Project 1999 - Petition Defense #03-09-2023 Lord Phara’Dar

Petition Defense #03-09-2023 Lord Phara’Dar
Situation
When: March 9th, 2023
Where: Veeshan’s Peak
What: SS+Castle’s raid is admittedly “in a dangerous position” - the only pathway available to pull PD - and wipes when Kingdom’s PD pull goes wrong. SS+Castle then commits an unforced error by wiping on the uncontested PD attempt offered by Kingdom, so they petition.
Who: Kingdom vs SS+Castle

Order of Events:

Kingdom attempts a PD pull. SS+Castle’s raid is positioned just outside the PD lair directly in the only pull path available.
PD aggros on SS+Castle’s raid immediately once Kingdom’s puller dies.
SS raises a raid concern. Kingdom offers SS+Castle an uncontested PD attempt.
SS+Castle fail their uncontested PD attempt.
Kingdom kills PD. SS+Castle petition.

Precedent

Kingdom vs. ST - CT 12/12/2021 - I suggest keeping your raid forces separate and on a wall where if something goes wrong, it doesn't get dropped near your raid.
FoW vs Kingdom - Statue 4/13/2022 - Throwing out. FoW moved their raid directly in the pull spot.

Summary
In their own petition, SS+Castle admits they were knowingly “putting our raid force… in a dangerous position.” They acknowledge that dangerous position affords them no protection against “mobs pathing back hitting us, or having pullers trained, or a dozen other things that, in another zone or in another position, would be raid infractions because we knowingly chose the path of danger.” It is stunning to see SS+Castle acknowledging all the forms of protection they aren’t afforded when choosing to place their raid in a “dangerous position” while simultaneously petitioning for something that would fall under the same consideration. The logic is inconsistent, selectively applied for SS+Castle’s benefit, and is in direct conflict with the clearly established precedent from both the CT and Statue petition rulings referenced above.
Q11 is cited in their petition despite recent precedent establishing that Q11 does not apply to raids positioned on known pull paths. Speaking strictly to precedent - something went wrong [with the PD pull]; it [PD pull] got dropped near [their] raid. The SS+Castle raid force was not positioned where if something goes wrong, it doesn’t get dropped near their raid. Additionally, SS+Castle moved their raid directly in the pull spot . Kingdom offered SS+Castle an uncontested attempt at PD as a show of good faith in hopes we could negotiate a compromise, even though they had positioned their raid directly in the pull path. SS+Castle took this offer and attempted PD uncontested on their own timeframe. Ultimately, they wiped, and Kingdom subsequently killed PD, at which time SS+Castle still decided to petition despite having accepted the uncontested attempt. This petition could end here as the precedent could not be clearer, but it will continue for the sake of thoroughness.

The inconsistency and selective application of SS+Castle’s logic is put on full display as they acknowledge in this PD petition that their raid force positioning does not afford them protection from “... mobs pathing back hitting us.” The offense alleged in their previous PD petition, however, was based on a “leashed” lava drake, i.e. a “mob pathing back”, attacking their poorly-positioned raid force. The logic SS asserts in this petition negates the grievance from their previous petition and serves as a better defense than anything we could have written for it. Again, SS appears to clearly understand the concept of dangerous positioning and its risks. However, they are selectively applying when dangerous positioning affords them protection or not between consecutive petitions on the same raid mob. The conflicting assertions between petitions make it hard to believe they are submitted in good faith.

SS compares Calcium’s commentary regarding a failure to control displaced mobs dropped in NToV Aary pit in the process of splitting mobs for Lord Koi - a dragon nowhere near the Aary pit - with displacing mobs near raids positioned directly in VP pull paths. While the difference is obvious, SS nonetheless attempts to muddy the issue at hand by drawing a bad faith, intentionally misleading comparison. SS does, in fact, seem to understand how VP works:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jx...lAdnim9PTlBKgo
If every guild in VP tried to execute competing trainups to position their forces like SS does, it would be a recipe for constant training, excessive finger-pointing, and a massive increase in VP raid concerns. The increase in VP raid concerns is already abundantly clear from just one raid force choosing to operate in this way. SS would see that increase multiplied by every VP guild across both servers. VP rules are intentionally designed to avoid this scenario. Simply put, when SS is not in VP, there are no raid concerns, there are no petitions. This can be confirmed by a review of the Green UN. SS is the only party that has alleged either a raid concern or drafted a petition around another guild’s standard VP conduct. When SS is in VP, the zone becomes infinitely more challenging to navigate. When SS is not in VP, there is a complete lack of raid concerns and petitions. The common denominator in the equation of VP raid friction is SS, and both Green and Blue servers should not be forced to change their approach to VP due to one guild’s stubborn refusal to learn the strategies employed by every other VP guild.