Musician Archive
Thread: Warning to auto-join AFK musicians on Chimera
If a zombie happens to be in my group and I feel like changing music to what they don’t know … as far as I’m concerned they can bite me! More power to whoever this person is, especially if the zombie is too dumb to add /startmusic to their macro.
Now, if you join a group, and the AFK'ers are there and you change the song to something they can't play... well then it's not your problem that they can't play it. You just do your thing and don't worry about what they're doing. However, if you go out of your way to disrupt their "gameplay" you might be considered to be "harassing" them.
I guess you can also be polite and ask them if theyobject toyou changing song first!
NJ62 wrote:
Now, if you join a group, and the AFK'ers are there and you change the song to something they can't play... well then it's not your problem that they can't play it. You just do your thing and don't worry about what they're doing. However, if you go out of your way to disrupt their "gameplay" you might be considered to be "harassing" them.
Petronela wrote:If a zombie happens to be in my group and I feel like changing music to what they don’t know … as far as I’m concerned they can bite me!
You go girl!
I am the same way. I ask in /group if people can play the song I want to change to, or mind if we change to song (whatever), and if no one objects, I change. If that means some zombie-bots stop playing music -- tough. Besides, it's not like they are going to complain about it.
C
NJ62 wrote:
I'd have to advise everyone here not to get involved in this. CSR's may consider it griefing. Yes, it's ridiculous to "grief" someone who is not there, but I don't want to see any of you nice ATK folk get in trouble for ruining an AFK'ers day (when the afk'er finally comes home and discovers it).
Now, if you join a group, and the AFK'ers are there and you change the song to something they can't play... well then it's not your problem that they can't play it. You just do your thing and don't worry about what they're doing. However, if you go out of your way to disrupt their "gameplay" you might be considered to be "harassing" them.
I know you're only playing devil's advocate here and arguing how some CSR's might see it.. but if changing song and then kicking them constitutes griefing, but changing song by itself is okay, that means the griefing partwould bekicking AFKers from your group then? So once they're in, we can't get rid of them because we *gasp* wouldn't want to grief them? 
You know, if I ask in grpchat if it's okay to change songs and get no replies, and if later an ATK entertainers comes along and I ask in grpchat again for everyone to pipe up, explaining that I intend to kick an AFKer for a live player... and if someone doesn't respond to both of these announcements... under these conditions I would just love to seea CSR's explanation of what exactly there constitutes "griefing"
Shaizann wrote:
This was a method used to shut down popular mind buffbots at one time. Since most bots are not Master Entertainers (it did not provide any additional buff strength) then I know um...a couple...um....shall-not-be-named entertainers that used to auto-join and /changeb ceremonial just to shut the bot down.
/halo 
Landlubber wrote:
NJ62 wrote:
I'd have to advise everyone here not to get involved in this. CSR's may consider it griefing. Yes, it's ridiculous to "grief" someone who is not there, but I don't want to see any of you nice ATK folk get in trouble for ruining an AFK'ers day (when the afk'er finally comes home and discovers it).
Now, if you join a group, and the AFK'ers are there and you change the song to something they can't play... well then it's not your problem that they can't play it. You just do your thing and don't worry about what they're doing. However, if you go out of your way to disrupt their "gameplay" you might be considered to be "harassing" them.
I know you're only playing devil's advocate here and arguing how some CSR's might see it.. but if changing song and then kicking them constitutes griefing, but changing song by itself is okay, that means the griefing partwould bekicking AFKers from your group then? So once they're in, we can't get rid of them because we *gasp* wouldn't want to grief them?You know, if I ask in grpchat if it's okay to change songs and get no replies, and if later an ATK entertainers comes along and I ask in grpchat again for everyone to pipe up, explaining that I intend to kick an AFKer for a live player... and if someone doesn't respond to both of these announcements... under these conditions I would just love to seea CSR's explanation of what exactly there constitutes "griefing"
I've been in a group where a CSR came in and criticized the group leader for "griefing" the bot by inviting the bot to the group and thereby preventing the bot from being invited to the group of the combat players who wished to obtain buffs. Therefore I'm concerned that a tactic of inviting a bot to a group for no other reason than to stop the person from playing would be considered griefing by a CSR.
However, perhaps I wasn't clear. If you're in a group with a bot, and you want to change the song, that can't be considered griefing, that's just you doing your performance and not caring either way about the bot. But if you invite someone to your group for the specific purpose of shutting him or her down, and you do it often (as the first poster suggests is the case) then it may well be considered griefing.
I'm not arguing that the CSR's are right, or that you should change your playstyle to accomodate AFK. I'm simply warning you that active efforts to shut down AFK may draw unwanted CSR attention.
I understand the issue and I know Jessi is only being a voice of reason here, trying to protect us from getting in to trouble. *hugs Jessi*
But sometimes I would really like to see a red names take on this. It really seems to me that zombies have all the rights and their protection by the system is waterproof. Why? Because regardless how harmful to the game their actions are they do pay their $15 and therefore are valid customers?!?
Little comparing here.
Zombie lets her/his pet/droid patrol all over the place getting in the way of targeting and being annoying to everyone. Zombie gets reported. If we lucky we get the copy-paste respond about them looking in to it but we not blind, we see nothing is ever done about it, because the same zombie keeps on doing it 24/7.
ATK entertainer’s pet/droid gets in the way of targeting a zombie and we can get in trouble. Why? Because we actually there?
Zombie “Tumbles” all over the place “passing” thru anyone, but it’s ok, they’re AFK, they can’t help it. Theirs is a valid playstyle, if you don’t like it, move.. and keep on moving so you can be targetable everytime “the drift” takes them “over you” again.
ATK entertainer get too close to a zombie while performing (on purpose or by accident) and as we seen in the past they can get reported if someone has trouble targeting the zombie.
I have stopped reporting them long ago, because honestly it never done any good. The system protects them because they are vulnerable, because they are AFK and can’t protect themselves I guess. Those poor little zombies, my heart bleeds for them. So basically the way I see it now, as long as one has an AFK tag over their heads they can do no wrong and in the eyes of CSR they will always be right. As long as they’re non-combat they can spam, block entrances/players, interrupt anyone’s playtime, take up the best spots in all cantinas. All they have to do is not forget to put AFK tag on and it’s their security blanket.
Actually I am getting to the point where this almost doesn’t bother me anymore, doesn’t surprise me either, but I do find it very amusing that multi-player game gives more rights and more protection to non-players.I find lately, though, the best solution is to simply avoid the AFK entertainers, even if that means finding a new venue. Frustrating, yes, but after having witnessed a CSR intervention, I've just decided that while it's worth fighting for, it's pointless trying to explain to a CSR the policy implications behind protecting an AFK player from actions that would not be considered griefing if done to an ATK player.