Mounts Inside Buildings Revisited

[Dutchgrrl]

Hi All!

I wanted to revisit the issue of remaining on your mount in a building - but in a different way than we have discussed this in the past.  Obviously the addition of the new (huge in relative terms) mount makes this more or less a required revisit, but what would be nice is if we avoided the thread devolving into an arbitrary argument about rights...

i. PREAMBLE

A proposal to define the issues pertaining to the refusal of players to dismount before entering buildings.  With the addition of the new wolf-mount Warg to the world of Norrath, it has become desireable for a Community Standards Position to be created regarding this issue.

ii. KNOWN PAST ISSUES AND CONCERNS

In the past, attempts to promote the establishment of a Community Standards Position on this issue have invariably devolved into a question of rights that is predicated on ability.  For the purposes of clarity and application of the issue that is central to this thread, specific points used in the past must be addressed prior to opening the thread for discussion so that old ground and established empty defensive positions are not used for entrenching purposes. 

The following past positions have been discussed and their relative merits established or debunked:

ii(a): SOE WANTS ME TO RIDE MY MOUNT INTO BUILDINGS

Position: "If SOE did not want me to / If I am not supposed to - ride my mount into buildings, SOE would not allow me to do so.

Definition of Position: Posters taking this position promote the notion that behaviour in game that is not desired is, by common understanding, not permitted.  Roughly translated this position states that if the action being discussed were in fact not desired by the community, SOE would have taken steps to keep it from happening.

Factual View: No official approval, implied or actual, is conveyed by the game designers through actionability or a lack of actionability on an issue.  SOE and the EQ2 Dev Team has stated in the past that it does not claim omniscience as one of its base attributes, and has further refined their position by pointing out that they do not, as a rule, even think about the legislation of morality when they design a portion of the game mechanics.

Resolution: "Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. "

Use of this position has long been viewed as an affirmative defense despite the fact that such justification flies in the face of reason, the concept of personal ethics, and established community standards. 

There are many aspects of the game that require an application of the concept of "consideration" (ie The Golden Rule) that have never been addressed by game mechanics.  There are many examples of this situation in the game and the general consensus of the issue has been that it is not an affirmative defense, is not valid, and should never be used for any purpose as a defense.  

Determination: This position has been declared invalid by the Community.  Use of this position in any future discussion of the subject shall automagically qualify under the Beating a Dead and Counterfeit Horse Rule; Violators will be made to wear the GW Bush Hat for one full game day.  

ii(b): I PAY ($15 / $25 / X$ or Pounds or Marks) TO PLAY THIS GAME!

Position: I pay my subscription fee just like the rest of you, so if I want to do something in the game I have the right to do it!  You do not have the right to tell me how to play MY game.

Definition of Position: People using this justification usually do so as a last resort after failing to find a valid defensive footing based upon the substance of the issue being discussed. 

Factual View: This countering justification is almost as old as the Hitler Rule and the FTW Rule, and has been historically found to actually invalidate the opinion of the person using it.

Resolution: This position has been defined as complete "Hogwash" by persons living in the Deep South, Southeast and West of the USA, and as "Wicked Stupid" by persons from New England and the North Shore of Massachusetts (see note 1).  In addition this position has been defined as a "Gag me with a Spoon" defense in San Fernando, and in general about as effective as an NRA Life Membership Card for Kurt Cobaine by the rest of the West Coast.  This defense has been declared "Rubbish" in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "[Removed for Content]" in the Republic of Germany.  Spain has not offered an opinion at press time, and France doe not understand what paying for access to a game has to do with moral behavior in the game.

Determination: It has been established through frequent use and long discussion that any person choosing to use this position as an affirmative defense lacks all moral abilities and should be driven from the village by torch and pitchfork wielding community members prior to the onset of puberty so that there is no possibility of their being able to polute the gene pool.

Note 1: The North Shore of Massachusetts is technically part of New England, however the people who live there do not know that, and insist on being able to offer a regional opinion despite not actually being a region.  Due to their firm resolve on this matter, the Mountain Moved, and they have been granted de facto and de jure status as a Region.

ii(c): I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CAN POSSIBLY BOTHER YOU!

Position: How is this an issue at all? It doesn't bother ME!

Definition of Position: The underlying theory of this position is that if the action that is being called offensive or inconsiderate does not actually strike the respondent as such, than it probably is not.  In its most common usage, this position appears in game more often than on the boards, as a reply to a person asking them not to ride their mount inside a building.

Factual View: After very close and careful evaluation of this position using $85 hammers supplied by the Pentagon, the officially deputized investigators determined that the reason that the people who use this position think it is valid is because they are sitting on a mount, and so can see over the top of all of the OTHER people sitting on their mounts, and as a result are not actually able to see the position from the POV of a person standing in the ground.

Resolution:  It has been declared by the majority that this position is just plain dumb and by a majority vote of the Community this position has been declared "The Tunnel Vision Defense."

Determination: Use of this defense - even jokingly - will result in the IMMEDIATE issuance of a warrant for the confiscation of both thumbs of the violator under the grounds that the use of this defense is clear proof that the offender does not deserve opposing thumbs and the benefits that are inherent to them.

ii(d): ASKING ME TO NOT RIDE MY MOUNT INDOORS IS HARASSMENT

Position: Asking me to dismount before coming indoors is harassment - besides which MY mount gives me combaat bonuses that are critical to my defense, and if I were to be attacked by harpies or a dragon in the bank or the broker in South Qeynos I would be unable to defend myself properly!

Definition of Position: Oooooohhhhkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyy....

Factual View: What color is the sky in your world?

Resolution: See Determination.

Determination: Anyone using this defense is to be mocked unmercifully until they die.

I. THE QUESTION OF MOUNTS IN BUILDINGS

With the recent addition of the new mount (Warg) the problem of people riding mounts inside buildings has become even more egregious and frustrating for the members of the community who willingly dismount before entering key community buildings as a matter of common courtesy. 

Please be aware that I am not saying that ALL of the people who ride their mounts inside buildings are jerks, or are the sort who no matter how nicely you ask or how polite you are  refuse to entertain the idea that it is inconsiderate of them to do it.  In fact I believe that there are cases where a person simply forgets that they are mounted as they spend a large percentage of their time mounted, and it just seems normal to stay mounted even in town.  For the most part, these are the same people who will apologize and instantly dismount if you ask them to - they are good people and this does not apply to them.

The question of mounts in buildings ultimately comes down to the issue of common courtesy.  When you ride a mount into a building you are essentially placing a large object that people on foot cannot see through in a place where real events are undertaken.  People need to access the bank and broker the same as you do, that is not a question.

