Wow, seekers are expensive (in General)

QBRanger April 7 2007 6:30 PM EDT

QBRanger April 7 2007 6:32 PM EDT

For those too lazy to look at the link:

$51,568 bid by Adi (Adi) on 5:59 PM EDT

for 835 seekers.

QBOddBird April 7 2007 6:33 PM EDT

I guess he *REALLY* wants those seekers.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 7 2007 6:34 PM EDT

I was trying to see if perhaps he entered $100,000 when he meant $10,000, but I got distracted. ;)

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 7 2007 6:36 PM EDT

And I think he's using very naughty language now.

Mikel April 7 2007 6:36 PM EDT

Only when Bast is online, she's been doing that all week.... Fine by me if she wants to pay that much for something that she doesn't use.

PoisoN April 7 2007 6:55 PM EDT

Everyone should have a fulfilling hobby. =)

Mikel April 8 2007 3:59 AM EDT

is it right/in the spirit of the game to buy seekers and have someone else store them for you? I want to know, because I don't want anyone to get me in trouble for it.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 8 2007 4:17 AM EDT

seems like while it's not against the rules, it's a little excessive given the 15k limit...

Mikel April 8 2007 4:45 AM EDT

that is just it, I have regular, Slayers and Seekers in my arsenal. Why do I need to be capped so hard? I go thru arrows very fast. At times, I can't bid on seekers because I just hit the store and picked up 6k arrows to stock up for the next couple of hours, since the store is usually depleted and it has a cap on it for the number of times I can visit it in a given period... is that also necessary anymore?<br><br>Let's say I was a SFBM, and I didn't use seekers, would it be right of me to buy seekers and store them on another Character?

Nerevas April 8 2007 4:48 AM EDT

I see nothing wrong with it

QBRanger April 8 2007 6:20 AM EDT

"is it right/in the spirit of the game to buy seekers and have someone else store them for you?"

That is just pure garbage.

The 15k cap is there for a reason. As long as you have a few friends, you can easily circumvent that cap. Certainly not what Jon wants with the hard ammo cap in place.

Shame on those people doing it and those people helping out.

AdminG Beee April 8 2007 6:37 AM EDT

The idea of CB is to beat your opponents. Whether you choose to do that by putting a bounty out on rival clans or by purchasing specialist ammo to stop rivals from getting it I don't see the difference. On the contrary, as a CB player I'm quite happy to see things stirred up in this manner.

From an admin point of view I also don't see a problem with someone purchasing specialist ammo and transferring it to others. There's xfr fees involved in both directions and if the price of the ammo is pushed up as a result well I'm sure it will calm down in time...

QBRanger April 8 2007 6:54 AM EDT


Then why have a hard cap on the amount of ammo one can have?

"All your Characters together may not have more than 14999 ammo. This is so new players get a chance to purchase ammo too. Currently you have 14,691 ammo across your Characters."--Per Jon

Jon specifically stated in his typing about the 15k ammo limit is to let other/new players have a chance to get ammo. So someone does not buy it all up. By what your stating, one can certainly buy up all the ammo in the store and store it on other character, driving up the price of normal arrows/bolts. According to what your typing, that is perfectly fine?

Now I am sure someone will say, "but Jon stated new players". He certainly did, however, new players cannot get the speciality ammo with the shinanigins going on.

As to the putting a bounty on another clan, that is completely a different animal. Jon nowhere, notime, put any negative press on such actions. In fact, in past posts about such actions, Jon himself has either not replied or gave his approval (I cannot remember off the top of my head which).

It is known most of the community think seekers are bad for the game. In fact, I believe is it one of the point Novice and I agree on, which should say a lot. However, what is being done by buying up that ammo and storing it on other character is pure garbage.

When I was playing Koy as a mage, I did the same thing. Drove up the prices of seekers and bought all I could. But never did I store them on other people characters. I either used them or gave them to others to use. But never for others to just hold them for me.

If Jon chimes in and says this is ok, then its ok. However, as I am reading the ammo limit, it certainly is not fine.

AdminG Beee April 8 2007 7:04 AM EDT

I disagree on a couple of points.
Most of the "community" doesn't agree that seekers are bad. I will agree that most of the folks that post on the threads (which is by far and away smaller than the majority of the community) agree, but that's not the point. To say otherwise is perhaps correct, but presumptuous imo.

We're not talking about storing ammo on other characters to beat the limit we're talking about them being transfered to other users. If people choose to do this (especially within the confines of a clan) then I don't see a problem. New users tend not to use specialist ammo but even if they do then they have the ability to purchase them just as much as anyone else - especially as they have access to the NUB and the money that comes with it.

If anything I think the text of Jon's reasoning behind the 15k ammo limit is somewhat redundant nowadays. Not the limit - just the text...
There's a cap on the limit to stop users purchasing up all the ammo from the stores. Auctions inhibit the users ability to purchase all of the specialist ammo because of the cost.

QBRanger April 8 2007 9:40 AM EDT

I will say most people that speak about seekers in chat hate them. Of course the elb users that rely on seekers love them.

I do think most, over 50 percent of the players of cb dislike seekers.

Perhaps a poll to clarify would be in order.

And if the 15k ammo limit is redundant, how come Jon never upped or removed that limit given the fact many of us have asked for it to be removed or raised?

QBRanger April 8 2007 10:00 AM EDT

Or perhaps the 15k limit should be for generic ammo and specialty ammo should be in a separate category which has no limit.

AdminG Beee April 8 2007 10:01 AM EDT

I didn't say the limit is redundant. I said I suspect that the text is now redundant. The limit is needed as long as arrows are sold through stores imo.

QBRanger April 8 2007 10:07 AM EDT


Sorry I misread your post Beee.

Still the fact that all ammo is lumped together still makes it a 15k hard ammo cap.

Giving ammo to others to hold is not technically illegal but against the spirit of the rules, of course it is as I see it.

Whats to stop someone from buying ammo in the store and asking others to hold it (not use it mind you, just hold it) while they buy more and more. Yes, the store will spawn far more then someone can possibly store forever, but just take 1 day of someone doing this.

It would take lots of people to do such a thing, but is that illegal? Nothing against the "law" but a certain violation of the spirit.

QBOddBird April 8 2007 10:08 AM EDT

Seems to me that since it is wrong to circumnavigate the BA cap (I.E. x-ferring your NCBs back and forth) in order to gain an advantage over other players, it should be wrong to circumnavigate the ammo cap (I.E. x-ferring your ammo back and forth) in order to gain an advantage over other players - and yes, it is an advantage to be able to hold more ammunition, specialty or not.

