Rule clarification on alt leveling.

[Homer]

God dam DDOS protection deleting my post going to have to do a short version.

1. I do not believe anything or think Nost is a police state, please do not paraphrase me or make things up.

2. Once again I do not "believe" anything. That is not a "very broad definition" it is the exact and only definition that is not open to interpretation don't try and use "grey lines" to make your point especially after you deny there existence. I want to insult you for that but in the name of debate I shall not! So once again no the staff don't know the rules and stop giving your personal opinion about what you think they know (Especially after attacking others for using opinion) This is a cold hard fact and there is cold hard evidence if you go look on a website that is not going to remove it.

I guess you could look at it that way, personally when someones argument is ripe with illogical fallacies and tear jerking irony I do not give it one hundred percent, I refute and explain some of these events to the aforementioned poster and hope they start to use logic.

A few more just in case you want to have an intelligent discussion. "It is their interpretation that matters" you know what interpreting a rule creates? That's right grey lines and thin ice. That is the whole bloody point of laws and rules so there is no interpretation, no black and white, there is what is and is not against said rules.

You say things like "But logging in and logging out are a strain to both the server" once again this is a blatant lie you made up to try and further your point and you clearly have no idea how World of Warcraft login protocol works.

So if you blatantly make things up to try and prove a point how can we take anything you say seriously? You destroyed any scrap of credibility you had there.

[Solmyr]

I see the logic, but I'm still inclined to disagree.

Say for example a player is for whatever reason camping the Silithus Twilight Prophet on one character, and High Chief Winterfall in winterspring.

These places are very far from each other, and time is advantage in this game. The player with two accounts would have an advantage over the player that has two 60s on one account because he would be able to fly both to Silithus and Winterspring at the same time and begin chain farming quicker.

But let's ignore that and just assume both players parked their 60s in their respective spots already. Say the two account player kills the twilight prophet and by his timer High Chief winterfall should be up in 30 seconds. He tabs over to the winterspring character and notices a rogue riding up to contest the spawn. This knowledge of competition would be an advantage to the two account player that the single account player wouldn't have.

It's an extremely cherry picked example, but the logout timer means a lot when contesting high value spawns.

I can't really comment about the stress of the server from logging in and out constantly, because I'm ignorant to its mechanics, but I wouldn't expect it to be too troublesome being that it can handle around 5-6k players without seeing any packetloss from my end.

In my example I am assuming both characters arrived at their respective locations non-simultaneously. If you travel with both characters simultaneously, you'd be violating the rules.

As for the logout timer ... what logout timer? With a single account housing both characters you would have a second client open with name and password typed, you tab to it, press enter, 1 second later press enter again to enter world on the other character, then wait 3-5 seconds (depending on your machine) and you're on your other characters. Total time spent is 4-6 seconds. Do you really think this is an advantage?

1. I do not believe anything or think Nost is a police state, please do not paraphrase me or make things up.

Quote from previous post:

Do you know what kind of people take these precautions? People, who know they are violating the rules and thus fear coming under investigation of any sort. They are the ones, who say things such as what you just said above - "they can ban you if they want to, because they want to". Such people cannot comprehend why some bans happen, because they break the rules to begin with and thus are grown used to having the right to break them, therefore they end up with the mentality that the bans happen on a whim.

You know who else takes those precautions people living in a police state fearing for there safety from the authorities. You tell them off for giving opinions yet your post is riddled with them.

Since the "authorities" in my example are the management of Nostalrius, and in your example it's the authorities of a police state and since you are directly responding to my post, I see nothing else you could have possibly meant. Your post is there for anyone to read, our readers are smart enough to decide what you meant.

2. Once again I do not "believe" anything. That is not a "very broad definition" it is the exact and only definition that is not open to interpretation don't try and use "grey lines" to make your point especially after you deny there existence. I want to insult you for that but in the name of debate I shall not! So once again no the staff don't know the rules and stop giving your personal opinion about what you think they know (Especially after attacking others for using opinion) This is a cold hard fact and there is cold hard evidence if you go look on a website that is not going to remove it.

I used "grey lines" in my post, not grey lines. Quotation marks around a word are an indication that it is not used in its literal meaning and/or that the author does not believe the term is appropriate to the object in question. You could learn that if you visit an English class, but I guess forum education is cheaper, no?

You seem quite fond of using imperative sentences, yet you forget that they bear no weight on the internet and instead make you come off as desperate. You seem to believe that you can order me to stop giving my opinion after I have "attacked others for giving theirs", while in fact the only time I commented directly on somebody's opinion it was to thank them for it. You are the one, who attacks people for giving their opinion, not I. I might have been offended, had I made the foolish error of taking you seriously.

Claiming something is "cold, hard fact" does not make it so. You can add as many adjectives before the word "fact" as you want, but as long as you fail to include sources, your "facts" are merely another opinion. The only difference between my opinion and yours is the manner of its delivery - I do not claim my opinion is a fact; you, on the other hand, seem to be unable to do otherwise.

I guess you could look at it that way, personally when someones argument is ripe with illogical fallacies and tear jerking irony I do not give it one hundred percent, I refute and explain some of these events to the aforementioned poster and hope they start to use logic.

