Guild Wars 2

Ubi.4136:

He always skips the posts where people answer his questions.

Auto cast 1 does NOT keep casting when being attacked without a 3rd party program selecting targets to attack. The default auto attack is skill 1 (even for ele).

1. auto attack default set to skill 1
2. place character in an area advantageous to you
3. walk away from computer

A GM is never going to whisper you, because you died to the first mob that attacked you. If you didn’t die to the first mob that attacked you, you are using a 3rd party program to target, in which case you can be actioned.

But let’s say for Arguments Sake that in this Fictional Scenario the Fictional Elementalist does not die easily and does not use a 3rd party Program . . .

Then how do the Rules apply.

(Pardon for missing your post earlyer)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

It did not answer any of my Questions.

But thanks for trying.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

In order for the User Agreement to answer your questions, you first have to read it. I did you a favor by pointing to the exact text related to your “fictional situation”.

But the thing is that you dont understand the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Again, you did not answer the question. No problem, I think we all understand.

I didnt find a question that i deemed relevant to answer.

Pardon.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

And it is not Interpreted . . if you carefully read the Rules it actually
leaves a potential Loophole that some may try to use to their
Advantage as they could be led to think that it would not be against
the Rules to operate in such a fashion.

What loophole?

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-user-agreement/

5. CONDUCT

(a) It is Your responsibility to read, understand and accept the Rules of Conduct in effect in connection with Your use of the Service. You acknowledge that ArenaNet may make changes to the Rules of Conduct at any time.

(d)(i) Reported violations of Rules of Conduct that have merit – ArenaNet may take any action, or no action whatsoever, based on communications regarding violation of the Rules of Conduct related to any Account, including but not limited to providing You with a warning, penalties, and in certain cases termination of an Account under Section 3(b). ArenaNet has no obligation to explain any decision to take any action, or no action whatsoever, based on communications regarding violation of the Rules of Conduct related to any Account.

To make it simple to understand, Anet can do what they want, if they want to, when they want to, without having to explain why.

---

You are still contributing nothing of value.

Either get on Topic or Stop Posting.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You’re kidding right? I just linked you the User Agreement. It basically answered all your questions. I think you’re just mad that you got punished for breaking a rule.

It did not answer any of my Questions.

But thanks for trying.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Natto.5819:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve never answered the pertinent question. Was this ‘fictional’ character AFK-farming or not? No matter if said character broke the 3 rules or not?

If in this ‘fictitious’ scenario, the character was only AFK, and not using any skills, whatsoever (as you seem to want to imply, as Auto-cast Skill #1 won’t cast without a target), why not just say, “I believe my account was unfairly actioned as an AFK-farmer, when I was just AFK”, instead of saying you interpreted the rules to mean you could farm in this spot because you did not break all 3 rules?

The whole scenario is suspect.

Again, were you, or were you not AFK-farming?

I think he just wants us to test his theories in game so he doesn’t get into more trouble. And he can’t complain that he was unfairly actioned, since that is against forum rules, which is why he’s talking about a “fictional situation” to get around that rule. A moderator sent me a message saying they had to delete a bunch of his posts that I replied to already.

If you dont want to do your own investigation then you could use
the finding’s of mr:mtpelion.4562

If you dont have (and dont want to gain) the Knowledge nessesary
fo fully understand the contents of this Debate then perhaps you
should just stop posting in this Thread as you are Cluttering up
the Thread with post’s that has little to no meaning and relevance.

And the post’s where Deleted as you where not behaving all that
well at first and where i quoted you in my responding Post’s, thus
my post’s with the quote in also had to be removed.

Only Post of mine that got deleted on it’s own was a Post where i
Presented an Analogy that had Relevance to the 3 point System . .
That Post was deemed Off-Topic and was thus Removed.

Since we want to bring up our History here.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve never answered the pertinent question. Was this ‘fictional’ character AFK-farming or not? No matter if said character broke the 3 rules or not?

If in this ‘fictitious’ scenario, the character was only AFK, and not using any skills, whatsoever (as you seem to want to imply, as Auto-cast Skill #1 won’t cast without a target), why not just say, “I believe my account was unfairly actioned as an AFK-farmer, when I was just AFK”, instead of saying you interpreted the rules to mean you could farm in this spot because you did not break all 3 rules?

