Abusing the Trade feature to interrupt, etc

[Argyle_Darkheart]

If it gets elevated to someone with power to make a decision, then it should be followed as the rule states, not based on what the person feels like doing as a result.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's fair. My point is: why even elevate this issue to such a degree, when you can manage it yourself? Is that not preferable? Should players be so quick to cry for GMs?

I'll reiterate that extended harassment may require GM intercession.

[Airal]

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's fair. My point is: why even elevate this issue to such a degree, when you can manage it yourself? Is that not preferable? Should players be so quick to cry for GMs?

I can see that more or less your argument is that people should fend for themselves instead of going home to cry for mommy whenever something doesn't go their way. I can respect wanting to not have to involve someone whenever you have a dispute. But the GMs are there to do a job and can't do anything about something that is not reported to them, serious or not. Part of their job is sifting through what is serious and what isn't. Their hope is that players can help to rout toxic behavior before it becomes a large-scale problem by informing GMs about it. No one's telling you that you personally have to go to a GM for every single issue, but that it should be an option for people who run into a legitimate conflict as a result of something like this or the intentional vote kick misuses (which are a totally different beast than this, I'll admit).

As long as you've gone through the proper steps against it then I don't see why informing a GM would be a problem at all.

[Bixby]

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's fair. My point is: why even elevate this issue to such a degree, when you can manage it yourself? Is that not preferable? Should players be so quick to cry for GMs?

I'll reiterate that extended harassment may require GM intercession.

That's what most companies ask you to do to begin with. Try asking them to stop, then try blacklisting them (or whatever), then report if it continues after that. Because if nothing else, if you exhaust your other options beforehand, it's a lot easier for a GM to tell that it's harassment, and makes it harder for the other party to appeal their decisions.

[whoopeeragon]

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's fair. My point is: why even elevate this issue to such a degree, when you can manage it yourself? Is that not preferable? Should players be so quick to cry for GMs?[/B]

The same could be said for resetting hunts. Look what happened.

In the end, harassment IS harassment. I don't mind playful harassment amongst friends (I've been guilty of that, by playing the game of "how low can the tank go". Sometimes I lose.) However, there's a level at which GM intervention will be brought into the issue if it escalates beyond just a pure annoyance.

I don't want to be playing a game where people maliciously harass and disrupt other people's gameplay. I don't want to have to put myself at an unwanted condition (/busy) just so I can have peace. We should be able to expect to play as the game dictates, not by the whims of human nature.

Of course, this is not by any means saying this is OFTEN. I've only seen a few cases of these, the most severe being the one I outlined before. I rarely see this issue, but unlike other forms of spammable harassment, this one escalates far up the annoyance meter.

In short, I will contact a GM in two scenarios:

1. The trade interruption causes a DEFINITIVE disruption of gameplay, noticeable via the loss of progression or harmful impact. This extends to causing a death of another player, or causing a player's duty to end or render the player unable to act according to their wishes amongst others.
2. The trade interruption persists beyond acceptable human patience levels. This involves tracking/following a player with the intent of repeatedly trading to disrupt their current activity for a certain time amongst other forms of harassment.

I would say the above two scenarios are fair reasons to contact a GM for disruptful harassment.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

The same could be said for resetting hunts. Look what happened.

Resetting hunts was a bigger issue, the way I see it. It affected all the players involved, and was much harder to deal with.

For trade-interrupts, /busy and /blist completely negate the issue. Of course, you can't always do this preemptively (and then the damage is likely already done), but you at least have definite ways to deal with it in-game.

I have no issue with anything else you wrote.

[FireHero]

Resetting hunts was a bigger issue, the way I see it. It affected all the players involved, and was much harder to deal with.

For trade-interrupts, /busy and /blist completely negate the issue. Of course, you can't always do this preemptively (and then the damage is likely already done), but you at least have definite ways to deal with it in-game.

I have no issue with anything else you wrote.

Well for a start i don't want to set my self to busy! how can i trade with my friends or get tells! you know i like to do these things with my friends!
You say black list well sorry my blacklist gets fill to often just for gold sellers!
So nether of these options work!
Yes i will report them strait away they made the choice to do it knowing what would happen to me the player.
Meany times i have had my maps ruined by people doing this why should my work go wasted cause of some trolls who think its funny!

[Niamh_Rillemaugh]

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's fair. My point is: why even elevate this issue to such a degree, when you can manage it yourself? Is that not preferable? Should players be so quick to cry for GMs?

I'll reiterate that extended harassment may require GM intercession.

Because some people cannot or would rather not manage it themselves. If somebody thinks that their issue is valid enough they should contact a GM, by all means, they should contact a GM. It is the GM's job to decide whether or not it warrants action, but a player should never feel like their problems aren't important enough to be considered. That's an easy road to self-blame and actual abuse.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

Because some people cannot or would rather not manage it themselves.

I don't see how calling a GM is a better solution than blacklisting the player (unless you really think they deserve to be banned--maybe they do).
Granted, they may not be aware of the option. (Note: I'm talking specifically about trade-griefing).

If somebody thinks that their issue is valid enough they should contact a GM, by all means, they should contact a GM. It is the GM's job to decide whether or not it warrants action, but a player should never feel like their problems aren't important enough to be considered. That's an easy road to self-blame and actual abuse.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I see your point, and it's valid. But, on the other hand, depending on GMs to solve your problems for you isn't necessarily healthy either. Not only that, it can be a terribly inefficient way of dealing with your current problem.

[Niamh_Rillemaugh]

I don't see how calling a GM is a better solution than blacklisting the player (unless you really think they deserve to be banned--maybe they do).
Granted, they may not be aware of the option. (Note: I'm talking specifically about trade-griefing).

I'm not trying to imply that calling a GM is a better option. I've been trade-griefed, I handled it. I do have at least one friend who cannot handle it though. They are one of those people who will never say anything during a dungeon run because of their social anxiety. They've locked themselves in the inn room just because somebody was following them. I do not think they would be able to handle trade-griefing and contacting the GM might seem the only way to deal with it to them. I didn't know that blacklisting or setting your status to busy would block trades, I'll let her know.