Please, a clear statement re: AFK farming.
In that case, you can either not do whatever you were doing before, or ask to have your Ticket escalated.
Good luck.
The dev has already posted a list of things that need to happen to be considered afk farming. The person who you’re talking about can review that list to see if that’s what he’s doing. If his actions aren’t on the list then he should be in the clear.
Be careful what you ask for
ANet may give it to you.
ANet may give it to you.
In that case, you can either not do whatever you were doing before, or ask to have your Ticket escalated.
Good luck.
Let’s for arguments sake say that the issue was Escalated to a Senior GM
who stated that the Account-Owner was Automating Combat by using
the Auto-Cast Feature . .
While the Account-Owner knew this was not the case.
Let’s then again for Arguments Sake in this very fictional Scenario say
that the Case was then De-Escalated again to a normal GM who after
repeating the same Statement decided to shut down the case*.
What can the Account owner do in such a Fictional Scenario.
(*Remember again everyone that this is to be viewed as a Fictional Scenario)
¥ameon
(edited by Lord Yameon.5902)
The dev has already posted a list of things that need to happen to be considered afk farming. The person who you’re talking about can review that list to see if that’s what he’s doing. If his actions aren’t on the list then he should be in the clear.
Are you reffering to the list made by Chris Cleary ?
¥ameon
Well, you can try getting it escalated again; try appealing to Michael on Reddit (as the ‘Tickets for Review’ thread has been removed); or just let it lie, and, again, try not to duplicate those particular actions.
Good luck.
In that case, you can either not do whatever you were doing before, or ask to have your Ticket escalated.
Good luck.
Let’s for arguments sake say that the issue was Escalated to a Senior GM
who stated that the Account-Owner was Automating Combat by using
the Auto-Cast Feature . .
While the Account-Owner knew this was not the case.Let’s then again for Arguments Sake in this very fictional Scenario say
that the Case was then De-Escalated again to a normal GM who after
repeating the same Statement decided to shut down the case*.What can the Account owner do in such a Fictional Scenario.
(*Remember again everyone that this is to be viewed as a Fictinal Scenario)
¥ameon
How does the account owner “know” that their interpretation of the situation is accurate?
ANet’s definition of AFK farming is liberal enough to allow people to watch a movie while playing. In a dispute, I’d tend to believe that Support got it right, unless the player could offer something other than a vague hypothetical.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
Thanks for the suggestion there . . it is most apreciated.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
In that case, you can either not do whatever you were doing before, or ask to have your Ticket escalated.
Good luck.
Let’s for arguments sake say that the issue was Escalated to a Senior GM
who stated that the Account-Owner was Automating Combat by using
the Auto-Cast Feature . .
While the Account-Owner knew this was not the case.Let’s then again for Arguments Sake in this very fictional Scenario say
that the Case was then De-Escalated again to a normal GM who after
repeating the same Statement decided to shut down the case*.What can the Account owner do in such a Fictional Scenario.
(*Remember again everyone that this is to be viewed as a Fictinal Scenario)
¥ameon
How does the account owner “know” that their interpretation of the situation is accurate?
ANet’s definition of AFK farming is liberal enough to allow people to watch a movie while playing. In a dispute, I’d tend to believe that Support got it right, unless the player could offer something other than a vague hypothetical.
How about if that in this Extremely Fictional Scenario The Account-owner
know how to replicate the Scenario and therefore also know that it would
be in the Log’s to see if he or She was Abusing the Auto-Cast Feature or not.
Alas for reasons unknown in this particular Fictional Scenario a thourough Re-investigation of the matter did not seem to occur.
(*The above mentioned Events are to be viewed as Fictional)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
Is it really that hard for people to realize they’re afk farming how technical does it really have to be to understand the difference between being afk and afk farming. This really just feels like a stubborn player issue.
Is it really that hard for people to realize they’re afk farming how technical does it really have to be to understand the difference between being afk and afk farming. This really just feels like a stubborn player issue.
The Problem here may be that some people could think that they are
doing nothing that is against the rules untill they are suddenly
issued with a 70+ Hour Suspension for a first time offence
(That should not be an offence if we are allowed to be Technical)
When applying rules it is quite important to not leave any room for
Confusion and/or misunderstandings .. both for those that may be
breaking those same rules, as it is for those that are to
administer them.