Note: There is only one difference between these two sentences:

"since it is wrong to circumnavigate the BA cap (I.E. x-ferring your NCBs back and forth) in order to gain an advantage over other players"

"wrong to circumnavigate the ammo cap (I.E. x-ferring your ammo back and forth) in order to gain an advantage over other players"

and that is the fact that you are dealing with ammunition instead of BA. Just seems to me that it is the *exact* situation Jon said was obviously wrong earlier, but dealing with a "less important" matter - but if you ask Mages, I'm sure, allowing a player to own extra seekers is plenty important.

Anyways, there's my 99 cents worth. (Yes, my opinion is worth 50x yours, everyone. ~_^)

QBRanger April 8 2007 10:11 AM EDT

Well typed OB.

You should be an orator.

You made the point I was trying to get across in multiple posts in only 1!!!

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 8 2007 10:28 AM EDT

All of which assumes (with the obvious implication) that "(I.E. x-ferring your ammo back and forth)" will happen. ;)

Sir Woot April 8 2007 10:38 AM EDT

I have just one question. How would you propose to stop someone from storing ammo on another character? No more transfers? Wait that's two questions. Drat!

QBRanger April 8 2007 10:51 AM EDT

I will answer that with just 1 question:

What is to stop 2 people from transferring a NCB back and forth spending their BA on it?

Answer: We have admins and a community that polices these things.

Oops: that is a question and an answer. :)

Sir Woot April 8 2007 10:57 AM EDT

So would it be ok to for Mikel to sell ammo to another character for $1 + xfer costs and buy them back for the same price?

Phrede April 8 2007 11:37 AM EDT

I am - for one - always hitting the cap - but it is good - it means you have to think about what you are buying. Once a week I get some seekers and ES to top up. It works.

QBRanger April 8 2007 12:12 PM EDT

Obviously there is no "cap" as one can store ammo on someone else character.

Mikel April 8 2007 12:22 PM EDT

Correct, I assumed asking someone to hold arrows was not in the spirit of the game so therefore I don't do it.
Now, What if I am just buying Seekers and sending them to someone else whether they use them or not, but just to keep them out of Freed's hands because it's the only way that he can beat me?

AdminNightStrike April 8 2007 12:29 PM EDT

I store items on other people's characters because the ten item rule is too constricting. Does that make me wrong?

B, your argument that xfer costs make xferring ammo legal is the argument of mine that you shot down in the NCB thread -- I said that the xfer costs associated with bouncing a NCB around the block made it ok, and I was apparently wrong. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the ammo thing, but just that your argument is dubious. Come up with another reason for it being ok.

Oh, and can we petition to bump the ammo cap to something less constricting? It'd be nice to go a day of fighting without maxing out my ammo multiple times (I use a lot of ammo).

AdminNightStrike April 8 2007 12:30 PM EDT

Freed uses seekers to beat an archer? Did I miss a changemonth?

QBRanger April 8 2007 12:49 PM EDT

No NS,

Mikel was speaking as a mage character who buys up all the seekers and stores them on other mages who do not use/need them.

QBRanger April 8 2007 12:51 PM EDT

'So would it be ok to for Mikel to sell ammo to another character for $1 + xfer costs and buy them back for the same price?'

No it would not. If Mikel is doing this, that is wrong.

Jon clearly stated in the NCB thread it was a way around the rule that obviously was not allowed.

I read the same thing with the ammo cap and storing ammo on other characters. It should be as obvious as OB gracefully stated.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 8 2007 1:10 PM EDT

I can't possibly buy them all up, as they appear in auctions where anyone is free to bid as high as they wish, or can afford, to.

And gifting has never been an issue, so long as I am unconcerned about being caught out as a multi. I have absolutely no worries on that score as I trust the admins to need more proof of multi-esque behavior than mere gifts and there isn't any.

'Birdie's response still presumes that there is a "back & forth". There is no "back", nevermind "& forth".

QBRanger April 8 2007 1:17 PM EDT

Even if some transferred a NCB only 1 time for the purpose of spending extra BA on it, that would still be illegal. Jon was clear about that. No "back and forth" needed. Even one time would be not right.

I do not think anyone is accusing you of being a multi.

But buying all the seekers and storing them on characters that do not use them goes against the 15k ammo limit in the game.

I can easily see "gifts", but how does a mage character use such a "gift"? If you really wanted to give them a gift, a nice pair of AG's or a COI would be far more effective and appreciated.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 8 2007 1:20 PM EDT

Well, if you aren't going to appreciate the gift on "it's the thought that counts" merits, then I shan't send you any.

QBRanger April 8 2007 1:23 PM EDT

You know, somehow it never crossed my mind I would ever get a gift of seekers from you. But since I do not use them, perhaps I would be another place for you to "store" them.

But if those you sent the "gift" to auction them as they cannot really use them, I shall be remarkable surprised.

So I am not really missing out now am I?

QBOddBird April 8 2007 1:35 PM EDT

"'Birdie's response still presumes that there is a "back & forth". There is no "back", nevermind "& forth".

--QBBast, 1:10 PM EDT"

That's absolutely correct, as I was responding to the situation quoted here:

"Whats to stop someone from buying ammo in the store and asking others to hold it (not use it mind you, just hold it) while they buy more and more."

In which case you buy ammunition, send it to another, buy more, send to another, etc. and they return it when you need it. That'd be circumnavigating the ammunition cap, which is obviously wrong.

AdminG Beee April 8 2007 1:40 PM EDT

This is nothing like the NCB situation from a couple of threads ago.

Mikel, if you buy all the seekers to stop Freed using them and beating you then that's just an extension of your strat and is fair imo. If you decide to ask others to do it to stop Freed getting them then that is also cool.

Might put the price of seekers up and then the argument that they're not "fair" becomes less of a point as the cost will start to become an issue.

Personally, I like the idea of buying up all the specialist ammo from auctions just to stop others getting it. There's too much love in CB anyway ;)

Clan bounties and strategic purchasing - bring it on...

Mikel April 8 2007 1:46 PM EDT

Ok so you are advocating that this is a legal tactic and not just being a recipient of said items via donations? Good to know that ruining the game for others is on the legal list.

QBRanger April 8 2007 1:47 PM EDT


Again, why is there an ammo cap? If you want to buy all the specialty ammo, great. Then use it up. When I was a mage I did some of the same. But I got a compound bow and put the seekers on it to burn them up. I never stored them on other characters to avoid the 15k ammo cap. But do not use other characters to store them to circumvent the 15k ammo cap.

So, since 1 transfer appears to be allowed and not "back and forth", making a NCB with 1600 BA and ONE time transferring it to another with 1600 BA stored is ok? I would think not. One needs to read into the spirit of the rules, not just the words themselves.

AdminG Beee April 8 2007 2:08 PM EDT

I'm advocating that imo purchasing specialist ammo from auctions to stop someone else getting it is an extension of strategy. It doesn't ruin the game any more than it would by being beaten by someone who runs a better team.

Ammo limit is there to stop idiots purchasing all the ammo from stores and stopping anyone else getting it.
With auctions, if you bid high enough then you will get the ammo. If the price of seekers goes up then I have no problems with this and perhaps the "seekers are the bane of CB" brigade will feel it's a little on the way towards the balance they are asking for.

I'm speaking based on my own opinion as a player.

Phrede April 8 2007 2:27 PM EDT

hehe - mikel - I dont need seekers to beat you m8. I need them to defend with (hubbel).

Mikel April 8 2007 2:27 PM EDT

Drive up the prices all you want, I'll just buy more CB2, if that is your goal, but then that makes the bridge bigger for those that buy cb2 and those that don't, maybe it would be easier if you just came out and made a new thread about them being the bane of CB2? Doing it the way you are doing it is just childish and immature. I don't know what I have done to tick someone off, but what comes around goes around.

AdminNightStrike April 8 2007 2:35 PM EDT

"Ammo limit is there to stop idiots purchasing all the ammo from stores and stopping anyone else getting it. "

That doesn't make sense. Ammo respawns in the stores faster than jackrabbits. Maybe it's time this limit was reevaluated.

Tezmac April 8 2007 2:35 PM EDT

I personally think it's awesome, good for you Bast! Stick it to em. :O)

Mikel April 8 2007 2:41 PM EDT

Wow, I guess then it's ok for me to make an offer to the Mages that she's been supplying with seekers because they are after all gifts. :)

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 2:49 PM EDT


The name must not be blasphemed.

Mikel April 8 2007 2:52 PM EDT

*edit to the people she has sent them to

Mikel April 8 2007 3:14 PM EDT

From: [Quoth]The Raven Sent: April 7 2007 11:38 PM EDT Delivered: April 7 2007 11:38 PM EDT

I don't know what I'm doing with them actually, Bast asked me to store them for her. I don't need them, obviously... so if you want them, you'll have to ask her :D

So what is it Bast? Are they gifts as you are implying or are you using someone to hold them for you as a way to get around the 15k limit.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 8 2007 3:45 PM EDT

"... maybe it would be easier if you just came out and made a new thread about them being the bane of CB2?" Would it? That has so far gotten those of you who persist in ad infinitum kvetching absolutely nowhere.

Mikel April 8 2007 3:55 PM EDT

Answer the question, gifts or using someone to hold them?

Lochnivar April 8 2007 4:26 PM EDT

I'm guessing Bast is giving them as gifts since I don't see an archer on Dixie Cousins....

I do see a mage so the 'deprive thy enemy' school of thought seems a likely explanation.

The buy and stash isn't really a long term problem simply because seekers spawn faster than users and eventually, once all the willing mules are used, prices and availability will return to normal.

entertaining debate though...

Mikel April 8 2007 4:27 PM EDT

So now you are going to send them to people that haven't logged in, since Feb 12, 2006....
QBBast (Josh) BrandonLP (Spid) 11,281 Seeker Arrows ($11282) 12:21 PM EDT

QBRanger April 8 2007 4:34 PM EDT


Do you not realize they are gifts in case people who have abandoned CB rejoin?

In case they realize how powerful the elb is and want to jump right in.

However, the big question is IF they will ever rejoin.

But it is a nice loophole people have found to circumvent the 15k ammo cap.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 8 2007 4:42 PM EDT

this thread needs a Nelson quality "HA HAH"

Gandalf April 8 2007 4:43 PM EDT

IMO which might not be very good theres an ammo cap for a reason... So people going around it is against the rules if thats what Bast is doing. Theres already evidence that she got Raven to stock some up.....

Mikel April 8 2007 4:45 PM EDT

If anyone else did this, they'd be branded and fined. I'm just wanting to see how far a QB is allowed to bend the rules of the game with out any repercussions.

QBRanger April 8 2007 4:47 PM EDT

Certain QB's Mikel.

Please realize most of us are subject to the same rules/laws as everyone.

Lochnivar April 8 2007 5:05 PM EDT

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the two following scenarios from the perspective of other players:

1.) Bast buys all manner of seekers from auctions and sends them to who ever she likes for whatever reason.

2.) Bast equipes every wall/enchanter with a base bow and fires the seekers off harmlessly during her battles.

In both cases they are essentially wasted and in neither case is there a realistic expection of them coming back to Bast...

I don't see why it is such a big deal

QBOddBird April 8 2007 5:07 PM EDT

As far as I know, it isn't such a big deal. Then again, I was only watching/addressing one particular point of this thread, which has since split off into several different little spats.

Mikel April 8 2007 5:08 PM EDT

Because if she used them on an enchanter like you said, odds are she wouldn't be able to burn them up fast enough to keep up with buying them via auctions. And if she used them, I wouldn't have any complaint.

QBRanger April 8 2007 5:12 PM EDT

Scenario 1: Someone is hording all the seekers, over the 15k limit to either use, trade, sell, corner the market to raise the price to xxx cb2 etc... It would be great if I could horde all sorts of specialized ammo but some of us are following the rules as Jon wrote them.

While the ammo is stored on other characters, there is no assurances they will never see the light of day again. Perhaps if there is a "trash can" one can dispose of ammo, that would be a better solution. (see below). But as stated numerous times there is a 15k limit on ammo to stop such actions (IMO only).

Scenario 2: Someone is shooting the money away. And if the spawn rate is more than she can shoot, others will have a chance to buy them.

QBRanger April 8 2007 5:17 PM EDT

And please note, while I am against what is being done, I am not for seekers.

I still see them as a bane on the game, quite unfair to mages. There have been many a post about them asking for their removal, but it is Jon's game we are allowed to play. And he believes they serve a purpose. Using a loophole to circumvent things is not a QB thing to do.

But... rules are rules and should be followed. Especially by a QB who is respected for all she posts/does. While the actions discussed are not strictly forbidden by the rules, one has to go by the spirit of the rules.

If something is even marginal, one has to not do it as to avoid such trivial but needed threads.

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 5:25 PM EDT

I love a good strawman...

