Question regarding camp ownership

[BigSlip]

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

Sorry big slip. The inactive/useless member purge we recently did got ya. Not like u were coming back anyways <3

Blue > Red

so you post a thread asking if i can get booted allmost 11 months ago



i was booted last month




hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah


LALS


xasten ur really are a pansy bro.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

i was booted last month

xasten ur really are a pansy bro.

I know I said I was done, but since Slippery seems to care so much, I'll give him what he's looking for. I suspect Zee simply forgot about this before he suggested that you were purged as part of normal operations.

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

[BigSlip]

red is where im at. have no reason to come back to the blue server.


you guys are so envious of tmo that you guys think anyone has envy.


i was part of it for over a year, accomplished what i wanted to and quit.


couldnt care less bros

[Ephirith]

Hypothetical situation:

Pablo the Friendly Necromancer is camping the AC spawn in South Ro. Jimmy the Young Camp Lawyer is sitting nearby.

Halfway through one of his spawn timers, Pablo decides to visit the dark elf vendors and sell some heavy loot he had been carrying. Upon his return one minute later, Pablo finds Jimmy is now occupying the camp. Citing the case Camp Lawyers vs. Lower Guk (2010), Jimmy says:

Originally Posted by His Honor Xzerion

1. Going forward, if you intend to hold or claim a camp, your group must retain presence at that camp.

At that point, adherent to the letter of the law, the camp now belongs to Jimmy.

My question is this, and is a matter of opinion: Did Jimmy exercise poor etiquette claiming the camp as his own? Does Pablo have any right to be angry with Jimmy?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Hypothetical situation:

Pablo the Friendly Necromancer is camping the AC spawn in South Ro. Jimmy the Young Camp Lawyer is sitting nearby.

Halfway through one of his spawn timers, Pablo decides to visit the dark elf vendors and sell some heavy loot he had been carrying. Upon his return one minute later, Pablo finds Jimmy is now occupying the camp. Citing the case Camp Lawyers vs. Lower Guk (2010), Jimmy says:



At that point, adherent to the letter of the law, the camp now belongs to Jimmy.

My question is this, and is a matter of opinion: Did Jimmy exercise poor etiquette claiming the camp as his own? Does Pablo have any right to be angry with Jimmy?

I've tried to find it, but there was some precedent where you can run around a small radius provided the mob is nowhere near spawning again. Your example should likely fit within that precedent.

SRO specifically fits perfectly within that as there's only 1 camp in the zone, if the roamer is down that should be considered constructive notice that it's camped (IE the situation and surroundings were obvious enough to convey that it's camped with no action on the part of the camper), and finally a pet on the spawn point should be sufficient to hold it.

The camp rules are structured so as to provide a solid framework to establish camps, and the current GM's seem to very much approach the situations viewing the totality of the circumstances, meaning that if the PH is down and you run to the vendors, it should be obvious it's camped, and as long as you run right back, you're likely to maintain the camp.

And yes, Jimmy is very loose butthole.

[OMGWTF420]

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

Hypothetical situation:

Pablo the Friendly Necromancer is camping the AC spawn in South Ro. Jimmy the Young Camp Lawyer is sitting nearby.

Halfway through one of his spawn timers, Pablo decides to visit the dark elf vendors and sell some heavy loot he had been carrying. Upon his return one minute later, Pablo finds Jimmy is now occupying the camp. Citing the case Camp Lawyers vs. Lower Guk (2010), Jimmy says:



At that point, adherent to the letter of the law, the camp now belongs to Jimmy.

My question is this, and is a matter of opinion: Did Jimmy exercise poor etiquette claiming the camp as his own? Does Pablo have any right to be angry with Jimmy?

jimmy is a douche bag

[BigSlip]

Hypothetical answer :


You play red, killed the scrub and now you kill named, loot up and LALS.


or u play blue go to sell a dagger in 30 sec come back and have to fight a random numb er of other angry bluebies just to have a gm show up and kick you all the fuck out.

[BigSlip]

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

[BigSlip]

zeelot must respect your opinion a lot if it only took him 7 months to reply to your QQ thread.


LALS

[Ambrotos]

Normally in camp disputes where there are only a limited type of place holders, or even named it's easy for GMs to find out who was there. We can look up on the encounter logs to trace the time and what npc to see who was there if one is online to view the petition right away. Worse case we look it up when we can, and pull up all the logs and see what we should do to the offender.

So keep it in mind, that once you zone, run off away from the "room/area" where the camp is, or not doing anything at the camp asides a quick med, it will open the camp up for anyone. Be reasonable that if you have to med for 10 mins between kills and the spawn is a 6 min spawn...someone will most likely petition you. Not normally the case, but if you cant keep the place holder killed within reasonable time of it's spawn, it will annoy people to no end and staff may have to join in.



Also keep the RnF crap in RnF. If you are a long term poster (troll) who violates the rules outside RnF, you will be removed. Simple rules,yet so hard to follow it seems.