Spawn Stealing

[Skuhoo]

The way I see it is if you keep dropping an item on purpose at spawn when there is always the risk of someone stealing it, then having it get stolen is somewhat your own fault. If sSteak had been trading the shulker's contents with someone and someone like Obstinance aggro pearled at it, then sure that's stealing, but when you knowingly drop the shulker multiple times besides someone you don't intend on giving the item to and they get hold of it, that's on you.

Why would it be on you? I could understand your argument if steak was repeatedly letting Obstinance pick up the shulker then demanding it back, but as I understand it Obstinance pearled onto a dropped shulker. And because it was dropped multiple times that should mean it's fair game? There's zero precedence for anything like that.

The other argument that steak was "trolling" and thus breaking the rules is completely irrelevant. Even if it was decided that he was breaking that rule, why would that steak lose his shulker box as a result? We don't punish players by taking items away in cases of inappropriately named items or /link spam, so doing so here would be wildly inconsistent.

 

[Skuhoo]

Oh yes, chat logs, not while I was in spawn

Fwiw, those messages were sent just a minute after you picked up the shulker. The way you're talking makes it seem like steak messaged you later in the day asking for it back, which is misleading.

 

[Qfu]

https://www.thesaurus.com/

 

[Adzy]

I agree with everything Ox said and the part where sku said about him losing his items as a result of a rule break..

#SaveSteaksPixelWeapons

+1

 

[Obstinance]

Why would it be on you? I could understand your argument if steak was repeatedly letting Obstinance pick up the shulker then demanding it back, but as I understand it Obstinance pearled onto a dropped shulker. And because it was dropped multiple times that should mean it's fair game? There's zero precedence for anything like that.

The other argument that steak was "trolling" and thus breaking the rules is completely irrelevant. Even if it was decided that he was breaking that rule, why would that steak lose his shulker box as a result? We don't punish players by taking items away in cases of inappropriately named items or /link spam, so doing so here would be wildly inconsistent.

Dropping it to me multiple times. Only reason I didn't pick it up multiple times is because steak has better ping.

 

[Obstinance]

Fwiw, those messages were sent just a minute after you picked up the shulker. The way you're talking makes it seem like steak messaged you later in the day asking for it back, which is misleading.

No, ox said he messaged me while I was still in spawn, which he didn't.

 

[Obstinance]

Ah yes, sSteak dropped a shulker box full of his lored possessions to me in spawn a total of 6 times to prove he has better ping. The sixth time I pearled onto the box, he had even walked a few blocks away from it just to entice me to try and pick it up even more, all in a room where it was just the two of us. After I had used the portal to go back to my town(1m) sSteak spammed me to give it back, but clearly showed signs of wanting me to take the box (unless 6 times wasn't enough).

I wouldn't say the trolling rule doesn't apply here since he was trying to antagonize me about my inferior connection. iirc that's one of the reason people can't use /ping anymore.

It's not fair that using the fact that it's lored and costs $ is one of the reasons since Loka isn't biased. You spent money on the server on an item that you could lose at anytime. The fact that you paid for the item shouldn't add any leniency. If these were normal named swords the only thing would be said it how you guys have so much more so it doesn't matter. But because they're lored there is a fuss. sSteak placed 6 bets on his ping but I hit the jackpot. Gambling is risky business.

If this wasn't a special case, I am a perfectly seasoned player that is aware of the rules and would've given it back, no help from staff needed. But it's not normal, not normal to drop a shulker full of lored items to a player 6 times all for a "meme" or to be a "troll." Although he was not thinking about it sSteak should have known the risk and the possible repercussions of fully being aware and dropping it 6 times directly to me.

This case can be appealed just like any ban appeal, yes. However the people who appeal their bans are the ones who got banned. This shulker was between sSteak, myself, Cryptite and Magpieman. I wonder why Unallowed is appealing for sSteak to have his shulker back and sSteak hasn't even commented.

sSteak believes I have it fair n square (refer to picture below) and he isn't even remotely involved in his own appeal. sSteak has been a good sport about the matter but his allies refuse to take a "loss"

In conclusion sSteak was well aware of dropping the items to me 6 times in a row and has acknowledged that I have the items and why it's his fault. This appeal wasn't made by him which should or almost makes it null and void. You don't see anybody making a ban appeal for other players, only the players that want to be pardoned make their appeal and then other people give their opinion on the matter.