Simple consideration dictates that if you can do something that costs  you nothing to make life better for others, than you should do it.  If you can keep from doing something that upsets others, and that is widely viewed by the community at large as an inconsiderate action, following the community ethos on the issue is a no-brainer.

II. PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION FOR ACTION

I propose that the following administrative remedy be considered by the community as the appropriate response to people who refuse to dismount before entering buildings in town:

1. The following phrase be universally adopted as the First Contact Phrase: /s Excuse me (Mounted Toon's Name), could you please dismount while indoors?  Your mount is blocking the view.
2. If the mounted player uses any of the disallowed excuses or says no, or is rude, all unmounted people in the building should then target the offending party and use the /moon command.
3. If the person still refuses to be considerate and dismount, I propose that all of the people impacted by this rudeness send an email to the person's guild leaders explaining what they did and said after being asked to politely please dismount indoors.
4. Additionally I propose that SOE place special NPC vendors who sell the following ammunition in or near the buildings that are being affected by this inconsiderate behavior: -Rotten Eggs -Rotten Tomatos -"I Stayed Mounted" Bumper Stickers This way, when someone is rude and stays mounted, they can be pelted with rotten eggs and tomatos and have a sticker slapped on their back that announces for all the world (and any potential group members) to see their shame. The Eggs and Tomatos should have an animated stink effect that causes odor animation to surround the toon, and soils their armor/clothing, with a timer of say 30 real life minutes.  The sticker, which should appear on their back if they are wearing a guild cloak so that it covers their guild emblem, should have a time span of 1 real life day - and if they remove their cloak or were not wearing one, then it should be applied to their back like the names on football jerseys. In addition to this, it would be nice if SOE added a temporary Tag under the players name, say after the 10th offense, that says (INCONSIDERATE) and can not be removed until the player makes a pilgramage to the Shrine of the Mounted Jerk which I propose should be errected in the Clefts Zone.  At the shrine they should have to sacrifice a mount in order to have the tag removed.

Well there you have it!  Please add your own thoughts on this issue, as it really is a Game Play Impacting Issue.

Be Well... 

Kat

[Shiverr]

Although intentionally lengthy, appreciated the humor-veiled point nonetheless.  ~smile~

I dismount about 90% of the time.  If its odd hours and theres nobody in the bank, I dont bother.  If theres anyone in there I just dismount.  If it's during hours where I'm sure someone is likely to be in there, I dismount before entering.  On rare occassion I'm human and forget though, so shame on me.

It's a matter of old-fashioned manners of consideration I guess.  I don't like trying to work around them, so I don't put others through the same trouble.

The devs could simply make it where when you enter certain or all buildings you automatically dismount, like for most dungeons.  Problem solved.  And no..... your roleplaying reasons for riding inside for defiance or grandeur lose out to the reality of inconvienance for those that would attempt to be catty and justify it this way.

[Baccalarium]

Could only skim.    I still think the ease of getting the new mounts is suggestive of an ulterior motive in getting them into the cities, and await the world event where the true masters of the worgs come about and cause them to turn on their masters.  (or at least run away).      This seems like nice plan for a world event,  that would further allow the devs an excuse to play with various mechanisms for disallowing mounts in certain areas and speeding up remounting after one was kicked form their mount. In particular I'd love it if such event used a mechanic similar to the old plague where proximity to an NPC would infect you.   Once infected your mount would run away, vanish, kill you,  whatever most worked with the event.  I for one would do everything I could to ensure that every banker was infected with such a plague and surrounded by others infected with such a plague.  

[Isisalthea]

While I ccasionally do ride my pony or carpet into buildings, if I see there are others there I do try to stay out of the way or dismount.   My Fae who is to young to own a horse yet does indeed have trouble enough seeing past all you taller people let alone past the humugious mounts.   Cheers for the proposal and please add the spires to the consideration also.

    

[Wyrmypops]

Lovely opening post. /applaud

I dismount most of the time now. I do so everytime I suspect someone would be in the building, and sometimes if the scaling would make it weird for me regardless of anyone else being about. I'm respectful by default, but my reason to dismount is  more that it's just plain weird to me. Riding a ruddy great Warg into a bank, seems like a hostile action to me, like paying in a cheque while sitting on a motorbike.  

I stand by the stance I've always taken, in that I believe SOE should makes the floor of buildings react to mounts the way water does - that is, makes the mounts disappear. A simple and elegant solution as far as I'm concerned.

[Sphiriah]

Honestly, does it really matter?

[Serso]

Dutchgrrl wrote:

Hi All!

I wanted to revisit the issue of remaining on your mount in a building - but in a different way than we have discussed this in the past.  Obviously the addition of the new (huge in relative terms) mount makes this more or less a required revisit, but what would be nice is if we avoided the thread devolving into an arbitrary argument about rights...

i. PREAMBLE

A proposal to define the issues pertaining to the refusal of players to dismount before entering buildings.  With the addition of the new wolf-mount Warg to the world of Norrath, it has become desireable for a Community Standards Position to be created regarding this issue.

ii. KNOWN PAST ISSUES AND CONCERNS

In the past, attempts to promote the establishment of a Community Standards Position on this issue have invariably devolved into a question of rights that is predicated on ability.  For the purposes of clarity and application of the issue that is central to this thread, specific points used in the past must be addressed prior to opening the thread for discussion so that old ground and established empty defensive positions are not used for entrenching purposes. 

The following past positions have been discussed and their relative merits established or debunked:

ii(a): SOE WANTS ME TO RIDE MY MOUNT INTO BUILDINGS

Position: "If SOE did not want me to / If I am not supposed to - ride my mount into buildings, SOE would not allow me to do so.

Definition of Position: Posters taking this position promote the notion that behaviour in game that is not desired is, by common understanding, not permitted.  Roughly translated this position states that if the action being discussed were in fact not desired by the community, SOE would have taken steps to keep it from happening.

Factual View: No official approval, implied or actual, is conveyed by the game designers through actionability or a lack of actionability on an issue.  SOE and the EQ2 Dev Team has stated in the past that it does not claim omniscience as one of its base attributes, and has further refined their position by pointing out that they do not, as a rule, even think about the legislation of morality when they design a portion of the game mechanics.

Completely and wholly wrong. Just give a gander to PvP.

Resolution: "Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. "

Use of this position has long been viewed as an affirmative defense despite the fact that such justification flies in the face of reason, the concept of personal ethics, and established community standards. 

There are many aspects of the game that require an application of the concept of "consideration" (ie The Golden Rule) that have never been addressed by game mechanics.  There are many examples of this situation in the game and the general consensus of the issue has been that it is not an affirmative defense, is not valid, and should never be used for any purpose as a defense.  

