PSA: ATTN - If you are bound in raid zones, read this

[Sirken]

Hello!

it was brought to my attention that some players are still bound in raid zones that do not allow binding.

other than timorous deep, you should not be bound in a non bindable raid zone.

anyone caught bound in a non bindable raid zone after July 1st will risk a suspension or possible ban, depending how badly it is abused.


Sincerely
and with love,

Sirks

[p-niner]

1

[gloinz]

is city o mist a raid zone?

[SamwiseRed]

troriste still bound at the bottom of perma?

[p-niner]

is city o mist a raid zone?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/ffc21bde6697138c9207eee205402ea7/tumblr_mmrtb922fT1r8amrto1_500.gif

[Nizzarr]

ban people bound in EJ/DL/skyfire.

better update "raid zones" for kunark then.

[p-niner]

ban people bound in EJ/DL/skyfire.

better update "raid zones" for kunark then.

nah

I believe rule in classic was no binding allowed in solb/perma

stop exploiting bro

[Sirken]

ban people bound in EJ/DL/skyfire.

better update "raid zones" for kunark then.

non bindable raidzones doesnt equal all zones with a dragon.

L2readingcomprehension

[Nizzarr]

non bindable raidzones doesnt equal all zones with a dragon.

L2readingcomprehension

might wanna review which zones need to be tagged as raid zones then.

Whats the big deal with being bound in solb or permafrost?

[Nizzarr]

No one barely does nagafen or vox on the red server, these zones arent raid zones at all. Just remove the limitations already.

I understand some poeple are still bound in plane of fear, theyre just relic from the past though.

still dont understand why youd make a post about it.

[p-niner]

nah

I believe rule in classic was no binding allowed in solb/perma

stop exploiting bro

[Sirken]

might wanna review which zones need to be tagged as raid zones then.

Whats the big deal with being bound in solb or permafrost?

the raid ones. with raid mobs. that are not bindable.

the big deal is that the zones are not bindable and gives some player an unfair and unintended advantage. if we wanted players bound there, we'd allow binding there.


got it?

[p-niner]

No one barely does nagafen or vox on the red server, these zones arent raid zones at all. Just remove the limitations already.

I understand some poeple are still bound in plane of fear, theyre just relic from the past though.

still dont understand why youd make a post about it.

"my guild and I are done exploiting this mechanic because we no longer need to kill naggy and vox, therefore this rule is dumb and should be lifted now"

[Nizzarr]

so whats the unfair advantages of being bound in solb or permafrost as a caster?

[Pudge]

obviously that you could just sit there to monitor the zone/as a spy and cannot be ejected even if you get pvp'd to death

[Smedy]

nizzar seems upset

monk botb still haunting his dreams, poor guy

[Agatha]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/ffc21bde6697138c9207eee205402ea7/tumblr_mmrtb922fT1r8amrto1_500.gif

lolin hard

[Elderan]

the raid ones. with raid mobs. that are not bindable.

the big deal is that the zones are not bindable and gives some player an unfair and unintended advantage. if we wanted players bound there, we'd allow binding there.


got it?

This made sense in classic.

But not now. No reason solb/perma should be labeled as a raid zone anymore.

[heartbrand]

I know it will come off as "supporting the company line" or some shit but if we are going to do this can we start flagging sky fire / ej / dl / KC as raid zones? What's more unfair, being able to be bound in permafrost where vox has been up for a couple of months or being able to be bound in KC where you can bind rush people doing VS?

[Sickpuppy]

Waaa waaah waaah .. Alot of sore aasholes in this thread

[heartbrand]

My care factor is like negative ten out of ten, I just don't get the logic of cracking down on obsolete zones while not applying same logic to adding a zone like KC where this has been "abused." Unlike most of the people in this thread, including Sirken, I actually played here when they added this rule to sol b and perma and the logic used at the time should extend to Kunark zones as well. RIP abysal / friedchicken / hollix accounts.

[p-niner]

not too hard to understand

rule was set during classic that solb/perma were flagged as PvP zones and binding in them was prohibited.

Nizzar exploited this and his druid stayed bound in permafrost, as a result, he was able to go to bear pit, agro 2, gate back to the lair cubby hole, and charm bears to slay vox.

IMO - all vox kills as a result of the Nizzar exploited bind should be deleted.

Even better, entire guild should be suspended, leadership banned, and a global message saying cheating is not allowed is appropriate.

[heartbrand]

How is it an "exploit" if there was never a written or even verbal rule against it? Also, wouldn't the same logic that was used to create this rule now extend to a zone such as KC? Why are you pigeon holing and fixated on just Permafrost and ignoring Fear or Sol B in your mini dissertation? Your modus operandi seems to be just hatred of Nihilum and Nizzar and therefore you'll write anything to further that purpose, while disregarding the logic that was used at the time and how it applies or does not apply currently.

[Lazortag]

might wanna review which zones need to be tagged as raid zones then.

Whats the big deal with being bound in solb or permafrost?

"I disagree with the rules, therefore, it's okay for me to break them"

[p-niner]

How is it an "exploit" if there was never a written or even verbal rule against it? Also, wouldn't the same logic that was used to create this rule now extend to a zone such as KC? Why are you pigeon holing and fixated on just Permafrost and ignoring Fear or Sol B in your mini dissertation? Your modus operandi seems to be just hatred of Nihilum and Nizzar and therefore you'll write anything to further that purpose, while disregarding the logic that was used at the time and how it applies or does not apply currently.

im not gonna go searching a post from classic, but it WAS written AND verbally ruled that these PVP zones were NOT BINDABLE

L2LAWYER

[heartbrand]

You're right, you need to learn to lawyer because simply positing something as fact without any proof does nothing to bolster your argument.

[heartbrand]

"I disagree with the rules, therefore, it's okay for me to break them"

Where did he say it's "ok" to "break" them? First of all, "breaking them" implies that prior to this post it has always been disallowed to keep your bind here, yet there's no post or rule anywhere that says such. Secondly, he's not saying it's "ok" to now break the rule, just that it doesn't make logical sense to apply this rule to these zones and not now extend them to others or to revisit which zones deserve said tag and which one's don't. No where did he say he is going to refuse to comply with this now new rule. And how is it even possible to be "breaking" the rule when Sirken gave everyone until July 1st to change it, therefore meaning that the deadline hasn't even arrived? Your logic is pitiful.

[Sickpuppy]

Sirken. You need to step your game up bro only way people learn is if you start swinging that ban hammer I bet tey would change their bind ASAP then with no questions asked

[heartbrand]

Sirken. You need to step your game up bro only way people learn is if you start swinging that ban hammer I bet tey would change their bind ASAP then with no questions asked

Isn't that exactly what he posted on post #1 he will do come July 1st? /boggle

[Sickpuppy]

This was a rule that has always been around just never enforced .. You fucking scrubs need to stop cheating on a 14 year old elf simulator it's fucking pathetic

[heartbrand]

This was a rule that has always been around just never enforced .. You fucking scrubs need to stop cheating on a 14 year old elf simulator it's fucking pathetic

Please quote me the rule, I look forward to reading it.

[heartbrand]

P.S. Lazortag, here's your prior stance

Can somebody please tell me what's wrong with just keeping training illegal? Are there any guides that have said, "man, training is so hard to enforce, I wish it were legal so that I could have more time to do other things"?

