An Elitist's View on Crashing

[Troacctid]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

Uh, yeah. That's my whole point. If you don't accept that being there first gives you an exclusive claim to the spot, which I don't, then arguments against crashing work both ways because neither player has more right to be there than the other. If you do think being there first gives you an exclusive claim to the spot, then, well, you're wrong.

[Quyneax]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

What Studio says: first come first serve. What Troacctid says: not that. Now who is right?

[Troacctid]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

What Studio says: first come first serve. What Troacctid says: not that. Now who is right?

I am. Obviously. :ugeek:

[stonewall337]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

What Studio says: first come first serve. What Troacctid says: not that. Now who is right?

I am. Obviously. :ugeek:

 

Comes down to personal opinion and the "might makes right" factor.

[Troacctid]

Comes down to personal opinion and the "might makes right" factor.

I don't see it as having anything to do with might making right. Everyone has the right to fight and everyone has the right to lose if they lose and win if they win. And I'll respect anyone's right to compete for a spot, mighty or meek.

[stonewall337]

Comes down to personal opinion and the "might makes right" factor.

I don't see it as having anything to do with might making right. Everyone has the right to fight and everyone has the right to lose if they lose and win if they win. And I'll respect anyone's right to compete for a spot, mighty or meek.

"Might makes right" in the sense that if you can't defend your spot, I can take it. In this case, I have the "right" to use the spot, since I have the "might" to take it.

 

That is outside the argument of morals/ethics/manors. If you think the above argument is rude, I submit that you read some of the other arguments. Might makes right is mainly relevant when one believes that first comes first serve is a rather asinine argument against crashing. Personally, if someone gets so sore about being crashed at TDs that they will try and lure every TD one me, I'm more likely to hop then anything. If, however, you try and insult me continually, say things like "Die IRL" etc etc, then I will not only report you, but also try to get your ass killed, and keep you from getting your stuff back, because in that instance YOU are the one being the ass. If people would stop taking crashing personally, as some players (Who i've crashed, and been crashed by) do, it will make MH'ing far more enjoyable.

[SirIzenhime]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

What Studio says: first come first serve. What Troacctid says: not that. Now who is right?

 

What I got out of it was..

 

Studio : At least look, crash if you must

Troacctid : Screw that, you hop instead.

[Quyneax]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

What Studio says: first come first serve. What Troacctid says: not that. Now who is right?

 

What I got out of it was..

 

Studio : At least look, crash if you must

Troacctid : Screw that, you hop instead.

They are equally reasonable.

[SirIzenhime]

well, my opinion is different. A little common courtesy is good, you should at least make some resemblance of an attempt to find an open world and save crashing for later. If it comes down to it, then yea, crash, there's no other way. But I think you should at least hop a few times to make sure.

(please keep in mind this is an opinion of mine, and no argument will change that)

[Obtaurian]

Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead.

What Studio says: first come first serve. What Troacctid says: not that. Now who is right?

 

What I got out of it was..

 

Studio : At least look, crash if you must

Troacctid : Screw that, you hop instead.

 

Oh boy, this thread is full of misunderstandings today . . . on all sides. Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want). Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all), and Stonewall is saying that when it comes down to him versus the world, the world is likely to lose (because the world doesn't have overloads and turmoil; GF world).

 

At least, I think that's what everyone's saying. None of you are really contradicting either.

[Quyneax]

Oh boy, this thread is full of misunderstandings today . . . on all sides. Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want). Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all), and Stonewall is saying that when it comes down to him versus the world, the world is likely to lose (because the world doesn't have overloads and turmoil; GF world).

 

At least, I think that's what everyone's saying. None of you are really contradicting either.

I think it's also the divine :P.

[Obtaurian]

Oh boy, this thread is full of misunderstandings today . . . on all sides. Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want). Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all), and Stonewall is saying that when it comes down to him versus the world, the world is likely to lose (because the world doesn't have overloads and turmoil; GF world).

 

At least, I think that's what everyone's saying. None of you are really contradicting either.