Determination: This position has been declared invalid by the Community.  Use of this position in any future discussion of the subject shall automagically qualify under the Beating a Dead and Counterfeit Horse Rule; Violators will be made to wear the GW Bush Hat for one full game day.  

ii(b): I PAY ($15 / $25 / X$ or Pounds or Marks) TO PLAY THIS GAME!

Position: I pay my subscription fee just like the rest of you, so if I want to do something in the game I have the right to do it!  You do not have the right to tell me how to play MY game.

No, the typical touting goes along the lines of "because I pay for my own subscription, I can enact behavior to any degree as long as it is within the bounds of the game", or in a greater sense of the layman, "because I pay for my own subscription, I can play how I want" -- nobody ever claims the game is theirs, and the fact that they make such statements with the inference that they are to do such in a legitimate manner highlights how refutable your idea of this being acceptable really is.

Definition of Position: People using this justification usually do so as a last resort after failing to find a valid defensive footing based upon the substance of the issue being discussed. 

Factual View: This countering justification is almost as old as the Hitler Rule and the FTW Rule, and has been historically found to actually invalidate the opinion of the person using it.

Resolution: This position has been defined as complete "Hogwash" by persons living in the Deep South, Southeast and West of the USA, and as "Wicked Stupid" by persons from New England and the North Shore of Massachusetts (see note 1).  In addition this position has been defined as a "Gag me with a Spoon" defense in San Fernando, and in general about as effective as an NRA Life Membership Card for Kurt Cobaine by the rest of the West Coast.  This defense has been declared "Rubbish" in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "[I cannot control my vocabulary]`" in the Republic of Germany.  Spain has not offered an opinion at press time, and France doe not understand what paying for access to a game has to do with moral behavior in the game.

Determination: It has been established through frequent use and long discussion that any person choosing to use this position as an affirmative defense lacks all moral abilities and should be driven from the village by torch and pitchfork wielding community members prior to the onset of puberty so that there is no possibility of their being able to polute the gene pool.

Note 1: The North Shore of Massachusetts is technically part of New England, however the people who live there do not know that, and insist on being able to offer a regional opinion despite not actually being a region.  Due to their firm resolve on this matter, the Mountain Moved, and they have been granted de facto and de jure status as a Region.

ii(c): I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CAN POSSIBLY BOTHER YOU!

Position: How is this an issue at all? It doesn't bother ME!

Definition of Position: The underlying theory of this position is that if the action that is being called offensive or inconsiderate does not actually strike the respondent as such, than it probably is not.  In its most common usage, this position appears in game more often than on the boards, as a reply to a person asking them not to ride their mount inside a building.

Factual View: After very close and careful evaluation of this position using $85 hammers supplied by the Pentagon, the officially deputized investigators determined that the reason that the people who use this position think it is valid is because they are sitting on a mount, and so can see over the top of all of the OTHER people sitting on their mounts, and as a result are not actually able to see the position from the POV of a person standing in the ground.

Resolution:  It has been declared by the majority that this position is just plain dumb and by a majority vote of the Community this position has been declared "The Tunnel Vision Defense."

Determination: Use of this defense - even jokingly - will result in the IMMEDIATE issuance of a warrant for the confiscation of both thumbs of the violator under the grounds that the use of this defense is clear proof that the offender does not deserve opposing thumbs and the benefits that are inherent to them.

ii(d): ASKING ME TO NOT RIDE MY MOUNT INDOORS IS HARASSMENT

Position: Asking me to dismount before coming indoors is harassment - besides which MY mount gives me combaat bonuses that are critical to my defense, and if I were to be attacked by harpies or a dragon in the bank or the broker in South Qeynos I would be unable to defend myself properly!

Definition of Position: Oooooohhhhkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyy....

Factual View: What color is the sky in your world?

Resolution: See Determination.

Determination: Anyone using this defense is to be mocked unmercifully until they die.

It isn't harassment if you just ask them once, but if you proceed to then attempt pestering and/or argue with them, then it could be.

I. THE QUESTION OF MOUNTS IN BUILDINGS

With the recent addition of the new mount (Warg) the problem of people riding mounts inside buildings has become even more egregious and frustrating for the members of the community who willingly dismount before entering key community buildings as a matter of common courtesy. 

Please be aware that I am not saying that ALL of the people who ride their mounts inside buildings are jerks, or are the sort who no matter how nicely you ask or how polite you are  refuse to entertain the idea that it is inconsiderate of them to do it.  In fact I believe that there are cases where a person simply forgets that they are mounted as they spend a large percentage of their time mounted, and it just seems normal to stay mounted even in town.  For the most part, these are the same people who will apologize and instantly dismount if you ask them to - they are good people and this does not apply to them.

The question of mounts in buildings ultimately comes down to the issue of common courtesy.  When you ride a mount into a building you are essentially placing a large object that people on foot cannot see through in a place where real events are undertaken.  People need to access the bank and broker the same as you do, that is not a question.

Simple consideration dictates that if you can do something that costs  you nothing to make life better for others, than you should do it.  If you can keep from doing something that upsets others, and that is widely viewed by the community at large as an inconsiderate action, following the community ethos on the issue is a no-brainer.

II. PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION FOR ACTION

I propose that the following administrative remedy be considered by the community as the appropriate response to people who refuse to dismount before entering buildings in town:

1. The following phrase be universally adopted as the First Contact Phrase: /s Excuse me (Mounted Toon's Name), could you please dismount while indoors?  Your mount is blocking the view.
2. If the mounted player uses any of the disallowed excuses or says no, or is rude, all unmounted people in the building should then target the offending party and use the /moon command.
3. If the person still refuses to be considerate and dismount, I propose that all of the people impacted by this rudeness send an email to the person's guild leaders explaining what they did and said after being asked to politely please dismount indoors.
4. Additionally I propose that SOE place special NPC vendors who sell the following ammunition in or near the buildings that are being affected by this inconsiderate behavior: -Rotten Eggs -Rotten Tomatos -"I Stayed Mounted" Bumper Stickers This way, when someone is rude and stays mounted, they can be pelted with rotten eggs and tomatos and have a sticker slapped on their back that announces for all the world (and any potential group members) to see their shame. The Eggs and Tomatos should have an animated stink effect that causes odor animation to surround the toon, and soils their armor/clothing, with a timer of say 30 real life minutes.  The sticker, which should appear on their back if they are wearing a guild cloak so that it covers their guild emblem, should have a time span of 1 real life day - and if they remove their cloak or were not wearing one, then it should be applied to their back like the names on football jerseys. In addition to this, it would be nice if SOE added a temporary Tag under the players name, say after the 10th offense, that says (INCONSIDERATE) and can not be removed until the player makes a pilgramage to the Shrine of the Mounted Jerk which I propose should be errected in the Clefts Zone.  At the shrine they should have to sacrifice a mount in order to have the tag removed.