Bast is doing something completely within the rules, no actual ruling (from Jonathan ) has ben handed down yet, and yet the thought-train quickly escalates as such:

-- Bast is having fun, spending money tactically. Much like, say, setting a very stupid clan bounty to stop other stupid clans from getting stupid clan score. Clans are stupid. But I digress...
-- Bast is also testing the waters. It has only been one day in the "public" eye (that I know of, I just go by what is in forums, and this is the first I have heard about this), and while G_Beee has weighed in (logically and eloquently, in my opinion), that does not mean this is the end of it. Jonathan may make a change tomorrow, the next day, who knows.
-- Bast's action get labeled in progressively passive-aggressive fashion (mainly by Mikel) as such:
1. Is Bast breaking the rules? [legitimate question]
2. Well, I think she is breaking the rules. [editorial commentary]
3. Yeah, let's just say she is breaking the rules. [opinion now stated as fact]
4. Anyone else breaking the rules this way (since I have decided this is rule-breaking) would get branded and fined. [taking an additional unsubstantiated leap on something that is still simple opinion]
5. So why do QBs get special treatment? [wholly non-legitimate question, based on shaky logic leaps off a pure opinion foundation, all stated as projected fact]
6. Only _some_ QBs get special treatment (very nice one, PM). [legitimizing something that cannot be legitimized, by adding still more straw to the straw-man that has been built off opinion and lazy "logic"]
7. Bast is breaking the rules, ruining the game, getting special treatment because she is a QB (yeah, Bast is such a pox on this community -- must just be her QB status that makes folks respect her...) and the justice system of CB is totally flawed and we are all sad and going to die in horrible car crashes. [yep, it's a fact.]

OK, I elaborated a bit in number 7, but it isn't much worse than the leaps some others are taking.

Like I said, I do so love a good straw-man. I appreciate the entertainment value, guys!

Phrede April 8 2007 5:29 PM EDT

*Hubbell :)

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 5:33 PM EDT

Goodness, PM. I really enjoy the way you use the QB status as double-edged sword -- not only is it terrible that Bast is getting "special treatment" (a horrible, slanderous thing to say, and yes, you supported the argument by your comment to Mikel), it is even worse because she should have been living up to a higher standard to begin with. That's a complete load of garbage and waste of bandwidth.

I really hope those bricks don't get too heavy and that your home is entirely glass-free, QB.

This has been brought up TODAY. One day, a lazy Sunday. What could possibly have your panties in such a bunch over just ONE DAY. For all you know, Jonathan will make some sort of comment or system change in less than 24 hours. Is it just too hard to wait a bit? Did our Easter Sunday really need such spectacle?

Lochnivar April 8 2007 5:35 PM EDT

My last few points on the topic:

1.) Dixie Cousins fought about 5000 rounds of combat in the past 24hrs. With 3 minions without a DD or other weapons I'm guessing burning through 16k seekers is a two or three day affair at most. (it took 10 days to by those 16k)

2.) It is an auction. If you don't like it bid more.

3.) I'm a big fan of the presumption of innocence. Given that there is no transfer log of someone other than the auctioneer sending Bast seekers the notion of her attempting to stockpile ammo for her use is lacking in evidence.

That said, PM makes an excellent point about the appearance of impropriety.
If Bast were using the ammo herself, or giving it to other mage characters to fire off with their enchanters I'm fairly certain there would be less complaints.

Heck if she sent me seekers I'd gladly shell out for a bow so my wall could 'dispose' of them.

Tezmac April 8 2007 5:40 PM EDT

Count me in on the equipping a bow and shooting off seekers train Bast.

Oh, and it's a freakin' auction, if you don't like it, bid more. God knows those of you complaining haven't already spent enough USD on this game, what's a few hundred more?

QBRanger April 8 2007 5:50 PM EDT

Well Sut,

Having a NCB and transferring it between 2 characters was "within the rules" and was questioned before Jon stepped it. Since, there was no specific rule said it could not be done. Hence the question in that thread.

In fact, I must be stupid as I thought it might be done, and as others suggested the transfer costs would soon make it nonviable to continue very soon after one would begin.

However, unlike other times when people have asked in the forums about marginal things, no such posting occurred with reference to what is happening with the seekers.

But the comparisons between the 2 (NCB and hording seekers) is very similiar. At least to my limited intellect.

I do like the fact you think Beee's posts are elegant and logical while mine and Mikel's are not. You are entitled to your opinion but as you can see, others disagree with that sentiment.

It is quite obvious what side of the debate you agree with. But please stop trivializing other people arguments, saying our logic is flawed, until we know the true facts from Jon himself.

Perhaps deductive reasoning is being used. Going from point A to B etc.. while looking at all the facts you have and past experiences. Maybe it is a flawed set of data points, but it is the set I have to work with. Of course you see it differently and you certainly are allowed your opinion.

But, when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, heck it must be a duck.

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 5:50 PM EDT

Mach, your level-headed commentary is appreciated, except for one fact:

Bast has not done anything improper.

She is within the rules, it has just been brought up today, and we'll see how it sorts out later. This is turning into a witch trial when no one has actually been shown to be a witch! That's a bad example, as Bast is a very lovely woman who does not partake in magic, but I'm trying to make a point.

Phrede April 8 2007 5:55 PM EDT

... if she did practice magic I know several people who would wake up tomorrow with a Donkey's head :)

QBRanger April 8 2007 5:56 PM EDT

"Bast has not done anything improper."

Again, your opinion Sut, Nothing more unless you have inside information that I do not.

I see it the other way. Something is amiss and circumventing the 15k ammo cap is what is being done.

Again, IN MY OPINION on the matter, this is wrong. Why? due to the points I stated above.

Tezmac April 8 2007 6:09 PM EDT

No Ranger, it's YOUR opinion she's done something improper. So unless YOU have some insider information that can dispute the two sentences below, then THAT'S the fact of the matter.

She has won auctions legally.
She has transferred said auction winnings to other players.

Until you can prove one of the two things above are illegal, the fact that it is "illegal" is you and your cronies' opinions. Suck it up and wait for Jon's ruling.

QBRanger April 8 2007 6:17 PM EDT


There is a 15k ammo limit for a reason. And those she is sending the ammo to were told to hold on to it.

Does this not circumvent the 15k limit?

About your points:

Of course she won the auctions legally.

Of course she transferred the ammo to one else, but legally? She transferred ammo to an inactive player who has not logged on since 2006. Is that legal? One would think you have to have someone permission to send ammo. Or, I can send someone 15k ammo and stop them from buying ammo via auctions. At least until they sell it. And do it again and again and again.

But I will suck it up as you should also. And wait for Jon's ruling if one is to be made.

If people want to spend/waste that ammo, great. But stockpiling it as is being done, should raise questions. Not just a simple "its all alright, nothing is wrong, your so wrong in accusing someone of something.. etc.."