As for disabling binding in raid zones, let's just try the classic solution first (making casters respawn oom). Nilbog said in IRC that this was coming soon I think. Maybe Fear should have binding disabled but apart from that there are no zones that should have binding disabled that didn't already have it disabled in classic.

now suddenly it's a huge "exploit" being used to "break" rules.

Disabling binding in dungeons is silly and unnecessary. Why is the classic solution not good enough? We can at least try it before dismissing it.

[Sickpuppy]

I'm not wasting my time digging threw forums to prove you wrong my name isn't nirgon and stop playing stupid we all know it was a rule

[heartbrand]

I'm not wasting my time digging threw forums to prove you wrong my name isn't nirgon and stop playing stupid we all know it was a rule

Because there is no such rule, but if you can find it I'll give you 100k.

[heartbrand]

I looked through everything, all that ever happened was that proposed non classic rule changes were made, one of them was disabling binding in FFA zones. This non-classic change was then instituted with a patch on 4/22/12. No accompanying note that people needed to change the bind was added with the patch. In fact, for months in Fear Holocaust / FF / Nihilum all took advantage of their legacy fear binds for farming fear. Not a peep was heard from anyone, including you sickpuppy who took part on some of these raids. The bind was considered "legacy" much like fire pots bind. Now suddenly the Nihilum haters are coming out to talk about how it's an evil "exploit" being "abused" in FUCKING PERMAFROST. LOL

[Lazortag]

The fact that there are other zones that should be considered raid zones doesn't absolve anyone of binding in zones that are currently considered raid zones, when that functionality was removed. It's patently obvious that if you're not allowed to bind in a certain zone, and you're still bound in that zone, then you're exploiting. This was an issue on the blue server where punishment was threatened for people who were still bound in Seb after it wasn't allowed anymore.

It's not *that* big of a deal in that you don't derive much of an advantage from being bound in Perma, but you still get some unfair advantage, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise (any time you're able to do things that others are prohibited from doing, you definitionally have an advantage over them).

edit: Heartbrand, I read your response, realized nothing in it was relevant, and decided to write nothing further about it.

[heartbrand]

It's patently obvious that if you're not allowed to bind in a certain zone, and you're still bound in that zone, then you're exploiting.

Except it's not patently obvious, perhaps to you it is, but to those of us who look to written and clear rules for guidance on how to behave, there has been no such rule for 14 months. During these 14 months not one thing has ever been mentioned on the subject, nor was there at the time of the rule, despite the fact that throughout this period some people have kept their bind. GM's have seen people keep the bind. Not one peep was uttered by anyone until now. Yet you say it's "obvious" it's exploiting, despite having no prior ruling to defend your position. I think the only thing that's "obvious" is your idiocy.

[heartbrand]

Is invis pulling "obviously" exploiting as well? What about keeping your bind @ TD Pots after Verant realized the game breaking nature of said bind? Was that also "obviously" exploiting? Being able to buff level 1's with level 60 buffs isn't classic and is being changed, is doing so right now "obviously" exploiting as well? Please, enlighten me with your vast knowledge of what else is "obviously" exploiting.



PvP Server
Binding has been disabled in FFA Zones.




That's all we have on the subject. Somehow you've extrapolated from that one sentence that keeping the bind is exploiting. So, in defense of my argument we have fourteen plus months of silence, zero posts or comments on retaining the bind, zero precedent for it being against the rules. In your defense you have that it is "obviously" exploiting. We call a statement or a "defense" like that in law a conclusory statement, I hope your day to day logic is better than your ForumQuest logic.

Here's a link with some examples of conclusory statements to help improve your logic in the future: http://members.shaw.ca/tjromaniuk/wp02v04p05.htm

[Sickpuppy]

Holy shit just change your fucking bind spot it's not that big of a deal

[Sickpuppy]

HB you seem to not understand . Sirken is the fcking man he tells you to jump you say how high he says change your bind you say where to .. Don't fucking question his authority ou scum

[heartbrand]

How is anyone questioning authority or refusing to comply? All I'm pointing out is to the haters who are like "LOL U GUYS EXPLOITIN" that prior to this post, for the last 14 months, not a single rule or utterance has ever been mentioned / published / broadcast that has ever even slightly implicated that keeping your bind is / was against the rules.

[Andis]

This made sense in classic.

But not now. No reason solb/perma should be labeled as a raid zone anymore.

lol just cuz its not being farmed weekly like it used to, doesnt mean it should be changed

still a raid zone, whether farmed or not

[heartbrand]

lol just cuz its not being farmed weekly like it used to, doesnt mean it should be changed

still a raid zone, whether farmed or not

So do you think KC should be a raid zone as well? Surely you would agree that if Vox, a mob rarely if ever killed with lackluster loot is a "raid mob", then VS who drops BiS greaves for every class / epic drops, should be considered a "raid mob" as well and hence the zone should be labeled a raid zone? After all, both Vox and VS are 7 day spawns, level 55 mobs, and traditionally greatly contested.

p.s., you might want to ring Abysal to change his bind point from fear before he eats a ban for this

[p-niner]

Sirken, I actually played here when they added this rule to sol b and perma and the logic used at the time.

How is it an "exploit" if there was never a written or even verbal rule against it.

Not sure if bad lawyer or idiot

[big league chew]

rofl

[Andis]

So do you think KC should be a raid zone as well? Surely you would agree that if Vox, a mob rarely if ever killed with lackluster loot is a "raid mob", then VS who drops BiS greaves for every class / epic drops, should be considered a "raid mob" as well and hence the zone should be labeled a raid zone? After all, both Vox and VS are 7 day spawns, level 55 mobs, and traditionally greatly contested.

p.s., you might want to ring Abysal to change his bind point from fear before he eats a ban for this

um no

I think zones that are labeled raid zones have been labeled raid zones for a reason

and zones that have not been labeled raid zones, have not been for a reason

just cuz a certain mob is in one zone does not make it a raid zone

it is the way of the eq game

[heartbrand]

Your two quotes make no sense in connection with your argument. Removing binding from FFA zones was a rule suggested by the player base, the logic was that people could bind rush you from the bind point and disrupt raids. There were arguments on both sides, I tend to favor the argument that once casters spawned with zero mana [classic] that there was no need for such a change, but that doesn't matter. The change eventually went in with little to no fan fair on 4/22/12. There was no rule stating that now you must remove your prior bind points, only a one sentence statement accompanying the patch stating that binding has now been disabled in FFA zones. It was well known that many people retained their "legacy" binds. The binds never ended up being used in the way that they were feared to begin with anyway, and the issue was really never brought up again until yesterday.

[heartbrand]

um no

I think zones that are labeled raid zones have been labeled raid zones for a reason

and zones that have not been labeled raid zones, have not been for a reason

just cuz a certain mob is in one zone does not make it a raid zone

it is the way of the eq game

What is the reason then out of curiosity, and wouldn't Vox be the epitome of this strange logic? You have one outdated level 55 mob sitting in a low level dungeon and it's flagged a "raid" zone, as opposed to KC, a high level zone with the best item in the game [t-staff] and a current raid mob.

[Nirgon]

There should be no unlimited level range in solb/perma, there wasn't in classic.

Sirken, Nizzar views the rules here as optional and don't be suprised when he moves his bind at the very last second when push comes to shove.

Heartbrand, that's enough coats of shine on the wheel chair, shut up about it and do as Sirken says.

[heartbrand]

There should be no unlimited level range in solb/perma, there wasn't in classic.

Sirken, Nizzar views the rules here as optional and don't be suprised when he moves his bind at the very last second when push comes to shove.