The whole scenario is suspect.

Again, were you, or were you not AFK-farming?

None but the Fictional Character himself would know his intent .. if
we are to also Determine judge the intent of everyone then we are
getting in to murky waters indeed . . better to stick to the actual
Facts and Rules . . The Rules also does not mention (As far as i know)
anything that warrant’s actions against players based on their intent.

With Regard’s to this Fictional Scenario at least.

You should be able to form an opinion based on the (Fictional) Fact’s
provided .. and if you cant or wont then that is fine too.

And the Fictional Scenario i provided could cover both types of Cases
that where suggested by you.

And it is not Interpreted . . if you carefully read the Rules it actually
leaves a potential Loophole that some may try to use to their
Advantage as they could be led to think that it would not be against
the Rules to operate in such a fashion.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

“Using skill” means that when the skill icon flashes, something in game happens because of it, and then the skill icon goes into recharge, that means a skill was used.

---

Ok . . this is a good start.

So with that in mind we could do the following Experiment:

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.

Good Luck!
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

But I don’t AFK in game. I log out when I need to go somewhere. It is your own question that you can answer for yourself, unless you’re not able to log in because of the “fictional situation”.

I am quite certain that it would not be against any Rule to
remain Idle for 1 or 2 minutes while observing if Skill 1
on Auto-Cast would funktion in the way that is described
in the Rule: 1) Using skill (1 or more)

How will you understand this Scenario if you dont know
how the mechanic’s for said Scenario work ?

If you dont know then all you are left with is Guess-Work.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

“Using skill” means that when the skill icon flashes, something in game happens because of it, and then the skill icon goes into recharge, that means a skill was used.

Ok . . this is a good start.

So with that in mind we could do the following Experiment:

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.

Good Luck!
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

atheria.2837:

AFK Farmers in Silverwastes.

AFK by the score in WvW.

AFK in many other maps, but since I do Silverwastes and see them all the time, and they do scale the events, I think it’s time for the powers that be to put a timer down to two minutes.

I can’t think of a single player who is ‘active’ who will not ‘move’ in two minutes.

That is indeed one solution.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

If you “fictionally” AFK farm, then you should be “fictionally” punished.

You also seem to misread rule 1: Using skill while AFK. It doesn’t matter what skill you have on autocast. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. There is no anomaly since Anet watches you before punishing.

---

Your resistance to logic is magnificent.

Well done.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

As is your understanding that Anet owns the rules, and is able to choose how to enforce them.

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Let’s go over all the Details again then and try to get them in to (1) post
for your Convenience:

(First we take a look at the Parts relevant, written by Chris Cleary)
______________________________________________________________________________

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 GMs

If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.

(Read carefully the first sentence)
(The last line in the quote is of particular interest as i see it)

(Next we take a look at my opening Post)
______________________________________________________________________________
Lord Yameon.5902

There are some thing’s here that i am Curious about.

Isnt skill 1 Activated for Auto-Cast by default on all Account’s/characters ?

And also in some cases (as far as i know) Many Skill’s “Even on Auto-Cast”
has to be manually activated for each new Target that the user would want to
attack .. with that in mind it wouldnt work to have some skills on Auto-Cast
while AFK.

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.

(Also im not trying to give anyone any ideas for how to AFK-Farm here)
_____________________________________________
¥ameon
______________________________________________________________________________
(Then Lets also add this part to the Equation)
______________________________________________________________________________
Lord Yameon.5902

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
______________________________________________________________________________
(Next we take a look at the results that mr:mtpelion.4562 found)
______________________________________________________________________________
mtpelion.4562

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.
______________________________________________________________________________
(And)
______________________________________________________________________________
mtpelion.4562

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.
______________________________________________________________________________

The Question as mentioned above Remains:

I wonder if a player could,would or should get actioned in the above mentioned
Scenario.

The problem with thing’s being as they Currently are, As i see
it .. is that the 3 Rules are formulated in such a way that there
seem to be an Anomaly in the Rules that could lead to some
players thinking and engaging in activities they would not
think where against the rules.

