spend the money on game improvements (and testers) instead of
on lawyers.
> Blacksnow offers 1000 gold for over $100. Blacksnow's
> very best volume discount seems too steep to me,
> heck I give stuff away for free.
Me too, and this doesn't change anything - I still will.
> Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
> a form of cheating?
IMHO, it's only cheating when you take advantage of a flaw in the game to
gain advantage and/or hurt another player. Buying somebody else's effort
defeats the spirit of the game (learn your way along, improving as you go)
but it isn't cheating.
>
> How about selling accounts?
Same thing.
People who do this are looking for short cuts, and won't get the same
enjoyment out of the game as somebody who does it the hard way. And the
short-cutters probably won't hang around - how much fun is it to play your
level 50 character night after night knowing that you didn't earn that
right?
In the spirit of this newsgroup let me offer an analogy, using racing games
(my other vice). Most racing games have cheat codes that allow you to unlock
faster cars, better parts, etc. So you can install the game, use the cheat
code, and win every race using the fastest car. Expected lifetime of the
resulting game: a few days. Or, you can install the game, start from the
bottom in your junker, hopefully win enough to upgrade or replace it, and
work your way up the ladder. Expected lifetime of the game: weeks or months
(assuming it's a fun game).
Live and let live - if somebody wants to buy a L50 character so they can
stomp all over me, so be it. Eventually I'll be L50 too and if they are
still around we can have some fun battles. And I'll have had the 2 years
worth of play it took me to get there <g>.
Some day when I get tired of my Healer I might just sell him on eBay (or
through somebody like Blacksnow). If somebody's willing to pay, why not
recoup some of my investment in the game.
Koneg
Jim Carson <jcar...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
[snips]
>If what is alleged is true, is Mythic in the
>right to shut this kind of thing down?
Certainly. Their TOS, their AUP, their game.
>Blacksnow offers 1000 gold for over $100. Blacksnow's
>very best volume discount seems too steep to me,
>heck I give stuff away for free.
Ooooh. Better still, get a char to level 40 and you can make 100 gold in
about an hour.
>Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
>a form of cheating?
IMHO Yes, it most certainly is cheating. You want something, go earn it.
>How about selling accounts?
Hmmm cheating? Maybe, but far less offensive than just outright selling
cash. The cash you receive wasn't "earned" IMO, where-as a toon you buy
-was- earned. Someone had to get the char to the level they were sold at.
Distasteful YES. Cheating?
/em wiggles his hand back and forth
Dunno 'bout that.
--
Koneg
31 Armsman
Knight Marshall, Knights of Camelot
Pellinor
markOpoleO
punishment.
Its not about cheating, its a legal offering..people pay monthly fees for a
service..anytime money is involved in offering a service, and someone is
exploiting someone because of the service (Monthly fees im talking about)
they should be held accountable.
I can bet you Mystic will put a lawyer in the equation and he will stop. :)
mark
"Jim Carson" <jcar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f26cec66.02020...@posting.google.com...
Rob Adams
-I rent a lawnmower then charge my neighbours to mow their lawn. Is the
rental company going to sue me?
-I rent a video and charge my friends a quarter to come in (I know, I know,
but it's an example!). Is Block Busters going to sue me?
So, somebody is "renting" Mythic's servers to play DAoC and they choose to
sell the results of their effort to people who are unwilling to put the
effort in themselves. That's called free enterprise.
The EULA probably says I'm not allowed to do that but I don't think any EULA
has been properly challenged in court yet. Apparently the Microsoft
FrontPage EULA says you aren't allowed to create web pages that disparage
Microsoft or its products using FrontPage. May be an urban legend but if
not, how long do you think it would take for a good lawyer to convince a
judge of the civil rights deprived by that agreement?
Anyway, look. I'm not involved in this enterprise. I am not selling
characters or gold - I have 1 character and he needs the gold (except for
the occasional donation to a guildie). But if somebody wants to buy and
somebody else wants to sell, it's between them. It's not cheating, it's not
unethical, at most it's just lazy. (Ok, it's probably against the EULA too
but who cares).
It's only an exploit if they figured out some way OUTSIDE the game to earn
that gold. Mythic shouldn't care WHO earns the gold (or makes the
character). They get the cash either way - somebody is logged on. In fact,
they get more cash this way - the kind of person who buys a character
wouldn't spend the time growing one so wouldn't play at all if they couldn't
buy one somewhere.
"markOpoleO" <marko...@onemain.com> wrote in message
news:Cqg88.15376$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bangbus
"Rob Adams" <rob.nosp...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:zxf88.2808$Qq1.13956@shaw-ty2...
> "Jim Carson" <jcar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f26cec66.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > I have seen at least one poster in this forum request
> > realm gold for real cash.
> >
> > If what is alleged is true, is Mythic in the
> > right to shut this kind of thing down?
>
> Nope, and I'd be really surprised if they could win a lawsuit. Even if the
> EULA says players can't do this (I haven't read it!), most EULA's won't
> stand up to a good team of lawyers with "free enterprise" on their side.
> Mythic should spend the money on game improvements (and testers) instead
of
> on lawyers.
>
Haldamere
Actually, i think most videos state at the beginning that you cant charge
anyone to view it once you have rented it.
But with this game it is a little different than that. Most rental shops are
upset about that, because the person you charge a few cents, then will not
rent the video/hire the mower themselves. As for MMORPG's, the player
already is registered, so Mythic doesn't lose out there. It is probably more
a game play issue. Mythic might be worried that the economy will get screwed
up if low levels are running around with 1000gp. It is also unfair to the
players that cant afford $100 (us too, so $200 au ) ... they still have to
kill things to get it....
Mythic allows you to sell your account, but not the things "created" by this
account. Much the same as some business software. Where, if you want to sell
what the program creates, and not use it for personal use, you need to buy a
hefty licence.
I think the people that thought this up are good entrepeneurs. Though, as
ive come to understand, most things that come about from people just wanting
to make money, make more people unhappy. (see your local Bank, Telco or
Lawyer for examples :-)
Haldamere,
14 Armsman,
Percival.
"Rob Adams" <rob.nosp...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:qPg88.2810$Qq1.13999@shaw-ty2...
Koneg
Rob Adams <rob.nosp...@telus.net> scribbled the following:
>"Jim Carson" <jcar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f26cec66.02020...@posting.google.com...
>> I have seen at least one poster in this forum request
>> realm gold for real cash.
>>
>> If what is alleged is true, is Mythic in the
>> right to shut this kind of thing down?
>
>Nope, and I'd be really surprised if they could win a lawsuit. Even if the
>EULA says players can't do this (I haven't read it!), most EULA's won't
>stand up to a good team of lawyers with "free enterprise" on their side.
>Mythic should spend the money on game improvements (and testers) instead of
>on lawyers.
Uh, so good to see you didn't read what was going on. Mythic hasn't any
choice but to spend money on lawyers. THEY are the target of the legal
action, not the other way around.
Rob Adams
news:slrna637vu...@12-231-11-54.client.attbi.com...
Who fired the first shot, Koneg? Mythic tried to shut BSI down, which gave
them instant publicity (well, here anyway) and generated a lawsuit. The
legal action would go away if Mythic would back down.
A bit of quick eBay searching shows me lots of DAoC characters and items for
sale, and I'm sure the same goes for EQ, AC, etc. Stuff was probably there
the day after the game was released.
p.s. There's something wrong here - me, a left-wing Canadian, defending free
enterprise. I guess I'm just a realist. Why waste time on battles that are
already lost?
Koneg
And that's what started the ball rolling. Mythic told Ebay to remove the
item and gold sales from the service. BSI objected to that.
>p.s. There's something wrong here - me, a left-wing Canadian, defending free
>enterprise. I guess I'm just a realist. Why waste time on battles that are
>already lost?
Because they're worth fighting? Oh, wait... that's right. You're Canadian.
<grinning, ducking, running>
Rob Adams
free
> >enterprise. I guess I'm just a realist. Why waste time on battles that
are
> >already lost?
>
> Because they're worth fighting? Oh, wait... that's right. You're Canadian.
>
> <grinning, ducking, running>
Ok, that's it! Me and you, centre ice. Drop da gloves and go at it, Canadian
style! :)
Rob (who quit playing hockey way before we were even allowed to fight)
Brona
> Who fired the first shot, Koneg? Mythic tried to shut BSI down, which gave
> them instant publicity (well, here anyway) and generated a lawsuit. The
> legal action would go away if Mythic would back down.
I'd say the peddlers of DAoC items fired the first shot, especially if the
EULA says you're not supposed to sell items on Ebay.
> A bit of quick eBay searching shows me lots of DAoC characters and items
for
> sale, and I'm sure the same goes for EQ, AC, etc. Stuff was probably there
> the day after the game was released.
I thought I heard that Verant, with the help of Ebay, was shutting down
auctions for EQ items. I could be mistaken.
Personally, I'm glad Mythic is doing something about it. I think UO was
poorer for not stopping items from being sold on Ebay. I think I remember
the dev's at OSI being pleased when they found out UO gold was actually
being sold for RL money. I guess I don't mind if people advertise that they
are selling items for in-game gold, but it's people that farm items for real
dollars, like BSI is doing, that bothers me. Go Mythic!
Kevin
Caohmin, 39th Level Armsman
Defenders of Albion, Iseult
V1mt0
cash for gold in a computer game. I say let them do it (and when they
are 50 they will look back and realise what idiots they have been),
but at least let mythic run the exchchange so they can reinvest it in
new staff/kit. It is after all their idea and the legal
interpretations of who "owns" the gold can be quite objective.
Anyway...save your money - go outside and do something more
interesting with it (my advice...buy the new Liverpool FC away shirt).
See you cats later.
King V1mt0 of the Scalliwags
involved...jcarson7@hotmail.com (Jim Carson) wrote in message news:<f26cec66.02020...@posting.google.com>...
I am Nomad
wrote:
>In our last episode,
> Jim Carson <jcar...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
>
>>Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
>>a form of cheating?
>
>IMHO Yes, it most certainly is cheating. You want something, go earn it.
There are people who would like to play the game, but can't afford it. You can,
and you pay real world dollars. What is the difference morally between your
paying real dollars for the ability to play?
Jim Carson
> "Jim Carson" <jcar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f26cec66.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > I have seen at least one poster in this forum request
> > realm gold for real cash.
> >
> > If what is alleged is true, is Mythic in the
> > right to shut this kind of thing down?
>
> Nope, and I'd be really surprised if they could win a lawsuit. Even if the
> EULA says players can't do this (I haven't read it!), most EULA's won't
> stand up to a good team of lawyers with "free enterprise" on their side.
> Mythic should spend the money on game improvements (and testers) instead of
> on lawyers.
I checked the EULA, and was surprised to see that it explicitly
forbids sale of items or characters.
"9. Selling of Items
You may not sell or auction any Game characters, items,
coin or copyrighted material.
The selling of items, coins or any copyrighted part of
the Game's player character whether through online
auctions (for example Ebay), newsgroup or postings on
message board is in violation of this EULA as well as
Mythic's Player Code of Conduct. In addition to violating
our agreement, selling items and/or coin violates our
legal rights and may constitute misappropriation,
and/or tortuous interference with our business and
tarnishes the goodwill in the Dark Age of Camelot(tm)
name."
Also, as another poster pointed out, BSI is suing
Mythic for allegedly attempting to stifle BSI's
business.
Mark Stephens
I don't see anything wrong with trying to perserve the spirit of the game.
I don't want to compete with players who are playing for real money. In
that sense, ruining the spirit of the game could cost Mythic real dollars,
and in that case I think they have a good leg to stand on. Being a
subscription service they might have even mor eleverage from the standpoint
that they can kick people out of their club who do not abide by their rules.
I don't want to imagine a society where you know longer have the right to
define terms of association, as long as those terms do not violate civil
rights.
mark
"Jim Carson" <jcar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> I checked the EULA, and was surprised to see that it explicitly
Mark Donnison
<big snip>
> Also, as another poster pointed out, BSI is suing
> Mythic for allegedly attempting to stifle BSI's
> business.
BSI aught to feel greatfull that they were able to make
any money at all, never mind continue to do so. If BSI
win it could spell disaster for online gaming for a number
of reasons, it hinges on who the virtual commodities
actually belong to.
Mythic 'aught' to win this case.
Mark
Rob Adams
news:u65cjnr...@news.supernews.com...
> I don't see anything wrong with trying to perserve the spirit of the game.
> I don't want to compete with players who are playing for real money. In
> that sense, ruining the spirit of the game could cost Mythic real dollars,
> and in that case I think they have a good leg to stand on. Being a
> subscription service they might have even mor eleverage from the
standpoint
> that they can kick people out of their club who do not abide by their
rules.
> I don't want to imagine a society where you know longer have the right to
> define terms of association, as long as those terms do not violate civil
> rights.
All valid points, except who are you "competing" with? Until you reach L50
there will ALWAYS be somebody who can kill you just because they are higher
level. Whether they got there by "cheating" (buying items, chars, whatever)
or through their own effort is irrelevant.
I still believe that the type of person who would spend RL cash to buy items
is in the minority. They will play with their new toy for a while then get
tired of it when something new takes their fancy. The true spirit of the
game will be reflected in the 98% of players who built their character up
from the start, making friends along the way.
I'm not saying buying and selling characters and items is "right" or
"wrong", I'm saying it isn't worth trying to stop because you CAN'T. Mythic
should concentrate on what they do well - developing and enhancing the game
world. Once they start chasing down the sellers they will open up a can of
worms they will never be able to close.
