You said that because people use it then it must be fine in their eyes, and that the effectiveness cannot be to great to negate this.

The examples have one thing in common. They are things that give people an edge but are not good for the game. Giving people an edge is not necessarily good for the game. The purpose of the examples was simply to rebut your logic that if people use something they must be in favor of it, and thus it must be good for the game.

You bring up the example of bash. I did not say that giving people an edge is never good for the game. At not stage did I imply that any effective skill should be removed. I raised an issue with this specific skill, and one scenario in which I thought a change would be for the better.

If you honestly believe that:

1. A summoner makes group v group pk more fun (in aggregate) when he successfully summons individuals into a group,

2. That evenly matched, more interesting fights, are not missed out on because of summon,

3. That giving an underdog a chance to turn the tables is a bad thing

4. That raids are not partly so onesided because of summoners,

then by all means keep summon unchanged. It can still be used to split groups when your group isn't so large. It can still be used to solo pk. It can still be used with a large group. Even with a group of four you would only be slightly less more likely to fail than to succeed. With a group of three you'd still be more likely to succeed than fail. And failure isn't such a bad thing in many circumstances. As a necro or an ap, I'd quite happily settle for being sent from my group to the other guy if he's alone, much of the time.

I'm not saying that summon doesn't have a lot of good applications that add to the game (which bash does), but I'm saying that where you summon someone into a large group (one application of summon only) that it detracts from the game. That's my opinion. I think you know my reasons even if you do not understand the parallel I'm trying to draw between things that people do because it works and things that don't necessarily benefit the mud, and insist on saying that this means I'm saying that all things that work don't benefit the mud.