Admins might for party!

[Lidge Farkley]

Sorry, let me clarify:

Missed- as in didn't understand in the way particle was trying to explain it to you.

Chose to ignore- as in; saw it was Particles name and ignored it (this was the sarcastic of the two.)

Morals- as in their minds built up a psychollogical defense based on what they percieved as a negative moral action (thievery) by your 3 characters against them.  This psychological defense caused them to team up against you 3 to gather what was in the end percieved as inciminating evidence.

Wether or not thievery is LEGAL in the server, it still may be percieved as immoral.  The idea of an RPG is not to enforce what people do, but for the people to role-play the roll and thus enforce it on their own, both thief and unthief alike.

Incapable- those who can't accept the rules as the rules and those who would gather "evidence" to inciminate you 3 because they feel vengefull.  I always avoid people who complain about everything.  I don't help them and I don't harm them, and if they try to get me involved in a duel/fight or thievery, I go to an other zone, or load up a different character.  (well, I used to do all of these things.)


No matter what is said for thieves in TRPG I still stand by these ideas:

If you must steal, do it in the obscure... when they're not expecting it ("training" endurance maybe) or when they are not all ready in a compromised position such as a tent block or fighting with a casting uber. Avoid confrontation like real thieves do; log off when you are targeted or shortly after you mug so they may forget you sooner if they notice, have a backup character if your main thief gets too "hot" for the server in recognition.

Play the thief character as if you were a thief, as if you would not like to be caught and would not like to be punished, like a true thief.

[Silvanoshei]

Missed- as in didn't understand in the way particle was trying to explain it to you.

I understood him just fine. If you think that I didn't, then why don't you explian it better?

Morals- as in their minds built up a psychollogical defense based on what they percieved as a negative moral action (thievery) by your 3 characters against them.  This psychological defense caused them to team up against you 3 to gather what was in the end percieved as inciminating evidence.

For one thing, none of these characters are mine. In fact, I haven't step foot in this server since it was cleared. I'm fighting because I believe this to be wrong. Secondly, it really doesn't matter why they accused the cleared individuals, since no matter how you slice it, the bottom line is that they did. And they did it with no proof. You can explain philosophy and psychology all you want; it doesn't change the fact that they just pointed fingers without proof.

The idea of an RPG is not to enforce what people do, but for the people to role-play the roll and thus enforce it on their own, both thief and unthief alike.

What does clearing have to do with role-playing? Clearing should have nothing to do with role-playing; it should be completely objective and devoid of morals. If you want to PK someone because they stole, then go ahead. Clearing is a different story.


The bottom line is, you think these characters should be cleared because stealing is immoral. Blah blah blah, people will try to strike back against these thieves. But we're not arguing something done to do with RPG, are we? No. We're not. The topic today is clearing, which has nothing to do with morals. Got it?

(Besides, as I've said before: what the hell is moral about lying and deleting people's hard work on a whim?)

[Particle]

Guys, I didn't post that to argue.  I'm saying what I've done and how it's going to be.  Silv, if you can't accept it, you are welcome to leave.  I'm not going to force you or insist, though.

[Silvanoshei]

I knew that from the beginning.

The only point left to this thread is to make it clear that these characters were cleared on a whim, not because they actualy did anything wrong.

[Lidge Farkley]

The bottom line is, you think these characters should be cleared because stealing is immoral. Blah blah blah, people will try to strike back against these thieves. But we're not arguing something done to do with RPG, are we? No. We're not. The topic today is clearing, which has nothing to do with morals. Got it?

I never said that.  I said that because the players that were pointing fingers felt that they were being treated immorally, they teamed up to use an outside source to punish you.

What I am saying is:  If someone is going to be a theif, regardless of the legality of their actions according to the rules, they should expect people to gang up on them to get their characters punished for not liking their actions however messed up that may be.

The idea of an RPG is not to enforce what people do, but for the people to role-play the roll and thus enforce it on their own, both thief and unthief alike.

This was said in support of your situation and was followed up by the reitteration of how to avoid getting a bunch or inept peope to gang up on and destroy you.

I understood him just fine.

Once again I am not trying to be a jerk or anything like that, but I'm saying that if you understood him then you'd understand that he felt he had ample evidence to do what he did and that he didn't feel it was on a whim.  --at least, that's what it looks like he said to me. ;-)

I'm not arguing against you man, I'm trying to rationalize what happened so we can avoid this type of character clearing occurence in the future.

[Silvanoshei]

Once again, I haven't entered the server since it cleared. These aren't my characters (any of them).

Anyway, he said himself that the only piece of evidence he had was that screenshot, which doesn't prove anything. I don't understand how that is "ample" evidence. Care to explain?

[Lidge Farkley]

he felt he had ample evidence

I cannot explain how Particle felt.

Based on the dictionary.com results, I would not say he acted on a whim as it wasn't impulsive.  He appeared to have a reason that was enough to cause him to do what he did.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whim
also adding arbitrary...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
as they use each other to describe each other, and in arbitrary it points to whim and arbitrary as being acting with out thought or reason.

[Silvanoshei]

with out thought or reason.

Enough said.

[Lidge Farkley]

he felt he had ample evidence

He thought he had reason in evidence to do what he did at the time.

[Silvanoshei]

Jesus Christ, for the eleventy-seventh time...

The only evidence he had was a screenshot that proves nothing. How is that "ample evidence"? It's not. Just because he cleared them does not mean "he felt he had ample evidence", because he had none. He had none. He had none. He had none. He had none.

If you don't get it this time, I'm not repeating it again.

[Lidge Farkley]

I doubt he just decided to clear the three characters for no reason at all.  

He obviously thought he had a reason to do it.  If he didn't think he had a reason, we both know, he wouldn't have done the clearing.  So obviously this leaves him thinking he had a reason as the only possibility.

We don't know what he was thinking of how he felt, but we cannot tell him he had no reason if he himself thought at the time of the clearing that he had a reason to do the clearing.  It would be illogical for him to clear 3 characters at random as you keep insisting.

[Silvanoshei]

Oh, for fork's sake. You don't read anything I say, do you? Read this thread again.

[Lidge Farkley]

Ohh bypass swear filter!  Ban! ;-) hehehe...

Well, I read them the first time and I read them again.  All of the responses I gave make sense in their context... so I don't know what else to say.

Perhaps neither one of us is addressing the same issue, or we both are addressing it in manners that don't work together for a discussion of the issue.

If that is the case then the discussion is at a stoped point and I have nothing further to add or say as we are not on the same issue.

Peace.

[Silvanoshei]

Well, Particle "decided" what he was doing a while ago.

[goose_gooseling]

Particle just doesn't care is what it comes down to. In his posted explanation, it showed that he couldn't really explain why he was so quick to act without any real proof, and just told us to stop arguing about it. I'm sure he's a smart enough guy to realize that it could have been anyone else. And the only way he could get pass the fact that the screenshot didn't show anything at all, was to say that it was his ONLY proof.
I tried to reason with him at first. For some unknown reason, he wanted proof that it WASN'T my tent, instead of having proof that it WAS my tent.
I find it a little ironic that he's one to critisize Bush's decisions.