You cannot steal virtual goods, and it is not morally wrong to do so.

I think Pro for his response and will present my final round of argumentation before concluding in the next round. After a review of Pro's third round, I am struggling to find an area I have not addressed in my previous rounds as he has left many contentions unaddressed. I need only address the misunderstanding Pro presented as a new argument in this round. Misunderstanding: Pro states that he was never referencing the matters I am addressing i.e. stolen accounts and scams, but is addressing "ninja looting" via the need/greed dice rolls. If Pro is indeed referencing this very legal, albeit annoying, practice then I fully agree that such actions should not be assigned a moral value as the game is a role playing game and the player may wish to role play a thieving crook; this practice is perfectly acceptable to me. As such, voters must determine if Pro's initial argument suggested a different definition and whether I was reasonable in my view of this definition. 1.In the first sentence Pro referenced the huge market for selling virtual goods for in-game use. 2.Pro is an experienced WoW player and is familiar with the terminology as evidenced by referencing "ninjas", he was familiar with the name of the land in WoW (Azaroth), and his profile page lists clearly that he does indeed play WoW. 3.Pro specifically said (in reference to ninjas), "Who are people who steal items from others in game." This is what I had prior to making my first round rebuttal. I am also an experienced WoW player and I am very familiar with rolling for gear (I gave a brief description for voters in round 1) and I know that need/greed roles are up to the group and basically qualify as "house rules" within the group. I am familiar with several different methods for gear rolling so this could not be what pro was referencing because such items are up for a roll and are not in the possession of the avatar; therefore, Pro, a knowledgeable WoW player, must have been referencing something else as he clearly stated, "[P]eople who steal items FROM others in game" (emphasis mine) Stealing from others so as to sell the items for real money is the position Pro appeared to take. In my opening round, I gave definitions for the terms and clearly indicated that "ninja looting" was not the basis of my rebuttal and that Pro's use of the term "ninja" appeared to be much more broad than "ninja looting" so as to include stealing FROM other players. I made all of this very clear in the opening paragraphs of my first response. I ask voters to review these paragraphs and even a cursory examination will reveal that I am being honest in my evaluation of Pro's terms. After presenting my first round, Pro responded and did not challenge any of the definitions nor did he elaborate on his initial meaning. He did not offer one response to my abundant use of terms dealing with account compromises and the illegality of obtaining passwords via subversive means and selling items for real money. He addressed the moral agent argument and repeated his claim that the items were not real. At this point, I concluded all definitions and stipulations as accepted. Why should I have thought otherwise? I have no idea how I could have been any clearer. Pro had ample space and time to rebut my definitions and my review my stipulations so as to determine whether he would accept them in round 2. I was reasonable in concluding that Pro's position involved stealing FROM other players as he clearly made this reference. I have addressed all other points concerning: 1. The moral agent 2. The means one must use to steal from another player 3. The act utilitarianism position 4. The deontology position 5. The legal definition of property via the Model Penal Code 6. Violating the ToS Pro has either left my contentions unaddressed or in this last round, repeated (not supported), his earlier positions without addressing the many rebuttals offered. Any confusion over the terms used must lie with Pro as he had ample opportunity to address the matters prior to this round. Pro has not upheld this resolution. I reserve the right to address any new argumentation Pro presents in his final round.