Heartbrand, that's enough coats of shine on the wheel chair, shut up about it and do as Sirken says.

So what you're stating then if I'm correct, is that Sol B and Perma were never FFA zones, and hence the definition of what is or is not a FFA zone has been arbitrarily applied and therefore open to criticism, on red99? So that would mean that we should potentially revisit then what zones have this FFA [non-classic] tag as well I would think.

[Nirgon]

Hence stfu do it

[Andis]

again dont matter what was and what is currently

these zones were labeled raid zones for a reason

life isnt fair, there will be no explanation for everything, is all i can say

[heartbrand]

again dont matter what was and what is currently

these zones were labeled raid zones for a reason

life isnt fair, there will be no explanation for everything, is all i can say

The "reason" is not classic, it has no basis in classic EverQuest, which supposedly is what the vision of this server is. Therefore, since the application of FFA to zones was arbitrarily made over a year and a half ago, I would think we could re-visit the issue now to see if it's working as intended or not. My belief is that there is no need for this non-classic addition now that casters spawn with zero mana, but if you're going to stick with it then you MUST make KC a FFA non-bind zone as well since bind-rushing tactics have been used there repeatedly during VS raids, which is supposedly the reason the FFA tags and non-binding change were instituted to prevent.

[heartbrand]

Hence stfu do it

I expect better out of you Nirgon on a subject of non-classic changes to EQ with a ruling that makes no sense and has no basis in classic EQ. Your bias and hatred for people on a server you don't play is clouding your vision and leading you to espouse views that are contrary to your very core and essence, "Classic".

[Nirgon]

I see your point and ban Nizzar and Tune for stripping Beo

[heartbrand]

Please point me to the rule about transferring items from shared accounts.

[Sirken]

How is it an "exploit" if there was never a written or even verbal rule against it?
LOL. really man?

so by your logic, its technically not an exploit until someone makes the staff aware of it? logic so incredibly flawed

[p-niner]

HB lawyering beats himself. Oil Baron XantILLE would be embarrassed to be lumped in with you as a member of the same alumni.

Says make all dragon zones no bind, then explains how perma and solb are unbindablr becausr considered FFA zones.

Not... sure... if... srs.

[Nirgon]

Sirken I'm going to save you from this, just try and decide which lense you should view their posts with.

I suggest the "shut up and do it" approach.

[Gustoo]

Nirgon is right.

"Classic" needs to stop being a reason for anything on this custom server. I totally love it but it makes me ill having the worst features of classic while all of the important aspects are completely non classic.

Give us a classic ruleset and work on classic resists and IMO most importantly classic NPC aggro in city zones.

Then "classic" can justifiably be used as a reason for anything here.

I'm not saying that changing raid zone bind rules isn't a good idea but don't say it is for a classic experience because as mentioned FFA zones are not classic and you seem to like those. Just say you think its good for the box.

Thanks for all your hard work devs.

[heartbrand]

LOL. really man?

so by your logic, its technically not an exploit until someone makes the staff aware of it? logic so incredibly flawed

Amelinda was well aware of it. It has been FOURTEEN months with ZERO comment on the issue, and even at the time of the debate of changes to red, not once was there a proposal of retroactive change to peoples binds. NO ONE, not a single person, EVER took the stance that retroactive removal of binds was appropriate or would be enforced, over the course of a two month debate of changes to Red, and not one post or comment was made by a GM on the issue, including ones such as Amelinda who witnessed it. To now call it an "exploit" seems pretty ludicrous to me given these facts. I have ZERO issue with now going forward instituting this rule, I just take issue with it being called an "exploit", and it seems to be in line with everything else on this server, rules made up and changed on the whim with zero idea for the players what is an exploit what is not what is legal what is not.

[heartbrand]

HB lawyering beats himself. Oil Baron XantILLE would be embarrassed to be lumped in with you as a member of the same alumni.

Says make all dragon zones no bind, then explains how perma and solb are unbindablr becausr considered FFA zones.

Not... sure... if... srs.

Where did I ever say that? I illustrated how the logic contradicts itself. You have custom FFA rules for Sol B and Perma and based upon the logic for said rules it should extend to KC as well, but it does not. I apologize that this mind blowing logic went over your head.

[hagard]

How is it an "exploit" if there was never a written or even verbal rule against it?

God dam how did u make it thru college???

[Nirgon]

No my reason is you should do what Sirken tells you to do and stop thinking you actually are in charge here.

It's obviously not classic, I'm not here, I give 0 fucks but show Sirken some respect.

[Nirgon]

You know what else it doesn't say in writing in the rules? Don't be a dumb ass.

So how can you be a dumb ass acting like a dumb ass if there's nothing saying don't act like a dumb ass.

[karsten]

guys my whole schooling and career has been specifically designed to make me an expert on this and other issues related to the everquest universe

[Nirgon]

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tMe3WDmxBEI/hqdefault.jpg

I think Heartbrand could bring a lot to Dumass and Dumass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMe3WDmxBEI).

[heartbrand]

No my reason is you should do what Sirken tells you to do and stop thinking you actually are in charge here.

It's obviously not classic, I'm not here, I give 0 fucks but show Sirken some respect.

Questioning rules is basically the quintessential trait of liberty.

As to Hagard, there's a huge difference between exploiting pathing or money dupes or something that doesn't have a rule written about it but is clearly wrong, with something like this, retaining your bind post change following a vigorous two month debate during which not once was it suggested retroactive bind removal should be applied.

[p-niner]

Where did I ever say that? I illustrated how the logic contradicts itself. You have custom FFA rules for Sol B and Perma and based upon the logic for said rules it should extend to KC as well, but it does not. I apologize that this mind blowing logic went over your head.

Kc a FFA zone?

[SamwiseRed]

was gonna put my 2 copper but sirken pretty much forumbombed nizzarr and hb through 3 tables from the top rope.

[p-niner]

Sirken snapping slim jims and cold stone stunning scrubs

[heartbrand]

I'll try to spell it out for you one last time. We have custom rules here, one of which is the deeming of certain zones to be "FFA". This was applied to Sol B and Permafrost but not to KC. What I'm saying is that if you're going to apply this rule to Sol B and Permafrost, under the fear of bind rushing and raid disruption, then it should apply to KC as well where said bind rushing and raid disruption has actually occurred regularly, unlike Sol B and Permafrost where even prior to the implementation of the bind removal it was a low occurrence issue.

[heartbrand]

Just because Sirken has a green name on the forums doesn't mean that his logic is somehow superior to others just because he gets to decide who lives or dies here. Plenty of people get to do the same thing in tons of oppressive countries and it doesn't make their decisions any more sensible. The only reason I even posted in this thread wasn't because I truly care what happens in the future with binding in "raid zones", it really is a non-issue to be honest, but because people were saying we have been "exploiting" it here when all post history on the subject suggests strongly the opposite.

[Sirken]

Amelinda was well aware of it. It has been FOURTEEN months with ZERO comment on the issue, and even at the time of the debate of changes to red, not once was there a proposal of retroactive change to peoples binds. NO ONE, not a single person, EVER took the stance that retroactive removal of binds was appropriate or would be enforced, over the course of a two month debate of changes to Red, and not one post or comment was made by a GM on the issue, including ones such as Amelinda who witnessed it. To now call it an "exploit" seems pretty ludicrous to me given these facts. I have ZERO issue with now going forward instituting this rule, I just take issue with it being called an "exploit", and it seems to be in line with everything else on this server, rules made up and changed on the whim with zero idea for the players what is an exploit what is not what is legal what is not.

i give zero fawks what amelinda was aware of. the entire reason bind was apparently removed from these zones was due to players abusing the privilege of being bound there, and giving themselves unintended advantages. when we as a staff removed binding from these zones we did not do that to further grant an advantage to players bound there, we did it to put an end to all that. now its been pointed out that some players are still bound there.

so in short, until Everyone can bind there, Nobody can bind there.

