I just read through all the screenshots. Here’s my take on it....
Zubas came because he wanted to “camp bracer.” That doesn’t automatically mean he’s entitled to it.
However, in none of the screenshots do I see the party agree on NBG. It’s only referenced in the shot after Solemn was kicked from the group. I’ll presume it was discussed though, because Solemn states “NBG is literally GBN.” This implies he knew beforehand that NBG was told to the group. This creates a problem for Solemn, because it’s understood what NBG means, and that is that a player “needs” who can actually USE the item (as in wear, as opposed to simply “needing” the money from the item). I understand where he’s coming from since I too agree that any party member who’s present and involved in the kill should have a right to roll on an item that drops (regardless whether they can wear it or not).
That being said, if it WAS discussed prior that it was NBG, Solemn joined the group with the knowledge that it was NBG. Regardless of what his personal feelings are about NBG, he can’t arbitrarily decide to “ignore” that guidance and insert his own definition when it’s convenient for him. Despite whatever is believed to be fair, knowing the group rules beforehand and deciding to stay constructively means that you’ve chosen to abide by them.
All that being said, I think as a practical matter it was presumptuous of Zubas to join the group believing he was ‘entitled’ to the bracer. Absent even a roll, it’s clear he assumes he’ll get it if one drops. Now whats not shown in the screenshots is the roll itself, but I can assume Solemn rolled on the item and subsequently won the roll, which is why he looted. Not necessarily a ninja loot if he won the roll, but also not in keeping with the rules of the group set forth beforehand. Note, though, the party as a whole should agree on the loot rules. Simply because you’re the group leader doesn’t mean you get to unilaterally make the loot rules, especially when that rule only favors one person who you have a connection to (guildmate). Loot rules need to be firmly entrenched. If Solemn made no objection to the NBG rules though when they were told to him, then that’s a tacit consent.
TLDR: NBG is an inherently unfair system to group members that participate being denied the chance at loot, which IS useful monetarily even if they can’t use the items themselves. That being said, if NBG was discussed prior to an item dropping and was understood to be the rule of the group, party members need to abide by it (especially if they choose to remain in the group after learning about the rule, and as long as it’s discussed PRIOR to an item dropping). Solemn choosing to remain in the group after the rule was discussed, and presumably not objecting to it (as he chose to remain in the group), means NBG is established and he’s in the wrong for looting the item. The roll is inconsequential in this regard.
|