If someone actually could manage to find additional Rules
that would expand on, or in other ways Complete this set of
3 Rules . . with above mentioned Fictional Scenario in mind ,
Then that would be of interest.
_____________________________________________________________
SideNote’s:
(I do not know how to make a post with multiple Quotes in it
so i had to piece it together in this way)

(Remember also that the Above mentioned Fictional Scenario
with the Elementalist is Purely Fictional and only serves as
a means to illustrate the Potential Anomaly of the rules)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Just a flesh wound.3589:

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.

Interesting if true but pointless to bring it up on the forums without sufficient detail for anyone (including ANet) to do anything about it, either to avoid or to solve. If you think there is an actual anomaly then you should either make a ticket and give the exact details to support or you should give the exact details in your post, including all relevant traits. Vague statements about anomalies on the forum gets zero results.

I have given sufficient details regarding the Fictional Scenario

Trait’s does not matter or else they would be included .. this all hinges on the Auto-Cast Feature . . Traits have little to no impact on the AutoCast feature
in this Purely Fictional Scenario . . .

Perhaps you dont understand because you have not tested how the Skill-No 1
Auto-Cast Funktion works in relation to being AFK on for example an
Elementalist, Im not saying you should try to AFK-farm . . just to try it for a
minute or two .. to see if it funktions on its own in a way as to Facilitate
un-Attended Gameplay.

Furthermore:
If you dont want to make post’s regarding this Topic then all you have to do
is to stop .. as i see it people come here with a lot of Questions and
Assumptions that i am responding to.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ayrilana.1396:

So to sum up this year old thread since it got necro-posted:

Someone thought they had found a loophole in the rules in regards to AFK farming. They got in trouble and was told twice that they were wrong. Unable to accept that they come on here as a ‘Plan B’ and argue about how they’re in the right. Since they cannot discuss matters that they had with customer service, even though they kind of did, they use another ‘loophole’ where they refer to everything as a ‘Fictional Scenario’.

They believe themselves to be so far in the right that there’s only two sides:

• You agree with them
• You just don’t understand what they’re saying

Simply disagreeing with them isn’t a valid option.

I just really don’t see what has actually has been added to this thread.

And still you fail to see the Point . . you got lost where you think
someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong . . .

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.

It should not realy be this difficult to get at this point.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Nusku.3941:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Nusku.3941:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Nusku.3941:

People who play this game have a natural tendency to complain about stupid things such as this. But I guess stupid complaints come from stupid people anyway.

---

Your own post explains your own post quite well.

Perhaps if you have nothing of value to add then
Perhaps it is better to be silent .. there are other
threads you can use to get a higher post-count.

Thanks in Advance.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Intriguingly, your assumption to getting a higher post count didn’t cross my mind until you said it, you don’t see it clearly but you’re just supporting yourself as evidence that ego driven people like yourself are flooding this thread. Oh and you’re welcome.

---

Let me remind you that before you edited your post, there was only the bit of
text in there that i Quoted … then you put the rest of the text in there after i
posted my post quoting your un-edited post . . if we want to be a bit pedantic.

Anyhows:
And after reading what you added to your post afterwards i see that once
again you are yet anouther one of the Personas who do not grasp the point
and argument that i am presenting.

I do give you bonus points for trying however, but your text has little to
nothing to do with the anomaly in the Rules that i am trying to bring
awareness towards.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Well originally I wasn’t targeting you as a specific audience, rather everyone that complains on this thread, I love it when people think the sun revolves around them.

Fair enough.

But depending on the point of View applyed
we can all be seen as complaining about
something or the other in this Thread.

Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific
in the future then to avoid any confusion.

I have gotten used to being on the Defence
in this Thread so i took for granted that this
was yet anouther case where a more
defencive aproach was deemed apropriate.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Jooeeyy.4917:

I dont think there ever will be a set of rules like you seem to ask for. To make a rule for just about every possible (and impossible) scenario beforehand is firstly close to imossible, and secondly, lots and lots of work. It wouldnt just be about afk-farming, but all kinds of question and grey areas throughout the game would need its own set of rules, covering every aspect.
So, there are somewhat vague rules, or guidelines, to cover everything, so they dont have to think up if then, maybe that, perhaps like this and probably not for every single action/circumstance beforehand.
For your ban, fictional or not, there is no need to go into specific, a fictional gm tried to ask what was going on, no response, unattended gameplay.
For what points to get or miss, such very spesific scenario SEEMS to be a way to come as close to cheating as possible without crossing the line. It may not be so, but rather a courious look into academics, though it will still not end up in any clarification, because I dont think Anet, (or any other gamedeveloper I have run across) want you to know exactly where lines go. As I understand it, mostly because of the work it brings, but also because things may change as a game and players evolve.