[p-niner]

Kc can pull mob to zoneline and 100% of nihilum have faction. Shut up you have 1 week for your exploiting guild leader to change bind. Plz put all vox loots on 1 account for Rogean to delete.

[SamwiseRed]

ye common sense would have told me if they removed binding from those zones and I was still bound there, i should probably change my bind.

[heartbrand]

Why are you allowed to remain bound in TD? Doesn't that present an unintended advantage, after all it was an oversight by Verant to allow it to begin with, one that was removed only four days after Kunark release. I can use the exact same logic. Again, I don't really care what happens going forward, though I do think KC should be flagged FFA IF we are to keep FFA tags, which we probably shouldn't since there's no need post caster mana pvp death change. But, I do take issue it with being called an "exploit" suddenly fourteen months later. It's an argument of semantics to me, one that has irked me for quite some time here when rulings are suddenly made up on the spot, a la mage bolting at one time. One GM would death touch people for bolting through walls, another said it's ok, then that person changed his mind, back and forth. It all goes back to the fact that there's still no written rules for this server or clarification for a variety of issues.

[Nirgon]

http://s21.postimg.org/4lq8plxzr/dumass.png

[hagard]

As to Hagard, there's a huge difference between exploiting pathing or money dupes or something that doesn't have a rule written about it but is clearly wrong, with something like this, retaining your bind post change following a vigorous two month debate during which not once was it suggested retroactive bind removal should be applied.

how is it not clearly wrong if you are the only one capable of binding there? IE people arent able to bind there now???

[SamwiseRed]

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7028/morongz.jpg

[p-niner]

HB is actually the secretary making notes and scheduling meetings cus lawyer skills 2 weak

[heartbrand]

Other things that there's still no clear ruling about:

1) Is ninja looting allowed on Red99? What constitutes ninja looting? Is ninja looting within the same guild disallowed but ninja looting another guilds mob ok? Do you have to PVP them for the right to loot it? Can you just sneak up and loot it? Can you ninja loot within groups? What if you turn on your groupies while the mob has been pulled and then kill them and loot the mob? What if you turn on them after the mob has been killed?

2) Is taking items off peoples accounts who have shared info against the rules? What will be the application of this rule in all situations going forward?

3) Will training be allowed in all non-csr zones in velious?

[heartbrand]

how is it not clearly wrong if you are the only one capable of binding there? IE people arent able to bind there now???

So is being bound @ the TD pots against the rules?

[hagard]

hb go outside dog

[heartbrand]

Says the guy posting on forum for game he doesn't play, didn't answer my question btw, is being bound @ TD pots against the rules?

[SamwiseRed]

i wish they removed td binding hehe

[Sirken]

Just because Sirken has a green name on the forums doesn't mean that his logic is somehow superior to others

you're right! luckily having a green name means that it doesnt have to be.

cause watch this;

If i catch you bound in Perma, you're getting banned. your participation in this thread informs me that you are aware of the rule change, and as a responsible officer of your guild, i'm holding you accountable for their actions should they refuse to change their bind spots.

have a great day!



Edit - Timorous Deep is fine, they were allowed to keep those.

[hagard]

td is a gray spot, however not a ffa zone, so I dont think it falls under the same category of zones that sirken is talking about.
but im not trying to argue his rules that I dont give a fuk about =)

[lite]

so whats the unfair advantages of being bound in solb or permafrost as a caster?



is this for real ? How many times did you gate your druid ontop of us while we were doing our lowbie vox raid. Golem wand the tank and start nuking.


I didn't read through the whole thread. Just saying, Troriste's ability to gate in whenever ur doing vox is pretty devastating. Wish I would have known it's supposed to be illegal. Delayed us by several hours till we got a poison on him by identifying his exact load in point.

[heartbrand]

I'm not an officer of Nihilum, thanks though for trying to apply a reverse respondeat superior liability to me though. Also, not once have I stated it is acceptable to keep your bind post July 1st.

[SamwiseRed]

hes been bound there forever, some call him the protector of lady vox.

[big league chew]

answered my question in an edit so ill edit my question out :D

[hagard]

ps hb I still play, you even think we're pals in game =))

[SamwiseRed]

damn chew you fat troll bastard. people were argueing td binding should change but thats about it. only those bound in perma/solb need to change bind.

[Sirken]

I'm not an officer of Nihilum, thanks though for trying to apply a reverse respondeat superior liability to me though. Also, not once have I stated it is acceptable to keep your bind post July 1st.

thats fine. im still gonna hold you responsible for them :)

[Stinkum]

My care factor is like negative ten out of ten


> feverishly stays up all night writing 8 posts per page, spamming F5, combined 40 pages of text of weasel words, red herrings and rule lawyering

[Nirgon]

You should actually ban Nizzar and Tune for strippin Beo

[SamwiseRed]

you cannot ban that which has no life.

[p-niner]

thats fine. im still gonna hold you responsible for them :)

Sweet chin music from the heart break kid

[Nirgon]

Actually I know of an account that is banned that had an "item trade" scenario that was held to the same standard. I can't believe I'd forgotten about this before.

Maybe we can talk about that Sirks or maybe its not Nizz so we'll just forget about it.

Edit: Nvm don't care because I've been down this road with situations such as these a few times before, not going to bother unless I'm promised fair trial based on proof of previous treatment. I'll be hustling the path of exile tradings.

[Agatha]

you cannot ban that which has no life.

if you don't think nizzar has like a whole gaggle of 60s untagged just sitting banked on unrelated emu accnts, hah.

[Andis]

till we got a poison on him by identifying his exact load in point.

prais guido, the savior

[Kraftwerk]

thats fine. im still gonna hold you responsible for them :)

Heheh

[SamwiseRed]

Sweet chin music from the heart break kid

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4yv68rIZG1qgvz2q.gif

[Elderan]

thats fine. im still gonna hold you responsible for them :)

Sirken,

You changed the rule just now. People now know they need to change their bind point when they log in next time to that char.

However does this mean we cannot talk about validity of this rule? The vast majority of people with high end raid experience on this server think that the no binding rule in solb and perma is out dated at this point and should be changed.

[p-niner]

Hey its bad math guy. Sorry just cus ur 60 now and not 50 doesnt invalidate rule.

[heartbrand]

I don't care about the concept of not being able to have your bind there anymore. I do care about it being incorrectly labeled an exploit, the refusal to have dialogue on whether or not the custom rule should continue to exist, be modified or expanded, and the threat of bans for those who would dare question the applicability of the rule going forward.

[Elderan]

I don't care about the concept of not being able to have your bind there anymore. I do care about it being incorrectly labeled an exploit, the refusal to have dialogue on whether or not the custom rule should continue to exist, be modified or expanded, and the threat of bans for those who would dare question the applicability of the rule going forward.

Exactly.....

[p-niner]

If u have been illegally bound there since the rule was implemented in classic and used it to gain an unfair advantage in perma pvp and against lvl 52 vox raids you are cheating. Thats what unfair advanatages are - exploits.

[Stasis01]

Sol B binding back in the day was pretty bad when fighting over naggy, and honestly I think it's a good fix - don't let Nizz harass poor 52 force crew tryen to get a couple RBB's.

