Selecting need for loot

[Khevar]

I agree to a point. I think the player who wants to roll need for the companion should make his intentions clear. I just think that those that expect, or assume, "social convention" to be the rule in effect, should also speak up before the run to avoid this type of drama. To not speak up, assuming that "social convention" will be the rule, and then getting bent out of shape if someone bucks the "social convention" is kind of like saying "MOM, Johnny took that toy I wanted, even though I left it on the floor."

Fair enough.

 

In my personal experience, the pugs I've been a part of, perhaps 6 out of 500 weren't aware of this social convention. From where I sit, that's pretty compelling statistics. It moves beyond "Johnny took the toy I wanted" into the realm of "Say please when you ask for the salt"

 

It's a pretty widely-held social convention.

[Ratajack]

We're both in accord on this.

 

What I believe we're at odds on, is I say the player who wants to roll Need for the companion bears the onus of asking if the others mind. Needing in this manner without gaining agreement first is rude and shouldn't be done.

 

As an example of how assuming "social convention" will be the rule can lead to drama. It has nothing to do with looting, just making an assumption of "social convention".

 

Barbara and her friends have a party every month at the house of one the group, chosen at random. They have been doing this for months. When they first started having these parties, none of the hostesses expected the guests to bring a covered dish and yet most did, to be courteous. Over the months, the group of friends has grown to the point a which they are no longer able to accommodate everybody at that party. They then decide to draw names at random to see who is invited to the party and from those names choose a hostess at random. The invitations go out one month and Barbara is chosen as the hostess. Barbara makes no effort to ensure that the guests know that she is now expecting each of them to bring a covered dish, and none of the guests do the courteous thing and ask if they can bring anything. Three of the four guests show up with a covered dish, as that has been the "social convention" and the fourth does not, as she was not advised that a covered dish was expected and did not ask if she needed to bring anything. This situation could have been avoided had Barbara mentioned that it was a covered dish party instead of assuming that her guests would just bring a covered dish, or if the fourth had asked if she could or should bring anything.

 

In this situation, I don't think any ONE person should shoulder the entire, or even the majority of the blame.

[Khevar]

...

 

In this situation, I don't think any ONE person should shoulder the entire, or even the majority of the blame.

Certainly.

 

I would imagine that the 4th person, showing up to the party, would instantly notice her expectations were out of place and would self-correct (and probably feel quite embarrassed).

 

While there can be drama on loot, and some people here have expressed instant outrage and the merest thought of someone ninja-ing loot, I think that the vast majority would simple type in chat, "Don't Need on stuff that's not for your class" and give them one more chance (but only one).

 

Case in point, my very first HM flashpoint ever was Taral V. I was so excited when the Columi piece dropped that I saw the words "Jedi" and instantly Needed on it. Which was foolish as it was a Jedi Knight piece and I was a Jedi Consular. This was back when Rakata was the highest tier and Columi was still valuable.

 

One of the players said, "Why did you Need on that it's for JK?" I realized my mistake and apologized for it and felt quite foolish. I even offered to give the Sentinel some BCAs instead. Note that the loot drop wasn't actually worthless to me, as I also had a knight and I used legacy gear to shlep the mods over. Didn't change the fact that I felt I had cheated someone out of a direct upgrade for the toon in the group.

 

Another case in point, a Directive 7 run. One of the players was Needing on every drop. After the 3rd time this happened, another player typed, "Why are you needing on the loot?" He responded, "Why not?" "Because it's not for your class. Do it again and you'll be kicked." He stopped. I imagine a few things went through his head at the abrupt handling, and things seemed tense for a bit. A few minutes later he apologized and all was good.

 

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can not be aware of what is expected. But when someone asks here on the forums, they're going to be told "Need is for main toon" or some variation. That's basically how this thread was started.

[ShmickB]

As an example of how assuming "social convention" will be the rule can lead to drama. It has nothing to do with looting, just making an assumption of "social convention".