I think you are Over-Complicating thing’s a bit.

Im not talking about one rule to rule them all here … the focus here is on
AFK-Farming .. and when you risk Account Suspension/Termination
then the rules should be made very clear as to what you can and cannot
do.

The rules should also be Proactive and not Reactive in this case .. The
Player should know beforehand what they can and cannot do when the
Punishment for AFK-Farming is as severe as it is . . I dont think it is
sufficient that the way a Player have to to find out if he or she did
something wrong is to see What type of message they get when they
no longer can log in to the game.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

And here comes the next one.

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

It is clear that i cant get through to some of you that keep posting here .
So i will stop trying . .

Either you get it . . . or you dont.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Here is a picture of one of the official statements released by ArenaNet regarding extended unattended play: https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/22768/report.png

If the CS Team finds any fictitious accounts in violation of this statement/rule, they will action the account. (Fortunately, the fictitious account in question only received a Suspension rather than a Termination of the account.) Another of the game’s rules is that they do not accept appeals for administrative action taken in connection with in-game behavior. (See Conduct Breaches and Outcomes.) That the CS Team even considered an appeal from any fictitious accounts was above and beyond their duty. Thus, any fictitious accounts should consider themselves lucky, and accept the ‘warning’ (again, see the aforementioned legal document).

If theese Statements are so official then why do we have to go to
some Obscure site where people can upload Pictures to find this
information.

Furthermore: Unquestioning Loyalty and Blind Naivity may sooner
or later lead us to places and situations where we would prefer
not to be.

Something that has been forgotten by most people in our times is
the Civil Duty to question Authority (Although within Reason) ..
to make sure that those we entrust with the Power to govern us
do so with our best interest’s in mind.

To be sure that we get a fair treatment in all matters of
importance . . if we can not expect fair treatment in a mere
Video Game .. then how can we then expect to get it elsewhere.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve already admitted that you disputed the action taken on your account, and were, at least, twice informed by the CS Team there would be no change in the determination that what you did was found, indeed, actionable.

What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing it to the forums (which is, again, against the rules, as you well know)? Masquerading it as a ‘fictional’ scenario isn’t really going to fool anyone.

---

I am having some questions about the rules and to illustrate my questions,
i deploy the means of a Fictional Scenario … is that against the rules ?

What other means would serve better to prove the point than a Fictional
Scenario in this case ?

I have allways stated that for the sake of this Argument that this is a
Fictional Scenario.

And i have not admitted anything along the lines of to imply that this is
a real case . . if you read in to this dialouge or mis-interpred what i say
to such a degree, then you can not truly hold me accountable for your
own imaginations.

I would rather have a Constructive and calm discussion regarding this
Topic, than having it turning in to a veritable slug-fest of slander,
mis-interpretations and base-less accusations . . . as now seems to be
happening.

So therefore i would advice you and anyone that if you cannot Discuss
this topic calmly and rationally .. then perhaps it would be better
adviced to remain silent.

Thanks in Advance:
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You pretty much admitted it with this post (amusing, you’re the one that bolded that part):

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

If your account has been actioned, you would best contact the CS Team via the ‘Support’ link above/below and discuss the issue with them.

You are unlikely to get a Dev response here.

Good luck.

---

That may have been tryed before posting here.
Though all parts involved may have not been
willing to co-operate in order to resolve this
Situation*.

Therefore, Posting on the Forums may be the
plan:B

(*It is against the rules to discuss account Details
and so forth openly … so for that purpose this is
to be seen as a Purely Fictional Scenario)

In order to not do what one must not do, one
need’s to know what one cannot do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Oh, and FYI, if this fictitious scenario or whatever parallels an actual action taken against you, you’ll be violating forum rules. Labeling it as fictitious doesn’t allow you to get around the rules.

