What should be bannable...

mogwai · November 2012

I'm on the fence with the cat on npc thing, i dont mind using shift, but then there are times i know i will be in town for a while & just want to kick back & click away.

The only other alternative i see vs. a ban (cause ppl will still do it anyways), would be to make "no-no zones" for each npc. This would be a game modification which does not allow any catshop to open in a small radius around any npc.

my 2

Xx_BeLLa_xX - Harshlands · November 2012

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

You're wasting somebody else's time

Press shift isn't so hard. It take one second.

It's like if I was saying people dying in my squad are rude and make me loose my time cause i need to waste time to ress them.

It ridiculous there's not 500 shops on the top of npc there's one, there's more people around the npc than on top of it.

MANray_ - Sanctuary · November 2012

Xx_BeLLa_xX - Harshlands wrote: »

Press shift isn't so hard. It take one second.Placing a catshop in top of an npc disables an important feature which is meant precissely to save player's time. Bringing up a conversation window with an npc, which you could have avoided had the catshop not been there, does take more than a second. There are npcs that are clumped so close together the minimap may not provide accurate info regarding which ones are holding quests.
It's like if I was saying people dying in my squad are rude and make me loose my time cause i need to waste time to ress them.Ever squadded with the type of player that likes sabotaging runs and causing wipes just for teh lulz? There is a big difference when someone is deliberately wasting other people's time. And I fail to see why you people insist on the griefing argument, I never made such claims.
It ridiculous there's not 500 shops on the top of npc there's one, there's more people around the npc than on top of it.My point is precissely that 500 players should not be inconvenienced for the sake of just one merchant.

@VenusArmani
1. Apparently you do not want to acknowledge the fact that there are more players inconvenienced by this placement of catshops that there are people benefitting from them. Does obstructive advertisement on the internet bother you? We are talking about something far more important than in-game income, this is someone making a living, and if you're using a state of the art rig it shouldn't take more than a second to go around it. I mean I do realize that you may consider this an inapropiate comparison but it does boil down to you being slightly inconvenienced for the benefit of someone else.

2. The minimum requirements of the game are just enough to run a client and not a bit more. If you think we shouldn't bother with the problems some members of our community experience because this is not an issue for those of us who can afford better then you really are an elitist person. And as for you considering the gaming habits of others ridiculous please try to understand not all of us can afford playing more than a couple of hours a day. This means that we may multi-task while not engaged in squad work and that what for others could be nothing more than a small 5-10 seconds delay, may mean minutes for us. And its not just putting the freaking sandwich down, I'd rather not touch my keyboard with greasy fingers and sometimes when I'm on the phone I may need a free hand to write stuff down. No doubt you may be an expert in handling such activities while keeping both hands on the keyboard but juggling is not one of game's minimum requirements either.

3. There is such a thing as observation bias and offhand empyrical experience doesn't count as proof for a reason. The most effective merchants are those able to build a customer base (I can say I do regular bussiness with 3 different catshops) and I've seen no merchant that I consider reputable ever placing their shop on top of an npc, should I take this as proof there is no advantage to this placement?

4. The point is that I wasn't even advocating outright bans, although some of your comments (#6) seem to work under this assumption. I stated clearly my opinion on how such behaviour coul lead to a ban (not that it does) and stand by my reasoning.

5. This isn't about subjective opinion, you're in fact inconveniencing others when you place your catshop on top of an npc, and disallowing their use of an in-game feature (which is what those little shields above their heads are for) both interfering with their enjoyment of the game and breaching ToS to the letter in case you want to get technical. As for your comparison, I do have the choice to turn WC off, I can't do the same with catshops.

6. Thousands of dollars is not representative of the average player, even at the current state of the game, and no person should get preferential treatment because of how much they spend in the game. As for hundreds of hours why don't you compare the cummulative losses to the community that a single player can cause? That's hundreds of hours too, except it's still many inconvenienced vs a few.

7. It is irrelevant how much a player has spent when discussing rule enforcement. I do realize that this may not always be the case on PWI's side of things but that doesn't make it right...

8. You're really reaching if you consider anything that's not on top of an npc's head as a "less than desirable" location...

9. Fair enough.

10. I'll grant you official policy does seem to be ignoring this.

11. Your making this about me trying to become any sort of authority is unfair and you know it.

12. No, you do not have the "right to annoy". Just because it is impractical to ban or otherwise impede players from doing so doesn't mean this is acceptable behaviour...

13. In my book you don't mock others because of their financial status, and you seem unable to realize that this is very much what you're doing with some of your arguments. I did try to tone it down by editing my previous comment but I do stand against such attitudes.

Yulk_owns - Lost City · November 2012

Yulk should be banned, because he is a mean troll that doesn't get to endgame.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · November 2012

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

@VenusArmani
1. Apparently you do not want to acknowledge the fact that there are more players inconvenienced by this placement of catshops that there are people benefitting from them. Does obstructive advertisement on the internet bother you? We are talking about something far more important than in-game income, this is someone making a living, and if you're using a state of the art rig it shouldn't take more than a second to go around it. I mean I do realize that you may consider this an inapropiate comparison but it does boil down to you being slightly inconvenienced for the benefit of someone else.

I'd no sooner have someone fired or jailed for making one than I would have someone banned from PWI for putting their catshop there. I use an adblocker.

I do realize many people are affected by it. But let's just do a scenario here. Mr. Catshop has spent 3 years of his time on this game. He realizes he can make a million coins more a week by placing his catshop in a place where everyone can see it. So he does so for one week. During that week he has annoyed around 1000 people every day. Which let's face it, that is a huge number. Now let's say each of them had to spend 20 seconds of extra time at that shop. Now even if all 7000 of them brought a class action complaint against Mr. Catshop the total time wasted would be around 39 hours. Do you really think the penalty for wasting a grand total of a little over a day of time should be 3 years, hundreds of millions of coins, and thousands of dollars taken away?

When the punishment doesn't fit the crime even after taking into thousands of cases against one single person, then it seems unreasonable that anyone should be banned for it. Because let's face it, 7000 people is a pretty unlikely number.

