Silkroad Online Forums

I simultaneously agree and disagree with you Grandpa. I understand that your opinion is that silkroadforums should be a free forum for all silkroad players, and the members of the forum should not be subject to torment from various witch-hunters. However, SRF used to have a don't-ask-don't-tell policy that never really worked out. Heaps of bots filtered into the community and, suddenly, a legit had no life. The bots had become the good guys on SRF, and, since SRF is the most popular Silkroad forum, this encouraged incoming players to bot as well in order to be accepted (that's my theory anyway).
True, since SRF started this "witch-hunting", a few valuable members of the community have been banned against their will. However, on the flip side, it seems to have led to revival for legit communities across many servers, which we deserve. Not only that, but these revived communities actually have support from the larger community as well, instead of being shunned as no-lifers.

Sorry if anything didn't make much sense. I'm pretty tired right now.

Grandpa, neither is this a fuzzy war. All you can expect from allowing friendship with the enemy largely, will only continue the death of the game. (extreme times calls for extreme measures theory)

Sure, you can play with the botter, talk to the botter, to each of their own - bot (but), remember that, depending on the situation, be ready for the shunning, the solitary from the certain legitimate players. These people want the game to become what it once was. If you're going to allow the problem to grow, then you're better off not being in the way of the witch hunter, otherwise you're a bot supporter. Which means, don't take sides.

You can't be against us if you're not a blockade, nor can you be with us if you're not supporting - (sort of neutrality). Your extreme of neutrality is to care, give huggies and kissies, have fun with the game! But, the answer from a witch hunter would probably be, "what game?" What exactly is a game that consists of thousands of cheaters on each server? Not just cheaters, but robots - thousands of robots.

You take a little, you get more. Lose a little fun from witch hunting, gain that fun back and extra more from the after-purging. People, from what they've posted, they love the legit Vs. Botter war, why do you think why certain people go to Hera instead of Venus?

If you want to educate the botter, by all means do so. Assuming the bot player is willingly. So, again, third time offer. Spend a bit of time and talk to that botter, reason them. Become a legitimate-neutral-supporter, who works for justice of mankind and theoretically for the plunger to get that poo poo out of your bowl.

War has causalities, you need to sacrifice certain things for the greater good to continue.

This isn't rocket science, nor brain science, this is political science!
Pardon my overzealous criticisms. >:P

To the last two posters: You speak to me as if you understand my position.
You do not.

@IguanaRampage: In my initial post I spoke of a dichotomy and mentioned in passing that SRF is a forum. This is not to say that I disagree with any of the good work done here that I enjoy. I fully support the administration and the decisions of this forum and will not hesitate to say so.

@Zing: Ha! According to you I've gone from neutrality to extreme neutrality. Quoting you, "Your extreme of neutrality is to not care, give huggies and kissies..."

I am a person, sir, and NOT your idea of one. You may not put words in my mouth.
I tire of this.

[EDIT] Again, I am not neutral. I do not support cheaters, nor do I advocate "going to their camp" as some here might. Shunned is anathema in Greek (meaning accursed) and it is for reason. It is a last resort and not best used in a willy-nilly fashion. Slash-Kick (/kick) might seem fun but if used indiscriminately it is a detractor not an enhancement.

[EDIT]² Below, Zing, you state:
Anyway, it's suppose to mean that you're willingly enough to ignore all the bad just to create a suppose happy environment. And, well, you've always looked as extreme neutrality from my point-of-view. Though, that view can always change.

Again, you are simply wrong. (Except your final statement, views can change).

[EDIT]³ Consider, if you will, a battle strategy that has always appealed to me. The scene is a fortification and the zealots are behind the wall. We are armed mostly with sword and shield but there are a dozen or so pistols in 'our' possession. I am among them and the idea that I propose is simple. Give the pistols to the ones in front (self included) and let (us) them charge out. We impale ourselves (preference to shoulder wounds) onto the swords of our enemies so that those behind us can decapitate at will. Wounded, we fight on with pistols from our fallen position. Benefits include the fear that is struck in our enemies hearts and their hesitation prior to waging war with 'us' zealots again. My only regret is that I cannot translate this example into action in SRO vs. bots.