Perhaps i did not construct the sentence in the best way Possible .. but i did
mention that the Discussion was to be seen as a Purely Fictional Scenario

Now you on the other hand, seem intent on shutting this whole discussion
down . . . what is your motif here i do wonder ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

kitten.4078:

Only Lord Yameon and maybe Anet know if he was casting skills or not. The problem is that the way the 3 rules are stated there’s a way to AFK farm without satisfying all 3 rules. That vagueness doen’t close loophoes, it creates loopholes. It clearly says you have to be violating ALL 3 rules.

Imagine this scenario:
A ranger is parked at a beneficial location with all skills and traits removed. The person is AFK while the pet kills things and autoloot is active. This would satisfy rules 2 and 3 but not rule 1 as there would be no possibility of casting any skill. Clearly this is AFK farming but based on the 3 rules it’s not enough to count as a violation. “If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.”

Why can’t an official statement be made simply stating that “AFK farming is not allowed and doing so risks getting actioned?” AFK farming can be further defined as gaining loot or other benefit while not directly interacting with the game for ANY period of time. Obviously it will be hard or impossible to catch someone who’s semi-afking but that would be true anyway.

Rule #1 should be taken out. Rules 2 and 3 are enough. Also, maybe it’s just me but the “you may get actioned for it” part seems to minimize the severity of the violation. It should say “you risk getting actioned” to indicate that if you don’t get actioned it means you just got lucky and didn’t get caught.

Does autoloot prevent afk timeout or have they fixed that?

Good evening mr:kitten.4078

It is refreshing to see that anouther have managed to grasp the
point i am trying to get across here.

To have an actual rule that would not allow Un-Attended
Gameplay would/could also create a more flexible scenario
for how to apply the rule . . but perhaps the best would be
to fix the game-mechanics in such a way that they can not . .
Intentionally or unintentionally . . be exploited.

As for if Autoloot still prevent AFK Timeout i have no idear . .
i never even knew it did untill i started reading this thread.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve already admitted that you disputed the action taken on your account, and were, at least, twice informed by the CS Team there would be no change in the determination that what you did was found, indeed, actionable.

What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing it to the forums (which is, again, against the rules, as you well know)? Masquerading it as a ‘fictional’ scenario isn’t really going to fool anyone.

I am having some questions about the rules and to illustrate my questions,
i deploy the means of a Fictional Scenario … is that against the rules ?

What other means would serve better to prove the point than a Fictional
Scenario in this case ?

I have allways stated that for the sake of this Argument that this is a
Fictional Scenario.

And i have not admitted anything along the lines of to imply that this is
a real case . . if you read in to this dialouge or mis-interpred what i say
to such a degree, then you can not truly hold me accountable for your
own imaginations.

I would rather have a Constructive and calm discussion regarding this
Topic, than having it turning in to a veritable slug-fest of slander,
mis-interpretations and base-less accusations . . . as now seems to be
happening.

So therefore i would advice you and anyone that if you cannot Discuss
this topic calmly and rationally .. then perhaps it would be better
adviced to remain silent.

Thanks in Advance:
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

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.

---

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

You look at the intent.

---

You must be Trolling me . . .

---

¥ameon

That rule involves players keeping themselves from being timed out to the character select screen. It mentions using skills but would likely include everything else that would prevent this.

---

Quote: Likely :EndQuote

So your counter-argument is based on if one thing would
“likely” be that way or the other . . you are taking a great
deal of liberty with your interpretations i would say.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

How about this:

Go ahead and and AFK at an advantageous spot, ignoring PM’s from GM’s, while allowing getting attacked from booting you to the character select screen.

I don’t see why you’re insistent on trying to justifying cheating.

I put ‘likely’ only because I do not speak for Anet. There’s more going towards the side of it being against the rules than towards your side.

It is starting to become a bit tiresome how you can get this so wrong
and in so many way’s all at once.

¹ Although it could be interesting to Replicate the Fictional Scenario
while at the same time recording how the situation would unfold …
However . .
I would advice people not to do this as it may involve some risks.

² You read in your own interpretation here again about what motif
i would have for raising this question in the first place.

³ And again . . . anouther one of your own interpretations.

I am starting to allmost get a little bit Jealous regarding how much
freedom you allow yourself with your interpretations.