Furthermore is to say that Emotions/Feelings and Logic seldom lead
to the same Conclusions.
[Sidenote]:
If the Games Funktions and Features dosent work the way they where
intended, then perhaps it could Be better fix those features and
Funktions rather than Punishing the Customers for using them.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
(edited by Lord Yameon.5902)
Or the fictional player could just say, “Lesson learned”, and stop AFK-farming. It’s pretty clear the User Agreement forbids unattended play, no matter how the players may wish to interpret that.
If the GMs find one has broken the rules, and instituted a short vacation, there’s little to be gained from trying to fight it; the vacation will be over before, likely, it is resolved in the player’s favor, and unless said player is planning on breaking more UA rules, the mark on the account means little to nothing.
While there have been some cases where rulings have been shown to be later wrong when a senior staffer checks into it, it’s not going to happen here. The Devs don’t read this forum, or vary rarely. All the known cases where they read on a forum and came in and reavaluated the incident have been on Reddit. So, posting here (about a fictional incident) will not get you an answer (unless lightning strikes and you get a response).
I suggest that if you feel that this fictional incident would cause a unfair santion and then you worry it might happen again
1) you keep a sanctioning ticket saved
2) you make very sure that you don’t afk in a spot where mobs spawn. If you want to keep your location on that map go to PvP or your guild hall or a safe waypoint. Or else go a city to afk.
Other than that, I don’t see how we can help since we don’t know details of this fictional incident.
Be careful what you ask for
ANet may give it to you.
ANet may give it to you.
In that case, you can either not do whatever you were doing before, or ask to have your Ticket escalated.
Good luck.
Let’s for arguments sake say that the issue was Escalated to a Senior GM
who stated that the Account-Owner was Automating Combat by using
the Auto-Cast Feature . .
While the Account-Owner knew this was not the case.Let’s then again for Arguments Sake in this very fictional Scenario say
that the Case was then De-Escalated again to a normal GM who after
repeating the same Statement decided to shut down the case*.What can the Account owner do in such a Fictional Scenario.
(*Remember again everyone that this is to be viewed as a Fictinal Scenario)
¥ameon
How does the account owner “know” that their interpretation of the situation is accurate?
ANet’s definition of AFK farming is liberal enough to allow people to watch a movie while playing. In a dispute, I’d tend to believe that Support got it right, unless the player could offer something other than a vague hypothetical.
How about if that in this Extremely Fictional Scenario The Account-owner
know how to replicate the Scenario and therefore also know that it would
be in the Log’s to see if he or She was Abusing the Auto-Cast Feature or not.Alas for reasons unknown in this particular Fictional Scenario a thourough Re-investigation of the matter did not seem to occur.
(*The above mentioned Events are to be viewed as Fictional)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
Again, how is it that the fictional player knows more about what’s in the logs than the fictional ANet staffer? Why is the fictional plaintiff so sure that there wasn’t a proper investigation or re-investigation? ANet never takes action against an account without doing so.
So again, in the absence of an actual theoretical fact that explains the alleged discrepancy, there’s no reason for anyone on the forums to trust the plaintiff’s allegations over ANet’s review of the theoretical situation.
As others have said, either push graciously to escalate the ticket or accept that ANet’s not going to change its mind about what happened.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
Or the fictional player could just say, “Lesson learned”, and stop AFK-farming. It’s pretty clear the User Agreement forbids unattended play, no matter how the players may wish to interpret that.
If the GMs find one has broken the rules, and instituted a short vacation, there’s little to be gained from trying to fight it; the vacation will be over before, likely, it is resolved in the player’s favor, and unless said player is planning on breaking more UA rules, the mark on the account means little to nothing.
Perhaps the “Lession Learned” thus far perhaps is that what is being said
and done does not seem to match up . .
The intent of this discussion regarding the Fictional Scenario is to make
it clear what the exact rules are . . if the current rule-set is not clear
enough then perhaps the rules need to be Re-evaluated and/or Re-adjusted
to avoid more confusion from occuring … if more and more Fictional
players get suspended because the rules are unclear then that would
perhaps not be an Ideal scenario either.
And the above mentioned Fictional Player may not be driven by the
desire of having matters resolved in his or her favour,
Perhaps his or her only desire is to get a better understanding of the
Rules and to be sure that no mistake has been made . . and likewise
to prevent future mistakes from happening.
And with that in mind if you could let me know where in the User
Agreement i can find this Rule and/or quote the section you are
reffering to.As i have not been able to find that particular section
myself.
And if the rules where so crystal clear as you imply, then there
would not be any need for an 8 page thread regarding this
topic, a Topic that since it’s creation has no definite answer
(As far as i can see) as to what the exact rules are.
¥ameon
And if the rules where so crystal clear as you imply, then there
would not be any need for an 8 page thread regarding this
topic, a Topic that since it’s creation has no definite answer
(As far as i can see) as to what the exact rules are.
The rules have been quoted, reposted, requoted, and we still have threads like this because… people don’t like the rule.
Some don’t like it because it’s too forgiving — farmers are able to watch videos while remaining sufficiently active to avoid action on their account and some people feel that’s wrong. Others don’t like it because it’s too strict — they are used to other games that actively encourage making money while AFK.
And take yourself: you’ve been offered suggestions for how to deal with the theoretical scenario; you don’t like any of them, so you keep posting. That’s got nothing to do with whether the rules are sufficiently clear.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
In that case, you can either not do whatever you were doing before, or ask to have your Ticket escalated.
Good luck.
Let’s for arguments sake say that the issue was Escalated to a Senior GM
who stated that the Account-Owner was Automating Combat by using
the Auto-Cast Feature . .
While the Account-Owner knew this was not the case.Let’s then again for Arguments Sake in this very fictional Scenario say
that the Case was then De-Escalated again to a normal GM who after
repeating the same Statement decided to shut down the case*.What can the Account owner do in such a Fictional Scenario.
(*Remember again everyone that this is to be viewed as a Fictinal Scenario)
¥ameon
How does the account owner “know” that their interpretation of the situation is accurate?
ANet’s definition of AFK farming is liberal enough to allow people to watch a movie while playing. In a dispute, I’d tend to believe that Support got it right, unless the player could offer something other than a vague hypothetical.
How about if that in this Extremely Fictional Scenario The Account-owner
know how to replicate the Scenario and therefore also know that it would
be in the Log’s to see if he or She was Abusing the Auto-Cast Feature or not.Alas for reasons unknown in this particular Fictional Scenario a thourough Re-investigation of the matter did not seem to occur.
(*The above mentioned Events are to be viewed as Fictional)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameonAgain, how is it that the fictional player knows more about what’s in the logs than the fictional ANet staffer? Why is the fictional plaintiff so sure that there wasn’t a proper investigation or re-investigation? ANet never takes action against an account without doing so.
So again, in the absence of an actual theoretical fact that explains the alleged discrepancy, there’s no reason for anyone on the forums to trust the plaintiff’s allegations over ANet’s review of the theoretical situation.
As others have said, either push graciously to escalate the ticket or accept that ANet’s not going to change its mind about what happened.
You should be able to say, based on the fact’s provided in my
first post on Page 7 if an action taken against an account was
warranted or not.
I will repost the Fictional Scenario for your convenience here:
______________________________________________________________________________
So if for example you where investigated by a GM while AFK in a location that
was Advantageous to you (With Auto-Cast Turned on but as above described not
funktional in a way as to facilitate Unattended Gameplay) . . and you where
not responding to the GM (As you are AFK) . . and in addition to this there
is anouther Funktion (Like Enemy uses fear or in other ways make your
character move while being AFK) that would/could interrupt the Auto-Logout
Funktion . . .
I wonder if a player could,would or should get actioned in the above mentioned
Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps this question could be answered with either a yes or a no.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
(edited by Lord Yameon.5902)
And if the rules where so crystal clear as you imply, then there
would not be any need for an 8 page thread regarding this
topic, a Topic that since it’s creation has no definite answer
(As far as i can see) as to what the exact rules are.The rules have been quoted, reposted, requoted, and we still have threads like this because… people don’t like the rule.
