Does Glitching results to ban?

Alexenokin - Lost City

as per the Terms of Service for this game


EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING YOU DO IS A BANNABLE OFFENSE

18. Disciplinary Action/Account Termination

PWE MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, BLOCK ACCESS TO OR DELETE THE SERVICE OR ANY ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME WITH OR WITHOUT REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.

PWE may at its option issue warnings and temporary suspensions and permanent terminations of Accounts for user violations. We retain the sole discretion as to when and how to impose warnings, penalties and/or disciplinary actions. We consider the severity of the violation and the number of infractions in making our determination; however, any determination shall be under the absolute discretion of PWE. Not withstanding the foregoing, PWE always retains the right to terminate or suspend your account at any time for any reason, or for no reason, with or without any warnings and with or without notice..

PWE may take any actions and impose any penalties we deem necessary to discourage and punish any violation of these terms or any other illegal or inappropriate conduct, all without prior notice or warning.

/thread

Jennalicious - Sanctuary

Alexenokin - Lost City wrote: »

as per the Terms of Service for this game


EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING YOU DO IS A BANNABLE OFFENSE

I remember reading that. It certainly does make players want to go out and spend more money on this game knowing that they can be banned at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all.

MANray_ - Sanctuary

It's called legalesse man. Just meant to protect the company from nerdrage. Unlike you guys i don't live in constant fear of being banned out of the blue for no reason.

Alexenokin - Lost City

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

It's called legalesse man. Just meant to protect the company from nerdrage. Unlike you guys i don't live in constant fear of being banned out of the blue for no reason.

i'd prefer you dont lump me into a generalization

personally, i've been banned numerous times...

but they wubs me too much to get rid of me permanently b:cute


(plus i dont do stupid **** to get permabanned)

Jennalicious - Sanctuary

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

It's called legalesse man. Just meant to protect the company from nerdrage. Unlike you guys i don't live in constant fear of being banned out of the blue for no reason.

Living in constant fear of being banned? Me? Fail statement. But anyone can be banned out of the blue for any or no reason, including you.

Airyll - Dreamweaver

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

It's called legalesse man. Just meant to protect the company from nerdrage. Unlike you guys i don't live in constant fear of being banned out of the blue for no reason.

I don't think that was the point that was trying to be made.

I think the point that person was trying to be made is that, if you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all then that would therefore include glitching a boss, a mob, or... just grinding on them without glitching at all.

-random edit-

This happens to be post number 404.
404 error, this post doesn't actually exist.

Alexenokin - Lost City

Airyll - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I don't think that was the point that was trying to be made.

I think the point that person was trying to be made is that, if you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all then that would therefore include glitching a boss, a mob, or... just grinding on them without glitching at all.

thank you... at least someone can interpret things properly b:surrender

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Airyll - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I don't think that was the point that was trying to be made.

I think the point that person was trying to be made is that, if you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all then that would therefore include glitching a boss, a mob, or... just grinding on them without glitching at all.

The point is glitching a boss is cheating. I was countering an argument which stated that exploiting bugs is fine since dev oversight is responsible for their being there.

This thing about ToS came out as an attempt to minimize/ridicule the importance of the game's ruleset. I'm a practicing attorney, i did spend quite a few years in college discussing ethics and wether people had a duty to obey the law, even against lacking or corrupt enforcement. I think an MMO's rules are something i certainly have a background on which i can give an informed opinion, and yet i speak as a simple player. Gaming experience and a healthy sense of fairness is all that matters here. Not the ToS or the EULA or jurisprudence on contractual law as it applies to electronic media.

This is about personal responsability. Exploiting a bug is cheating. This is fact, not a matter of opinion. Some people consider they're justified in cheating for whatever argument. I disagree.

Edit; Now, if someone wants to turn this into a legal debate be my guest. Hope you have sufficient knowledge of latin.

