Some clarification on rules please

[Missy B]

does anyone know where this guys house is in game?

[UO19862005]

All I would have to do is complain to staff and they better tell you to quit bombing my steps if they are consistent. Small trash bombs are unfortunately illegal under this current system, no matter what the staff claims.

[nubnub]

Cry because your GM 'trash bomb' skills have been put in eternal stat loss... Now you can work on GMing another skill, 'get over it'.

[Anarcho]

I know this is not a democracy and the staff is obviously going to do whatever they want, I'm simply asking for unbiased treatment. If admins want to limit how often I legally bomb, they should have a rule for legal bombing frequency. The current unwritten policy is to clean the steps of whoever the staff wants while telling the bomber to quit even if he was 100% legal, and at the same time they can ignore other small legal trash bombs at their own discretion. Whether admins clean or not is fine with me as long as I'm not told to quit doing something which is supposed to be legal. I'm simply asking for even treatment and not ambiguous bomb frequency limits.

Dropping small trash bombs on someone's step everyday is 100% legal until someone complains about it, and even then it's still legal unless an admin tells me to quit. That's ridiculous, admins in my opinion should ignore requests to clean up small trash bombs and admins have always reserved that right to refuse help. If admins want me to quit legally bombing clean steps everyday, there should be a rule against the frequency of legal bombing. Arbitrary demands to quit legal trash bombs based on who is involved or how an admin is feeling that day is not right and it opens the door to the preferential treatment of players!

It really isn't enforceable as you've stated it and I've already said as much. How we handle this issue is clear and has been written out at length in this topic many times.

I don't think any more staff time needs to be consumed on this silly issue.

[UO19862005]

Trash bombing frequency is absolutely enforceable because it's being enforced on me as we speak, even though I never broke a rule.

This is nothing less than the preferential treatment of players, admins can't just arbitrarily pick and choose who they want to defend with trash bombs and who they want to ignore which is your current policy. If you want to enforce this bombing frequency on me, write the rule, otherwise quit harassing me.

It's clear the admins aren't going to be reasonable, so I will drop this subject and move to the shard which was born out of this same staff being unreasonable. I miss archery anyways and sword mages are unrealistic.

Who wants three 7x accounts with about 1 million gold and magic items/ weapons? I was thinking about giving it to Joe, but donating it to Vega might be funnier.

[Abyz]

I'll take it.

[Anarcho]

Trash bombing frequency is absolutely enforceable because it's being enforced on me as we speak, even though I never broke a rule.

This is nothing less than the preferential treatment of players, admins can't just arbitrarily pick and choose who they want to defend with trash bombs and who they want to ignore which is your current policy. If you want to enforce this bombing frequency on me, write the rule, otherwise quit harassing me.

It's clear the admins aren't going to be reasonable, so I will drop this subject and move to the shard which was born out of this same staff being unreasonable. I miss archery anyways and sword mages are unrealistic.

Who wants three 7x accounts with about 1 million gold and magic items/ weapons? I was thinking about giving it to Joe, but donating it to Vega might be funnier.

I think this topic is a good record of who was and wasn't being reasonable.

Good luck on your search for a more reasonable shard.

[Kaivan]

For one last reference, here's OSI's Harassment Policy during T2A. For reference, trash bombing could easily be filed under flagrant misuse of mechanics, which notably doesn't provide some exact definition for when that happens, as was being asked for here. Our rules regarding this are now well known, and spelled out as clearly as they can be.