Should a full defensive stance count as attacking a mob?

[neko kyouran]

Pip, you are't understanding it. 

Of course I understand, I'm not stupid, I just don't agree.  If Shalmaneser ran around the arena, butting into every combat he could, and upset 5, 6 or 7 different players, that would be ok would it?

Your statement here:

Quote from: neko kyouran on November 10, 2006, 09:11:26 AM
engaged in combat encompases attacking in it, but they are not ne in the same since you can be in combat, but not attacking the target.  full defense, you are in combt, as the mobis trying to hurt you, but you are not attacking the mob, as you have no intent to harm the mob since you are in full defense.

EXACTLY; I was in combat therefore I was "fighting" therefore it was kill stealing.

Implies that you do not understand what I am trying to say at all.  Also, I don't believe I ever called you stupid, simply that you are in error with your logic.  Please don't let a simple thread on a simple little forum on the internet of all places personaly effect you. 

To answer your question: As long as he stays within the confines of the game mechanics, yes, let him and anyone else kill whatever the game will allow them to kill such that it does not violate the rules set forth by the players policy.  As I stated, ther are two chioces.  You pick the full defense chioce, you take that risk.  That's just how it is.

---------------------------------------

Notice carefully the way killstealing is written.  It is not written to say "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is in combat".  It states that "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is attacking it."

Look again yourself; it says "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing". Look again at my strategy; I start an attack and then remain in combat I am therefore fighting it; "Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!"

Please reread the bottom half of my post.  I specifically stated this is false.  Just becuase you are in combat doesn't mean you are attacking the mob.  Notice the wording, you have to be ATTACKING the mob for it to be killstealing.  In order to be attacking such mob, you have to be in a stance with intent to harm.  Full defense is not a stance that shows any intent to harm, therfore you are not attacking, yet still considerd in combat.  I also specifically addressed the "fighting" part.  Here, I'll make it easy:

Now if you look at the words in red you see a problem.  There are many ways to fight a mob.  Fighting, IS the same as combat.  It is a word used to describe many different styles of both self defense styles (both with intentions to harm, and with out) and also offensive manuver styles that are intended to harm said enemy.  On the other hand, the next key point shows that you must be currently attacking a mob in order to be considered killstealing.  Once again, attacking, is any fighting style with the intention to cause harm to the enemy. (NOT full defense.  see above for why.)

So they contradict each other.  That is where the problem lies.  The solution?  Change "fighting' to "attacking".

-------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a difference between combat/fighting and attacking.

And I'm done here.  At Niko's request, I will leave it at this.

EDIT: fixed a typo

[Pip]

Implies that you do not understand what I am trying to say at all.  Also, I don't believe I ever called you stupid, simply that you are in error with your logic.  Please don't let a simple thread on a simple little forum on the internet of all places personaly effect you. 

I don't take it personally at all, I am just using your own argument against you, my logic may be different from yours but it doesn't make it  wrong.

To answer your question: As long as he stays within the confines of the game mechanics, yes, let him and anyone else kill whatever the game will allow them to kill such that it does not violate the rules set forth by the players policy.  As I stated, ther are two chioces.  You pick the full defense chioce, you take that risk.  That's just how it is.

This is where the argument lies. I believe it does violate the rules set forth in the players policy.

Please reread the bottom half of my post.  I specifically stated this is false.  Just becuase you are in combat doesn't mean you are attacking the mob.  Notice the wording, you have to be ATTACKING the mob for it to be killstealing.  In order to be attacking such mob, you have to be in a stance with intent to harm.  Full defense is not a stance that shows any intent to harm, therfore you are not attacking, yet still considerd in combat.  I also specifically addressed the "fighting" part.  Here, I'll make it easy:

Now if you look at the words in red you see a problem.  There are many ways to fight a mob.  Fighting, IS the same as combat.  It is a word used to describe many different styles of both self defense styles (both with intentions to harm, and with out) and also offensive manuver styles that are intended to harm said enemy.  On the other hand, the next key point shows that you must be currently attacking a mob in order to be considered killstealing.  Once again, attacking, is any fighting style with the intention to cause harm to the enemy. (NOT full defense.  see above for why.)

So they contradict each other.  That is where the problem lies.  The solution?  Change "fighting' to "attacking".

