Heffernan Makes a Bet

[Dallane]

There he goes evolving again.

[Agripeta]

After reading pages and pages of arguing, each stating the other is a lie and a cheat. This has become a matter of honor.
I propose a bloodmoon duel to the death! To the docks!

[Nagualcina]

I think Heffernan is right.

[Vexus]

Many, many times in the forums and the patch notes, we've referred to being 'logged on' as having a character in the game, whether or not you are controlling it. For example, "Your character will stay logged on if you leave the game without a Homestead". Perhaps that isn't the exactly correct technical term, but who cares? So long as everyone understands what is meant.

The situation being talked about just before this bet was made was players going mad because they 'logged out', but their characters stayed 'logged in' for several more hours, leaving them to become mad. That was understood by all involved in the bet. Heffernan was trying to claim that it was impossible for his character to be in the game, becoming more insane and gaining madness levels, if he was on the character selection screen for that account. Dallane's counterargument was that it was entirely possible, and it was Heffernan who offered the bet on those terms. He was absolutely proven wrong. It is 100% possible to improperly log out or otherwise leave the game in such a way that you can be on your character selection screen while you still have a character, or even several, from that account, sitting around in the game gaining insanity. Therefore, Dallane wins.

Any arguments about the exact legal definition of 'Logged In', or whether or not Dallane had the money to put up (seriously?), are completely spurious. The only question left isn't whether or not Heffernan lost, it's whether or not he'll pay up the bet that he lost.

Yes, we common refer to marriage these days as being between any two people, however it does not change the definition of it as being one man and one woman. To believe otherwise is madness in itself. Just because I use a term incorrectly, does not change the meaning of the term when it comes down to matters of disagreement.

So here, we have a lot of people throwing around a term casually. Being logged in is a simple way to reference an idea, but is not actually correct to refer to a character which still exists in game even when you don't have control over it. In fact, there is no term I can think of to explain this event. I shall hereby name this situation vextion (vex-shun), a confusing/confused connection. Vextion shall now be internet coined as the phrase for having your character existing in a game while the client is not connected.

Since we can interact with all characters in Salem at any time, even if the client is logged in or not, all characters are always in the game. This defeats the argument of having a "character logged into the game" meaning anything else than having access and control of the character. This is because we are establishing a different state from the 'normal' state, which is that there is always a shell of your character in the game.

You are wrong in who offered the bet - Dallane initiated the bet, on the terms of having a "character logged into the game" and also being at the login screen with that same account.

The issue can be summed up as follows: Heffernan logged out, disconnecting his access to his character. He then left his client at the character selection screen. He came back and logged in, only to find his character had gained madness levels for no apparent reason. He was then told by devs that his character was logged in on the server for an additional four hours. He of course was not, otherwise he would not be at the character select screen. In fact, his character was in a state of vextion whereby Salem still renders or otherwise continues to apply Insanity to the character. This is where people get confused and throw around the term "logged in" to mean something it is not. Keep in mind, Insanity is not even in question at this point. In addition, we all know being in combat and rage quitting puts your character in vextion. That as well is not part of the bet. "Can I have a character existing in game while I am at the login screen?" is an easy yes. That was not what was put forth.

Heffernan then states "and yep i kept my client open and at character login but that would still mean all characters are logged off."

To which Dallane takes issue, and questions, "Are you actually saying that I can't be on the logon screen with a character logged in the game?"

Heffernan replies, "not on the same account."

To which the bet is offered by Dallane, "I will bet you 10k silver right now that this is possible."

Heffernan stated a situation, Dallane took issue with that situation and countered it, saying he could provide evidence against Heffernan's situation. The bet is made on Heffernan's account of the situation in his first quote above.

Unfortunately, it is the poor wording of the bet which makes Dallane lose the bet. If I made a bet with you for $1000 that I could jump over three cars in a single bound, you would be wise to understand the actual term of the car, or clarify said term, before I jump over three Hot-Wheels and stick my hand in your face saying, "WHERE MY DOLLA AT!?"

