Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
None of that has to be like that. It could be very simple: if three people are waiting for the camp, they random and the winner takes it.
|
I think you missed my point. The method of determining who is in line is not relevant. The problem is who handles disputes when they arise, besides a GM?
Let's take your example and say three people are in line. They all /random to determine line order. But let's say the person who got third place in line honestly didn't get the /random messages from the other players and demands a re-roll. The other two players don't agree, and assume the third place player is attempting to initiate a re-roll to get a better position in line. Who settles this dispute? It can't be the three players attempting to determine line order, as they all have an equal stake in the line order. Their bias will probably affect any decision they make to find a resolution.
Either you require a GM at that point, or the owner of the camp becomes the deciding factor. No other person can take an elevated authority in this matter, as everybody in line has an equal stake in becoming the next camp owner. So you can't trust them to make a selfless decision when it comes to who should be next. I am not saying there aren't selfless people out there that will give up their spot, but it is more of the exception than the rule.
And please do not try and cite special camps like Ring 8 or Scout Tools. Those camps have special rules, and normally enough players are rolling to where people can come to a consensus as to who won. GMs probably are willing to handle a dispute for those camps than random camps as well, since there are special rules. Most camps only have a few players in line maximum, so it becomes more difficult to handle disputes, as it will often devolve into he-said she-said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenren
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
So, actually I thought the rule was that a list was kept and you had to state who was second when asked and if you don't respond then the person who asked automatically gets the camp by default.
|
Yes, that is the AFK rules in terms of being able to take a camp if no one responds. However, most people do not just instantly take a camp if you do not respond in 5 seconds. It is bad manners because people do sometimes go to the bathroom for a minute, and you would probably want the same courtesy. I already mentioned this earlier in the thread. You can potentially take a camp if everyone at the camp is AFK for too long. Ask the person/people if they are around and wait like 15 minutes. If you don't get a response, you have the right to take the camp. The other person/people will complain of course, but it doesn't matter. You should just record the person being AFK for 15 minutes, so you can use it as evidence later if elf laywering is needed.
Also, if multiple people are in line, usually they will tell you they are in line. Even if someone lies about line order, if they are there already when you get there, at minimum you are behind the responsive people.
Finally, I do not believe lines are a hard rule, other than the /list camps on Green. Lines are typically the most commonly agreed upon player rule that most people obey, but there is technically no requirement to enforce it lol. The only person that matters is the current camp owner, everybody else is just a potential camp owner. It's more of a gentleman's agreement that most people obey, because if you are too much of a dick people won't play with you, and also you would be pissed if someone else disobeyed the agreement.
TLDR: The owner of the camp gets to pick because disputes between potential camp owners do arise, and the GM's do not have time to handle every single dispute. They place the responsibility of the dispute on the camp owner, because he is the only one who doesn't have a stake in who gets the camp next. This makes sense, because the camp owner is already camping the item. GM's shouldn't need to get involved unless someone attempts to forcibly take the camp. Now, does this mean the camp owner can use that authority to get his buddies into the camp next? Yes it does, but there really isn't a way around that, unless you allow camp stealing to occur in fringe cases like this. I don't think you would want that lol.