Well there you have it!  Please add your own thoughts on this issue, as it really is a Game Play Impacting Issue.

Be Well... 

Kat

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

[Dutchgrrl]

Serso wrote:

(snip)

Completely and wholly wrong. Just give a gander to PvP.

(snip)

No, the typical touting goes along the lines of "because I pay for my own subscription, I can enact behavior to any degree as long as it is within the bounds of the game", or in a greater sense of the layman, "because I pay for my own subscription, I can play how I want" -- nobody ever claims the game is theirs, and the fact that they make such statements with the inference that they are to do such in a legitimate manner highlights how refutable your idea of this being acceptable really is.

(snip)

It isn't harassment if you just ask them once, but if you proceed to then attempt pestering and/or argue with them, then it could be.

(snip)

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

Hi Serso

You have this habit of ripping into people when you feel hurt - I noticed that from your other posts.  When you unloaded this misogynistic rant on me I looked your past posts up and spotted the trend.  I understand why you are angry at me, though the rest of the people reading your rant will not and they will think that you are just what you appear to be.

The reason that he is hurt and upset with me is actually simple to understand...  A thread that I wrote was locked before he could unload his sideways slant on it - so he went to an unrelated thread and posted his reply there.  Then he sent me a PM titled "You Missed a Spot" and put links to his posts in the PM, with no detials to explain why he sent the PM in the first place.

I followed the links and found a pair of disjointed posts that are unremarkable in that they are pretty much typical of the sort of post that he usually writes - psuedo-intellectual pretensions that use words that he very obviously does not know the meaning of to say what he thinks he is saying while only appearing to be... What he is.  He structures his sentences so that they appear to be what I can only think of as Serso's Notion of Highbrow...  Yes it is painful to read his posts, because the vulgar punk of the intent hovers just a fraction of an inch below the surface and is clearly there despite the effort that Serso goes to to try to conceal it.

Hate is a powerful emotion and with most powerful things, if you wallow in it and live for it eventually it takes you over completely.  This is clear in the reply you posted that I am addressing now... This is an ad hominem Serso, it is an example of a boy striking back because his feelings are hurt.  He doesn't know how to articulate what he really wants to say so instead of trying he picks a post he has nothing vested in and has no interest in based simply on the fact that the person he wants to hurt wrote it, and then he creates this... Pointless sideways empty thing in the hopes that it will be his super special secret weapon arrow of intense ouchie bam!

The problem here is that you crossed a line.  Actually you crossed several - the first was the one about attacking the idea and not the person - but the line I am talking about is the one called Hate Crime.  Your attempt to paint this to be a nothing issue and your sexual focus wrapped in hate pretty much says it all.  You accomplished nothing here, and showed the world what you are.  Good job!

Kat

[Polywogus]

Brilliant post, I'm impressed For the record...none of my characters even have a mount. *gasps* & on another note, I presumed you were writing solely for the PvE crowd, where being manhandled @ the bankers window would be a (hopefully) welcome gesture, & not a battle to the death, as is possible on a PvP server.

[Barbai]

doh it double posted for some reason

[Barbai]

While I will admit to forgetting to dismount from my warg, who is also my first ever mount, when entering the bank in kelethin or the tradeskill area when checking the broker at times both of which are small areas . I do think some kind of method of making the mounts dissappear inside a certain areas or npcs would be rather usefull to help keep things clear especially  when you have people who love to sit right on top of the npcs and block them on purpose with their mount. Perhaps a city only ability would be usefull, a spook ability that will scare another players mount ,assuming they are within a certain close distance ,away till they resummon it.

[Josgar]

How about i payed X amount of plat to proudly display my xxxxxxx mount....

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Dutchgrrl wrote:

Serso wrote:

(snip)

Completely and wholly wrong. Just give a gander to PvP.

(snip)

No, the typical touting goes along the lines of "because I pay for my own subscription, I can enact behavior to any degree as long as it is within the bounds of the game", or in a greater sense of the layman, "because I pay for my own subscription, I can play how I want" -- nobody ever claims the game is theirs, and the fact that they make such statements with the inference that they are to do such in a legitimate manner highlights how refutable your idea of this being acceptable really is.

(snip)

It isn't harassment if you just ask them once, but if you proceed to then attempt pestering and/or argue with them, then it could be.

(snip)

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

Hi Serso

You have this habit of ripping into people when you feel hurt - I noticed that from your other posts.  When you unloaded this misogynistic rant on me I looked your past posts up and spotted the trend.  I understand why you are angry at me, though the rest of the people reading your rant will not and they will think that you are just what you appear to be.

The reason that he is hurt and upset with me is actually simple to understand...  A thread that I wrote was locked before he could unload his sideways slant on it - so he went to an unrelated thread and posted his reply there.  Then he sent me a PM titled "You Missed a Spot" and put links to his posts in the PM, with no detials to explain why he sent the PM in the first place.

I followed the links and found a pair of disjointed posts that are unremarkable in that they are pretty much typical of the sort of post that he usually writes - psuedo-intellectual pretensions that use words that he very obviously does not know the meaning of to say what he thinks he is saying while only appearing to be... What he is.  He structures his sentences so that they appear to be what I can only think of as Serso's Notion of Highbrow...  Yes it is painful to read his posts, because the vulgar punk of the intent hovers just a fraction of an inch below the surface and is clearly there despite the effort that Serso goes to to try to conceal it.

Hate is a powerful emotion and with most powerful things, if you wallow in it and live for it eventually it takes you over completely.  This is clear in the reply you posted that I am addressing now... This is an ad hominem Serso, it is an example of a boy striking back because his feelings are hurt.  He doesn't know how to articulate what he really wants to say so instead of trying he picks a post he has nothing vested in and has no interest in based simply on the fact that the person he wants to hurt wrote it, and then he creates this... Pointless sideways empty thing in the hopes that it will be his super special secret weapon arrow of intense ouchie bam!

The problem here is that you crossed a line.  Actually you crossed several - the first was the one about attacking the idea and not the person - but the line I am talking about is the one called Hate Crime.  Your attempt to paint this to be a nothing issue and your sexual focus wrapped in hate pretty much says it all.  You accomplished nothing here, and showed the world what you are.  Good job!

