Does that mean we can ban non-thief scammers?

On the note of role playing characters, yes, I suppose so. Scamming is something a thief would do, not a barbarian or a warrior or a mage.

YES. HOWEVER, YOU ALREADY SAID THAT THINGS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD CONSTITUTE PART OF A PERSON'S CHARACTER.

THINK

No, I didn't. I said scamming could constitute as part of a persons character, thus, it should be allowed, not that it shouldn't. Heck, I still don't see any valid reasoning as to why scamming should be illegal.

Yes you did. Otherwise you would be agreeing that sexual harassment should be allowed.

omfg wil u shut up? if u cant c wut hez sayen, r33d it aggen. i had no prawblemz wit it.

same, you gotta read stuff thoroughly

I see nothing wrong with making illegal an action that directly reduces the enjoyment of other people playing the game.
Gambet makes an argument for roleplaying a thief?
Thieves get caught. Thieves get punished. Just because you're a thief doesn't mean you'll get away with something.
Also, I find it rather hard to believe that someone would stand up for the right to scam, unless there's something that they personally gain from scamming being allowed. What's your story Gambet?

I don't play GK anymore, so I hope you're not trying to imply anything.

All I'm saying is, I want someone to give me valid reasoning as to why they feel scamming should be illegal. Give me your reasoning and support it, and then I will either agree or disagree and prove my points. Kai already spoke with me on AIM his reasoning, and I agree with that, but it's still not sufficient enough to make scamming illegal.

How are we supposed to do that when you haven't told us how you identify good or bad actions?

If the objective is to increase Graal's revenue then scamming should be illegal. I think you agreed with that. But I don't know how to address the issue from your perspective because you haven't told us what your criteria are.

I didn't see them overrule Sam's obvious power abuse.. frankly I don't see them do much.

Why havn't I listed my criteria? Well, just to let you know, I'm completely against scammers. I don't like them. But, I'm trying to look at this new rule from both sides, which is why I'm not trying to be persuasive towards making/leaving scamming to be legal. Personally, I would love something to be done about all of the scammers, but you have to look at things from both sides. Scammers are not doing anything that can not be avoided. I mean, yes, of course they piss people off and sometimes lead them to quitting, but scammers are doing that's really wrong.

Heck, if you drop an item on the floor and I went to pick it up and took it and didn't return it, well, you'd call me a scammer. But, if you're going to blame me for "scamming" you, then you should look at it from both sides, because if someones to blame then we both should be blamed. You were careless enough to drop your items, and I just so happened to pass by when you dropped your items and I picked them up. Tough luck.

Yes, I'm completely against scamming, but just because I'm against something doesn't mean I'd deem it illegal just because I don't like it. I try to look at things from both sides before making a decision.

Whoa whoa whoa!

Scamming IS legal on Graal Kingdoms.

The only time when scamming is illegal is when items are obtained by bug/glitch, as in an abuse of this bug/glitch.

If you give your items to players to borrow or hold, then Graal Kingdoms is not held responsible for lost items.

Evidently because you prefer to hide behind ambiguity.

Nor are sexual harassers. Nor are those that hijack accounts or delete playerworlds. Should we make these things legal too?

THOSE THINGS ARE ILLEGAL ALREADY. I'VE SAID THIS MANY MANY TIMES. SCAMMING IS LEGAL THUS FAR, MEANING THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR SCAMMING. IF SCAMMING IS MADE ILLEGAL, THEN THAT MEANS YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SCAM OR YOU'D BE PUNISHED.

I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SCAMMING SHOULD BE LEGAL. IF YOU USE THE ASSERTION THAT IT IS LEGAL THEN YOU'RE EMPLOYING CIRCULAR LOGIC.

"SCAMMING SHOULD BE LEGAL BC ITS LEGAL LOLOLOLOLOLOL"

If scamming should be legal just because it's avoidable then SO SHOULD ALL THE THINGS I LISTED.

THINK

Hmm, maybe Stefan said to Gambet: "Make new rules!"

The rules we have are not valid anymore, because Gambet made new ones.
He is the know it all person. To prove that he uses capital letters...