Alexenokin - Lost City

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

This thing about ToS came out as an attempt to minimize/ridicule the importance of the game's ruleset.

think what you like, but you still arent understanding what i was saying b:bye


as for cheating: its not cheating to perform an action that cannot be concretely proven and/or disproven to be a glitch in the game mechanic

"glitching" bosses, by using an airpet to attack them while they cannot attack back is not a "glitch" in my eyes. you are not forcefully dragging the boss into a nearby wall where they get stuck (i can name a couple bosses you can do this on), you are merely using your own skills in such a way that the boss cannot attack back

by this logic that using an airpet on a boss, thusly allowing you to kill said boss, without using any obvious and concretely provable glitch, then i can also say that any player that attacks me from the air and kills me, when i cannot attack back (due to being unable to fly), they are abusing a glitch and should be banned

please, bring logic to your arguments

Tonttuu - Heavens Tear

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Alexenokin - Lost City wrote: »

think what you like, but you still arent understanding what i was saying b:bye


as for cheating: its not cheating to perform an action that cannot be concretely proven and/or disproven to be a glitch in the game mechanic

"glitching" bosses, by using an airpet to attack them while they cannot attack back is not a "glitch" in my eyes. you are not forcefully dragging the boss into a nearby wall where they get stuck (i can name a couple bosses you can do this on), you are merely using your own skills in such a way that the boss cannot attack back

by this logic that using an airpet on a boss, thusly allowing you to kill said boss, without using any obvious and concretely provable glitch, then i can also say that any player that attacks me from the air and kills me, when i cannot attack back (due to being unable to fly), they are abusing a glitch and should be banned

please, bring logic to your arguments

Ok, let's bring logic into this;

1. I plainly stated that glitching bosses was considered a bannable offense to which another poster responded by saying even sneezing was bannable (now, let's leave the obvious fallacy in this argument out of this as i'll address it later), after my response your first contribution in this thread was made. Logic leads me to conclude that you were supporting this poster's point of view as you stated everything was bannable in this game and followed with an excerpt from ToS, which was clearly meant to validate the point i was refuting. Furthermore, since you went out of your way to endorse an interpretation that supported a similar point of view, i have solid evidence to indicate you in fact agree that your disaproval of rule's enforcement empowers you to disregard said set of rules. If this is wrong then please express in plain terms what it was exactly that i i didn't "get".

2. Your argument in the post i'm responding to also supports the aforementioned point of view. You use a flawed syllogism (Reductio ad absurdum) to argue that an action is legitimate depending on wether it can be proven or not that a ToS violation was meant. This contradicts not only the long standing principle of mens rea, but constitutes a violation in itself since precedent (the xarfox post linked on this thread) makes it clear established authority has made a ruling consideringt it so.

3. You seem to think interpretation of rules is up to the individual (you clearly state "in my eyes"), it is not so. You have a legal duty (by your consent to ToS) to abide by such guidelines as are given you by PWI staff. From a moral point of view you're well aware attacking a boss that cannot fight back is clearly forbidden, which means you would be wilfully comitting a violation were you to do so. Your argument as to this conflicting with what regular gameplay would indicate you to do cannot be sustained since the only legitimate way to challenge this would be via a ticket, and not by taking authority into your own hands. That you disaprove with the powers granted by ToS to GMs leaves you no legitimate recourse but to quit the game or abide by the rules as they enforce them. If you choose to become an offender you subject yourself to disciplinary action. A GM requires no proof of your wrongdoing other than your attacking a boss with an air pet. I'm not arguing wether this is fair or not.

4. The principle that private parties may not take interpretation of laws into their own hands was established in Roman law (Justininan Code) and remains unchallenged to this day. An infraction (Actus rea) does not depend on the subject being aware of his breach of law as a logical conclusion to this, so arguing said position is considered void. PWI incurs no liability as per ToS for following long established legal practice as it applies to parties to a binding agreement.