Perhaps you and your cronies should try to see the other side of things.

QBOddBird April 8 2007 6:25 PM EDT

Right, I agree that sending ammo off to be stored until further use in order to get around the 15k caps is wrong BUT

All Bast did was send it to someone else, who would not send it off promptly because it was given them by Bast

and it seems to me like the simple 'innocent until proven guilty' logic would work much better here than all this accusatory pointing of fingers

but again that's just my opinion and it is only worth 50x the rest of yours. ~_^

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 7:02 PM EDT

PM, you are basically agreeing with me. Saying questions are OK, wait for Jon, etc.

I agree with you.

I did not take any sides, and you are attributing things to my silence that are not true. I said I thought G_Beee spoke well. I did NOT say you and Mikel did not.

If there is something about the strawman argument I make above that you disagree with, then say that. Mikel went from "Is this OK?" to "No, it isn't OK, Bast is wrong, and Bast is getting special treatment. That reasoning is incorrect and slanderous. Yes, that is my opinion.

If you can, please follow your own advice and wait for Jonathan to weigh in. In the meantime, I will feel free to point out flaws in logic and argumentative style all I wish.

Mikel April 8 2007 7:03 PM EDT

Are you ignoring the simple CM from Raven where he was told by Bast to hold them? or are you ignoring the fact that Bast has claimed that these are all gifts? if so, Raven didn't seem to get that memo.

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 7:09 PM EDT

Mikel, I am not questioning what Bast did or did not do. I am simply stating she is within the current set of rules (and it is not my place, nor anyone's, to start talking about the spirit of the policy and passing sentence). You can stop posting things that are saying people "don't get it". I think we all "get it", some of us just don't enjoy speculating in a policy vacuum, especially not to slander a QB and build a reputation-bashing straw-man argument against her.

Do you propose something other than simply waiting for word on policy from Jonathan? You think a lynch mob needs to be assembled already? Feel that you are the right guy for that assembling? I don't understand what you are going on about.

Mikel April 8 2007 7:10 PM EDT

BTW, I know how to prevent her from being able to bid on Seekers, but I have chose not to do that at this time. Does 2 wrongs make it right? I mean it's completely within the Legal rules/guidelines what I would be doing, but not ethical.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 8 2007 7:23 PM EDT


Thraklight Resonance April 8 2007 7:30 PM EDT

I assume you are talking about sending her a batch of ranged ammo to put her at the ammo cap which 1) takes a few seconds for her to sell to the store to clear her inventory and 2) might not work if she already has bids in on the seekers and those are already counted toward her cap.

Of course, you could buy up all the whips and try to fill her weapons slots, but that might not work if her bids on seekers reserve weapon slots in case she wins (I have no idea here).

Mikel April 8 2007 7:31 PM EDT

how funny, you can come here and correct me, and avoid answering the question. Classic. I will await from Jon before saying more on the subject. If he says it's OK then it's OK.

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 7:44 PM EDT

What question? But yes, waiting for Jonathan sounds like a fine course of action, so I am glad we are all on the same page.

Lochnivar April 8 2007 8:20 PM EDT


I never said Bast had done something wrong.
I was merely commenting on the appearance of impropriety. The mere fact that the actions in question could so easily be questioned is cause for concern.

And that is my last comment on the subject...
until the next one

DiabloSpawn April 8 2007 8:41 PM EDT

"For those naturally criminal minds, yes, you can force a store refresh by buying out a large amount of items. However, it won't work the way you are hoping, AND it's illegal. That is called "Store Farming". You will be fined, or even reset when you are caught farming. Store logs are available for all to see, so please, just buy items you are going to use, or items you want to resell. No one is going to buy your story that you were planning on reselling a whack of low end items, so don't bother trying to formulate that defense :)" - from an old changemonth post ( I think this was in the old FAQ). Clearly, Jon stipulates that it is the spirit of the game to buy things that you need. Thread

QBRanger April 8 2007 9:24 PM EDT

Well how about this,

Let us all stop such actions that are controversial until Jon weighs in on the subject.


Seems we have people on each side of the discussion. The fact that there is even such a discussion puts this practice at question. So perhaps all such activity such cease from this point until Jon gives his opinion/ruling?

QBsutekh137 April 8 2007 11:45 PM EDT

I can get behind that decision... A cease & desist until the case can be heard by the judge... *smile* Sounds reasonable to me...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 9 2007 1:54 AM EDT

I think throwing a hissy should be considered controversial... can we get a cease and desist order going for that? How about threads with loaded intent and innoucous titles, those are always controversial!

Shelingar April 9 2007 5:06 AM EDT

Lets take a different tack.

Scenario 1:
Player A says to player B. Buy all of the seekers you can and transfer them to me when you can. They make an agreement that player A will reinburse player B for any costs involved.

Scenario 2:
Player A buys all the seekers they can and passes extras to player B. Player B will transfer seekers back to player A when they can. They make an agreement that player A will reinburse player B for any costs involved.

It seems to me that it is pretty much a semantic difference between both scenarios. Yet in the few months I have been with CB2 there has never been any hint that buying ammo and reselling it has had any hint of controversy.

If you have one major customer that you are selling all seekers to (which I have had in the past) how in reality is that significantly different? It also allows them to effectively bypass the 15K limit.

Should we make seekers non transferable? That seems to be the only way to stop this, but it seems kind of silly.

Kong Ming April 9 2007 7:22 AM EDT

I just had an idea but I need to confirm one thing. Specialty ammo only spawns when it gets used up, am I right? Meaning there is a certain number of specialty ammo at any one time. If this is true, all mages should just buy all the seekers and don't use them. That way, none will get spawn.

TheHatchetman April 9 2007 7:24 AM EDT

"If you have one major customer that you are selling all seekers to (which I have had in the past)"

I can vouch for that :P

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] April 9 2007 7:25 AM EDT

Kong, most of the specialty ammo spawns come when the store spawns new ammo.
I've noticed a lot that when a refresh in the store comes, there is a correlation in what appears in auctions.
More bolts needed in store results in more specialty bolts in auctions and the same for arrows.

Talion April 9 2007 9:44 AM EDT

Just thought I would give my 2 cents worth on this debate...

I read the entire thread (oh my poor brain!). This is the quote that stuck with me: "So now you are going to send them to people that haven't logged in, since Feb 12, 2006...".

That, in my humble opinion, is wrong. I have nothing against active users storing ammo for a 'friend'. But sending ammo to inactive characters... hick! Using inactive characters to circumvent the 15K ammo cap sounds a lot like using multiple users to play the game.

