OP: I don't judge people camping by abstract moral principles, but rather by whether it is smarter for them to do so. In most cases, the smarter decision is to not camp on other PTs. This generally reduces the overall capacity of both groups. However, there are instances where one party can effectively monopolize control of the area and if this is produces greater returns (Not just equal returns), then they're making the economical choice if they do so. In most cases where parties compete for camps, it's because there's an investment for initiating the event. At 75, "good" groups were difficult to make via pick up PTs, so telling the group to accept inferior conditions or to "go home" when they can make more profitable returns than changing camps is absurd. Similarly, Dynamis has the same dynamics since they cannot just leave and return at will.