Kat

Uhuh, so show me where I didn't "attack the idea"? The relation you propose as even being, in reference to "attacking" is clearly and intrinsically at fault. I critique and contend with ideas, I do not attack them. I think it is characteristic of you to emotionally charge everything you take in. Every critical analysis of your points is just a misogynistic attack, huh? The only reason I made reference to your moonlighting this in the way you have is because of your past history of posts. You really mustn't have had anything to say with my rebuttals toward your comments in earlier threads. Everything I said, as far as I know, was wholly right, in regard to the prior mention of my examinations against your views. How candid can you represent your fallibility as one of sensible tones? You've done quite well with your just fantastic dosage of presumption. Sure, make clamations of my being a pseudo-intellectual and having been "hurt", "upset", and "hateful". Succinctly enough, I only detest the manner in which you portray interpretations of logic (i.e. fact). This is a non-issue and something I feel did in fact stem out of the reasons aforementioned. Instead, do as you typically do and fail to address the actual critical message made against you and hypocritically and contradictively make yourself the finest exhibitor of "ad hominem". The title of my PM was in regard to your having thought you would address everything in your final post surrounding the debates on harassment and feminism within this section. I did in fact explain to you in a follow-up post when the obvious inference to be made from the initial PM escaped you. I also am not Serso, but Seliri. The majority of my posts were conclusively signed to denote such, but once I figured that I may just as well place my player signature image among the accommodated allocations, I ended my distinct salutations. (P.S. I do find it extravagantly humorous and asinine that you purport me to be a misogynist. What this [DutchGrrl's] case's actual inflection [bending] has a tendency for is how she supposes her perspective to be all-encompassing of women -- there were direct points in my respondence to her where I cited agreement and equatable foundations had by a female and myself, something of which DutchGrrl evidently couldn't handle due to herr inclination to go without providing my mentation with suitable reciprocation. Well, fitting nonetheless, I doubt she had anything of substance to respond to them with.) (P.S.#2. Serso wrote:

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

These points are where DutchGrrl contends me to be a misogynist, where, in reality, this stands only to convey my distaste for the typical positions DutchGrrl takes.) (P.S.#3. Apt notation may in fact be made in reference to the amount of space DutchGrrl takes using ad hominem in relation to the volume I do. I just thought that was fairly humbling and funny.)

[Dutchgrrl]

Barbai wrote:

While I will admit to forgetting to dismount from my warg, who is also my first ever mount, when entering the bank in kelethin or the tradeskill area when checking the broker at times both of which are small areas . I do think some kind of method of making the mounts dissappear inside a certain areas or npcs would be rather usefull to help keep things clear especially  when you have people who love to sit right on top of the npcs and block them on purpose with their mount. Perhaps a city only ability would be usefull, a spook ability that will scare another players mount ,assuming they are within a certain close distance ,away till they resummon it.

Hey Barb..

I understand forgetting to dismount, after all a lot of people spend the majority of their time mounted so that is just something that happens.  I know I hate it when you encounter people who sit right on top of the NPC while mounted, and especially people who do that and then go AFK!  The problem with the Warg tho is that it is just plain HUGE when it is being ridden by a toon that uses the tallest body size in the game.  Yesterday I entered the bank in Castleview and two people sitting on Wargs made it impossible to see the banker.  All you could see was the inside of their warg.

A city specific fix is, I understand from previous discussions on the subject, not really doable practically speaking because the servers do not treat the buildings different than the outside areas of the city zones.  Previously they did not allow mounts in the city at all, but players kept asking for that to be changed so that they could move through the larger city zones - especially Qeynos Harbor - faster.  I can understand that, and I also want that, so I would not want them to remove the mount ability from the city zones.

Since we do not zone into the bank I think they cannot restrict mounts there.  They DO restrict them from the craft instances where we have to zone in, so that is a good example of the limitations on the devs I think.

It would be interesting if they deputized the banker say with the power to automagically dismount players.  That would actually solve the problem, tho they may not want to do that on the PvP servers.  BTW I have never played on PvP servers in EQ2... The experiences I had with PvP in UO soured me on the concept a long time ago, and I don't believe that anything has really changed in that respect... There is still an element of players whose only interest in PvP is to gank weaker toons, and who play without honor, and that is not something I want to have to deal with in an environment that I pay to play in.

I would like to believe that as long as we talk about the issues the devs will be aware that there are concerns about the issues, which is why I think revisiting them every now and then is a good idea.  I believe that there is a potential solution to the problem out there, it just has not solidified in the minds of the people who can implement it yet

Thanks for your thoughful reply, I really liked it.

Kat

[Dutchgrrl]

Wyrmypops wrote:

Lovely opening post. /applaud

I dismount most of the time now. I do so everytime I suspect someone would be in the building, and sometimes if the scaling would make it weird for me regardless of anyone else being about. I'm respectful by default, but my reason to dismount is  more that it's just plain weird to me. Riding a ruddy great Warg into a bank, seems like a hostile action to me, like paying in a cheque while sitting on a motorbike.  

I stand by the stance I've always taken, in that I believe SOE should makes the floor of buildings react to mounts the way water does - that is, makes the mounts disappear. A simple and elegant solution as far as I'm concerned.

That is such a good idea!  In all the threads I have read and taken part in on this issue I do not believe anyone has ever suggested that and I know that I never thought of it!  I bet you that they could easily implement the solution you provided and you are right, it is an elegant one!

I know that most of the people who use the bank and broker dismount - I see it all the time and do this myself, ride up to the door, pause, hit the whistle icon to dismount, and then enter.  They changed the macro hotbutton for mounts to make it as easy as possable for people to dismount and remount in such situations, but still you find this minority group that simply cannot be bothered.

I read an interesting post on another forum board about this that compared the idea of virtual life vs. real life behaviour... This was a Second Life board btw, and the questions being contrasted were quite different from what we are discussing here, but the gist of the conversation was the notion that the OP suspected that the people who do these inconsiderate things in the game are the same people who do inconsiderate things in real life.  I suspect that they have the right of that idea, as it just makes sense.

I hope that one of the Dev's read your reply, because I think that setting a water like reaction in the buildings is something that they could do easily.

Thank you for this wonderful reply!

Kat

[Dutchgrrl]

Josgar wrote:

How about i payed X amount of plat to proudly display my xxxxxxx mount....

I would say that it would be one reason that you could site for proudly remaining mounted in the city.  But if this is the main reason that you feel being mounted is a good thing in the city, it seems to me that sitting outside the bank or broker would be the way to go here, not inside....

I live on an island off the coast of Massachusetts that is a popular tourist destination, and a significant number of the Summer People have very fancy sports cars that they bring with them to the island by way of the auto ferry.  There are also kids on the island who enjoy the hobby of fixing, restoring, and customizing older model sports cars and muscle cars, and both of these groups like to show off their rides.  They do this in one of two ways:

They slowly cruise up and down Main Street in several of the towns - Oak Bluffs on Saturdays of course, and they park their cars in the parkinglot of a grocery store that is centrally located at a crossroad intersection of two of the islands main roads.  It is really common to see lines of parked cars with their hoods up to show off the ultra clean souped up engines and blowers and all that, and of course they keep the doors open so you can see the custom interiors that they either installed themselves or paid to have installed.