However... I noticed by looking at the transfer log that it was done only once. So I know that the strategy is on hold until further review. That, again in my own opinion, is a good show of sportsmanship. Cudos!

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 11:09 AM EDT

"Using inactive characters to circumvent the 15K ammo cap"

I see no possible way to use inactive characters to circumvent the cap. You can't get that ammo back from the character.

winner winner April 9 2007 11:10 AM EDT

Bast is buying them to keep them away from mikel

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 9 2007 11:24 AM EDT

Really, SK2?

[Quoth]The Raven (Tayschrenn) Mikel (King of Pain) 3,603 Seeker Arrows ($3604) -- Enjoy! April 8 2007 9:20 PM EDT
Mikel (Dragos) [Quoth]The Raven (Tayschrenn) $90000 -- For 3,603 seekers April 8 2007 9:19 PM EDT

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 9 2007 11:29 AM EDT

hmmm...i wish someone with really deep pocketses would buy up all the usd and hoard it so that the game would finally be pure! this is my dream.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 9 2007 11:38 AM EDT

Yo!, Talion, I simply haven't had any big desire to make further gifts. Thanks for the vote of confidence though.

Enticing the favored & fabulous vets to rejoin the game is problematic, too? Sadly, it didn't work. He's not really going to come back just for 11k seekers. Nor for the starter income they could generate, apparently, as pleas above and beyond mine are also falling on deaf ears. ;)

"Yo man, Mikel Here, how have you been? If possible, can you do me a favor and log into your account and send me the 11k seekers that you are sitting on? I'll pay you via cb2 or work something else out.

Send them to : King of Pain if I'm full, then send them to: Oxcha Thanks and I'll pay you 20:1 cb2 or owe you a favor if you come back to play."

Relic April 9 2007 12:07 PM EDT

Wow, imo that post was shockingly beneath you Bast. CM's between other characters should be kept private unless one of the parties of the actual CM choose to disclose the communication. That was in poor taste.

Let's all just let Jonathan chime in and settle this and stop the hateful words and bickering because as of yet, no one has done anything wrong according to the rules of the game.

Suggested improprieties are a poor excuse for actual improprieties.

winner winner April 9 2007 12:09 PM EDT

Thats what I said in chat you were wasting your money as they were eventually going to go to Mikel

QBRanger April 9 2007 12:09 PM EDT

I believe we have gotten far away from the question that needs to be addresses.

Is it legal to use other characters including inactive ones to horde/store/dump ammo? When the character your sending them to obviously do not use such ammo.

Tezmac April 9 2007 12:19 PM EDT

"Is it legal to use other characters including inactive ones to horde/store/dump ammo? When the character your sending them to obviously do not use such ammo."

Ranger, I'm hoping you are asking that question in regards to Mikel, as that's obviously what he's been CMing people about if you read Bast's line above.

I must reiterate, again, that Bast:

1. Won her auction legally.
2. Transferred said items, that she now owns, to another player that she is not a multi of.

It shouldn't matter if she uses the ammo or not. I should be able to buy whatever the hell I want from auctions and use it how I see fit. Everyone has an equal chance to win those items, it's just whether they're willing to bid enough for them or not. It looks like the only player here that's truly trying to get around the 15k limit by storing them for future use on another player is Mikel. Bast is just getting rid of them.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 9 2007 12:23 PM EDT

Point of clarification, Tez, it wasn't a CM. Mr. LP refuses to rejoin us.

Tezmac April 9 2007 12:24 PM EDT

I meant to end that post with:

The question should be:

"Should players be allowed to bid on whatever they want via the auction system, whether they can use the item or not? Once they win said item, that they now own, should they be able to transfer it to any player they want? (Of course taking into consideration that they are not a multi).

QBBarzooMonkey April 9 2007 12:46 PM EDT

Wasn't there a thread once, very similar in spirit and ridiculousness to this one, that resulted in a Jon ruling that completely changed FS/WTB as we knew it, because he was so mad? How many of us were happy with that? Someone even left for while because of Jon's direct response, didn't they?

A thread initiated, perpetrated, and perpetuated by some of the same culprits as this one?

Are you guys looking to get auctions screwed up in the same way, just to prove a self-serving point? Trying to get transfers between characters banned?

I was really going to keep quiet until Glory chimed in. And I swear, if Dawg or Wuss were to post in this thread, I'm calling shenanigans!

Remember when there were five of them, with one a sub-admin? Five bullies all ganging up on their intended victim(s) with their matching, self-serving (to at least one of them) "opinions" and "logic", so no one else could barely get a word in edgewise. And when someone did get a word in, their sub-admin would simply remove it so as not to get them caught in their own spin... And the MO has always been to have one who doesn't necessarily have the issue start the whole thing, just so they can say "it's not my issue, so how can it be self-serving?"

I only hope Jon's ruling is to call them out for what they are doing again and send them reelling with tails between legs. Just when I was thinking "maybe those guys aren't so bad after all..." Oh, well.

And before you guys start sending me CMs filled with feigned outrage, as is usually the case at a time like this, don't bother. I won't be replying. Period.

Talion April 9 2007 1:41 PM EDT

Bast, after ready the latest replies, I for one believe you had no crooked intentions.

Now, trying to transform this messy debate into constructive argumentation...

This thread made me realize that a rich player with lots of free time could possible decide to prevent opponents from acquiring some types of rare ammo by buying all of it. To circumvent the 15K maximum cap, that user could transfer ammo to random inactive users, which are plentiful.

Am I the only one who can see this happening and that thinks it would be sort of like cheating?

QBJohnnywas April 9 2007 1:52 PM EDT

I'm not sure I see any difference with what's going on with me buying up ex shots and giving them to random ex shot users. I have an ulterior motive when I do that; I don't like to see them spawn in the store at store prices then get sold for as much as ten times the price in auctions. I don't benefit from doing such things, but is there a difference? I don't see one.

Talion April 9 2007 1:57 PM EDT

Two big differences:

(1) You are sending the Exploxive Shots to people who are obviously going to use them... if they are active. :P

(2) Explosive Shots have a fixed price. They aslo go to first come, first served. So everyone has a shot at them. Actually, I am certain that anyone who is not a complete n00b buys Explosive Shots as soon as they are encountered in the weapons store.

QBRanger April 9 2007 1:57 PM EDT


that is the question I am asking.

But plenty of people want to distort or avoid it.

please check your history. A sub admin never deleted or changed threads in the thread you imply. To even say that shows your true colors.

Reread the thread you refer to. There was very arbitrary use of admins powers to fine people which is what was called into question. But it seems some peopke are beyond reproach in your mind.
But you are entitled to your opinion.

If you would care to hear more, please CM me.