I think it's also the divine :P.

 

A guy with a rune defender + CR/CLS will beat a guy with a divine + CR/CLS, but if both of these players are maxed, it's more than likely they wouldn't try to crash each other anyway.

[Troacctid]

Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want).

This is an accurate interpretation, yes.

 

Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all)

Oh, I read that loud and clear and I definitely disagree with it. If I can fight for a KBD spawn and win on the first world I try, then I see no reason to hop to new world and potentially have to compete with someone who can outdamage me. I say that arbitrarily hopping a few times before you crash someone isn't courtesy--it's a way of giving yourself moral high ground in the inevitable fight. (Which is unnecessary, as there aren't any morals involved as far as I'm concerned.)

[Obtaurian]

Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want).

This is an accurate interpretation, yes.

 

Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all)

Oh, I read that loud and clear and I definitely disagree with it. If I can fight for a KBD spawn and win on the first world I try, then I see no reason to hop to new world and potentially have to compete with someone who can outdamage me. I say that arbitrarily hopping a few times before you crash someone isn't courtesy--it's a way of giving yourself moral high ground in the inevitable fight. (Which is unnecessary, as there aren't any morals involved as far as I'm concerned.)

 

Oh I definitely agree with you for KBD. I was talking about DKs or TDs more specifically, where they're not THAT crowded and it's a bit harder to crash someone than, say, Bandos or KBD (so I guess it's more out of practicality than morality or whatever). I definitely agree with crashing the first person you see when soloing Bandos or KBD, because ALL of the worlds are going to be packed. That said, I'm definitely not going to fault someone for not hopping at all.

[Hamtaro]

Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want).

This is an accurate interpretation, yes.

 

Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all)

Oh, I read that loud and clear and I definitely disagree with it. If I can fight for a KBD spawn and win on the first world I try, then I see no reason to hop to new world and potentially have to compete with someone who can outdamage me. I say that arbitrarily hopping a few times before you crash someone isn't courtesy--it's a way of giving yourself moral high ground in the inevitable fight. (Which is unnecessary, as there aren't any morals involved as far as I'm concerned.)

Sorry for a late reply, was watching EPL.

 

I never thought about a lack of "morals." For me, morals are entirely different. I don't consider showing common courtesy "moral." I consider "morals" the basics like, you know, not killing or stealing (unless in self-defense or out of necessity).

 

I guess I can agree with you to a certain degree, but there are so many possible instances that there isn't really a right or wrong between us. You raise a good point about there not really being a difference between, say, crashing someone in your homeworld or crashing someone in w64.

 

It really boils down to the boss in question. At Bandos, you won't find an empty world, so I guess it won't matter how many times you hop, just crash. At DKs, TDs, KBD, or KQ (to name a few) there ARE empty/less crowded worlds, hop once or twice.

[Troacctid]

I guess I can agree with you to a certain degree, but there are so many possible instances that there isn't really a right or wrong between us.

No, I'm definitely right. ;-)

 

You raise a good point about there not really being a difference between, say, crashing someone in your homeworld or crashing someone in w64.

Well...64 is a lootshare world. Even I can concede that soloers should endeavor not to use lootshare worlds without trying non-lootshare ones first...it's a bit greedy to hog the designated team worlds when you aren't with a team. :-?

[Aiel]

Troacctid is just saying that there shouldn't be a double-standard for who has to hop, and that everyone technically has the right to stay in any place for as long as they want (unless they're killed, which they probably didn't want).

This is an accurate interpretation, yes.

 

Studio is saying that people should hop at least a few times before crashing (which I can agree with when it comes to certain bosses, but not all)

Oh, I read that loud and clear and I definitely disagree with it. If I can fight for a KBD spawn and win on the first world I try, then I see no reason to hop to new world and potentially have to compete with someone who can outdamage me. I say that arbitrarily hopping a few times before you crash someone isn't courtesy--it's a way of giving yourself moral high ground in the inevitable fight. (Which is unnecessary, as there aren't any morals involved as far as I'm concerned.)