Now, seriously, if you want to challenge my logic go ahead. The ToS is considered a binding agreement even if you consider it unimportant. Now, it may seem exaggerated to use law to prove this point, and while this has many precedents in games and sports like Chess or Football, IMO it is so.

Let me try this with common sense.

GM says glitching bosses is cheating. Period. Is there something behind this? Yes, a bug that has been admitted exists. You're exploiting a flaw in the game's programming for your benefit. This is CHEATING. Plain and simple.

Saitada - Sanctuary

This is simple to explain.

The GM's said glitching a boss with an air pet is bannable.

Period.

End of argument.

It doesn't matter in the least what YOU think. Your thoughts and feelings on this are irrelevant.

The GM's said don't do it, and that is that.

If your still so stupid as to continue to argue about that, then please go glitch gouf, let me know your doing it so I can screenshot you and report you and get your **** banned.

Seriously, GM's said it is bannable. The mechanics of why don't matter.

That is all you need to know.

~S

*edit* to give you a real world example to bang your head against:

Just because I can drive a car, doesn't mean I can do it without having a drivers license.

Why? because the Law (GM) says I can't.

Get it now? Or do we have to break it down so an infant can understand it?

Elviron - Dreamweaver

Hmm so if using an air pet to glitch a mob is bannable, ranged classes cant attack from outside the AOE range, use immobilization skills, attack from the air to remove adds, etc? b:shocked

Cos heck thats just plain strategy for me and not a glitch.

Saitada - Sanctuary

Elviron - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Hmm so if using an air pet to glitch a mob is bannable, ranged classes cant attack from outside the AOE range, use immobilization skills, attack from the air to remove adds, etc? b:shocked

Cos heck thats just plain strategy for me and not a glitch.

I have yet to understand how people can stretch something that says ONE THING, into meaning other things.

What part of... USING AN AIR PET TO GLITCH A MINI BOSS is bannable, means ranged classes can't use their skills against non ranged or aoe mobs?

How do you make that stretch, let alone that connection? Are you just stupid?

~S

Jennalicious - Sanctuary

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

Ok, let's bring logic into this;

1. I plainly stated that glitching bosses was considered a bannable offense to which another poster responded by saying even sneezing was bannable (now, let's leave the obvious fallacy in this argument out of this as i'll address it later), after my response your first contribution in this thread was made. Logic leads me to conclude that you were supporting this poster's point of view as you stated everything was bannable in this game and followed with an excerpt from ToS, which was clearly meant to validate the point i was refuting. Furthermore, since you went out of your way to endorse an interpretation that supported a similar point of view, i have solid evidence to indicate you in fact agree that your disaproval of rule's enforcement empowers you to disregard said set of rules. If this is wrong then please express in plain terms what it was exactly that i i didn't "get".

2. Your argument in the post i'm responding to also supports the aforementioned point of view. You use a flawed syllogism (Reductio ad absurdum) to argue that an action is legitimate depending on wether it can be proven or not that a ToS violation was meant. This contradicts not only the long standing principle of mens rea, but constitutes a violation in itself since precedent (the xarfox post linked on this thread) makes it clear established authority has made a ruling consideringt it so.

3. You seem to think interpretation of rules is up to the individual (you clearly state "in my eyes"), it is not so. You have a legal duty (by your consent to ToS) to abide by such guidelines as are given you by PWI staff. From a moral point of view you're well aware attacking a boss that cannot fight back is clearly forbidden, which means you would be wilfully comitting a violation were you to do so. Your argument as to this conflicting with what regular gameplay would indicate you to do cannot be sustained since the only legitimate way to challenge this would be via a ticket, and not by taking authority into your own hands. That you disaprove with the powers granted by ToS to GMs leaves you no legitimate recourse but to quit the game or abide by the rules as they enforce them. If you choose to become an offender you subject yourself to disciplinary action. A GM requires no proof of your wrongdoing other than your attacking a boss with an air pet. I'm not arguing wether this is fair or not.