<3 Nizz tho.

[heartbrand]

Except that prior to this post there had never been a rule or concern raised about retaining the bind, so much so that in fact Amelinda and others knew about it and specifically stated it wasn't an issue. Now we're told that anything she ever said doesn't matter and it's an exploit. It's fine and dandy you want to change binds going forward, and everyone should comply with the rule, but it doesn't make sense to call it an exploit given the history. It also seems inconsistent that when the CT cycle was triggered a month ago we used Amelinda's ruling per Sirken / Zade, but now with this issue Amelinda's ruling doesn't matter. Which is it?

[Stasis01]

Cast was bound on top of Naggy and trained them for like 8 hours one night and we were all laughen our ass off - esp with some of the soap box preachers here.

[p-niner]

If u have been illegally bound there since the rule was implemented in classic and used it to gain an unfair advantage in perma pvp and against lvl 52 vox raids you are cheating. Thats what unfair advanatages are - exploits.

[heartbrand]

Sol B binding back in the day was pretty bad when fighting over naggy, and honestly I think it's a good fix - don't let Nizz harass poor 52 force crew tryen to get a couple RBB's.

<3 Nizz tho.

It was an issue because casters spawned with mana and could just chain rush you with ice comets and shit. Now you spawn with zero mana and are completely useless upon respawning. It has been "abused" @ KC as well with spy bots and casters on top of the wall. I favor classic here tbh, a hands off approach. If anything it's the lack of item loot and the FFA nature of the zones that create the problem. If you removed FFA and instituted a classic level range combined with item loot the problem, amongst many others, is instantly removed.

[SamwiseRed]

you couldnt bind in KC on live, you can do it here?

[p-niner]

This server isnt live. Its a pvp emu. L2emu.

[SamwiseRed]

well ive been afk from in-game for a long time. only logging in here and there. but seriously you couldnt bind in KC on live, why is it allowed here?

[p-niner]

Uhm cus it isnt live? What the problem is?

http://www.project1999.org/forums/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=113050

[Sektor]

Sirken is the man!

[heartbrand]

"Relive the classic Everquest MMORPG Gaming Experience as it was in 1999 and onward. Project 1999 is a free to play Emulated Everquest Server giving Players the opportunity to experience Classic EQ Once again, starting with the original 3 continents and a max level of 50, with the look and feel of the old interface and several modifications making game mechanics similar to how the game used to be. Project 1999 is the best and most popular classic Everquest experience."

[SamwiseRed]

all 60s in one guild on a pvp server is not classic. pretty sure you guys arent here for the classic experience.

[p-niner]

U lose

[heartbrand]

all 60s in one guild on a pvp server is not classic. pretty sure you guys arent here for the classic experience.

All the 60's aren't in the same guild, it's just that the opposition would rather fight amongst themselves then align. Also one guild that dominates the server IS classic, you had FoH on Veeshan, Inner Circle on Xegony, LoS on The Nameless, etc., etc., that was the norm, one top guild cock blocking everyone else.

To the other guy, I suppose you favor Blue Laws continuing in states as well despite the initial rationale for the law no longer applying?

[hagard]

"with the look and feel of the old interface and several modifications making game mechanics similar to how the game used to be.."

intradesting

[Stasis01]

Box needs velious - kunark been played to death in EMU now.

[heartbrand]

Pretty sure that sentence means they have modified the non-classic current EQ Live UI to attempt to revert it to it's classic status as best as possible. Nilbog has stated numerous times that the goal is to force the use of the Velious UI when possible. Nice try though.

[heartbrand]

Box needs velious - kunark been played to death in EMU now.

Kunark is an awful expansion. I second this. Velious will open up tons of raid targets, alternate progression paths for competing guilds, allow people to get faction to royally fuck with far larger raid forces, open up prior content, etc., etc. Velious will solve everything tbh.

[SamwiseRed]

Box needs TEAMS - FFA been played to death in EMU now.

[p-niner]

Pretty sure that sentence means they have modified the non-classic current EQ Live UI to attempt to revert it to it's classic status as best as possible. Nilbog has stated numerous times that the goal is to force the use of the Velious UI when possible. Nice try though.

Hagard has more lawyering experience with his forunquest education than you do

[SamwiseRed]

Kunark is an awful expansion. I second this. Velious will open up tons of raid targets, alternate progression paths for competing guilds, allow people to get faction to royally fuck with far larger raid forces, open up prior content, etc., etc. Velious will solve everything tbh.

i remember there being 3 factions. im guessing killing one helps the other 2 or something like that. honestly i dont remember and i never raided in velious. so here is my question on how it works. does a guild basically decide on one faction to help and one to slaughter? would it behoove the competition to choose the opposite faction?

[Nirgon]

Cast was bound on top of Naggy and trained them for like 8 hours one night and we were all laughen our ass off - esp with some of the soap box preachers here.

Preventing people from exploiting a dragon when previous staff did nothing about it and reading their crying tells which amounted to "let us exploit the content" is pretty lolworthy.


I don't care about.

Sirken doesn't care about what you have to say. Go change your binds.

[heartbrand]

Good thing I don't live in china and I'm free to express my opinion, which if you'd remove your nihilum hate blinders, is actually yours: classic pvp level range and item loot, no no to non classic FFA zones and bind restrictions. But I guess when Sirken is telling off people you don't like its ok but when he's ignoring your top secret trade logs its not ok, amirite?

[Nirgon]

Good thing you change your bind points or get banned jewbie

If you don't like the custom rule set, leave

[heartbrand]

I look forward to quoting that to every item loot thread, pvp level range, resists post, bug report you make, aka your prior 10,000 posts.

[Elderan]

Good thing you change your bind points or get banned jewbie

If you don't like the custom rule set, leave

Do you even play here?

[Nirgon]

Go change your bind, nut sack.

Listen to the staff.

[heartbrand]

We aren't bound there dumb dumb.

[Tomato King6]

wow 14 pages in one day, not going to read any I just want to add my stupid comment like these idiots above me.


meoewoemeowmeow errurhrurhurhurh

asdfasdfasdfasdf

meow

Waaa

[p-niner]

We aren't bound there dumb dumb.

Only 1 guild bound there

Read only 1 guild exploiting raid zone

Also read only 1 guild disobeying gm and staff decisions

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

oh my good fucking christ

i just skimmed through this thread, heartbrand has 50% of this thread's 140 posts and the average word count is 300+

telling me to step away from the keyboard the other day and then pulling this shit

you're a hoot heartbrand

oh man

hahahahahahahahahahah

[p-niner]

http://www.project1999.org/forums/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=113050

[heartbrand]

Only 1 guild bound there

Read only 1 guild exploiting raid zone

Also read only 1 guild disobeying gm and staff decisions

Actually multiple founding father clerics are bound in fear currently and this was used by lethdar / letsjoe / cast / friedchicken / node / abysal / hollix / tibberz / Selena for months after the patch. Nice try come again.

[p-niner]

Eho Who cares about fear

Damn your retarded

[Something'Witty]

Only 1 guild bound there

Read only 1 guild exploiting raid zone

Also read only 1 guild disobeying gm and staff decisions

But I thought the GMs only did stuff to help that one guild? I am so confused now...

[heartbrand]

Eho Who cares about fear

Damn your retarded

Because if this is an exploit it was used for an unfair advantage to avoid having to break into fear and to wipe other guilds in fear by binding on top of the north wall. But since those players who did this didn't have nihilum tags I guess it was ok amirite? Your logic isn't consistent.

