Justice for NOPE (Serious discussion, GMs plz read)
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:22 pmI will do my best to keep this brief. Basically, TL;DR it is not an exploit, and its not in any way reasonable to expect Monkeynews & Friends to realize Nostalrius would consider it as such.
I would like to begin with a quote from Nano of the IsVV-team.
There are, I believe, two key issues that needs to be highlighted here. 1. What constitutes as an exploit, and 2. the matter of predictability.
Regarding the first point, I think, and I believe almost everyone agrees with me here (NOPE-grievers notwithstanding) that it is very far-fetched to claim that the synchronized tuber-looting is an exploit. I think a plausible definition of exploiting involves two elements: (i) using something in a way that is not working as intended that (ii) gives one an unfair advantage. Logically, only (i) needs to be fulfilled for something to be exploiting (since it involves an abuse of game mechanics which, seemingly, would be enough to constitute exploiting). (ii) is also important however, since it acts as a further justification to classify something as an abuse if it isn't obvious only taking (i) into account.
On the background of this, can it plausibly be claimed that the Monkeynews et al. were exploiting? As hinted, I strongly believe the answer is no. Reasonably, the extent to which one realizes that one's behaviour is considered exploiting (or to the extent that one should realize it as such) should play a big part in whether (i) is fulfilled. This stands to reason since to be using something in a way it is not intended, one has to know it is not in fact intended to work the way it is. Obviously, there are degrees to this 'knowledge' and to what extent one ought to know that something is exploiting which is, again, why (ii) is relevant, too.
More to the matter at hand. Looting the tubers in the way that Monkeynews et al. did corresponds exactly to how the vast majority of all raiding guilds prepare weekly for raids (i.e. looting song flowers in exactly the same way). This sets a very strong precedent that what the NOPErs were doing was in fact not exploiting. It's naive and false to completely disregard how people perceive the game mechanics; if a vast majority of players suspect that a game mechanic works in a way that is not an exploit, it most likely isn't an exploit. At the very least, this case is definately not obvious according to the (i) condition.
Did they get an unfair advantage (ii)? Absolutely not. The way they looted the tubers is known to virtually everyone who uses song flower and them looting the tubers did not prevent others from looting them as well (pvp concerns aside).
Given that (i) barely obtains in this case, and that (ii) does not obtain at all, I think Nostalrius acted wrongly in banning Monkeynews et al.
Secondly, there is also the matter of predictability. I work as a lawyer at a court and one of the main and almost sacred tenants that every judge must adhear to when ruling cases is that the court ruling must be predictable. This is a very basic concept, arguably the whole western society relies on the fact that we are protected from arbitrary punishments. One can perhaps sympathize with Nostalrius' desire to prevent people from simultaneously looting tubers (though honestly, even this makes little sense, further adding to the absurdity of the present situation) but if they desire a change of policy here, they reasonably have to declare this before-hand, rather than banning first and announcing it later.
Conclusively, I think nostalrius has, once again, made a huge error in banning Monkeynews & friends. The controversies just keep adding up, silithus miners etc. It worries me greatly how poorly Nostalrius is handling change of policies in these situations, especially when the 'exploit' is far from obvious, negligible and, excuse my choice of words, fucking blizzlike. I think Nostalrius has a lot of credit to gain by reconsidering the present ban on Monkeynews etc.
ty for reading
I would like to begin with a quote from Nano of the IsVV-team.
Even if something was possible on retail does not mean it isn't an exploit. There are a lot of things that we've fixed along the way that were possible in retail vanilla, even common use in retail vanilla, but that doesn't mean it isn't an exploit.
The end result is that these players had multiple warnings on their accounts and were told that any further abuses would result in a permanent loss of their character if they continued to pursue and intentionally use exploits. The players did continue to pursue and intentionally use exploits and were banned as promised. Any further threads on this topic will be locked as it is now considered spam.
There are, I believe, two key issues that needs to be highlighted here. 1. What constitutes as an exploit, and 2. the matter of predictability.
Regarding the first point, I think, and I believe almost everyone agrees with me here (NOPE-grievers notwithstanding) that it is very far-fetched to claim that the synchronized tuber-looting is an exploit. I think a plausible definition of exploiting involves two elements: (i) using something in a way that is not working as intended that (ii) gives one an unfair advantage. Logically, only (i) needs to be fulfilled for something to be exploiting (since it involves an abuse of game mechanics which, seemingly, would be enough to constitute exploiting). (ii) is also important however, since it acts as a further justification to classify something as an abuse if it isn't obvious only taking (i) into account.
On the background of this, can it plausibly be claimed that the Monkeynews et al. were exploiting? As hinted, I strongly believe the answer is no. Reasonably, the extent to which one realizes that one's behaviour is considered exploiting (or to the extent that one should realize it as such) should play a big part in whether (i) is fulfilled. This stands to reason since to be using something in a way it is not intended, one has to know it is not in fact intended to work the way it is. Obviously, there are degrees to this 'knowledge' and to what extent one ought to know that something is exploiting which is, again, why (ii) is relevant, too.
More to the matter at hand. Looting the tubers in the way that Monkeynews et al. did corresponds exactly to how the vast majority of all raiding guilds prepare weekly for raids (i.e. looting song flowers in exactly the same way). This sets a very strong precedent that what the NOPErs were doing was in fact not exploiting. It's naive and false to completely disregard how people perceive the game mechanics; if a vast majority of players suspect that a game mechanic works in a way that is not an exploit, it most likely isn't an exploit. At the very least, this case is definately not obvious according to the (i) condition.
Did they get an unfair advantage (ii)? Absolutely not. The way they looted the tubers is known to virtually everyone who uses song flower and them looting the tubers did not prevent others from looting them as well (pvp concerns aside).
Given that (i) barely obtains in this case, and that (ii) does not obtain at all, I think Nostalrius acted wrongly in banning Monkeynews et al.
Secondly, there is also the matter of predictability. I work as a lawyer at a court and one of the main and almost sacred tenants that every judge must adhear to when ruling cases is that the court ruling must be predictable. This is a very basic concept, arguably the whole western society relies on the fact that we are protected from arbitrary punishments. One can perhaps sympathize with Nostalrius' desire to prevent people from simultaneously looting tubers (though honestly, even this makes little sense, further adding to the absurdity of the present situation) but if they desire a change of policy here, they reasonably have to declare this before-hand, rather than banning first and announcing it later.
Conclusively, I think nostalrius has, once again, made a huge error in banning Monkeynews & friends. The controversies just keep adding up, silithus miners etc. It worries me greatly how poorly Nostalrius is handling change of policies in these situations, especially when the 'exploit' is far from obvious, negligible and, excuse my choice of words, fucking blizzlike. I think Nostalrius has a lot of credit to gain by reconsidering the present ban on Monkeynews etc.
ty for reading