Kisada. (large ..)

Marajade said:
and your friend could sue you for the cost to repair the damage, but not for breach of contract.
Necro lost the exp, tried to get the exp back but failed, and quit doing that before he lost MORE exp. And besides, quitting because he lost you 4k of exp, that can be made back in less than an hour? Thats just plain Emo. Unless somthing else happened that no one is saying.

your friend could sue him but might not win.. considering the fact that the friend gave the keys to the person by their own choice which, in turn, gave their consent to said person to use the car. So it would prolly end up being a waste of time in court.
 
Sculli said:
Common sense still applies.
there is literaly no such thing as common sense
 
Marajade said:
there is literaly no such thing as common sense

Marajade ftw!
 
Garvin said:
A good friend of mine gives me the keys to their car, to take it to get it washed, paying me to do so.

I instead drive it all over the place and get in a traffic accident.

Said friend then tells me "Stop abusing my trust, and only do what I asked."

I ignore this and drive around more, getting the car more banged up through my various actions/sloppy driving.

There's of course no problem with this, because "there were no stipulations against said action"
Exactly. This is a completely appropriate metaphor.

We aren't tax attorneys, here. We don't scan long-winded, 500-page contracts to find loopholes. When dealing with a verbal agreement between friends, one should follow the spirit and intent of the law ... not try to weasel around by clinging to the letter of it.

Necrosis shouldn't have had to have been told STRAIGHT OUT that making a beeline to Sote's crafting mules, and using his other job levels for personal gain, would NOT be an appropriate thing to do after being granted Sote's trust. He had already been paid; he didn't need anymore, and wasn't entitled to anymore. He was granted permission to use the account to level up Sote's ninja, and nothing else. It would take a particularly obnoxious person to not see why making the rest of the account his personal playground would be a nasty thing to do.

I mean, for the love of God, even if people can't see why the exploitation of Sote's account was a bad thing to do in the first place ... everyone can at least agree that it was horrendous of Necrosis to do nothing BUT use the account for his own fun, rather than doing the work he agreed to, right?

What's more, he very much was instructed to stay off of BST after his obnoxious instincts began to play out. After it was clear that the conscience that would have stopped most people failed in Necrosis, terms were spelled out for him, and he AGREED to these new terms. Bear in mind that he still did what he pleased AFTER that.

If you really want to go the sleazy lawyer route of finding loopholes, then fine: he really did break the updated agreement, after first trying to weasel around the exact wording of it.
 
Elemmire said:
..Granted it might be MORALLY wrong to do said actions, it was not against any agreement (or contract) that was given. There is a difference, learn them...
If you can agree that such a breach of the spirit of the agreement was morally wrong, then I don't see why you're making any defenses for Necrosis.

The fact is, we're not dealing with a legal matter. This isn't a state or federal court. This is a flame, brought to us, to be tried solely on the basis of our sense of communal ethics. This is agreement made within the boundaries of a video game, no matter how much drama this particular one can ignite. The GMs enforce the in-game "laws." What we're talking about here, what we're arguing about, is whether or not Necrosis was wrong.

You can admit he was wrong, yes?
 
well.. technically you aren't supposed to change the contract after the contract has been agreed upon by both parties. So really, I could make the arguement, that Sote broke the contract by trying to add to it after it was made. Now, again, Necrosis might have made morally wrong actions, but against the agreement made there were no stipulations in the beginning. Some people here are really gonna have a tough time in life if they don't understand contract and consent.
 
Elemmire said:
Some people here are really gonna have a tough time in life if they don't understand contract and consent.
Some people are going to have a tough time in life if they don't understand the fundamental difference between right and wrong.
 
Sabia said:
Some people are going to have a tough time in life if they don't understand the fundamental difference between right and wrong.
Some people don't KNOW the difference between right and wrong let alone be able to understand it.
 
right and wrong are opinions.
 
Winklewil, after being told not to use Sote's BST anymore, Necrosis died once more on it trying to recover some exp. While that may not have been the most intelligent course of action, having little to no experience playing the job at high levels, it does show that Necrosis knew he'd screwed up and wanted to try to fix his fuckup, so to speak. I agree that he was a bit out of line using Sote's crafting mules, but again, he also skilled up those mules' crafts, doing Sote a favour in a way too. I also somehow doubt Necrosis, despite being the self-proclaimed money fiend he is, would have hoarded all of the gains from Sote's account for himself.
 
Sabia said:
Some people are going to have a tough time in life if they don't understand the fundamental difference between right and wrong.
Marajade said:
there is literaly no such thing as common sense
Thus determining right and wrong comes down to a set of rules
 
Elemmire said:
Why is everyone saying he didn't give the money back? From what I read he did send the initial payment back. And you say it isn't about the exp but it sounds like it is a lot about the exp (as well as the trust). Frankly.. if I give my info to someone I don't expect them NOT to have fun with my character. It's a game after all. And I might ask them to level a job up for me for a bit but I don't say "hey you can't do this this and this" cause, quite frankly, it's a game. Gil used.. I can make again just fine, exp lost? I've gone through long exp grinds I can do it again. It's just a game to me but if my friends enjoy themselves than that's more important to me. The game to me is far less important than my friends and people I care about enjoying themselves. Now, they, of coarse, respect me enough where they don't die all that often (it was only once so far to my knowledge) and they don't use my gil up at all.