Some don’t like it because it’s too forgiving — farmers are able to watch videos while remaining sufficiently active to avoid action on their account and some people feel that’s wrong. Others don’t like it because it’s too strict — they are used to other games that actively encourage making money while AFK.
And take yourself: you’ve been offered suggestions for how to deal with the theoretical scenario; you don’t like any of them, so you keep posting. That’s got nothing to do with whether the rules are sufficiently clear.
Then show me where theese rules are that apply to the Scenario
i described .. cause as i have said .. i have found no rule that fit’s
the scenario.
Show me or Quote them.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
And if the rules where so crystal clear as you imply, then there
would not be any need for an 8 page thread regarding this
topic, a Topic that since it’s creation has no definite answer
(As far as i can see) as to what the exact rules are.The rules have been quoted, reposted, requoted, and we still have threads like this because… people don’t like the rule.
Some don’t like it because it’s too forgiving — farmers are able to watch videos while remaining sufficiently active to avoid action on their account and some people feel that’s wrong. Others don’t like it because it’s too strict — they are used to other games that actively encourage making money while AFK.
And take yourself: you’ve been offered suggestions for how to deal with the theoretical scenario; you don’t like any of them, so you keep posting. That’s got nothing to do with whether the rules are sufficiently clear.
Then show me where theese rules are that apply to the Scenario
i described .. cause as i have said .. i have found no rule that fit’s
the scenario.Show me or Quote them.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
1) We can not answer your question as we don’t know sufficient information, such as what skills, what traits on that skill and what ANet sees.
2) it doesn’t matter what we say, it’s up to ANet
3) ANet is not going to answer you here. Not on a theoretical question. It’s not going to happen. At best they’ll refer you to the rules stated previously.
So, don’t afk in areas that mobs may appear. Go to a safe spot and then afk.
Be careful what you ask for
ANet may give it to you.
ANet may give it to you.
(edited by Just a flesh wound.3589)
Then show me where theese rules are that apply to the Scenario
i described .. cause as i have said .. i have found no rule that fit’s
the scenario.Show me or Quote them.
Here are the rules you quoted:
1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK
2) AFKing in a place where it is beneficial for your character to be at
3) Unresponsive to interaction with GMs
Here’s how you described the scenario:
- “investigated by a GM while AFK”
- “in a location that was Advantageous”
- “With Auto-Cast Turned on”
- “not funktional in a way as to facilitate Unattended Gameplay”
- “not responding to the GM”
- “there is anouther Funktion … that would/could interrupt the Auto-Logout”
The single point where your scenario differs from the quote by Chris Cleary is the claim “not functional in a way as to facilitate unattended gameplay” — why are you so sure that is true? And what difference does it make if the player was AFK?
Are you claiming that because NPCs kept the account from being auto-logged out that it was somehow OK to be AFK farming? Your hypothetical player was AFK and did not respond to the GM — what else is there to discuss?
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
So if for example you where investigated by a GM while AFK in a location that
was Advantageous to you (With Auto-Cast Turned on but as above described not
funktional in a way as to facilitate Unattended Gameplay) . . and you where
not responding to the GM (As you are AFK) . . and in addition to this there
is anouther Funktion (Like Enemy uses fear or in other ways make your
character move while being AFK) that would/could interrupt the Auto-Logout
Funktion . . .I wonder if a player could,would or should get actioned in the above mentioned
Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________Perhaps this question could be answered with either a yes or a no.
Seems like the answer would be “yes”.
1. The character was AFK in a location that was advantageous for them (with regard to getting loot while AFK).
2. The player did not respond to the GM (because they were AFK).
3. Fear/knockback, etc. does not turn off auto-cast, and is thus irrelevant.
Server: Devona’s Rest
If you’re sitting there coming up with finicky "what if . . . " scenarios, you probably already know what you’re doing isn’t in line with the “rules” stated by devs.
@: Illconceived Was Na.9781 and mtpelion.4562
Let’s say the Fictional Player was AFK on an Elementalist with Autocast on skill 1
If you would run some test’s . . we could discuss the results afterwards.
