So resetting's against the rules now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyroc

Do you realise you just described exactly what you are doing yourself?

---

No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm telling you why I think you're wrong. My point has been that the act of resetting IS NOT INTENTIONAL DISRUPTION. The disruption is a possible side effect. It was also the opinion of this particular GM that early pulling was not disruption, which I disagree with as well.

Side effects =/= intentions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Literally none of you are even getting the point I'm making about how intent works because of your blinders. I see where you are coming from in this, I truly do, my arguments are for the sake of stopping a blanketed biased view of how resets should be handled though and because of your own feelings about it going into this you fail to see the problems I'm trying to address. There is literally no point in talking about this to people who won't listen so I'll just continue to play how I think is right and leave you all to your complaining about things here.

---

Your opinion is "resets are good" because it can help 50 additional players get credit. I can respect that and your good intentions on that. However, you are blinded if you think EVERYONE can rebuild their contribution effectively if a mob is reset. Varying circumstances and issues will arise that will invariable prevent some individuals from rebuilding their contribution. You might accept this is good anyway since the good of 50 > the good of 5.

However, the GMs cannot see that on the same level because they have to treat every customer equally. If your actions of reset even cause one individual to lose credit, and you are reported for it, the GMs will need to act upon. In order to prevent the resource use of this, the GMs would ask you to NOT RESET MARKS.

As mentioned earlier by Ashkendor, we can argue until our faces turn blue, but in my opinion you have the blinders that are covered in intent you want to help the greater good (admirable) but causes more headache and grief for the GM team in the process.

Is the implementation of hunts a flawed system? Yes. However, the server taking matters into their own hands and determining "what is right for everyone" only increases the headaches GMs have to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeiUshu

my concern is in giving GM the *RIGHT* to decide and sanction based on THEIR sole discretion ...nothing guarantees that they are impartial AND fair...

---

They have their own bosses that they report to and their own standards to follow. If they handle things poorly, they get evaluated as they would at any job. At the end of the day, the GM works for SE and we do not. The GM has the ability to act on their interpretation of the rules. We can interpret all day but it comes down to nothing more than pages and pages of debate. Whether or not we think it's correct or fair is pretty much immaterial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

My point has been that the act of resetting IS NOT INTENTIONAL DISRUPTION.

---

According to the GM, it absolutely is though. He/she even went as far as to say that disruption does not have to be successful in order to be considered as such. Even if you don't manage to reset the mob, it's still considered to be disruption simply because you deliberately attempted to do so. Even if everyone still gets full credit for it, it's still considered disruption. All of us understand that your intent is not to take seals away from the people already fighting the mark, but the fact is it has happened numerous times as a side-effect of the resets.

I've been skimming his thread, mostly looking for Dev comments / posts.

I want to give a big Thank You to Enkrateia for the clarity (s)he has provided (I'm on page 16 when I stopped reading)

Arguments have been made that this pits the "Rights of the Few" (who found it, or are solo/low manning the content) VS the "needs of the many" (hunt LS/FC/Friends/server, who are trying to collect Allied Seals)

Given my experience with hunts, these seem to be the Points to take away at this time.

• Hunting Elite Marks has great potential for character advancement.
• This advancement can be shared with almost an entire server at a time.
• People hunting for advancement (typically) wish to share this, assisting the entire server at a time, instead of a few people.
• Many of these people feel they are entitled to this, or that 'sharing' is the right thing to do.
• This sense of entitlement is false.
• A Characters progression does not hinge upon their obtainment of full completion for every Elite Mark ever spawned.
• Pulling Early does not actually disrupt game play for people hunting marks, it is just an inconvenience.
  disrupt - interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.
  Event = killing an Elite Mark. Resetting prevents a player currently attacking an elite Mark from killing it.
  Pulling Early prevents characters en route from attacking. It doesn't disrupt the event, it prevents the event.
• Players should not actually feel required to wait for other people or risk not getting full credit.
• Players who die, or get slept, petrified, etc, during a fight with Elite Marks, lose credit when a Mark is reset.
• There are many situations where this results in 0 credit after a mark is reset.
• This loss of credit should be avoided a all cost, unless the only victims of this loss agree and accept the loss.
• This should should not be forced upon unwilling players/individuals.

As players, we should encourage people to wait and share the Elite Marks, and yet understand we are not entitled to this. I am guilty as referring to people who pull early / fight solo with derogatory sentiments myself - but I do understand I am not entitled to take part in the fight. The big difference is, if we wait, and work together as a community, the whole community gets to advance. If you join a full party, most fights, as long as every member of the party hits the mob a few times, you will all get full credit. When that is understood, the question to ask yourself is, why wouldn't you wait? I can't seem to come up with a solution, that doesn't circle back to the person being selfish - but that is my problem to deal with, not theirs.

