Snaj <BDA> camp stealer and griefer

[Kengo]

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

There is a distinct lack of reading the PnP going on here. P99 isn't some IKEA product where you can throw away the instructions and figure it out. You don't get to live by a set of rules just because it's logical to you. If a man leaves his wife for a period of time and you are stronger and think you desire her more, then, in a world without rules, logic dictates that she should belong to you. USA don't work that way. Laws exist. PnP is the law of the land.

If someone comes up on a camp that has no players or mobs and a player shows up, he has the right to give up whatever other camp he was multi-camping and stake claim on whichever one he wants more. Thems the rules.

Go read Thomas Hobbs and you'll see that this is not a new concept.

So, if you own 3 houses and you're currently not at House #1, I can go there and contest it, to make you choose which house you want to stay at?

Using RL analogies for made-up rules in a 15-year old elf simulator is straight up tard status.

[Cecily]

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

So, if you own 3 houses and you're currently not at House #1, I can go there and contest it, to make you choose which house you want to stay at?

Using RL analogies for made-up rules in a 15-year old elf simulator is straight up tard status.

Only because people here are unimaginative idiots that can't see how that, yes, your fucked up RL analogy is perfect for camp disputes in P99.

[bktroost]

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

So, if you own 3 houses and you're currently not at House #1, I can go there and contest it, to make you choose which house you want to stay at?

Using RL analogies for made-up rules in a 15-year old elf simulator is straight up tard status.

It's a perfect analogy, because rape and robbery are illegal. The analogy is not specific to the circumstance, it's inductive of a rule being absolute despite the participants bias.

[Deliverator]

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

So, if you own 3 houses and you're currently not at House #1, I can go there and contest it, to make you choose which house you want to stay at?

Using RL analogies for made-up rules in a 15-year old elf simulator is straight up tard status.

This analogy is completely inaccurate.

This is a situation in which you have direct physical claim on temporarily rented property. Meaning the camp doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the server. You are borrowing it as long as you are in the physical vicinity or making use of it. Because that rental agreement includes a stipulation in which you must give up claim to any facility you are utilizing if it is contested and you are not willing to make your presence physical to that specific location and relinquish all rights to any other utilized facilities so that the contesting party has the opportunity to access those facilities.

Or just because you are in the bathroom doesn't mean someone else can't piss in the urinal you aren't currently pissing in.

[Cecily]

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

Or just because you are in the bathroom doesn't mean someone else can't piss in the urinal you aren't currently pissing in.

It's not beyond the realm of reason to imagine a situation in which one person could lock down multiple urinals. Just because someone isn't currently pissing in one, doesn't mean they won't be returning shortly to pee in the other. In these situations, you have to communicate with the person and ask them to pick a urinal. Just because they aren't peeing there at the moment doesn't mean their claim to the urinal is invalid because you want to use it. We have these rules to keep people from peeing all over each other,

[kaev]

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

It's not beyond the realm of reason to imagine a situation in which one person could lock down multiple urinals. Just because someone isn't currently pissing in one, doesn't mean they won't be returning shortly to pee in the other. In these situations, you have to communicate with the person and ask them to pick a urinal. Just because they aren't peeing there at the moment doesn't mean their claim to the urinal is invalid because you want to use it. We have these rules to keep people from peeing all over each other,

Sadly, the pissing contest has caused a great deal of collateral damage. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Anichek]

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

It's not beyond the realm of reason to imagine a situation in which one person could lock down multiple urinals. Just because someone isn't currently pissing in one, doesn't mean they won't be returning shortly to pee in the other. In these situations, you have to communicate with the person and ask them to pick a urinal. Just because they aren't peeing there at the moment doesn't mean their claim to the urinal is invalid because you want to use it. We have these rules to keep people from peeing all over each other,

So would that make viper piss the eq equivalent of two boxing?