Wasnt thinking, thought it was funny, didnt realize I was getting banged until they were in my behind...
Drille's comment strikes at the heart of this issue.
The problem is not with the rules or the helpfiles, but the interpretation and selective enforcement of them.
Rauko and Aule may have been assholes, but at least they were consistently assholes, and not just suffering from a putrid case of male PMS.
Longer story short: shut the fuck up about your client, nobody cares. Like someone (who I forget) said, the mud and clients are different. Nobody forced to use your client, or to make your triggers. So pick up your sagging vaginas off the ground and get on with it. Tweak your triggers so they can't be abused. Or get a better client.
Thanks guys, and after that happened I did change my trigger. Me being a noob is all about time, how long it takes me to grow out of it.
I like the logname, son of a .
No panic! Worry not, simply change your backstab trigger to ALSO turn off the has died trigger! Simple and effective if you plan to use that stuff.
Learn your client and just remove stupid triggers that you can just type by hand when you have actually killed something.
The most retarded thing about this is that the idiots in this log can get away with it while memnoch didn't
Still, Armath, you won't find too many people going around with a has died client trigger. That is just asking for trouble. Curr's got some great points, but its better be safe than sorry. MAKE your client triggers abuse-proof.
Qfm's referring to the zillion client triggers in the log, not just the one they abused. You know, 'SOMEONE SHAPES YOU!!!' and 'I HAVE BEEN BACKSTABBED' and 'SOMEONE FAILED A BACKSTAB' and the like.
client triggers? i only see one...maybe you should re-read the log.
As soon as I started reading this log, I was blow away by the sheer volume of clownlike client triggers employed by Armath.
In my opinion, anyone with such idiotic triggers in such quantity deserved having them used against him.
Well Foraker one I was talking to them before and Azkur attacked me, and in my mind nothing was going...practically I thought it was a 'joke' seeing as I had no quarrels with bkd or whoever was there, so I left typing tt lothlorien. And then I realized everyone was attacking me sending my backstab trigger off the wall. Oh yeah I was thinking to myself ok, lets sit here grab my mouse, move it to the bottom left hand corner and click it so my triggers wont be abused. I dont know about you Foraker but when 5 people are banging you I dont believe I would have the time, and they didnt start that until the middle of my tt. Also when I see my 'hp' dropping like mad, I tend to try to hurry not take my sweet as time. So I do not believe I had time to 'click' the lower bottom hand corner of my screen. And I do like what Curr says, just I am wondering so if I wanted to be a lamer I could go around typing has died to whoever has that trigger set and hunt them and constantly type it and then bring up the issue, well you could've turned it off, there was only 3 people attacking you, and its your fault.
BTW: I don't get how he didn't notice he was being banged.
There's a handy little gun icon in the bottom right of zmud screen, if thats what Armath uses. Click it, and it turns all client triggers off. Not insanely difficult.
Draugluin, thanks for the detailed explanation, which does leave a few things unclear to me:
1) You mention making someone unidle and leave their innroom as an example of what *would* essentially constitute punishable abuse. But doing that need not involve 'passing commands to another player, taking control over their client' and so on. See my previous reply to Caber.
2) help client_abuse says, in its first two paragraphs, essentially this: 'Some people think that doing X, or even going so far as doing Y, is a good idea. This will not be tolerated.' Here X - any kind of firing a client trigger intentionally for your gain, Y - taking over someone's client e.g. Grimscar's trick. You seem to interpret that as saying that only Y will not be tolerated, while X is OK. This seems somewhat strained to me, but you're the PoL, after all; I do think however that it's possible to agree that the text as written is unclear (it suggests that X in general will not be tolerated as well).
I'm not trying to whine about help files or your comments just to have a jolly good time doing it, I'm trying to understand the real policy. If you're saying X in general is perfectly alright as long as it doesn't involve Y, so be it; I'll try to offer a rewritten version of the help file to you in-game.
3) Just as an aside, I don't think 'he could easily turn it off at any time' applies here. Armath probably had 'has died' as a general-purpose client trigger that's always present when he plays, and remembering how to make that go away and typing whatever command it takes (depending on the client) is probably not practical while being banged (unlike simple 'trigger off' in the case of a mud trigger). Doesn't change the fact that he's responsible for his own stupid trigger, but still.
