Sorry for the delay since my last reply. I have my priorities and due to more important things I wasn't able to reply as quickly as I would have liked.
Since so many people are hung up on definitions, let me clarify how I define exploiting:
Exploit:
To take advantage of a mistake with the hope to reap an unintended benefit.
This is very similar to how it is defined in some dictionaries.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/exploit.html
My definition of exploiting is not as broad as the definition in that link, it is more narrow. The more broad definition allows for both positive and negative uses of the term. A positive use is like the example on that site: "fully exploit natural gas reserves". My definition of exploiting is narrower, and focuses on the negative use of the term. "Exploiting the buff bug so that a temporary buff never expires."
For my definition to apply, you need a few things.
1) You need a mistake. A mistake can come in many forms. In videogames, the type of mistake most people are familiar with are what we call "software bugs". Mistakes aren't limited to "software bugs" though, and there are even different types of "software bugs". Sometimes "software bugs" are coding errors. The programmer makes a mistake during coding and the mistake isn't caught. Other times "software bugs" are design errors. The designers of the game made a mistake when telling the programmers what to do. The programmers implemented it per the designer's specification, but it still turned out to be "software bug".
2) Someone to take advantage of the mistake with the hope to reap an unintended benefit. Note that the person doesn't actually have to reap a benefit for it to be considered exploiting by my definition. If a person exploits a software bug to kill a mob and the chest doesn't contain an item that they can use, then the fact that they didn't reap any benefit doesn't mean they didn't exploit. They exploited because they took advantage of a mistake with the hope that they would reap a benefit.
That is how I define exploiting. Note again that it is narrower than the how it is defined dictionaries. Also notice that there is nothing in my definition that states whether or not public disclosure of information has any bearing on whether or not something qualifies as an exploit. A perfect example is the MIT/Avoidance bug that was recently fixed. Gallenite posted here about the bug and even stated "Enjoy this bug while it lasts, which won't be much longer.".
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/e...119253#M119253
Gallenite is a Producer, and public disclosure of bug info doesn't get any better than that. From my point of view, the fact that Gallenite came out and said what he said has no bearing on the question: is it an exploit to take advantage of that bug. From my definition, to take advantage of the mit/avoidance bug before Gallenite's post is just as wrong as taking advantage of it after Gallenite's post.
Now, Ixnay believes that public disclosure of information absolves him of all wrong doing, so I imagine that he took full advantage of all publicly disclosed information while he could. Hypothetical situation: After Gallenite's post, a guild uses the mit/avoidance bug to their advantage and downs an Avatar for a world-wide first. Would you consider their WW first kill to be legit? I wouldn't, but maybe you would be ok with it.
--------------------
The above is my definition for exploiting. It is my opinion. Wait, let me make a side note here. I should NEVER EVER have to type "it is my opinion" or "in my opinion". Why? Because I am the one typing the post, and it should be quite obvious that what I am typing is in fact: my opinion. You may disagree with my opinion, that is fine. All I am asking is to acknowledge the logic and reasoning used. If my logic or reasoning is flawed, point that out. If the only problem you have is a difference in opinion, then point out where that is, and then state your own opinion. I won't even ask you to be polite about it.
Now, why do I think Ixnay exploited? It's quite simple. His situation fits my definition.
1) We need a mistake. In this case, the mistake is that SOE announced the details of how a refund was going to be performed prior to actually making the refund. This allowed people to take advantage of the refund by purposely changing the state of their characters in order to satisfy the conditions for the refund a larger number of times. Ixnay said on page 4 of this very thread that he heard that one guy made 2000p from doing this. I don't know how anyone can look at that number and think, yeah, it wasn't an exploit. Numbers like that should be setting alarms off in your head. Do you think SOE intended to reward this player with 2000p for doing the following: reading about the refund, creating more adornments, adorning items with affected adornments. Do you think that SOE wanted to make the single largest money maker in the history of the game, with the exception of the lotto, to be this guy who adorned extra items with the sole purpose of getting more of the refund? If you don't think SOE made a mistake here, then we have very different views on what game we believe SOE is trying to create.
2) Now we need someone to take advantage of the mistake with the hope to reap an unintended benefit. In this case, we have Ixnay here. Ixnay had adornments on three of his characters, nothing wrong there, but then he went out of his way and adorned crap gear. Why would he go out of his way and adorn crap gear? He adorned crap gear because he hoped that he could benefit even more from the refund. It seems obviously to me that he did hope to benefit, and he did see a good chance of that happening. He did after all state several times that he took a gamble, and who would gamble with out the hope of winning? I'm not going to debate about how much of a gamble it was, because that isn't needed to support my definition of exploiting.
Ixnay fits my definition, so I label him as an exploiter. It is as simple as that. My original post as well as the reasoning I used there reflects this definition. I'm sorry that I have to make long winded posts like this one, but I see more flaming then people disagreeing with premises or pointing out flawed reasoning. My original post may have been critical of Ixnay, but that is because I honestly thought he made a mistake. I didn't believe at the time of my original post that Ixnay was fully aware of what he had done. I was wrong about him. Ixnay is fully aware of what he has done and is at terms with it. The whole reasoning behind my post was to help him wake up, because honestly I thought he had made a mistake. He doesn't view it that way, and that is fine.
As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. We all know exactly what Ixnay did and can come to our own conclusions about the morality of it. I just wanted to clarify why I posted the way I did, and give a more in depth reasoning for those who were interested. I'll continue to monitor this thread and reply when needed because it is inevitable that people will post questions, accusations, or maybe even someone will take what I've written and start a serious debate with it. Hopefully this is the last long post, because it took me an hour to write this one.
Re: LFG you dog...