*****
To Address a different style of intended reset, which I would hope the GM's would generally not consider Griefing:
*****
Enkrateia Already sated that (s)he does not like to deal with hypthetical situations. So I expect this to not be 'solved' by a GM unless the scenario is reported, and will be handled by a GM, and I will agree with whatever conclusion a GM comes to.

Scenario: Party A Finds hunt mark. Party A calls out in the area, accross FC, and linkshells, waits a few minutes, and Party B Shows up, but not a lot of people / they don't have confirmation that other people are actually on the way.

Party A pulls the monster, and they begin to fight. Party B joins in.

party A then see's shouts in zone, and realize that they are killing the monster quickly, the party opts to reset to allow other people to get there. Party A then resets. Party B reports Party A for Griefing.

I would hope, that the GM's would side more often than not, with the party who found the elite mark, regardless of the outcome. I feel that if anybody is right or wrong, it should more often than not go to the people who located the mark and started the fight.

Note that the scenario changes very quickly, if Party B also found without assistance and/or started the fight. The example hinges upon people who find the mark without assistance, and start the fight on their own. These requirements also make this a very rare circumstance.

I will continue to operate in this manner (if I find / pull a mark, and then opt to reset.) unless a GM communicates with me directly to warn me or indicate I should not, and I will not be resetting any monsters that I did not find on my own, and pull myself.

There is no need to reply to or grief me in this thread, as I probably won't end up finding i again to continue to discuss, I just hope that my opinions bring clarity to my colleagues who are hunting for the communities sake, so that we do not suffer and get each other banned etc for breaching ToS.

As the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghishlain

Your opinion is "resets are good" because it can help 50 additional players get credit....

---

And pulling early could cause 50 people to lose credit as well. It was the opinion of this GM that the act of early pulling is not disruption, but since the ToS are not clearly defined I see it as more disruptive to deny 50 people mark points than 5 people mark points. This is my interpretation and there is no reason for it to be any less valid than your interpretation. 50 GM reports for harassment > 5 reports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm telling you why I think you're wrong. My point has been that the act of resetting IS NOT INTENTIONAL DISRUPTION. The disruption is a possible side effect. It was also the opinion of this particular GM that early pulling was not disruption, which I disagree with as well.

Side effects =/= intentions

---

I get what you're saying as well. And I also agree that your intention was not to disrupt others. However, your intent WAS TO RESET the mark which had the flow on affect of disrupting someone else's gameplay. Intent to reset is the key here, not intent to disrupt. The fact that you did something on purpose, that resulted in another players gameplay being disrupted gives them the right to report you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyroc

I get what you're saying as well. And I also agree that your intention was not to disrupt others. However, your intent WAS TO RESET the mark which had the flow on affect of disrupting someone else's gameplay. Intent to reset is the key here, not intent to disrupt. The fact that you did something on purpose, that resulted in another players gameplay being disrupted gives them the right to report you.

---

Actually intent to disrupt is the only thing you can be punished for in terms of reported harassment. That way this is going the GM is trying to say that by resetting you are intentionally disrupting other players, which is improper use of the word. His definition of what you could be punished for is wrong to me and though I doubt I'd ever get in trouble for it on Goblin, I'd totally sympathize for anyone punished because of this terrible interpretation of the ToS by a particular GM. By your logic here spiritbonding on water sprites could be considered disruption if other players were trying to kill water sprites there for crystals and you were in a full party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

Actually intent to disrupt is the only thing you can be punished for in terms of reported harassment. That way this is going the GM is trying to say that by resetting you are intentionally disrupting other players, which is improper use of the word. His definition of what you could be punished for is wrong to me and though I doubt I'd ever get in trouble for it on Goblin, I'd totally sympathize for anyone punished because of this terrible interpretation of the ToS by a particular GM

---

It's not just going to be that one particular GM, though. Before posting something like that on the official forums, they most likely would've had to check with their highers-up or at least their colleagues. GM's are typically the customer service reps of a game company. They are the front line people that you talk with and the ones that enforce policies, not the decision makers that write/make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

It's not just going to be that one particular GM, though. Before posting something like that on the official forums, they most likely would've had to check with their highers-up or at least their colleagues. GM's are typically the customer service reps of a game company. They are the front line people that you talk with, not the decision makers that write/make policy.

---

The GMs are just enforcers and typically players. The community managers are the reps you're thinking of, like Bayohne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appleh4x

The GMs are just enforcers and typically players. The community managers are the reps you're thinking of, like Bayohne

---

Take a guess what that L is for in LGM.