If your 100% is what I'm currently witnessing, you would do well to indeed tune it down to about 10%. Not for my sake, rather because you're coming off as a person, who is quite full of himself. You have not exposed a single fallacy in my post, nor refuted any of my points.

A few more just in case you want to have an intelligent discussion. "It is their interpretation that matters" you know what interpreting a rule creates? That's right grey lines and thin ice. That is the whole bloody point of laws and rules so there is no interpretation, no black and white, there is what is and is not against said rules.

Comparing laws with the rules of a private server only sheds light on your inability to grasp the key difference between the two - laws are created and interpreted by two different bodies of government, namely the legislative and judicial bodies. As such, laws are subject to interpretation, because the people, who write them, are not the ones, who enforce them or review cases within these laws.

Rules on a server such as Nostalrius are created by a few people - the admins. These same admins are also the judicial body. GMs are the law enforcement. As such, although GMs' interpretation matters, as long as they are not the final judicial body, which they aren't, it ultimately matters what the admins think is covered by a certain rule. Usually when a person writes a rule and is later asked to interpret that same rule, the person will have little difficulty with that. Hence why the current multiboxing rules are clear and have no grey lines.

I sincerely hope you were able to follow this parallel between rules and laws, although experience (from your police state parallel) leads me to believe you'd have difficulty.

You say things like "But logging in and logging out are a strain to both the server" once again this is a blatant lie you made up to try and further your point and you clearly have no idea how World of Warcraft login protocol works.

I am speaking from experience - Nostalrius had login server issues as early as the first day of server launch. They were forced to implement a login queue to prevent people from overloading the login server. Everyone is aware of that, you provide no evidence to the contrary except the usual vague hints at omniscience about every topic under the sun.

So if you blatantly make things up to try and prove a point how can we take anything you say seriously?

I am not the one making things up, you are. I have pointed them all out in my current post. "Facts" without sources, "refutation" of arguments you haven't engaged in at all, false parallels, then denial of having made them.

You destroyed any scrap of credibility you had there.

Oh no, you're also the "credibility-police"?

[Homer]

If you don't understand the login protocol it is nigh impossible for me to explain it on a forum post especially when I do not even know what level of mathematical or programming comprehension you have. 6k people trying to log in at the exact same time will obviously cause a strain -_- but a few people relogging, no chance.

So I ask again, you made something up based on anecdotal evidence without an actual understanding of how aforementioned system works (Better than blatantly lying I guess, kind of...) so how can any other of your points be considered credible?

Just every topic under the World of Warcraft sun Also credibility is "the quality of being trusted and believed in" if you are lying how can we trust you? Nothing to do with me personally.

[Solmyr]

Dear Homer, at this point I am obliged to ask whether you share your forum account with somebody or allow somebody access to your computer while typing your posts. If the answer is no, you may need to visit a professional, for schizophrenia is a medical condition that needs to be treated.

In the span of three sentences you say I'm not lying and then that I am lying.

So I ask again, you made something up based on anecdotal evidence without an actual understanding of how aforementioned system works (Better than blatantly lying I guess, kind of...) so how can any other of your points be considered credible?

Just every topic under the World of Warcraft sun Also credibility is "the quality of being trusted and believed in" if you are lying how can we trust you? Nothing to do with me personally.

Until you have answered that question, I would not feel comfortable engaging you in further debate - taking advantage of a person with a disability or potentially worsening his condition is a criminal offense in some states.

[Homer]

Hence the word "Blatantly" when I thought you made it up from thin air.

adjective
(of bad behaviour) done openly and unashamedly.
"blatant lies"
synonyms: flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, overt, open, transparent, patent, evident, manifest, palpable, unmistakable; More
completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious.
"she forced herself to resist his blatant charm"

So address the lying please.

EDIT: Also your increasing use of argumentum ad hominem can only hurt your argument.

[Solmyr]

Using blatantly or not has nothing to do with the actual statement of me lying or not. Your first sentence states, and I quote (again):

So I ask again, you made something up based on anecdotal evidence without an actual understanding of how aforementioned system works (Better than blatantly lying I guess, kind of...) so how can any other of your points be considered credible?

This is not lying, this is, at best, an error in the methodology of analysis, something which you are yet to prove with facts and sources.

You're one to talk about ad hominem, that's rich . You have been attacking me from your first post in this thread without providing any evidence that refute my argument. Since in your last two posts you ceased even pretending that you would [at some point] address my argument, you have given me no material to respond to, except your personal attacks, which I would always answer in kind.

[Homer]

No it would be an error if you actually understood it and made a mistake, but you did not although still pretended to. (Unless your claiming you understand the login protocol)

It has everything to do with it one is a flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, overt, open, transparent, lie. While the other is not because it has a small amount of real information that it was based on making it less flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, overt, open, transparent and evident.

As I said you lied, there is no point debating someone who is lying in there argument. But in the name of proper discussion I feel I must give you a chance to refute my claim. If refuted we can continue.

[Solmyr]

You have not proven any lies on my part, I therefore need not refute anything.

Or do you expect me to refute your opinion?

[Homer]

But logging in and logging out are a strain to both the server and the player

This is a lie. Outside of extremely large numbers which is not what you were referring to.

[Solmyr]

But logging in and logging out are a strain to both the server and the player

This is a lie. Outside of extremely large numbers which is not what you were referring to.

Ok, now prove it is a lie.