[p-niner]

So your saying fear is an unbindable raid zone?

[Nirgon]

No more invis pulling in perma with gate and shit, stfu

[heartbrand]

Correct. I've never stated despite your poor reading comp that these aren't unbindable raid zones. Just that the intention and ruling by amelinda at the time was that those with the bind point need not change it. If Sirken has decided to now amend that rule that's fine, though I think we should reexamine the need for the rule to begin with and contemplate either removing it altogether or expanding it for the reasons I've written prior. However, calling it retroactively an exploit doesn't logically make sense to me, it's simply an argument of semantics with no real in game implications.

[heartbrand]

No more invis pulling in perma with gate and shit, stfu

Yet you had no problem "exploiting" this with our fear bound clerics big nirdawg. Gotta love the hypocrisy of the boards

[p-niner]

Amelinda said no need to honor rule and rebind? Heresay. Where is exhibit A?

Are you just saying fear is an unbindable raid zone or is this documented somewhere? Are you trying to bind yourself right now to verify? SS?

[heartbrand]

Any FFA zone is currently unbindable.

[p-niner]

Lol.....

[RenianVZ]

Sirken snapping slim jims and cold stone stunning scrubs

gotta love those cold stone stunners

[FaithlessKR]

Jesus christ I only went through the first 6 pages, then got bored because 75% of the posts were heartbrand furiously ranting about shit that doesnt matter. You need help bro.....

[Something'Witty]

Not that anyone cares what I think, but...

Define what constitutes a "raid zone" and expand current Sol B and Permafrost rules to those zones, or get rid of the restrictions. Arguments can be made for both options, but anything in between will just result in confusion and more of these kind of threads...

Now back to forumquest!

[heartbrand]

Not that anyone cares what I think, but...

Define what constitutes a "raid zone" and expand current Sol B and Permafrost rules to those zones, or get rid of the restrictions. Arguments can be made for both options, but anything in between will just result in confusion and more of these kind of threads...

Now back to forumquest!

How dare you make a perfectly reasonable and logical post. I think that the current FFA rules are out dated now that casters spawn with no mana. You can't bind rush if you spawn with no mana or have no gear as a melee. But if we're going to consider it a logical basis still to keep the FFA raid zone distinction we should consider updating / expanding it to TD / EJ / SF / KC, all zones with raid mobs where binding and out of range players have griefed raids prior.

[Stinkum]

http://i.imgur.com/OjzJtrM.png

[p-niner]

Out dated cus nilly no longer needs to be in solb and Perma

Expoiters b exploitive.

[heartbrand]

46

[p-niner]

Lets see if HB can single handedly justify exploiting and circumventing GM decisions until 7/1 end date.

[heartbrand]

Where have I justified circumventing gm decisions? Arguing for revisiting the FFA distinction =/= arguing to circumvent rule. Yet in your personal life I bet you smoke weed even though its illegal on the premise that the rationale for the law is illogical.

[Sektor]

48

[p-niner]

Nope job

Sorry

Keep trying to lawyer rule bends for exploit king nizzar +dkp

And I live in a medical marijuana state and have a script just dont use currently =)

[quido]

Does this apply to blue also? I know a certain asshole player who has a character bound in KC.

[heartbrand]

Nope job

Sorry

Keep trying to lawyer rule bends for exploit king nizzar +dkp

And I live in a medical marijuana state and have a script just dont use currently =)

Medical marijuana laws violate federal law and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court

[Stinkum]

heartbrand's public meltdown continues as he officially reaches 50 posts in in a span of 2 hours in the same thread

the crowd popcorn.gif'ing as this man has an aneurysm in real time over everquest bind points

[Sektor]

49

[heartbrand]

The rationale here by people is just comical. Are you ok when the government says online poker and sports betting is illegal? Do you just go o yaw that's classic np np good decision? are you cool with blue laws in your states that forbid you from buying alcohol on sundays? Sodomy laws? You think the current patent law system is ok? You always drive the speed limit, have always filed your taxes timely, report all of your income even the off the books stuff etc., etc.? But yet in this thread people espousing that rules should never be questioned ever and that it's tantamount to a great affront to ask whether or not rules should be changed or modified. No one is saying let's just fuck the GM's and ignore the rule, I'm just saying we should revisit whether the rule makes sense anymore while simultaneously obeying it until a change does or does not happen.

[GoodGuyAmes]

I wonder if they will choose to even hear the case though. 5 of the 9 justices have been appointed by conservative presidents with three of them remaining from the Reagan era. They might decide not to hear it because of their belief in strong state rights with the government trying to meddle in their affairs as little as possible. And yes the federal law prohibits its illegality in the U.S but it has not been actively in-forced for quite some time as anyone who has been in California can attest to. There are more marijuana dispensaries in L.A then there are Starbucks.

[Stinkum]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-txy5mVOXw4E/T5rouE-BvyI/AAAAAAAAAnY/8DfHXlMRqk0/s640/50.jpg

[Kraftwerk]

The rationale here by people is just comical. are you cool with blue laws in your states that forbid you from buying alcohol on sundays? Sodomy laws?

Get your alcoholic homosexual ideas out of here. Sunday is God's day, not buy a 40 and stick your dick up your life partner's behind.

[heartbrand]

I wonder if they will choose to even hear the case though. 5 of the 9 justices have been appointed by conservative presidents with three of them remaining from the Reagan era. They might decide not to hear it because of their belief in strong state rights with the government trying to meddle in their affairs as little as possible. And yes the federal law prohibits its illegality in the U.S but it has not been actively in-forced for quite some time as anyone who has been in California can attest to. There are more marijuana dispensaries in L.A then there are Starbucks.

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though, states rights aside those arguments are usually because of the belief by the conservative justices, a belief I must admit I also hold, that Congress routinely oversteps it's boundaries vis-à-vis the commerce clause. This case is one where a state law directly contradicts a federal law, which would seem straight forward to me. A better argument would be that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause, however, arguments using the commerce clause have been for the most part even under the conservative majority almost unanimously unsuccessful with the exception of United States v. Lopez

[Sektor]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-txy5mVOXw4E/T5rouE-BvyI/AAAAAAAAAnY/8DfHXlMRqk0/s640/50.jpg

LOL stupid shit like this cracks me up.

[Agatha]

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though


http://i.imgur.com/SdqnNFc.jpg

[karsten]

all the lawyers that I know don't use words they dug out of a torts textbook because they're normal people with normal friends who don't care

except one guy who failed the bar in three states and is still trying to get everyone to call him a lawyer even though he's not still

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

oh my good fucking christ

i just skimmed through this thread, heartbrand has 50% of this thread's 140 posts and the average word count is 300+

telling me to step away from the keyboard the other day and then pulling this shit

you're a hoot heartbrand

oh man

hahahahahahahahahahah

[p-niner]

Medical marijuana laws violate federal law and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court

Yet more states add medical and 2 just went legal without need of doc consent.

KEEP answering phones and reciting scripted responses to disgruntled customers.

[heartbrand]

It is pretty straight forward that those laws violate the supremacy clause. Just because the DOJ during the Obama administration has been inept at deciding how to handle the changing societal views on marijuana, does not change that fact.

