So I had the opportunity to scan Spock's reply this morning but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to respond at that time. It is gone now so I can't answer point for point but for the sake of full disclosure I stopped truly reading at the part which Flagg has quoted above because it was there I had realized he had completely failed to comprehend my point. I am not here to defend my point but to clarify.
1) I don't agree with these players activities. I said this in my first post but I think that was overlooked. Defending a position does not mean I agree with it. For example, I defend everyone's right to free speech, this doesn't mean I agree with everything they have to say.
2) I stated that calling someone a cancer was rude. This was in no way meant to cause a moral upheaval on these boards. It is my opinion that personally insulting a living, breathing person because of the manner in which they choose to play a R0le-Playing Game, which in no way violates its rules, was rude. They don't know this person and have no idea of who they are on the other side of that screen. (btw, this was the entire point of my original post but I think it got lost as I rambled on.)
3) ***Disclaimer: this is purely my opinion and is based on how I have experienced the game and I am in no way attempting to make any historical or factual assertions. It also contains broad generalizations for the sake of the point, please don't take them personally ( I don't know if I could handle hurting someone's feelings...again (sarcasm)).**** I also stated that I think that his attitude was detrimental to the game but I used his "word" against him. The word wasn't pointed at him personally but at the attitude which he was displaying. I stated this because of the way I have seen this game evolve over time. In the beginning... ( I always wanted to use that one ) bands of murders and thieves roamed our lands, let's call them Group A. They searched for prey, lets call them Group B. Group B is a social construct, founded on teamwork and community and is something to be admired. They lived in relative safety inside the confines of the cities and their personal houses, if they were lucky enough to have one back then. They formed guilds and worked cooperatively to advance in a game which was relatively dangerous for their digital alter-egos. They would continually fall prey to Group A through various forms of institutionalized murder, mostly ambushes or overwhelming force as far as I can remember. Group B was very unhappy that Group A refused to play the game in a fashion with which they approved and felt it was making things to too hard and called for change. And change they received. Trammel was born and the land of Felucca (sp?) was deserted as everyone escaped for safer pastures. This left the hunters with little prey so they had two choices: 1) click the cancel button on the accounts management page or 2) find new and more clever ways to hunt. Mostly, they took the first choice as by this point other games were starting to hit the market and they searched for new prey. Some stuck around and chose path two, we are seeing the remnants here. For a time, things went well. The new and safer lands brought even more subscriptions and the land was overpopulated to the point that even more land had to be added. However these people soon started leaving for brighter pastures as newer, shinier games were released and the lands ended up being sparsely inhabited by the remaining few. And now the developers are trying their damndest to get people back into Fel, i.e. factions, VvV, etc.. This gives the pvp'rs, murders and thieves activities to engage in since the earlier calls for change ripped their outlets from them.
So what's my point? Do games need to evolve over time? Absolutely. Do they need to evolve strictly because one group doesn't like how another group is playing? This is where the attitude which was displayed in this thread starts getting dangerous. This attitude is highly exclusionary. As I outlined above, it excludes one set of players in favor of another. That being said, this game is the property of a company and they have every right to change it as they see fit, and they make the rules which are subject to change at a moment's notice. If they choose to follow the path of exclusion then the only paths we have available to us are to either accept it and adapt or hit that cancel button. If the company does choose to change the rules to make these actions "illegal" and these players choose to continue on that newly "illegal" path then I will condemn them right along with the everyone else.
****However, I believe that this attitude of exclusionism ( is that a word? ) has done more damage to this game and its population than all of the random acts of infiltration, thievery and murder combined.****( this is more the point of this post )
Again, for the sake of full disclosure, I am a Trammie and proud of it. I venture into Fel to gather resources and hunt in the occasional dungeon but for the most part I enjoy my safe digital life. I have a guild with which I take steps to ensure that the things outlined above don't happen. I vet players who want to join and nobody gets unfettered access to guild assets unless I know them personally. So far we have been fairly successful -- which means we have fun. At the end of the day it's all about having fun. But you can still have fun while guarding against the more unsavory characters in life. I'm pretty sure you all lock your door at night.
Also, as a postscript, the tactics described above are the very definition of social engineering. I have completed several decades worth of classes as well as countless briefings on the subjects of operations security and information security. It's not a new thing and hinting that I am ignorant of the subject just because someone typed two words into a google search is...well...
I'm sure that'd be perma ban possibly paired with a call to FBI. Luckily we don't have that in UO!!
