Make your own free website on Tripod.com

I) Below I discuss looby-loo, particularly how it addresses the situation 
where a player brings in a second persona into the same reset and
whether such conduct should be completely prohibited because it
is always a de facto looby.

II) Then I discuss Fbi and Bugcheck's current practice of attacking
*all* my personae no matter what level on the grounds that I
am *allegedly* a confirmed 'sneak,' and I seek institution of the
two-level guideline.


Leave new message.
From: Gigolo
To: tethys
Subject: looby-loo
Message (end with /E):

  I)     8000>There is some difference of opinion as to what constitutes a
7934>looby-loo.  I read the dictionary definition which could be summarized
7863>to mean that one persona may not reap the benefits (gathered t for
7796>instance) of another persona, low-to-high, or high-to-low. (see
7732>definition).  But I think that has been interpreted to mean that
7667>one persona may not confer *any* significant advantage to another
7601>persona playing in the same re
+- The database has started initialising -+
persona playing in the same rese
+- The database has finished initialising -+
persona playing in the same reset.  This includes game knowledge. Under
7529>this interpretation, I cannot imagine how it would be permissible
7463>for a player to bring in a second persona to the game (out of the
7397>tea room) in the same reset.  Particularly in a competitive set in
7330>which the former persona had been fighting with or competing with
7264>another player.
7246>
7245>Game knowledge, to my understanding, is just about anything.  It's
7178>the difference between what you can know just sitting in the tea
7113>room, and what you know after going out into the Land.  But you
7048>might even argue that a persona witnessing another pass through
6984>the tea room after a silly death (staggering and so forth) would
6919>bar the witness from then bringing in another persona (a high-life
6852>to replace a low-life for instance) to take advantage of *that*
6788>knowledge. So really it's what you can know from logging in vs.
6724>what you would otherwise know.  To take any other view is to allow
6657>any number of schemes.
6632>
6631>I think circumstances do differ, however.
6587>
6586>But another way of looking at it is that it seems clearly improper
6519>to allow a player to bring in a second persona to *fight* another
6453>player in the same set in which a previous persona had done so.
6389>Or even to *hamper* the other player.  How could the second persona
6321>proceed without 1)exploiting game knowledge--the player's whereabouts,
6250>stam, kit, etc and without 2)exploiting the destruction on the player
6180>wrought by the first persona (ie reduction of stam, destruction of
6113>tools, wfs, etc).
6095>
6094>My point is that Fbi (telebug) thinks it would have been fine to bring
6023>in a second persona after fleeing my mage and using it to try and
5957>whoosh me at the swamp or to do other pesky things, as long as he
5890>did not employ 'game knowledge.'  How could he *not* employ knowlege
5821>of 1)items available in the land/not available 2)my presence and remaining
5746>time in reset 3)my kit 4)my approximate whereabouts--he knew i was not
5675>locked in dwarfs for instance, so there was reasonable expectation i would
5600>pass through rapids soon.
5574>
5573>Finally, if i've never seen the second persona, he has moved from a
5504>situation where he is a known enemy to one in which his intentions
5437>are unknown, which confers advantage to him.  To be sure, if I had
5370>known it was the same guy that just tried to kill me (i figured this out
5297>after succumbing to several hostile acts) then I would have easily
5230>eliminated him
5215>.
5213>
5212>Looking at it still another way, does this mean that I can attack fbi with
5137>warlock A, flee and exit, and bring in warlock B and attack again?  That
5064>is essentially what he did.  He brought in a lowlife, it's true.  But all
4990>things considered, I cannot see how this would be legal, especially since
4916>I didn't know the lowlife and could not be sure that it was the same guy
4843>and hostile.
4830>
4829>----------
4818>

II)  Fbi is attacking all my personae on site, irrespective of their level.
4746>He claims he is doing this because I have proved that I am a 'sneak.'
4676>I have spent *hours* duelling with bugcheck and much time duelling
4609>with Telebug.  I've voluntarily engaged them each *numerous* times.
4541>What is the notion--that if I come to play the *game* and nobody is
4472>on, that I shouldn't play?  He wants to claim that I'm sneaking, but
4403>he also said "There's nothing wrong with playing empty sets."
4339>
4338>He appears to be claiming that the vast majority of the time I avoid all
4265>risk and seek out empty sets, unless I have a clear advantage.  You look
4192>at the logs, you will see that I have lost tens of thousands (hundreds of
4118>thousands if you count the recent death of Gigolo) of points due to
4050>voluntarily engaging scurrilous, unsportsmanlike pks, and often without
3978>advantage.  There are times where I've avoided playing when they have kit
3904>and I don't, and even a few when we enter a new reset and I get hung up
3832>on a zombie or lose all my magic and decide to concede control and leave
3759>the set.  To Telebug, these few instances define my behavior entirely
3689>and render me a "sneak." And this is the guy who was so infuriated that
3617>he fled me at a new reset that, contrary to his claim that he would
3549>accept me if I showed a willingness to fight without distinct advantage,
3476>proceeded to engage in dispicable, illegal looby-loo conduct--the net
3406>effect of which is that I lost 9k because I did what he says I should
3336>do--fight him without advantage. (sorry for the run-on sentence).
3270>
3269>At the very best, his point is that it comes down to relative frequencies-
3194>-ie how often I avoid an even match vs how often I don't.  He claimed that
3119>'95%' of the time I was a sneak, whereby he meant avoided a competitive
3047>situation in order to sneak later.  So if it comes down to percentages,
2975>somebody would have to engage in an exhaustive review of the logs because
2901>I am of the opinion that it's nothing near that.
2852>
2851>Finally, the pk community relies on clearly inaccurate conceptualizations
2776>of fighting in mud2.  Mud2 is not like bl where a skilled player can
2707>overcome any lack of kit.  In Mud2, the player with the best kit wins
2637>70% of the time or better.  If you are a pk with nothing to lose, you
2567>will be more inclined to play those odds if you are the one with inferior
2493>preparation.  But a regular mortal's objective is to score points.
2425>There's just no argument for kamikaziing a persona into a sure loser
of a situation.  

In BL, cowardice is sometimes seen as a virtue--a player is able to subordinate
his ego in order to STAY ALIVE.  Obviously in Mud2 it's too easy to stay alive
for this to be treated in exactly the same manner.  But unfortunately there is
no middle ground--it's a binary situation.  That is, either you avoid conflict when
you don't have superior kit, or you lose points.  You won't necessarily die, but
you *will* lose points. Over time that is tantamount to dying--witness my 149k
mage turning into an 86k warlock in the space of a few days.

So now I've got Fbi and Bugcheck attacking *all* my personae no matter what
their level on the grounds that I allegedly *sneak*.  I just don't think my conduct
warrants that kind of abuse of the rules (two level *guideline*).

Gigolo