[GoodGuyAmes]

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though

They try and pursue them in court instead of kicking down doors. When they stop trying to stop it on the ground and just focus on applying pressure through the courts it just becomes all for show. The DOJ needs to follow the law in place and not the law they think should be in place. Public servants in government do not create law - only the congress has that power. I'm sure Eric Holderman believes that they should just let the states decide or even go one step further and decriminalize it across the board but he just cant act on his personal beliefs. I voted for Obama in 2008 and I really hoped to see more of his campaign promises enacted when he came to office. Decriminalize and tax (still illegal for street dealers to sell, regulate it and make it safe) marijuana, legalize gay marriage and give them all the federal benefits straight couples enjoy and lets focus on important issues.

[Agatha]

It is pretty straight forward that those laws violate the supremacy clause. Just because the DOJ during the Obama administration has been inept at deciding how to handle the changing societal views on marijuana, does not change that fact.

http://i.imgur.com/iCpVOUx.jpg

for the non retired special forces pilots, thats a b-52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Special_Operations_Aviation_Regiment_(Airbor ne) < where i used to serve

[heartbrand]

I couldn't agree more. The DOJ has for too long been used as a weapon of the executive branch to selectively enforce certain laws and ignore others, the CSA included. I have to disagree on Eric Holder though, I've written to him before and his responses are troubling to a social libertarian such as myself. He's a big opponent of legalizing online poker for example because of it's "evils" and would not vote for legislation that allows states to decide whether to tax and regulate it. While republicans claim to be the party of small government and states rights, that doesn't seem to apply to sexual orientation / drugs / gambling aka anything that goes against their Puritan values.

edit: a well written article on the legality of state marijuana laws and their interaction with federal law: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf A decent response to the article, http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/04/09/does-federal-law-actually-preempt-relaxed-state-marijuana-laws/ which makes the argument that states merely choosing not to enforce federal laws is not equivalent to attempting to violate federal laws, but that of course under federal law marijuana possession and use remains illegal.

[p-niner]

Must be nice to vote

[Sirken]

omg.

if you're bound in a raid zone that other players cant bind in (except TD), then move your bind because it gives an unfair advantage to players that are bound there. if we wanted players bound there, we would not have removed binding there.

how is this thread 10 pages

[Agatha]

omg.

if you're bound in a raid zone that other players cant bind in (except TD), then move your bind because it gives an unfair advantage to players that are bound there. if we wanted players bound there, we would not have removed binding there.

how is this thread 10 pages

19 pages

[Sirken]

19 pages

L2Forum

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

omg.

if you're bound in a raid zone that other players cant bind in (except TD), then move your bind because it gives an unfair advantage to players that are bound there. if we wanted players bound there, we would not have removed binding there.

how is this thread 10 pages

because heartbrand is critically immersed

he has 20x more posts than the scumbag that this thread is about

[Agatha]

I couldn't agree more. The DOJ has for too long been used as a weapon of the executive branch to selectively enforce certain laws and ignore others, the CSA included. I have to disagree on Eric Holder though, I've written to him before and his responses are troubling to a social libertarian such as myself. He's a big opponent of legalizing online poker for example because of it's "evils" and would not vote for legislation that allows states to decide whether to tax and regulate it. While republicans claim to be the party of small government and states rights, that doesn't seem to apply to sexual orientation / drugs / gambling aka anything that goes against their Puritan values.

edit: a well written article on the legality of state marijuana laws and their interaction with federal law: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf A decent response to the article, http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/04/09/does-federal-law-actually-preempt-relaxed-state-marijuana-laws/ which makes the argument that states merely choosing not to enforce federal laws is not equivalent to attempting to violate federal laws, but that of course under federal law marijuana possession and use remains illegal.

http://i.imgur.com/d6ILg3J.jpg
this is an mh-53 in honor of heartbrands 53rd post in this thread

[heartbrand]

This wasn't a dev led or instituted change, this was a player requested change given circumstances that are no longer a reality on this server. All I've been trying to do despite many trolls inability to reading comp throughout the thread, is suggest that we revist the rationale for the FFA Raid Zone distinction and the bind removal from said zones, because at least in my opinion the rationale we had based our request for the change on no longer applies, aka bind rushing casters, OR if someone else believes it still does apply, then it should be extended to further zones in Kunark, including KC. I have ZERO issue with everyone for the meantime changing their binds as requested until said discussion takes place.

[HeisChuck]

put your god damn keyboard down heartbrand geezus

you must have like 100 posts in this thread alone

thought we talked about this and had an understanding :confused::confused:

[Stinkum]

The rationale here by people is just comical. Are you ok when the government says online poker and sports betting is illegal? Do you just go o yaw that's classic np np good decision? are you cool with blue laws in your states that forbid you from buying alcohol on sundays? Sodomy laws? You think the current patent law system is ok?

http://i.imgur.com/1YhYxwk.png

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

step away from the keyboard hb

[Agatha]

This wasn't a dev led or instituted change, this was a player requested change given circumstances that are no longer a reality on this server. All I've been trying to do despite many trolls inability to reading comp throughout the thread, is suggest that we revist the rationale for the FFA Raid Zone distinction and the bind removal from said zones, because at least in my opinion the rationale we had based our request for the change on no longer applies, aka bind rushing casters, OR if someone else believes it still does apply, then it should be extended to further zones in Kunark, including KC. I have ZERO issue with everyone for the meantime changing their binds as requested until said discussion takes place.

http://i.imgur.com/cdGGwX0.jpg this is an aim-54-a in honor of heartbrands 54th post

edit: this kid can type 500 word essays faster then i can upload pics and post them

[GoodGuyAmes]

Its quite simple really. Most Conservatives do not separate church and state while libertarians do. When you interject religion into a political conversation where it has no place it quickly poisons the debate. The founding fathers risked their lives by sailing over the Atlantic Ocean to an uncharted land to escape others religious beliefs being forced upon them which is exactly what happens in America today. I am a registered independent and voted for nobody last election cycle because I was so disillusioned with our system today. So much talk but so little action with people quick to quote the Constitution but have little understanding of what the authors had in mind while writing it.

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

i support the founding fathers who sailed over the atlantic ocean to an uncharted land to make it big in the slave trade

nawmean

[GoodGuyAmes]

http://i.imgur.com/cdGGwX0.jpg this is an aim-54-a in honor of heartbrands 54th post

edit: this kid can type 500 word essays faster then i can upload pics and post them

p.s

That's what college helps ya with, yanno writing essays and reading books? Abstract concepts dawg, I know.

p.p.s

adderall

[GoodGuyAmes]

i support the founding fathers who sailed over the atlantic ocean to an uncharted land to make it big in the slave trade

nawmean

The first colonists brought no slaves with them. Slaves only arrived in America when the British Crown instituted it as a punishment to send convicts or debtors to the colony's to work on the plantations as repayment to society. Modern slavery is strictly a European invention. Sad part is that England abolished slavery in 1833 while it took us another 30 years and a civil war that almost destroyed the union of our great states.

[Agatha]

i support the founding fathers who sailed over the atlantic ocean to an uncharted land to make it big in the slave trade

nawmean

l0l my family made it rich by running slaves and other goods. they wernt like "slave traders" they where more merchants and part of the bis was slave trading.

family goes back deep into early MA/masons, prolly why my family is rich as fuck.

[big league chew]

http://i.imgur.com/1YhYxwk.png

had a hearty lol, ty

[hagard]

not surprised to see HB still posting 500word replies to this thread

[p-niner]

http://i.imgur.com/1YhYxwk.png

Hahaha

[heartbrand]

So for velious will Kael be a FFA raid zone? Skyshrine? Icewell? Dragon Necropolis? Not being able to bind in Kael and Skyshrine seems retarded.

