pedorlee wrote:Zeler wrote:Gates open, do vclaim. Obvious security flaws.
lol? They declaimed you pclaim with a vclaim? Seems legit
no. The vclaim was new, nothing got declaimed.
pedorlee wrote:Zeler wrote:Gates open, do vclaim. Obvious security flaws.
lol? They declaimed you pclaim with a vclaim? Seems legit
ven wrote:The problem with judging abuses leniently is that it motivates users to exploit grey areas for their own reasons and for great damage. "Was this a bug? Was it not? I don't know, but there's a precedent for leniency so I'll use it without fear of severe punishment".
Overtyped does have a point: how do you restitute a loss of this kind?
Sollar wrote:ven wrote:The problem with judging abuses leniently is that it motivates users to exploit grey areas for their own reasons and for great damage. "Was this a bug? Was it not? I don't know, but there's a precedent for leniency so I'll use it without fear of severe punishment".
Overtyped does have a point: how do you restitute a loss of this kind?
In hindsight of the recently Tartaros case, I would not keep my hopes up. Sorry Bob, we did not get even a 5% off the next store purchase. See you next world I guess
overtyped wrote:I took every conceivable precaution here.
overtyped wrote:I had my gates open
Jorb wrote:You might want to explore this implementation carefully, as it may contain bugs, unforseen consequences, or strange edge cases we haven't thought of
leanne69 wrote:Jorb wrote:You might want to explore this implementation carefully, as it may contain bugs, unforseen consequences, or strange edge cases we haven't thought of
Jorb wrote:This is not to say that any and all attempts to circumvent the visitor debuff would be considered kosher, but at some point we have to draw a line where mechanical problem ends, and reasonable user error begins.
overtyped wrote:I took every conceivable precaution here..
Comodo wrote:Well they built a vclaim, and it must have precedence over your pclaim seeing how they didn't get visitor buff here. I wouldn't call this a bug. Just a security flaw on your part. If a village wants to extend their vclaim (or build their own vclaim) to eradicate some personal claim they should be able to.
Like Jorb saidJorb wrote:This is not to say that any and all attempts to circumvent the visitor debuff would be considered kosher, but at some point we have to draw a line where mechanical problem ends, and reasonable user error begins.
overtyped wrote:Comodo wrote:Well they built a vclaim, and it must have precedence over your pclaim seeing how they didn't get visitor buff here. I wouldn't call this a bug. Just a security flaw on your part. If a village wants to extend their vclaim (or build their own vclaim) to eradicate some personal claim they should be able to.
Like Jorb saidJorb wrote:This is not to say that any and all attempts to circumvent the visitor debuff would be considered kosher, but at some point we have to draw a line where mechanical problem ends, and reasonable user error begins.
nah, the vclaim is new.
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot] and 4 guests