Mark Stephens
>
> All valid points, except who are you "competing" with? Until you reach L50
> there will ALWAYS be somebody who can kill you just because they are
higher
I should have explained. Imagine sitting at the undead ruins waiting for
some yellow undeads to spawn and having another group of players around.
Usually it is quite friendly. We take different sides and try not to steal
kills from the players. Do you think someone playing to sell the account
would play in the same manner? Why would they since they are playing to
level and then sell the account. In a group why would they be concerned
abotut he other group members health? Wouldn't they be playing for max
experience vs time only?
> I still believe that the type of person who would spend RL cash to buy
items
> is in the minority. They will play with their new toy for a while then get
> tired of it when something new takes their fancy. The true spirit of the
> game will be reflected in the 98% of players who built their character up
> from the start, making friends along the way.
I think I can agree with you here.
> "wrong", I'm saying it isn't worth trying to stop because you CAN'T.
Mythic
> should concentrate on what they do well - developing and enhancing the
game
IANAL but I think they have to inforce their license or it loses it's legal
weight. Obviously I'm not a lawyer :) The 'how many would do this' is a
good argument. Mythic must think it would be enough to damage the game.
mark
Mr. Callahan
news:or056u829rnk0j8kk...@4ax.com...
The difference is that you agreed not to sell the game items by clicking the
"accept" button. It's all there in the EULA. Someone is suing Mythic because
they can't make money off Mythic's product. Personally, I don't care if they
sell the stuff or not, but they should burn in hell for agreeing not to,
then doing it anyway. Then they disguise their greed as "players' rights",
which pisses me off to no end. Don't pretend you are championing me when
greed is your real cause. They offer many pathetic reasons for suing, such
as "The person that plays just a few hours a week, can't put in the time
required to build their character or collect the items needed to join others
in the online battles." What a joke. I don't have time to take my level of
play in Quake to a professional level, should I sue id? Next thing you know
there will be a warning on game boxes: "Must have X amount of free time to
enjoy game." Just one more stupid lawsuit to clog up our system. Thanks,
BSI!
Rob Adams
> "Rob Adams" <rob.nosp...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:Tez88.2836$Qq1.14201@shaw-ty2...
> >
> > All valid points, except who are you "competing" with? Until you reach
L50
> > there will ALWAYS be somebody who can kill you just because they are
> higher
>
> I should have explained. Imagine sitting at the undead ruins waiting for
> some yellow undeads to spawn and having another group of players around.
> Usually it is quite friendly. We take different sides and try not to
steal
> kills from the players. Do you think someone playing to sell the account
> would play in the same manner? Why would they since they are playing to
> level and then sell the account. In a group why would they be concerned
> abotut he other group members health? Wouldn't they be playing for max
> experience vs time only?
Hmm, hadn't thought of that. That definitely would be a problem. There are
powerlevelers that do that now, even if they aren't in it for the cash, but
the cash-motivated guys would be *much* worse.
I imagine these guys all group together to max their exp gains, so you
probably wouldn't have the misfortune of grouping with them, but I can see
the group waltzing in and taking over if you were in a spot they wanted.
> IANAL but I think they have to inforce their license or it loses it's
legal
> weight. Obviously I'm not a lawyer :) The 'how many would do this' is a
> good argument. Mythic must think it would be enough to damage the game.
Another good point - I believe I've seen this in another context - a legal
claim is only valid if you consistently prosecute all violations of it. A
while ago somebody created a "2001 season" add-on for a Formula 1 game, and
the game developers forced them to take it down, as it violated their
copyright.
Of course by that time the files had been mirrored on hundreds of sites, so
it was a moot point but they still had to make the effort or risk losing
their copyright altogether.
Mr. Callahan
Personally, I don't care if people sell stuff, but this lawsuit bugs me for
two reasons:
1. BSI is WRONG. They agreed not to sell the stuff, then they did. I'm tired
(as, I'm sure, is everyone else) of people who are clearly wrong suing
people who are totally within their rights. It sets bad precedents.
2. BSI sets the whole thing up as a crusade for "players' rights." BULLSHIT.
They offer asinine reasons and try to drum up support for the poor bastard
who doesn't have time to play the game more than a few hours a week. They
aren't fighting for my rights, they are fighting for their greed.
--
"Now you see that Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb."
Dark Helmet
"Rob Adams" <rob.nosp...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:qPg88.2810$Qq1.13999@shaw-ty2...
Rob Adams
affect players adversely if other players are powerleveling with a pure
greed motivation.
And it is up to Mythic (I suppose, although I feel sorry for them) to defend
their property rights in this case. Oh boy, more lawyers :(
None of this changes the facts that people are gonna sell their characters,
gold, and items somehow, someway, and it is impossible to stop them all. All
Mythic can stop (maybe) is organizations from springing up around this
"industry".
Well, back to the lawnmowing :)
"Mr. Callahan" <misterc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mWz88.18424$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Vireth
IMO, anyone who knowingly violates the TOS/EULA like this guy did should
be banned, and his characters deleted. That would stop any more action
from this guy, at least until he can build up another character and farm
more gold.
It's stupid to do what this guy did, and then sue Mythic for enforcing
the rules they agreed with to even play the game. It's not violating
anyone's civil rights to stop them from trashing the spirit of the game,
and that's exactly what this guy is doing.
It's not "cheating", but it should be shut down. Selling accounts, as
you pointed out in another post, is against the EULA as well, and should
not be allowed.
--
Vireth Soulsaver
Friar of Pellinor
Overlord of Soulsavers Vengeance
SirTifiable
"Mr. Callahan" <misterc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mWz88.18424$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
stop.
> Personally, I don't care if people sell stuff, but this lawsuit bugs me
for
> two reasons:
>
> 1. BSI is WRONG. They agreed not to sell the stuff, then they did. I'm
tired
> (as, I'm sure, is everyone else) of people who are clearly wrong suing
> people who are totally within their rights. It sets bad precedents.
I mostly agree.
> 2. BSI sets the whole thing up as a crusade for "players' rights."
BULLSHIT.
> They offer asinine reasons and try to drum up support for the poor bastard
> who doesn't have time to play the game more than a few hours a week. They
> aren't fighting for my rights, they are fighting for their greed.
Here I am not so sure.
Maybe some of the things that are currently prohibited by a EULA shouldn't
be.
I think maybe its about time the validity of some EULA's are challenged. I
was just reading an article on the subject of the DMCA, and one of the
things that stuck was that the EULA for some digital books prohibited
reading the book out loud (it wasn't the main part of the article it was
mentioned as a side issue, but it struck a cord.).
--
SirTifiable
"of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most"
I am Nomad
wrote:
>
>Actually, i think most videos state at the beginning that you cant charge
>anyone to view it once you have rented it.
>
>But with this game it is a little different than that. Most rental shops are
>upset about that, because the person you charge a few cents, then will not
>rent the video/hire the mower themselves. As for MMORPG's, the player
>already is registered, so Mythic doesn't lose out there. It is probably more
>a game play issue. Mythic might be worried that the economy will get screwed
>up if low levels are running around with 1000gp. It is also unfair to the
>players that cant afford $100 (us too, so $200 au ) ... they still have to
>kill things to get it....
>
It is also unfair that to others don't have broadband that I do. It is unfair
to me that people on college campuses have T3 connects and WAY too
much time to play.
It is unfair to me that other people have P99s that run at 2 GHz with killer
vid cards.
Hope I can stop feeling abused....
I am Nomad
wrote:
>"I am Nomad" <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message
>news:or056u829rnk0j8kk...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:40:26 -0000, ko...@no-spam.thewebmasters.net
>(Koneg)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In our last episode,
>> > Jim Carson <jcar...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
>> >
>> >>Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
>> >>a form of cheating?
>> >
>> >IMHO Yes, it most certainly is cheating. You want something, go earn it.
>>
>> There are people who would like to play the game, but can't afford it. You
>can,
>> and you pay real world dollars. What is the difference morally between
>your
>> paying real dollars for the ability to play?
>
>The difference is that you agreed
STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
I knew, I just KNEW that no matter how clearly I phrased it, someone would
immediately pull out the TOS and say, "See, it says so right here!"
My question is MORALLY what is the difference?
If the most immoral thing that can be said about people who sell items is they
have broken their solemn promise to Mythic, then I say, "The address for
selling your goods is www.ebay.com."
Mr. Callahan
MORALLY: You agreed not to do it, then you did it. MORALLY, you are wrong.
You said, in effect: In exchange for you allowing me to play this game, I
will abide by your rules. MORALLY, you are wrong to break that agreement and
continue playing. Breaking a promise is wrong, MORALLY. I'm not claiming
that anyone has commited some major crime here, but what BSI is doing is
wrong. Why is it ok to agree to a contract and then break it? Would you tell
your kids it's ok to break a promise in the name of greed?
Mr. Callahan
news:IJB88.18103$Hb6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
There is a point at which the EULA may overstep acceptable bounds. That is
why you read before you agree. I think that with the speed at which
information travels, any EULA that was overly harsh would be posted on
enough websites, newsgroups, etc. that it would adversely affect game sales.
The first few people that bought the game might get screwed, but companies
would learn pretty quickly what they can and can not get away with. I
haven't personally seen any EULA that goes too far for me as a player. As
long as it is clearly written, though, I don't think anyone should be able
to sue to violate the terms of an agreement they signed (ok, not technically
signed, but it amounts to the same thing). It doesn't matter too much to me
if people sell stuff on ebay, it just pisses me off to see someone else
bringing another lawsuit that they will probably win when they shouldn't.
Mr. Callahan
came across that way even to me), I just wanted to point out that I did
understand what you were saying, and I personally believe that one should
keep one's promises and abide by contracts. The main thing about this that
pisses me off is not the fact that they broke the agreement, or that they
are selling the stuff, but that they are suing because they can't make money
from Mythic's product.
--
"Now you see that Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb."
Dark Helmet
"Mr. Callahan" <misterc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:weE88.18490$Hb6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mr. Callahan
news:q1u56uoto9a3n9e2v...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:14:32 GMT, Vireth
> <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >It's not "cheating", but it should be shut down. Selling accounts, as
> >you pointed out in another post, is against the EULA as well, and should
> >not be allowed.
>
>
Where did you get this info? It says in the EULA that you can't sell
characters, but doesn't actually say "accounts." Do they officially support
account sales? Not arguing with you, would just like to know.
I am Nomad
wrote:
I hope Mythic gets over the trauma of someone breaking a moral obligation to
them. I hope they don't need grief counselors.
By the way, that address was www.ebay.com.
Mark Stephens
Kids these days, I tell ya.
mark
"I am Nomad" <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message >
Vireth
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:14:32 GMT, Vireth
> <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not "cheating", but it should be shut down. Selling accounts, as
>>you pointed out in another post, is against the EULA as well, and should
>>not be allowed.
>>
>
>
> Actually mythic endorses account sales.
>
> Therein lies the basis of the lawsuit. Mythic authorizes the sale of
> thier property in one form, and cannot forbid the sale of the same
> property in another.
Where is it stated that they endorse selling of characters? It's stated
in the EULA that it is not allowed, just like items (see post by Jim
Carson, EULA item #9).
Koneg
I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> scribbled the following:
Because I'm also playing against those who have the ability to pay. Those
who do not have the ability to pay to play have absolutely nothing to do
with this - (here's a hint: All analogies suck)
Koneg
>wrote:
>
>>"I am Nomad" <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message
>>news:or056u829rnk0j8kk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:40:26 -0000, ko...@no-spam.thewebmasters.net
>>(Koneg)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In our last episode,
>>> > Jim Carson <jcar...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
>>> >
>>> >>Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
>>> >>a form of cheating?
>>> >
>>> >IMHO Yes, it most certainly is cheating. You want something, go earn it.
>>>
>>> There are people who would like to play the game, but can't afford it. You
>>can,
>>> and you pay real world dollars. What is the difference morally between
>>your
>>> paying real dollars for the ability to play?
>>
>>The difference is that you agreed
>
>STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
>
>I knew, I just KNEW that no matter how clearly I phrased it, someone would
>immediately pull out the TOS and say, "See, it says so right here!"
>
>My question is MORALLY what is the difference?
You talk about morals when discussing the violation of an agreement someone
entered into willingly. Gah! I despise those that never bother to take their
arguments to their logical conclusions.
>If the most immoral thing that can be said about people who sell items is
>they have broken their solemn promise to Mythic, then I say, "The address
>for selling your goods is www.ebay.com."
Morality shmality - they are in violation of the games TOS, they are in
CLEAR violation of the spirit of the game, and they're cheating.
If you disagree with any of these statements, the address you need visit is
http://www.eatshitanddie.com/
Koneg
Koneg
Rob Adams <rob.nosp...@telus.net> scribbled the following:
>OK, you all have convinced me. It is illegal, based on the EULA, and it does
>affect players adversely if other players are powerleveling with a pure
>greed motivation.
>
>And it is up to Mythic (I suppose, although I feel sorry for them) to defend
>their property rights in this case. Oh boy, more lawyers :(
No worries - I'm sure they were on retainer. ;-)
Koneg
Get a job? Seriously your argument has no validity.
Those that pay real money for "game" stuff are sadly pathetic and have an
adverse and negative impact on game play. Those that defend the practice are
even sadder, and should consider a different form of entertainment.
--
Koneg
32 Armsman
Vireth
>>I hope Mythic gets over the trauma of someone breaking a moral obligation
>>to them. I hope they don't need grief counselors.
>>
>
> s/moral/legal/gi;
Should read more like this, Koneg:
s/Mythic/I can/gi;s/gets/get/gi;s/someone//gi;s/they/I/gi;
Rob Adams
news:3C643568...@this-is-not-for-spam.net...
