Can we have a revote

[mrfancypants]

I dont see why a guild should have a limitation on why there members can/cen't get a bot. The person owning the bot is selling to EVERYONE else, therefore its like another player buying selling, but constantaly. So i would like to have a revote. How many bots can a guild have? And can you PLEASE vote, AND reply with ingame name and choice

[jvg]

I think 1 per guild should be enough by now, ad there are not many players at this moment, maybe there can be a re-vote again when there are more active (so no alts) playing?

[mrfancypants]

I think 1 per guild should be enough by now, ad there are not many players at this moment, maybe there can be a re-vote again when there are more active (so no alts) playing?

 

yes. but when the bot is giving everyone a chance to buy/sell mroe things, thus making them have more gc/lvs, the community will grow. Thats why i think we should have as many as we want, if not at least 2

[sywren]

Well, the way I see it, there are two sides to this. On one side, I believe the original idea was limit the number of bots on the server. The upside to this is that we may end up with a few more guilds rather than two or three mega-guilds.

 

The other side to this is what I believe you're saying: people are forced to choose between their guild and the opportunity to have a bot.

 

I'm undecided. I'm not going to be a bot owner any time soon, if ever, so I'm not voting now.

 

I'm interested in hearing other arguments.

[mrfancypants]

well sy, i would say that my argument is this....

 

If i want to have a bot, i should be able to get one.... especially if it will be a "good" bot for the server. by that i mean i will do basically what woodeh said he would do, but more. I will put all the swords/books and such that i get from training on there for whatever the NPC will buy them for, which is really cheap.

I would also put everything on there that i make, for just getting my money back... say it costs 48gc to make a steel bar, than thats what i would sell it for. This kind of bot would help everyone get gc/lvs from training, as long as i could provide it with things.

The other reason is, if someone wants to give ThE G0d money for something, they should be able to.

And another thing is, like sy said, if your guild has a bot already, and you want one as well, i shouldnt ahve to choose between leaving my guild and having a bot.

 

Hope that helps you all make your decision, cus i want a bot :S

[TessAnna]

I voted option three... Once again, the community has enough rules/restrictions on the players as a whole. I will do whatever Radu/Entropy allows me to do, regardless of the vote.

[sywren]

You're all right. Fewer rules would allow Satan to stay in Thor, enjoy his bot, and put money in radu's pocket. Fewer rules also keeps us closer to the original intent of this server. All good things.

[Segor]

My oppinion on bots stands..

 

for that I won't vote.

Whoever wants them chan chose freely.

[The_Piper]

Voted 3, EG has already 2 bots right now (ok, no trade bots )

 

Anyways, the only restriction i would think about is that we have not more bots online than active players/accounts. That would somehow look really stupid IMO

 

Piper

[spyridonas]

vored "as many as they want"

[mrfancypants]

Voted 3, EG has already 2 bots right now (ok, no trade bots )

 

Anyways, the only restriction i would think about is that we have not more bots online than active players/accounts. That would somehow look really stupid IMO

 

Piper

 

i agree there

 

but then again, we dont have enough people (atm) to get that many bots... so i think that would be covered

[handyman]

Bots on the PK Server

 

 

Originally we all agreed that this was not a good idea

 

We have seen what has happened to the main server unless you ignore all of the Bots on there you can't even use the market channel also the unfair advantage players that own Bots has ways to make gc that other players don't.

 

 

But it was decided one way or another that this server was ready for some Bots and players could benefit by having the use of Bots on this server to help with offline trade.

 

 

We had discussions about restrictions so it would not get out of hand and part of the vote for allowing Bots on this server was that certain restrictions were put in place.

 

One of the restriction were there would be only 1 Bot per guild (this would save players /guilds that have $$ from using this as an advantage over the rest of the players in the game.

 

The solution to this would be if another player in the guild wanted a Bot of their own they would have to leave the guild and start their own guild

 

This would put more guilds into the server and we would have some control over the Bot situation

 

I still think this is the best Idea

 

Why do you need to have some control of Bots on this server / I guess for the same reason we didn't want any Bots on here in the first place

 

We agreed on having Bots on this server if restriction were put in place

 

We can't control everything but already the Bots are starting to ruin the market economy

 

We have managed to keep it working on here so if you make something you get more than the sum of its ings when you sell it.