I don't think anyone should be banned for anything that can be considered a minor inconvenience at it's very worst.

2. The minimum requirements of the game are just enough to run a client and not a bit more. If you think we shouldn't bother with the problems some members of our community experience because this is not an issue for those of us who can afford better then you really are an elitist person. And as for you considering the gaming habits of others ridiculous please try to understand not all of us can afford playing more than a couple of hours a day. This means that we may multi-task while not engaged in squad work and that what for others could be nothing more than a small 5-10 seconds delay, may mean minutes for us. And its not just putting the freaking sandwich down, I'd rather not touch my keyboard with greasy fingers and sometimes when I'm on the phone I may need a free hand to write stuff down. No doubt you may be an expert in handling such activities while keeping both hands on the keyboard but juggling is not one of game's minimum requirements either.

Those are the minimum requirements for running the client at the lowest possible setting. Running at the lowest possible settings mean you would be able to easily see and access the banker even if a catshop is on it. Because the distance sliders are all turned to their barest minimum which clears up pretty much anything but you and the NPC. If you wish to run it a higher setting, you need a higher standard of computer. That isn't being mean or unfair, those are just facts. If you'd rather not touch your computer with a greasy fingers, than you can just move on to a different banker. Or use hand sanitizer. If you get a phone call and need to write things down, then you are probably using both hands. One to hold the phone and one to write things down. You aren't playing the game in such case anyway. And either way, you're the one that decided to eat a sandwich at your computer. That was your personal decision. The game cannot and should not ban people for any inconvenience somebody puts themselves through.

3. There is such a thing as observation bias and offhand empyrical experience doesn't count as proof for a reason. The most effective merchants are those able to build a customer base (I can say I do regular bussiness with 3 different catshops) and I've seen no merchant that I consider reputable ever placing their shop on top of an npc, should I take this as proof there is no advantage to this placement?

No, but you can't just ignore the fact that this a problem that has persisted for years. On every server. And on every version of the game. Even in China, which was why the developers coded the shift+clicking into the game in the first place. That means there is some advantage that person is gaining from it that isn't purely in the person's hands. That's thousands of hours of gameplay, across tons of random cultures, economic means, etc. You can't just pretend that doesn't exist and have any real discussion on the matter. That catshops must be gaining some kind of advantage from it. Or there would be no reason that it is so prevalent and constant that the developer of the game had to code the game around it.

People are rational beings. You want to stop a certain behavior, make it irrational to do such behavior. If they constantly do it anyway, they are gaining something out of it.

4. The point is that I wasn't even advocating outright bans, although some of your comments (#6) seem to work under this assumption. I stated clearly my opinion on how such behaviour coul lead to a ban (not that it does) and stand by my reasoning.

A ban is a ban.

5. This isn't about subjective opinion, you're in fact inconveniencing others when you place your catshop on top of an npc, and disallowing their use of an in-game feature (which is what those little shields above their heads are for) both interfering with their enjoyment of the game and breaching ToS to the letter in case you want to get technical. As for your comparison, I do have the choice to turn WC off, I can't do the same with catshops.

Nowhere did I say it wasn't inconvenient. Nowhere did I say it wasn't annoying. I fully acknowledge that. I'm saying that it is not so injurious as to be actionable. Not every bad thing you can do to a person IRL is punishable by law either. There has to be some kind of line. Not everything that is annoying should be bannable. That is also fact.

6. Thousands of dollars is not representative of the average player, even at the current state of the game, and no person should get preferential treatment because of how much they spend in the game. As for hundreds of hours why don't you compare the cummulative losses to the community that a single player can cause? That's hundreds of hours too, except it's still many inconvenienced vs a few.

It doesn't matter if it is representative of the average player. I'm not saying to get preferential treatment either. I'm saying that just because it is annoying, it shouldn't be bannable. And that is because even if 7000 people all rallied against the same person for example, the punishment would still grossly exceed the crime.

7. It is irrelevant how much a player has spent when discussing rule enforcement. I do realize that this may not always be the case on PWI's side of things but that doesn't make it right...

You have to look at injuries to all sides. Any new rule has to take into account the affected persons on both ends. No rule should be "that's annoying, so it's out," that is no way to run a society.

8. You're really reaching if you consider anything that's not on top of an npc's head as a "less than desirable" location...

And you're really reaching with the sandwich thing. It's just to make a point.

9. Fair enough.

10. I'll grant you official policy does seem to be ignoring this.

11. Your making this about me trying to become any sort of authority is unfair and you know it.

Player authority is the only authority that is being breached atm because of point 10. That's the only point I'm making, and I'm only making it because of your point about it being disrespectful of authority. You claim that point is only being made because of how it could lead to a ban. But it can't lead to a ban atm for the reasons you stated. So atm the only reason they could ban the person is because the gm felt like it. GM whims are a bannable offense according to the TOS. The gm could ban you for wearing yellow if they felt like it.

12. No, you do not have the "right to annoy". Just because it is impractical to ban or otherwise impede players from doing so doesn't mean this is acceptable behaviour...

It's not a right to annoy. It's a right to play the game however you please as long as you're following the rules. If someone finds you annoying, that isn't something that should be bannable. Annoying is a subjective term. The need to wash your hands before touching the keyboard after eating a sandwich for example, is a purely personal desire. Everyone's are different. The ONLY argument that matters then is those with computers that cannot handle shift clicking without turning down the sliders. It's not an economic thing. It's just that it's the only non-subjective argument to be made. And those people have already had the issue addressed by the game's developers. Just as a rich person shouldn't get preferential treatment, neither should someone with a bad computer. Nobody should have to change the way they like to play the game just because others might find their playstyle annoying. That's not a good enough reason. It should be because it's annoying and interrupts your ability to play the game. I'll say it again doing this sets a rather unpleasant precedent that anything that can be seen as "annoying," should become bannable

13. In my book you don't mock others because of their financial status, and you seem unable to realize that this is very much what you're doing with some of your arguments. I did try to tone it down by editing my previous comment but I do stand against such attitudes.