> Koneg wrote:
>
> >>I hope Mythic gets over the trauma of someone breaking a moral
obligation
> >>to them. I hope they don't need grief counselors.
> >>
> >
> > s/moral/legal/gi;
>
>
> Should read more like this, Koneg:
>
> s/Mythic/I can/gi;s/gets/get/gi;s/someone//gi;s/they/I/gi;
I'm trying to decide who is nerdier - you guys for writing this or me for
understanding it!
SirTifiable
-snip
> OK, here's my take:
>
> There is a point at which the EULA may overstep acceptable bounds. That is
> why you read before you agree. I think that with the speed at which
> information travels, any EULA that was overly harsh would be posted on
> enough websites, newsgroups, etc. that it would adversely affect game
sales.
> The first few people that bought the game might get screwed, but companies
> would learn pretty quickly what they can and can not get away with. I
> haven't personally seen any EULA that goes too far for me as a player. As
> long as it is clearly written, though, I don't think anyone should be able
> to sue to violate the terms of an agreement they signed (ok, not
technically
> signed, but it amounts to the same thing). It doesn't matter too much to
me
> if people sell stuff on ebay, it just pisses me off to see someone else
> bringing another lawsuit that they will probably win when they shouldn't.
I have no problem with Mythic enforcing the EULA and baning them. As you
pointed out they agreed to those terms in order to play.
However I also have no problem with them suing Mythic to change the EULA, if
they feel the EULA went to far; and if they win their lawsuit they can go
back and have their characters restored.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>In our last episode,
> I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> scribbled the following:
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:40:26 -0000, ko...@no-spam.thewebmasters.net (Koneg)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode,
>>> Jim Carson <jcar...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
>>>
>>>>Should this kind of thing be shut down? Is it
>>>>a form of cheating?
>>>
>>>IMHO Yes, it most certainly is cheating. You want something, go earn it.
>>
>>There are people who would like to play the game, but can't afford it. You can,
>>and you pay real world dollars. What is the difference morally between your
>>paying real dollars for the ability to play?
>
>Because I'm also playing against those who have the ability to pay. Those
>who do not have the ability to pay to play have absolutely nothing to do
>with this - (here's a hint: All analogies suck)
Well, I work for a living, and I think it is grossly unfair that I have to play
against people who have more free time to build up their characters.
Waaaahhhhhhh....
I am Nomad
wrote:
My god! You are right!
One again... www.ebay.com.
I am Nomad
wrote:
My god. First you are abused by those who would sell imaginary goods. Then you
are abused by those who would buy them. Now you are abused by those of us who
don't care that the first two groups exist.
How will you survive?
I just count myself lucky that I am one of the handful of people that have not
had the game entirely ruined by this shameless cheating.
Koneg
Sounds like a personal problem? Your perceived and obviously flawed
notions of fairness are irrelevant. If you want something in the game, go
EARN it. The folks that have more time to play than you are still -earning-
what they're getting.
If you think that's not fair or think there's something inherently wrong
with that basic concept, your thinking is so far skewed from rational that I
hesitate to ask what you do for a living.
Please, just tell me one thing - tell me it doesn't involve heavy machinery.
--
Koneg
32 Armsman
I am Nomad
wrote:
I did--I paid cash for it on EBAY.
(Not really, I just wanted to see if you would burst a blood vessel when you
read that. He he he.)
Once again folks, the address for buying online commodities in the Mythic
Universe is www.ebay.com.
Vireth
So, it appears your entire motivation for posting here is to piss people
off? Great....another worthless poster. Go back to the Vault boards.
I think the problem here is also that the same people who buy/sell on
eBay do not let others know they are people who do it. I can tell you,
if I know someone who is doing, they aren't welcome in my group or my
guild. I think if there was some sort of sign on them that said "I
bought this character on eBay" or "I am a Gold-farmer that sells on
eBay", then they would be shunned by other people who loathe that kind
of behavior. Go let them farm their money/items/whatever, or play those
"bought" characters...but they would most likely do it alone, or at
least with the other people who do the same.
I am Nomad
wrote:
And that hurts them... how?
They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
theirs? Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game! The fact
someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
playing the way you want, should not raise such ire. I remember with
mech-warriror, some people considered it "dishonorable" to target the legs of
the other person's mech. "Leggers" were scorned by non-leggers, and I could not
figure out why. Kind of like aiming for the treads of the enemy tank--sounds
like a good plan to me!
Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
well as their non-ubers.
Life is what *you* make of it, not what the other guy makes of their life.
Otara
<No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
>character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
>are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
>other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
>well as their non-ubers.
Its more that its a non-money maker for Mythic I suspect. A person
who comes in with a premade character doesnt have to spend 6 months
gettting the character up to scratch, and isnt buying the game box.
Its simply lost revenue as far as mythic is concerned, so naturally
they want to reduce its frequency.
Also as the game gets older and older, the more high levels you have
around, the greater the entry barrier will be to someone starting from
scratch - most people will not be willing to spend $200 to simply have
a viable character at the start. The longer you can put that off,
the longer your game feels 'new' as opposed to 'old' and the easier it
is to get new customers, because they wont feel they have to spend a
zillion dollars or hours playing simply to be viable players with the
majority of the population. Once new players start feeling like
they're in a ghost town playing at lower levels, your game is starting
to die.
I strongly suspect that one reason UO made character advancement so
much easier was to try and cope with these kinds of issues. They
knew that they couldnt stop account selling at that stage so it was
the only other option.
Otara
the fixer
"Otara" <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
news:p1aj6uchmh890k8io...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:24:30 GMT, I am Nomad
> <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
> >Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
> >character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If
they
> >are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are
on the
> >other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not
play as
> >well as their non-ubers.
>
> Its more that its a non-money maker for Mythic I suspect. A person
> who comes in with a premade character doesnt have to spend 6 months
> gettting the character up to scratch, and isnt buying the game box.
> Its simply lost revenue as far as mythic is concerned, so naturally
> they want to reduce its frequency.
>
I don't buy that argument. The person who sold the account paid mythic so
they arent losing anything. I dont care where your level 60 came from,
*someone* bought the box and *someome* paid mythic for the time it took to
get there.
> Also as the game gets older and older, the more high levels you have
> around, the greater the entry barrier will be to someone starting from
> scratch - most people will not be willing to spend $200 to simply have
> a viable character at the start. The longer you can put that off,
> the longer your game feels 'new' as opposed to 'old' and the easier it
> is to get new customers, because they wont feel they have to spend a
> zillion dollars or hours playing simply to be viable players with the
> majority of the population. Once new players start feeling like
> they're in a ghost town playing at lower levels, your game is starting
> to die.
But new characters are going to feel that way anyhow, and no matter who owns
the level 60 account will still be paying for it.
I am Nomad
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:24:30 GMT, I am Nomad
><No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
>>character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
>>are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
>>other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
>>well as their non-ubers.
>
>Its more that its a non-money maker for Mythic I suspect. A person
>who comes in with a premade character doesnt have to spend 6 months
>gettting the character up to scratch, and isnt buying the game box.
>Its simply lost revenue as far as mythic is concerned, so naturally
>they want to reduce its frequency.
>
Well, if the spirit of the game is to make loot for the CEO and Mythic, I guess
selling of such would hurt the spirit of the game.
>Also as the game gets older and older, the more high levels you have
>around, the greater the entry barrier will be to someone starting from
>scratch - most people will not be willing to spend $200 to simply have
>a viable character at the start. The longer you can put that off,
>the longer your game feels 'new' as opposed to 'old' and the easier it
>is to get new customers, because they wont feel they have to spend a
>zillion dollars or hours playing simply to be viable players with the
>majority of the population. Once new players start feeling like
>they're in a ghost town playing at lower levels, your game is starting
>to die.
I disagree. New players in new game face the same set of barriers as in ancient
game--especially in DAoC which forced you to fight a narrow band or mobs.
I am Nomad
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:49:49 GMT, Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>Its more that its a non-money maker for Mythic I suspect. A person
>>who comes in with a premade character doesnt have to spend 6 months
>>gettting the character up to scratch, and isnt buying the game box.
>
>
>Your arguement is mostly good, the one problem is, mythic allows
>account sales, just not item sales.
The selling of accounts promotes people to buy accounts for the purpose of
building them up and selling. It also permits people who would not otherwise
invest time in the game to purchase an account and play, since they don't have
to start out fighting slugs and frogs for hours on end. Mythic prospers both
ways, so account selling is allowed.
Mythic loses money when someone who already has an account decides to purchase
an item a different, hugher-level character no longer wishes, because said
buyer will not spend the time to find the item on his/her own, and thus prolong
their playing time.
Simply put, the spirit of the game is designed to make more and more money for
Mythic. Nothing wrong with them wishing to line their pockets with just as much
cash as possible, but I do wish people would realize that not dumping as much
cash on them as they want is hardly immoral.
Otara
wrote:
>> Its more that its a non-money maker for Mythic I suspect. A person
>> who comes in with a premade character doesnt have to spend 6 months
>> gettting the character up to scratch, and isnt buying the game box.
>> Its simply lost revenue as far as mythic is concerned, so naturally
>> they want to reduce its frequency.
>>
>
>I don't buy that argument. The person who sold the account paid mythic so
>they arent losing anything. I dont care where your level 60 came from,
>*someone* bought the box and *someome* paid mythic for the time it took to
>get there.
Yes but if you leave and their account disappears, that next player
has to pay for the box. Ie they get 2 boxes sold for 2 customers
instead of just one.
You dont have to 'buy it' as a justification, I'm not talking about
morality, its just an explanation of why they want it that way - it
makes more money for them.
Otara
Otara
>>account sales, just not item sales.
"You may not sell or auction any Game characters, items, coin or
copyrighted material."
How do you sell a character without selling the account?
Otara
Mark Stephens
leveling in order to sell a char. That and the fact that it is in the EULA
are the only reasons I object to the selling of chars and items.
Mythic made a decision to ban the practice and that is their right. I'm
sure this will be affirmed in the upcoming court battle. When you go off
ranting about rights make sure you understand that it's a two way street.
mark
"I am Nomad" <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message >
Vireth
Well, since they have miniscule morals, probably not much. It's mainly
for those of us who actually CARE, so we know to avoid people like this.
We do what we can.
> They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
> theirs?
What companionship? They're their for business purposes, not
companionship. Even if they're friendly while doing 'business', I could
care less. Friendliness doesn't excuse their actions, IMO.
> Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
> The fact
> someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
> playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
any agreements they made to play that way.
It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
violate it at their first whim, then try to defend that action. THAT is
the simplest I can put it. I don't want a game full of item/gold/XP
farmers. AC was full of them, and it made some parts of the game suck.
And yes, it DID hurt me. I found it harder to trade my hard-won
items/money to others when these jerkoffs simply 'bought' theirs offline
from other jerkoffs who would simply camp a spot with a super-high level
character and farm stuff.
> I remember with
> mech-warriror, some people considered it "dishonorable" to target the legs of
> the other person's mech. "Leggers" were scorned by non-leggers, and I could not
> figure out why. Kind of like aiming for the treads of the enemy tank--sounds
> like a good plan to me!
I played Mech-warrior, and I don't think leg-shots were all that bad.
But that is a different thing altogether than this. Leg-shooting is an
IN-GAME maneuver. Account selling is an OUT-OF-GAME thing. Leg-shooting
can be considered dishonorable, but there are dishonorable people in
real world. That can be role-played. Account/gold/item selling can't be.
There is a distinct difference between 'immoral' and 'amoral'.
> Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
> character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
> are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
> other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
> well as their non-ubers.
See above for how it hurts me.
I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
Koneg
Vireth <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net> scribbled the following:
>I am Nomad wrote:
[megasnip]
>>
>> The fact
>> someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
>> playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
>
>
>Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
>any agreements they made to play that way.
>
>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>violate it at their first whim, then try to defend that action.
No worries Vireth - Nomad defends the practice specifically because he's too
damn stupid to figure out how to level a toon to 50 on his own. It's the
only way he's ever going to get there and he knows it.
>I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
>greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
>someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
>want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
And when you're depending upon the person next to you to help keep you and
your group alive post-40 you're REALLY going to be annoyed when you realize
they DON'T have 40 levels of fighting experience under their belt.
Happened all the time in EQ. Some idiot would buy a lvl 50+ toon, get into a
group, then proceed to get the entire party wiped out (which is HELLISH at
50+ - whole DAYS of exp grinding lost and a brutal corpse recovery) because
they were completely unskilled with their char and with their role in the
group. (Had a chanter start nuking on us once, and a post-40 paladin asking
not only "what's Taunt?" but "how do I get to Oasis?")
*shudder*
--
Koneg
34 Armsman
I am Nomad
wrote:
>We covered this. It DOES effect your gameplay if people are out there
>leveling in order to sell a char.
OK, there are five groups at the parth farm. One is trying to level for fun,
one is trying to level for profit. One is bored out of their collective minds.
One just died. One is mine. If the "for profit" group was switched to a "bored"
or "fun" group, just how would my gameplay be so radically different?
I am Nomad
wrote:
Sound like the same reason Christians look down on homosexuals...
A belief system not founded in fact.
>
>
>> They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
>> theirs?
>
>
>What companionship? They're their for business purposes, not
>companionship. Even if they're friendly while doing 'business', I could
>care less. Friendliness doesn't excuse their actions, IMO.
So what you are saying is you are not friendly with people in the business
world, or working in stores, because they are there, *gasp*, for profit!
>
>> Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
>
>
>That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
Games can't be business ventures?
How much were those Superbowl 30-second ad spots going for?