[Agatha]

So for velious will Kael be a FFA raid zone? Skyshrine? Icewell? Dragon Necropolis? Not being able to bind in Kael and Skyshrine seems retarded.

http://i.imgur.com/HB6G8mn.jpg
in honor of heartbrands 55th post this is a t-55

[p-niner]

Hb your word to post ratio is amazing

[Bazia]

why errbody hb hatin

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

because he's a horribly immersed retard

[Bazia]

talking about everquest on an everquest forum

what a retard you're right

time to go to a sports talk forum then call them faggots for talking about sports

[heartbrand]

talking about everquest on an everquest forum

what a retard you're right

time to go to a sports talk forum then call them faggots for talking about sports

lol you ever read the comments on an espn article? makes red99 look tame

[Bazia]

i can only do so much internet

im sure its gold tho

[Yagebasto]

you're right! luckily having a green name means that it doesnt have to be.

cause watch this;

If i catch you bound in Perma, you're getting banned. your participation in this thread informs me that you are aware of the rule change, and as a responsible officer of your guild, i'm holding you accountable for their actions should they refuse to change their bind spots.

have a great day!


Edit - Timorous Deep is fine, they were allowed to keep those.

lolwut?

[p-niner]

lolwut?

OFficer of Forum Division. Recognize.

[Nirgon]

Go change your binds.

Heartbrand ..... I just I don't even

[Nirgon]

And for the record I took my own earlier advice

[Stinkum]

you have to be a very special kind of retarded to see heartbrand having a public meltdown w/over 60 posts in one thread and chock it up to:

"bros he's not dangerously immersed, he's just talking about everquest on an everquest forum"

[Pitborn]

Why are there this many fucks being given?

[p-niner]

each fuck given to defend Troriste bind is +1dkp

[Bazia]

cuz having a druid to invis pull perma is p convenient

also can harass people in bear pits

[heartbrand]

each fuck given to defend Troriste bind is +1dkp

hehuehuehuehuh

[Faerie]

you're right! luckily having a green name means that it doesnt have to be.

cause watch this;

If i catch you bound in Perma, you're getting banned. your participation in this thread informs me that you are aware of the rule change, and as a responsible officer of your guild, i'm holding you accountable for their actions should they refuse to change their bind spots.

have a great day!



Edit - Timorous Deep is fine, they were allowed to keep those.

Post of the week. Keep up the good work, Sirken!

[quido]

lol big harry at it again

how was your vacation?

[FaithlessKR]

So for velious will Kael be a FFA raid zone? Skyshrine? Icewell? Dragon Necropolis? Not being able to bind in Kael and Skyshrine seems retarded.

Funny you mention this HB, LoZ was just patched and they removed the ability to bind in all of those zones :P

[Nirgon]

Kael had very specific areas you could bind iirc

[heartbrand]

Kael had very specific areas you could bind iirc

Per your comments this is a custom box like it or gtfo so plz don't troll this thread with what was classic.

[mostbitter]

I think we all lost on this thread

[SamwiseRed]

i think they should remove binding period.

[klant]

The vast majority of people with high end raid experience on this server think that the no binding rule in solb and perma is out dated at this point and should be changed.

lol, just because nihilum is the vast majority of people on the server doesn't mean you can have it your way. you aren't at micky d's anymore

[SamwiseRed]

forgive eldermoran, hes a moran

[fuark]

you aren't at micky d's anymore

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/burger-king-king.jpg

[Gustoo]

i think they should remove binding period.

hahaha best post of the day

[p-niner]

wow how did I miss that eldermoran gem, good catch klant

[p-niner]

hehehe

[Clark]

nizzar seems upset

monk botb still haunting his dreams, poor guy

[gotrocks]

agatha dropping bombs in this thread. large, military bombs.

[Twain]

Sirken,

Would anyone bound in these zones be given a bind at pots since they would of bound there if they knew this would be changed? I don't really care about binds but it would at least be fair to bind those characters at the pots.

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

LOL

WHAT

[Sickpuppy]

If your binding at pots bind all of my toons there even the level 1s
If I knew I couldn't bind in perma anymore then I would have binded at the pots

[Smedy]

why the fuck do nihilum leadership allow the down syndrome kids in their ranks to represent them on the boards? god damn i've not read something this retarded in awhile

just make it happen sirken

[Twain]

If we are making up rules to change binds, it would make sense that Troriste could be bound at pots. I could careless where anyone is bound. My toons are all bound in OT except for my Wizard. But it doesn't make sense that a non classic change will force a player to lose their bind. I doubt Nizzar would even care to be rebound at the pots, mostly just asking Sirken what he thinks.

[Sickpuppy]

Nizzar is balls deep in twainz smilin hard as hell

[Twain]

Yea since I logged 3 hours played in the last week.

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

If we are making up rules to change binds, it would make sense that Troriste could be bound at pots.

that's not how logic works

My toons are all bound in OT except for my Wizard.

how is this at all relevant

But it doesn't make sense that a non classic change will force a player to lose their bind.

this is a custom server and this rule was established long before you came to this server

I doubt Nizzar would even care to be rebound at the pots

why the fuck did you even bring up binding at the firepots you dumb ******

mostly just asking Sirken what he thinks.

he stated numerous times in this thread exactly what he thinks, fuck off you annoying cunt

[Sickpuppy]

^ loled

[heartbrand]

Actually twainz makes a good point tbh but I already know the answer will be fuck you faggot get banned or something like that

[p-niner]

If we are making up rules to change binds, it would make sense that Troriste could be bound at .

Since u started this server 2 months after kunark ill let u know that this rule was made back in classic

Nerd

[p-niner]

Actually twainz makes a good point tbh but I already know the answer will be fuck you faggot get banned or something like that

Are u not embarrassed at how big of a faggot nuthanger u make urself appear to be for pixels?

[Elderan]

This whole issue is so overblown. All the arguments fall into 3 categories.

- Sirken (My way or the highway)
- Nizzar Haters (Ban Ban Ban)
- People who don't like the rule (The rule is not needed anymore)

[Twain]

Im not fighting this rule, only saying that if this change was made to remove people from their current binds, they should at least be given a shot to bind somewhere others are bound. To bad Cwall is to angry to read between rage posts. I was asking for Sirken's opinion on rebinding and not removing the current bind.

[big league chew]

Im not fighting this rule, only saying that if this change was made to remove people from their current binds, they should at least be given a shot to bind somewhere others are bound. To bad Cwall is to angry to read between rage posts. I was asking for Sirken's opinion on rebinding and not removing the current bind.

im bound in grobb, nizzar can bind next to me
i dont mind

[heartbrand]

Yaw dunno makes perfect logical sense to me but like I said the answer is going to be stfu no. Also retti its hard to take you seriously when your posts make no logical sense and you spent the first thousand plus of them hanging from nizzars balls defending nihilum. I don't give two fucks if this was nizzar or cwall or Andis, the thread makes no sense for the reasons pointed out 100x, but ill leave it at that because apparently the vast majority of you don't have the mental capacity to work a Denny's register nonetheless understand second grade logic.

[p-niner]

Nizzar blatantly ignored the rule from classic, why is that hard to understand? Guys dragon hero bracers are only a sequence of 1s and 0s, they dont actually power you up in RL. Take a step back and stop..

[p-niner]

Im sure if this was a thread about exploiting naggy in a wall the same morans would be in here saying some bullshit like, "it was more luck than exploit".... oh wait