Please, Don't Roll on Items for Another Class in Your Team

[Grecanis]

And when something drops that I'd like for appearance, who gets priority?

 

I respect his desire for stats - he can roll on an item.

He does NOT respect my desire for appearance (or companion, or mods) - he tells me I can't roll on an item.

 

I miss that his method is fair because it is NOT fair. It slants towards his priorities. The fact that everyone gets equal distribution based on his priorities does not make it fair.

 

Aesthetics do no improve a characters ability do do anything.

 

Three choices are obviously too many.

 

Remove the need.

[Eldren]

Ok, an ad-hominem means against the man. I did not say he is a d-bag therefore you cannot believe his argument. I said people who roll need on gear that they cannot use are d-bags.

 

So therefore it is not an ad-hominem.

Believe it or not, ad hominem can occur through implication as well as explicit statement. In your case, you did more than just state that people who roll need on gear they can't use are d-bags. You implied that anyone who held the position I hold (and my position has been stated clearly in the past, and at no point has it included rolling Need on something I can't use) is in fact a d-bag, which shifts the statement to an attack... "against the man". Try again.

 

A strawman is to misrepresent a persons argument so you can easily "burn" it down.

 

You sir do not know what you are talking about.

As you've been amply doing in many posts you've been making. It's thus doubly amusing (and heavily ironic) that you accuse someone else (in this case Ferroz) of not knowing what he's talking about.

 

 

 

Shzooom... that was the sound of it flying way above both your heads. Just makes it better for me.

Trolling. What purpose does this post serve other than to agitate Ferroz?

 

 

 

 

I have done so, the mere fact that we have established mechanisms in games for NBG, the fact that there is ALREADY a hierarchy between need, greed, disassemble and pass shows that there is an intended loot order.

 

Now if they just had "roll" then you'd have a point. They don't.

You're right, there is a hierarchy, which we aren't disputing. However, the dispute arises relating to the conditions in which someone other than the one rolling determines the roller can actually make the choice they did.

 

You were aware that's what's being argued, weren't you? It might have gotten lost amongst all your refusals to validate your points and the ongoing attacks you make against others here.

[ferroz]

Do you recycle? Vote? Well, if you do, you'll know that your single effort does practically nothing. But, get enough people to do the same thing, and you can make a difference. The problem is, your difference in TOR would be a very negative one.

baseless speculation.

 

Also, have you never played an MMO before?

Yes.

 

Playing with under geared people is never fun.

False; I had lots of fun in EQ playing with under geared people. I enjoyed playing with under geared people in wow as well.

 

Well, if this happens to be a player with bad luck that keeps losing tank drops to people's companions, then your way of looting has in fact effected the community in a very negative way.

No, you aren't actually demonstrating any sort of negative effect on the community, let alone one that is clearly due to that type of looting.

[PoPPaDoM]

And when something drops that I'd like for appearance, who gets priority?

 

Allow me to shout this

 

HE DOES!!!!!!

 

Function before form. When he has the gear to do his job, then you can play "Dress-up"

 

I respect his desire for stats - he can roll on an item.

He does NOT respect my desire for appearance (or companion, or mods) - he tells me I can't roll on an item.

 

He may respect it... it just sits under his/her need for function.

 

I miss that his method is fair because it is NOT fair. It slants towards his priorities. The fact that everyone gets equal distribution based on his priorities does not make it fair.

 

Pretty much every option for appearance is available through solo play. Be it from social items, commendation vendors etc. If you want to look pretty, do it on your own time.

[Galbatorrix]

It is not just as fair. What if nothing falls for me after 10 runs and everyone has gotten theirs?

 

Even if I did run with your system as I have done in the past, and something drops, someone else comes up with some reason why it suits their class too.

 

This started out being about an armor piece, then we had mods and oranges thrown in. God knows what else you guys will put restrictions on, when it comes to the time that something drops that you don't want anyone else rolling on.

 

 

I really can't be arsed playing to peoples self-imposed rules. If I 'need' something for whatever reason, I'm pressing 'need'.