>
>> The fact
>> someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
>> playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
>
>
>Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
>any agreements they made to play that way.
Woe is Mythic, the promise to them is cleft in twain.
Now, how does that affect you?
>
>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>violate it at their first whim,
There are seven people working at this profitable business venture. Hardly
sounds like "first whim" to me.
> then try to defend that action. THAT is
>the simplest I can put it.
So you believe that someone should ALWAYS honor their word and NEVER be
dishonest.
Sir, I would like to shake your hand, as you are only the second person ever to
never tell a lie.
Of course, the first one had the rather dubious fortune of, allegedly, being
nailed to a tree, or something like that.
> I don't want a game full of item/gold/XP
>farmers. AC was full of them, and it made some parts of the game suck.
>And yes, it DID hurt me. I found it harder to trade my hard-won
>items/money to others when these jerkoffs simply 'bought' theirs offline
>from other jerkoffs who would simply camp a spot with a super-high level
>character and farm stuff.
LOL!!! Now I understand, they out-competed you! You were pissed because you
were the one person who wanted to spend hours running around spamming, "Selling
Vengeful Bow of Enchantments for 1,000,000 Plat FIRM!" and never got an offer!
>
>> I remember with
>> mech-warriror, some people considered it "dishonorable" to target the legs of
>> the other person's mech. "Leggers" were scorned by non-leggers, and I could not
>> figure out why. Kind of like aiming for the treads of the enemy tank--sounds
>> like a good plan to me!
>
>
>I played Mech-warrior, and I don't think leg-shots were all that bad.
>But that is a different thing altogether than this. Leg-shooting is an
>IN-GAME maneuver. Account selling is an OUT-OF-GAME thing. Leg-shooting
>can be considered dishonorable, but there are dishonorable people in
>real world. That can be role-played. Account/gold/item selling can't be.
>There is a distinct difference between 'immoral' and 'amoral'.
>
So far the only complaint you have made against gold-farmers is they made it
possible for people to trade what they had for what they wanted, as opposed to
you, who demanded they trade something they didn't have for something they
wanted.
>
>> Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
>> character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
>> are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
>> other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
>> well as their non-ubers.
>
>
>See above for how it hurts me.
Excuse me, but could you focus on how your in-game commerce suffered a wee bit
more?
>
>I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
>greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
>someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
>want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
You are right---involving real world money into games hurts things. We should
disband professional basketball immediately.
Vireth
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:02 -0500, "Mark Stephens" <mark.kil...@one.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>We covered this. It DOES effect your gameplay if people are out there
>>leveling in order to sell a char.
>>
>
> OK, there are five groups at the parth farm. One is trying to level for fun,
> one is trying to level for profit. One is bored out of their collective minds.
> One just died. One is mine. If the "for profit" group was switched to a "bored"
> or "fun" group, just how would my gameplay be so radically different?
They will pull trains to you if they feel it will save them. The "for
profit" group (if there can ever be a full group of these lamers) will
attempt to pull every monster they see, without regard to others. They
will attempt to grab a named monster or mob that has frequent drops at
every opportunity they can, whether or not they have just done so or
not. They will most likely not rez your party if they got wiped out.
They will most likely not help you if you get into a jam.
Do I need to list more examples of how their gameplay would affect yours?
Rob Adams
should
> disband professional basketball immediately.
Now THIS I can agree with. Same with baseball and football, they just take
up TV time that could be better used for the only true sport: hockey.
;-)
I am Nomad
wrote:
>In our last episode,
> Vireth <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net> scribbled the following:
>>I am Nomad wrote:
>[megasnip]
>>>
>>> The fact
>>> someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
>>> playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
>>
>>
>>Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
>>any agreements they made to play that way.
>>
>>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>>violate it at their first whim, then try to defend that action.
>[snip]
>
>No worries Vireth - Nomad defends the practice specifically because he's too
>damn stupid to figure out how to level a toon to 50 on his own. It's the
>only way he's ever going to get there and he knows it.
Actually, unlike you lame groupers, I solo my characters. (Except for the one I
created to play with IRL friends.) I have even gone so far as to make my
characters /anon, and set NOT LOOKING FOR GROUP to on, and people still ask me
if I wish to group.
What IS it with you people? Although, I can see why you hate the
character-farmers---sheer envy of their ability to advance characters without
being there to help you.
>
>>I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
>>greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
>>someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
>>want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
>
>And when you're depending upon the person next to you to help keep you and
>your group alive post-40 you're REALLY going to be annoyed when you realize
>they DON'T have 40 levels of fighting experience under their belt.
Now, this I can understand. This game, like any other, requires skill, not just
stats. Of course, there are people out there borrowing a friend's character, or
who just plain suck. The solution is to know who you are grouping with before
you invade the werewolf den.
>
>Happened all the time in EQ. Some idiot would buy a lvl 50+ toon, get into a
>group, then proceed to get the entire party wiped out (which is HELLISH at
>50+ - whole DAYS of exp grinding lost and a brutal corpse recovery) because
>they were completely unskilled with their char and with their role in the
>group. (Had a chanter start nuking on us once, and a post-40 paladin asking
>not only "what's Taunt?" but "how do I get to Oasis?")
Past the merchants, snake around hugging to the right, head out past the
guards. Veer to the left, run along the shore into and through a new zone, out
the other side to a second new zone, run about 30 more seconds, cut right.
Watch out for the sand giants and the 4 ghosts that look like death, because
that is what they are to you!
Mark Stephens
fun,
> one is trying to level for profit. One is bored out of their collective
minds.
> One just died. One is mine. If the "for profit" group was switched to a
"bored"
> or "fun" group, just how would my gameplay be so radically different?
Because a friendly group won't mind sharing the mobs while a money making
group just might. I phrased I as a question earlier, asking if their
gameplay might be different. Or to put it another way, what would compel a
for profit group to share the mob farm?
I doubt that you really want to discuss the subject, noticing that you are
dropping typical flamewar phrases further down. Sorry to waste your time.
mark
I am Nomad
wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:02 -0500, "Mark Stephens" <mark.kil...@one.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We covered this. It DOES effect your gameplay if people are out there
>>>leveling in order to sell a char.
>>>
>>
>> OK, there are five groups at the parth farm. One is trying to level for fun,
>> one is trying to level for profit. One is bored out of their collective minds.
>> One just died. One is mine. If the "for profit" group was switched to a "bored"
>> or "fun" group, just how would my gameplay be so radically different?
>
>
>They will pull trains to you if they feel it will save them.
Have you ever played this game? Pulling an aggored mob to near someone else is
pointless. The worst that can be said is after it kills them, it can kill you.
> The "for
>profit" group (if there can ever be a full group of these lamers) will
>attempt to pull every monster they see, without regard to others.
Sounds like most of the groups by the parth farm--looks like the majority of
people there are character farmers.
> They
>will attempt to grab a named monster or mob that has frequent drops at
>every opportunity they can, whether or not they have just done so or
>not.
And normal players will pass by loot so others can collect it. Right. Smoke
some more.
> They will most likely not rez your party if they got wiped out.
Ahhh... So what you are saying is when you screw up, they won't save you from
your own stupidity. I like them already.
>They will most likely not help you if you get into a jam.
See above.
>
>Do I need to list more examples of how their gameplay would affect yours?
No, because so far I either see no difference between them and most groups I
have encountered, or think they are pretty cool by not interfering with your
game play by pulling your fat out of the fire you lighted.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>
>"I am Nomad" <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message >
>> OK, there are five groups at the parth farm. One is trying to level for
>fun,
>> one is trying to level for profit. One is bored out of their collective
>minds.
>> One just died. One is mine. If the "for profit" group was switched to a
>"bored"
>> or "fun" group, just how would my gameplay be so radically different?
>
>Because a friendly group
Nope. I listed no friendly groups up there. Try again.
> won't mind sharing the mobs while a money making
>group just might. I phrased I as a question earlier, asking if their
>gameplay might be different. Or to put it another way, what would compel a
>for profit group to share the mob farm?
The fact that you can go there and pull mobs right alongside of them and there
is nothing you can do about it.
Vireth
<snip>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:34:28 GMT, Vireth <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Well, since they have miniscule morals, probably not much. It's mainly
>>for those of us who actually CARE, so we know to avoid people like this.
>>We do what we can.
>>
>
> Sound like the same reason Christians look down on homosexuals...
>
> A belief system not founded in fact.
True Christians do not "look down on" homosexuals. The arrogant
"Christian" BIGOTS do all the harassing. They go against their own
beliefs when they behave in such a manner.
And this is not a belief system, here. It is an AGREEMENT, that the
people entered into WILLINGLY, then violated. What's unfactual about that?
>>>They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
>>>theirs?
>>>
>>
>>What companionship? They're their for business purposes, not
>>companionship. Even if they're friendly while doing 'business', I could
>>care less. Friendliness doesn't excuse their actions, IMO.
>>
>
> So what you are saying is you are not friendly with people in the business
> world, or working in stores, because they are there, *gasp*, for profit!
No, that's what YOU'RE saying. I never said I was not friendly with my
business partners. I know why they are at work, and I know that what
they are doing is legal and not breaking any contracts/agreements. If I
knew they were engaging in said activities, rest assured that no amount
of friendship on their part would make me act in the same manner.
>>>Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
>>>
>>
>>That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
>>
>
> Games can't be business ventures?
>
> How much were those Superbowl 30-second ad spots going for?
That's not the same type of game. Where are you pulling these arguments
from? Are you simply seeing the word "game" and associating anything
with the word "game" in it to use here?
Your arguments are worthless. They have little relevance to the point.
*sigh*
If you must....
For the super bowl argument...someone buys a ticket to the game.
Scalping the ticket (depending on whether it is legal in that area or
not) is illegal. As is selling any merchandise without the permission of
the NFL. As is advertising anything about the game, players, logos, etc
without permission from the NFL. Same with Mythic. If anyone wants to
use anything having to do with the game, it must be authorized by Mythic
explicitly. In this case, it was NOT authorized.
Super-bowl ads have no impact on the game itself, so they would be more
comparable to the banner ads on DAoC's/Mythic's Website.
>>>The fact
>>>someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
>>>playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
>>>
>>
>>Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
>>any agreements they made to play that way.
>>
>
> Woe is Mythic, the promise to them is cleft in twain.
>
> Now, how does that affect you?
It affects the way I think about these people. In the same way that the
lawsuit against McDonald's for the little old lady that spilled coffee
in her lap made me angry. It's lame, and is an abuse of the system. If I
do nothing and say nothing to express my dissatisfaction on the issue,
people may start to think it is ok.
Some could say the same about player macros (the kind that auto-level
characters without any kind of participation). They are wrong as well.
They would hardly affect my character, yet I am and always will be one
of the strongest opponents to it.
>>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>>violate it at their first whim,
>>
>
> There are seven people working at this profitable business venture. Hardly
> sounds like "first whim" to me.
Once again, your argument has little relevance to what I said.
What does it matter how *MANY* perform the action? Each individual
person chose to violate the agreement at their first opportunity (or
whim, as I said). One or 1000, it is the intent that matters, not the
number.
>>then try to defend that action. THAT is
>>the simplest I can put it.
>>
>
> So you believe that someone should ALWAYS honor their word and NEVER be
> dishonest.
>
> Sir, I would like to shake your hand, as you are only the second person ever to
> never tell a lie.
>
> Of course, the first one had the rather dubious fortune of, allegedly, being
> nailed to a tree, or something like that.
Well, it's about time you said something that had some relevance to what
I said. Too bad it's a lame argument.
Using extremes like that just makes you look childish. I never said *I*
NEVER did something I said I was not going to, or vice-versa.
We are all human. We all make mistakes and are not perfect. That doesn't
mean that if I see someone doing something wrong INENTIONALLY, and then
DEFENDING that action as their "right" (which it most certainly is NOT),
I say something about it. Does that mean I'm saying I'm perfect? Not in
the slightest. My actions have absolutely nothing to do with what they
are doing at the moment. Their wrong is different than wrongs I may or
may not have committed.
>>I don't want a game full of item/gold/XP
>>farmers. AC was full of them, and it made some parts of the game suck.
>>And yes, it DID hurt me. I found it harder to trade my hard-won
>>items/money to others when these jerkoffs simply 'bought' theirs offline
>>from other jerkoffs who would simply camp a spot with a super-high level
>>character and farm stuff.
>>
>
> LOL!!! Now I understand, they out-competed you! You were pissed because you
> were the one person who wanted to spend hours running around spamming, "Selling
> Vengeful Bow of Enchantments for 1,000,000 Plat FIRM!" and never got an offer!
No...now you assume things that are untrue. For one thing, there is no
such item as what you named in AC, and there is no Platinum in AC either.
For another, I don't spam. I state my wares (if any), If I don't get any
responses in 1 or 2 minutes (not every 5 seconds), I re-state. If I
don't get any responses for about 5 minutes, I stop stating. I have
NEVER spent hours running around trading ANYWHERE.
And no, I don't think of them as out-competing me. I disdain
item-farming, because it usually takes away from people who do not have
the item yet, but I cannot stop it.
>>>I remember with
>>>mech-warriror, some people considered it "dishonorable" to target the legs of
>>>the other person's mech. "Leggers" were scorned by non-leggers, and I could not
>>>figure out why. Kind of like aiming for the treads of the enemy tank--sounds
>>>like a good plan to me!
>>>
>>
>>I played Mech-warrior, and I don't think leg-shots were all that bad.
>>But that is a different thing altogether than this. Leg-shooting is an
>>IN-GAME maneuver. Account selling is an OUT-OF-GAME thing. Leg-shooting
>>can be considered dishonorable, but there are dishonorable people in
>>real world. That can be role-played. Account/gold/item selling can't be.