Caber, the difference between a client trigger and a mud trigger is important precisely because T2T has never officially recognized clients. For T2T whatever comes from your client trigger is as if you typed it yourself; a mud trigger is different because from the point of view of the mud it is performed for you by the mud, it does not come from your connection. Hence it is faster to react (its crucial benefit), but on the other hand isn't as flexible as what a client can offer.
Your framing it as 'people getting protection from Valinor for their stupidity' is a bit wrong-headed, I think. If abusing client triggers is fundamentally wrong (as help client_abuse seems to say), it should be punished whether or not it 'protects' the victims.
And I do understand your suggestion that there's a real difference between, say, 'has died' and Grimscar's trick that allows someone to issue arbitrary commands coming from another player's client. The problem is that Draugluin himself doesn't seem to see it that way; he offers as an example of something extreme that *would* be punished - making someone unidle and leave innroom so they can be pkilled. But for that, you don't need total control. I remember a log where someone sent a DAP question to an idle player to trigger their client and make them unidle. That didn't involve movement; but what if someone had something client-triggered to 'd', among other things, and I abused it; that would make them unidle and leave their innroom, and by Draugluin's words is punishable, but there's no total control here, and there's no real difference between causing 'd' and causing 'get all into pack'. Do you see a real difference between two such cases? I sure don't.
I personally don't even have a solid opinion on whether it should be punished. Clearly, Iarla is a douchebag for employing such tactics, but who cares about that little shrieky piece of nothing, anyway? Doesn't mean he should be warned or nuked for it. Maybe yes, maybe no. I just think there's confusion and lack of clarity about the issue both in help files and Draugluin's explanation of their meaning.
Let me help you guys understand things.
(a) The Two Towers has _never_ officially supported clients. Who cares if you're using client triggers or mud triggers? How does it make a difference? You're the one setting the trigger in either case.
I really don't understand your point, Curr. Just because people are dumb enough to make their mud clients vulnerable to these attacks, they should get some sort of protection from Valinor?
(b) Taking control of someone's character: Like someone earlier pointed out, the major difference between 'Durad has died.' and what Grimscar did (the majorly illegal thing) is that Grimscar was essentially 'taking control' of Durad's character, in the sense that he could do whatever he wanted with it. He didn't have to use 'quit' in his form of abuse. He could have used 'do 20s,18e,order wine,drink wine,put bottle in trash,20find grimscar,jig,jig,jig.' He could have done just about anything, which falls under some major botting violations for letting other people control you.
(c) In my day, we didn't have this travelto stuff. Nowadays if you get attacked mid-alias, you can stop, turn around, and run back to where you started from. That's a MAJOR benefit to pk victims. You can also 'travelto resume quickly,' which is also a big help. But hey, that's not enough! Valinor needs to help you even _MORE_ by nuking anyone who abuses your dumb triggers.
The price you pay for travelto is this possibility for abuse. If you don't like it, and you're not smart enough to use good client triggers, don't use travelto. Make a nice long alias like everyone used to do.
Further...
A lot of people could be helped by taking a little more responsibility for what YOU do, and a little less expecting the Power of Law to help you out. To me, this is an incredibly ludicrous example: The trigger could have been turned off at many, many, many, many...did I mention many?...points. It could have not been set when merely running through the plans.
That said, the rule could change, if it were better to do something else. Feel free to think up the something else, and petition it, or mention it to me personally (tells, mails, 'help law').
Personally, I am loathe to see our stance change - and not just because it creates an enourmous amount of work for me (it will). I do not want to have to draw the line and say 'its not illegal to try and lose an assassin by tricking them, but you get deleted for trying to trick your victim'. I do not want to have to worry, even more than already, about what people are doing with their LOCAL clients.
The less I need to be concerned with what someone is doing on their computer that I both can't see, and don't want to see, the better I can make sure nobody is cheating you.
Yes, that means you must pitch in by not making yourself blatantly vulnerable, failing to react, and failing to plan ahead to the consequences of using software YOU choose and WE have nothing to do with. It means you have to be responsible for yourself.
As 'help client_abuse' says, which matches 'help triggers', we will not tolerate passing commands to the other players clients, taking control over them, etc.
The terms are clear: Do not mistake the inevitable subjectivity required in determining the difference between you using 'emote fades into the shadows' to try and escape someone... and you taking control of someones character to make them unidle and leave their innroom so you can pkill them - for a lack of clarity.
If you want to live in a world where subjectivity doesn't come into play, you are in the wrong place.
