rare drop farmers

[Astralporing.1957]

3 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

But in using the script, the owner intended for the character to interact whenever there is something interactable, so…

Seriously, that's lawyer talk. "when the victim drank that bottle, he obviously intended to do so. My client clearly labeled the bottle as poison, it's not his fault the victim was blind - of which my client was aware."

If you try to argue that the person doing the griefing honestly thought that the interaction was intended on the other user's part, you need to try harder, because we both know that is simply not true, and that the people doing those kinds of stuff know perfectly well what they are doing.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Astralporing.1957

[Gibson.4036]

6 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Seriously, that's lawyer talk. "when the victim drank that bottle, he obviously intended to do so. My client clearly labeled the bottle as poison, it's not his fault the victim was blind - of which my client was aware."

True. Perhaps I missed my real calling.

I probably should have included an emoji in my last post to indicate I’m not taking the argument seriously.

Although there are some fascinating real world questions about liability and AI.

And it’s hard not to cheer a little when someone walks their turtle through a Necrocloud and then deposits their hitchhiker in a volcano.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Gibson.4036

[Astralporing.1957]

1 minute ago, Gibson.4036 said:

And it’s hard not to cheer a little when someone walks their turtle through a Necrocloud and then deposits their hitchhiker in a volcano.

That's indeed true, but still we have rules for a reason. And the adage that "the end justifies the means" is something i consider to be both repulsive, and, which is more important, highly dangerous - because, in the end, what is a "just end" and how much can be justified in the name of it is a highly subjective matter, and very prone to escalating if not stopped in the early stages.

[Gibson.4036]

31 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

 

If you try to argue that the person doing the griefing honestly thought that the interaction was intended on the other user's part, you need to try harder, because we both know that is simply not true, and that the people doing those kinds of stuff know perfectly well what they are doing.

I wasn’t trying to argue that at all. I was pushing against the idea that there is any intent at all once a player abandons their character to be run by a script. They’ve given up control of their character, so it’s a strange thing to imagine that someone else could subvert their control.

But your point about the ends justifying the means was good, and is making me reconsider the anti-afk vigilantes.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Gibson.4036

[Sobx.1758]

13 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That's indeed true, but still we have rules for a reason. And the adage that "the end justifies the means" is something i consider to be both repulsive, and, which is more important, highly dangerous - because, in the end, what is a "just end" and how much can be justified in the name of it is a highly subjective matter, and very prone to escalating if not stopped in the early stages.

What rule? Is there a rule against using turtle mount near other players? Is someone magically bound to the mount they got on and can't leave it for some reason? In the exact same way we can't tell whether or not someone is truly afk farming, we can't truly say whether or not someone is behind their keyboard while riding someone else's turtle.

[Gibson.4036]

25 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What rule? Is there a rule against using turtle mount near other players? Is someone magically bound to the mount they got on and can't leave it for some reason? In the exact same way we can't tell whether or not someone is truly afk farming, we can't truly say whether or not someone is behind their keyboard while riding someone else's turtle.

Astral’s talking the spirit, you’re talking the letter. Astral’s talking character, you’re talking technicality.

[Sobx.1758]

32 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Astral’s talking the spirit, you’re talking the letter. Astral’s talking character, you’re talking technicality.

He's talking "slippery slope":

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

And the adage that "the end justifies the means" is something i consider to be both repulsive, and, which is more important, highly dangerous - because, in the end, what is a "just end" and how much can be justified in the name of it is a highly subjective matter, and very prone to escalating if not stopped in the early stages.

which in this case seems to be highly overblown and basically "better assume people are botting if they get on your turtle or it can snowball into terrible vigilanty stuff!". Can it though? How exactly?

Manwhile it started with "you can be punished", so it's about the rules and assumptions the players can reasonably make. At this point it's rather clear at no point the players themselves are able to reasonably establish whether or not someone is "interacting with the game while afk" and there's a gm needed to make a conclusion. This is no different in this case. Astral also said that:

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

There's no functional difference in this behaviour and putting a tp-to-death under AB meta grand chest.

Meanwhile it very much is functionally difference, since accidentally interacting with portal has potential immediate results: you can be tped somewhere and fall to the death without farily fast reactions to an unexpected event. Meanwhile accidentally mounting a turtle and then.... riding around for a few minutes is not immediate and as such nowhere near "functionally the same" as the portal.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Astralporing.1957]

54 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What rule? Is there a rule against using turtle mount near other players? Is someone magically bound to the mount they got on and can't leave it for some reason? In the exact same way we can't tell whether or not someone is truly afk farming, we can't truly say whether or not someone is behind their keyboard while riding someone else's turtle.

There's no law against using a knife, but there is a law against using a knife on someone with the intention to harm. There's no rule against phoning someone, walking near someone or visiting their house, but there are definitely rules against stalking. It's all in the intention. And in this case the intention was to move the other player's character against their will. And we can say it was so because it was clearly stated in the post that started this whole subthread.

3 hours ago, Gerebos.1065 said:

what we can do is to keep annoying the bots by dragging unwanted npcs to them,teleporting them etc.

So, please, do not try to tell me it's not intentional or actionable. The best you can claim is that may be done in a way that makes it hard to prove, but that does not make it okay or within the rules. Like Gibson mentioned, it's nothing more than having someone get out on technicality even though everyone knows they're guilty.