Attacking for the Sole Reason that Someone is Offline is Dishonorable Play

[_____________Sleekit]

I agree bases go to 25% at the same time every day if you love your towers so much baby sit them for 4 hours, too say I'm offline you can't attack me well that could be so easily exploited.

Oh lets stay up one night and build a tower at 4 in the morning and that way we can never be attacked cause normally we aren't on at that time

[____________Platypus]

Attack the enemy when they are at their weakest.


You like to take this game seriously, so things will get dirty, thats how war can get fought, and it is done so to win. If you can't handle it, go play something else that does not deal with war or fighting.

If our base gets attacked and destroyed when I'm not online, then gosh darnit, we'll take it back when we get online.

We used to have a base in 2ho, fought for 2 days to keep it then we said screw it, it wasn't worth fighting over that land every single day. So build where you can defend it. AND like how so many others say, if you can't defend it, then don't build it.

If you build it, they will come, and they won't send a tell to everyone in your org to find out if your online or not. Theres been a time when we went to attack a base and no one showed up to defend it, so we still destroyed it. Honorable were we? Honorable to the clans we were for destroying another of Omni-teks Notum facilities. We were lucky that no one showed up, we didn't know if they were online or offline, didn't bother to ask them, and would have NEVER asked them. Thats like telling your enemy your plans.


And on a side note, if the sun was made of cheese, would you eat it?

[sike]

Havent read all of the psts cause i cant be bothered... I have one thing to say...

Notum WARS!!!

you think germany waited until the polish army was on full alert and all awake to invade? you think that when the Mongols invaded china they sent them nice note to say when and where they would arrive?

Im thinking not... As a game that is striving to achieve some level of realism, its a good thing to have this feature in. It will encourage orgs to recruit from other time zones too.

[Canto]

OK same old confusions between "war" and "wargames" and the "I don't have to wait until you are online" distortion so...

1) If you can't tell the difference between mounting an attack when your opponent happens to be offline and purposefully planning your attack so that your opponent will almost certainly be offline then you are an imbecile.

2) If you can't tell the difference between a "war" and a "wargame" you are an imbecile.

3) Most imbeciles can't read or operate computers.

4) Cut the BS people. If you would throw dirt in your opponent's eyes behind the referee's back, then you would plan an attack specifically to coincide with your opponent's absence from the game. If that is you, then just admit it.

Here is your real position:

The anonymity of the internet and of Anarchy Online makes it unlikely that I will ever suffer any consequences from behavior that would normally be scorned in public so I will do anything I can get away with to better my position in the game.

Any thoughts?

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Sanskrit
OK same old confusions between "war" and "wargames" and the "I don't have to wait until you are online" distortion so...

1) If you can't tell the difference between mounting an attack when your opponent happens to be offline and purposefully planning your attack so that your opponent will almost certainly be offline then you are an imbecile.

2) If you can't tell the difference between a "war" and a "wargame" you are an imbecile.

3) Most imbeciles can't read or operate computers.

4) Cut the BS people. If you would throw dirt in your opponent's eyes behind the referee's back, then you would plan an attack specifically to coincide with your opponent's absence from the game. If that is you, then just admit it.

Here is your real position:

The anonymity of the internet and of Anarchy Online makes it unlikely that I will ever suffer any consequences from behavior that would normally be scorned in public so I will do anything I can get away with to better my position in the game.

Any thoughts?

Yes. The thought that you still don't get it crosses my mind.

It's a game. It has a war setting. Irregardless of the "All's fair in..." cliche, nobody has demanded anyone play this game honorably. Nobody except you, that is, which is leading to your ridicule.

If you can't get it through that few people care about your Code of Honor on this particular subject, more the pity to you when people do whatever it takes within the rules to beat you senseless. You can demand fair and honorable play till you turn blue in the face. Newsflash:
For a large number of people in all games, computer and otherwise, "Fair and Honorable Play" is defined purely by the ruleset...And nothing more.

[Jynne]

This argument is still going on?

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Jynne
This argument is still going on?

Heh...I had left him alone and was replying to people with ideas... But he's like a bad mosquito bite. You just can't avoid scratching

[steppenrazor]

So is attacking when your enemy is asleep. Or drunk or out of town. or with his back to you.

doesn't stop wars in real life now does it?