 

Barbara and her friends have a party every month at the house of one the group, chosen at random. They have been doing this for months. When they first started having these parties, none of the hostesses expected the guests to bring a covered dish and yet most did, to be courteous. Over the months, the group of friends has grown to the point a which they are no longer able to accommodate everybody at that party. They then decide to draw names at random to see who is invited to the party and from those names choose a hostess at random. The invitations go out one month and Barbara is chosen as the hostess. Barbara makes no effort to ensure that the guests know that she is now expecting each of them to bring a covered dish, and none of the guests do the courteous thing and ask if they can bring anything. Three of the four guests show up with a covered dish, as that has been the "social convention" and the fourth does not, as she was not advised that a covered dish was expected and did not ask if she needed to bring anything. This situation could have been avoided had Barbara mentioned that it was a covered dish party instead of assuming that her guests would just bring a covered dish, or if the fourth had asked if she could or should bring anything.

 

In this situation, I don't think any ONE person should shoulder the entire, or even the majority of the blame.

 

WOW!

 

I've been amused by your inability to grasp what others have been painstakingly pointing out to you in this thread. But then you describe that scenario above and imagine that it supports your perspective...

 

I'm not "flaming" or being personal at all, but you really don't understand what "social conventions" are or how they work at all. We are NOT rational-literal animals. When someone acts as though we are, they invariably attract derision and/or sanction. Think of Sheldon Cooper.

 

We are social animals and "social conventions" provide necessary binding glue to the community. They cannot be done away with, period. This is clear in every form of society/culture ever looked at.

 

In Anglo-American cultures for instance it is a standard norm of behaviour to shake hands upon meeting someone of similar social status. This is merely a "social convention" however, so people are free to ignore it but those who do will invariably engender ill will amongst those who's hands they declined to shake. Purely a meaningless ritual, but it (and countless other conventions) have consequences in the cultures they are practised in.

 

Your refusal to abide by a similar ritual in a community that has well established customary norms of behaviour will, like the above example, engender ill will among others in the community. Its as simple as that. Whether it is objectively true or not is irrelevant, you will be viewed with suspicion as a "free-loader" or "other" simply because you choose not to do what is expected. You can complain about impinging on your Freedoms all you want but all society involves curbs on individual rights.

 

In conclusion, you are never going to win this argument as you simply do not grasp what it is that the majority are arguing about. I recommend one of my favourite poems to you to reflect on, John Donne's 'No man is an Island'

[slafko]

What ShmikB said. Edited March 22, 2013 by slafko

[CharleyDanger]

WOW!

 

I've been amused by your inability to grasp what others have been painstakingly pointing out to you in this thread. But then you describe that scenario above and imagine that it supports your perspective...

 

I'm not "flaming" or being personal at all, but you really don't understand what "social conventions" are or how they work at all. We are NOT rational-literal animals. When someone acts as though we are, they invariably attract derision and/or sanction. Think of Sheldon Cooper.

 

We are social animals and "social conventions" provide necessary binding glue to the community. They cannot be done away with, period. This is clear in every form of society/culture ever looked at.

 

In Anglo-American cultures for instance it is a standard norm of behaviour to shake hands upon meeting someone of similar social status. This is merely a "social convention" however, so people are free to ignore it but those who do will invariably engender ill will amongst those who's hands they declined to shake. Purely a meaningless ritual, but it (and countless other conventions) have consequences in the cultures they are practised in.

 

Your refusal to abide by a similar ritual in a community that has well established customary norms of behaviour will, like the above example, engender ill will among others in the community. Its as simple as that. Whether it is objectively true or not is irrelevant, you will be viewed with suspicion as a "free-loader" or "other" simply because you choose not to do what is expected. You can complain about impinging on your Freedoms all you want but all society involves curbs on individual rights.

 

In conclusion, you are never going to win this argument as you simply do not grasp what it is that the majority are arguing about. I recommend one of my favourite poems to you to reflect on, John Donne's 'No man is an Island'

 

^ Checkmate

 

I would not be surprised if the rebuttal was %100 rhetoric and inaccurate. Something like "Was slavery not part of social convention?" lol

Edited March 22, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[Ratajack]

WOW!

 

I've been amused by your inability to grasp what others have been painstakingly pointing out to you in this thread. But then you describe that scenario above and imagine that it supports your perspective...

 

I'm not "flaming" or being personal at all, but you really don't understand what "social conventions" are or how they work at all. We are NOT rational-literal animals. When someone acts as though we are, they invariably attract derision and/or sanction. Think of Sheldon Cooper.