 

 

Oh, so this is just about "Me, me me! They got more than ME!!!". Got it. We all understand the reasoning behind the madness now. It's good to know it was all about greed for you as we all suspected.

[ferroz]

You miss that his method is just as fair to you as it is to him. When something drops for your class and not his, guess who gets the priority?

As I've repeatedly explained, it's NOT just as fair to me as it is to him. It's biased toward his loot priorities, not mine.

 

That's less fair than a system that isn't biased toward either of our loot priorities.

 

 

Why is that so hard to understand? If system A is biased toward some subset of Players and System B is not biased, then system B is the fairer system.

Edited February 1, 2012 by ferroz

[Eldren]

Allow me to shout this

 

HE DOES!!!!!!

 

Function before form. When he has the gear to do his job, then you can play "Dress-up"

According to what objective authority? It's fine if it's according to you, but don't expect that to carry weight compelling other players to behave the same way.

 

 

 

He may respect it... it just sits under his/her need for function.

I again ask: who determined, objectively, that function trumps form in this game?

 

 

 

Pretty much every option for appearance is available through solo play. Be it from social items, commendation vendors etc. If you want to look pretty, do it on your own time.

What gives you the right to tell another player how they acquire their gear? You have no authority over them, no matter how much you keep acting as though you do. Yes, they can acquire aesthetic items through the methods you indicated. They can also acquire aesthetic items through group play. You don't get to decide that method is invalid for another player, only for yourself.

[Creed_Buhallin]

This entire thread make me sad. As is your very selfish way of playing a social game. If you don't want to play nice with others, play solo. If you ask other players to join you in a GROUP to take down a GROUP effort, then think about those people in your loot decision making too. Trust me, your companion won't mind one bit of you hit the "pass" button.

You keep saying this. I AM thinking of the other people in the group. Honestly, I'm thinking of them far more than you are.

 

I express a courtesy to the members of my group that you seem incapable of - respect. If someone wants an item because they love the looks, I respect that. If they see an upgrade in the enhancement and can use it, I respect that. If they see an item that can improve their lives while solo'ing, I respect that. I respect their choice, let them press the button they want, and we all take the results of the roll. I congratulate them on it or go "Woot!", and we move on to the next boss.

 

The companion won't mind if you make someone press the pass button - but the player will. When you step up and tell them "You're not as important as I am, you don't get to decide if this is an upgrade for you or not, you don't get to decide if you can use this or not, I'll tell you what you can use." At BEST you're telling someone "No, you're doing it wrong, here, let me tell you what's a worthwhile upgrade for you. Yes, I know you think it looks cool, but that's not important."

 

That you continue to hide behind somehow thinking of the other players in the group while imposing your playstyle on them is just twisted.

[PoPPaDoM]

Believe it or not, ad hominem can occur through implication as well as explicit statement. In your case, you did more than just state that people who roll need on gear they can't use are d-bags. You implied that anyone who held the position I hold (and my position has been stated clearly in the past, and at no point has it included rolling Need on something I can't use) is in fact a d-bag, which shifts the statement to an attack... "against the man". Try again.

 

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

 

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

 

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

 

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

[ferroz]

Allow me to shout this

 

HE DOES!!!!!!

 

Function before form. When he has the gear to do his job, then you can play "Dress-up"

 

 

 

He may respect it... it just sits under his/her need for function.

Why is your priority the correct one, and everyone else's wrong?

 

Please give objective reasons for this position.

 

Pretty much every option for appearance is available through solo play.

Likewise, pretty much every option for stats is available through solo play.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is.

[Creed_Buhallin]

Aesthetics do no improve a characters ability do do anything.

They improve a player's ability to enjoy the game.

 

Why isn't that enough?

[ferroz]

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

 

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

 

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

 

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

yay, copy pasta

 

you haven't actually shown how he misused the term.

 

Out of curiousity, why didn't you continue, with the "But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again."

 

I mean, if you were going to follow the article's structure, the next bit would be to go over specifically how his claim of ad hominem wasn't an example of argument ad hominem (although, I'm not sure that's what his claim was).