You can't scam and call it roleplay. I mean, how do you explain a scammer logging off in roleplay terms? How do you explain the fact that the person who got scammed cannot get the item back by cutting the scammer's throat in his sleep? In real life the thief would be caught, his hands cut off, and the items returned to their rightful owner. You can't say this is part of the roleplay of a character, because it just doesn't all work.

Says who? It's a game, so maybe the thief could get away with it. Anything can happen in a game :cool:


Kai:


I say that a person could role play as being a scammer, so you say that the same could apply for sexual harassers. Yes, that's true, but since we are arguing over whether or not scamming should be legal, that means that scamming is not illegal thus far. Currently, scamming is legal, so a player COULD role play as a scammer. Now, if it were made illegal, then I guess you would not be able to.

I'm not using it as a point to make scamming legal, because scamming is already legal. This thread is to make it illegal.


Sam:


Honestly, what in the world did you say? I didn't understand a thing.

Scamming doesn't have much roleplay relevence, since you use the "trust" of the person IRL of you to scam items; which if implimented into roleplay would be considered metagaming.

If you played off of their stupidity, then you also are playing off of an aspect of their RL traits (though it may be IC as well), which would be considered metagaming as well.

It doesn't work. Sorry. :/

I really don't know how that logic is supposed to work. Either way, the current state is irrelevant to determining the ideal state. You are not permitted to use circular reasoning.

So what's your point? If you're not trying to argue that scamming should be legal then what are you doing?

We are not arguing over whether scamming should be legal or illegal. We are arguing over whether scamming should be illegal, since it currently is legal. I have quite a feeling that all of our posts probably wouldn't influence the decision at all, but oh well.


It already is legal. I don't like scamming, but I'm looking at things from both sides. I'm just waiting for valid reasoning as to why it should be made illegal.

Same thing.

'Should be legal' is not the same as 'should be changed so that it is legal'. If you are opposing the illegalisation of scamming then you are saying that it should be legal.

No. What are your arguments supposed to achieve? You observe that scamming can be prevented and that it can form part of somebody's character. What are these observations meant to prove?

'Should' and 'is' are completely different.

It is legal for crying out loud.

Nothing, yet. I'm just stating a few reasons to support why it should remain legal.

What's your point? Saying that X should be Y is not the same as saying that X currently isn't Y.

Except that you're not. How do your observations imply that it should be legal? Scamming can be avoided, I'll grant you that. But how does that support your claim that it should be legal?

How many times have I said that I'm not trying to say that scamming should be legal? IT ALREADY IS LEGAL, so, why would I fight that it should be what it already is? If anything, I would be fighting to keep it legal, but it's not the case.


Once again, it is legal. It justs supports one point for why it should remain legal. Now, we just need more points as to why it should be illegal, and then from there we can discuss.

STOP
and
THINK

I already explained: 'X should be Y' does not imply that X isn't currently Y. You're apparently confused as to the meaning of 'should'.

You are arguing that scamming should be legal. Other people are arguing that scamming should not be legal. None of these are statements about its current legality.

You completely failed to answer my question. How do those observations support the claim that scamming should be legal?

My comment on this:
Scamming is illegal, but can't be proved by any other way then by the trade tables. Therefore, any other trading is at the risk of the trader itself. -- That's my interpretion.

What are you saying? That just because something is legal, it should always remain legal no matter what?

No? Where the heck did you get this from? I didn't even say that scamming is currently legal because of that.

He doesn't understand what the word 'should' means. I tried to address this on AIM, but I couldn't get much sense out of him. He told me that I must be wrong, since VT disagrees with me :)

Don't put words in my mouth.

He's gonna ask VT which one of us he hates more. Apparently he thinks this will decide who won the argument.

Wrong. Not anything can happen. I can't kill you and take my items back, now can I?

Don't put words in my mouth, you arrogant bafoon.


Raz:

You could if it were implemented to the system :cool:

Including scamming being made illiegal.

I never said it couldn't and I never said I was against it. I just want there to be valid reasons before a decision is made.

Man, you'd probably be better off if I did. I don't use pretend words like 'bafoon'.

Lvl 110 USD power-gamer "Theif" running around "roleplaying" as a "murderer" stealing everybodys items.

YAY FOR RP!