 

We are social animals and "social conventions" provide necessary binding glue to the community. They cannot be done away with, period. This is clear in every form of society/culture ever looked at.

 

In Anglo-American cultures for instance it is a standard norm of behaviour to shake hands upon meeting someone of similar social status. This is merely a "social convention" however, so people are free to ignore it but those who do will invariably engender ill will amongst those who's hands they declined to shake. Purely a meaningless ritual, but it (and countless other conventions) have consequences in the cultures they are practised in.

 

Your refusal to abide by a similar ritual in a community that has well established customary norms of behaviour will, like the above example, engender ill will among others in the community. Its as simple as that. Whether it is objectively true or not is irrelevant, you will be viewed with suspicion as a "free-loader" or "other" simply because you choose not to do what is expected. You can complain about impinging on your Freedoms all you want but all society involves curbs on individual rights.

 

In conclusion, you are never going to win this argument as you simply do not grasp what it is that the majority are arguing about. I recommend one of my favourite poems to you to reflect on, John Donne's 'No man is an Island'

 

What refusal to abide by a similar ritual? How have I given cause for you to view me as a freeloader? When have I said that I choose not to do what is expected?

 

Go back and read my posts very carefully before you accuse me of these things, or of not understanding the majority view.

 

I see your john Donne's "no man is an island" and I raise you Shakespeare's "to thine own self be true". Until that bell tolls for me, I will follow Shakespeare's advice.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ratajack

[CharleyDanger]

What refusal to abide by a similar ritual? How have I given cause for you to view me as a freeloader? When have I said that I choose not to do what is expected?

 

Go back and read my posts very carefully before you accuse me of these things, or of not understanding the majority view.

 

I see your john Donne's "no man is an island" and I raise you Shakespeare's "to thine own self be true". Until that bell tolls for me, I will follow Shakespeare's advice.

 

You are defending the OP so much that people are assuming that you also roll need for companion gear as well. We cannot call you a freeloader, but you are defending a freeloader. You may not of done anything the OP has done, but you are the only one defending it.

[ShmickB]

Hamlet, interesting choice...

 

However Shakespeare is not telling us, through Polonius who is a bad guy btw, to "go our own way". The full text makes it clear this advice is about lying:

This above all: to thine ownself be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

 

If we do not lie to ourselves we cannot lie to others.

 

But enough of literature

 

I absolutely did not accuse you of anything, pretending I did is simply a non sequitur. Read that part "Whether it is objectively true or not is irrelevant, you will be viewed with suspicion" again.

 

Your repeated point has been that "social conventions" create the problem. My post addressed that and described the consequences of one (be that "you" or "I" or "Joe" etc) refusing the established norm.

[Ratajack]

You are defending the OP so much that people are assuming that you also roll need for companion gear as well. We cannot call you a freeloader, but you are defending a freeloader. You may not of done anything the OP has done, but you are the only one defending it.

 

We all know what happens when you assume.

 

Go back and read the entire thread before you make another false accusation or statement.

 

 

As I said, it is possible to see both sides of a debate, just as it is possible to be one jerk amongst many.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ratajack

[Ratajack]

Hamlet, interesting choice...

 

However Shakespeare is not telling us, through Polonius who is a bad guy btw, to "go our own way". The full text makes it clear this advice is about lying:

This above all: to thine ownself be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

 

If we do not lie to ourselves we cannot lie to others.

 

But enough of literature

 

I absolutely did not accuse you of anything, pretending I did is simply a non sequitur. Read that part "Whether it is objectively true or not is irrelevant, you will be viewed with suspicion" again.

 

Your repeated point has been that "social conventions" create the problem. My post addressed that and described the consequences of one (be that "you" or "I" or "Joe" etc) refusing the established norm.

 

First of all, I may be wrong, but while you interpret that quote in the most literal sense, I find a deeper meaning. If one remains true and holds to one's beliefs, acting in accordance with those beliefs, then it becomes obvious to all what type of person you are. You phrased it a bit differently, with the Fleetwood Mac(correct me if I'm wrong) "go your own way", and I can see the similarity. I'm not sure I'm trying to go my own way, but I do hold to my beliefs and act in accordance with them.