Sorry for a late reply, was watching EPL.

 

I never thought about a lack of "morals." For me, morals are entirely different. I don't consider showing common courtesy "moral." I consider "morals" the basics like, you know, not killing or stealing (unless in self-defense or out of necessity).

 

I guess I can agree with you to a certain degree, but there are so many possible instances that there isn't really a right or wrong between us. You raise a good point about there not really being a difference between, say, crashing someone in your homeworld or crashing someone in w64.

 

It really boils down to the boss in question. At Bandos, you won't find an empty world, so I guess it won't matter how many times you hop, just crash. At DKs, TDs, KBD, or KQ (to name a few) there ARE empty/less crowded worlds, hop once or twice.

w64 is my homeworld, so no there's not really a difference.

[Hamtaro]

I guess I can agree with you to a certain degree, but there are so many possible instances that there isn't really a right or wrong between us.

No, I'm definitely right. ;-)

 

You raise a good point about there not really being a difference between, say, crashing someone in your homeworld or crashing someone in w64.

Well...64 is a lootshare world. Even I can concede that soloers should endeavor not to use lootshare worlds without trying non-lootshare ones first...it's a bit greedy to hog the designated team worlds when you aren't with a team. :-?

No need to be so condescending :mellow:. By that and your previous posts, it sounds like you're saying since you don't believe in any religious-based morality, you don't have to (make an attempt to) show any consideration for your fellow man (contrary to popular belief there IS a person behind the computer screen of every player). I say fellow man instead of fellow player because showing consideration shouldn't be limited to your employer (or principal/college recruiter, I don't know your situation).

 

Also, I apologize, w64 was just an example, as it's my homeworld. I forgot about Lootshare, so just pretend it's a random non-LS world.

 

w64 is my homeworld, so no there's not really a difference.

I guessed their homeworld was 22 by their Profile info on the left and my comment wasn't necessarily addressed to you (or any other user).

[Troacctid]

No need to be so condescending :mellow:. By that and your previous posts, it sounds like you're saying since you don't believe in any religious-based morality, you don't have to (make an attempt to) show any consideration for your fellow man (contrary to popular belief there IS a person behind the computer screen of every player). I say fellow man instead of fellow player because showing consideration shouldn't be limited to your employer (or principal/college recruiter, I don't know your situation).

Not really, no. Morningrise got it better.

[Sly_Wizard]

Okay let me address EVERYTHING you wrote. You asked for it.

 

Oh, joy.

 

A zero sum game is worse than a situation with positive net gains.

 

And how is that? Repeating something a million times doesn't make it any less wrong then it was the millionth time then the first time.

 

Irrefutably wrong.

 

Except it's not, which is why you've yet to refute it or even try to refute it.

 

Crashing is efficient, and for some people crashing is fun. You cannot deny this.

 

And in the same vein, scamming is both efficient (Seriously. Why spend a year trying to save up for a party hat when you can scam someone and get one in a day?) and fun for some people. So following your logic, you should have nothing against scamming if someone wants to rationalize it this way. Yet you do, which leads us back to square one in which you erroneously believe that scamming is wrong because it's a zero-sum game, instead of scamming being wrong because it negatively impedes upon the gameplay of another player without that player agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to be impeded upon.

 

No, we are not justifying them regardless of the negative effects. We are justifying them despite them, because the gains outweigh the losses. No one denies that when a 138 crashes a 110, the 110 incurs losses.

 

*facepalm*

 

Me: You crash people regardless of the effect it has on the person you crash.

You: Not true! We crash people regardless of how it affects someone else!

 

Yet again I point out the fact that, if for some odd reason, crashing was a zero-sum game, that you would still crash. I know this. You know this. And everyone else who reads this thread knows this. The decision to crash someone has nothing to do with what the other person will lose if you crash, but rather the benefit to yourself you obtain by crashing, which is why 90% of the arguments for crashing boil down to "It's efficient for me to crash!". Jeezuz! That's not hard to understand. Or is it?