>>There is a distinct difference between 'immoral' and 'amoral'.
>>
> So far the only complaint you have made against gold-farmers is they made it
> possible for people to trade what they had for what they wanted, as opposed to
> you, who demanded they trade something they didn't have for something they
> wanted.
And where did you get that I was demanding they trade something they
didn't have? Are you pulling untrue facts from thin air as well now?
If they traded IN-GAME, I wouldn't have a problem with it so much. The
fact is, they are then taking this gold and selling it OUT-OF-GAME. Do
you have trouble discerning differences of fact? Did you fail your SAT?
Or are you even old enough to take it yet?
>>>Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
>>>character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
>>>are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
>>>other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
>>>well as their non-ubers.
>>>
>>
>>See above for how it hurts me.
>>
>
> Excuse me, but could you focus on how your in-game commerce suffered a wee bit
> more?
I don't consider it my in-game "commerce" the same as they do. I
exchange items that I have acquired to others who have something I
desire. I do all this IN-GAME. This is all well within the spirit of the
game.
>>I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
>>greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
>>someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
>>want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
>>
>
> You are right---involving real world money into games hurts things. We should
> disband professional basketball immediately.
Not the same. Once again, lame arguments. Please go back and learn some
more before you spew any more useless information.
Danny
against them either. Put me behind the driver's seat of a 45
_anything,_ I'm sure I'd be able to figure out what works and what
doesn't in (at the most) a night. Some people bought this game for the
RvR aspect (me!) and had no idea it would take so long to get a
character to a _useful_ level in RvR (me!) and don't have a whole lot of
time to play (not me, but they exist, I'm sure)...I see plenty of people
online already that won't help when you /y and that won't res you when
you ask. These people are the minority. The gold-hoarders, item
farmers, and such would also be a minority...Mythic's built-in
greys-drop-nothing system is enough to keep people from 'farming', IMO.
I think the game, to the average player, would look and feel _very_
similar to what it is now.
However, Nomad has made some assholish remarks, and I want to comment on
them. =)
I am Nomad wrote:
[snip]
> > They will most likely not rez your party if they got wiped out.
>
> Ahhh... So what you are saying is when you screw up, they won't save you from
> your own stupidity. I like them already.
>
> >They will most likely not help you if you get into a jam.
>
> See above.
...I hope you never create a character that can res. Will you please
tell me what server you play on, and what your character names are?
Well, nevermind...it's not really relevant, since you _never_ group
anyway.
> >Do I need to list more examples of how their gameplay would affect yours?
>
> No, because so far I either see no difference between them and most groups I
> have encountered, or think they are pretty cool by not interfering with your
> game play by pulling your fat out of the fire you lighted.
Wow, it smells like...smells like 'heartless, incompassionate asshole'
in here. Anybody else smell that? I'm sure you beat your children in
the face when the drop a plate, too, don't you?
--
Torpal
Fenian Order
35th Enchanter Palomides
Koneg
>wrote:
>
>>In our last episode,
>> Vireth <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net> scribbled the following:
>>>I am Nomad wrote:
>>[megasnip]
>>>>
>>>> The fact
>>>> someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
>>>> playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
>>>
>>>
>>>Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
>>>any agreements they made to play that way.
>>>
>>>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>>>violate it at their first whim, then try to defend that action.
>>[snip]
>>
>>No worries Vireth - Nomad defends the practice specifically because he's too
>>damn stupid to figure out how to level a toon to 50 on his own. It's the
>>only way he's ever going to get there and he knows it.
>
>Actually, unlike you lame groupers, I solo my characters. (Except for the
>one I created to play with IRL friends.)
#include "quirk/objection.h" (Do a jargon search if you must know :)
>I have even gone so far as to make my characters /anon, and set NOT LOOKING
>FOR GROUP to on,
Wow - you had to work at setting your NOT LOOKING flag on. The rest of us
don't worry about it cuz we realize that's the default setting. *snicker*
> and people still ask me if I wish to group.
#include "quirk/objection.h"
>What IS it with you people?
We like being sociable in a social game? Gee. Go Figure.
Or maybe we like leveling sometime THIS year? Any idiot can get a toon to
their mid teens soloing. Once you get past 20 or so, it's going to take you
4 to 6 hours to gain levels and post 30, try closer to 8-10.
>Although, I can see why you hate the character-farmers---sheer envy of
>their ability to advance characters without being there to help you.
If you think for a -second- that the "character-farmers" looking to sell
their toons are SOLOING you're even more stupid than I thought. Not a
chance. They group 100% of the time, and if they're not grouped, they're
looking for one. Guaranteed.
Koneg
>wrote:
>
>>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:02 -0500, "Mark Stephens" <mark.kil...@one.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We covered this. It DOES effect your gameplay if people are out there
>>>>leveling in order to sell a char.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, there are five groups at the parth farm. One is trying to level for fun,
>>> one is trying to level for profit. One is bored out of their collective minds.
>>> One just died. One is mine. If the "for profit" group was switched to a "bored"
>>> or "fun" group, just how would my gameplay be so radically different?
>>
>>
>>They will pull trains to you if they feel it will save them.
>
>Have you ever played this game? Pulling an aggored mob to near someone else
>is pointless. The worst that can be said is after it kills them, it can
>kill you.
Ahhh, spoken with the wisdom and experience of an uber 15th. Get some levels
under your belt, hit some of the nastier mobs out there, then come back here
and say that K? (*pssst* There are mobs out there that go absolutely ape
over whomever is unlucky enough to be in melee range. They go running by,
chasing after the poor slob that aggro'd them, and -just- because they -can-
they slap YOU upside the head as they run by. Or worse - proc an AoE.)
I got zapped for over 200p once by an angry priestess I had done absolutely
NOTHING to, simply because I was unlucky enough to be in the way of the
train as it roared by me.
--
Koneg
34 Armsman
Koneg
Danny <danpack_no@spam_home.com> scribbled the following:
>I'm inclined to agree that if Mythic is okay with account sales, I'm not
>against them either. Put me behind the driver's seat of a 45
>_anything,_ I'm sure I'd be able to figure out what works and what
>doesn't in (at the most) a night. Some people bought this game for the
>RvR aspect (me!) and had no idea it would take so long to get a
>character to a _useful_ level in RvR (me!) and don't have a whole lot of
>time to play (not me, but they exist, I'm sure)...I see plenty of people
>online already that won't help when you /y
Note: If you're in a dungeon and pulling a train, don't expect any help
until after you either zone, or die. This is not cruelty or selfishness -
it's sensible precaution. You intefere with someone elses train and even if
they get out, the mobs in that train ALL remember that YOU were the one that
got in the way, and the promptly tear you, and your group, a new asshole.
>and that won't res you when you ask.
If they're grouped and fighting or on the other side of the dungeon, that's
reasonable. If they're standing right next to you? Then they're just assholes.
--
Koneg
34 Armsman
I am Nomad
wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:34:28 GMT, Vireth <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net>
>> wrote:
>
> >
>
>>>Well, since they have miniscule morals, probably not much. It's mainly
>>>for those of us who actually CARE, so we know to avoid people like this.
>>>We do what we can.
>>>
>>
>> Sound like the same reason Christians look down on homosexuals...
>>
>> A belief system not founded in fact.
>
>
>True Christians do not "look down on" homosexuals. The arrogant
>"Christian" BIGOTS do all the harassing. They go against their own
>beliefs when they behave in such a manner.
Hmmm... you should read your Bible more. Skip the "feel good" brochures the
campus orgs put out, and read the actual thing. It teaches hatred and violence
and intolerance of homosexuals.
>
>And this is not a belief system, here. It is an AGREEMENT, that the
>people entered into WILLINGLY, then violated. What's unfactual about that?
The fact they entered into no agreement with you, and you are bitching about
it.
>
>>>>They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
>>>>theirs?
>>>>
>>>
>>>What companionship? They're their for business purposes, not
>>>companionship. Even if they're friendly while doing 'business', I could
>>>care less. Friendliness doesn't excuse their actions, IMO.
>>>
>>
>> So what you are saying is you are not friendly with people in the business
>> world, or working in stores, because they are there, *gasp*, for profit!
>
>
>No, that's what YOU'RE saying. I never said I was not friendly with my
>business partners. I know why they are at work, and I know that what
>they are doing is legal and not breaking any contracts/agreements. If I
>knew they were engaging in said activities, rest assured that no amount
>of friendship on their part would make me act in the same manner.
So if your friend went over the speed limit, you would no longer talk to him?
>
>
>>>>Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
>>>
>>
>> Games can't be business ventures?
>>
>> How much were those Superbowl 30-second ad spots going for?
>
>
>That's not the same type of game. Where are you pulling these arguments
>from? Are you simply seeing the word "game" and associating anything
>with the word "game" in it to use here?
You guys are the ones saying money has no place in a game! Don't get pissed at
me if your side is talking like idiots.
>
>Your arguments are worthless. They have little relevance to the point.
Then run along to another venture.
>
>*sigh*
>
>
>If you must....
>
>For the super bowl argument...someone buys a ticket to the game.
According to the people who say money has no place in a game, that is already
wrong.
>Scalping the ticket (depending on whether it is legal in that area or
>not) is illegal.
So what you are saying is if it is not legal, it is illegal. OK, I think we all
knew that, but go on.
> As is selling any merchandise without the permission of
>the NFL.
but.. but... you mean I can't sell my football trading cards without getting
the permission of the NFL?
> As is advertising anything about the game, players, logos, etc
>without permission from the NFL.
Man, I feel sorry for all those people running fan websites! They are so
busted!
> Same with Mythic.
OMMFG!!! I went to a website that mentioned DAOC, and it was not an officially
licensed site! OMMFGx2!! This NEWSGROUP does not have a license from Mythic! We
are DOOMED!!!
> If anyone wants to
>use anything having to do with the game, it must be authorized by Mythic
>explicitly. In this case, it was NOT authorized.
Excuse me, Did Mythic give you explicit permission to use the name "Mythic" in
your post, which is undoubtedly copyrighted and a trademark and lots of other
legal stuff you have now violated?
>
>Super-bowl ads have no impact on the game itself, so they would be more
>comparable to the banner ads on DAoC's/Mythic's Website.
ROFLMAO!!! They have no impact on the game? WTF you think pays the NFL for the
whole shindig? Have you ever wondered how those advertising execs know exactly
how many commercials to sell to coincide with the number of breaks in the game?
Hint: Those breaks are pre scripted. that is right--the game is stopped right
in the middle, over and over, for an "official time out" so that the TV ads can
be run.
Now, you were saying something about "no impact"?
>
>
>>>>The fact
>>>>someone wishes to play the way they wish, as long as it does not stop you from
>>>>playing the way you want, should not raise such ire.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Play the way they want all they want to, as long as it doesn't violate
>>>any agreements they made to play that way.
>>>
>>
>> Woe is Mythic, the promise to them is cleft in twain.
>>
>> Now, how does that affect you?
>
>
>It affects the way I think about these people. In the same way that the
>lawsuit against McDonald's for the little old lady that spilled coffee
>in her lap made me angry. It's lame, and is an abuse of the system. If I
>do nothing and say nothing to express my dissatisfaction on the issue,
>people may start to think it is ok.
Thank you for saving us.
>
>Some could say the same about player macros (the kind that auto-level
>characters without any kind of participation). They are wrong as well.
>They would hardly affect my character, yet I am and always will be one
>of the strongest opponents to it.
My dear friend, I agree with you on this 100%. Perhaps you could tell me
exactly how to set these up, so I can also be on the look out for offenders who
do this.
>
>
>>>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>>>violate it at their first whim,
>>>
>>
>> There are seven people working at this profitable business venture. Hardly
>> sounds like "first whim" to me.
>
>
>Once again, your argument has little relevance to what I said.
>
>What does it matter how *MANY* perform the action? Each individual
>person chose to violate the agreement at their first opportunity (or
>whim, as I said). One or 1000, it is the intent that matters, not the
>number.
You used the word "whim". A planned course of events employing seven people at
a livable wage is hardly a whim.
>
>
>>>then try to defend that action. THAT is
>>>the simplest I can put it.
>>>
>>
>> So you believe that someone should ALWAYS honor their word and NEVER be
>> dishonest.
>
>>
>> Sir, I would like to shake your hand, as you are only the second person ever to
>> never tell a lie.
>>
>> Of course, the first one had the rather dubious fortune of, allegedly, being
>> nailed to a tree, or something like that.
>
>
>Well, it's about time you said something that had some relevance to what
>I said. Too bad it's a lame argument.
You are the one pounding your fists and ranting about "honor", not me.
>
>Using extremes like that just makes you look childish. I never said *I*
>NEVER did something I said I was not going to, or vice-versa.
So you admit that you have broken your promises, and lied in the past, and
felt, undoubtedly at times, it was justified. yet someone else do it and
suddenly you are pointing your fingers....
>
>We are all human. We all make mistakes and are not perfect. That doesn't
>mean that if I see someone doing something wrong INENTIONALLY,
Oh, Right. Now you are blaming your past lies and broken promises on the fact
you never did them intentionally. Right.
> and then
>DEFENDING that action as their "right" (which it most certainly is NOT),
>I say something about it. Does that mean I'm saying I'm perfect? Not in
>the slightest. My actions have absolutely nothing to do with what they
>are doing at the moment. Their wrong is different than wrongs I may or
>may not have committed.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
>
>
>>>I don't want a game full of item/gold/XP
>>>farmers. AC was full of them, and it made some parts of the game suck.