What I'm saying really is that I'm a bit disgusted by both sides. You never put any restrictions on what he could do in the first place. You only asked for him to level his NIN which he didn't and he sent the gil back. If you just expected him to know not to do certain things well... no one is a mind reader so it's foolish to think he would know not to. Certainly somethings are obvious as you might not want to die and I'm sure Necrosis wasn't going around just getting killed every place he could. Now, Necrosis really should have finished leveling the NIN off to 37 and not expect any more gil since he did use your character for other things (and prolly shoulda sent the money back that you sent him even after completing NIN to 37 since he did use your character for other things).

Everyone is so quick to just put Necrosis on the cross cause he fishbotted (OMG WHAT ASHAME D: FISHBOTTING CAUSE FISHING IS JUST SOOO EXCITING.. jesus christ people.. shut the FUCK up about that..fishing isn't fun to some people and don't care to sit at the computer for hours on end to level it when they could do something more productive like... oh... school work?) and people claim he bots at other NMs and such. Now this just pisses me off to no end cause a lot of these people are the same people that defend the fucking gilsellers who flee hack, bot, warp, etc all over the place. And some of the same people I know are ones that are so naive to think the JP don't bot either.. you're all so quick to hang Necrosis but just fine with the gilsellers and JP out botting them at NMs and such. Either hang all of the botters or shut the fuck up and just sit by as you get out claimed by the botters (granted you have a chance, small as it might be) at NMs or, here's a thought, get a bot of your own. Square Enix already said several times that bots are acceptable if the player is at the computer.. so it's not breaking the laws of the game or anything.

Anyways.. both sides look bad to me. Necrosis for not getting his friend's NIN to 37 (but atleast he sent the 5 mil back as I believe I read) as well as using Sote's character so lightly. Sote for seeming to care more about the exp loss on his BST and other things about his character in some stupid game than a friend's enjoyment. You gave him the account, you should have expected him to use it to the fullest. As for Kisada, well, I don't know him well, I don't hate him or like him really, but he comes off rude in the screenshots. However, that can be expected when he is angry his cousin (whom it seems he is close to) is quitting because of what Necrosis supposedly was doing with his cousin's character. Oh well...

Elle, if someone gives you their account after you agree to do something, then you take liberties with their account, that's wrong. If they then tell you not to and you continue anyways that's wrong. If you charge 10 mil to lvl a piddly job to 37 that's... wtf, who needs friends like that? Don't be so forgiving elle :P
 
Raivyn said:
If you charge 10 mil to lvl a piddly job to 37 that's... wtf, who needs friends like that? Don't be so forgiving elle :P
Sote came off the bat offering the money, necrosis didnt demand it. Sote probably knew that money would get necrosis interested.
 
Garvin said:
"Don't play on my beastmaster anymore." - Is a rule.
Tagrineth said:
after being told not to use Sote's BST anymore, Necrosis died once more on it trying to recover some exp.
he tried to fix his mistake and couldnt, so he left it before doing more damage.
 
Elemmire said:
your friend could sue him but might not win.. considering the fact that the friend gave the keys to the person by their own choice which, in turn, gave their consent to said person to use the car. So it would prolly end up being a waste of time in court.

So if you take your car to the garage for a lube job and paid in advance, you wouldn't be pissed if you went back that afternoon and found that the lube job wasn't done, and the front of your car was beat up because the attendant had been out joyriding?

Honestly Elemmire sometimes you write the dumbest shit...
 
Marajade said:
Sote came off the bat offering the money, necrosis didnt demand it. Sote probably knew that money would get necrosis interested.

Well then he's a dumbass with bad friends. Dumbass for offering an exorbitant sum to level an easy job to a low level, and he has 'friends' with loose enough morals to accept this exorbitant payment. Sure, if he values not having to lvl nin that much (to the tune of 10 mil) I guess that's his decision, but it's pure exploitation to accept that as a friend. Non-friend, sure, friend... no.
 
Marajade said:
he tried to fix his mistake and couldnt, so he left it before doing more damage.

that's all well and good, hurray for 'good intentions'. But if he had truly been doing that he would have said so in the first place instead of coming up with a lame excuse. Also, he explicitly said 'stay the fuck away from my bst' - note this does not include the phrase 'unless you're getting me more xp'.
 
Garvin said:
"Don't play on my beastmaster anymore." - Is a rule.

and changing the agreement both agreed upon from the beginning. This isn't really allowed when it comes to contracts.

Anyways, I think you are all missing my point. My point was to show that he did not break the agreement by using his character for other methods. And I was also trying to point out that a moral action might not mean a breach of contract. People keep insisting that morals be made into laws (i.e. prostitution being illegal because it's morally wrong even though there really is no victim) and this is wrong in my opinion. It begins to constrict the people and limit more freedoms. Frankly, victimless crimes (gambling, prostitution, etc) should have never been considered crimes. But, that's another debate.
 
Back
Top