Selecting need for loot

[scraycroft]

No, but they'll ostracize you for it. They'll definitely look at you in a different light. You're confusing grouping in a flashpoint with riding in an elevator. They both have social conventions, but the group in the FP is a combined effort to accomplish something. Try acting way off social kilter in a group for school projects for an MBA or what-not and rest assured you'll have people requesting that you leave the group or having you actively removed.

 

^This

 

Ninja looters get /ignored by me (heals) and tanks, have fun in the LFG after a few weeks.

[Ratajack]

1 - Since both parties clicked the LFG and both parties decided not to say anything, majority vote wins. So if the a piece drops and that one person rolls need for the companion and the other people say, "No, please hand it over to the one character who can use it."... this is where we go from here. If the person who took it doesn't want to give it up, then they should be removed. They are in a group that doesn't have the same values with them. So they should really leave and find a group that does - now that they know since both parties are blameless for not stating specific rules. If that person chooses not to leave - the group has every right to remove that person so that they can find someone who does follow the same principles. So, it's not punishment. That person remove isn't on time out. They are just left to find a new group with the same ideals.

 

2 - Please top using the word "punish" though. That's subjective in this form. You seem to be okay with the 3 people leaving the group to reform. In both cases, the player who is being removed is now left alone and cannot complete the instance. So either both ways are punishment or not. The fact that you're trying to split hairs is ridiculous and pointless.

 

1) If no one bothered to take the time to make sure that everyone was on the same page with regards to loot rules, there was no majority vote. By vote kicking that person who rolled need for his companion- in violation of "social convention" only and not rules agreed to by everyone before the run- you are indeed punishing that player by preventing him from finishing the run and possibly obtaining more loot. It IS punishment in addition to exercising your right not group with that person.

 

2) I will not stop using the term punishment, for that is what it is. Punishment is a consequence for an act that is inflicted on another against their will. By removing that player against his will, you are indeed punishing him by taking away his option to complete that instance.

[AsheraII]

1 - Since both parties clicked the LFG and both parties decided not to say anything, majority vote wins.

Obviously, if noone said anything, then there was no vote.

 

So if the a piece drops and that one person rolls need for the companion and the other people say, "No, please hand it over to the one character who can use it."

..then they're a bit late with bringing up their loot regulations of preference.

 

If the person who took it doesn't want to give it up, then

that's completely his own rightful decision.

 

They are in a group that doesn't have the same values with them. So they should really leave and find a group that does

and remember to maybe discuss those values if they mean so much to them.

 

If that person chooses not to leave - the group

may try to discuss rules for drops further down the flashpoint, leave the flashpoint themselves, or abuse the votekick system and hope a replacement comes along.

 

EVERY MEMBER OF THE GROUP HAS AT ANY TIME THE FREEDOM TO LEAVE THE GROUP HIM OR HERSELF, WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LONG BEFORE ENFORCING SUCH UPON OTHERS.

 

2 - Please top using the word "punish" though. That's subjective in this form.

Suuuuuure, the hand dealing the blow usually prefers to call it "educational treatment" rather than punishment. Calling it different doesn't mean it's no longer punishment.

 

You seem to be okay with the 3 people leaving the group to reform.

Ofcourse, since that is a sign that you ALSO take your own behaviour, lack of communication and unfounded assumptions into consideration, instead of putting the blame entirely on the one who doesn't follow your unwritten rules.

[scraycroft]

Ofcourse, since that is a sign that you ALSO take your own behaviour, lack of communication and unfounded assumptions into consideration, instead of putting the blame entirely on the one who doesn't follow your unwritten rules.

 

How is this not common sense? Is this most people's first MMORPG?

[Lostpenguins]

1) If no one bothered to take the time to make sure that everyone was on the same page with regards to loot rules, there was no majority vote. By vote kicking that person who rolled need for his companion- in violation of "social convention" only and not rules agreed to by everyone before the run- you are indeed punishing that player by preventing him from finishing the run and possibly obtaining more loot. It IS punishment in addition to exercising your right not group with that person.

 

2) I will not stop using the term punishment, for that is what it is. Punishment is a consequence for an act that is inflicted on another against their will. By removing that player against his will, you are indeed punishing him by taking away his option to complete that instance.