¥ameon
If you’re sitting there coming up with finicky "what if . . . " scenarios, you probably already know what you’re doing isn’t in line with the “rules” stated by devs.
I could easily say that this is speculation.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
Skill #1 autocast functions differently from other “no target required” autocast skills that are used to bypass the auto-logout. Dropping your character somewhere and only having auto-cast on skill 1 should result in you being kicked to the login screen.
Server: Devona’s Rest
@: Illconceived Was Na.9781 and mtpelion.4562
Let’s say the Fictional Player was AFK on an Elementalist with Autocast on skill 1
If you would run some test’s . . we could discuss the results afterwards.
Let’s say I doubt that was the case.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
At this rate, you are only likely to find your account actioned once again.
Best to just drop it.
Good luck.
If you’re sitting there coming up with finicky "what if . . . " scenarios, you probably already know what you’re doing isn’t in line with the “rules” stated by devs.
That.
My impression is that he’s trying to outsmart the GM and ArenaNet as a whole, while exactly knowing that he’s afk farming and that it is against the rules. The intention of the rule is very clear, but a hard definition is not possible. You can also filter names you don’t want to see in the game or in the forums, but that doesn’t mean that all names that are not banned are allowed. The intend of forbidding a range of offending names is clear, but it’s impossible to list all offending ones.
Same with the afk farming rule.
Fun thing is that there is no ruling government and no judges that tell ArenaNet what afk farming is and what not. They have the last word here, and the interpretation lies with them. It’s not smart at all to pick that battle, just move on man! ArenaNet and the GM don’t have any beef with you personally, you are not that important. There is no supreme court that will rule for you.
Herleve – Ruins of Surmia
Skill #1 autocast functions differently from other “no target required” autocast skills that are used to bypass the auto-logout. Dropping your character somewhere and only having auto-cast on skill 1 should result in you being kicked to the login screen.
Ok .. so with that in mind and we also take a look again at what
Chris Cleary wrote in his post regarding the 3 “rules”.
The auto-cast feature was never intended to be used as an AFK farming mechanism, and usage of the auto-cast feature while AFK is fine as long as it is not used to facilitate unattended gameplay.
1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK
2) AFKing in a place where it is beneficial for your character to be at
3) Unresponsive to interaction with GMsIf all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.
(The last line in the quote is or particular interest as i see it)
Then keep in mind the Fictional Scenario.
Is your answer still yes regarding the earlyer yes or no Question ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
If you’re sitting there coming up with finicky "what if . . . " scenarios, you probably already know what you’re doing isn’t in line with the “rules” stated by devs.
That.
My impression is that he’s trying to outsmart the GM and ArenaNet as a whole, while exactly knowing that he’s afk farming and that it is against the rules. The intention of the rule is very clear, but a hard definition is not possible. You can also filter names you don’t want to see in the game or in the forums, but that doesn’t mean that all names that are not banned are allowed. The intend of forbidding a range of offending names is clear, but it’s impossible to list all offending ones.
Same with the afk farming rule.
Fun thing is that there is no ruling government and no judges that tell ArenaNet what afk farming is and what not. They have the last word here, and the interpretation lies with them. It’s not smart at all to pick that battle, just move on man! ArenaNet and the GM don’t have any beef with you personally, you are not that important. There is no supreme court that will rule for you.
So you think that if you dont understand how something works then
you should just step away from it and move on ?
I dont think you fully read and understood my point of view here .. all
see on your part is speculation .. if i get actioned against for having
questions about the rules with the purpose of gainining a deeper
understanding of said Rules, then something is more wrong here than i
first thought.
I dont ask for you to agree with what i say here nessesarily .. but at least
have the degree of respect nessesary to try to actually understand the
point of view that i am presenting.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
Skill #1 autocast functions differently from other “no target required” autocast skills that are used to bypass the auto-logout. Dropping your character somewhere and only having auto-cast on skill 1 should result in you being kicked to the login screen.
Ok .. so with that in mind and we also take a look again at what
Chris Cleary wrote in his post regarding the 3 “rules”.