 

Second, you absolutely DID accuse me of several things. Your previous post:

 

WOW!

 

I've been amused by your inability to grasp what others have been painstakingly pointing out to you in this thread. But then you describe that scenario above and imagine that it supports your perspective...

 

I'm not "flaming" or being personal at all, but you really don't understand what "social conventions" are or how they work at all. We are NOT rational-literal animals. When someone acts as though we are, they invariably attract derision and/or sanction. Think of Sheldon Cooper.

 

We are social animals and "social conventions" provide necessary binding glue to the community. They cannot be done away with, period. This is clear in every form of society/culture ever looked at.

 

In Anglo-American cultures for instance it is a standard norm of behaviour to shake hands upon meeting someone of similar social status. This is merely a "social convention" however, so people are free to ignore it but those who do will invariably engender ill will amongst those who's hands they declined to shake. Purely a meaningless ritual, but it (and countless other conventions) have consequences in the cultures they are practised in.

 

Your refusal to abide by a similar ritual in a community that has well established customary norms of behaviour will, like the above example, engender ill will among others in the community. Its as simple as that. Whether it is objectively true or not is irrelevant, you will be viewed with suspicion as a "free-loader" or "other" simply because you choose not to do what is expected. You can complain about impinging on your Freedoms all you want but all society involves curbs on individual rights.

 

In conclusion, you are never going to win this argument as you simply do not grasp what it is that the majority are arguing about. I recommend one of my favourite poems to you to reflect on, John Donne's 'No man is an Island'

 

You chose not to use the generic "a person's refusal to abide by a similar ritual" in favor of the more accusatory "Your refusal...". Then you chose the words "you will be viewed with suspicion" and "you choose not to do what is expected" as opposed the generic "that person will be viewed..." and "they choose not to do what is expected." Since you were addressing me specifically, and specifically chose the second person form of address rather than the generic third person, you were accusing me of being guilty of those things. You can backpedal all you wish, but the evidence is there is writing.

 

I do not believe I have made any personal attacks in my posts, and I believe I have remained civil in my discussion, despite the venom I've directed at me because I dare to defend another player's views.

 

I have addressed "social convention" in many of my posts. I do not believe that I have stated that "social convention" has caused the problem, but if I did state that "social convention" caused the problem, I will apologize. I believe that my statements, time and time again, have been directed at the fact that if the members of a group would take the time to ensure that all members are on the same page with regards to loot rules, rather than just ASSUMING "social convention", there should be no room for drama to be caused. I've even stated that in those instances, where ground rules are set and agreed to before the run, there is no "right to roll need" to defend.

[DarthDak]

I believe that my statements, time and time again, have been directed at the fact that if the members of a group would take the time to ensure that all members are on the same page with regards to loot rules, rather than just ASSUMING "social convention", there should be no room for drama to be caused.

 

I understand your point, but I disagree slightly or vehemently, depending on what part is most important to you.

 

To elaborate:

 

I agree completely that if the members of a group are all on the same page with regards to loot rules, there should be no room for drama to be caused, the exception begin due to honest mistakes which do happen, although not commonly.

 

I utterly disagree with the notion that it's the responsibility of the members who already know, and adhere to, the established social convention to preemptively inform any newcomer(s) of said conventions.

 

The very point of a social convention is to not have to reiterate it, again and again. (To quote Wikipedia, just as one example: "A convention is a set of agreed, stipulated, or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms, or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.") Note the past tense. Thus, the responsibility for learning about any social convention in effect falls primarily on the individual who is not yet familiar with it.

 

This can be done either by learning about them before placing one's self in a situation requiring the knowledge, or by asking about them right at the beginning of such a situation, or by adjusting one's behavior when informed about the error in one's actions during such a situation.

 

When I visit another country, I don't presume that what is custom in my own country is also custom in the other country. I try to learn before travelling what I need to know in order to co-exist peacefully with the people I'm going to visit. If I still make mistakes, and I am informed of my error, I adjust my behavior accordingly.

 

What I don't do, is expect my hosts to educate me on their own accord. The responsibility to become educated is mine, and mine alone. If I refuse to become educated, that is my problem and not one of my hosts, and it is I who will suffer the consequences, not them.