 

Obviously you don't know what it is, because it definitely has bearing on the comparison you drew between account hacking/scamming and crashing.

 

And it's obviously obvious that you still don't know what you're talking about. Any PvP activity in which the defeated player loses his or her items to the victorious player is, more-or-less, a zero-sum game. Is that wrong? The answer to that question is no, because PvP requires two willing participants who accept the fact that they can attack and kill others for their items or be attacked and be killed for their items. When it comes to scamming someone, there is no such agreement. It's merely one player doing to another without that other player's consent. Hacking is the same. Crashing is the same. The crashed do not asked to be crashed, nor do they agree to it. In fact, the activity that people who are crashed are engaging in has nothing to do with competing against another player, nor are they in a PvP area, but rather competing against a certain monster or NPC (That's why it's called PvM). At the end of the day, crashing is merely one player impeding on the gameplay of another because they can. Which, you know, is the point.

 

Okay here's your big point, which is wrong. I do not crash people at spirit mages, zamorak, solo saradomin, solo armadyl, etc. I hop worlds. I crash(ed) (technically I don't do bandos anymore, but if I were to do it I WOULD crash no doubt) because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN OPEN WORLD THERE WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. No one has argued that crashing anywhere any time is a good thing.

 

Doesn't refute anything I typed out. You might as well have told me how you like chocolate milk as it would have been just about as relevant a response. I know I'm not the only one who has pointed this out, but crashers crash because they can. Everything else is extraneous to this fact. Everything. If you couldn't crash someone, you wouldn't even try to crash. And that's the bottom line.

 

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

 

Would you like an e-cookie?

 

You've got to stop feeding the troll, dude.

 

I have a mind to call you a noob and point out how I've got yada yada yada... But that would make me elitist.

[Troacctid]

 

Okay let me address EVERYTHING you wrote. You asked for it.

 

Oh, joy.

 

A zero sum game is worse than a situation with positive net gains.

 

And how is that? Repeating something a million times doesn't make it any less wrong then it was the millionth time then the first time.

 

Irrefutably wrong.

 

Except it's not, which is why you've yet to refute it or even try to refute it.

 

Crashing is efficient, and for some people crashing is fun. You cannot deny this.

 

And in the same vein, scamming is both efficient (Seriously. Why spend a year trying to save up for a party hat when you can scam someone and get one in a day?) and fun for some people. So following your logic, you should have nothing against scamming if someone wants to rationalize it this way. Yet you do, which leads us back to square one in which you erroneously believe that scamming is wrong because it's a zero-sum game, instead of scamming being wrong because it negatively impedes upon the gameplay of another player without that player agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to be impeded upon.

 

No, we are not justifying them regardless of the negative effects. We are justifying them despite them, because the gains outweigh the losses. No one denies that when a 138 crashes a 110, the 110 incurs losses.

 

*facepalm*

 

Me: You crash people regardless of the effect it has on the person you crash.

You: Not true! We crash people regardless of how it affects someone else!

 

Yet again I point out the fact that, if for some odd reason, crashing was a zero-sum game, that you would still crash. I know this. You know this. And everyone else who reads this thread knows this. The decision to crash someone has nothing to do with what the other person will lose if you crash, but rather the benefit to yourself you obtain by crashing, which is why 90% of the arguments for crashing boil down to "It's efficient for me to crash!". Jeezuz! That's not hard to understand. Or is it?

 

Obviously you don't know what it is, because it definitely has bearing on the comparison you drew between account hacking/scamming and crashing.

 

And it's obviously obvious that you still don't know what you're talking about. Any PvP activity in which the defeated player loses his or her items to the victorious player is, more-or-less, a zero-sum game. Is that wrong? The answer to that question is no, because PvP requires two willing participants who accept the fact that they can attack and kill others for their items or be attacked and be killed for their items. When it comes to scamming someone, there is no such agreement. It's merely one player doing to another without that other player's consent. Hacking is the same. Crashing is the same. The crashed do not asked to be crashed, nor do they agree to it. In fact, the activity that people who are crashed are engaging in has nothing to do with competing against another player, but rather competing against a certain monster or NPC (That's why it's called PvM). At the end of the day, crashing is merely one player impeding on the gameplay of another because they can. Which, you know, is the point.