Um, they're only preventing you from completing the run with them. There's nothing from preventing that person so going back into the FP and redoing it to obtain more loot. You seem to think it's okay to force the people to stay with that person if they want to complete the instance or take a 15 minute deserter debuff because one guy refuses to leave even though he clearly isn't a team player and the other 3 people are now inconvenienced by one person's actions. Sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and it's selfish for that single player to outweigh their own values over the values of 3 other people and expect them to deal with it. No, they don't have to deal with it. They can remove that person from the group.

 

They cannot remove that person from the game or from behaving that way with other people. The person kicked doesn't get a debuff saying they can't reque. That person does not suddenly lose the ability to click need on loot drops. It's as much a punishment to force those people to be inconvenienced because of one person as much as it is to inconvenience the one person. However, BW clearly believes that vote-kicking is okay and removing one person who doesn't mesh well with the rest is better than forcing the 3 other people to redo anything. That's why they implemented the tool.

[river_of_Gem]

How is this not common sense? Is this most people's first MMORPG?

 

You know common sense is not for everyone

 

Also this pls :

Solution 1 : all vote kick the ninja and ignore - result : all 3 can queue for 1 another player, the ninja end up empty group and in ignore list of 3 players.

 

Solution 2 : all left group and ignore the ninja - result : all 3 need to wait for the lock time out, use /whisper to regroup again, the ninja end up empty group and in ignore list of 3 players.

 

Can you tell me what's the different for the ninja between those solution ?

[Lostpenguins]

Obviously, if noone said anything, then there was no vote.

 

snip

 

Ofcourse, since that is a sign that you ALSO take your own behaviour, lack of communication and unfounded assumptions into consideration, instead of putting the blame entirely on the one who doesn't follow your unwritten rules.

You're fooling yourself into thinking that ignorance to social etiquette makes you immune to the consequences. It doesn't. That's a simple fact. Good luck arguing against that truth.

[Ratajack]

You make the same logical fallacy. You equate FP's and attending something in the same light. They are only the same in social conventions having unwritten rules. FP's have more than that. They are also a system that require team cooperation. Ever seen a movie where one guy in a group that requires team cooperation to perform properly becomes undesirable to the rest of the group? Ever seen that group up and leave him behind? There ya go.

 

Here's a more fitting example then. You and three other people with whom you work are placed on a project. You all contribute and all work toward completing the project. When the project is completed, the boss decides to reward the group with a bonus. The problem is the bonus is a new car. There is only one new car and it must be given to one and only one member of the group. It cannot be sold. Three of the group members, John, Carl and Dave have cars that are at least 8 years old, but they have cars. The car used by John's wife just died and needs to be replaced. The fourth member of the group, Jim, has no car and lives within walking distance of work. It takes Jim about 15 minutes to walk to work.

 

Jim wants the car for himself, as he would no longer have to walk to work. John wants the car to replace the car his wife drives since hers just died. John cannot drive the new car himself as it is a standard transmission. Jim, Carl and Dave tell John that he cannot give the car to his wife as his wife did not contribute anything toward the completion of the project, and that Jim is more deserving of the car.

 

Who gets the car?

[Lostpenguins]

How is this not common sense? Is this most people's first MMORPG?

Some people (like 6 in this whole post) are just being snarky and trying to argue for arguments sake. They surely know the repercussions for their actions and are somehow trying to act like the victim. This isn't a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of how things are. You roll NEED for companion - you will most likely get told not to do that and/or kicked.

 

And that's really the end of the discussion.

[BenjaminminU]

Theres a certain etiquette for flashpoints that everyone for use.

 

1. If you need it for your character, hit need.

 

2. If you don't need it for your character or companion you hit pass.

 

3. If you need it for a companion, wait until everyone else has voted, if they all hit greed, ask if you can need for your companion.

 

Its not rocket science! (Although I could possibly give a simple explanation of rocket science)

[Ratajack]

Um, they're only preventing you from completing the run with them. There's nothing from preventing that person so going back into the FP and redoing it to obtain more loot. You seem to think it's okay to force the people to stay with that person if they want to complete the instance or take a 15 minute deserter debuff because one guy refuses to leave even though he clearly isn't a team player and the other 3 people are now inconvenienced by one person's actions. Sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and it's selfish for that single player to outweigh their own values over the values of 3 other people and expect them to deal with it. No, they don't have to deal with it. They can remove that person from the group.