No, the solution would be to ask Talad, whose policy it is supposed to be, whether he means "attacking" or "fighting". Who are you to say it is false? I have never tried to argue that being in full defence is the same as attacking, only that you are still engaged in combat and therefore " if someone else attacks the mob, they are interupting the combat."

I will certainly be very wary of using full defence now but if you don't know that someone else can interrupt your combat while using full defence it certainly looks and feels like kill stealing. The essence of the rule is surely that once you are in combat, another person does not have the right to take your kill. I can see many instances where the ability to take the kill from someone else in full defence would be useful and desirable.

There seems to be a very fine line here between IC and OOC misbehaviour. But I still think that the rule should read "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started combat is considered kill stealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings, and then further actions if the player continues."

[Janner]

There was a problem, Zanzibar made a thread to clarify the matter and now people still argue.

No, Zanzibar made the thread to start a debate which is exactly what is happening. Shall we have a vote now?
I am voting for the motion.

This could have still been talked about, and could have been done in a civilized manner, if he OOC explained he wonted to challenge a rule, or even not done anything in game at all.

 But no he had to go and spoil someone's in game fun by being him.


 So in future all who want to train armor must now do it in Defense mode,  as that will give you the max amount of time fighting it, also will deal miner damage on your enemy, and I will instruct my guild, and advice others to do it in pairs. so that it is tied up non stop, till the pair are fully trained, That way no rule is broken, no one can but in, unless they have a faster computer.


So well done on sorting out yet another problem, in way rules are worded.

[bilbous]

I am kind of torn between the competing ideas. I am inclined to side with the full defense argument, it is a tacticthat was used by Mohammed Ali (rope a dope) and Joe Frazier in different styles. But to preserve legitimacy for both sides I suggest that if you are in full defense you should continue to trash talk your opponent as an "attack" can be verbal as well as physical.

One could also see attacking as being in the set to work definition of the term.

Attack \At*tack"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Attacked; p. pr. & vb.
   n. Attacking.] [F. attaquer, orig. another form of attacher
   to attack: cf. It. attacare to fasten, attack. See Attach,
   Tack a small nail.]
   1. To fall upon with force; to assail, as with force and
      arms; to assault. "Attack their lines." --Dryden.
      [1913 Webster]

   2. To assail with unfriendly speech or writing; to begin a
      controversy with; to attempt to overthrow or bring into
      disrepute, by criticism or satire; to censure; as, to
      attack a man, or his opinions, in a pamphlet.
      [1913 Webster]

   3. To set to work upon, as upon a task or problem, or some
      object of labor or investigation.
      [1913 Webster]

   4. To begin to affect; to begin to act upon, injuriously or
      destructively; to begin to decompose or waste.
      [1913 Webster]


If we are going to argue semantics let us at least try to agree on which sense of the terms we are arguing about. There are certainly more senses of the word than I have listed and what is the definition of is anyway?

*Aside The kde dictionary application is quite useful even though it relies on public domain sources on the internet.

[zanzibar]

If Shalmaneser ran around the arena, butting into every combat he could, and upset 5, 6 or 7 different players, that would be ok would it?

You were in a full defensive attack.  There were not 5, 6, 7 other players in a full defensive attack.  You were different.

Pip wanted to have the mercenary who drops good weapons, so she fighted it and the fact it was uneffective if someone else wanted to kill the mercenary too, it did not matter.

Pip did not want to fight or kill the mercenary.  She wanted to block its attacks as a way to powerlevel light armour.

There seems to be a very fine line here between IC and OOC misbehaviour.

I seem to remember Talad saying that camping spawns is an OOC behaviour, if that means anything to you.

This could have still been talked about, and could have been done in a civilized manner, if he OOC explained he wonted to challenge a rule, or even not done anything in game at all.

I am not challenging a rule.

[Karyuu]

<Talad> in this scenario, I think someone that joins repeatedly when the other is in full defense, is kill stealing
<Talad> so should be prevented
<Talad> I will say that this should be done a number of times to become annoying and punishable
<Talad> so when done 5-10 times, even if on different players, it becomes killstealing as a general technique used by this player

This seems settled as of right now. I will make changes to the Killstealing portion of the Player Policy so that there are no more ambiguities, and ask everyone to be careful with what they do in-game.

[Hadfael]

* Hadfael burns incens to Talad

* Hadfael hugs Karyuu

* Hadfael adds amused: Another quoting contest ended ;-)