What you expect people to say 'Hum we want that base' Sends base owner a tell - "Hi! hows it going!, look, we want your base. planning on attacking aorund 6ish. That good for you? No, how about tommarow at 5ish, that would work? cool thanks see you then."


Welcome to the party pal.

So yea, if i know my foes on-line time. Then i'd hit his base when he was off line.

why? Called stragaty. If you know when your foes base is weakly defended, thats the time to hit.

so what if thier off line. Thier fault, thier problem not mine.

Think about it, if you we're the boss of a country, who hated your nabor, and wanted his land.

When would you attack? When all his troops are rdy and waiting for you?

Or would you wait untill he sends his troops home for a 2 week leave?

Me, i'm pounce on him during that 2 week leave.

his dumb fault for trying to run a county and letting his defender take time off.

Same with bases. You want a base? better make damn sure your guild has folks all over the world, in difrent time zones.

So you'll always have a few folks on.

honestly, what do you want, is this not ------ WAR? in war you kill people and break stuff. Your just as likely of getting killed in your sleep as you are standing up. (sleep being pretty much the same as off line. )

The so called "Rules of war" are just to make us feel better. Thier are no rules to war. No matter who wins the war, the other side willl have thier people put on trial for 'breaking the rules of war'. it could have eisly been our boys on trial at nurmburg.

If needs must you sneal behind enemy lines killing his commnaders, you do what ever it takes to win. Cut his though while sleeping? ok, its war baby. Plant a bomb to blow up a ammo dump in the middle of the night? WAR, baby..

Or should we all hold hands and sing kumbya? thinking happy happy joy joy thoughts?

No! Attackign when your foes off line is EXACTLY the same as attack when your foe is a sleep or at weaken strength. Thier is no defriance.

I plna my attack when my enemy sleeps, so as to over whelm him and defeat him before he can moutn any effective defensive correct?

Same with off-line.

don't like wakeing up finding your 50 mill cred base gone? Tough. your dumb fault for not haveing a bigger/more devrise guild.

Should i hold back becuase you didn't plan ahead? No. Your issue not mine.

The burden of defense is on the defender. To make sure you have people to defend 24/7. If you miss out a few hours? Hows fault is it if your base is destroyed? the Attacker?

WHO YOU KNEW WAS COMEING AT SOME POINT. Or the defender for failing to adquatly defend his base?

The burden is on the defender.


Steppenrazor
'Its not important how many people i've kill. what important is how i get along with thouse who are still alive." - Bruce Willis, Whole 9 yards.

[Canto]

Originally posted by Kuroshio

nobody has demanded anyone play this game honorably. Nobody except you, that is, which is leading to your ridicule.

I haven't demanded anything, only stated my position that if you attack "because" your opponent is not playing the game you are playing dishonorably.

The great weight of "ridicule" here is a heavy burden to bear, but I think I'll manage.

Whereas I never demanded anything, I did ask for thoughts. So far the responses made share little in common with thoughts:

1. "It's not my problem to make sure you are online before planning an attack." (straw man)

2. "This is war, not people playing a game on the internet, but real honest to god war." (please don't shoot me on the street over this game)

3. "Can't wait to take your base." (troll)

4. "You can't force your point of view on anyone else. I will play as I please." (keen grasp of the obvious)

5. " Defense of towers, gas, etc. is something the org must plan for" (on Christmas morning?)

Originally posted by Kuroshio

If you can't get it through that few people care about your Code of Honor on this particular subject,

errr, thanks for the BUMP, uncaring one

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Newsflash: [people still say this? lol]
For a large number of people in all games, computer and otherwise, "Fair and Honorable Play" is defined purely by the ruleset...And nothing more.

Yes, those people are usually referred to as jerks, poor sports, or worse (most of the other names can't be printed here) and have a hard time in life because of it. The anonymity of the internet allows us to see how many people would truly become jerks if accountability is removed. In other words, it proves the point that many "would-be" jerks are too cowardly and craven to fly their true jerk colors, but give them a monitor and cable to hide behind and their true "jerk-nature" comes shining right through.

