>>You might be looking at it the wrong way. The use of thump and EXP drain at log in are rewards for not having a warning in the last 6 months.

If it isn't corrective action, it's preventive action. It is one or the other. Corrective aims to stop recurrence, preventive aims to stop occurence.

This is a reward, people want it, they try to avoid warnings, preventive action.

>>Navak,

>>It's pretty clear we don't agree with you no matter how you want to try to twist it.

>>At this time, there's no plan to change anything.

>>You can let it go now.

>>Solomon

You are wrong.

I wasn't trying to twist anything, I was reinforcing that both Ssra and I agreed that the current status quo is people staying logged in to drain.

You stuffed a bunch of strawmen the last time the argument came up and you started doing it again this time. Good job.

>>Take the discussion in regard to EXP drain, warnings, and ethics to the dead horse folder. If you want to discuss the technical aspects that's fine but this current line of "but there are big meanies in the world" isn't going anywhere.

I think you are missing the entire point which I am attempting to make. My point is that there are better things to implement as preventive action.

With this implemented, there will likely be a higher ratio of people with warnings logged into the game. If people are already logged into the game or have the game window open, even if they were draining or are now logged out, they are more likely to then play the game again.

That means more active people with warnings than people without warnings because at least some of those people without warnings are going to logout, thus making them less likely to be playing since they'll shut stuff down instead.

You post explaining that you don't care if people do bad things because then they will just get a warning. That would indicate you support relying upon corrective actions. I think the focus should be on preventing an occurence rather than preventing recurrence.

I am --- Navak

>>Should they take away the gwethsmashers and more actively police the gweth? Same difference. They don't care if someone does something that annoys someone else--assuming it's within the rules--they'll just get smashed or beaten down by that person.

No, it isn't. You are wrong and restructuring my argument to suit your needs.

>>The idea here is that GMs focus on the actual bad behavior when it happens, while players focus on peer-pressuring each other to not engage in bad behavior in the first place. Consider it an outside-the-box approach to "GMs are screwing over the Rangers" (ie, by engaging in bad behavior you're taking away development time that could be spent on places that need it--such as the Ranger guild as some seem to persistently believe).

What?

You have no clue about which you are posting. There is corrective action or preventive action. That is it.

This is a reward meant to help influence people from getting a warning, thus it is preventive action. I disagree that it is the correct way to implement it and I also disagree that the focus should be on corrective action.

Preventing things before they happen > making them stop.

I am --- Navak

>>>Solomon, who has no idea why he's even bothering to continue with the discussion

Bubba, you have no idea how close I'm coming to citing Heathers on you for this one.

[Dad] Will someone tell me why I bother to talk about these things?
[Veronica] Because you're an idiot.
[Dad] Oh. Yeah.
[Mom] Oh, you two...

But personally, I think it's because you have a strong masochistic streak. After all, you are the boss Bubba around here, and you don't get there without severe amounts of Bubba-torture along the way.

Amagaim; the player of,

---

The whole of nature is a conjugation of the verb to eat, in the active and the passive.
--- William Ralph Inge