This clearly did not happen here, and the 'victim' could have simply and merely (AT ANY TIME) deactivated the offending trigger.
Your comments about mud and client triggers not being the same is accurate - we cannot, nor do we wish, to try and police your clients. In fact, we DO behave as though they do not exist: IE, you are responsible for your own triggers.
this isn't life jabba, it's a game and there are rules to this game that are 'supposedly' inflexible and usually bring about swift and vehement punishment. We often see the log of someone about to get nuked and they whine cry and shit excuses as to why it shouldn't happen to them...it just so happens that we are seeing this in the comment section prior to the nuking, for a change.
if you're stupid enough to leave triggers on you deserve to have them abused
Curr is absolutely right. But is life fair? No, so stfu.
Iarla, we already know that you are too stupid to understand a long post, and a lame douchebag in general.
You don't have to remind us again and again.
Yes, you are stupid. Alright. Point taken. Go fire someone's trigger, or something. Do something you excel at. Writing words is not for you.
If you don't want to read Curr's Novel, allow me to sum it up for you.
Curr: 'I'm a whiny twat'
--I
Draugluin, it would be an excellent point, if client triggers and the mud trigger were the same thing.
As they are not, it is not.
The mud trigger is a part of the mud. Using it to trigger breaks, or emoting to make it fire falsely is a part of what the mud offers to players.
Clients are not a part of the mud. Client triggers are not a part of the mud. The mud operates as if no one had clients. Having client triggers that can be abused is stupid, but I fail to see how that makes the abuse excusable.
Draugluin, you say 'the help file is perfectly clear'. help client_abuse says: 'Every so often, it comes to our attention that certain clever people have decided that an edge can be gained in this game by intentionally causing other players' client triggers to
go off, even going so far as to pass commands to the other
players' clients to make them perform certain actions.
Make this clear: such actions will not be tolerated.'
Certainly the actions in this log amount to 'intentionally causing other players' client triggers to go off', even if it's not quite 'passing commands to other players' clients'.
Would you say that the help file is clear in saying such actions will not be tolerated?
He had a point? Good one though...I was just saying for the new players other than me or noob players, dieing from that and seeing there trigger fly up on there screen might scare them abit and then make them cry or quit...
Excellent point that I wish I had made, Dorf.
Whats good for the goose...
D
Well Barberi, I was commenting on how it says 'controlling' your character. Its my fault for having a trigger like that, but why abuse it..? You already have 5 men attacking me, and use that to kill me?....kinda lame if you ask me. Oh Im a noob this and that, i dont really care but its not what it used to be, some people get punished others dont, a slap on the wrists. They will do it again and again, seeing no punishment will happen. For those who dont know any different.
I do agree, I think it is uncool to do.
And no Dorf. That isn't illegal, again, that person set their trigger to act to that specific text, they did not intentionally set it so you could control their character.
What about activating your hunter's triggers by emoting, if possible?
':leaps out the window!'
Dorf leaps out the window!
Triggered!
You leap out the window!
That seems like good practice to me. That's not illegal, is it?
...either way, it's still an uncool and unnecessary thing to do.
Armath, let me explain.
You set the trigger to kill something whenever your character or your client sees the character string 'has died.' Therefore, you did want your character to enter 'kill' everything it sees that string of characters.
HOWEVER! Controling someones character in the sense that Valinor does not want to happen USUALLY entails multiple triggers that perform functions to allow another character to repeatedly control your character i.e. loot, kill, attack, steal, move
And I am sure there are some exceptions to the rule like, you can't abuse someone's clients coding to make them quit or anything else harmful.
Anyways, I am not taking sides here. Just explaining the rules as how I interprete them.
WOOT, Im special, not in the retarded way....
Armath must be something special if it takes a 5 man bang to kill him...and the 5 man bang needs to abuse his client.
Even better, Durad went bitching about it, and now hes doing the same shit.
ah, thanks Vazroth
No no, it was Grimscar who had the line in his description, which made Durad quit.
I guess I worded that terribly, Durad put a line in his description so that when grimscar looked at him, it forced him to 'quit'
You know what is really ironic, this law was passed by Osse last time he was a power, and it came about when someone used a trigger in their character description to make Grimscar log off on the spot, and leave all his fancy uniques on the ground..... If my memory serves me right, the person who did this was Durad.
Define controlling someone's character for me.....making my character do something I dont want him to do is to me controlling him.