 

I apply the same approach to my online gaming, and it tends to work well.

 

In summary, there is only a minor adjustment needed to the statement of yours that I quoted above, in order for me to agree completely with it, and you. It would be interesting to see what your objections to my adjustment is, if you have any.

 

Here goes:

 

If a group-member who is unsure about the social convention regarding loot rules would take the time to ask about it, rather than just assume their personal idea to be it, there should be no room for drama to be caused.

[river_of_Gem]

We all know what happens when you assume.

 

Go back and read the entire thread before you make another false accusation or statement.

 

 

As I said, it is possible to see both sides of a debate, just as it is possible to be one jerk amongst many.

 

Lol you are the one that assume on almost all your "points"

[Ratajack]

I understand your point, but I disagree slightly or vehemently, depending on what part is most important to you.

 

To elaborate:

 

I agree completely that if the members of a group are all on the same page with regards to loot rules, there should be no room for drama to be caused, the exception begin due to honest mistakes which do happen, although not commonly.

 

I utterly disagree with the notion that it's the responsibility of the members who already know, and adhere to, the established social convention to preemptively inform any newcomer(s) of said conventions.

 

The very point of a social convention is to not have to reiterate it, again and again. (To quote Wikipedia, just as one example: "A convention is a set of agreed, stipulated, or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms, or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.") Note the past tense. Thus, the responsibility for learning about any social convention in effect falls primarily on the individual who is not yet familiar with it.

 

This can be done either by learning about them before placing one's self in a situation requiring the knowledge, or by asking about them right at the beginning of such a situation, or by adjusting one's behavior when informed about the error in one's actions during such a situation.

 

When I visit another country, I don't presume that what is custom in my own country is also custom in the other country. I try to learn before travelling what I need to know in order to co-exist peacefully with the people I'm going to visit. If I still make mistakes, and I am informed of my error, I adjust my behavior accordingly.

 

What I don't do, is expect my hosts to educate me on their own accord. The responsibility to become educated is mine, and mine alone. If I refuse to become educated, that is my problem and not one of my hosts, and it is I who will suffer the consequences, not them.

 

I apply the same approach to my online gaming, and it tends to work well.

 

In summary, there is only a minor adjustment needed to the statement of yours that I quoted above, in order for me to agree completely with it, and you. It would be interesting to see what your objections to my adjustment is, if you have any.

 

Here goes:

 

If a group-member who is unsure about the social convention regarding loot rules would take the time to ask about it, rather than just assume their personal idea to be it, there should be no room for drama to be caused.

 

I agree with your statement, generally.

 

The reason I highlighted that phrase is that if I go into an FP assuming that the other three members of my group are going to follow "social convention" because "we ALL know that is the custom" and I do not take the 15 seconds to type "need for character only?" in chat, then I have no reason to get bent out of shape if one or more of my party either does not know the "social convention" or simply chooses not to follow it. It may even take only a single keystroke to type those four words if you have a keyboard or mouse macro.

[Ratajack]

Lol you are the one that assume on almost all your "points"

 

Please refresh my memory, and please provide quotes.

 

Anything is edible if chopped finely enough, even crow. I've eaten crow before and I'm sure I will have cause to do so again.

[river_of_Gem]

Please refresh my memory, and please provide quotes.

 

Anything is edible if chopped finely enough, even crow. I've eaten crow before and I'm sure I will have cause to do so again.

 

I suggest you re-read on all your post...carefully

[Ratajack]

I suggest you re-read on all your post...carefully

 

I'll take that as a "no, you can't (or won't) provide quotes", unless you choose to prove me wrong.

[river_of_Gem]

I'll take that as a "no, you can't (or won't) provide quotes", unless you choose to prove me wrong.

 

I take that as a "you can't understand/remember your own post", unless you choose to prove me wrong, oh wait, you can't

[KariTalRathe]

How many of you who think the social convention is absolute have needed on a class item that was then passed onto a companion as it wasn't actually an upgrade for your character? I suspect most of you are hypocritical and have done this.

 

In the context that any upgrade is utilised in both party and solo play, here is another question - a DPS item drops. Are the healer and tank less entitled as their primary functions are different, or do the DPS members of the group recognise that actually DPS is especially important for the companions of said classes and allow them an equal chance of boosting their 'character'.