Then I'm mocking myself. I'm not mocking anyone because of their financial status. I'm saying that you should use the features of the game for what they were intended for. It would be one thing if there was no way to click that NPC. But everybody can, no matter their financial status. That being the case there is no injury. Nothing has been impeded. Your ability to use the NPC has not been stopped. Telling someone to use a game feature that is specifically built for their type PC isn't being elitist or mocking. I mean, do you make call people cyber bullies for reminding others there is a blacklist? Do you consider it mocking someone's problem about being offended by world chat by showing them how to turn it off? No, you probably just filter the chat and go about your day. How is mentioning there are solutions to the problem mentioned in the OP mocking people's financial status?

And you don't have to be poor to have a **** PC. Some people just don't care. It's rather presumptive to assume anything about anyone's financial stauts based on what PC they are using or their stance on a video game. There are people poorer than me with better computers. There are people richer than me, with worse computers. It's not a purely a you have x, you must be x.

Tsukyini - Raging Tide · November 2012

Xx_BeLLa_xX - Harshlands wrote: »

It's like if I was saying people dying in my squad are rude and make me loose my time cause i need to waste time to ress them.

Not only are they wasting your time, they're wasting your mana.

Some people seriously just have zero manners. It's so sad. b:sad

MANray_ - Sanctuary · November 2012

1. We are just going circles on this one. No, I don't think the guy working on obstructive internet ads should get fired or go to prison but, once again, it may eventually come to that as the degree of exposure to marketing we go through (not just on the internet) is now becoming a human rights issue. And that's the problem with every little jerk that believes his making a profit justifies inconveniencing others. Eventually people get fed up to the point laws are passed to stop it, we ALL have another part of our liberties taken away, and the jerk starts all over again chipping away at our time within the new constraints. 90% of laws are not meant to regulate what 90% of people do, but they impact us all, mostly in our wallets.

Yes, it's a basic principle that the punishment should fit the crime, but you seem to be missing there is no contradiction with my pointing out that EVENTUALLY non-compliance with rules must lead to more significant sanctions. Running over a red light is something most of us would consider does not merit jail time, HOWEVER if you refuse to pay your traffic tickets for long enough you will eventually land there, because otherwise no one would ever pay. Same thing applies to breaches of ToS, no one would obey rules if all GMs could do to you was ask you nicely to please comply. I CLEARLY STATED, BANS WOULD BE APPROPIATE FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS which takes away your argument about inadvertent loss of account. I don't know why it's been so diffciult to get this across, it is a universal law principle, and in all Western countries (except the United States where you guys still cling to the death penalty) noncompliance with authority regarding small breaches of law will ultimately lead to the most severe form of punishment (prison).

Finally, for mr. catshop, 1 mil is junk change in this game and not worth annoying 1,000 players daily, are you insane? I don't care if he's played for over three years if day in and day out he takes 20 seconds of my time away. What if he's also got an alt? Where are you going to draw the line?

2.You seem to be missing two points; first, the thing that got us started on computer requirements was lag, not visibility. Second, the point wasn't about clever solutions to playing while on the phone or eating sandwiches, but about how small hindrances can result in larger obstacles for some users.

3. Shift-click is a solution to catshops aggregating around an npc, it does nothing that helps you tell whether an npc is holding quest for you or not... And my point about proof remains valid, there's plenty of long enduring inefficient practices amongst the player base that you really can't use "it's how its always been done" as a legitimate argument.

4. No, look at 1.

5. Let's drop this one, I think we're both arguing the same thing here.

6. Same as 4.

7. No, you don't. Would the same punishment be acceptable to you if the guy was a newbie that just got started last week? Likely not so let's drop this.

8. Fair enough, let's drop this one.

9. 10. 11. Stop it with the "authority" rant... If you want to continue discussing this do it as part of 1.

12. Purposefully aggravating behaviour is a very different form of annoyance to that which is subject to appreciation.

13. So you're saying wealth/income has no correlation to the kind of comp you own? Or that active MMO gamers have got the same hardware needs as people using the internet for web browsing and social media? Let's drop this one too...

SashaGray - Heavens Tear · November 2012

posts in this thread are entirely too long

MANray_ - Sanctuary · November 2012

b:surrender In my defense I'm actually trying to cut them down...

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · November 2012

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

1. We are just going circles on this one. No, I don't think the guy working on obstructive internet ads should get fired or go to prison but, once again, it may eventually come to that as the degree of exposure to marketing we go through (not just on the internet) is now becoming a human rights issue. And that's the problem with every little jerk that believes his making a profit justifies inconveniencing others. Eventually people get fed up to the point laws are passed to stop it, we ALL have another part of our liberties taken away, and the jerk starts all over again chipping away at our time within the new constraints. 90% of laws are not meant to regulate what 90% of people do, but they impact us all, mostly in our wallets.

Yes, it's a basic principle that the punishment should fit the crime, but you seem to be missing there is no contradiction with my pointing out that EVENTUALLY non-compliance with rules must lead to more significant sanctions. Running over a red light is something most of us would consider does not merit jail time, HOWEVER if you refuse to pay your traffic tickets for long enough you will eventually land there, because otherwise no one would ever pay. Same thing applies to breaches of ToS, no one would obey rules if all GMs could do to you was ask you nicely to please comply. I CLEARLY STATED, BANS WOULD BE APPROPIATE FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS which takes away your argument about inadvertent loss of account. I don't know why it's been so diffciult to get this across, it is a universal law principle, and in all Western countries (except the United States where you guys still cling to the death penalty) noncompliance with authority regarding small breaches of law will ultimately lead to the most severe form of punishment (prison).

Finally, for mr. catshop, 1 mil is junk change in this game and not worth annoying 1,000 players daily, are you insane? I don't care if he's played for over three years if day in and day out he takes 20 seconds of my time away. What if he's also got an alt? Where are you going to draw the line?

I suspect some of our conflict may be culturally different. Advertisements have gotten more and more invasive in the US and nothing is done about it. Because of freedom of speech. Telemarketing is okay, Pop-up and pop-under ads are both legal, etc. Pretty much as long as it is not stopping you from doing something, people can do it. This is annoying is a subjective term. That ad person is no danger of going to jail, at any point.