 

Okay here's your big point, which is wrong. I do not crash people at spirit mages, zamorak, solo saradomin, solo armadyl, etc. I hop worlds. I crash(ed) (technically I don't do bandos anymore, but if I were to do it I WOULD crash no doubt) because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN OPEN WORLD THERE WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. No one has argued that crashing anywhere any time is a good thing.

 

Doesn't refute anything I typed out. You might as well have told me how you like chocolate milk as it would have been just about as relevant a response. I know I'm not the only one who has pointed this out, but crashers crash because they can. Everything else is extraneous to this fact. Everything. If you couldn't crash someone, you wouldn't even try to crash. And that's the bottom line ('Cuz I said so).

 

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

 

Would you like an e-cookie?

 

Please don't feed the troll.

[Obtaurian]

 

Okay let me address EVERYTHING you wrote. You asked for it.

 

Oh, joy.

 

A zero sum game is worse than a situation with positive net gains.

 

And how is that? Repeating something a million times doesn't make it any less wrong then it was the millionth time then the first time.

 

Irrefutably wrong.

 

Except it's not, which is why you've yet to refute it or even try to refute it.

 

Crashing is efficient, and for some people crashing is fun. You cannot deny this.

 

And in the same vein, scamming is both efficient (Seriously. Why spend a year trying to save up for a party hat when you can scam someone and get one in a day?) and fun for some people. So following your logic, you should have nothing against scamming if someone wants to rationalize it this way. Yet you do, which leads us back to square one in which you erroneously believe that scamming is wrong because it's a zero-sum game, instead of scamming being wrong because it negatively impedes upon the gameplay of another player without that player agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to be impeded upon.

 

No, we are not justifying them regardless of the negative effects. We are justifying them despite them, because the gains outweigh the losses. No one denies that when a 138 crashes a 110, the 110 incurs losses.

 

*facepalm*

 

Me: You crash people regardless of the effect it has on the person you crash.

You: Not true! We crash people regardless of how it affects someone else!

 

Yet again I point out the fact that, if for some odd reason, crashing was a zero-sum game, that you would still crash. I know this. You know this. And everyone else who reads this thread knows this. The decision to crash someone has nothing to do with what the other person will lose if you crash, but rather the benefit to yourself you obtain by crashing, which is why 90% of the arguments for crashing boil down to "It's efficient for me to crash!". Jeezuz! That's not hard to understand. Or is it?

 

Obviously you don't know what it is, because it definitely has bearing on the comparison you drew between account hacking/scamming and crashing.

 

And it's obviously obvious that you still don't know what you're talking about. Any PvP activity in which the defeated player loses his or her items to the victorious player is, more-or-less, a zero-sum game. Is that wrong? The answer to that question is no, because PvP requires two willing participants who accept the fact that they can attack and kill others for their items or be attacked and be killed for their items. When it comes to scamming someone, there is no such agreement. It's merely one player doing to another without that other player's consent. Hacking is the same. Crashing is the same. The crashed do not asked to be crashed, nor do they agree to it. In fact, the activity that people who are crashed are engaging in has nothing to do with competing against another player, but rather competing against a certain monster or NPC (That's why it's called PvM). At the end of the day, crashing is merely one player impeding on the gameplay of another because they can. Which, you know, is the point.

 

Okay here's your big point, which is wrong. I do not crash people at spirit mages, zamorak, solo saradomin, solo armadyl, etc. I hop worlds. I crash(ed) (technically I don't do bandos anymore, but if I were to do it I WOULD crash no doubt) because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN OPEN WORLD THERE WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. No one has argued that crashing anywhere any time is a good thing.