BTW, care to point me to the "ruleset" for AO? There must be a big thick comprehensive tome somewhere that describes "the rules," exploits, cheats, WHERE IS IT?

[steppenrazor]

Originally posted by Sanskrit


1. "It's not my problem to make sure you are online before planning an attack." (straw man)

2. "This is war, not people playing a game on the internet, but real honest to god war." (please don't shoot me on the street over this game)

3. "Can't wait to take your base." (troll)

4. "You can't force your point of view on anyone else. I will play as I please." (keen grasp of the obvious)

5. " Defense of towers, gas, etc. is something the org must plan for" (on Christmas morning?)

1. agreed. Not my problem if you don't plna out a good defensive stragaty.

2. lol. its a game on the internet where we are playing a war. BG DIFRANCE. and would recomend that the person you got this from seek major help.

3. valid thoughts. blowing up bases is fun.

4. bah. pointless

5. This is the biggy. You asked 'On x-mas morning'?

my response is - many fold

1. not every cultur has x-mas yet. Should they not play becuase you do? Should they think - 'Oh the cristians are off haveing x-mas. we should just go lvl.'

2. Hum, if your country was attacked no x-mas morning, Would your army rush to defend you? or would they stay and open presents?

3. x-mas morning for you, could be x-mas night for some one else.

4. Just because your off line, does not mean the world has to stop and folkd leave your oh so precious base alone.

Others want to play. Others in difrent time zones, with difrent lifes and cultures.

air go - Get over it, cuz no one is going to by into this "honor" carp your pushing.


Steppenrazor

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Sanskrit

I haven't demanded anything, only stated my position that if you attack "because" your opponent is not playing the game you are playing dishonorably.

Whereas I never demanded anything, I did ask for thoughts. So far the responses made share little in common with thoughts:

You 'demand' it by attempting to classify people playing within the rules and nature of the game as "Cheats" and "Exploiters" (yes, you've used the 'E' word before). The rules aren't offended by these tactics. You are.

Originally posted by Sanskrit

<snip> useless flaming </snip>

Yes, those people are usually referred to as jerks, poor sports, or worse (most of the other names can't be printed here) and have a hard time in life because of it. The anonymity of the internet allows us to see how many people would truly become jerks if accountability is removed. In other words, it proves the point that many "would-be" jerks are too cowardly and craven to fly their true jerk colors, but give them a monitor and cable to hide behind and their true "jerk-nature" comes shining right through.

I played soccer for 10 years, all the way up to college (was too small in the coach's opinion). In soccer, a slide tackle has to be executed in a specific manner or else its illegal. 10 years of experience taught me ways to execute a perfectly legal slide tackle...and break your ankle in the process. That's according to the ruleset. I'll explain further in a moment,

Originally posted by Sanskrit

BTW, care to point me to the "ruleset" for AO? There must be a big thick comprehensive tome somewhere that describes "the rules," exploits, cheats, WHERE IS IT?

Now, I'm armed with the knowledge of a way to legally break bones while playing soccer. What prevents me from using them?

• Ethics
• Referees

I won't even bother mentioning my ethical stance on this one. I learned how to break bones for a reason after all . But for situations where the ruleset could not hold me accountable for my actions, there were the guys in the black shorts and shirts armed with red cards to do so. No ruleset can be 100% detailed of every violation. Attempts to define rules that specifically lead to things like the US Tax Code. Something that can fill entire libraries and needs a fleet of professionals to interpret, taking a year to do so.

Funcom's GMs and Exploit Department are the guys in the black shorts and shirts here. They interpret the rules in the EULA, the Rules of Conduct, and Policy to determine what's legal and what's not within reason. I emphasize the "within reason" part because attempting to determine if a player intentionally attacked a base, and did so with or without prior knowledge of the org's online status, is unreasonable. It'd be impossible to prove making it impossible to tell the guilty from the innocent.