Also, nowhere is it claimed that a character cannot persist in Salem when a player is logged off. In fact, all characters persist. So it is a moot point to even bring it up in Dallane's favor.

I would love to find it any other way, however it is simply by the wording Dallane used that makes him lose the bet. Dallane bet that he could be at the character screen of his account, and also logged into a character in game with that same account, and then attempted to prove himself by having shells of his characters exist in the game side by side, warping the wording of the bet. The sharp jump to asking for payment, and sharp conclusion that Heffernan lost, was why I took interest in this issue.

Dallane lost the bet.

[Synnestry]

Many, many times in the forums and the patch notes, we've referred to being 'logged on' as having a character in the game, whether or not you are controlling it. For example, "Your character will stay logged on if you leave the game without a Homestead". Perhaps that isn't the exactly correct technical term, but who cares? So long as everyone understands what is meant.

The situation being talked about just before this bet was made was players going mad because they 'logged out', but their characters stayed 'logged in' for several more hours, leaving them to become mad. That was understood by all involved in the bet. Heffernan was trying to claim that it was impossible for his character to be in the game, becoming more insane and gaining madness levels, if he was on the character selection screen for that account. Dallane's counterargument was that it was entirely possible, and it was Heffernan who offered the bet on those terms. He was absolutely proven wrong. It is 100% possible to improperly log out or otherwise leave the game in such a way that you can be on your character selection screen while you still have a character, or even several, from that account, sitting around in the game gaining insanity. Therefore, Dallane wins.

Any arguments about the exact legal definition of 'Logged In', or whether or not Dallane had the money to put up (seriously?), are completely spurious. The only question left isn't whether or not Heffernan lost, it's whether or not he'll pay up the bet that he lost.

Yes, we common refer to marriage these days as being between any two people, however it does not change the definition of it as being one man and one woman. To believe otherwise is madness in itself. Just because I use a term incorrectly, does not change the meaning of the term when it comes down to matters of disagreement.

So here, we have a lot of people throwing around a term casually. Being logged in is a simple way to reference an idea, but is not actually correct to refer to a character which still exists in game even when you don't have control over it. In fact, there is no term I can think of to explain this event. I shall hereby name this situation vextion (vex-shun), a confusing/confused connection. Vextion shall now be internet coined as the phrase for having your character existing in a game while the client is not connected.

Since we can interact with all characters in Salem at any time, even if the client is logged in or not, all characters are always in the game. This defeats the argument of having a "character logged into the game" meaning anything else than having access and control of the character. This is because we are establishing a different state from the 'normal' state, which is that there is always a shell of your character in the game.

You are wrong in who offered the bet - Dallane initiated the bet, on the terms of having a "character logged into the game" and also being at the login screen with that same account.

The issue can be summed up as follows: Heffernan logged out, disconnecting his access to his character. He then left his client at the character selection screen. He came back and logged in, only to find his character had gained madness levels for no apparent reason. He was then told by devs that his character was logged in on the server for an additional four hours. He of course was not, otherwise he would not be at the character select screen. In fact, his character was in a state of vextion whereby Salem still renders or otherwise continues to apply Insanity to the character. This is where people get confused and throw around the term "logged in" to mean something it is not. Keep in mind, Insanity is not even in question at this point.

Heffernan then states "and yep i kept my client open and at character login but that would still mean all characters are logged off."

To which Dallane takes issue, and questions, "Are you actually saying that I can't be on the logon screen with a character logged in the game?"

Heffernan replies, "not on the same account."

To which the bet is offered by Dallane, "I will bet you 10k silver right now that this is possible."

Heffernan stated a situation, Dallane took issue with that situation and countered it, saying he could provide evidence against Heffernan's situation. The bet is made on Heffernan's account of the situation in his first quote above.

Unfortunately, it is the poor wording of the bet which makes Dallane lose the bet. If I made a bet with you for $1000 that I could jump over three cars in a single bound, you would be wise to understand the actual term of the car, or clarify said term, before I jump over three Hot-Wheels and stick my hand in your face saying, "WHERE MY DOLLA AT!?"