 

Doesn't refute anything I typed out. You might as well have told me how you like chocolate milk as it would have been just about as relevant a response. I know I'm not the only one who has pointed this out, but crashers crash because they can. Everything else is extraneous to this fact. Everything. If you couldn't crash someone, you wouldn't even try to crash. And that's the bottom line ('Cuz I said so).

 

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

 

Would you like an e-cookie?

 

Please don't feed the troll.

 

A big +1 to that.

[Sly_Wizard]

Please don't feed the troll.

 

Sounds to me like you're still trying to feed it, quoting its posts and all.

 

*pats on head*

 

You're so cute when you try. But try harder, okay? ;)

[stonewall337]

 

Okay let me address EVERYTHING you wrote. You asked for it.

 

Oh, joy.

 

A zero sum game is worse than a situation with positive net gains.

 

And how is that? Repeating something a million times doesn't make it any less wrong then it was the millionth time then the first time.

 

Irrefutably wrong.

 

Except it's not, which is why you've yet to refute it or even try to refute it.

 

Crashing is efficient, and for some people crashing is fun. You cannot deny this.

 

And in the same vein, scamming is both efficient (Seriously. Why spend a year trying to save up for a party hat when you can scam someone and get one in a day?) and fun for some people. So following your logic, you should have nothing against scamming if someone wants to rationalize it this way. Yet you do, which leads us back to square one in which you erroneously believe that scamming is wrong because it's a zero-sum game, instead of scamming being wrong because it negatively impedes upon the gameplay of another player without that player agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to be impeded upon.

 

No, we are not justifying them regardless of the negative effects. We are justifying them despite them, because the gains outweigh the losses. No one denies that when a 138 crashes a 110, the 110 incurs losses.

 

*facepalm*

 

Me: You crash people regardless of the effect it has on the person you crash.

You: Not true! We crash people regardless of how it affects someone else!

 

Yet again I point out the fact that, if for some odd reason, crashing was a zero-sum game, that you would still crash. I know this. You know this. And everyone else who reads this thread knows this. The decision to crash someone has nothing to do with what the other person will lose if you crash, but rather the benefit to yourself you obtain by crashing, which is why 90% of the arguments for crashing boil down to "It's efficient for me to crash!". Jeezuz! That's not hard to understand. Or is it?

 

Obviously you don't know what it is, because it definitely has bearing on the comparison you drew between account hacking/scamming and crashing.

 

And it's obviously obvious that you still don't know what you're talking about. Any PvP activity in which the defeated player loses his or her items to the victorious player is, more-or-less, a zero-sum game. Is that wrong? The answer to that question is no, because PvP requires two willing participants who accept the fact that they can attack and kill others for their items or be attacked and be killed for their items. When it comes to scamming someone, there is no such agreement. It's merely one player doing to another without that other player's consent. Hacking is the same. Crashing is the same. The crashed do not asked to be crashed, nor do they agree to it. In fact, the activity that people who are crashed are engaging in has nothing to do with competing against another player, but rather competing against a certain monster or NPC (That's why it's called PvM). At the end of the day, crashing is merely one player impeding on the gameplay of another because they can. Which, you know, is the point.

 

Okay here's your big point, which is wrong. I do not crash people at spirit mages, zamorak, solo saradomin, solo armadyl, etc. I hop worlds. I crash(ed) (technically I don't do bandos anymore, but if I were to do it I WOULD crash no doubt) because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN OPEN WORLD THERE WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. No one has argued that crashing anywhere any time is a good thing.

 

Doesn't refute anything I typed out. You might as well have told me how you like chocolate milk as it would have been just about as relevant a response. I know I'm not the only one who has pointed this out, but crashers crash because they can. Everything else is extraneous to this fact. Everything. If you couldn't crash someone, you wouldn't even try to crash. And that's the bottom line ('Cuz I said so).

 

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

 

Would you like an e-cookie?

 

Please don't feed the troll.

 

A big +1 to that.

 

When you are wrong, use extensive sarcasm, as in the case of the OP

 

+2

[Intse]

I'm usually not the type to say this but damn. Rs community sure has gone to [cabbage].