And that's completely ignoring the ethical question. Which would be merely be "almost impossible" to deal wtih. With the varieties of people playing AO, it'd be at best a 10/80/10 split. 10% with their panties in a knot, like you. 80% not really giving a damn. 10% who really don't give a damn but take offense at being portrayed as a "Cheater" when merely "Unethical", like me

PS
In my years of playing soccer, I have intentionally hurt too many players to remember (I was a "soccer mom's" worst nightmare). And that was "just a game" as well. I only caused permanent injury to 1 player in that time. Did I feel bad for him? Yes. But he knew the risks, same as I, before stepping on the field. I, myself, had been intentionally injured. Also too many times to count. And I never held a grudge against anyone that did it to me. That's the game we played and we were all playing to win.

[locomdenom]

If you truly feel that attacking while others are offline is cheating, ask the Exploit team.

But they're just going to tell you to suck it up.

[Canto]

Dharin the point is that it shouldn't take an "exploit team" to prevent people with even average sportsmanship and gaming integrity from planning an attack for the sole purpose that the opponent isn't playing the game. Whether or not someone is online shouldn't enter into the attack strategy, it should be left to chance. You and others are never going to tire of distorting my position into "Don't attack me when I'm not online" are you? I suppose if it makes it easier to live with yourself that's cool. I am done with this topic for the time being. Maybe someone will emerge down the road who wants to intelligently discuss the issue instead of setting up straw men.

[_____________Eidolus]

I saw the same crap argument used in DAOC when a guild from Singapore on the Palomides server did a relic raid during their prime time hours (which meant the Americans were asleep).

Here's what Sun-tzu might have said (quotes from The Art of War, translated by Thomas Cleary):

"Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it."

Or:

"In ancient times those known as good warriors prevailed when it was easy to prevail. Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost. So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat."

Stop looking for people to tell you you're right. You aren't.

Stop trying to force a code of ethics/rules on other people's NW experience.

Do not deride people as incapable of holding an intelligent conversation on a topic when it's because you're being told your viewpoint holds no favor.

Do not start off a discussion with a "straw man" (that attacking a tower when its owner is offline is cheating, because it is not forbidden under any rule or code of conduct governing this game, except the one you have for yourself, perhaps), and then point your finger at the straw men of others.

The Viet Cong launched the Tet offensive on Christmas, the Saxons invited all British leaders to a shindig on the premise that it was an unarmed gathering, then slaughtered them with knives hidden in their garments.

This game, as has been pointed out, was launched on the premise of war. Not jackass arena "honor duels."

Notum Wars, not "Notum One-on-One, to 50% health, no outside buffs with a countdown bot to govern when we get to begin attacking fights."

It's discussions like this one that have turned me off to PvP and anything like it in MMORPGs. It's all about grief. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Question the timing of an attack in a game is a griefer's argument.

[Canto]

Originally posted by Eidolus
I saw the same crap argument used in DAOC when a guild from Singapore on the Palomides server did a relic raid during their prime time hours (which meant the Americans were asleep).

This is not the kind of thing I'm talking about and you damn well know it (see "straw man" below to educate yourself)

Originally posted by Eidolus

"Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it."

Ahh, old SunTzu again, and so I should come to your house and destroy your computer so you CAN'T get online, is that what you're saying?

Make the child-level leap in logic from a war to a wargame.

Originally posted by Eidolus

Stop looking for people to tell you you're right. You aren't.

I am looking for someone to discuss the issue intelligently; you aren't

Originally posted by Eidolus

Do not deride people as incapable of holding an intelligent conversation on a topic when it's because you're being told your viewpoint holds no favor.

No one said anyone was incapable of anything. People generally choose how to blind themselves so they can feel that their ill-gotten victories aren't "cheap."

Originally posted by Eidolus

Do not start off a discussion with a "straw man" (that attacking a tower when its owner is offline is cheating, because it is not forbidden under any rule or code of conduct governing this game, except the one you have for yourself, perhaps), and then point your finger at the straw men of others.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You are misusing the term straw man.

A straw man is when I say

"Attacking for the very reason that the opponent is not online playing the game is dishonorable/cheating/wrong." and you reply

"So you are saying that I should only attack you when you are online? That's ridiculous."

Not a hard concept to grasp, glad to help you with it.