Edited February 1, 2012 by ferroz

[Setanian]

I have done so, the mere fact that we have established mechanisms in games for NBG, the fact that there is ALREADY a hierarchy between need, greed, disassemble and pass shows that there is an intended loot order.

 

Now if they just had "roll" then you'd have a point. They don't.

 

You've established nothing. There is no intended loot order. There is an intended loot choice based on requirement. Whether you 'need' something or don't.

 

NBG was always if you need this more than I and I agree, I don't need it as much as you (i.e.: Intend to sell it) then I rolled greed so as to allow you to roll need and only be in competition with whomever else 'need'ed it.

 

What you and others are bringing, wrongly, into the equation is that now you want to specify what I can and cannot decide I need. You are putting conditions on the basic rule that was meant to allow quick selection of loot.

 

And I'm afraid, no matter how much you want it, the only people you can force those conditions on, are the people that will let you.

 

And because lot's of players won't let you, you then go into bully boy tactic mode and use the "well it's my group, I decide, so leave".

 

And that's fine, I won't join your groups and you won't join mine. But here's a question for you.. Which gets the quicker group?

 

a) /1 LFG xxx No loot rules

b) /1 LFG xxx Only need on this, and this and this and if your this, and something else

 

All your threats of getting a group just went out the window.

[PoPPaDoM]

Why is your priority the correct one, and everyone else's wrong?

 

Please give objective reasons for this position.

 

Likewise, pretty much every option for stats is available through solo play.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

Increase in function objectively increases access to the "frivolous". Your way is a waste of everybody's time.

[Halinalle]

Likewise, pretty much every option for stats is available through solo play.

 

How do you get champion/battlemaster gear without warzones and dailies/weeklies on Ilum? Seriously, I'm interested on this one.

[_Rammie_]

Allow me to shout this

 

HE DOES!!!!!!

 

Function before form. When he has the gear to do his job, then you can play "Dress-up"

 

Well, he already has the gear for the job, as he already downed the boss. See what I did there?

 

Need; when a person will use the item, be it for the stats, a companion, the mods or the looks they are free to roll need. You're free to do the same. Just because you cannot adapt to different aspects in this MMO doesn't mean the system is wrong. You, the player, are wrong. Go play a simple MMO where the developer decides what you are allowed to roll on. A new MMO, a new system, new rules. If you can't adapt to something new, stick with the old.

 

I recommend the Amish community. It will keep life simple for you.

[Creed_Buhallin]

Oh, so this is just about "Me, me me! They got more than ME!!!". Got it. We all understand the reasoning behind the madness now. It's good to know it was all about greed for you as we all suspected.

This really has nothing to do with anything he said.

 

You're starting to get a bit shrill. Maybe take a deep breath, and try again.

 

What he said was he's going to define his own concept of what he needs. That's not the same as saying he needs everything, or will take everything, or that once he decides that he needs something his need is more important than your need.

 

"Need" is a boolean - yes/no, true/false, on/off. If you declare a need, it doesn't matter to me why you did so. That's what he's saying.

[ferroz]

Increase in function objectively increases access to the "frivolous".

No, it doesn't; that loot method objectively decreases access to it, since it reduces the chance of getting the loot; it also objectively reduces the pool of people that are interested in doing the content compared to allowing full open rolls.

 

Your way is a waste of everybody's time.

No, it's only a waste of time for the people who feel entitled to being geared by other people in some fixed amount of time. Not everyone.

[Galbatorrix]

You keep saying this. I AM thinking of the other people in the group. Honestly, I'm thinking of them far more than you are.

 

I express a courtesy to the members of my group that you seem incapable of - respect. If someone wants an item because they love the looks, I respect that. If they see an upgrade in the enhancement and can use it, I respect that. If they see an item that can improve their lives while solo'ing, I respect that. I respect their choice, let them press the button they want, and we all take the results of the roll. I congratulate them on it or go "Woot!", and we move on to the next boss.

