AFK macroers blocking Recall locations ...

[Roser]

50% - L
50% - O
50% - L

If my math is correct then that add's up to 150% of good times.

No I think if you your standing on someones recall spot at WBB and they go to recall in, you should insta die and your body parts be scattered 5 tiles from the spot in random directions. Also a rare blood tile should appear under you that can be looted and sold on the rare market.

If your bank happens to be open at the time of corpse explosion then the bank box should drop to your feet and be freely loot-able by all.

Oh and of course it wont block the recall spot

C'mon... you know its a good idea. Letz just dew it.

[DrFaustus]

That would be pretty cool, though the blood tile market would tank.

[Sandro]

I want my 60 seconds back from having read that...

[malice-tg]

50% rant/ 50 % whine/ 50% proposal:

When such an occurrence is accidental, it isn't that much of a big deal, even if it results in "catastrophe"; yet I think many people can easily apprehend how such behaviour can be used with deliberate malice.

SS

Hey i wasn't even at the keys how am i supposed to know you were trying to recall

[nightshark]

50% rant/ 50 % whine/ 50% proposal:

When such an occurrence is accidental, it isn't that much of a big deal, even if it results in "catastrophe"; yet I think many people can easily apprehend how such behaviour can be used with deliberate malice.

SS

Hey i wasn't even at the keys how am i supposed to know you were trying to recall

maybe he was referring to what you've been doing to me.

[son]

Wow what a dumb thread.

I will often follow trammie players like Raodin and deliberately block their recall rune, as they are giant cowards and will not fight period.

[Pirul]

Never gonna fly.

Also, I afk macroed hiding at the bank in OSI by jamming a quarter on my keyboard, so it is perfectly era accurate (oh, and I was never jailed for it).

[DrFaustus]

This thread clearly needs a poll.

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

Typically, the community has focused on the offered example behaviour, instead of on the underlying principle:

No AFK character should possess any rights, when there is any conflict with the rights of any actively-played character. That's it; it's a really simple concept. In fact, it is a concept so simple that it bears absolutely no resemblance to the asinine, ridiculous, convoluted inventions provided by most who have replied thus far.

I fully expected this thread to generate derision and an opportunity for certain members of the community to (attempt to) have a laugh (at my expense); I've stood down for most of the day, merely to observe what responses appear.

I sardonically observe that some people haven't even apprehended the extremely simple point reiterated above: it's small wonder that the "humor" of their entirely-independently-conceived creations could be described as, erm, "lackluster", at best. It is evident that some people desperately need someone with some talent to write their material for them.

The proposed amendment provides a very straight-forward method of resolution to many possible conflicts, apart from the one issue cited, particularly some that otherwise would be very "unsavory" for the staff to invigilate.

However, in typical UOSA-forum fashion, the issue is not even discussed in 2 pages of replies; rather, several self-styled community (half) wits indulge in ping-pong ridicule of (nothing more than) the extremely basic example cited. As any thinking creature might expect, the cited example was cited with purpose: simple and straight-forward presentation of the principle; simple enough, indeed, to be considered ridiculous; simple enough to be neither misrepresented, nor misunderstood.

Hmmmm, it seems that that isn't simple enough.

SS

[Mikel123]

Typically, the community has focused on the offered example behaviour, instead of on the underlying principle:

No AFK character should possess any rights, when there is any conflict with the rights of any actively-played character.

Your premise is flawed. On UOSA, attended and AFK characters are afforded the same rights. Neither are allowed to spam, neither are allowed to use illegal 3rd party programs, etc. The only difference is, AFK characters are not allowed to gather resources. That is the only difference.

I guess you're proposing that the rules should change to what you say above. To that, I'd say you are in a remarkable minority of opinion. So I'm not sure how you could go about pushing for such a change, but your current strategy of long-winded, whining posts that insult the people who are trying to have a discourse with you, is probably not helping your cause.

[Ripplinger]

How exactly would you plan on enforcing this? You'd have to get back to the spot anyway that's blocked, page a GM to verify it's an afk player, and then have him boot it. The support staff here cannot spend that much time just because a recall spot is blocked, there's just no way it's feasible.

Everyone has their recall spot blocked at times, it's why we carry 2nd or 3rd runes with us for when it happens. Deal with it in a sane and rational way like the rest of us, and don't recall to inside banks or crowded areas. Just because you want a spot to recall to doesn't make it your own personal spot; it can be used by others and as often and for as long as they like.

Geez, I'm not a griefer at all and will always help players when possible, but this thread honestly just makes me want to find your recall spots and block them myself. It's sounding like much fun at this point.

[noxmonk]

Typically, the community has focused on the offered example behaviour, instead of on the underlying principle:

No AFK character should possess any rights, when there is any conflict with the rights of any actively-played character. That's it; it's a really simple concept. In fact, it is a concept so simple that it bears absolutely no resemblance to the asinine, ridiculous, convoluted inventions provided by most who have replied thus far.

I fully expected this thread to generate derision and an opportunity for certain members of the community to (attempt to) have a laugh (at my expense); I've stood down for most of the day, merely to observe what responses appear.

I sardonically observe that some people haven't even apprehended the extremely simple point reiterated above: it's small wonder that the "humor" of their entirely-independently-conceived creations could be described as, erm, "lackluster", at best. It is evident that some people desperately need someone with some talent to write their material for them.

The proposed amendment provides a very straight-forward method of resolution to many possible conflicts, apart from the one issue cited, particularly some that otherwise would be very "unsavory" for the staff to invigilate.

However, in typical UOSA-forum fashion, the issue is not even discussed in 2 pages of replies; rather, several self-styled community (half) wits indulge in ping-pong ridicule of (nothing more than) the extremely basic example cited. As any thinking creature might expect, the cited example was cited with purpose: simple and straight-forward presentation of the principle; simple enough, indeed, to be considered ridiculous; simple enough to be neither misrepresented, nor misunderstood.