 

Bot wars have already started on here and I'm part of that every time I log on I check other Bots prices to make sure mine is offering the best service and already certain items are now lower than cost as other items will go through the roof

 

I feel 1 TRADE Bot per guild is still the Best way of controlling this

 

If not and you all agree there is no restriction to how many bots a guild player owns then expect exploitation from people that don't even play this server . Certain people from main will place bots over here just to make gc to sell for $$ or trade for mains gc.

 

Also expect Bots popping up everywhere I might even put 3-4 on here in different locations GC from this server will fund it

 

I must say i only agreed to trade Bots on this server if there were restriction and if i realised it would be this easy to change it after i would have said NO to trade bots at the time

 

Handyman (Odins owner)

[handyman]

EG has already 2 bots right now (ok, no trade bots )

 

Anyways, the only restriction i would think about is that we have not more bots online than active players/accounts. That would somehow look really stupid IMO

 

This is just about Trade bots

 

 

8 people have posted here and there are 21 votes so far so can all those that have voted also post on this thread you desision

to save vote fixing ty

I have voted for No 1

Edited October 18, 2008 by handyman

[Chosen]

I voted for #1, one bot per guild is fine.

 

- Donkeh - ^v^ Trade Bot.

[woo]

I voted #3 freedom of choice.

 

Gambit

[ProHibited]

I vote NO

[mrfancypants]

Well, so far its 7 for more than 1.... and 3 people who have voted 1 only. And prohibited just said NO, so need more clarification there. The only person that havent said anything is bkc i think

[ProHibited]

"Can we have a revote" -> NO

 

 

Everyone should have the same chances. If one person has the option to take a bot, every single other person should get this same option, regardless of anything. What if "main-server" players get a bot? They would have to come over to the pk server to create an account and to set it up.. Plus that player will probably want more players on the pk server to increase his/her profits.

[bkc56]

The only person that havent said anything is bkc i think

I was waiting to see how a few specific people responded.

 

After the first vote I tried to do a second vote to clarify one point that could be interpreted two ways (not change, just clarify). I got seriously bashed about it with false claims of "not liking the answer and trying to change it" and other lies.

 

So here comes this thread that flat out says it wants to change the vote. I was just wondering if anyone would care.

 

As far as I'm concerned nothing has happened to invalidate the earlier poll on ownership restrictions. In addition, it has not been long enough, nor have conditions changed enough to justify a new vote on the topic.

 

Therefore the previous vote still stands. My vote remains unchanged.

[Kalix]

as many as you want.

[mrfancypants]

So, that looks like everyone ahs voted, that actually play the server regularly.

 

It stands at

 

4 saying "One Bot per guild"

and

8 votes saying "As many as you want"

 

But i believe now that this has taken place.... we should all agree to not have more trade bots than we do players, as piper said.

[bkc56]

jvg - I think 1 per guild should be enough by now

handyman - I have voted for No 1

liquid - I voted for #1

prohibited - "Can we have a revote" -> NO (previous vote stands)

bkc56 - Therefore the previous vote still stands. My vote remains unchanged.

 

 

mrfancypants - Thats why i think we should have as many as we want

tessanna - I voted option three.

segor - Whoever wants them chan chose freely.

the_piper - Voted 3

spyridonas - vored "as many as they want"

woo - I voted #3 freedom of choice.

tiem4u2die - as many as you want.

 

 

sygon - (no vote stated)

 

 

We also have consensus that previous polls are neither binding nor do they have any implied duration (which is actually a more interesting result than the poll itself) with only three "votes" to not overrule the previous poll.

[mrfancypants]

when segor said "You're all right. Fewer rules would allow Satan to stay in Thor, enjoy his bot, and put money in radu's pocket. Fewer rules also keeps us closer to the original intent of this server. All good things." i think she ment "sure, ahve as many as you want" or something to the affect of guilds can ahve more than one bot.

 

Meaning 8-4 votes, in favor of having more than one vote

[bkc56]

i think she ment "sure, ahve as many as you want" or something to the affect of guilds can ahve more than one bot.

We'll never know unless an actual vote is posted.

 

Meaning 8-4 votes, in favor of having more than one vote

Your counting skills not withstanding, you're correct, the vote to ignore previous polls has passed...

[Suskie]

i voted 3.