>>>And yes, it DID hurt me. I found it harder to trade my hard-won
>>>items/money to others when these jerkoffs simply 'bought' theirs offline
>>>from other jerkoffs who would simply camp a spot with a super-high level
>>>character and farm stuff.
>>>
>>
>> LOL!!! Now I understand, they out-competed you! You were pissed because you
>> were the one person who wanted to spend hours running around spamming, "Selling
>> Vengeful Bow of Enchantments for 1,000,000 Plat FIRM!" and never got an offer!
>
>
>No...now you assume things that are untrue. For one thing, there is no
>such item as what you named in AC, and there is no Platinum in AC either.
Really? Are you sure?
>
>For another, I don't spam. I state my wares (if any), If I don't get any
>responses in 1 or 2 minutes (not every 5 seconds), I re-state. If I
>don't get any responses for about 5 minutes, I stop stating. I have
>NEVER spent hours running around trading ANYWHERE.
No wonder you are pissed---you don't know how to advertise.
>
>And no, I don't think of them as out-competing me. I disdain
>item-farming, because it usually takes away from people who do not have
>the item yet, but I cannot stop it.
You have just described "another player", regardless of whether or not they are
farming.
>
>
>>>>I remember with
>>>>mech-warriror, some people considered it "dishonorable" to target the legs of
>>>>the other person's mech. "Leggers" were scorned by non-leggers, and I could not
>>>>figure out why. Kind of like aiming for the treads of the enemy tank--sounds
>>>>like a good plan to me!
>>>>
>>>
>>>I played Mech-warrior, and I don't think leg-shots were all that bad.
>>>But that is a different thing altogether than this. Leg-shooting is an
>>>IN-GAME maneuver. Account selling is an OUT-OF-GAME thing. Leg-shooting
>>>can be considered dishonorable, but there are dishonorable people in
>>>real world. That can be role-played. Account/gold/item selling can't be.
>>>There is a distinct difference between 'immoral' and 'amoral'.
>>>
>> So far the only complaint you have made against gold-farmers is they made it
>> possible for people to trade what they had for what they wanted, as opposed to
>> you, who demanded they trade something they didn't have for something they
>> wanted.
>
>
>And where did you get that I was demanding they trade something they
>didn't have? Are you pulling untrue facts from thin air as well now?
Good point. Maybe the reason you got no trades is because your items were
something they didn't want!
>
>If they traded IN-GAME, I wouldn't have a problem with it so much. The
>fact is, they are then taking this gold and selling it OUT-OF-GAME.
And I thought the transfers had to happen in the game. Was the gold e-mailed to
them, and they then deposited back into the game?
> Do
>you have trouble discerning differences of fact? Did you fail your SAT?
You can't fail an SAT. It is not a pass/fail exam.
>Or are you even old enough to take it yet?
Me am this many old.
(Can you guess ho many fingers I am holding up, and which one it is?)
>
>
>>>>Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
>>>>character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
>>>>are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
>>>>other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
>>>>well as their non-ubers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>See above for how it hurts me.
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me, but could you focus on how your in-game commerce suffered a wee bit
>> more?
>
>
>I don't consider it my in-game "commerce" the same as they do.
Good thing. Theirs is successful.
> I
>exchange items that I have acquired to others who have something I
>desire. I do all this IN-GAME. This is all well within the spirit of the
>game.
Can we get an official time out for a word from our sponsors?
>
>
>>>I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
>>>greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
>>>someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
>>>want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
>>>
>>
>> You are right---involving real world money into games hurts things. We should
>> disband professional basketball immediately.
>
>
>Not the same. Once again, lame arguments. Please go back and learn some
>more before you spew any more useless information.
You know, the only argument you have made against gold farming is you don't
like it. You are entitled to your opinion.
Once again, that is www.ebay.com.
I am Nomad
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:58:34 GMT, I am Nomad
><No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Have you ever played this game? Pulling an aggored mob to near someone else is
>>pointless. The worst that can be said is after it kills them, it can kill you.
>
>
>Maybe you should play more...
Maybe you should describe how as a strategy, I can pull a mob, go over near
you, and somehow convince it to attack you instead of me without me using my
death as a bargaining chip.
J Bond
<No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:30:19 GMT, J Bond <martin.l...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:58:34 GMT, I am Nomad
>><No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Have you ever played this game? Pulling an aggored mob to near someone else is
>>>pointless. The worst that can be said is after it kills them, it can kill you.
>>
>>
>>Maybe you should play more...
>
>
>Maybe you should describe how as a strategy, I can pull a mob, go over near
>you, and somehow convince it to attack you instead of me without me using my
>death as a bargaining chip.
>
As i said fuckstain, you should play more.
I am Nomad
>I'm inclined to agree that if Mythic is okay with account sales, I'm not
>against them either. Put me behind the driver's seat of a 45
>_anything,_ I'm sure I'd be able to figure out what works and what
>doesn't in (at the most) a night. Some people bought this game for the
>RvR aspect (me!) and had no idea it would take so long to get a
>character to a _useful_ level in RvR (me!) and don't have a whole lot of
>time to play (not me, but they exist, I'm sure)...I see plenty of people
>online already that won't help when you /y and that won't res you when
>you ask. These people are the minority. The gold-hoarders, item
>farmers, and such would also be a minority...Mythic's built-in
>greys-drop-nothing system is enough to keep people from 'farming', IMO.
>I think the game, to the average player, would look and feel _very_
>similar to what it is now.
>
>However, Nomad has made some assholish remarks, and I want to comment on
>them. =)
Is that even a word? :)
>
>I am Nomad wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > They will most likely not rez your party if they got wiped out.
>>
>> Ahhh... So what you are saying is when you screw up, they won't save you from
>> your own stupidity. I like them already.
>>
>> >They will most likely not help you if you get into a jam.
>>
>> See above.
>
>...I hope you never create a character that can res.
Why? If I was someone who didn't rez, the end result would be the same as if I
created a character that couldn't rez. But, my single group char is a bard, and
he rezzes people if they die. I mean, just because I am self-reliant doesn't
mean the rest of the world is going to grow up and become so.
>Will you please
>tell me what server you play on, and what your character names are?
>Well, nevermind...it's not really relevant, since you _never_ group
>anyway.
My bard does--but only with friends from IRL.
>
>> >Do I need to list more examples of how their gameplay would affect yours?
>>
>> No, because so far I either see no difference between them and most groups I
>> have encountered, or think they are pretty cool by not interfering with your
>> game play by pulling your fat out of the fire you lighted.
>
>Wow, it smells like...smells like 'heartless, incompassionate asshole'
>in here. Anybody else smell that?
No. Incompassionate is encouraging people to continue to make stupid mistakes
like fighting a mob too high for them, and then not running when the time is
already there.
Seriously, how many times do we really die when we haven't dropped trou, bent
over,and literally begged the mob to stick it in hard, dry, and fast?
(New nerfings and bugs are excluded from the above offer, of course.)
> I'm sure you beat your children in
>the face when the drop a plate, too, don't you?
Plates? My good man, if you allow your children to eat off plates, you deserve
to have them broken! Might as well let your dog drive your new Porsche on a
mountain road.
I am Nomad
Your admission of being wrong is noted.
I am Nomad
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:49:50 GMT, I am Nomad
><No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Hmmm... you should read your Bible more. Skip the "feel good" brochures the
>>campus orgs put out, and read the actual thing. It teaches hatred and violence
>>and intolerance of homosexuals.
>
>No it does not.
>
>It states that some practice are wrong in the eyes of god, and that it
>IS NOT THE JOB OF MAN TO JUDGE.
>
>Christians do not care if you are gay, only god does.
>
>Judge not, lest ye be judged thyself.
Oh, I just love it when a Bible-thumper, who has not actually taken the time to
read the Good Book, kicks in...
Where shall I start...
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Yeah, that is a good one. God orders that his people are to KILL homosexuals.
Maybe he means to do it without judging them, or to kill them with love in
their hearts. Of course, just a bit before in Leviticus 18:22 he called
homosexuality an "abomination", so loving them seems a bit weird.
Of course, some people view God's Eternal Laws as being flexible, and changing
wildly in the New testament, but if we look at, oh....
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 And in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for
one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own
persons the due penalty for their error.
They get a PENALTY for being homosexuals.
And, they don't get a shot at heaven!
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male
prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
That is right, the Bible teaches the Homosexuals are to be shunned, do not get
to go to heaven, and are to be killed!
Some tolerance.
Danny
>
> In our last episode,
> Danny <danpack_no@spam_home.com> scribbled the following:
> >I'm inclined to agree that if Mythic is okay with account sales, I'm not
> >against them either. Put me behind the driver's seat of a 45
> >_anything,_ I'm sure I'd be able to figure out what works and what
> >doesn't in (at the most) a night. Some people bought this game for the
> >RvR aspect (me!) and had no idea it would take so long to get a
> >character to a _useful_ level in RvR (me!) and don't have a whole lot of
> >time to play (not me, but they exist, I'm sure)...I see plenty of people
> >online already that won't help when you /y
>
> Note: If you're in a dungeon and pulling a train, don't expect any help
> until after you either zone, or die. This is not cruelty or selfishness -
> it's sensible precaution. You intefere with someone elses train and even if
> they get out, the mobs in that train ALL remember that YOU were the one that
> got in the way, and the promptly tear you, and your group, a new asshole.
Aye, I should have been more specific...I don't expect any help in a
situation where what's on me will kill whomever tries to help. =)
Started an Albion character on Isuelt a few days ago, and (ignoring
everyone's comments on how Clerics can _barely_ solo yellows) decided I
could take a yellow...Turned ugly, and 3-4 orange people (I had checked
them previous to the fight) were 5 steps away, and no matter how much I
/y'd, they just sat there and watched. It happens. It happens a lot at
lower levels too.
> >and that won't res you when you ask.
>
> If they're grouped and fighting or on the other side of the dungeon, that's
> reasonable. If they're standing right next to you? Then they're just assholes.
I'm mostly talking about the Bards I see whizzing by while i'm laying in
the dirt /y'ing my head off, and they don't even stop. I'm sure you
can't res everybody you see, but my point was solely that the assholes
exist...and in small numbers.
--
Torpal
Fenian Order
35th Enchanter Palomides
Shoryuken
Scarlet Horizon
10th Cleric Isuelt
Koneg
I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> scribbled the following:
[ nothing worth repeating ]
.:\:/:.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
--
Koneg
34 Armsman
Pellinor
Vireth
>>True Christians do not "look down on" homosexuals. The arrogant
>>"Christian" BIGOTS do all the harassing. They go against their own
>>beliefs when they behave in such a manner.
>>
>
> Hmmm... you should read your Bible more. Skip the "feel good" brochures the
> campus orgs put out, and read the actual thing. It teaches hatred and violence
> and intolerance of homosexuals.
The Bible teaches LOVE, not violence. Some violent acts were committed
IN the Bible, but it doesn't teach us to do that.
And where did I mention the Bible anyway? Did I say, "The Bible says
this!"? No, I think not. Go somewhere else with your shameless
fact-finding and go play devil's advocate somewhere else.
Read the Bible for its CONTEXT, you moron. Am I still to go out and
sacrifice goats? Am I to not eat certain kinds of meat? Am I not to
shave my beard or my hair to become stronger and more pious?
Get a life and go read another book.
>>And this is not a belief system, here. It is an AGREEMENT, that the
>>people entered into WILLINGLY, then violated. What's unfactual about that?
>>
>
> The fact they entered into no agreement with you, and you are bitching about
> it.
It's not about an agreement with ME, it's about an agreement they made
with MYTHIC, and then BROKE. I'm 'bitching' because they feel they have
the right to justify that action.
>>>>>They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
>>>>>theirs?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What companionship? They're their for business purposes, not
>>>>companionship. Even if they're friendly while doing 'business', I could
>>>>care less. Friendliness doesn't excuse their actions, IMO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So what you are saying is you are not friendly with people in the business
>>>world, or working in stores, because they are there, *gasp*, for profit!
>>>
>>
>>No, that's what YOU'RE saying. I never said I was not friendly with my
>>business partners. I know why they are at work, and I know that what
>>they are doing is legal and not breaking any contracts/agreements. If I
>>knew they were engaging in said activities, rest assured that no amount
>>of friendship on their part would make me act in the same manner.
>>
>
> So if your friend went over the speed limit, you would no longer talk to him?
Again, using specific examples to encompass a general concept. What, are
you some kind of drop-out from the debate team? Did they kick you out
and now you feel you have to 'spread your word (or bullshit, as I see
it)' everywhere you go?
>>>>>Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Games can't be business ventures?
>>>
>>>How much were those Superbowl 30-second ad spots going for?
>>>
>>
>>That's not the same type of game. Where are you pulling these arguments
>>from? Are you simply seeing the word "game" and associating anything
>>with the word "game" in it to use here?
>>
>
> You guys are the ones saying money has no place in a game! Don't get pissed at
> me if your side is talking like idiots.
>
Money in the REAL WORLD has no place in a virtual game such as this,
because it hurts the spirit of the game. YOU are the one talking like an
idiot. Everyone sees it. You just haven't come to the realization that
your arguments are stale and worthless.
>>Your arguments are worthless. They have little relevance to the point.
>>
>
> Then run along to another venture.
What other 'venture' should I run to? You seem to have a problem here.
As long as you keep posting ridiculous 'facts', I will keep disputing them.
>>*sigh*
>>
>>
>>If you must....
>>
>>For the super bowl argument...someone buys a ticket to the game.
>>
>
> According to the people who say money has no place in a game, that is already
> wrong.
The same as you would buy your subscription the play DAoC, idiot. That
is your 'ticket'.
