[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So basically "Answering your question would destroy the rest of the straws I'm grasping at, so I will modify your question to give myself wiggle room, and answer that instead." Got it.

No basically your questions contained unrelated variables that you through into a question that had no meaning and only supported your statement. Unfortunately, your question didn't represent the debate or reality.

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

Yes, Alarti, the entire argument is based on the current reality of the raid rules, not what you do or don't find idiotic. I didn't ask you to modify my question and cherry pick the conditions that you felt should only apply.

Ummmm you kind of asked for my OPINION about a situation. If you read my position early in the thread you would realize my grievance is mainly with the idiotic raid rules.

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

So you believe only the punitive actions should follow a player, as well as a lockout. So why do you draw the line at a lockout and not a cool-down period? Both are restrictions created to ensure guilds aren't taking more than their fair share. Interestingly enough, one potentially restricts Class R guilds if they were trying to reform, and one potentially restricts Class C guilds if they were trying to reform.

So, Alarti, why do you feel the Class R restriction (lockouts) should follow a group of players to their re-formed guild, and not the Class C restriction (C to R cooldown period)?

Who said anything about a lockout? I clearly said that a new guild should be able to be class R unless they kill a Class C mob which dictated by the rules would set them to Class C. Forsaken hadn't killed a Class C mob. Still don't see where I said anything about a lockout.

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

But you just said punitive measures and certain cherrypicked restrictions should follow players when they swap guilds en masse, so technically "whether Forsaken is a new entity or not" doesn't even need to be considered. The issue now is "what restrictions follow those players over to the new guild when it is clear to any reasonable person that the majority of the new guild consists of members from the original guild" and the fact you're cherrypicking.

It seems you are doing the cherrypicking. Punitive measures are assigned to all individuals in a guild class restrictions should be assigned to guilds. Are you are saying that if a TMO member apped to Taken and can now not raid class R mobs for 30 days.
Is the majority of Forsaken the majority of TMO? If TMO instead splintered into 3-4 guilds...are all those guilds Class C? Where do you draw the line?
If Forsaken instead merged with Taken... would they be Class R or Class C? If Forsaken merged into A-Team instead of taking a new guild name would they be Class R or Class C?
You are trying to fight phantom problems. Are you pro-border fence?

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

LOL, you honestly don't think there would have been a similar calling out of a guild in Class R if they reformed to evade a lockout restriction?


This isn't about TMO/Forsaken against the server or Class R. This has ALWAYS been about consistency in the interpretation/application of the rules so every guild understands what is and isn't allowed in the spirit of fair competition, however you define "competition".

Why would I care if class R is calling out other class R guilds about lockout restrictions other than entertainment value. Also, this isn't a lockout discussion.

Is it not though? Because the rules don't seem intelligent or fair.