Kindly consider this prior to calling me 'neutral', it simply isn't so.

That was a typo, get rid of the word "not."

"Your extreme of neutrality is to care, give huggies and kissies..."

Anyway, it's suppose to mean that you're willingly enough to ignore all the bad just to create a suppose happy environment. And, well, you've always looked as extreme neutrality from my point-of-view. Though, that view can always change.

-
Is it not a last resort? Servers always (mostly) crowded, majority bot population, major gold bot infestation, and overall cheating in rampage. Is it not the last resort? (Which is why I question your grasp of the situation)

(Personal Note, it'd be best if you create a new post in rebuttal. It'd better since I would know after time goes by.)

My 'grasp' of the situation? Asked and answered. Read your post (and my reply) on the prior page.

Again, I tire of this.

Your symbolic write points out the zealous nature of yourself. So, you agree with the witch hunting, the end results that it fights for? (Which is why I again question your grasp of the situation [I do this because you write in riddles.])

(Even though I would condemn that sort of strategy in war [besides the point] with the situation at hand)

Perhaps it is semantics? I've given several in game example in prior posts, but don't want to go back, search, cut-n-paste, and post again. IF you really do wish to understand, read the exchange between Judge and myself, as to my memory, he alone understood. I believe his first post in this thread can be found > HERE <

Perhaps it is, as I felt your writing was bias towards the legitimate front. Which particular point were "but it also includes the wicked, evil, inner glee some feel when they shout "Another One Bites The Dust" as they watch former friends bleed.."

Assuming you believe in punishment with redemption, then I agree.

About my cat and I.

Thank you for that.
Yes, my views include punishment with the possibility of redemption. Punishment must needs be extreme to be effective (in many cases) but I would advocate trying to mitigate (where possible) toward the least amount of force necessary.

I also agree with the sentiments seen in your signature against entitlement. I am personally responsible for my actions, but not directly responsible for the actions of others unless I condone them or implicitly approve of them by my own acceptance (wordy, ain't I?). So here we are on SRF and talking about what is to many a controversial subject.

I've read threads suggesting that what 'we' should do is employ DOS (Denial of Service) attacks against 'them'. My only reply was 'silence' because I know how to do this, but it is illegal. I've read other threads posted by leaders of the 'shun attack' who seem to desire blind obedience to themselves. Me? Although I'm not neutral, I like to think that I can think and that compassion is as great a tool in our collective bag of tricks as is forceful removal from the group.

Hope that made sense. When I try to run the gauntlet there are areas of confusion unavoidable.
Give the leaders of the effort (the ones seen as leaders, that is) a couple years to mature and they will also understand, but by that time, we will no longer be playing this game. The "inner glee" that I accuse the youth of is verifiable. Read their posts. Should it not be with regret that we sentence our former friends to a death by silence? Now I'm being a bigot also and would apologize to the young for these types of characterizations, they are not true, but a manner of speaking that I should edit out.

Denial of Service is debatable. As you use this tool to shutdown an evil, which basically labels the DoS as an necessary evil, if you will. For an example, people have DoS attacked a Scientology website. Not sure if you hate Scientology, but it was well worth the attack. Which is when political science hits the round table of the debate. When something legal becomes illegal and something illegal becomes legal, vice versa. It doesn't exactly damage the tree of evil heavily, but it does say something.

Sure, compassion, but you said it yourself: "punishment with the possibility of redemption."

And your post encapsulates my objection. Lawlessness is the greater enemy. Bot makers, users, and supporters would agree with your sentiments about 'ends justifies the means'. Me? The law allows zealots like me to exist because I am willfully limited and thankfully so.

Closed upon user's request.