These are possessions that the owners are obviously proud of, and enjoy showing off in much the same way that people in EQ2 show off their mounts, armor, or even house items.  I have been in more than a few houses in game where the contents are obviously a display that the owner is proud of and I have no problem with that.

The difference tho is that I think that this sort of display of accomplishment is okay - in fact it is a part of the game really if you think about it - but the people who own the fancy cars do not drive them inside the grocery store to display them, they park them in the parking lot, where you would expect to find a car...  See what I mean?

Taking a mount inside a building is not a normal act.  People do not ride their horses into their homes, and they do not ride them into bars, banks, or stores.  If they did the owners would call the cops.  The cops would come and arrest the person and have animal control confiscate their mount.  Why?  Because doing it is not normal.  Or right.  That is really the point.

I support your right to show off your mount, I just think you should do it in a place that is appropriate for that activity that does not impact other people and their game play.

Kat

[Dutchgrrl]

Sphiriah wrote:

Honestly, does it really matter?

Honestly? Yes.

To a lot of people this is a source of annoyance, and in some cases it forces them to move to a different zone just to use the broker or goto the bank.  There are people who play this game who will sit right on top of an NPC, mounted on a mount that makes it impossible to use the NPC services.  It does not really matter why they do that, it is simply disruptive of game play.

So the simple answer to your question is Yes, to some people it matters.  These are the people who are not part of the problem, the people who do enter buildings mounted.

Kat

[Dutchgrrl]

Greetings!

I just had a thought...

They have a button to not show your hat.  They have a button to not show your cloak.  They have a button to not show your illusion form...  Why can't they make a button to not show other people's mounts?  If they did that, it would solve the problem completely!

I play in SOGA form, and I think of my character appearance as being THAT form, not the cartoony one that is the default.  I know tho that a lot - probably most - people see me and think of me in that other form though, because I cannot make them see the SOGA, they have to choose that option for themselves.  So why cannot the devs simply put in a button to hide mounts JUST in cities?  It strikes me as the best solution to this problem, what do you think?

Kat

[Illmarr]

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

Dutchgrrl wrote:

Serso wrote:

(snip)

Completely and wholly wrong. Just give a gander to PvP.

(snip)

No, the typical touting goes along the lines of "because I pay for my own subscription, I can enact behavior to any degree as long as it is within the bounds of the game", or in a greater sense of the layman, "because I pay for my own subscription, I can play how I want" -- nobody ever claims the game is theirs, and the fact that they make such statements with the inference that they are to do such in a legitimate manner highlights how refutable your idea of this being acceptable really is.

(snip)

It isn't harassment if you just ask them once, but if you proceed to then attempt pestering and/or argue with them, then it could be.

(snip)

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

Hi Serso

You have this habit of ripping into people when you feel hurt - I noticed that from your other posts.  When you unloaded this misogynistic rant on me I looked your past posts up and spotted the trend.  I understand why you are angry at me, though the rest of the people reading your rant will not and they will think that you are just what you appear to be.

The reason that he is hurt and upset with me is actually simple to understand...  A thread that I wrote was locked before he could unload his sideways slant on it - so he went to an unrelated thread and posted his reply there.  Then he sent me a PM titled "You Missed a Spot" and put links to his posts in the PM, with no detials to explain why he sent the PM in the first place.

I followed the links and found a pair of disjointed posts that are unremarkable in that they are pretty much typical of the sort of post that he usually writes - psuedo-intellectual pretensions that use words that he very obviously does not know the meaning of to say what he thinks he is saying while only appearing to be... What he is.  He structures his sentences so that they appear to be what I can only think of as Serso's Notion of Highbrow...  Yes it is painful to read his posts, because the vulgar punk of the intent hovers just a fraction of an inch below the surface and is clearly there despite the effort that Serso goes to to try to conceal it.

Hate is a powerful emotion and with most powerful things, if you wallow in it and live for it eventually it takes you over completely.  This is clear in the reply you posted that I am addressing now... This is an ad hominem Serso, it is an example of a boy striking back because his feelings are hurt.  He doesn't know how to articulate what he really wants to say so instead of trying he picks a post he has nothing vested in and has no interest in based simply on the fact that the person he wants to hurt wrote it, and then he creates this... Pointless sideways empty thing in the hopes that it will be his super special secret weapon arrow of intense ouchie bam!

The problem here is that you crossed a line.  Actually you crossed several - the first was the one about attacking the idea and not the person - but the line I am talking about is the one called Hate Crime.  Your attempt to paint this to be a nothing issue and your sexual focus wrapped in hate pretty much says it all.  You accomplished nothing here, and showed the world what you are.  Good job!

Kat

Uhuh, so show me where I didn't "attack the idea"? The relation you propose as even being, in reference to "attacking" is clearly and intrinsically at fault. I critique and contend with ideas, I do not attack them. I think it is characteristic of you to emotionally charge everything you take in. Every critical analysis of your points is just a misogynistic attack, huh? The only reason I made reference to your moonlighting this in the way you have is because of your past history of posts. You really mustn't have had anything to say with my rebuttals toward your comments in earlier threads. Everything I said, as far as I know, was wholly right, in regard to the prior mention of my examinations against your views. How candid can you represent your fallibility as one of sensible tones? You've done quite well with your just fantastic dosage of presumption. Sure, make clamations of my being a pseudo-intellectual and having been "hurt", "upset", and "hateful". Succinctly enough, I only detest the manner in which you portray interpretations of logic (i.e. fact). This is a non-issue and something I feel did in fact stem out of the reasons aforementioned. Instead, do as you typically do and fail to address the actual critical message made against you and hypocritically and contradictively make yourself the finest exhibitor of "ad hominem". The title of my PM was in regard to your having thought you would address everything in your final post surrounding the debates on harassment and feminism within this section. I did in fact explain to you in a follow-up post when the obvious inference to be made from the initial PM escaped you. I also am not Serso, but Seliri. The majority of my posts were conclusively signed to denote such, but once I figured that I may just as well place my player signature image among the accommodated allocations, I ended my distinct salutations. (P.S. I do find it extravagantly humorous and asinine that you purport me to be a misogynist. What this [DutchGrrl's] case's actual inflection [bending] has a tendency for is how she supposes her perspective to be all-encompassing of women -- there were direct points in my respondence to her where I cited agreement and equatable foundations had by a female and myself, something of which DutchGrrl evidently couldn't handle due to herr inclination to go without providing my mentation with suitable reciprocation. Well, fitting nonetheless, I doubt she had anything of substance to respond to them with.) (P.S.#2. Serso wrote:

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

These points are where DutchGrrl contends me to be a misogynist, where, in reality, this stands only to convey my distaste for the typical positions DutchGrrl takes.) (P.S.#3. Apt notation may in fact be made in reference to the amount of space DutchGrrl takes using ad hominem in relation to the volume I do. I just thought that was fairly humbling and funny.)

