Gli, on 01 February 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:
There's nothing morally reprehensible about removing miscreants and other undesirable individuals from a place you own, be it a real one or a virtual one, as long as the removal is based upon the actions and not upon inherent qualities of the individuals. Why do you think it is?
But they are not miscreants. They simply used what was available to them. ANet is the complete creator of the game world and can simply avoid putting things that should not be used into the game world. If they don't do that then the sole responsibility for the problems caused is with ANet.
XPhiler, on 01 February 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:
No it doesnt, what the law would state is something like that a public official would be guilty if it traded influence for a price. price might be defined it includes things like money, favors, promises etc.. and influence would be defined as I dont know deciding on stuff which benefits whoever is bribing you. But it wouldnt go in such detail as to explicity exclude that its okey so far as your partner does it and in return for a meal. keep in mind this same thing would be considered bribing in certain cases. But it would be up to the court to clear that up. The law itself cannot simply put in any possible scenario and list which is okey or which is not okey.
You dont need to use magic for someone to miss a slash tire. Unless you have a habbit of running a checklist before driving off like pilots do it can happen very easily. But anyhow thats irellevant. Point of fact is that yes you need to use your own judgement. If you decide to slash the tire its your responsability that such an action might put the driver in danger. The law doesnt tell you that its up to you. Just cause you never intended to harm anyone appart from the tire is irellevant. That murder has no mention of slashing tires is irellevant. That you were sure that slashing a tire isnt akin to murder is irellevant. if your victim drives off and dies you're still guilty both morally and legally.
same with an exploit, its up to the player to make a sound judgement if what they're doing is legal or not. (legal as in allowed obviously) Lets not manipulate stuff here, arenanet never banned anyone for something thats hard to judge if its an exploit or not like your mesmer portal case. Arenanet only banned people when the case was clearly an exploit and then only when they were sure the exploiter knew well it was an exploit (doing it 100s or 1000s of times.) Do you have any doubt that something like crafting an item 5 times and salvaging leaves you with 10x the investment you made is an exploit or not? be honest!
Huh? Correct, it's down to prices (purchase value, usually) and gifts that are otherwise valued on a personal basis (sexual favors can be considered bribes in some countries). Getting a dinner made for you by your spouse is not a bribe, not because the spouse didn't use it as an illicit bargaining chip, but because it is not covered by any bribery law. If a court can prove that a civil servant or the like made a uncalled for decision because of his spouse promising to make food for him, it would be considered professional misconduct, not accepting a bribe, since a dinner (in this case) is not a bribe.
See, that's how the law works - if something is not explicitly forbidden, then it's ok. And laws that go something like "if you do something unspecified that the legislator didn't intend for, you are guilty"
would never exist, they are unconstitutional in any even remotely democratic country on earth.
I think you have never driven a car with a flat tire. If you can't tell when you just look at the car, and can't tell when you get in, you're still very likely to notice as soon as you start driving.
Now what you need to ask yourself is: if ANet slashes your tire (releases a bugged patch), and you notice it, would it be ok to drive the car (loop the craft/salvage cycle) anyway?
The real world answer to the question is: no, clearly not, since driving with a damaged tire means that you are presenting a danger to other drivers. But GW2 isn't the real world. ANet built the road, built your car, built your tires, slashed not just your tires but everyone else's as well, and most importantly, if any collisions do happen, ANet have the power to magically restore the cars and any drivers/passengers getting hurt to pristine condition. Suddenly there is no danger to anyone else, and that means that yes, it is ok to drive the car even with the slashed tire.
ANet has sole responsibility here.
XPhiler, on 01 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:
Again playing with words. Arenanet allowed them to craft the item and salavage it not to exploit it. They were allowed to use it as much as they want, this wasnt about creating 1000 items. If they did that for legitimate reasons than thats okey. For example craft 1000 of that item thats exploitable for them to sell. But crafting and salvaging results in an abnormal profit hence thats an exploit, hence someone who also crafted 1000 items and salvaged them though technically he did the same thing would be guilty of exploiting. There is a difference that you're missing (or convinently ignoring) between what you're allowed to do, the action you do and the reason of why you're doing that action. My driving license allows me to drive. I can legally drive around as much as I want. That does not mean I can also run people over. Thats what you're essentially saying. Hey the goverment is allowing me to drive so anything I do while I am driving should be allowed. No not at all.
I think you need to revisit what the meaning of taking responsability is.
- The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something.
- The state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.
1. Anet cause an exploit. That created exploiters. How do you deal with that? close the exploits ban exploiters.
2. Being accountable. how do you do that? Admit you have an exploit.
Anet's action satisfy both in my opinion. But please explain to me how just closing the exploit and letting exploiters be so that it encourages them to exploit more next time would be taking more responsability cause honestly I dont follow the logic.
Ohh please old Anet never did any rebalancing right?
Yeah? Where's the limit? How much do you need to cycle to get banned? Is it ok to do 100? is 400 ok? What about 319? Maybe everyone who cycled 320 times and more got banned. What's the difference from someone who did it 319 times? And it doesn't matter what number you say. If you did it even once after realizing that the loop worked, it's an exploit. But people who did it, say, 40 times did not get banned for it. They realized that it was an exploit and they did it anyway.
I know what responsibility is, and I don't even spell it as "responsability".
Also, yes, ANet frequently rebalanced, but you know what? When they rebalanced a skill, they didn't ban people for using it before the rebalance. Regardless of how many times they used the skill.
Trei, on 01 February 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:
Because it's what separates us rational, sentient adult human beings from animals.
Just because the exploit was there, making it possible for me to exploit it, therefore I should exploit it?
You can easily buy a pet rabbit, you can legally buy a knife.
You can use the knife on the rabbit for fun and cut its legs off.
All of these are possible.
You can go around demeaning people with disabilities, insult them, call them liabilities to society.
You can insist on forcing your way into packed lifts before anyone has a chance to exit and make room for you first.
You can name your child after Hitler.
Responsibility has much less to do with what you can or cannot do than what you should or should not do.
The banned players chose to do something they should not have done.
The bug would have no impact on the game if not for this singular specific individual choice each of them made.
Who should take responsibility for this singular specific individual choice each of them made?
Anet or the individuals themselves?
Lots of questions.
1. If you want to harm a rabbit for some (probably sick) reason, then that would seem to be a reasonable way to do it.
2. Only if actually believe that disabled people are liabilities to society. Some people (various religious nutcases etc.) do and it would be unreasonable to demand that those people should not be able to speak their mind.
3. No, it would probably result in getting jostled and having your feet stepped on. Would recommend waiting until people get off.
4. I personally don't like the name, so no. It's fairly common in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries, though.
ANet should take the responsibility. They are the creators of the game, and they can undo any damage that the exploiting players could potentially cause to it. All the exploiting players did was to use the things that they were given by the creators of the world that they paid for the grace of playing in.