4. The principle that private parties may not take interpretation of laws into their own hands was established in Roman law (Justininan Code) and remains unchallenged to this day. An infraction (Actus rea) does not depend on the subject being aware of his breach of law as a logical conclusion to this, so arguing said position is considered void. PWI incurs no liability as per ToS for following long established legal practice as it applies to parties to a binding agreement.

Now, seriously, if you want to challenge my logic go ahead. The ToS is considered a binding agreement even if you consider it unimportant. Now, it may seem exaggerated to use law to prove this point, and while this has many precedents in games and sports like Chess or Football, IMO it is so.

Let me try this with common sense.

GM says glitching bosses is cheating. Period. Is there something behind this? Yes, a bug that has been admitted exists. You're exploiting a flaw in the game's programming for your benefit. This is CHEATING. Plain and simple.

Holy wall of text Batman! Should have just saved yourself the time and written "QQ" instead. I thought practicing attorneys were supposed to be smart.

Elviron - Dreamweaver

Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »

I have yet to understand how people can stretch something that says ONE THING, into meaning other things.

What part of... USING AN AIR PET TO GLITCH A MINI BOSS is bannable, means ranged classes can't use their skills against non ranged or aoe mobs?

How do you make that stretch, let alone that connection? Are you just stupid?

~S

Although not the same, the effect is the same. If you use stun/immobilization skills from the air, the mob cant attack back nor reset which basically means you can kill it without getting hit. This would be possible against mini-bosses which can be affected by these skills. Does this mean we're glitching it using skills instead of a pet?

Saitada - Sanctuary

Elviron - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Although not the same, the effect is the same. If you use stun/immobilization skills from the air, the mob cant attack back nor reset which basically means you can kill it without getting hit. How different is this from using pet which the mob cant attack?

There is a big difference here. You are using a skill to stun a mob or root it so it can't move, allowing you time to kill it. Normal game play.

Using an air pet to attack Gouf for example doesn't do any of that, Gouf is simply unable to attack an air pet unless you come in at a VERY low angle (ground) and sometimes not even then. Effectively, when you attack gouf with an air pet, normal game play goes out the window. The boss isn't able to attack because you used a skill on him, he is unable to attack because the coding for him is flawed and doesn't allow him to hit air based mobs.

That is why it is considered bannable to attack and kill him using a flying pet. He simply can't attack it because his coding won't let him. Not because of any skill that is used against him.

~S

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Jennalicious - Sanctuary wrote: »

Holy wall of text Batman! Should have just saved yourself the time and written "QQ" instead. I thought practicing attorneys were supposed to be smart.

The basic idea is people expressing their opinions in a forum are acting in good faith, genuinely willing to express and share their thoughts and opinions. Am i complaining about something here? No, i simply volunteered a detailed explanation of an issue in dispute. Since obviously you cannot argue you've resorted to disqualification.


I didn't realize your sig was actually a warning as to what you do. My bad. b:bye

Saitada - Sanctuary

*Munches Popcorn and Drinks a Beer while watching the Drama*

~S

*edit* And to think, I didn't do this one... I can retire now, my job is done.

Marista - Lost City

Why would anyone be stupid enough to glitch a boss anyway? If you can't kill it, just get help, geez. It's pretty pathetic. That said, it's also actually not that hard to come at Gouf with an angle that lets him attack a flying pet. I use nix on him quite often, and almost never can he not attack. If it does happen, I just pull pet back and drop lower. Same with other bosses like Quillhog, etc.

Bunella - Harshlands

qweqwe1222 wrote: »

I just saw a veno glitching ground mobs using a air(flying) pet.. I am wondering if its one of veno's abilties or just plain glitching? And if its glitching will it result to ban? GMs and ppl pls advice. Thx

I am more confused than ever lol. I believe the thread was about a veno fighting ground mobs while flying and using an air pet. Nothing about bosses. I fly while fighting with my nix. Is this a nono or not? If I stand on the ground, the dang nix gets "stuck" Hopefully, after as much as I spent to get it, I am not doing something wrong by avoiding this "glitch" and fighting while in the air? What do you guys think, is it ok that I fight normal mobs this way or not? Thanks for you help as you guys are way more informed about the workings of the game than I.