Here are a couple of the premises of my argument

1) We are playing a game.
2) In addition to the written rules of any game, common sense and generally accepted principles of fair play determine whether actions taken in any game are honorable or dishonorable.
3) Actions taken outside the boundaries of the game to the direct detriment of an opponent in the game are generally wrong, for instance, if we are playing cards and I can see your hand in the reflection of a vase across the room, though you should conceal your hand as best you can, it is still dishonorable for me to peek.

Where is the straw man here?

Originally posted by Eidolus

The Viet Cong launched the Tet offensive on Christmas, the Saxons invited all British leaders to a shindig on the premise that it was an unarmed gathering, then slaughtered them with knives hidden in their garments.

Real war justifies ANYTHING you can get away with, for instance I offer an org leader $1000 in real dollars to destroy all his org bases. THERE IS NO "RULE" ANYWHERE AGAINST SUCH AN ACTION, YET IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG, CHEATING AND DISHONORABLE because I stepped outside the boundaries of the game to the direct detriment of my opponents in the game. When you keep an enemy org's roster, for instance, in your "friends" list, monitor it, and when the least opponents are PLAYING THE GAME (i.e. you have no opponents but towers), attack, you are doing nothing different. You are stepping outside the boundaries of the game to the direct detriment of your opponent. You are looking at your opponents hand in the vase.

Originally posted by Eidolus

It's discussions like this one that have turned me off to PvP and anything like it in MMORPGs. It's all about grief. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Question the timing of an attack in a game is a griefer's argument.

Weak attempt to turn me into a "griefer" somehow. ROFL.

Next.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Sanskrit

Ahh, old SunTzu again, and so I should come to your house and destroy your computer so you CAN'T get online, is that what you're saying?

This would be called Breaking and Entering (Felony, I believe), Destruction of Private Property (Misdemeanor class A, unless you had the $8k Alienware rig from Dell) and Criminal Mischief (Misdemeanor). Obviously there are rules against that.

Originally posted by Sanskrit
<snip> Useless flaming </snip>

Here are a couple of the premises of my argument

1) We are playing a game.
2) In addition to the written rules of any game, common sense and generally accepted principles of fair play determine whether actions taken in any game are honorable or dishonorable.
3) Actions taken outside the boundaries of the game to the direct detriment of an opponent in the game are generally wrong, for instance, if we are playing cards and I can see your hand in the reflection of a vase across the room, though you should conceal your hand as best you can, it is still dishonorable for me to peek.

And here's the flaw in your arguement. You're premise is flawed at point 2. There are no such things as 'Common Sense' and "Generally Accepted Principles of Fair Play". There are too many people in the community for "Sense" to be "Common". And only the most extreme actions violate any "Generally Accepted Principles of Fair Play" because in large groups like this, the extreme is the only thing the majority will agree upon. And this isn't it.

Originally posted by Sanskrit

Real war justifies ANYTHING you can get away with, for instance I offer an org leader $1000 in real dollars to destroy all his org bases. THERE IS NO "RULE" ANYWHERE AGAINST SUCH AN ACTION, YET IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG, CHEATING AND DISHONORABLE because I stepped outside the boundaries of the game to the direct detriment of my opponents in the game.

Other than a waste of cash there would be absolutely nothing wrong with you doing that. They would be his towers to do with as he pleases. I'd simply remark how foolish you'd be for wasting a grand and go about plotting to steal the land from you.

[rubina1]

Attack when the enemy's gates are down. This is open warfare. Dust off the box that this game came in and read the title. It doesn't say "U.N. Summit", "Peace Corps in Space", "Rainbow Warriors" or "Sim Online".

[BigGreen]

Originally posted by Sanskrit


Make the child-level leap in logic from a war to a wargame.



I am looking for someone to discuss the issue intelligently; you aren't

You are looking for people to agree with you as it is the only "intelligent" postion. This only makes you look foolish.

Originally posted by Sanskrit

No one said anyone was incapable of anything. People generally choose how to blind themselves so they can feel that their ill-gotten victories aren't "cheap."

Ill-gotten as defined by you, as again you are the arbiter of "honor" just as you are the judge of "intelligence"...

Originally posted by Sanskrit

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You are misusing the term straw man.