QBBarzooMonkey April 9 2007 2:12 PM EDT

Ranger, I watched it happen IN REAL TIME! You and DAWG and Mikel spent hours whining about someone's CB to USD prices. When I called you on it, you responded with your usual outrage and after a little back and forth, Wuss came in and deleted it ALL!

I'll never forget it, because it was 2 days before my wife's major surgery, and I was so pissed I left CB for several weeks!

Don't tell me about true colors, pal!

AdminJonathan April 9 2007 2:30 PM EDT

As long as there is no agreement to transfer the ammo back at a later date, this is not a violation of the intent of the 15k limit.

th00p April 9 2007 2:31 PM EDT

Now, can we PLEASE close this thread? I hate to see such 'respected' and valued members of the community going at it like this.

QBBarzooMonkey April 9 2007 2:32 PM EDT

We are also talking about 2 different threads here. The one I am comparing to this one is in fact the one you are refering to, and your correct, no sub-admin deleted anything from that one.

However, the one in which I watched the censorship take place was about a month and a half earlier. Same topic (over and over and over and over again), different threads.

Mikel April 9 2007 2:33 PM EDT

Pull up the post barzoo since I was involved, I would've remembered it. Folks that message from Bast was a personal email to Brandon not Bast. I only suggested Oxcha as an alternative if I couldn't handle the 11k since he'd only be getting online for one thing and since I didn't send them to him, there's no back and forth. <br><br>Serialkillers is right, I'm going to buy them all up in auctions and they'll all get to me one way or another. And I was minding my own business and have been buying seekers for quite a while now.

QBBarzooMonkey April 9 2007 2:39 PM EDT

Here's my goodbye:

And if you have a way to pull up a FS/WTB from December 13th/14th 2005, please do. Otherwise, you get to continue to imply that I'm lying, lucky you.

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 3:00 PM EDT

" wife's major surgery..."

er... I thought you were a woman......

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 3:01 PM EDT

"As long as there is no agreement to transfer the ammo back at a later date, this is not a violation of the intent of the 15k limit. "

Does this apply to the NCB as well?

Adminedyit [Superheros] April 9 2007 3:03 PM EDT

Jon has given his answer to that in a different thread NS.

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 3:03 PM EDT

Not really.. there's definite ambiguity that should be cleared up.

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 3:05 PM EDT

I also asked the question regarding items in general instead of just ammo. I use, for instance, Miandrital to hold all of the collateral from loans. Other people have offered their help in holding some items for me for a while when I run out of space. If this is somehow "wrong", I'd like to know before I lose my $4000 investment into this game.

QBBarzooMonkey April 9 2007 3:06 PM EDT

You confusing me with someone, Nightstrike?

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 3:27 PM EDT

I must be... I have no idea who, though...

GO PATS April 9 2007 3:33 PM EDT

Hehheh, I made the same mistake a while back, with you, Barzoo... the QBBa made me confused with you and Bast, me thinks...

Lochnivar April 9 2007 3:40 PM EDT

Having a wife doesn't preclude being a woman...
Open your minds folks it's the 90s.

Oh and I'd be very disappointed to see any harm befall NS due to the storage of loan collateral. His (and other's) willingness to finance players is a commendable contribution to the community.

TheHatchetman April 9 2007 4:13 PM EDT

please check your history. A sub admin never deleted or changed threads in the thread you imply. To even say that shows your true colors. "

So... now Barzoo and Bast are both evil?! I suppose next, G Beee will try to get pictures banned from the forums, right? Then th00p will start "What are *you*? contests where he i the only winner, and I think I caught Frodbot practicing magic... Burn em all, right?


QBJohnnywas April 9 2007 5:16 PM EDT

"Jonathan, 2:30 PM EDT
As long as there is no agreement to transfer the ammo back at a later date, this is not a violation of the intent of the 15k limit. "

Now, from what I see Bast was never intending to get those seekers back from the people she sent them to. And that being the case we have word from on high that what Bast has been doing violates no CB rules.

So, how about some of the nice upstanding members of our community make some apologies here for the accusations of cheating that have been flying around here. That would be the right thing to do. Even the nice thing to do.

QBJohnnywas April 9 2007 5:34 PM EDT

And as for upsetting BM...that one definitely goes into my little black book.

QBRanger April 9 2007 6:11 PM EDT


I had no idea exactly what Bast is or was trying to do. For all I know she could have been storing them up in anticipation of starting a NCB using seekers and an elb. With 50k seekers one can quickly make a massive MPR gain. We did have a few different explanations from gifts to "just hold them".

I saw something that was suspicious so I posted and it quickly spiraled into mud slinging. Not just my myself or Mikel but others also, including BM. Including accusations of having an admin change threads. The mud did sling both ways.

Sometimes inaction is worse then action. Am I sorry I asked for an explaination---No. Am I sorry the mud was slung so far---Yes very sorry about it.

But, now we have an answer from Jon. So perhaps this thread is over.

AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 6:20 PM EDT

It's over except for the ambiguity between this and the NCB thread, and the open-ended-ness that I questioned -- storing equipment on other characters.

BootyGod April 9 2007 6:26 PM EDT

You all make me sick sometimes.

Other then that, why the heck does it matter where you store your equipment? Sometimes, you are sooo obsessed with getting the edge, you stop having fun...


AdminNightStrike April 9 2007 6:31 PM EDT

I don't have the space to hold all of the collateral for 15-plus loans. Some people have two and three items for collateral. I use other people to hold on to it, because the ten-item limit is too constricting.

QBsutekh137 April 9 2007 6:31 PM EDT

Some of us are sticklers for consistency and wanting to know the rules. One can face rather harsh penalties when rules are broken, Titan, and claiming ignorance (or trying to make up stories) rarely works (ask DAWG). So, many people like the opposite of ignorance and actively pursue policy decisions and well-worded abstractions thereof.

I, for one, even find it kind of fun. *smile*

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 9 2007 6:33 PM EDT

i wouldn't count on any apology. a few months back a similar incident happened where ranger accused someone publicly of cheating. when it became apparent that the user had just been afk for a weekend then everything worked itself out.

i had pointed out in that thread that public accusations should demand no less than a public apology when those accusations prove false. the posts in that thread seemed to think that i was asking way to much to require an apology.

where i come from, you do not make accusations until you can prove them. if they do turn out wrong or false then you should definitely make an apology. in an online world where all you have to base opinions on are posts and messages, it is so easy for someone to ruin someone's reputation and thus their online character. when respected, or vocal, members of the community say things, people listen.

i don't think anyone was trying to ruin another's character in either situation, however by not demanding an apology as a community we are setting some pretty damn low standards for our members. if our communtiy suffers for that then we are all to blame...shame on us!

