Why is "inattentive" farming allowed?

[Bollocks.4078]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"kitten.4078" said:

> > No, it's ...

> The point is that ANet is not okay with people earning loot without paying some attention to the game. They aren't concerned with how much attention, just that people are actually "playing" in some extended sense of the word. Everything else is just commentary or illustrations of that idea, and why it makes sense to this particular studio.

>

Are they actually OK with it or is it more that there's really nothing they can do about it? An inattentive farmer could be paying just enough attention to keep the farm going and to respond if a GM whispers. In that case the difference between that and AFK is pretty minuscule. There's no way for anyone to know how much attention someone is paying. If it's OK to watch a movie while inattentive farming you only need to interact with the game as often as is required to keep minions up and respond if whispered by a GM. And you don't even need to respond right away, just within whatever time frame they require, which from what I've read in other posts is supposedly pretty generous. Basically, what I'm trying to understand is whether Anet is actually OK with it or if they are just saying it's OK because it looks better on paper to say they decided it's OK rather than say that there's not much they can do about it. I'm fine with it either way. I expect if the later is the reality I'm probably never going to see you or Anet actually admit it anyway.

 

I'd still like to see where Anet said inattentive farming is ~~beneficial~~ good. My perception is that the reason anyone does any form of automated farming is to get something for nothing. I expect in most cases the difference between AFK and inattentive is paying just enough attention to avoid meeting the 3rd criteria. To be clear, I'm not trying to say this is fact, this is just my perception and opinion. Anyone is welcome to disagree but don't tell me I'm wrong unless you can provide evidence to support that.

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Not pressing a key within 20 minutes doesn't count as "inattentive" &mdash that's away from keyboard.

You referenced half of the scenario I described and left out the other half. You completely missed the point of what I was trying to make - that is that the logs are not sufficient to truly tell how attentive someone was.

 

 

> @"Shikigami.4013" said:

> > @"kitten.4078" said:

> >

> > @Shikigami:

> > It's not just criteria 3. It has to be all 3 criteria together to be considered AFK farming. No GM will care at all if you are AFK if you don't satisfy the first two criteria.

> >

> > There seem to be some contradictions between what Shikigami and Illconceived are saying. One says the don't look at keystrokes the other says they do.

> >

>

> You misunderstood what I wrote and there is no contradiction. I wrote "As you can tell from number 3, that is the requirement for them to take action **regarding the "afk" part.**" That means, that number 3 only refers to determine if someone is afk or not.

>

> Number 1 and 2 still have to apply for the "farming" part of course, but I answered directly to someone asking how ArenaNet determines "being afk". So my answer was specifically tailored to explain that they determine "being afk" by criteria number 3.

>

> PS: Quoting you triggers the kittenizer for your accountname. Probably wasn't the best choice to name it :)

>

> PPS: Your argument that the wording "may get actioned" means that this is a grey area is nonsense. It is the usual legal speak that stays polite but leaves them open to do whatever they want. The whole TOS is full of the word may, be it that they say they "may do something" or that the player "may not do something". You are fabricating things based of what you want it to mean, contrary to common sense and the normal usage of these terms.

 

OK, I see what you were trying to say now. It seemed to me like you were trying to have the 3rd criteria stand alone. AFK doesn't matter unless both of the other two criteria also apply. I think I was the "someone" you were responding to. And that's not where I said there was a contradiction. I gave some specific examples, such as, you said they don't check keystroke logs, Illconceived said that they do. How is that not a contradiction.

 

Yes, I'm aware that my account name gets kittenized. I've had this account since head start weekend. If Anet decided they want me to change it I'll do so without complaining but so far that has not happened. The word actually has both negative and positive uses. I think the situation is probably that even though it gets filtered it's not considered bad enough to make me change it. Did you notice that my account name at the top of my posts is not filtered? Maybe this discussion about my name will catch somebody's attention and something will happen. That makes me wonder if my old posts will change or if it will be like this account just stopped posting.

 

I still perceive "may be actioned" as non-committal. They could have said something like "subject to being actioned." They are under no obligation to be polite, they can do whatever they want anyway. They could have said "will be permanently banned" and then decide on a case by case basis to ban or not as they see fit.

[Shikigami.4013]

> @"Bollocks.4078" said:

> > >

> > > @Shikigami:

> > > It's not just criteria 3. It has to be all 3 criteria together to be considered AFK farming. No GM will care at all if you are AFK if you don't satisfy the first two criteria.

> > >

> > > There seem to be some contradictions between what Shikigami and Illconceived are saying. One says the don't look at keystrokes the other says they do.

> > >

> >

> > You misunderstood what I wrote and there is no contradiction. I wrote "As you can tell from number 3, that is the requirement for them to take action **regarding the "afk" part.**" That means, that number 3 only refers to determine if someone is afk or not.

> >

> > Number 1 and 2 still have to apply for the "farming" part of course, but I answered directly to someone asking how ArenaNet determines "being afk". So my answer was specifically tailored to explain that they determine "being afk" by criteria number 3.

> >

>

> OK, I see what you were trying to say now. It seemed to me like you were trying to have the 3rd criteria stand alone. AFK doesn't matter unless both of the other two criteria also apply. I think I was the "someone" you were responding to. And that's not where I said there was a contradiction. I gave some specific examples, such as, you said they don't check keystroke logs, Illconceived said that they do. How is that not a contradiction.

>

Ok I understand now :) However, as I was only refering to the "being afk" criteria, my statement that they don't need to check keystrokes solely refered to the afk check, which -as far as we know- consists simply of a GM trying to interact with a player. If there is no response from the player he fulfils criteria 3, no need to check keystrokes.

 

What Illconceived likely refered to was that they can check keystrokes to see if the player is using a skill or not, so this would refer to criteria 1, although it doesn't really make a lot of sense because when using autocast you still use a skill and can fulfil criteria 1 without pressing keys at all.

 

 

[reaVer.4056]

I was wondering if someone really named himself kitten with everything that gets attributed to them, but the source is even better XD

[preacher.9370]

because this is rediculous every time I come through here, this is what I see, farming for charged loadstones I would imagine ( "")

 

[Cobrakon.3108]

World loot is worth hardly anything. The loot in this game is made in such a way that even bottling wouldn't yield all that much. That's why the rules aren't as strict as they could be. You'd literally have to fly around at super speed and auto lock onto gathering nodes to make any decent money.