Rules regarding camps when someone has gotten the named spawn

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, this is classic EQ. If you don’t like classic EQ go play somewhere else.

As we already established, in "classic EQ" there were no monopolies. Monopolies are 100% an unclassic P99 thing.

And to Alarti's point, the Idol camp is not the only P99 monopoly. Another example would be the CE camp in Seb, which was monopolized for weeks on Green by a guild.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are not separate. That is the point you are missing. The PnP IS the precursor to GM action. One must happen before the other, and therefore they are linked. If we had enough GMs to handle all disputes, we wouldn't need a PnP policy. All disagreements could just go through them. But that isn't how P99 works. Our volunteer staff doesn't have time to solve every issue.

In a normal situation, this is what happens:
Person A, B, and C have a dispute. They manage to solve it themselves through whatever method they agree upon. This has nothing to do with the PnP policy, because no arbitration was needed. You don't need to enforce a specific method (i.e. /random) in this situation, because the parties involved are able to solve the issue however they deem fair. No GM action is needed.

In a less common situation, this is what happens:
Person A, B and C have a dispute. They can't solve it, so the camp owner steps in and arbitrates. Since most people follow the rules (you said it yourself), they will respect the PnP policy that promotes the camp owner to the arbiter role. The camp owner makes an impartial decision the other parties must agree upon. No GM action is needed.

In the least common situation, this is what happens:
Person A, B and C have a dispute. Either there is no camp owner at the time, or they don't listen to the camp owner. THEN it goes to a GM, because there are no arbiters around that the involved parties will listen to.

This is the entire point of the rule and PnP. The GMs have put in an extra step (and extra responsibility) on the camp owner to act as an arbiter to solve the issue before it needs to be escalated. The PnP policy only applies when a dispute cannot be resolved by the parties involved. If everybody could solve their problems without an arbiter, we wouldn't need a PnP policy at all, and GMs would only need to worry about helping people with bugs.

You yourself said 99% of camps are not monopolized. You are using the 1% exception to claim the entire rule is folly, which doesn't make sense. The rule is for the 99% of camps that are not being monopolized. And for a few camps that are HEAVILY contested, such as Ring 8 Roll and Scout Roll, they HAVE put in exceptions to this rule, because they know the camp owner would not be impartial. The rule works for 99% of camps, and for the other 1%, they have exceptions.

Just because you don't like the fact that one or two camps are monopolized without an exception does not make the whole entire rule pointless. If the GMs think those camps shouldn't be monopolized, they will add new exceptions. Ring 8 and Scout Roll prove the GMs do believe some camps are too congested to trust the camp owner to fairly arbitrate. Otherwise it is a perfectly valid strategy, and not against the rules. On a non-instanced server, scarcity is a reality players have to cope with.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seriously, you have got to learn to express your ideas without writing essays. This will be my last response to you unless you can write forum posts like a human and not like a NY Times column.

But to your point, you've still failed to show how either system requires more GM involvement. And switching to a random system would have a much bigger bonus than just eliminating monopolies:

It would make this place more classic!

(which, if you look in the upper-left corner, is the entire goal of P99).