As for myself i try to see thing’s in a way that is a bit more Strict
that would not leave much room for interpretation . . Either you
break a Rule .. or You dont Break a Rule … It does not seem
logical that you allmost broke a rule and get punished for it.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ashen.2907:

The three points mentioned by Mr Cleary are not rules in my opinion so much as tbey are some of the tools used to assist in determining whether or not the rule bas been broken. If they, individually, were rules then breaking any one of them would be a rules violation and could be grounds for action against the account.

Then by using those “Tool’s” (in your opinion) would the Fictional Account
be Qualified for having action taken against it ?

And if theese are just “Tool’s” used to determine if a Rule has been Broken . .
where does one find the real Rules ?

If you would be so kind as to clarify.

¥ameon

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

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.

---

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?

How hard is it to just take the facts presented and base an opinion upon the same mentioned Facts without trying to read between the lines . . . the part where some
try to read betweeen the lines is where some get themselves lost . . and as i see it
Rules should not be up for Interpretation .. they should be clear . . as people dont
Interpret thing’s the same way most of the time . . . as clearly can be seen here.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

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.

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

Ashen.2907:

Lord Yameon.5902:

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.

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

@ 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: ¥ameon

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

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

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

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.

---

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.

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

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

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.

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

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

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

mtpelion.4562:

Lord Yameon.5902:

mtpelion.4562:

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”.

---

Chris Cleary.8017:

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 GMs

If 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.

That was and is also my own conclution of the Fictional Scenario.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Faaris.8013:

RoseofGilead.8907:

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

mtpelion.4562:

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”.

Chris Cleary.8017:

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 GMs

If 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

RoseofGilead.8907:

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

@: 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

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

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

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

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.

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

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

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

Lalainnia.3598:

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

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

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

Thanks for the suggestion there . . it is most apreciated.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Just a flesh wound.3589:

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

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

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

That is what i thought it meant as well.

But let’s say that someone recently may have had some . . Issues.

And would like to get some clarification regarding this above
mentioned Scenario (HopeFully from a DEV) to prevent future
confusion and Imperial Entanglements.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

DakotaCoty.5721:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Chris Cleary.8017:

I’ll pitch in on this thread, as there seems to be some confusion about this situation.

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.

Mastery auto-loot also stopping players from being flagged afk seems like a bug instead of a feature, and I’ll be sure to bring it up today while we have a chat about this internally.

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

If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.

---

There are some thing’s here that i am Curious about.

Isnt skill 1 Activated for Auto-Cast by default on all Account’s/characters ?

And also in some cases (as far as i know) Many Skill’s “Even on Auto-Cast”
has to be manually activated for each new Target that the user would want to
attack .. with that in mind it wouldnt work to have some skills on Auto-Cast
while AFK.

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.

(Also im not trying to give anyone any ideas for how to AFK-Farm here)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Why necro an 11 month old thread?

I had some questions regarding this Topic .. so rather than making a whole
new Thread i thought i would make use of this allready existing one.

Hope that makes sence.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Chris Cleary.8017:

I’ll pitch in on this thread, as there seems to be some confusion about this situation.

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.

Mastery auto-loot also stopping players from being flagged afk seems like a bug instead of a feature, and I’ll be sure to bring it up today while we have a chat about this internally.

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

If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.

There are some thing’s here that i am Curious about.

Isnt skill 1 Activated for Auto-Cast by default on all Account’s/characters ?

And also in some cases (as far as i know) Many Skill’s “Even on Auto-Cast”
has to be manually activated for each new Target that the user would want to
attack .. with that in mind it wouldnt work to have some skills on Auto-Cast
while AFK.

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.

(Also im not trying to give anyone any ideas for how to AFK-Farm here)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

This issue has now been solved.

(It seem like your idea of Submitting a ticket
from the Site Did work there Stitch)

Thanks to all who helped with the solution
to this Problem ..It is very much apreciated.
_______________________________________________________________
¥ameon

The Adventures of the Map Result’s Screen.

Day 7: (TuesDay)

A Large Undead Dragon was roaming the Coast.

Fortunately .. the Map Result’s Screen Came to
the Rescue and slew the creature “Allmost”
Single-Handedly.
_______________________________________________________________
¥ameon (Did also send a Support Ticket from the website)