BootyGod April 9 2007 6:35 PM EDT

If you need clarification of a rule, CM bartjan and Jon. One of them will most likely respond. But this... if everytime a rule comes up to all do -THIS-... what's to come of this game?

Sorry, I just find this all very... very... sad.

QBJohnnywas April 9 2007 6:44 PM EDT

Dudemus, my thoughts exactly.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 9 2007 6:54 PM EDT

here is the other thread i was referring to:

QBRanger April 9 2007 6:58 PM EDT


Please point out such a thread where I accused someone of cheating and they were away for the weekend, and I was wrong about it.

The only such instance I can remember is when I bought cb2 and did not get it for 4 days. However, that person did get at least 3 of my CM's about why no CB2 was sent to me and did not reply to any of them. All while they were supposed to be away for the weekend. I made my post only after seeing my CM's go unanswered.

I am fairly sure that is what you are quoting and if it is, I am very disappointed you feel that way. Certainly if you did a deal and someone did not do their part of a few days, all the time getting your CM's, you might feel as I did

I am sure I will not get an apology from BM about his slanderous accusations. It does, of course, work both ways.

Tezmac April 9 2007 7:16 PM EDT

"I had no idea exactly what Bast is or was trying to do. For all I know she could have been storing them up in anticipation of starting a NCB using seekers and an elb. With 50k seekers one can quickly make a massive MPR gain. We did have a few different explanations from gifts to "just hold them"."

You are so full of crap. How high are you expecting to stack it today so the rest of us can stand far enough away when it falls? Yeah, Bast was going to take her character (who is one of the only original ones left) and retire it and start a NCB with no money and stack up on seekers to use with the ELB that she doesn't own. Yep, Bast must be that dumb. What other wacky ideas did you have?

You knew exactly what she was doing and you and your BR cronies had to start Crybaby Fest 2007. You and your fellow morons owe Bast and apology over someting we all, well apparently not ALL of us, knew was legal. She thought of a way to somewhat negate a strat in a completely legal way and all you had to do to get around it was spend a bit more CB. Boo hoo, spend some more of your USD here instead of buying your kids or wife something or taking that vacation you so obviously need.

Tezmac April 9 2007 7:28 PM EDT

Oops, apparently I made a glaring error in my above post. Dixie Cousins is a NCB character, my apologies to the community for this egregious mistake.

Mikel April 9 2007 7:28 PM EDT


BootyGod April 9 2007 7:29 PM EDT

Tezmax, take heart. She uses a jiggy. How competitive could she really be? ;)

Nerevas April 9 2007 7:31 PM EDT

Take some chill pills guys, all of you.

BootyGod April 9 2007 7:47 PM EDT

/me pops 50 cold pills, ODs, and dies

Drugs kill children. Don't do them =D

QBsutekh137 April 9 2007 7:55 PM EDT

I do not CM Jonathan with any questions I have. He's a busy man. I would not suggest such a thing.

I like to post, because 9 times out of 10, someone will explain to me what is going on, I accept that, and move on.

The most Popsicle Man can be accused of (in my humble and forgiving opinion), is still prodding for conspiracy instead of simply waiting for a ruling or accepting the defense people were offering for Bast.

The most Mikel can be accused of is building a huge mountain out of a harmless molehill. His post about QBs getting special treatment is what finally set me off (I had zero intention of posting until I read that and felt a community-oriented compulsion to "do right"). It was an awful leap of shoddy logic where silence would have been far more golden.

Speaking of golden silence, I think it is time I shut up now too. Good evening, CB! I love you all! Give to the EFF!

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] April 9 2007 8:16 PM EDT

Ok, so, Bast pays more for people not to use seekers, by paying alot for them and sending them to inactive chars. Whats the difference between that and paying people to farm a clan so they either get disbanded or never get rewards?

Mikel April 9 2007 8:17 PM EDT

I will apologize to the community for dragging them thru this. I have never had a problem with any player in the game other than Bast, why? I have no idea, but I will handle this directly with Bast from this point going forward. I am going to go back to playing the game and having fun whether the problem between us is solved or not.

Relic April 9 2007 10:28 PM EDT

Bast, thanks for letting us know you had permission to share the communication you did. I was wrong in my assessment of the situation. I hope you can forgive me of my error and forgive the community of the partial witch-hunt which took place so egregiously.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] April 9 2007 10:52 PM EDT

I appologize to myself for having to read thru this on a daily basis to keep up with the mudslinging and etiquette. Thanks for your time... I will be on my way.

TheHatchetman April 10 2007 12:03 AM EDT

"Oops, apparently I made a glaring error in my above post. Dixie Cousins is a NCB character, my apologies to the community for this egregious mistake."

Apology accepted :) here is Bast's original character :P

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 10 2007 10:20 AM EDT

i pointed out the thread in the post directly above your last one. it was a different incident than the one to which you referred.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] April 10 2007 11:47 AM EDT

WOW, man I tell you what, you guys are unbelievable!

I make a post about philosophical opinion and I get slammed not for the content of the opinion, but the methodology of my expression. Now this.

First off, no rules are being broken. Let us make that prefectly clear. Now you may not like what is being done, but what is being done is not against the letter of the rule. It COULD be against the spirit of it, but that is a judgement call and only one person's judgement counts.

SO, if you want to say, I do not like this practice, I think it hurts the game, here is why, and then request a rule change, please do.

But and here is the part that amazes me, the loudest protesters are not being harmed by the practice is question. Its one thing if
a) you cannot get seekers and want them or
b) are being farmed by the said seekers
and wish for it to stop, but to simply sit back and say, this is or this should be against the rules, because what, it goes against the spirit of the rule, even if it has no effect on you?

Come on people! This is silly. Basically what you have is a bunch of players as rule lawyers. I suggest we add a feature to CB that I used when people tried that as I DM'd AD&D. Its called the big blue bolt of lightning, and it strikes rule lawyers dead on the spot (and yes it was stated quite clearly in the rules)

In the end, show the practice, show the damage, request change. The rest of this is just randomly huffing and puffing and hoping someone's house falls down.

(AND P.S. showing damage is FACT not opinion, as in see this hurt this person right here, not well see this will or could or might hurt the next person, which is opinion)

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] April 10 2007 12:06 PM EDT

tis exactly what i tried saying by my post, well put Sefton, glad to hear from you again, =)

AdminNightStrike April 10 2007 12:06 PM EDT

Glad to see you post again, Sefton.. the forums could use your help...
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0024pT">Wow, seekers are expensive</a>