And I'm assuming banning because people want to turn into a bannable offense. It shouldn't be a bannable offense in the first place. There should be no levels, no escalation, none of it. To me saying they'd get banned for breaking the rule repeatedly is disingenuous because it isn't a rule. Players are trying to turn it into a one.

And my point is not that he'd annoy 1000 players daily. You and I both know that it is highly unrealistic. The point is that even at it's most exaggerated worst taking into account literally a 1000 players, it really isn't that bad. It's 20 seconds of time. That's it. It's minor. And even when you get ridiculously big in scale with it, it's not going to change the fact that it's minor.

Running red lights could get somebody killed. That worst case scenario fits the eventual jail time. Punishment fits the crime.

2.You seem to be missing two points; first, the thing that got us started on computer requirements was lag, not visibility. Second, the point wasn't about clever solutions to playing while on the phone or eating sandwiches, but about how small hindrances can result in larger obstacles for some users.

I know what the points were and I'm showing you that they are personal decisions. They aren't creating large obstacles for people. People are creating them for themselves. Can you honestly say that any of that is a larger obstacle? No. All those scenarios were far fetched, and totally the person's own fault.

3. Shift-click is a solution to catshops aggregating around an npc, it does nothing that helps you tell whether an npc is holding quest for you or not... And my point about proof remains valid, there's plenty of long enduring inefficient practices amongst the player base that you really can't use "it's how its always been done" as a legitimate argument.

Except it does because once you access the NPC you can hit quest related. And there is proof. I'm applying rational choice theory to figure out why across every version of the game, in every country, day after day, year after year hundreds of people are exhibiting the exact same behavior. To the point that the developers had to actually code in a solution to it that they had not previous displayed. What other reason can you use to explain the reason hundreds of people from vastly different countries, cultures, socio-economic, and personality types have exhibited the exact same behavior? Rational choice theory states the logical conclusion it's because they are gaining something from doing that.

If you still refuse to accept that maybe catshops are gaining something from placing their catshops on top of an NPC head then there is not point in discussing this further. The only way to discuss rule changes is a proper understanding of both sides point of view.

7. No, you don't. Would the same punishment be acceptable to you if the guy was a newbie that just got started last week? Likely not so let's drop this.

Yes you do. We are not discussing the enforcement of an existing rule, we are talking about creating a new one. When you make new rules (or repeal old ones) you should be looking at all sides of a given issue. That's just basic.

9. 10. 11. Stop it with the "authority" rant... If you want to continue discussing this do it as part of 1.

It's difficult for me to respond to your posts because i have to put them side by side to see what you are replying to because you are not quoting me. I mean both of our posts are pretty long. So I'm just making them as you list them. Consider it as part of one.

12. Purposefully aggravating behaviour is a very different form of annoyance to that which is subject to appreciation.

There are too many wide varieties of people doing this across multinational lines to assume the person is being purposefully aggravating. As I said earlier, the likely gain from it is increased sales not aggravation.

13. So you're saying wealth/income has no correlation to the kind of comp you own? Or that active MMO gamers have got the same hardware needs as people using the internet for web browsing and social media? Let's drop this one too...

No I'm saying that my pointing out solutions is not being elitist. My pointing out solutions is not me mocking people. And I'm not saying that it has no correlation the the kind of comp you own. I'm saying that telling people to use the features for their tier of laptop isn't a mockery of their financial situation. We cannot determine anything about their financial situation based off what PC they are using to play PWI. To assume I'm mocking someone's financial situation just because I stated that people with bad laptops should use the features to fix the problem instead of getting other people banned is untrue. There is just too many different types of people with different types of means who game. And we cannot tell ANYTHING about a person's financial or home life based off whether or not they should use sliders on the game.

anwynd · November 2012

I have to say it is rlly fun reading the discussion you two are having. Glad to see a good one without swearing at each other. Also just so im on topic i vote no becus it is just a minor inconvenience tht only takes a few seconds away from the persons time to shift click. Instead of banning if they dont want people to do it just make a spherical zone around the npc's so you cant put a shop by them.

TuffPuppy - Momaganon · November 2012

Mor_Toran - Sanctuary wrote: »

They should code it so that catshops cannot be created within 5 meters on an NPC, and should also cancel mounts/wings/pets in that area as well.

This ^^

Xx_BeLLa_xX - Harshlands · November 2012

The only npc i have sometime hard time to click even with shift is the npc like the trivia event cause there's 100 persons on mounts and fly on it and i don't even know where it is so it can take 5-10 seconds to find it with shift.

y4kuzi · November 2012

You can still click the catshop. No need for shift. You just click under the catshop.

I don't see the problem.

MANray_ - Sanctuary · November 2012

1. Cultural differences? Seriously? It's not my society that's pressuring the rest of the world to abandon Voltaire's tradition in favour of the ridiculous excesses of political correctness, draconian hate speech laws and the apeasement of religious extremists. And you get this is a freedom of speech issue because I mention in passing there are people in the world advocating public spaces free of advertising and corporate sponsorships? Really, you do not want to go there, and frankly I'm disapointed you would adhere to the conceited notion of SOME of your countrymen that democratic values are somehow uniquely American...

But the problem is you're apparently approaching this as if we were discussing internet freedoms, we're not. And quit it with the Reductio ad Absurdum, yes, running red lights can get people killed, but the rule applies even when it is clearly obvious it couldn't possibly do so, and there's plenty of other traffic violations (such as parking in handicapped spaces) that have no such potential and will also land you in jail eventually.

It's not actually unrealistic that a catshop could inconvenience 1,000 people a day, and this is your figure, not mine. I provided a very clear example (BH npc) and there's plenty of other npc's in areas such as West Archo that concentrate use, or do you think it is coincidence that those merch'ing refining aids concentrate around the Archo elder? Maybe the population is much lower on Dreamweaver than I thought... You seem quite willing to take an illustration to its ultimate consequences so let's work with yours; 7,000 players inconvenienced a week means that to you wasting 20 secs of someone else's time (again, your number) is well worth 143 coins, rounded up, at an extra revenue of 1 mil a week for the catshop. For a player making 1 mil an hour this means a loss of 5, 555 coins, rounded down. How much of your server's playerbase is made up of high levels able to pull that kind of income? Because in Sanct there's more than plenty. In fact, if you were only making 100,000 coins an hour (and you're doing something wrong if you can't pull this off)those 20 secs are still worth something like 555 coins. I know you may think its ridiculous to use these figures but you're the one who brought up penny pinching here, and there is a difference in between me choosing to waste my in game time, and having someone else make that choice for me.