No sir, This ..."This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge"... does not convey your distaste for any position, it denegrates her for being female and playing on a non-PvP server.

I think she's chasing rainbows myself, but it's nice to see the world still has some optimists in it. For the record I dismount always, but for me it's a r/p thing so I know why I am in the minority. If only PvP people had a similar understanding of their place in the world

[Velius2820]

  The man has already spoke (Mynach)  insides of buildings should act like water, you go into the bank mount disappears, you come out it appears again.   Also, hate crime?

[Tash 1]

As I see it there are two reasons why people can be annoyed with players mounted indoors.

a) They can have their line of sight blocked. b) They don't like it. Perhaps they are RP or just like to correct peoples.

For the a) reason. So far I never have been hindered to interact with the broker in QH or the bank personal. I play a rather short char. The broker problems can just occur at the outdoor one, since the others are in TS instances and you can be mounted there. And out door it seems to be ok to be mounted according to the OP. For the bank personal I rarely see any crowd around it so cant se that this can be a huge problem. For the B reason. I can agree that it must be frustrating for a RP to see a horse in the bar or worse to see people mounted on a boat. Just as frustrating as to se public duels, fully armed fighters in the guesthouses or criminal acts as rangers with stringed bows. Not to talk about carrying six strongboxes or swimming in plate. And I surly hope that RP people strip of their plate armour before taking a swim. For the suggested resolution I can agree that it would be fun to throw a rotten egg on a not well behaving player. But those that throw things shall be expected to get things thrown at them as well. And I can see a huge risk for harassments in that kind of objects. I don't think the LOS can be a major problem, if you take a screenshot at QH in Runnyeye you see that people are keeping a very nice ring around the broker to assure that everyone have a line of sight..

So I guess I stay seated until anyone ask me to move if I stand in the way

/Tash

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Ilmaaaaah@Lucan DLere wrote:

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

Dutchgrrl wrote:

Serso wrote:

(snip)

Completely and wholly wrong. Just give a gander to PvP.

(snip)

No, the typical touting goes along the lines of "because I pay for my own subscription, I can enact behavior to any degree as long as it is within the bounds of the game", or in a greater sense of the layman, "because I pay for my own subscription, I can play how I want" -- nobody ever claims the game is theirs, and the fact that they make such statements with the inference that they are to do such in a legitimate manner highlights how refutable your idea of this being acceptable really is.

(snip)

It isn't harassment if you just ask them once, but if you proceed to then attempt pestering and/or argue with them, then it could be.

(snip)

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

Hi Serso

You have this habit of ripping into people when you feel hurt - I noticed that from your other posts.  When you unloaded this misogynistic rant on me I looked your past posts up and spotted the trend.  I understand why you are angry at me, though the rest of the people reading your rant will not and they will think that you are just what you appear to be.

The reason that he is hurt and upset with me is actually simple to understand...  A thread that I wrote was locked before he could unload his sideways slant on it - so he went to an unrelated thread and posted his reply there.  Then he sent me a PM titled "You Missed a Spot" and put links to his posts in the PM, with no detials to explain why he sent the PM in the first place.

I followed the links and found a pair of disjointed posts that are unremarkable in that they are pretty much typical of the sort of post that he usually writes - psuedo-intellectual pretensions that use words that he very obviously does not know the meaning of to say what he thinks he is saying while only appearing to be... What he is.  He structures his sentences so that they appear to be what I can only think of as Serso's Notion of Highbrow...  Yes it is painful to read his posts, because the vulgar punk of the intent hovers just a fraction of an inch below the surface and is clearly there despite the effort that Serso goes to to try to conceal it.

Hate is a powerful emotion and with most powerful things, if you wallow in it and live for it eventually it takes you over completely.  This is clear in the reply you posted that I am addressing now... This is an ad hominem Serso, it is an example of a boy striking back because his feelings are hurt.  He doesn't know how to articulate what he really wants to say so instead of trying he picks a post he has nothing vested in and has no interest in based simply on the fact that the person he wants to hurt wrote it, and then he creates this... Pointless sideways empty thing in the hopes that it will be his super special secret weapon arrow of intense ouchie bam!

The problem here is that you crossed a line.  Actually you crossed several - the first was the one about attacking the idea and not the person - but the line I am talking about is the one called Hate Crime.  Your attempt to paint this to be a nothing issue and your sexual focus wrapped in hate pretty much says it all.  You accomplished nothing here, and showed the world what you are.  Good job!

Kat

Uhuh, so show me where I didn't "attack the idea"? The relation you propose as even being, in reference to "attacking" is clearly and intrinsically at fault. I critique and contend with ideas, I do not attack them. I think it is characteristic of you to emotionally charge everything you take in. Every critical analysis of your points is just a misogynistic attack, huh? The only reason I made reference to your moonlighting this in the way you have is because of your past history of posts. You really mustn't have had anything to say with my rebuttals toward your comments in earlier threads. Everything I said, as far as I know, was wholly right, in regard to the prior mention of my examinations against your views. How candid can you represent your fallibility as one of sensible tones? You've done quite well with your just fantastic dosage of presumption. Sure, make clamations of my being a pseudo-intellectual and having been "hurt", "upset", and "hateful". Succinctly enough, I only detest the manner in which you portray interpretations of logic (i.e. fact). This is a non-issue and something I feel did in fact stem out of the reasons aforementioned. Instead, do as you typically do and fail to address the actual critical message made against you and hypocritically and contradictively make yourself the finest exhibitor of "ad hominem". The title of my PM was in regard to your having thought you would address everything in your final post surrounding the debates on harassment and feminism within this section. I did in fact explain to you in a follow-up post when the obvious inference to be made from the initial PM escaped you. I also am not Serso, but Seliri. The majority of my posts were conclusively signed to denote such, but once I figured that I may just as well place my player signature image among the accommodated allocations, I ended my distinct salutations. (P.S. I do find it extravagantly humorous and asinine that you purport me to be a misogynist. What this [DutchGrrl's] case's actual inflection [bending] has a tendency for is how she supposes her perspective to be all-encompassing of women -- there were direct points in my respondence to her where I cited agreement and equatable foundations had by a female and myself, something of which DutchGrrl evidently couldn't handle due to herr inclination to go without providing my mentation with suitable reciprocation. Well, fitting nonetheless, I doubt she had anything of substance to respond to them with.) (P.S.#2. Serso wrote:

For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P

These points are where DutchGrrl contends me to be a misogynist, where, in reality, this stands only to convey my distaste for the typical positions DutchGrrl takes.) (P.S.#3. Apt notation may in fact be made in reference to the amount of space DutchGrrl takes using ad hominem in relation to the volume I do. I just thought that was fairly humbling and funny.)