Also, nowhere is it claimed that a character cannot persist in Salem when a player is logged off. In fact, all characters persist. So it is a moot point to even bring it up in Dallane's favor.

This +1

[Dallane]

This +1

For someone being with the "in" crowd you should be nicer.

[Heffernan]

This +1

For someone being with the "in" crowd you should be nicer.

he is with the "in" crowd, not sure what ur talking about.

[Dallane]

This +1

For someone being with the "in" crowd you should be nicer.

he is with the "in" crowd, not sure what ur talking about.

Thats exactly what I said......it's also she

[Synnestry]

Wow I gotta agree with Dallane, this time. Write it down cause I don't intend this to happen again!!! I am in actual shock atm. Dallane 1, the rest of us 1000000000000. Keep going, you can catch up!!

Heff, I think he was saying I should have written a thoughtful response instead of just +1. My apologies.

[NeiroShop]

Yes, we common refer to marriage these days as being between any two people, however it does not change the definition of it as being one man and one woman. To believe otherwise is madness in itself. Just because I use a term incorrectly, does not change the meaning of the term when it comes down to matters of disagreement.

So here, we have a lot of people throwing around a term casually. Being logged in is a simple way to reference an idea, but is not actually correct to refer to a character which still exists in game even when you don't have control over it. In fact, there is no term I can think of to explain this event. I shall hereby name this situation vextion (vex-shun), a confusing/confused connection. Vextion shall now be internet coined as the phrase for having your character existing in a game while the client is not connected.

Since we can interact with all characters in Salem at any time, even if the client is logged in or not, all characters are always in the game. This defeats the argument of having a "character logged into the game" meaning anything else than having access and control of the character. This is because we are establishing a different state from the 'normal' state, which is that there is always a shell of your character in the game.

You are wrong in who offered the bet - Dallane initiated the bet, on the terms of having a "character logged into the game" and also being at the login screen with that same account.

The issue can be summed up as follows: Heffernan logged out, disconnecting his access to his character. He then left his client at the character selection screen. He came back and logged in, only to find his character had gained madness levels for no apparent reason. He was then told by devs that his character was logged in on the server for an additional four hours. He of course was not, otherwise he would not be at the character select screen. In fact, his character was in a state of vextion whereby Salem still renders or otherwise continues to apply Insanity to the character. This is where people get confused and throw around the term "logged in" to mean something it is not. Keep in mind, Insanity is not even in question at this point. In addition, we all know being in combat and rage quitting puts your character in vextion. That as well is not part of the bet. "Can I have a character existing in game while I am at the login screen?" is an easy yes. That was not what was put forth.

Heffernan then states "and yep i kept my client open and at character login but that would still mean all characters are logged off."

To which Dallane takes issue, and questions, "Are you actually saying that I can't be on the logon screen with a character logged in the game?"

Heffernan replies, "not on the same account."

To which the bet is offered by Dallane, "I will bet you 10k silver right now that this is possible."

Heffernan stated a situation, Dallane took issue with that situation and countered it, saying he could provide evidence against Heffernan's situation. The bet is made on Heffernan's account of the situation in his first quote above.

Unfortunately, it is the poor wording of the bet which makes Dallane lose the bet. If I made a bet with you for $1000 that I could jump over three cars in a single bound, you would be wise to understand the actual term of the car, or clarify said term, before I jump over three Hot-Wheels and stick my hand in your face saying, "WHERE MY DOLLA AT!?"

Also, nowhere is it claimed that a character cannot persist in Salem when a player is logged off. In fact, all characters persist. So it is a moot point to even bring it up in Dallane's favor.

I would love to find it any other way, however it is simply by the wording Dallane used that makes him lose the bet. Dallane bet that he could be at the character screen of his account, and also logged into a character in game with that same account, and then attempted to prove himself by having shells of his characters exist in the game side by side, warping the wording of the bet. The sharp jump to asking for payment, and sharp conclusion that Heffernan lost, was why I took interest in this issue.

Dallane lost the bet.

We have a new Claegue patient. Someone quick kill him to spare the world.