 

They cannot remove that person from the game or from behaving that way with other people. The person kicked doesn't get a debuff saying they can't reque. That person does not suddenly lose the ability to click need on loot drops. It's as much a punishment to force those people to be inconvenienced because of one person as much as it is to inconvenience the one person. However, BW clearly believes that vote-kicking is okay and removing one person who doesn't mesh well with the rest is better than forcing the 3 other people to redo anything. That's why they implemented the tool.

 

BW clearly believes that every member of a FP has the option to roll need on every piece of loot. That's why every member of every FP has a lighted need button on every drop.

[scraycroft]

Here's a more fitting example then. You and three other people with whom you work are placed on a project. You all contribute and all work toward completing the project. When the project is completed, the boss decides to reward the group with a bonus. The problem is the bonus is a new car. There is only one new car and it must be given to one and only one member of the group. It cannot be sold. Three of the group members, John, Carl and Dave have cars that are at least 8 years old, but they have cars. The car used by John's wife just died and needs to be replaced. The fourth member of the group, Jim, has no car and lives within walking distance of work. It takes Jim about 15 minutes to walk to work.

 

Jim wants the car for himself, as he would no longer have to walk to work. John wants the car to replace the car his wife drives since hers just died. John cannot drive the new car himself as it is a standard transmission. Jim, Carl and Dave tell John that he cannot give the car to his wife as his wife did not contribute anything toward the completion of the project, and that Jim is more deserving of the car.

 

Who gets the car?

 

Jim gets it.

[river_of_Gem]

Here's a more fitting example then. You and three other people with whom you work are placed on a project. You all contribute and all work toward completing the project. When the project is completed, the boss decides to reward the group with a bonus. The problem is the bonus is a new car. There is only one new car and it must be given to one and only one member of the group. It cannot be sold. Three of the group members, John, Carl and Dave have cars that are at least 8 years old, but they have cars. The car used by John's wife just died and needs to be replaced. The fourth member of the group, Jim, has no car and lives within walking distance of work. It takes Jim about 15 minutes to walk to work.

 

Jim wants the car for himself, as he would no longer have to walk to work. John wants the car to replace the car his wife drives since hers just died. John cannot drive the new car himself as it is a standard transmission. Jim, Carl and Dave tell John that he cannot give the car to his wife as his wife did not contribute anything toward the completion of the project, and that Jim is more deserving of the car.

 

Who gets the car?

 

I /lol at how hard you try.

 

For your example, it can not be John since if John have it his family end up with 2 car and 2 other only have 1 ( old ) car and 1 dont have any car at all.

 

and you ignored my previous post

Edited March 21, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[scraycroft]

and you ignored my previous post

 

No one likes your question.

[Lostpenguins]

Here's a more fitting example then. You and three other people with whom you work are placed on a project. You all contribute and all work toward completing the project. When the project is completed, the boss decides to reward the group with a bonus. The problem is the bonus is a new car. There is only one new car and it must be given to one and only one member of the group. It cannot be sold. Three of the group members, John, Carl and Dave have cars that are at least 8 years old, but they have cars. The car used by John's wife just died and needs to be replaced. The fourth member of the group, Jim, has no car and lives within walking distance of work. It takes Jim about 15 minutes to walk to work.

 

Jim wants the car for himself, as he would no longer have to walk to work. John wants the car to replace the car his wife drives since hers just died. John cannot drive the new car himself as it is a standard transmission. Jim, Carl and Dave tell John that he cannot give the car to his wife as his wife did not contribute anything toward the completion of the project, and that Jim is more deserving of the car.

 

Who gets the car?

Sorry, but that's completely different factors and your example is so bad.

1) John's wife is a real person as well. Fail #1

2) Your companion's gear didn't break and they can still do whatever they needed to do (dps, heal, tank) with about the same efficiency. John's wife went from car to no car in the situation you provided. Fail #2.

3) Jim can learn to drive the car. You cannot learn how to wear heavy armor as a Marauder. Fail #3.

4) Jim is the only person in this situation car-less. If he wants to get anywhere else in this world besides the job he would still have to walk if he doesn't have a car and thus distance becomes a real issue. Fail #4.

 

Wow, so many holes in your argument that it's virtually nothing like the original argument.

 

A better example would be that the 4 guys carpool (taking turns with their own car) and John doesn't have a wife, he has a sister that doesn't carpool with them. The car is a transmission that only Jim and John's sister know how to drive and the other guys could never learn how to drive a manual transmission. No one is carless, even John's sister. Both she and Jim still have cars. Now, the car is newer and fancier than everyone else's car, but, I repeat, it's a manual and the 3 other guys will never learn how to drive a manual. Only Jim and John's sister know how to.

 

I seriously, seriously doubt that anyone in the group would be okay with John's sister getting it. Since they would shoot down the idea of her getting it it defaults to Jim since he's the only one that can possibly drive manual.

 

That's way closer to the analogy than what you gave. Way closer and it favors the players character and not the companion.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[river_of_Gem]

No one likes your question.

 

Sorry it seem you missed the stuff being discussed atm

[Beaunidle]

BW clearly believes that every member of a FP has the option to roll need on every piece of loot. That's why every member of every FP has a lighted need button on every drop.

 

That attitude is why there's a votekick option too. When people can't respect the social conventions applied to Need and Greed rolls then the rest of the group can democratically get rid of the antisocial individual.

If they also decide to tell their friends and/or the public channels about the behaviour then that's also their right.

[Lostpenguins]

and you ignored my previous post

He answered it in response to mine:

1) If no one bothered to take the time to make sure that everyone was on the same page with regards to loot rules, there was no majority vote. By vote kicking that person who rolled need for his companion- in violation of "social convention" only and not rules agreed to by everyone before the run- you are indeed punishing that player by preventing him from finishing the run and possibly obtaining more loot. It IS punishment in addition to exercising your right not group with that person.

 

2) I will not stop using the term punishment, for that is what it is. Punishment is a consequence for an act that is inflicted on another against their will. By removing that player against his will, you are indeed punishing him by taking away his option to complete that instance.

Answered and supported his argument with a good point are two different things though. =)

[scraycroft]

Sorry, but that's completely different factors and your example is so bad.

1) Jim's wife is a real person as well. Fail #1

2) Your companion's gear didn't break and they can still do whatever they needed to do (dps, heal, tank) with about the same efficiency. Jim's wife went from car to no car in the situation you provided. Fail #2.

3) Jim can learn to drive the car. You cannot learn how to wear heavy armor as a Marauder. Fail #3.

4) Jim is the only person in this situation car-less. If he wants to get anywhere else in this world besides the job he would still have to walk if he doesn't have a car and thus distance becomes a real issue. Fail #4.

 

Wow, so many holes in your argument that it's virtually nothing like the original argument.

 

Think you lumped John and Jim into one person. But you got the jist of it, he's trying to make the wife the "companion" by playing on your heartstrings which isn't a valid argument as your pointed out.

[river_of_Gem]

He answered it in response to mine:

 

Answered and supported his argument with a good point are two different things though. =)

 

Reading this "answer" i still don't understand what make a vote kick "punishment" for a ninja while both solution give same result... but i guess he need to take a break

Edited March 21, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[Lostpenguins]

Think you lumped John and Jim into one person. But you got the jist of it, he's trying to make the wife the "companion" by playing on your heartstrings which isn't a valid argument as your pointed out.

Yeah, I totally did. So I had to revise it and gave a way closer analogy.

[Lostpenguins]

Reading this "answer" i still don't understand what make a vote kick "punishment" for a ninja while both solution give same result... but i guess he need to take a break

He's saying it's punishment because that person has to redo the entire instance again. If they were 5 minutes away from completing it and it took 6 hours he's not back at square one. However, it would be the same to say that the people who are also 5 minutes away have to either deal with this guy who is going to continue being problematic or restart the instance themselves. 3 people being inconvenienced (dealing with Mr. Rogue who rolls need on everything because he can use it - I see right through you Mr. Rogue.) is apparently less than 1 person being inconvenienced (Not rolling need for companions).

[Ratajack]

Solution 1 : all vote kick the ninja and ignore - result : all 3 can queue for 1 another player, the ninja end up empty group and in ignore list of 3 players.

 

Solution 2 : all left group and ignore the ninja - result : all 3 need to wait for the lock time out, use /whisper to regroup again, the ninja end up empty group and in ignore list of 3 players.

 

Can you tell me what's the different for the ninja between those solution ?

 

Nothing different for the offending player.

 

The difference is that in first situation, three members of the group decide to remove the fourth against his will, thereby "punishing" him.

 

In the second situation, each of those three players makes the decision that they feel strongly enough about remaining grouped with the offending player that they make the choice to suffer a deserter buff rather than finish the instance. No one is forcibly removing them from the group against their will.

 

In addition, it is far easier to punish a player by removing him from the group then to take the chance that the other three members do not feel strongly enough to drop group and queue again. The person initiating the vote usually knows that most vote kicks pass because those that vote to kick suffer no consequences themselves, other than possibly waiting for a replacement, and most groups will simply pull out a companion and continue until a replacement is found. Add to that the fact that many players do not even read the name of the person about to be vote kicked or he reason for the vote kick. Many players will simply vote yes any time that window pops up on their screen.

 

It is an entirely different situation when a player has to drop group voluntarily. In this case the person who feels so strongly about remaining grouped with the offending player that he drops group, but the other two players who might vote yes to a vote kick-knowing that they will suffer no consequences themselves-may not feel that strongly about remaining with the offending player and may choose to remain and finish the instance.

 

 

So while there may be no difference for the offending player if the three members vote kick him, or if the three members choose to drop group, there is HUGE potential difference in the outcome depending on whether the "punishment route" is taken or the "I'm going to exercise my right not to play with player any longer and voluntarily drop group" route is taken.

[Lostpenguins]

Nothing different for the offending player.

 

The difference is that in first situation, three members of the group decide to remove the fourth against his will, thereby "punishing" him.

 

In the second situation, each of those three players makes the decision that they feel strongly enough about remaining grouped with the offending player that they make the choice to suffer a deserter buff rather than finish the instance. No one is forcibly removing them from the group against their will.

 

In addition, it is far easier to punish a player by removing him from the group then to take the chance that the other three members do not feel strongly enough to drop group and queue again. The person initiating the vote usually knows that most vote kicks pass because those that vote to kick suffer no consequences themselves, other than possibly waiting for a replacement, and most groups will simply pull out a companion and continue until a replacement is found. Add to that the fact that many players do not even read the name of the person about to be vote kicked or he reason for the vote kick. Many players will simply vote yes any time that window pops up on their screen.

 

It is an entirely different situation when a player has to drop group voluntarily. In this case the person who feels so strongly about remaining grouped with the offending player that he drops group, but the other two players who might vote yes to a vote kick-knowing that they will suffer no consequences themselves-may not feel that strongly about remaining with the offending player and may choose to remain and finish the instance.

 

 

So while there may be no difference for the offending player if the three members vote kick him, or if the three members choose to drop group, there is HUGE potential difference in the outcome depending on whether the "punishment route" is taken or the "I'm going to exercise my right not to play with player any longer and voluntarily drop group" route is taken.

False assumption. If there was no group kick tool I'm pretty sure a lot of those people who leave group and reform.

[Ratajack]

Here's a more fitting example then. You and three other people with whom you work are placed on a project. You all contribute and all work toward completing the project. When the project is completed, the boss decides to reward the group with a bonus. The problem is the bonus is a new car. There is only one new car and it must be given to one and only one member of the group. It cannot be sold. Three of the group members, John, Carl and Dave have cars that are at least 8 years old, but they have cars. The car used by John's wife just died and needs to be replaced. The fourth member of the group, Jim, has no car and lives within walking distance of work. It takes Jim about 15 minutes to walk to work.

 

Jim wants the car for himself, as he would no longer have to walk to work. John wants the car to replace the car his wife drives since hers just died. John cannot drive the new car himself as it is a standard transmission. Jim, Carl and Dave tell John that he cannot give the car to his wife as his wife did not contribute anything toward the completion of the project, and that Jim is more deserving of the car.

 

Who gets the car?

 

 

 

Jim gets it.

 

Why?

 

There would be no car without John's efforts. Why not draw straws, or use some other random method giving each of he members of the group the same chance at getting the car? If Jim wins the car, great. If Carl or Dave win the car, they can give it to Jim. If John wins the car, he can give it to his wife. In fact, if all four members drew straws, it would actually give Jim a 75% chance of getting the car, assuming that Carl and Dave gave the car to Jim if either of the won.

 

I can understand the thought process behind Carl and Dave choosing to pass on the chance for the car so that either Jim or John can get it. I'm trying to understand the thought process behind taking away John's chance to get the car in favor of Jim.