 

The thing about social conventions is they are not written in stone, they change and evolve. Any group who does not discuss and decide loot rules ahead of time have no right to start dictating them halfway through a dungeon in which all 4 players have contributed. The fact most PUGs don't bother to do this in SW:TOR is due to the fact that gear is actually ridiculously easy to come by and there is little to no reason to argue over who is needing and who is greeding.

[Ratajack]

I take that as a "you can't understand/remember your own post", unless you choose to prove me wrong, oh wait, you can't

 

That is possible. I am getting older and the memory is the second thing to go. I forget what the first is. It is also possible that I simply did not make myself clear enough, or that you did not understand what I was attempting to say. If you have specific examples, I would be happy to either concede your point or to try to explain myself better. I could go back and re-read all my posts, and read them carefully, but since I cannot read your mind, I have no way of knowing to which specific posts you refer.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ratajack

[river_of_Gem]

That is possible. It is also possible that I simply did not make myself clear enough, or that you did not understand what I was attempting to say. If you have specific examples, I would be happy to either concede your point or to try to explain myself better. I could go back and re-read all my posts, and read them carefully, but since I cannot read your mind, I have no way of knowing to which specific posts you refer.

 

If you did re-read all your post you can't miss it

[AsheraII]

I suggest you re-read on all your post...carefully

I'll take that as a "no, you can't (or won't) provide quotes", unless you choose to prove me wrong.

You're pretty mild. I took that as an "I can't, so I revert to the nenernenernener strategy".

 

Pretty funny how a few people rather spend hours raging semantics here, but can't find 20 seconds at the start of a flashpoint to type out "Can we agree on Character need, companion greed please"?

They don't, so there's simply no agreement. Don't ask me why they try to change the world through a forum almost nobody reads, instead of just posting that simple message at the start of a flashpoint. Oh, yes, there's plenty people here. But from all different servers. They'd be lucky to reach even 10% of their own servers' population. They would have more success with a more targetted approach. Like, on their own server, within their flashpoint. Before starting the run.

Edited March 22, 2013 by AsheraII

[Ratajack]

You're pretty mild. I took that as an "I can't, so I revert to the nenernenernener strategy".

Pretty funny how a few people rather spend hours raging semantics here, but can't find 20 seconds at the start of a flashpoint to type out "Can we agree on Character need, companion greed please"?

They don't, so there's simply no agreement. Don't ask me why they try to change the world through a forum almost nobody reads, instead of just posting that simple message at the start of a flashpoint. Oh, yes, there's plenty people here. But from all different servers. They'd be lucky to reach even 10% of their own servers' population. They would have more success with a more targetted approach. Like, on their own server, within their flashpoint. Before starting the run.

 

That about sums it up.

[river_of_Gem]

You're pretty mild. I took that as an "I can't, so I revert to the nenernenernener strategy".

 

Pretty funny how a few people rather spend hours raging semantics here, but can't find 20 seconds at the start of a flashpoint to type out "Can we agree on Character need, companion greed please"?

They don't, so there's simply no agreement. Don't ask me why they try to change the world through a forum almost nobody reads, instead of just posting that simple message at the start of a flashpoint. Oh, yes, there's plenty people here. But from all different servers. They'd be lucky to reach even 10% of their own servers' population. They would have more success with a more targetted approach. Like, on their own server, within their flashpoint. Before starting the run.

 

Say whatever you want, my post is far from "raging" as you can see

 

I don't waste 20 sec at start to type out since it's common sense and was proven by the majority of this thread. And from my experience, 99% my FP run do not have a ninja, so it seem there are more people that need educated in this thread than in my server

 

ps : and guess who spend hours raging semantics here

Edited March 22, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[DarthDak]

How many of you who think the social convention is absolute have needed on a class item that was then passed onto a companion as it wasn't actually an upgrade for your character? I suspect most of you are hypocritical and have done this.

 

I can only speak for myself, but no, I have never, ever done this. In all cases where I wanted an item for one of my companions, I have always, without exception, asked first, and rolled Need only if the group as a whole said yes. Be careful with your assumptions.