Hmmmm, it seems that that isn't simple enough.

SS

Stop with the mother^%$&*@! superfluous commas. The English language called and is revoking your permit to practice.

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

Mikel,

At the end of two pages of non-discourse, it is the action of a hypocrite to accuse me of insulting "those who are trying to have a discourse"; it should be precisely evident that, in fact, exactly the opposite is what has occurred here.

"Long-winded"? My original post is followed by a full page-and-a-half of witless idiocy; ah, Newton's 4th Law: witless idiocy trumps discussion, if only because it appears most-often in less than 10 syllables.

Now, having been the original InsultER, unstead of the insultee you unrightfully claim, you attempt to justify insulting me again; good one. I can't imagine why some people might entertain the notion that I possess very little respect for them.

Now that your latest insults and false-accusations have been dispensed with, we can address the on-topic aspects of your reply (wow, on-topic by page 2, with only one prompt: this must be a forum record!):

Am I in the minority? Perhaps, but as far as evaluating the merits of the issue are concerned, this is irrelevant; I concede that what discussion of the issue does/does not suggest will be subject, at least in part, to player opinion. I'll remark more on the "minority" issue a little further down.

I do think, now that we actually have achieved discourse, that you have "placed your finger" firmly on the principle: even with the player afk, characters are afforded the same rights as players; particularly since UOSA allows multi-clienting, I feel that the rights of real-human-being-players should supersede any and all rights afforded to inert-virtual-characters, in any case of conflict; all player's rights extend to all actively-played characters, but are instantly revoked to those for whom the player has actively and deliberately chosen to not be available to be accountable.

The issue remains clear, and I have stated my opinion. Regarding any and all implications of "being in a minority", I really don't care, lol, as that is largely aside from my own underlying purpose for launching this discussion: establishing precedent for (this, as well as anything that logically follows) discussion.

In a few places Derrick has remarked that staff has been examining certain issues relating to player-accountability; I feel that establishing a disposition on the issue of real-person-rights v. unattended-virtual-creation rights might prove to furnish a useful tool.

to Ripplinger,

Regarding the cited example, invigilation could prove daunting, or even impossible, except that it should not (innocently/accidentally) occur with much frequency. I agree with your inference that it is pointless to institute any injunction that can not be enforced.

This specific example is not precisely something I want changed, if only because of the potential headache it might create for staff. Mind you, as I've said, this should only happen "honestly" very rarely; people who try to use any such issue to purposely grief staff should be treated with some severity.

If a clear disposition can be rendered on the basic principle, then the staff would be able to '"add it to the arsenal", to be employed with due impartiality and discretion (I believe we all can trust the staff to behave judiciously; I've never had cause to think otherwise).

In any event, discussion has been launched.

SS

PS noxmonk:

Kindly correct your own grammar before correcting mine.

SS

[Mikel123]

Mikel,

At the end of two pages of non-discourse, it is the action of a hypocrite to accuse me of insulting "those who are trying to have a discourse"; it should be precisely evident that, in fact, exactly the opposite is what has occurred here.

"Long-winded"? My original post is followed by a full page-and-a-half of witless idiocy; ah, Newton's 4th Law: witless idiocy trumps discussion, if only because it appears most-often in less than 10 syllables.

Now, having been the original InsultER, unstead of the insultee you unrightfully claim, you attempt to justify insulting me again; good one. I can't imagine why some people might entertain the notion that I possess very little respect for them.

Now that your latest insults and false-accusations have been dispensed with, we can address the on-topic aspects of your reply (wow, on-topic by page 2, with only one prompt: this must be a forum record!):

Am I in the minority? Perhaps, but as far as evaluating the merits of the issue are concerned, this is irrelevant; I concede that what discussion of the issue does/does not suggest will be subject, at least in part, to player opinion. I'll remark more on the "minority" issue a little further down.

I do think, now that we actually have achieved discourse, that you have "placed your finger" firmly on the principle: even with the player afk, characters are afforded the same rights as players; particularly since UOSA allows multi-clienting, I feel that the rights of real-human-being-players should supersede any and all rights afforded to inert-virtual-characters, in any case of conflict; all player's rights extend to all actively-played characters, but are instantly revoked to those for whom the player has actively and deliberately chosen to not be available to be accountable.

The issue remains clear, and I have stated my opinion. Regarding any and all implications of "being in a minority", I really don't care, lol, as that is largely aside from my own underlying purpose for launching this discussion: establishing precedent for (this, as well as anything that logically follows) discussion.

In a few places Derrick has remarked that staff has been examining certain issues relating to player-accountability; I feel that establishing a disposition on the issue of real-person-rights v. unattended-virtual-creation rights might prove to furnish a useful tool.

to Ripplinger,

Regarding the cited example, invigilation could prove daunting, or even impossible, except that it should not (innocently/accidentally) occur with much frequency. I agree with your inference that it is pointless to institute any injunction that can not be enforced.

This specific example is not precisely something I want changed, if only because of the potential headache it might create for staff. Mind you, as I've said, this should only happen "honestly" very rarely; people who try to use any such issue to purposely grief staff should be treated with some severity.

If a clear disposition can be rendered on the basic principle, then the staff would be able to '"add it to the arsenal", to be employed with due impartiality and discretion (I believe we all can trust the staff to behave judiciously; I've never had cause to think otherwise).

In any event, discussion has been launched.

SS

PS noxmonk:

Kindly correct your own grammar before correcting mine.

SS

Yes, "long-winded".

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

Mikel,

if you are capable of furnishing anything with more substance, and originality, than argumentum ad hominem, I exhort you to enlighten us all.

SS