Quote:
Originally Posted by ELance
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.
EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.
|
To be even fairer your post was extremely long, and a bit rambling/not well focused
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This is very much the kettle calling the pot black (as I'm sure other posters will agree, my posts tend to be long-winded). But when you write a massive not-super-organized scrawl of text like that, it's very natural for people to lose sight of what you were trying to communicate, or to have a reaction like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by America
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
yikes
*peels out and speeds toward the horizon*
|
But still the core points I said remain:
- Project 1999 does not have the customer support resources that live EQ had, and as such their policies are necessarily going to be different
- In as much as they do try to adhere to policies, they adhere to classic policies, not current live ones
- Those classic policies are not very explicit (I linked them; you can see for yourself)
- You have shown zero evidence (unless I missed it in that scrawl) that, according to the classic Play Nice Policy, it was acceptable for someone to to take a mob someone else was camping. As I noted, "kill stealing" (ie. "vulching" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) in some form was explicitly allowed, but the guidebook never actually clarifies what they mean by that. It might simply refer to two players racing for an outdoor mob and one player getting it even though the second player felt they "stole" it. We just don't know.
Given those points, I really don't see your argument that P99's policies are needlessly unclassic; on the contrary they seem, to me at least, to be "as classic as possible" for a volunteer-run server.