>>As is advertising anything about the game, players, logos, etc
>>without permission from the NFL.
>>
>
> Man, I feel sorry for all those people running fan websites! They are so
> busted!
If the NFL chooses to prosecute them, so be it. Indifference on the part
of the NFL does not mean they did not violate a copyright.
>>Same with Mythic.
>>
>
> OMMFG!!! I went to a website that mentioned DAOC, and it was not an officially
> licensed site! OMMFGx2!! This NEWSGROUP does not have a license from Mythic! We
> are DOOMED!!!
Are we making any kind of money off this? Are we selling rights to this
Newsgroup to use it? If not, we are not violating anything, poopy-pants.
>>If anyone wants to
>>use anything having to do with the game, it must be authorized by Mythic
>>explicitly. In this case, it was NOT authorized.
>>
>
> Excuse me, Did Mythic give you explicit permission to use the name "Mythic" in
> your post, which is undoubtedly copyrighted and a trademark and lots of other
> legal stuff you have now violated?
See above, poopy-pants.
>>Super-bowl ads have no impact on the game itself, so they would be more
>>comparable to the banner ads on DAoC's/Mythic's Website.
>>
>
> ROFLMAO!!! They have no impact on the game? WTF you think pays the NFL for the
> whole shindig? Have you ever wondered how those advertising execs know exactly
> how many commercials to sell to coincide with the number of breaks in the game?
>
> Hint: Those breaks are pre scripted. that is right--the game is stopped right
> in the middle, over and over, for an "official time out" so that the TV ads can
> be run.
Hint: Any person above age 8 knows that (and I guess at least one person
of age 6, or maybe 7....)
>
> Now, you were saying something about "no impact"?
Do you relish using 'facts' that prove nothing? Use your analogies where
they are actually RELEVANT, and you may actually someday make sense.
The ads help PAY FOR THE GAME. It relates to the company that
produces/publishes the game, advertisers, banners ads, etc. It helps to
put the game into production and keep it running for the enjoyment of
the PLAYERS (equivalent to the SPECTATORS at the football game, in case
your micro-brain hasn't grasped that yet).
<snip inane comments>
>>>>It makes me angry that people agree to something like this, then go and
>>>>violate it at their first whim,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There are seven people working at this profitable business venture. Hardly
>>>sounds like "first whim" to me.
>>>
>>
>>Once again, your argument has little relevance to what I said.
>>
>>What does it matter how *MANY* perform the action? Each individual
>>person chose to violate the agreement at their first opportunity (or
>>whim, as I said). One or 1000, it is the intent that matters, not the
>>number.
>>
> You used the word "whim". A planned course of events employing seven people at
> a livable wage is hardly a whim.
'Whim' - used to describe a willing and intentional act on the part of
the violators. You used it wrong to describe a number, as opposed to a
decision.
>>>>then try to defend that action. THAT is
>>>>the simplest I can put it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So you believe that someone should ALWAYS honor their word and NEVER be
>>>dishonest.
>>>
>>>Sir, I would like to shake your hand, as you are only the second person ever to
>>>never tell a lie.
>>>
>>>Of course, the first one had the rather dubious fortune of, allegedly, being
>>>nailed to a tree, or something like that.
>>>
>>
>>Well, it's about time you said something that had some relevance to what
>>I said. Too bad it's a lame argument.
>>
>
> You are the one pounding your fists and ranting about "honor", not me.
No pounding of fists here. Just the keys on the keyboard as I type.
>>Using extremes like that just makes you look childish. I never said *I*
>>NEVER did something I said I was not going to, or vice-versa.
>>
>
> So you admit that you have broken your promises, and lied in the past, and
> felt, undoubtedly at times, it was justified.
Yes, I admit I have done wrong. Never denied it.
> yet someone else do it and
> suddenly you are pointing your fingers....
I see you chose to ignore the next part? What I may have done does not
justify what they are DOING. They are doing wrong. They should be
stopped. When you do bad things, does mommy not spank you or put you in
the corner?
>>We are all human. We all make mistakes and are not perfect. That doesn't
>>mean that if I see someone doing something wrong INENTIONALLY,
>>
>
> Oh, Right. Now you are blaming your past lies and broken promises on the fact
> you never did them intentionally. Right.
I don't try to justify my actions when the plain english written
contract says "Do not do this". If I do it, I accept responsibility and
stop. I don't continue to do it and then say I was right all along and
that it should not have been wrong to begin with.
If they wanted to do it so badly and thought the EULA was wrong to begin
with, why not refute it, get it overturned, and THEN do it? Then they
wouldn't be wrong.
>>and then
>>DEFENDING that action as their "right" (which it most certainly is NOT),
>>I say something about it. Does that mean I'm saying I'm perfect? Not in
>>the slightest. My actions have absolutely nothing to do with what they
>>are doing at the moment. Their wrong is different than wrongs I may or
>>may not have committed.
>>
>
> H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
I-D-I-O-T!
>>>>I don't want a game full of item/gold/XP
>>>>farmers. AC was full of them, and it made some parts of the game suck.
>>>>And yes, it DID hurt me. I found it harder to trade my hard-won
>>>>items/money to others when these jerkoffs simply 'bought' theirs offline
>>>>from other jerkoffs who would simply camp a spot with a super-high level
>>>>character and farm stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>LOL!!! Now I understand, they out-competed you! You were pissed because you
>>>were the one person who wanted to spend hours running around spamming, "Selling
>>>Vengeful Bow of Enchantments for 1,000,000 Plat FIRM!" and never got an offer!
>>>
>>
>>No...now you assume things that are untrue. For one thing, there is no
>>such item as what you named in AC, and there is no Platinum in AC either.
>>
>
> Really? Are you sure?
As a 2 year veteran of AC, yes...I am sure.
>>For another, I don't spam. I state my wares (if any), If I don't get any
>>responses in 1 or 2 minutes (not every 5 seconds), I re-state. If I
>>don't get any responses for about 5 minutes, I stop stating. I have
>>NEVER spent hours running around trading ANYWHERE.
>>
>
> No wonder you are pissed---you don't know how to advertise.
No, I know the difference between 'advertising' and 'annoying'.
Spamming every few seconds does nothing for trade except make it harder
to see what is being traded and annoying everyone around you.
>>And no, I don't think of them as out-competing me. I disdain
>>item-farming, because it usually takes away from people who do not have
>>the item yet, but I cannot stop it.
>>
>
> You have just described "another player", regardless of whether or not they are
> farming.
Huh? Another player? Are you speaking of the guy who needs to item but
can't get it because the farmer is hoarding? I said that with the
assumption that the "other player" is not an item-farmer.
>>>>>I remember with
>>>>>mech-warriror, some people considered it "dishonorable" to target the legs of
>>>>>the other person's mech. "Leggers" were scorned by non-leggers, and I could not
>>>>>figure out why. Kind of like aiming for the treads of the enemy tank--sounds
>>>>>like a good plan to me!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I played Mech-warrior, and I don't think leg-shots were all that bad.
>>>>But that is a different thing altogether than this. Leg-shooting is an
>>>>IN-GAME maneuver. Account selling is an OUT-OF-GAME thing. Leg-shooting
>>>>can be considered dishonorable, but there are dishonorable people in
>>>>real world. That can be role-played. Account/gold/item selling can't be.
>>>>There is a distinct difference between 'immoral' and 'amoral'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So far the only complaint you have made against gold-farmers is they made it
>>>possible for people to trade what they had for what they wanted, as opposed to
>>>you, who demanded they trade something they didn't have for something they
>>>wanted.
>>>
>>
>>And where did you get that I was demanding they trade something they
>>didn't have? Are you pulling untrue facts from thin air as well now?
>>
>
> Good point. Maybe the reason you got no trades is because your items were
> something they didn't want!
I completed plenty of trades. Do you always jump to a conclusion that's
favorable to your argument without it being true?
>>If they traded IN-GAME, I wouldn't have a problem with it so much. The
>>fact is, they are then taking this gold and selling it OUT-OF-GAME.
>>
>
> And I thought the transfers had to happen in the game. Was the gold e-mailed to
> them, and they then deposited back into the game?
Don't play stupid (Oh wait...that's not playing....).
The METHOD and PAYMENT for acquiring the gold was made out-of-game.
>>Do
>>you have trouble discerning differences of fact? Did you fail your SAT?
>>
>
> You can't fail an SAT. It is not a pass/fail exam.
Sometime I wonder....
>>Or are you even old enough to take it yet?
>>
>
> Me am this many old.
>
> (Can you guess ho many fingers I am holding up, and which one it is?)
Can you count that high?
>>>>>Now, people like you consider it "unfair" for someone else to purchase a
>>>>>character, or gold, or whatever. Why? How does it actually hurt you? If they
>>>>>are on your side, woo-hoo! Your realm gets another uber-rvr! If they are on the
>>>>>other side, woo-hoo! The other side has an uber-rvr that prolly can not play as
>>>>>well as their non-ubers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>See above for how it hurts me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Excuse me, but could you focus on how your in-game commerce suffered a wee bit
>>>more?
>>>
>>
>>I don't consider it my in-game "commerce" the same as they do.
>>
>
> Good thing. Theirs is successful.
Yes, their OUT-OF-GAME commerce is successful. Much the same as
Drug-dealers' and car thieves' commerce is successful. All are wrong.
>>I
>>exchange items that I have acquired to others who have something I
>>desire. I do all this IN-GAME. This is all well within the spirit of the
>>game.
>>
>
> Can we get an official time out for a word from our sponsors?
Irrelevant.
>>>>I want that guy who is level 50 to have EARNED his way there, not fought
>>>>greens non-stop for 40+ levels just to get there and be bought by
>>>>someone else. Forgive my wish for a better place to game in. I don't
>>>>want this game to be a business for players. I want it to be a GAME.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You are right---involving real world money into games hurts things. We should
>>>disband professional basketball immediately.
>>>
>>
>>Not the same. Once again, lame arguments. Please go back and learn some
>>more before you spew any more useless information.
>>
>
> You know, the only argument you have made against gold farming is you don't
> like it. You are entitled to your opinion.
No, my argument is that it is not AUTHORIZED, and I don't like it. And I
have stated several reasons why. My OPINION is that they are wrong. It
is a FACT that they violated an agreement.
So far, YOU haven't stated any valid arguments as to why they should be
allowed to continue their practice.
Silverlock
<No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:53:46 GMT, J Bond <martin.l...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:49:50 GMT, I am Nomad
>><No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm... you should read your Bible more. Skip the "feel good" brochures the
>>>campus orgs put out, and read the actual thing. It teaches hatred and violence
>>>and intolerance of homosexuals.
>>
>>No it does not.
>>
>>It states that some practice are wrong in the eyes of god, and that it
>>IS NOT THE JOB OF MAN TO JUDGE.
>>
>>Christians do not care if you are gay, only god does.
>>
>>Judge not, lest ye be judged thyself.
>
>
>Oh, I just love it when a Bible-thumper, who has not actually taken the time to
>read the Good Book, kicks in...
>
>Where shall I start...
>
>Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
>committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
>
>Yeah, that is a good one. God orders that his people are to KILL homosexuals.
>Maybe he means to do it without judging them, or to kill them with love in
>their hearts. Of course, just a bit before in Leviticus 18:22 he called
>homosexuality an "abomination", so loving them seems a bit weird.
>
No what it means is that the homophobic guy who heard the oral
tradition inserted his own little personal moral decree into the word
and passed it down as the word of God. The Bible was written by Men,
fallible, sinning people who made mistakes and sometimes chose to
purposely falsely interpret gods will. If god wants us to know his
will I am sure he is perfectly able to let us know. In the meantime
lets enjoy that whole free will thing.
>Of course, some people view God's Eternal Laws as being flexible, and changing
>wildly in the New testament, but if we look at, oh....
>
>Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
>exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 And in the same way also the
>men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for
>one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own
>persons the due penalty for their error.
>
>They get a PENALTY for being homosexuals.
>
>And, they don't get a shot at heaven!
>
>1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom
>of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male
>prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
>robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
>
>That is right, the Bible teaches the Homosexuals are to be shunned, do not get
>to go to heaven, and are to be killed!
>
>
>Some tolerance.
Yes the people who wrote the book were very intolerant. So what?
--
Silverlock, ICQ 474725,
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Electragician
news:3C6A86C8.846CC38C@spam_home.com...
> I'm mostly talking about the Bards I see whizzing by while i'm laying in
> the dirt /y'ing my head off, and they don't even stop. I'm sure you
> can't res everybody you see, but my point was solely that the assholes
> exist...and in small numbers.
I forgot that bards could rezz. That explains why my Minstrel gets the
occasional /tell of "Can I get a rezz".
Course I then politely inform them that I'd love to, but can't ;)
Matt K
I am Nomad
wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>
>>>True Christians do not "look down on" homosexuals. The arrogant
>>>"Christian" BIGOTS do all the harassing. They go against their own
>>>beliefs when they behave in such a manner.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm... you should read your Bible more. Skip the "feel good" brochures the
>> campus orgs put out, and read the actual thing. It teaches hatred and violence
>> and intolerance of homosexuals.
>
>
>The Bible teaches LOVE, not violence. Some violent acts were committed
>IN the Bible, but it doesn't teach us to do that.
So when God gives direct orders that certain classes of people are to be
killed, that isn't really violence?
>
>And where did I mention the Bible anyway? Did I say, "The Bible says
>this!"? No, I think not. Go somewhere else with your shameless
>fact-finding and go play devil's advocate somewhere else.
Oh, silly me, I didn't know you were one of those Christian types that claim
the Bible to be false.