 

[Adzy]

Ah yes, sSteak dropped a shulker box full of his lored possessions to me in spawn a total of 6 times to prove he has better ping. The sixth time I pearled onto the box, he had even walked a few blocks away from it just to entice me to try and pick it up even more, all in a room where it was just the two of us. After I had used the portal to go back to my town(1m) sSteak spammed me to give it back, but clearly showed signs of wanting me to take the box (unless 6 times wasn't enough).

It's not fair that using the fact that it's lored and costs $ is one of the reasons since Loka isn't biased. You spent money on the server on an item that you could lose at anytime. The fact that you paid for the item shouldn't add any leniency. If these were normal named swords the only thing would be said it how you guys have so much more so it doesn't matter. But because they're lored there is a fuss.

If this wasn't a special case, I am a perfectly seasoned player that is aware of the rules and would've given it back, no help from staff needed. But it's not normal, not normal to drop a shulker full of lored items to a player 6 times all for a "meme" or to be a "troll." Although he was not thinking about it sSteak should have known the risk and the possible repercussions of fully being aware and dropping it 6 times directly to me.

This case can be appealed just like any ban appeal, yes. However the people who appeal their bans are the ones who got banned. This shulker was between sSteak, myself, Cryptite and Magpieman. I wonder why Unallowed is appealing for sSteak to have his shulker back and sSteak hasn't even commented.

sSteak believes I have it fair n square (refer to picture below) and he isn't even remotely involved in his own appeal. sSteak has been a good sport about the matter but his allies refuse to take a "loss"

In conclusion sSteak was well aware of dropping the items to me 6 times in a row and has acknowledged that I have the items and why it's his fault. This appeal wasn't made by him which should or almost makes it null and void. You don't see anybody making a ban appeal for other players, only the players that want to be pardoned make their appeal and then other people give their opinion on the matter.

I think people are seeing issue that it was allowed to just be taken from spawn when the rule for scamming at spawn has always been the items were returned.

The reason sSteak was probably trying to meme with you in the first place was because he wasn’t aware of this rule that’s suddenly popped up and thought he was protected by the no scam or whatever it’s called rule.

I think there should’ve been an a warning issued server wide about this if it’s a new thing that’s going to start happening rather than just a straight up slap in the face.

That’s my opinions anyways.

Btw if what you’re saying about steak accepting he’s lost the items is true, then I don’t see much point going on about this much longer.

Orange Trees on Loka yes

 

[Borne_]

I’ve only skimmed through this thread, but from what I’ve read....

Steak is big dumb dumb for repeatedly dropping a shulker
And my son, corruptful, still has much to learn from me (smh I expected more from you, be more sneak next time).

All in all I think this thread should be locked because it is a very touchy subject to me, personally.

Also shout out to ox for sticking up for his friend, even if he was being big noob

Have a great day, and Go Forth or whatever the server owner says

 

[Obstinance]

I think people are seeing issue that it was allowed to just be taken from spawn when the rule for scamming at spawn has always been the items were returned.

The reason sSteak was probably trying to meme with you in the first place was because he wasn’t aware of this rule that’s suddenly popped up and thought he was protected by the no scam or whatever it’s called rule.

I think there should’ve been an a warning issued server wide about this if it’s a new thing that’s going to start happening rather than just a straight up slap in the face.

That’s my opinions anyways.

Btw if what you’re saying about steak accepting he’s lost the items is true, then I don’t see much point going on about this much longer.

Orange Trees on Loka yes

It's not that stealing is ok it's that he repeatedly trolled and said "get ping" gambling with this shulker. But I agree I'm pretty sure this thread should be locked now.

 

[Kaph]

What do you mean "It's not that stealing is ok"? It literally is stealing, which you seem to have acknowledged, and that's one of the major issues with Cryptite's decision here. You can't just dismiss that entire element of the situation.