It comes down to basic respect for others and their time. The real issue here is not how much the inconvenience adds up to, but that you think nothing of wasting the time of other players for your own profit.

2. Let's drop this one, I stated clearly my opinion that the inconveniences the catshop creates can be larger for some users, you have stated your own view that these people have no one to blame but themselves, as we should all apparently accomodate wahtever obstacles other players throw in our way without complaining...

3. I acknowledege catshops may earn a MARGINAL advantage but do believe the tendency of people to put them on top of npc's has more to do with psychology than rational bussiness decissions. Oh, but your rational choice theory isn't accounting for that, because it's actually a rationalization and not proof that's subject to verification... The catshop disables an ingame feature, clicking on an npc to bring up a dialogue window defeats the purpose of having a visual cue that would save you the trouble, so no, I don't believe that shift-click was ever meant as a solution to this issue, but was meant to address the catshop aggregation problem.

7. This is an abstract discussion, not a formal petition. You're apparently not very familiar with the game's history if you think forum polls are that influential.

12. I don't think anyone is naive or stupid enough to put a catshop on top of an npc without realizing it will inconvenience others. They simply decide their own benefit outweights any other considerations.

13. Ok, I did try dropping this one. Look at 2.

Edit; BTW, I'm not quoting you in order to keep the walls of text manageable, it would be much more easier for me to simply quote and be done with it, but then that would be an ironic choice given the topic we are discussing.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · November 2012

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

1. Cultural differences? Seriously? It's not my society that's pressuring the rest of the world to abandon Voltaire's tradition in favour of the ridiculous excesses of political correctness, draconian hate speech laws and the apeasement of religious extremists. And you get this is a freedom of speech issue because I mention in passing there are people in the world advocating public spaces free of advertising and corporate sponsorships? Really, you do not want to go there, and frankly I'm disapointed you would adhere to the conceited notion of SOME of your countrymen that democratic values are somehow uniquely American...

No, I never said anything even close to the sort. I'm saying as an American, I am used to pretty much all public spaces being fair game to advertising. That ad man would never land in jail because he took out an ad. Even it was annoying ad. Hell we had one ad that just said "head on, apply directly to the forehead," over and over and over again for 30 seconds straight. And it would often run back to back. You can purchase a product that started out ad free and they can change that product with a change of the terms to an ad based product with very little notice. And your only remedy is to stop using it completely. Ads are everywhere you look here. So the whole concept of an adman going to jail or getting fined period just because he's annoying is not one I agree with. I'm at it's worst level and at very most it's a minor inconvenience. You're the one that came up with the ad man example, not me.

Nowhere did I state that only Americans hold core democratic values. That's absurd view and an ugly stereotype. Most Americans are well aware other countries have democratic values. You seem quite willing to extrapolate larger beliefs out of minor statements.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

But the problem is you're apparently approaching this as if we were discussing internet freedoms, we're not. And quit it with the Reductio ad Absurdum, yes, running red lights can get people killed, but the rule applies even when it is clearly obvious it couldn't possibly do so, and there's plenty of other traffic violations (such as parking in handicapped spaces) that have no such potential and will also land you in jail eventually.

I believe that any good rule will listen to all sides of an issue and take an issue to it's logical extreme. Try to account for every possibility, that way rules are not overly broad or over reaching. Jaywalking could also lead to death. For some handicap people walking that extra distance can be extremely difficult and painful. It's not about the space, it's about the potential suffering caused to the handicap person. Although there is likely none of that, those laws are intended to prevent worst case scenarios.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

It's not actually unrealistic that a catshop could inconvenience 1,000 people a day, and this is your figure, not mine. I provided a very clear example (BH npc) and there's plenty of other npc's in areas such as West Archo that concentrate use, or do you think it is coincidence that those merch'ing refining aids concentrate around the Archo elder? Maybe the population is much lower on Dreamweaver than I thought... You seem quite willing to take an illustration to its ultimate consequences so let's work with yours; 7,000 players inconvenienced a week means that to you wasting 20 secs of someone else's time (again, your number) is well worth 143 coins, rounded up, at an extra revenue of 1 mil a week for the catshop. For a player making 1 mil an hour this means a loss of 5, 555 coins, rounded down. How much of your server's playerbase is made up of high levels able to pull that kind of income? Because in Sanct there's more than plenty. In fact, if you were only making 100,000 coins an hour (and you're doing something wrong if you can't pull this off)those 20 secs are still worth something like 555 coins. I know you may think its ridiculous to use these figures but you're the one who brought up penny pinching here, and there is a difference in between me choosing to waste my in game time, and having someone else make that choice for me.

Except the vast majority of users have no difficulty accessing the NPC even with the catshop on the head. It's a marginal number of users affected. And your coin thing makes zero sense. If that person is at an NPC they know is crowded instead of one by a high grinding area, they've already chosen to forgo that money. That 20 seconds isn't worth that much coin because in that 20 seconds of time they wouldn't all be doing a coin generating activity. If you're in archo for example, you're likely doing something like looking for BH. Which you can do while at the NPC. Or going afk. Or visiting catshops. People's time isn't comped when they aren't doing anything. And if they were grinding for coins, you'd have to assume in that 20 seconds of time that they would have been guaranteed that much on average. Which they aren't. Mob drop rates don't work that way.

And you could say the same thing about lag if you want to calculate it that way. Should PWI have to pay for wasting your time by not taking better care of their servers? At what point do you have to say this sucks but I just have to deal with it.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

It comes down to basic respect for others and their time. The real issue here is not how much the inconvenience adds up to, but that you think nothing of wasting the time of other players for your own profit.