Silly me.
>
>Read the Bible for its CONTEXT, you moron.
I am the one qouting it, you are the one with no references.
> Am I still to go out and sacrifice goats?
According the the Bible, God never gave a cut-off date for all that malarky.
> Am I to not eat certain kinds of meat?
Well, depends on if you believe the the Laws God gave Moses were binding. If
so, yes. Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus revoked those laws for some
reason.
> Am I not to
>shave my beard or my hair to become stronger and more pious?
Well, if you believe that Gods laws are really "suggestions", no.
>
>Get a life and go read another book.
Already have. I have also read the one you profess to follow, and can state,
you don't.
>
>
>>>And this is not a belief system, here. It is an AGREEMENT, that the
>>>people entered into WILLINGLY, then violated. What's unfactual about that?
>>>
>>
>> The fact they entered into no agreement with you, and you are bitching about
>> it.
>
>
>It's not about an agreement with ME, it's about an agreement they made
>with MYTHIC, and then BROKE. I'm 'bitching' because they feel they have
>the right to justify that action.
Your friends have an agreement with me, via the forms they signed wherein to
obey all traffic laws, yet they risk my life by speeding. How dare they! And
they feel they have the right to?
>
>
>>>>>>They lose out on your fine companionship? What about the fact you miss out on
>>>>>>theirs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>What companionship? They're their for business purposes, not
>>>>>companionship. Even if they're friendly while doing 'business', I could
>>>>>care less. Friendliness doesn't excuse their actions, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>So what you are saying is you are not friendly with people in the business
>>>>world, or working in stores, because they are there, *gasp*, for profit!
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, that's what YOU'RE saying. I never said I was not friendly with my
>>>business partners. I know why they are at work, and I know that what
>>>they are doing is legal and not breaking any contracts/agreements. If I
>>>knew they were engaging in said activities, rest assured that no amount
>>>of friendship on their part would make me act in the same manner.
>>>
>>
>> So if your friend went over the speed limit, you would no longer talk to him?
>
>
>Again, using specific examples to encompass a general concept. What, are
>you some kind of drop-out from the debate team? Did they kick you out
>and now you feel you have to 'spread your word (or bullshit, as I see
>it)' everywhere you go?
I'll put this in the "admits defeat" category.
>
>
>>>>>>Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Games can't be business ventures?
>>>>
>>>>How much were those Superbowl 30-second ad spots going for?
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's not the same type of game. Where are you pulling these arguments
>>>from? Are you simply seeing the word "game" and associating anything
>>>with the word "game" in it to use here?
>>>
>>
>> You guys are the ones saying money has no place in a game! Don't get pissed at
>> me if your side is talking like idiots.
>>
>
>
>Money in the REAL WORLD has no place in a virtual game such as this,
>because it hurts the spirit of the game.
Mythic said otherwise. Said the selling of accounts is not disallowed. Go talk
to them about ruining the game they own.
> YOU are the one talking like an
>idiot. Everyone sees it. You just haven't come to the realization that
>your arguments are stale and worthless.
Hey, argue with Mythic, they made the rules.
>
>
>>>Your arguments are worthless. They have little relevance to the point.
>>>
>>
>> Then run along to another venture.
>
>
>What other 'venture' should I run to? You seem to have a problem here.
>As long as you keep posting ridiculous 'facts', I will keep disputing them.
Dispute all you want. Just dispute with some substance. ("Bible is love because
I say so" does not cut it.)
>
>
>>>*sigh*
>>>
>>>
>>>If you must....
>>>
>>>For the super bowl argument...someone buys a ticket to the game.
>>>
>>
>> According to the people who say money has no place in a game, that is already
>> wrong.
>
>
>The same as you would buy your subscription the play DAoC, idiot. That
>is your 'ticket'.
Excpet Mythic allow syou to sell your ticket at a profit!
>
>
>
>>>As is advertising anything about the game, players, logos, etc
>>>without permission from the NFL.
>>>
>>
>> Man, I feel sorry for all those people running fan websites! They are so
>> busted!
>
>
>If the NFL chooses to prosecute them, so be it. Indifference on the part
>of the NFL does not mean they did not violate a copyright.
My god! You are NOT a troll! You are really THAt stupid.
Buh-bye!
I am Nomad
Oh, I agree with you there. The trouble is the people who take the Bible as
gospel (so to speak) and then snip out the parts they don't like. Of course,
they always bitch when other people snip out different parts.
>
>>Of course, some people view God's Eternal Laws as being flexible, and changing
>>wildly in the New testament, but if we look at, oh....
>>
>>Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
>>exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 And in the same way also the
>>men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for
>>one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own
>>persons the due penalty for their error.
>>
>>They get a PENALTY for being homosexuals.
>>
>>And, they don't get a shot at heaven!
>>
>>1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom
>>of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male
>>prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
>>robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
>>
>>That is right, the Bible teaches the Homosexuals are to be shunned, do not get
>>to go to heaven, and are to be killed!
>>
>>
>>Some tolerance.
>
>Yes the people who wrote the book were very intolerant. So what?
So if you believe that the Bible is the "Word of God", then your religion at
its very heart is the pinnacle of intolerance.
I am Nomad
wrote:
I am pretty certain all of the Hibernian Naturalist classes can.
Vireth
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:24:29 GMT, Vireth <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>True Christians do not "look down on" homosexuals. The arrogant
>>>>"Christian" BIGOTS do all the harassing. They go against their own
>>>>beliefs when they behave in such a manner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hmmm... you should read your Bible more. Skip the "feel good" brochures the
>>>campus orgs put out, and read the actual thing. It teaches hatred and violence
>>>and intolerance of homosexuals.
>>>
>>
>>The Bible teaches LOVE, not violence. Some violent acts were committed
>>IN the Bible, but it doesn't teach us to do that.
>>
>
> So when God gives direct orders that certain classes of people are to be
> killed, that isn't really violence?
IMO, God didn't give that order. Certain parts of the Bible were taken
down by men, inspired by God. Chnages to that inspiration are highly
likely.
On the other hand, how are you to know if the actual translation from
the ancient texts to the King James version would say the same thing?
Once men have the opportunity to meddle with words and translations,
literal changes and context errors will occur.
Most would say the Bible is a tool. It teaches love, tolerance, respect,
sufferance, etc. It also contains parts in it that mention incest, rape,
killing, intolerance, etc. Does that I should go out and kill
homosexuals? What about that Commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill"
(and I'm sure God wrote his commandments in Old English like that, huh?)?
>>And where did I mention the Bible anyway? Did I say, "The Bible says
>>this!"? No, I think not. Go somewhere else with your shameless
>>fact-finding and go play devil's advocate somewhere else.
>>
>
> Oh, silly me, I didn't know you were one of those Christian types that claim
> the Bible to be false.
>
> Silly me.
And you are what? An Atheist reading the Bible for its artistic value?
Or do you just read it to spout out passages that suit your needs in a
discussion like this?
I don't claim the Bible is false, just that certain parts of it were not
meant to be taken literally. Since you obviously care little for its
spiritual worth, I can see how you would miss this.
>>Read the Bible for its CONTEXT, you moron.
>>
>
> I am the one qouting it, you are the one with no references.
Big deal. A Tape Recorder can quote it. I am one looking deeper than its
*TRANLSATED* words to a different meaning. Once again, CONTEXT is the
most important thing here, not literal words that have a high
possibility of not being correct in a direct translation.
>>Am I still to go out and sacrifice goats?
>
> According the the Bible, God never gave a cut-off date for all that malarky.
>
>>Am I to not eat certain kinds of meat?
>
> Well, depends on if you believe the the Laws God gave Moses were binding. If
> so, yes. Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus revoked those laws for some
> reason.
>
>>Am I not to
>>shave my beard or my hair to become stronger and more pious?
>
> Well, if you believe that Gods laws are really "suggestions", no.
The only "laws" I see in the Bible are the Ten Commandments. The other
"laws" are the ones given to God's People (the Isrealites). Since I'm
not Jewish.....
>>Get a life and go read another book.
>
> Already have. I have also read the one you profess to follow, and can state,
> you don't.
When did I say I professed to follow the Bible? Don't try to change what
I said to suit your argument. Very weak.
>>>>And this is not a belief system, here. It is an AGREEMENT, that the
>>>>people entered into WILLINGLY, then violated. What's unfactual about that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The fact they entered into no agreement with you, and you are bitching about
>>>it.
>>>
>>
>>It's not about an agreement with ME, it's about an agreement they made
>>with MYTHIC, and then BROKE. I'm 'bitching' because they feel they have
>>the right to justify that action.
>>
>
> Your friends have an agreement with me, via the forms they signed wherein to
> obey all traffic laws, yet they risk my life by speeding. How dare they! And
> they feel they have the right to?
No agreement that I remember ever reading and agreeing to with regard to
your friends at the DMV. They agreed to obey traffic laws. If they
violate that, and are caught, they are punished. Guess what? Same
applies in Mythic's case....
>>>So if your friend went over the speed limit, you would no longer talk to him?
>>
>>Again, using specific examples to encompass a general concept. What, are
>>you some kind of drop-out from the debate team? Did they kick you out
>>and now you feel you have to 'spread your word (or bullshit, as I see
>>it)' everywhere you go?
>
> I'll put this in the "admits defeat" category.
I'm glad you can finally admit defeat.
>>>>>>>Two way street, and this a .....(drum roll please).... game!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's right. It's a GAME, not a business venture.
>>>>>
>>>>>Games can't be business ventures?
>>>>>
>>>>>How much were those Superbowl 30-second ad spots going for?
>>>>>
>>>>That's not the same type of game. Where are you pulling these arguments
>>>>from? Are you simply seeing the word "game" and associating anything
>>>>with the word "game" in it to use here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You guys are the ones saying money has no place in a game! Don't get pissed at
>>>me if your side is talking like idiots.
>>
>>Money in the REAL WORLD has no place in a virtual game such as this,
>>because it hurts the spirit of the game.
>>
>
> Mythic said otherwise. Said the selling of accounts is not disallowed. Go talk
> to them about ruining the game they own.
They said that it was not disallowed because they CAN'T disallow it,
much the same as they can't disallow Game Voice or telephone chat.
Tell these guys to go sell their accounts. That would be authorized.
Item/gold/character selling is still NOT authorized though...
Which one did they do?
>>YOU are the one talking like an
>>idiot. Everyone sees it. You just haven't come to the realization that
>>your arguments are stale and worthless.
>
> Hey, argue with Mythic, they made the rules.
And they are attempting to enforce the same rules. What's your point?
>>>>Your arguments are worthless. They have little relevance to the point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Then run along to another venture.
>>>
>>
>>What other 'venture' should I run to? You seem to have a problem here.
>>As long as you keep posting ridiculous 'facts', I will keep disputing them.
>>
>
> Dispute all you want. Just dispute with some substance. ("Bible is love because
> I say so" does not cut it.)
No, "Bible is love because IT says so".
You either choose facts that focus on one or two exceptions, or choose
analogies that have little relevance to the issue at hand.
>>>>*sigh*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you must....
>>>>
>>>>For the super bowl argument...someone buys a ticket to the game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>According to the people who say money has no place in a game, that is already
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>
>>The same as you would buy your subscription the play DAoC, idiot. That
>>is your 'ticket'.
>>
>
> Excpet Mythic allow syou to sell your ticket at a profit!
There's a difference between "allowing" and "can do nothing about it".
Take my *analogy* (and one that applies in this case, take note) here:
Redskins games. If you buy a ticket at the stadium, scalping is illegal
right there. If you simply walk a little ways off (across county lines),
scalping is not illegal. The Redskins' owner (Mythic) can gnash his
teeth and stomp around all he wants, but he can do nothing to stop it.
I'm sure if it was up to them, they would disallow it.
>>>>As is advertising anything about the game, players, logos, etc
>>>>without permission from the NFL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Man, I feel sorry for all those people running fan websites! They are so
>>>busted!
>>>
>>
>>If the NFL chooses to prosecute them, so be it. Indifference on the part
>>of the NFL does not mean they did not violate a copyright.
>>
>
> My god! You are NOT a troll! You are really THAt stupid.
I am only stupid for continuing to argue with a simpleton like yourself.
Mark Stephens
"Vireth" <ree...@this-is-not-for-spam.net> wrote in message
news:3C6BD59C.30404@this-is-not-for->
>
> And you are what? An Atheist reading the Bible for its artistic value?
> Or do you just read it to spout out passages that suit your needs in a
> discussion like this?
He is a TROLL, just a troll. Common give aways are:
.Use of the word defeat, as if it's a contest and not a discussion (note: it
is a contest to him).
.Discussion of homosexuality in a list unrelated to it.
.Discussion of Hitler or Nazi's
.Actually pretty much the dropping of any inflammatory text that has nothing
to do witht he current subject. This is not to be confused with name
calling which, while childish, is not really a troll.
You can't win and now your just helping to fill the newsgroup with a bunch
of off topic crap.
Please remember not to feed the trolls. :)
mark stephens
Mark Donnison
Does god exist? I don't know. What I do know is that the Bible
was written by men, weather god was or wasn't putting ideas in their
heads is irrelevant, it was written by men with all their stregnths and
weaknesses thrown into the mix. People are largely intolerant now,
that was even more the case then. The Bible is a mix of religion and
the mood of the times, which is as you would expect.
Society now accepts homosexuality, if the Bible were to be written now
I expect the tone would be very different.
Galat <Te> (kay)
Koneg
I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> scribbled the following:
[nothing worth noting]
Silverlock
<No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
That assumes that people must take it all or nothing. People take what
they need from the book and from the religion.