UO Second Age

Requiring a "cheat sheet" to communicate in my native language is not a deficiency I possess. People who do possess that deficiency can correct it, or cope with yet another personal inadequacy.

Ripplinger & Kaivan have provided discourse regarding the principle, and point to the difficulty of providing any kind of fair and consistent invigilation. Naturally, this must be a valid consideration, however any "official standpoint" is to be defined.

Amongst detritus, some members of the community have stated the opinion of maintaining the extension of the player's rights to the character, even when the player is afk; "grey area" scenarios were appended. Anyone is entitled to adopt this posture, but I've already pointed to the potential problem of accountability.

To place everything relevant together in one place, I'll reiterate my opinion that any player's rights should be extended only to characters that are actively played, to be revoked when a character is left afk; this eliminates any accountability issues.

I feel compelled to add the following clarification, unneccessary for those who actually read: the proposed clarification, if implemented, would not kick all afk-macroers; it would not launch a pogrom against afk macroers; it would not be employed as a discriminatory tool to favor one (type of) player or character over another; it would affect very little, excepting the "rights" presently available to griefers.

This begs the question of why this idea has generated the quantity of screaming, hissing, whining and flinging of poo that it has ... ?

noxmonk, you don't want the safety off. BTW, there was no need to tell anyone that your "glass is empty" (wow, you don't even understand a metaphor that has been extant in western society for almost 1000 years); patently, your "glass" doesn't possess any unique distinction.

SS

Exactly, Bob Dobbs; thank you for helping me illustrate the point.

SS

I wasn't.

Don't misunderstand me: I fully understand that you intended to do something else, yet achieved precisely the opposite.

When reality diametrically contradicts your intentions, perhaps it's advisable to re-evaluate those intentions.

SS

Perhaps we simply have different perspectives, and it really isn't a matter of you being superior to anyone else.

Shocking, I know.

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:Ripplinger & Kaivan have provided discourse regarding the principle, and point to the difficulty of providing any kind of fair and consistent invigilation. Naturally, this must be a valid consideration, however any "official standpoint" is to be defined.

The official standpoint is defined. Enforcing the principle idea, which has a very limited effect in the first place, requires an enormous amount of work to properly enforce in each step of the process, and is highly susceptible to abusive behavior, all for an exceedingly minor gain. I could go into the specifics in so much as to break down the environments where this issue can theoretically arise and I could also spend the time to point out the specific issues with enforcement at each step, but its an unnecessary level of specificity.

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:Ripplinger & Kaivan have provided discourse regarding the principle, and point to the difficulty of providing any kind of fair and consistent invigilation. Naturally, this must be a valid consideration, however any "official standpoint" is to be defined.

Mods, please lock or move to Trash Talk. The OP received responses from the forum population of the shard, received a response from the staff, and is far enough out of touch with reality to not realize Kaivan's post IS the "official standpoint". The suggestion has been explored and a conclusion was reached. Since Kaivan's post, nothing constructive or useful has come of this thread.

I swear I am not Kaivan.

Kaivan,

I did read, and fully understand, what you said when you entered the discussion.

Thank you.

SS