 

The companion won't mind if you make someone press the pass button - but the player will. When you step up and tell them "You're not as important as I am, you don't get to decide if this is an upgrade for you or not, you don't get to decide if you can use this or not, I'll tell you what you can use." At BEST you're telling someone "No, you're doing it wrong, here, let me tell you what's a worthwhile upgrade for you. Yes, I know you think it looks cool, but that's not important."

 

That you continue to hide behind somehow thinking of the other players in the group while imposing your playstyle on them is just twisted.

 

 

 

Nope. The fact that you'd be greedy and self centered and need on things that would be better used by others in the group when the boss was a GROUP effort is twisted. Again, if the Sage healed me all through the fight, I try to thank them for their effort by passing on the willpower loot. You, on the other hand would give the Sage the finger and need on it because it's "purdy". That's just messed up and wrong. No worries though. You'll never see that Sage again. Even if you want to you'll likely be on their /ignore list shortly there after. So, good luck with that.

[PoPPaDoM]

And that's fine, I won't join your groups and you won't join mine. But here's a question for you.. Which gets the quicker group?

 

a) /1 LFG xxx No loot rules

b) /1 LFG xxx Only need on this, and this and this and if your this, and something else

 

All your threats of getting a group just went out the window.

 

See this is where our missing it all...

 

I NEVER have to get a group, they line up for me! This is why you'r shouting for groups and I get tells as soon as a I log on

[Irusan]

Yes... you're trying to stack the deck in your favor because you feel entitled to the loot; you are, indeed, being greedy.

 

Yes indeed, because I can't go along with your crow-like looting method...Ohhh my companion can use that, ohhhh its good appearance I want it, ohhhh its shiny I NEED it!

 

No, I explained above. You're incorrectly reading the people who are arguing with you (or you're intentionally misstating their arguments, you pick)

 

No, Im not.

 

No, it works in your favor, not in mine. It's biased in your favor, not mine. It's partial to your priorities, not mine.

 

Again, how are you figuring every piece of loot that drops is for my class? Or you know its not going to be but you want to roll on that, as well as loot for your class, your companions class, and any alts you may have as well.

 

In other words, it's not unbiased, not impartial... and not a fair loot distribution method.

 

Then you're not actually reading most of the posts of people who are disagreeing with you, since virtually none of them are advocating that.

 

Yes thats true...more and more what I am getting is: I want you to let ME roll need on everything but you just stick to your normal rolls.

 

If you think that stacking the deck in your favor isn't about entitlement and greed... I'm inclined to heartily agree.

 

Please explain again how I am stacking the deck in MY favor?

[ferroz]

How do you get champion/battlemaster gear without warzones and dailies/weeklies on Ilum?

Queuing solo and not talking to anyone (say, with your chat window closed like my friend does) is solo play. This will get you champion and battlemaster gear.

[Eldren]

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

 

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

 

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

 

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

 

Thanks for the lesson in terminology. It's stuff I learned when I started taking debate as a freshman in high school some 25 years ago. I learned it again when I joined the collegiate debate team 4 years later when I started my undergraduate studies. We'll ignore your editorializing about the quality of someone's mind and personality, since it seems rooted instead in your opposition to their perspective. I do have a question, however: what does it add to this particular discussion? If you were attempting to prove that you weren't, in fact, using ad hominem attacks earlier, and that it was just sarcasm, I'd say you're falling a bit short of the goal.

[Galbatorrix]

This really has nothing to do with anything he said.

 

You're starting to get a bit shrill. Maybe take a deep breath, and try again.

 

What he said was he's going to define his own concept of what he needs. That's not the same as saying he needs everything, or will take everything, or that once he decides that he needs something his need is more important than your need.

 

"Need" is a boolean - yes/no, true/false, on/off. If you declare a need, it doesn't matter to me why you did so. That's what he's saying.

 

 

 

He said "It is not just as fair. What if nothing falls for me after 10 runs and everyone has gotten theirs?". So, I stand by my comments.

[Eldren]

Increase in function objectively increases access to the "frivolous". Your way is a waste of everybody's time.

 

Yet another absolute statement, so I'll again ask you where your proof for the statement is. Without that proof, you have an opinion, which doesn't carry sufficient weight to direct the actions of others.