While reading through this thread's 16 pages, I've noticed alot of reaccuring explanations for luring/not luring: 1. Luring is not acceptable: because it is immoral and breaks rule 2- no scamming, lying or decieving other players for one's own benifit. ~This explanation is logical because it states that something that is "against the rules" is unethical and is relevant to the argument~ 2. Luring is acceptable: because the "luree" is too stupid or inexperienced to know what is happening. ~This is totally irrelevant to the arguement becuase it is detouring the attention of the listener away from the point: ethecity of the action~ 3. Luring is acceptable: because it is the same as pking/bsing and those are legal. ~Pking is a sport, a dangerous one. It is an agreed match(agreed by entering the wilderness :ohnoes: between two players). Back stabbing is also lying and should also be reportable because the liar is decieving a player for his own gain, this also applies to fight pits #-o . Luring is is lying for your own gain and is, in essence, almost exactly like bsing. This is also illogical because pking and bsing aren't part of the arguement and the status on thos actions are not relevent to luring~ So really the only side giving credable information on whether or not luring is acceptable is the ones saying "Luring is unacceptable and should be against the ruels". Also the ones ,that are the ones defending luring, give repeated (and irrelevent) explanations get beat down by logical combacks. And when they know that they're beat they get mad :XD:. Did I make your brains hurt? \ BTW: I'm 13 not a lawyer :wall: