Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Unbrella got snarky, and that was the wrong thing, but that should carry no penalty or punishment. It just means he acted like an ass. If you've been paying attention, you'd notice that we have dealt with the offender. The presence of an officer is meaningless if there was no real way to prevent the train. If he knew it was going to happen or if he ordered it, that'd be one thing. Here, someone took the matter into their own hands and ran off the rails. There's nothing that Unbrella could have realistically done to foresee this.
Then we end up in a situation where one party, with little to lose, holds the greater party hostage (see Catherin & raid discussions).
If I say I think someone deserved something does that make me responsible for it? While it's certainly poor taste to pop off as an officer, getting lippy doesn't mean that you should retroactively be considered the cause of something.
In real life, supervisors are responsible for the actions that are within the scope of the underling's duties. When Chest finally snaps and shoots a bunch of people while wearing his work uniform no one will be able to sue Burger King. Shooting people isn't something the management would put him up to nor is it something they should have foreseen. The only responsibility on Burger King is to say "Woah, yeah, he's crazy. GTFO."
That's precisely what happened here. Dinacarl went too far, and the guild has dealt with him.
I find it hilarious how willing people are to attach severe liability to situations that are clearly beyond the control of the ostensibly supervisory parties. If the guild leadership helps someone break the rules, or if they knew or should have known that something bad would happen then you can attach liability. If they refused to discipline the person then you can consider action, especially if that person screws up again after the leadership agreed to continue housing that person.
Stop setting up a false narrative. You're framing the issue as if Unbrella has done something actionable. He got mouthy, but he still was clearly making himself available for honest attempts at resolution. Unbrella did not train BDA. There is one crime here, and it was punished to the maximum extent within TMO's power.
|
You can not possible be that dense, so lets walk down the path again shall we?
Can BDA prove that Unbrella was instrumental in the train? Nope not even going to try.
but one of two things is true here:
A. Unbrella was at the fear portal, with GT and awaiting the pull, in which case he would only have known about the train and was too quick with a retort to have formed an opinion as to the validity of the train.
B. He witnessed the train and knew what had happened and should have immediately intervened by being an upstanding officer of TMO.
So it doesn't matter that Unbrella wasn't the person that trained, as an officer of the offending character's guild Unbreela had a responsibility to the rest of the server, not just BDA, to Immediately get involved and find out if a rules violation had occurred.
Before you come back with some BS about what Chest did, see my previous post.
No, you see To get the BS on the server to lighten up, we need to have a much heavier hand by the GM's without increasing the workload involved. if it is made to be a huge penalty to get the Gm's involved, then people will stop doing things that need to get the gm's involved. or at least stop recruiting ass hats and police their own ranks BEFORE they humiliate the guild in front of the rest of the server