Havnt done it since cause its lame, but sucks I got a warning for a one time thing when these guys are making a hobby of it now.
I have a warning, given by Scatha, for using an emote to set off a targets trigger, this helped me kill them.
I'm with Kalas on this one. We're the new Salt and Pepper.
---
Gaudrin, there's nothing inconsistent about the triggers situation. The help file is superbly clear - even when its your friends who die, and your enemies who don't...same way when its the other way around. How about YOU be consistent: I don't know if the trigger rule is the greatest thing ever, but I do know that I don't love it when it hurts an enemy, and piss and moan about it when it hurts a friend.
Do something useful, my friend: Petition a better rule, or you could teach your friends how to turn triggers off. You know, so they don't fire when you don't want them to?
Iarla took the words right out of my mouth.
*agrees with Kozlodoev
Ah, I think I got it now.
Gaudrin, in the future when you feel like making some long non-sensical posts, just write 'Fuck, I'm a retarded douchebag!' You'll get the same point across and save us all some effort in translation!
If anyone knows what the fuck Gaudrin is babbling about let me know :P
I can see how you couldnt notice you where being banged. It must be hard to have all those guys in your behind as you say ;)
sounds like a whole lot of bullshit. if you set of someones trigger intentionally then you are trying to force that character to do things for you...which means you are taking control of that character.
Of course, what are we thinking...expecting consistency from the PoL.
Oh and no one got a warning seeing as Draugluin said it was my fault for having a trigger, for them to be able to abuse it. You can abuse anyone's trigger at any time as long as you are not controlling there character, which I have no idea what that means.
You know, you can both believe whatever you want about your guilds, maybe what I saw was just 'momentary cooperation'...that went on for weeks and weeks. What I do know is that both BkD and FRA are so full of shit it isn't even funny. Chars of mine have gone on pKs with both members of BkD and FRA (both seperate and together) and the very same day, different members of both guils would be trying to PK that char. Really, before you go spouting the mainstream rhetoric of your guild, make sure you have that ironfisted grip you seem so proud of. Because obviously, your guild does things you don't know about...quite a lot. But nevermind, you guys will just ask for logs, names, dates etc...but I just didn't care enough to clutter my HDD with it. You'll probably get the same response KoDA got from dwain, when he partied with udungul to kill in caras galadhon 'i was just helping an rl friend'...oops, sorry to piss in your cornflakes boys.
That was pretty lame.
Go Iarla! Woo!
I read this title and thought I was going to read something spicy...
Let me clarify something... While I am NOT a member of this society anymore. I can verify what Caber says below. The Fellowship will NEVER be friends with the 'Bastard Kin of Dravin'. Cooperation happens occasionally, just as Dravin and Valerian once were a part of a mud-wide alliance with the Fellowship against Daedin and Durmanhoth. However, Dravin is the old nemesis. I say that out of respect, since there will never be another character on this mud I would ever deem worthy of 'nemesis' status.
Since BKD is the brainchild of my nemesis, and the nemesis of all Fellowship... Old hatreds will never die, but they may be set aside in times of cooperation. BKD will have use for the Fellowship, just as the Fellowship will have use for BKD.
Now, I'll go back to my retirement... Since the Fellowship is back in action, I've been more active here. I just like to keep an eye on things.
err moral.
Who the fuck is Curr? :P
morale of the story: don't use dumbass triggers.
You'd have got away had it not been for that loot trigger..
I'm not angry at all. I like to use the word 'fuck.' I mean really, what's there to be angry about with Gaudrin saying something dumb? :P
Weird. Iarla is in this log, but he doesn't do the uber-lame tricks to mess with people's triggers. Instead, he passes the virus on to Durad and Azkur?
So did durad get a warning? :P
Caber you seem quite angry :(
yo momma!
Sorry Gaudrin, what the fuck are you 'chortling' about? Are you implying that BkD and FRA have worked together in the past? Or that they haven't? It sounded sarcastic to me, but really, BkD and FRA have never (to my knowledge) really been pals.
Really, it sounds to me like you were looking for some sort of witty and clever reaction to this, but instead of coming up with something funny because it was 'SO TRUE, LOL!', you just sort of said the first thing that came to your mind.
BkD and FRA together? *gasps* never seen that before! *chortles*
Hmm , Durad ? with BKDs ?
First log I ever posted....got bored while making it...