I don't even do this. I'm saying if someone chooses to play this way, it's not against the rules. Nor should it be.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

2. Let's drop this one, I stated clearly my opinion that the inconveniences the catshop creates can be larger for some users, you have stated your own view that these people have no one to blame but themselves, as we should all apparently accomodate wahtever obstacles other players throw in our way without complaining...

No where did I say that either. I've admitted it's annoying several times. There is a difference between complaining and getting someone banned though.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

3. I acknowledege catshops may earn a MARGINAL advantage but do believ the tendency of people to put them on top of npc's has more to do with psychology than rational bussiness decissions. Oh, but your rational choice theory isn't accounting for that, because it's actually a rationalization and not proof that's subject to verification... The catshop disables an ingame feature, clicking on an npc to bring up a dialogue window defeats the purpose of having a visual cue that would save you the trouble, so no, I don't believe that shift-click was ever meant as a solution to this issue, but was meant to address the catshop aggregation problem.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

7. This is an abstract discussion, not a formal petition. You're apparently not very familiar with the game's history if you think forum polls are that influential.

Just recently Secret passage was reverted because of player polls. In addition ini editing was changed because of all the complaints. Descent was released here first and was a direct redress to many issues players complained about. Including aps domination, and no gear that compete with rank 9 and is only farmable. PWI does things here and there based on these kinds of things, and I'd hate to see this as one of them.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

12. I don't think anyone is naive or stupid enough to put a catshop on top of an npc without realizing it will inconvenience others. They simply decide their own benefit outweights any other considerations.

I did when I first started. I was selling element powder because I didn't realize there was a difference between that and element dust. I put it there because I wanted it to be seen and didn't really think about other people's pcs because mine was old and worked just fine with it there. This was back in 2009 and the laptop I was using was already a 5 years old. And it was refurbished. I had to go back and edit all my characters when I got a new one because they looked nothing even close to what I thought it looked like. Someone pm'ed me and I removed it. You're really assuming too much about people's psychology issues just because of one little thing.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

Edit; BTW, I'm not quoting you in order to keep the walls of text manageable, it would be much more easier for me to simply quote and be done with it, but then that would be an ironic choice given the topic we are discussing.

When you quote me it would automatically remove anything that I've quoted. From there I just highlight your paragraphs and wrap them in quote tags by pressing the little button that looks like a speech bubble. It just makes it easier for you to see which point i'm responding to.

Jaabg - Sanctuary · November 2012

Next server maintenance i know which thread i am reading b:dirty b:avoid

Black_wolve - Sanctuary · November 2012

I have a few things that gm's choose to ignor players stealing others kills,selling accounts lord knows i know people are doing that as well and also allowing others to use there accounts.

If any gm choose to say something well do so thease are the true facts.Lets see my 1 of my fav people who name there factions sex and perverted names shown auto get there faction disband no need for it we have under age kids playing thease games as it is the youngest was 8 years old.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · November 2012

Black_wolve - Sanctuary wrote: »

I have a few things that gm's choose to ignor players stealing others kills,selling accounts lord knows i know people are doing that as well and also allowing others to use there accounts.

If any gm choose to say something well do so thease are the true facts.Lets see my 1 of my fav people who name there factions sex and perverted names shown auto get there faction disband no need for it we have under age kids playing thease games as it is the youngest was 8 years old.

Kill stealing isn't against the rules and is explicitly stated as not being against them. For the other stuff, I'd suggest submitting a ticket. GMs don't police all the chat channels or check every faction.

TommyElfGuy - Sanctuary · November 2012

Well personally i dont think they should be banned thats hard but it is anoying and i think setting it so catshops have to be 5 meters or more away from the npc would be pretty cool.

MANray_ - Sanctuary · November 2012

Ok, I'm renumbering for each of your quotes. This is, again, to keep the walls of text down and keep track of exactly what are the points we are discussing.

1. You tell me you suspect "cultural differences" to be the issue and then elaborate on
freedom of speech. Then, you explain to me that advertisers cannot possibly go to jail for annoying the public, as if you could possibly conceive that there is any country in the world where such a thing could occur. Now, I realize you may not have traveled much but you strike me as someone intelligent enough to know better... Globalization has pretty much ensured any person living in a major city anywhere in the world (and I do live in the largest in North America) will be subject to near constant advertising through all kinds of media, so I fail to see how being an American makes it any worse for you. Perhaps you've started dressing up the woodland critters in your country with designer outfits bearing corporate logos, but still I think it comes pretty close for anyone living in a large metro area. Please acknowledge your comment was to some extent insensitive and patronizing, if not worse.

Also, you'd be surprised to find out that even in your country there are limits to how annoying ads can get. There's environmental standards for one, regarding visual/noise pollution. There's monitoring of broadcasters through the FCC. And there's even regulation concerning the internet, including some rather scary proposals that activists even now are fighting to prevent. And yes, you can go to prison for breaching those.

2. What you are arguing for here is actually very close to libertarian thought as you seem to believe laws are made exclusively to prevent malum in se (things evil in themselves), and you appear to be disregarding the existence of laws meant to punish malum prohibitum (things forbidden by authority). In layman terms, you can take many laws to their logical extreme and find that their ultimate purpose is not to protect either life or property. This is why it is misleading to rely on reductio ad absurdum alone but let's try to turn this around, parking in a handicapped space belongs to the latter classification of conduct, not the first as you would have it. Why? Because you must rely on healthy common sense to make rulings and not the worst case scenario mentality. Are you going to charge people parking in a handicapped space with attempted manslaughter because a free parking spot could potentially save a life in some abstract worst case scenario? Wouldn't this contradict the very principles you have been championing?

The problem is you keep pushing this out of what, I assume, must be principle. Ask yourself this; Is disobeying GM instructions a bannable offense? Do you even believe there should be bannable offenses? Should repeat offenders be treated the same as first timers? This isn't about the point we are suposed to be arguing here, if you believe people disobeying a rule (this is the abstract premise) that should not lead to a ban, can later simply choose to repeatedly continue ignoring it without any fear of more serious repercussions, then say so plainly. It is utter nonsense to me, the point I was making is this makes rules unenforceable, but we can agree to disagree and just move on.