The auto-cast feature was never intended to be used as an AFK farming mechanism, and usage of the auto-cast feature while AFK is fine as long as it is not used to facilitate unattended gameplay.
1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK
2) AFKing in a place where it is beneficial for your character to be at
3) Unresponsive to interaction with GMsIf all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.
(The last line in the quote is or particular interest as i see it)
Then keep in mind the Fictional Scenario.
Is your answer still yes regarding the earlyer yes or no Question ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
Skill #1 will only autocast until the current target is dead, so your Character would NOT be violating rule 1 in this example. You would either never be using a skill while AFK, or would only be doing so for less than 1 minute until the mob you attacked before going AFK died and your character went dormant until auto-logout kicked in.
Server: Devona’s Rest
Skill #1 autocast functions differently from other “no target required” autocast skills that are used to bypass the auto-logout. Dropping your character somewhere and only having auto-cast on skill 1 should result in you being kicked to the login screen.
Ok .. so with that in mind and we also take a look again at what
Chris Cleary wrote in his post regarding the 3 “rules”.
The auto-cast feature was never intended to be used as an AFK farming mechanism, and usage of the auto-cast feature while AFK is fine as long as it is not used to facilitate unattended gameplay.
1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK
2) AFKing in a place where it is beneficial for your character to be at
3) Unresponsive to interaction with GMsIf all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.
(The last line in the quote is or particular interest as i see it)
Then keep in mind the Fictional Scenario.
Is your answer still yes regarding the earlyer yes or no Question ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameonSkill #1 will only autocast until the current target is dead, so your Character would NOT be violating rule 1 in this example. You would either never be using a skill while AFK, or would only be doing so for less than 1 minute until the mob you attacked before going AFK died and your character went dormant until auto-logout kicked in.
That was and is also my own conclution of the Fictional Scenario.
Thanks for your patience and understanding.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
I dont ask for you to agree with what i say here nessesarily .. but at least
have the degree of respect nessesary to try to actually understand the
point of view that i am presenting.
You might want to re-read what you wrote and consider if you are following your own advice.
Several people have attempted to parse your hypothetical to understand just what you think is the issue. You haven’t made that easy, since you haven’t offered any new details since your first post. They seem to have come to the same conclusion.
So you might want to consider whether it’s everyone else who is missing the point… or whether you’re reluctant to admit that you might be misunderstanding the situation. (And there’s no shame in that: we’ve all done that at some point in our gaming and real lives.)
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
I dont ask for you to agree with what i say here nessesarily .. but at least
have the degree of respect nessesary to try to actually understand the
point of view that i am presenting.You might want to re-read what you wrote and consider if you are following your own advice.
Several people have attempted to parse your hypothetical to understand just what you think is the issue. You haven’t made that easy, since you haven’t offered any new details since your first post. They seem to have come to the same conclusion.
So you might want to consider whether it’s everyone else who is missing the point… or whether you’re reluctant to admit that you might be misunderstanding the situation. (And there’s no shame in that: we’ve all done that at some point in our gaming and real lives.)
I think i did manage to break it down somewhat well (if i may say so myself)
a coulpe of Posts above this one in my Dialouge with mr:mtpelion.4562
But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.
And this is the main reason for this whole dialouge … to gain a deeper
understanding of the Rules (With the Fictional Scenario in mind) . . And
by ironing out this potential loop-hole of the Rules so that the future
Fictional Players may avoid getting in to trouble and learning what not to
do in an easyer way . . instead of the hard way.
[Furthermore]:
If someone dosent seem to understand my point of view in a debate i try to
determine as well as can be done as why this is like so .. sometimes i find
that the reason could be due to me not explaining it well enough like you
mentioned .. but also at times it is because someone may not have taken the
time nessesary to fully understand my point of view .. at other times it
could be something completely different or a combination of some or all of
the above.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
(edited by Lord Yameon.5902)
But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.
Let me know what part of “did not respond to the GM while AFK” you have trouble understanding and I will try to assist you in understanding why the rest of the scenario doesn’t matter all that much.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.Let me know what part of “did not respond to the GM while AFK” you have trouble understanding and I will try to assist you in understanding why the rest of the scenario doesn’t matter all that much.