Jennalicious - Sanctuary

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

I didn't realize your sig was actually a warning as to what you do. My bad. b:bye

LOL! Nice try. A fail attempt, but still a nice try. No, that comment in my sig is to warn others with some intelligence about you and people like you, ie. trolls, idiots, QQ'ers, and just your average forum failures. But don't let my comments get the better of you, you're a practicing attorney! That's what I love about the internet. People with no more than a 5th grade education can come online and pretend to be whatever they want to be. When you play attorney, do you set up your dolls and stuffed animals to play the jury? b:chuckle

I can just see you in the "courtroom":

Fail Attorney: "But Your Honor, it's cheating! CHEATING! QQ!!!" *Throws a tantrum* "I'm telling mommy on you." b:cry

Now this is where I take my leave from this failure of a thread. As everyone can already see, you have drug me down to your level and beat me with experience. Plus, this is gonna get closed once a GM sees it in the morning anyways. Thanks for the laughs though. I so do love toying with those who are intellectually inferior, now go back to coloring. b:bye

Saitada - Sanctuary

Bunella - Harshlands wrote: »

I am more confused than ever lol. I believe the thread was about a veno fighting ground mobs while flying and using an air pet. Nothing about bosses. I fly while fighting with my nix. Is this a nono or not? If I stand on the ground, the dang nix gets "stuck" Hopefully, after as much as I spent to get it, I am not doing something wrong by avoiding this "glitch" and fighting while in the air? What do you guys think, is it ok that I fight normal mobs this way or not? Thanks for you help as you guys are way more informed about the workings of the game than I.

Fighting normal ground based mobs with an air pet is not bannable. if you notice the mob is not fighting your Nix, pull it back and send it back out, to allow the mob to be able to attack if your worried about getting reported for glitching.

However, using an air pet to fight Gouf or other mini bosses that are known to glitch on air pets, has been clearly stated by GM's to be bannable.

~S

Alexenokin - Lost City

take notice how manray and everyone else carefully skirted around my very logical counterargument


ranged class attacks me from the air, in a way that i cannot respond (due to lack of ability to fly). same premise as attacking a boss with an airpet, the boss simply cannot respond

by the logic of the rule made, that player would get banned for attacking me. counter my argument all you like, it is factual that both share the same premise

Bunella - Harshlands

Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »

Fighting normal ground based mobs with an air pet is not bannable. if you notice the mob is not fighting your Nix, pull it back and send it back out, to allow the mob to be able to attack if your worried about getting reported for glitching.

However, using an air pet to fight Gouf or other mini bosses that are known to glitch on air pets, has been clearly stated by GM's to be bannable.

~S

Thank you Saitada I have never had a mob not fight the nix, they sometimes wont hit me, but they always hit the nix. I appreciate your input and feel better about not doing something I shouldn't be.

Saitada - Sanctuary

Alexenokin - Lost City wrote: »

take notice how manray and everyone else carefully skirted around my very logical counterargument


ranged class attacks me from the air, in a way that i cannot respond (due to lack of ability to fly). same premise as attacking a boss with an airpet, the boss simply cannot respond

by the logic of the rule made, that player would get banned for attacking me. counter my argument all you like, it is factual that both share the same premise

Sorry but your argument is so full of fail that it makes me wonder if you suffer from a mental illness.

Just because you can't fly because you haven't bothered to aquire your aerogear at level 30 like everyone else, means squat if a player attacks you from the air. You become PK enabled at 30, and get your wings or other aerogear at 30. No excuse except your own laziness for being unable to fly. Player -vs- player interactions also have nothing to do with this at all.

Care to fail again?