 

[Obstinance]

What do you mean "It's not that stealing is ok"? It literally is stealing, which you seem to have acknowledged, and that's one of the major issues with Cryptite's decision here. You can't just dismiss that entire element of the situation.

He handed it to me 6 times. I can give him $10 and then ask for it back and he can say no. He didn't steal.

You can call it spawn stealing but the reason I didn't have to give it back is because he was trolling and taunting me all while willingly giving it to me.

I feel like Cryptite worded his response badly and that's really being picked on.

But again, you guys made this for sSteak to get his stuff back but it's quite odd he didn't do it himself or comment and has stated I got it fair n square. You can't appeal other people's bans and this isn't that far off. You're appealing for his shulker.

 

[Kaph]

He handed it to me 6 times. I can give him $10 and then ask for it back and he can say no. He didn't steal.

You can call it spawn stealing but the reason I didn't have to give it back is because he was trolling and taunting me all while willingly giving it to me.

I feel like Cryptite worded his response badly and that's really being picked on.

You clearly understand that sSteak had no intention of giving you the shulker. At the time of the situation, you understood this too. That's why you aggro-pearled onto him in order to increase your chances of being able to pick up the shulker. This is one of the major distinctions (in my opinion) between it being stealing and not "giving".

 

[Obstinance]

You clearly understand that sSteak had no intention of giving you the shulker. At the time of the situation, you understood this too. That's why you aggro-pearled onto him in order to increase your chances of being able to pick up the shulker. This is one of the major distinctions (in my opinion) between it being stealing and not "giving".

If dropping something to a player in a room with just you two just isn't giving it then damn. He didn't want me to keep it but he definitely gave it to me. I pearled onto it so he could not longer troll about my ping. Also I didn't pearl onto him, he had moved away from the shulker for me to go to it I just pearled to the shulker, I didn't make contact with him.

sSteak said I got it fair n square

 

[Kaph]

One more thing I'd like to pick up on. You can clearly steal items that have been given to you. For example, if I drop a lored sword to a friend in order to show them the lore, then it would still be stealing if they refuse to give it back. There is likely precedence for this, too, however I am not an admin (or an long time player) so I wouldn't know for sure. I'd also like to remind you that the Loka rules simply state that there should be no stealing from players at spawn. There is not much point dwelling on the technicality of whether it was "given" to you or not (though, I still disagree with your viewpoint). If there was absolutely no intention for you to keep the items then it can be classified as stealing. Simple as that.

 

[Obstinance]

One more thing I'd like to pick up on. You can clearly steal items that have been given to you. For example, if I drop a lored sword to a friend in order to show them the lore, then it would still be stealing if they refuse to give it back. There is likely precedence for this, too, however I am not an admin (or an long time player) so I wouldn't know for sure. I'd also like to remind you that the Loka rules simply state that there should be no stealing from players at spawn. There is not much point dwelling on the technicality of whether it was "given" to you or not (though, I still disagree with your viewpoint). If there was absolutely no intention for you to keep the items then it can be classified as stealing. Simple as that.

When you tell a friend they can see your lore sword you probably also told them to give it back after before they gave it to them. This isn't really the same cause he was trolling and never warned me if I got it to give it back, he gambled and lost.

But yeah we won't come to a resolution because two seperate viewpoints, no purpose in arguing. But steak also isn't the one appealing this, nor has he commented and he fully admitted I got them fairly so :/

 

[Sparky___]

I would like to pop in just briefly to enthusiastically request the reasoning behind this decision to be explained in full, at the very least. It seems like this situation and the resulting decision has the potential to open the door for a lot of future shenanigans.

 

[Obstinance]

Sparky is right, I even said to someone right after receiving crypts message it would cause problems and was worded poorly. Magpieman writes the essays and crypt writes the code <o/

 

[Adzy]

Before the thread gets locked, maybe we should give @Steak__ an actual chance to share his thoughts on it all, just so he can clear the air yes,

then we can go back to killing each other on a block game and have fun.

 

[Obstinance]

Feel like he would've been the one creating the thread if he was that concerned.