Just to put my oar in here...

        STINGRAY is right regarding looby-looing. If you use one persona to take the risks and another persona gains the benefit (with your consent), that's looby-looing. In most cases, mortals use a throwaway persona to collect T which is then swamped by their main persona, however that's not the only way it can happen. In particular, there have been celebrated cases over the years where a wiz-owned high-level mortal has looted all the major T sites and left the goodies for a wiz-owned low-level persona to swamp, the rationale being that this is a good way to build up a killer persona without having to get stomped on by the dwarfs or whatever. I've also seen it (but this is rarer) when a new wiz has decided that he no longer needs his back-up legend, and thoughtfully offers it up for sacrifice to his best buddy.

        There are some exceptions, of course. No-one is going to complain if you went in the game with your necro and were killed by some mobile or other, then came in again with your legend to collect the points. They may complain if your novice conveniently died in such a manner, or if the legend was close to wiz, but genuine deaths like that can be seen as "well what choice did I have?" and the treasure was fair game for anybody. On the whole, though, if one persona takes the risks and another persona benefits, that's wrong.

                Richard

JOANNA  -

>I had never thought of the looby rule -- or shall we say the risk/reward
>rule? -- as applying to two different mortals that are not owned by the
>same human being.
        Well, it does..!
        There's obviously more leeway when several personae are involved, as there may be more long-term arrangements set up that the wizzes don't know about and ought to check for prior to meting out any punishment. However, there HAS to be something to discourage different-player loobying, otherwise it's a fairly easy loophole to exploit. "OK, I'll use my novice to score points for your legend, if you'll use your novice to score points for my legend".

>By 'normal course of game playing', I mean that as a rule, no one has
>bothered much with one mortal gathering up some stuff -- treasure, tools,
>whatever -- and then saying "take this, I don't need it" to another mortal.
        Yes, that's fair enough; I do it myself when I have some useful kit but I'm about to quit, it's just generosity of spirit. If the "gift" involves significant amounts of treasure, though, and the giver isn't getting anything in return, well that could be something to watch out for.

>"Trading" is also very common -- especially when 2 high levels enter a new
>reset; the one that gets boat access first might make arrangements with the
>other one that he will do the dragon & the other can have druids.
        Yes, well that's co-operation on an equal basis; it only gets to be looby-looing when the scales tip too far in the direction of one of the players. Intent also has to play a part; if I collect up all the stuff for the druids but the dragon kills me, someone else can collect on my investment of time because I didn't intend to die at the dragon, nor for anyone else to benefit. If I DID intend to die, so that someone else could claim to "find" my stuff, that WOULD be looby-looing.

>In my mind, because both players are in the game, risking the killers,
>etc., there is nothing illegal going on. The risk/reward might tilt back
>and forth a few times -- but in the longrun it evens out ("in the longrun"
>might even extend beyone one reset.) I view this type of play more as
>"teamwork" than "loobying".
        Yes, that's right: nothing wrong going on there.

>This has <right or wrong> sometimes led to a higher level wizmort, with
>easier access to stuff -- ability to use wand, better where spells --
>giving some "help" to a lower level wizmort.
        With what in return (apart from a warm, fuzzy glow inside)?

>My point in this thread <and my sympathy to you if you've read the whole
>thing!>
        Heaven forbid I should read an entire thread about ANYTHING!

>I've only been asking everyone to understand the progression that got them
>to that point.
        Well, now we're back from the brink again!
        An arch-wiz's job is easy if someone does something clearly against all guidelines. It gets harder when the boundaries are pushed back slowly, by increasingly more liberal interpretation of what's OK and what's not. Occasionally, there has to be a restatement of the rationale behind the original guidelines, which can demonstrate where the problems lie in some people's contemporary interpretations.
        No harm done, anyway.

                Richard