3. We do rely on a lot of approximations when dealing with this game and its mechanics. DPS is not meant to be an accurate representation of damage dealt for instance, so you can't have both your cake and eat it; if it's legitimate for you to compare lost time, then it's fair for me to calculate the cost of that time. And the lag thing is a strawman...

4. Fine, you don't think it should be bannable. Do you think this is acceptable behaviour? Is anything that's legal moral and fair game?

5. This is complaining, no one is getting banned.

6. Fair enough.

7.What about packs and both engame gear and levels in the boutique?

8. No, I'm not assuming, just looking into plausible reasons. And I meant doing this on a continued basis, not just once or twice.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · November 2012

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

Ok, I'm renumbering for each of your quotes. This is, again, to keep the walls of text down and keep track of exactly what are the points we are discussing.

1. You tell me you suspect "cultural differences" to be the issue and then elaborate on
freedom of speech. Then, you explain to me that advertisers cannot possibly go to jail for annoying the public, as if you could possibly conceive that there is any country in the world where such a thing could occur. Now, I realize you may not have traveled much but you strike me as someone intelligent enough to know better... Globalization has pretty much ensured any person living in a major city anywhere in the world (and I do live in the largest in North America) will be subject to near constant advertising through all kinds of media, so I fail to see how being an American makes it any worse for you. Perhaps you've started dressing up the woodland critters in your country with designer outfits bearing corporate logos, but still I think it comes pretty close for anyone living in a large metro area. Please
acknowledge your comment was to some extent insensitive and patronizing, if not worse.

No, my exact words were "Advertisements have gotten more and more invasive in the US and nothing is done about it," I was obviously talking solely from the USA point of view. You gave an example of an ad man. That example would not work here. That is the only reason that I said "in the US," you're putting way too extra into the comment. I only said that we may come from different cultures and have different perspectives based on the example you gave. I've never met a fellow American who would escalate ads to a human rights issue, unless it was something that contained adult only content being broadcast where there kid could see it. It's just not something you hear here often.

You said that ads are "becoming a human rights issue," but there isn't any major legislation , again in the US which I prefaced my comment by saying, that is trying to frame it is a human rights issue. FCC regulations are laws if they want to use specific airways. Cable Channels can and do advertise and put on tv whatever they want. You may be experiencing it as a human rights issue in your city. I am not. And that would be a cultural difference. Hell, my even mentioning cultural differences is an acknowledgement that it might work differently elsewhere.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

Also, you'd be surprised to find out that even in your country there are limits to how annoying ads can get. There's environmental standards for one, regarding visual/noise pollution. There's monitoring of broadcasters through the FCC. And there's even regulation concerning the internet, including some rather scary proposals that activists even now are fighting to prevent. And yes, you can go to prison for breaching those.

Proposals are not laws. Environmental advertising laws are mostly limited to things like national parks and unspoiled areas that nobody would want to advertise too anyway. Heck, I've even had mailers containing anti-islam cds that most people just threw away. No penalty for that. Internet law is pretty new here but there isn't much regulation concerning it. Pretty much as long as it's true, and doesn't break any laws that has nothing to do with ads, it's allowed. Even many "banned" ads are allowed to play on non-network tv and on the internet.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

2. What you are arguing for here is actually very close to libertarian thought as you seem to believe laws are made exclusively to prevent malum in se (things evil in themselves), and you appear to be disregarding the existence of laws meant to punish malum prohibitum (things forbidden by authority). In layman terms, you can take many laws to their logical extreme and find that their ultimate purpose is not to protect either life or property. This is why it is misleading to rely on reductio ad absurdum alone but let's try to turn this around, parking in a handicapped space belongs to the latter classification of conduct, not the first as you would have it. Why? Because you must rely on healthy common sense to make rulings and not the worst case scenario mentality. Are you going to charge people parking in a handicapped space with attempted manslaughter because a free parking spot could potentially save a life in some abstract worst case scenario? Wouldn't this contradict the very principles you have been championing?

Of course I wouldn't charge someone with attempted manslaughter. I also said the punishment should meet the crime. But I'm saying the reason it is necessary to have that law in the first place is because of what could happen if you didn't.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

The problem is you keep pushing this out of what, I assume, must be principle. Ask yourself this; Is disobeying GM instructions a bannable offense? Do you even believe there should be bannable offenses? Should repeat offenders be treated the same as first timers? This isn't about the point we are suposed to be arguing here, if you believe people disobeying a rule (this is the abstract premise) that should not lead to a ban, can later simply choose to repeatedly continue ignoring it without any fear of more serious repercussions, then say so plainly. It is utter nonsense to me, the point I was making is this makes rules unenforceable, but we can agree to disagree and just move on.

No, I agree that their should be tiers for different levels of offenders. And that repeated offenses should be punished more severely than smaller or first time infractions. But when you create a rule you should be looking at the worst case scenario. And ask yourself this. Is the injury to the party sufficient enough to warrant action? Under any circumstances? If the answer is no, then there should be no rule created in the first place. No law without injury.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

3. We do rely on a lot of approximations when dealing with this game and its mechanics. DPS is not meant to be an accurate representation of damage dealt for instance, so you can't have both your cake and eat it; if it's legitimate for you to compare lost time, then it's fair for me to calculate the cost of that time. And the lag thing is a strawman...

The lag thing isn't a strawman. Look at the first page of this. People are saying people should be banned for having their wings out on top of an NPC. Even though autopath takes you there. And unlike the catshop, you can go around back to the other side. They don't mounts and flyers and catshops within a 5m radius of the catshops. It's the next logical step when it comes catshops. And banning the catshops creates a precedent for it. After all those people on flyers/wings are wasting your time by lagging you out, are they not? And it is only legitimate to compare what the person is actually giving up. Not opportunity costs (in this scenario) because they likely gave those up by merely being there. It would vary too widely to even guess. I mean, let's face it it's not going to be 7000 of some of the wealthiest players in the game affected to the exclusion of everyone else. Many players making only a million coins a day. And they wouldn't be immediately about to use a teleport stone and go grinding in that 20 seconds. Or turning in a quest. Many would be going afk, many would be joining a BH squad, many would be browsing catshops, many would be looking, many would be checking the AH, many would be using that 20 seconds to chat to a friend, there is just too many variables to assume that is how much would be lost. We'd know to know about the income of the population affected to get some kind of average amount lost and put it into a coin amount.