This reply makes me think that you have not and will not try to understand the Fictional Scenario that is being presented here . .
And if that is the case then there is little i can do to help you.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.Let me know what part of “did not respond to the GM while AFK” you have trouble understanding and I will try to assist you in understanding why the rest of the scenario doesn’t matter all that much.
This reply makes me think that you have not and will not try to understand the Fictional Scenario that is being presented here . .
And if that is the case then there is little i can do to help you.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
The rules that have been quoted several times already have already addressed your fictional scenario. The problem here is that it seems that you’re either not understanding the rules and/or trying to point out a loophole which doesn’t actually exist.
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.Let me know what part of “did not respond to the GM while AFK” you have trouble understanding and I will try to assist you in understanding why the rest of the scenario doesn’t matter all that much.
This reply makes me think that you have not and will not try to understand the Fictional Scenario that is being presented here . .
And if that is the case then there is little i can do to help you.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameonThe rules that have been quoted several times already have already addressed your fictional scenario. The problem here is that it seems that you’re either not understanding the rules and/or trying to point out a loophole which doesn’t actually exist.
No, yes and no (in that exact order)
Perhaps someone else would dare volounteer trying to explain
the Fictional Scenario to those that still dont understand .. as i
have run out of ideas as to how to break it down even further.
Thanks in Advance.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
Here’s what I’ve gathered from your statements:
Your character was parked in an area that was advantageous as far as acquiring loot goes.
You were not actively playing said character.
Said character’s auto-attack/cast feature was employed.
You did not respond when a GM (who gives several minutes [15-20?] for a response) contacted you.
An NPC sometimes used a skill that caused your character to move, bypassing the feature that would send your character back to the Character Select screen (which has nothing to do with the rules stated by Chris Cleary, and/or could be considered an exploit [something ArenaNet would decide/has decided in a review of your case]).
Sounds like you hit the big 3: Using a skill while AFK, in a beneficial place, and unresponsive to a GM. If you think because you/your character found a way to bypass the auto-log out, it absolves you from following the rules for unattended gameplay, I think the CS Team already ruled on that point, and found you lacking.
At least, that’s what I’m getting from this, now that you have provided more details.
Regardless, best of luck in your pursuit.
Here’s what I’ve gathered from your statements:
Your character was parked in an area that was advantageous as far as acquiring loot goes.
You were not actively playing said character.
Said character’s auto-attack/cast feature was employed.
You did not respond when a GM (who gives several minutes [15-20?] for a response) contacted you.
An NPC sometimes used a skill that caused your character to move, bypassing the feature that would send your character back to the Character Select screen (which has nothing to do with the rules stated by Chris Cleary, and/or could be considered an exploit [something ArenaNet would decide/has decided in a review of your case]).
Sounds like you hit the big 3: Using a skill while AFK, in a beneficial place, and unresponsive to a GM. If you think because you/your character found a way to bypass the auto-log out, it absolves you from following the rules for unattended gameplay, I think the CS Team already ruled on that point, and found you lacking.
At least, that’s what I’m getting from this, now that you have provided more details.
Regardless, best of luck in your pursuit.
Hello there . . thanks for the reply but i think you got one part
wrong of the Big 3 . . what skill was being “Used” during AFK.
If it is Skill 1 on an Elementalist then would that qualify for
the Big 3 ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
The rule does not specify only certain skills; just using a skill. As far as I know, Elementalists have 12 Skill number 1s (not including underwater skills). Does it matter, if the rule states ‘using a skill’?
Are you claiming you were not AFK farming?
(edited by Inculpatus cedo.9234)
The rule does not specify only certain skills; just using a skill. As far as I know, Elementalists have 4 Skill number ones. Does it matter, if the rule states ‘using a skill’?
Are you claiming you were not AFK farming?
I think that his point is that, as someone else pointed out earlier, ele skill one stops autocasting if its target dies. This would mean, if accurate, that one of the key “3” rules could not apply as the “fictional” ele could not have been autocasting its 1 skill.
I am not sure if any comment about other skills being on autocast was made, or if there are traits or something that do damage on being CCd by fear, or some other work around where there was technically no skill on autocast but some substitution to achieve a similar result.