~S

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Jennalicious - Sanctuary wrote: »

LOL! Nice try. A fail attempt, but still a nice try. No, that comment in my sig is to warn others with some intelligence about you and people like you, ie. trolls, idiots, QQ'ers, and just your average forum failures. But don't let my comments get the better of you, you're a practicing attorney! That's what I love about the internet. People with no more than a 5th grade education can come online and pretend to be whatever they want to be. When you play attorney, do you set up your dolls and stuffed animals to play the jury? b:chuckle

I can just see you in the "courtroom":

Fail Attorney: "But Your Honor, it's cheating! CHEATING! QQ!!!" *Throws a tantrum* "I'm telling mommy on you." b:cry

Now this is where I take my leave from this failure of a thread. As everyone can already see, you have drug me down to your level and beat me with experience. Plus, this is gonna get closed once a GM sees it in the morning anyways. Thanks for the laughs though. I so do love toying with those who are intellectually inferior, now go back to coloring. b:bye

LOL, you really are pathetic, do you think the way YOU behave becomes an adult? Let's look at the FACTS;

1. You advocate CHEATING; You're a person without any intrinsic sense of decency and fairness. This is how you represent yourself.

2. Not only that you fail at even trying to have a discussion. When presented with an argument you resort to unfounded personal attacks. You don't know me, yet you assume i live in the same stuffed animal world in which you do. Big mistake perra estupida.

3. Intellect? This is actually laughable b:chuckle try reading a book, seriously. All these gloating just shows me that what you fear the most is being seen as dumb. Because that's what you are, mentally deficient. This is what you yourself think. Desperate and lame attempts at hiding the truth only bring it the more to the surface. You're a moron, an idiot. Stupid. Lol.

Take your leave from this thread. GET. Leave and don't come back.

LamiaRegina - Sanctuary

MANray, do everyone a favor and shut up. For the love of God. You attacked Jenna first. She simply retaliated. She left the thread, and you post a comment against her. You obviously can't read. And I agree, you're too stupid to be an attorney. /wrists pl0x.

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Alexenokin - Lost City wrote: »

take notice how manray and everyone else carefully skirted around my very logical counterargument


ranged class attacks me from the air, in a way that i cannot respond (due to lack of ability to fly). same premise as attacking a boss with an airpet, the boss simply cannot respond

by the logic of the rule made, that player would get banned for attacking me. counter my argument all you like, it is factual that both share the same premise

No, they don't. If an air mob attacks, you can actually fight back. Ever heard of ranged attacks? A boss being glitched can't perform those. Your analogy is flawed.

We didn't skirt a very "logical" counterargument, you did. What part of is a bug can't you understand? It's a mistake in the game's coding. The people running this game have admitted to that.

And what part of GMs not allowing bugs to be exploited (because it would provide venos with an unfair advantage) is troubling you? Why can't you debate that? You asked for logic to be brought into this discussion, i obliged. Don't complain about the very same thing you do. It makes you an hypocrite.

Alexenokin - Lost City

Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »

Sorry but your argument is so full of fail that it makes me wonder if you suffer from a mental illness.

Just because you can't fly because you haven't bothered to aquire your aerogear at level 30 like everyone else, means squat if a player attacks you from the air. You become PK enabled at 30, and get your wings or other aerogear at 30. No excuse except your own laziness for being unable to fly. Player -vs- player interactions also have nothing to do with this at all.

Care to fail again?

~S

how about those under level 30? (exception obviously of clerics)

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

No, they don't. If an air mob attacks, you can actually fight back. Ever heard of ranged attacks? A boss being glitched can't perform those. Your analogy is flawed.

We didn't skirt a very "logical" counterargument, you did. What part of is a bug can't you understand? It's a mistake in the game's coding. The people running this game have admitted to that.

And what part of GMs not allowing bugs to be exploited (because it would provide venos with an unfair advantage) is troubling you? Why can't you debate that? You asked for logic to be brought into this discussion, i obliged. Don't complain about the very same thing you do. It makes you an hypocrite.

again, you are avoiding my counter argument