Since this is an abstract argument and there aren't actually 7k people affected we should instead be looking at what is definitely lost. Simply 20 seconds+getting annoyed vs the catshops time and money.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

4. Fine, you don't think it should be bannable. Do you think this is acceptable behaviour? Is anything that's legal moral and fair game?

No, not everything that is legal is moral. And not everything that is immoral is illegal. And that's the way it should be. I do think it is rude and don't do business with people who repeatedly offend me with such a catshop. Let the market correct that person. If we want them to stop, we as players just got to work together as a market to make it stop. That I could support. Like boycotting.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

5. This is complaining, no one is getting banned.

We're discussing whether people should be banned or not though. If I didn't think people should be allowed to complain, I could have simply trolled it. I wouldn't do that but still. I have no objections to it being complained about or discussed. I actually like when we can discuss things more thoroughly in the forums. This has certainly been one of the more interesting debates I've had on the forums in a while.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

7.What about packs and both endgame gear and levels in the boutique?

Players don't get our way with everything. But we do get our way with some things. I'd prefer this not be one of them.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

8. No, I'm not assuming, just looking into plausible reasons. And I meant doing this on a continued basis, not just once or twice.

If I hadn't gotten the PM, I'd of probably continued to do it. Well actually I wouldn't have because obviously nobody bought element powder. But you get what I mean. I wouldn't know any better.

augustfinknottle · November 2012

Just saw MANray_ say

This isn't about subjective opinion, you're in fact inconveniencing others when you place your catshop on top of an npc, and disallowing their use of an in-game feature (which is what those little shields above their heads are for) both interfering with their enjoyment of the game and breaching ToS to the letter in case you want to get technical. As for your comparison, I do have the choice to turn WC off, I can't do the same with catshops.

.

Wanted to say that yes, you can turn off catshops. I don't remember how to do that exactly, and I can't log in game right now, since I'm at work. If anyone could do that and explain to MANray_ ho to do that, please do.

MANray_ - Sanctuary · November 2012

b:sweat This debate has gone on long enough, so consider this my last post on this issue, I'm just wrapping things up.

1. This is not a US vs the world thing, and I don't consider your views to be representative of all people in your society. I know plenty of Americans who do keep up with recent developments in human rights issues, who are not happy about the crass comercialization and consumerism now part of GLOBAL culture and who do realize that regulations concerning the environmental impact of advertising, even in urban areas, actually exist in their own country. Go look it up...

Regarding your views on the nature of laws I would recommend some reading on the Roman Digesta just so we don't continue discussing something that was pretty much settled in in the 4th century. I am lawyer, btw, please understand I don't feel like trying to continue summarizing basic concepts just to try to get a point across on a discussion of ToS in an MMO. It's not that you don't make valid points, but that a few minutes reading can pretty much address your objections.

Yes, you're dead set against this ever being made into a bannable offense. I'm not, even if in all truth I could't care much one way or the other. Let's move on.

2. Apparently you believe some injuries are minor enough no action should be taken against the offenders. While it is likely a very mature way of going through life it's also accepting injustice as something unavoidable. I don't personally beleive in that, so let's agree to disagree.

3. This argument boils down to you thinking the catshop making a profit outweights other players being inconvenienced. I don't agree with you.

4. At least you concede this does inconvenience others and that, in principle, this is not moral behaviour.

5. Let's again agree to disagree.

7. I would much rather people show restraint, the problem is it only takes 1 in 500 to make it an issue.

8. If you hadn't figured this one out in a reasonable amount of time it probably would have meant you're a noobish player. It's one thing to make a mistake, we all do, but if at no point do you question the way you do things (and there is a deliberate effort involved in setting up shop on top of an npc) then there really is no making excuses...

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · November 2012

This will be my last post on this topic as well...

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

b:sweat This debate has gone on long enough, so consider this my last post on this issue, I'm just wrapping things up.

1. This is not a US vs the world thing, and I don't consider your views to be representative of all people in your society. I know plenty of Americans who do keep up with recent developments in human rights issues, who are not happy about the crass comercialization and consumerism now part of GLOBAL culture and who do realize that regulations concerning the environmental impact of advertising, even in urban areas, actually exist in their own country. Go look it up...

Regarding your views on the nature of laws I would recommend some reading on the Roman Digesta just so we don't continue discussing something that was pretty much settled in in the 4th century. I am lawyer, btw, please understand I don't feel like trying to continue summarizing basic concepts just to try to get a point across on a discussion of ToS in an MMO. It's not that you don't make valid points, but that a few minutes reading can pretty much address your objections.

Yes, you're dead set against this ever being made into a bannable offense. I'm not, even if in all truth I could't care much one way or the other. Let's move on.

Again, I didn't say that my views were indicative of something the whole world should believe in. Or that even everyone in the USA believes in. I don't know where you are getting that. But it really is quite frustrating that you keep trying to place your assumption on me as something I said. I acknowledged differences in views even in different regions within the same country. But there is a reason US LAW is a certain way. Enough people think that way that it would incredibly difficult to pass such a law here. Just because a mindset is prevalent doesn't mean you can generalize it as a personal belief of all Americans. It also doesn't mean that it's not worth acknowledging.

And we're not talking criminal law here....

8. If you hadn't figured this one out in a reasonable amount of time it probably would have meant you're a noobish player. It's one thing to make a mistake, we all do, but if at no point do you question the way you do things (and there is a deliberate effort involved in setting up shop on top of an npc) then there really is no making excuses...

Noobs are people too.

JK I agree to some extent but I'l have to disagree on that last part. There are some concerns someone simply cannot know others have unless they share them.

What should be bannable...

Comments

Categories