Here's an excerpt from my post on ROT last year:
"2) They think ROT keeps away the “undesirable trouble makers,” the arses that we don’t want on our shard.
This is a very easy one to argue against. All you have to do is look around.
Does it look like our shard is filled with angels? No. Rezkilling/dry looting/crap talking/griefing is at an all time high. Honor is practically gone. Player justice is almost completely dead. Scammers/cheaters/exploiters are unchallenged and accepted into the community. And there is a far greater percentage of such people than there has been in the past. Undesirables roam freely throughout the land. The good people leave, and the few who do replace them, are often poor quality players.
But does it even make any sense for ROT in its current form to keep away the trouble makers (if you don’t want to take the time to open your eyes and see just how many we actually have)?
NO….it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Let’s think about it. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that ROT keeps away undesirables is by making a number of assumptions. People who argue this assume the following: Gamers who sit through ROT for 3-6+ months are the patient gamers. Older gamers are more patient than younger gamers. Older gamers are more mature than younger gamers. Their conclusion is that ROT “weeds out” the immature, younger games and only allows for mature, older gamers, or at least a majority of mature, older gamers.
Wooha…that’s a lot of assumptions right there. There are very many older gamers that are very immature and/or impatient just as there are a lot of younger gamers who are very mature and/or patient. Furthermore, the assumption that people who sit through 3-6+ months of training means they are the patient ones isn’t necessarily true. As an example, I myself am rather impatient in many ways and yet I sat through over six months of training. You have to consider all this. You can’t make the assumptions people opposing a major change to ROT do. But, so long as we’re on the topic of assumptions, you might find the following paragraph interesting.
Since we’re making assumptions, we can assume the following: Mature, older gamers have families. Mature, older gamers work more. Mature, older gamers have less time on their hands. Younger, immature gamers don’t have wives and children. Younger, immature gamers don’t work as much or don’t work at all. Younger, immature gamers have more time on their hands. So it can be concluded that ROT is not discouraging younger, immature players from playing on Siege, and in fact is discouraging older, mature gamers from playing on Siege since older, mature gamers have less time on their hands and skill training on Siege takes a long time to complete. How do you like that for assumptions? It goes both ways. And personally, I think the assumptions in this paragraph have more truth to them than the assumptions people who oppose a change to ROT make.
So…not only can you eliminate the “long training keeps away undesirables” argument simply by opening your eyes and looking at just how many undesirables we have, but thinking about it you can also conclude that we might have perhaps even the opposite of “long training keeping away undesirables” and long training is keeping away the quality people we want while leaving Siege open to the people we don’t."