The reality is that rules such as this have to have some vagueness built into them in order to cover unforeseen and unforeseeable possibilities that the player base might discover after millions of hours of play. Attempting to rules lawyer against the spirit of the rule by looking for loopholes not specifically declared against but clearly covered by the spirit of the rules is a pretty solid indication that the rules lawyer knew themselves to be violating the intent of the rule IMO.
To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*
Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.
[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon
To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*
Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon
An incomplete fictional scenario does not lend itself to an informed conclusion. When the party choosing what details to omit is also the one with a vested interest in the situation the entire scenario becomes suspect IMO.
To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*
Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon
I think everyone understands what you’re suggesting but they just disagree with you.
The first rule revolves around the player having things set up so that they don’t time out. The rule states using a skill but having something knock your character around to prevent a time out is practically the same thing. You’re more than welcome to try that and see if you get actioned against. You’ll know your answer then.
@ Ashen.2907
If the rules are meant to be vague to cover a wider selection of the same type
of Offence then they could had just have made clear that it was against the
rules to facilitate un-attended gameplay in any form what-so-ever . . rather
than having 3 points that dont apply to all scenarios, and that could/would
make Customers (and prossibly GMs too) confused.
To not have a well defined set of rules leads to “rule by fear” .. where
players will not know exactly what would constitute as an offence or not . .
That could lead to all sorts of issues down the road.
It’s like that Scenario* where there is a open door through where Rabbits
constantly keep coming in .. in stead of shutting the Door (IE: Fixing the
underlying problem IE: Having clear rules/Reworking the Game Features
and/or Funktions) .. Instead you keep chasing and disposing of the
Rabbits (IE: The Fictional Players) that keep coming in (That may or may
not think they are doing something wrong).
(*Pardon again for introducing yet anouther Scenario)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*
Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameonAn incomplete fictional scenario does not lend itself to an informed conclusion. When the party choosing what details to omit is also the one with a vested interest in the situation the entire scenario becomes suspect IMO.
Then use the Information that is provided . . . sometimes it is just that easy.
But the key part is in understanding the Fictional Scenario.
I would recommend reading the Dialoug that Mr:mtpelion.4562 and
i had above in this same Thread.
______________________________________________________________________________
Enjoy: ¥ameon
The rule is against AFK farming.
The three points are tools for assisting people who are not in your computer room to actually watch you play.
The real questions are:
Were you AFK?
Were you farming?
If you were AFK farming then the consequences are yours to own.
To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*
Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameonI think everyone understands what you’re suggesting but they just disagree with you.
The first rule revolves around the player having things set up so that they don’t time out. The rule states using a skill but having something knock your character around to prevent a time out is practically the same thing. You’re more than welcome to try that and see if you get actioned against. You’ll know your answer then.
Ok .. lets Copy-Paste in Rule no:1 here for refference:
1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK
How do you read in to above rule the following:
Quote: The rule states using a skill but having something knock
your character around to prevent a time out is practically the
same thing :EndQuote
I dont quite understand how to manage to interpret the Rule in
the way that you do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.Let me know what part of “did not respond to the GM while AFK” you have trouble understanding and I will try to assist you in understanding why the rest of the scenario doesn’t matter all that much.
This reply makes me think that you have not and will not try to understand the Fictional Scenario that is being presented here . .
And if that is the case then there is little i can do to help you.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon
I took the time to read your scenario several times. I don’t think I’m missing anything. Your claim is that an account was hypothetically sanctioned in a situation in which the autoattack was not keeping the account logged in. The only evidence of that claim (in the scenario) is that the player says that’s not what they were doing.
I ask you again: how much do you think that matters, given that your scenario includes a GM whispering and getting no response?
The policy is extremely liberal — it’s so flexible that it allows people to watch videos while farming (which upsets a lot of folks). As long as the player can keep moving around, casting skills, it’s okay. Your scenario is way past that line — it includes someone being away long enough to get a GM whisper and long enough for the GM to record “no reply” as the response.
So why exactly is it that you think there’s any question at all about what should have happened?
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”