A straw man is when I say

"Attacking for the very reason that the opponent is not online playing the game is dishonorable/cheating/wrong." and you reply

"So you are saying that I should only attack you when you are online? That's ridiculous."

Your discussion of the "straw man" tactic is accurate, except that you set up impossible to verify preconditions in your own assertion and therefore turn every counter argument into a "straw man". My point in my post is that no attackers I've seen or heard of goes to the trouble of researching when you are offline, and then attacks. Therefore noone I've seen or heard of fits your assertion of being "dishonorable". Logical? Now, there are plenty of people who do attack and don't care if you are on or offline, and I have no basic problem with that. That is aside from your point, but only slightly since your point has no identifiable target. If you have someone in mind, name them. I think they deserve to defend themselves.

Originally posted by Sanskrit

1) We are playing a game.
2) In addition to the written rules of any game, common sense and generally accepted principles of fair play determine whether actions taken in any game are honorable or dishonorable.
3) Actions taken outside the boundaries of the game to the direct detriment of an opponent in the game are generally wrong, for instance, if we are playing cards and I can see your hand in the reflection of a vase across the room, though you should conceal your hand as best you can, it is still dishonorable for me to peek.

Where is the straw man here?

I agree with nearly everything in your assumptions. The fact is that "common sense" is not universal however. What is common sense for one group may or may not be common sense for another. That is why rules are needed, as are referees. Even within the rules there is room for bad sportsmanship, which I agree is deplorable. There are things that my guild won't do even though they are allowed in the rules (ganking, for example). Is there such a thing as dishonorable play? Yes. I won't defend that. But I still come back to the point that nobody is doing what you assert they must not do. Prove me wrong.

[_____________Eidolus]

Originally posted by Sanskrit
I believe this issue is important, and so am starting a separate thread from the "reset land control areas" thread that it originated in.

I believe that to attack towers for the primary reason that you know the tower owners are offline and not likely to come online soon is at best dishonorable play, and at worst, cheating.

Go ahead and tell me again that this straw man is not your position when you absolutely said that it was.

It's never going to be cheating. Ever. It will never be against the code of conduct.

If a guild based in Japan decided to attack a tower I placed during what would be their prime playing hours, bully for them. They should not have to alter their play because I am not online, and they would be able to easily find out if I was likely to be online. It's not wrong. It's not cheating. Their enjoyment of the game/playing experience should not be curbed based on someone's need for sleep. The same applies for all players.

Your "belief" is flawed. You were the one that brought up cheating.

It seems to me most of what you call "straw men" in this thread are really the presentation of the personal codes of honor or ethics of other players as honor and ethics pertains to the attacking of land control towers in this game.

They want to play it like Machiavelli. It really doesn't matter why, as long as they don't lose sleep over it.

Furthermore, REAL war does NOT justify anything you can get away with, or think you can get away with.

Many countries on this earth have made a show of creating and following a set of "rules" for warfare, such as chemical and biological weapons should not be used, or that .50 caliber machine guns can only be used against equipment, not personnel (are uniforms worn by personnel still equipment?).

Edit: Iraq allegedly used Sarin against its Kurdish population. What were the repurcussions? Is the same ruler still in power? Did their economy suffer from sanctions any more than it already had from previous sanctions? Whomever made the decision to use it got away with it with nothing more than a scolding, despite international agreements (likely not entered into by Iraq) not to use nerve agents in "war."

No one has to agree with your sense of honor, ethics, or fair play. They only have to abide by the actual rules of the game.

[locomdenom]

You know, Eidolus quoted something that made me realize something very, very surprising.

You were partially right, Sanskrit, so I'll quote it.

Originally posted by Sanskrit:

I believe that to attack towers for the primary reason that you know the tower owners are offline and not likely to come online soon is at best dishonorable play

You're correct. It is dishonorable play.

Now show me one rule, anywhere, against 'dishonorable' play, especially in the context of inter-guild wars.

If I con you into selling me a PPPE for 500k, because you don't know how much its really worth, is it honorable? And is FC going to do anything about it, is it against the rules?

No, it isn't honorable. And no, it isn't against the rules.

You're looking for honor. Don't expect to find it here. That's not what this is about.