No sir, This ..."This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge"... does not convey your distaste for any position, it denegrates her for being female and playing on a non-PvP server.

I think she's chasing rainbows myself, but it's nice to see the world still has some optimists in it. For the record I dismount always, but for me it's a r/p thing so I know why I am in the minority. If only PvP people had a similar understanding of their place in the world

I don't think it matters what you think it means when I clearly state how the ambiguity is to be interpreted. It was a jibe at her not meant to be taken as one hundred percent literal. I'm sure the girls of whom I spoke I stood in accordance with were inhabitants of the good ol' "bluebie realm".

[Mikkahl]

I ride my 50% war horse around town a lot (no big slow warg for me, thanks!) between the bank, broker, and people's houses to shop, and I want maximum speed so I don't waste any time.  So, it's a pain to get off and on the horse all the time.  But, I always ride to the back wall or a corner so that I'm not blocking anybody else's view.  On my horse, I can usually see over everybody else from there.

If I understand the main complaint here, that's that the view of the banker is blocked by the mount.  Hopefully I've addressed that by going to the back wall.  I've only had one complaint (and I play on the AB RP server) where someone said "This is not a stable!", and that was when I rushed in and was suddenly called away from my computer, leaving the mount in front of the inn room door in Nettleville (I didn't even have time to type AFK).

 I can see the other complaint from a role-playing view, but at least the horses don't crap on the floor (since they come with a free litter box)!   (And I hate to think what wargs would leave behind!)

So I support the suggestion where bank, etc. floors act like water, making the horses disappear (and not slowing you down)!  Even better, it should be just an area around banker, broker, or merchants, so that it covers the outdoor brokers and merchants as well.

[KBern]

Mikkahl wrote:

I ride my 50% war horse around town a lot (no big slow warg for me, thanks!) between the bank, broker, and people's houses to shop, and I want maximum speed so I don't waste any time.  So, it's a pain to get off and on the horse all the time.  But, I always ride to the back wall or a corner so that I'm not blocking anybody else's view.  On my horse, I can usually see over everybody else from there.

If I understand the main complaint here, that's that the view of the banker is blocked by the mount.  Hopefully I've addressed that by going to the back wall.  I've only had one complaint (and I play on the AB RP server) where someone said "This is not a stable!", and that was when I rushed in and was suddenly called away from my computer, leaving the mount in front of the inn room door in Nettleville (I didn't even have time to type AFK).

 I can see the other complaint from a role-playing view, but at least the horses don't crap on the floor (since they come with a free litter box)!   (And I hate to think what wargs would leave behind!)

So I support the suggestion where bank, etc. floors act like water, making the horses disappear (and not slowing you down)!  Even better, it should be just an area around banker, broker, or merchants, so that it covers the outdoor brokers and merchants as well.

They used to have that happen, but it was changed.  You couldnt even use your horse in some parts of town, but it was changed.

I use the broker all the time...every time I log in, I run to the EFP broker on Guk.  It is packed with people in front of it....mounts, carpets, pets, etc.

I have NEVER onced been totally blocked from the broker, or banker.  I may have to move my camera, or strafe my toon, but all of 2 seconds later, I am viewing the wares.

I do the same thing as the player I quoted, I stand far back in banks, and do the same at a broker.  I never block anyone from access, and amazingly I dont dismount, nor do I dismiss my pet.

Some people just have an opinion about this that differs from many others and want everyone to act as they want to.

Rude is rude and it doesnt take a horse, carpet, worg, or pet to block the broker....all it takes is some person who no regard for others who chooses to stand right on top of the broker, or actually overlapping them. 

[L4nc]

/yawn

 Come on really? This required that long of a post? Couldn't have been worded the same as,

 /whine "Stop riding those mounts in buildings it's really annoying" /whine

 This is a game, roleplayers have never had protected rights in this game aside from the harrassment policy and really that's for us just as much as them. Nothing like a crying roleplayer to make your day. I can ride my mount in a building therfore I will. You didn't pay for my mount I did so sorry I'm not going to get off of it. You said that paying for your own account is not good enough reason to play the way you want but the same goes for you. I will stop riding my mount in buildings as soon as you stop roleplaying. It bores me and it's almost as bad as listening to Counter Strike players.

[Tallika_Runwithbears]

i dismount when i'm on my large race toons.  but my gnome...  forget it.  i'm tiny enough already.  my mount is the size of a medium size dog...

[Raveller]

I think the devs should add a bit of code that charges you 50 gold every time you enter a building while on a mount. That should solve the problem. Oh, and all that gold is automatically deposted in my main's bank.

[Windowlicker]

I don't see any single reason why we shouldn't be permitted to ride mounts inside buildings.  If you had a horse, and the door was large enough, could you ride it inside?

Yes you could.

Would it mess up the place and create a scene?  Sure it would!  But you could *still do it*.

Just because it irratates a small selection of people, I see no reason to change anything.  If anything it would turn into more of an annoyance to need to recast the mount over and over while getting things done.

[Raveller]

Zahne, 'Don't bring me on a raid 'cause I'm EQ2's laziest warlock', wrote:

I don't see any single reason why we shouldn't be permitted to ride mounts inside buildings.  If you had a horse, and the door was large enough, could you ride it inside?

Yes you could.

Would it mess up the place and create a scene?  Sure it would!  But you could *still do it*.

Just because it irratates a small selection of people, I see no reason to change anything.  If anything it would turn into more of an annoyance to need to recast the mount over and over while getting things done.

How [Removed for Content]' lazy can anyone actually be? I cancel and recast my mount spell frequently with no problems. Have you ever heard of a hotbar? It's a handy-dandy means of simplifying game play. You should try it some time.

[McDohl]

Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:

I don't see any single reason why we shouldn't be permitted to ride mounts inside buildings.  If you had a horse, and the door was large enough, could you ride it inside?

Yes you could.

Would it mess up the place and create a scene?  Sure it would!  But you could *still do it*.

Just because it irratates a small selection of people, I see no reason to change anything.  If anything it would turn into more of an annoyance to need to recast the mount over and over while getting things done.

Could you ride right up to the person to obscure them from view of anyone else, thus limiting said other people's access to something they need? Yes you could! Should you? Nawr. It's a small selection of people, because everyone else has gotten frazzled at your lazy behind shielding everything from view and have moved to another zone.