Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Xasten, this precedent was set with Xanthias and the Ranger epic, and has been upheld by GMs/CSR since its inception to the benefit of all raiding guilds, IB, TMO, and now it looks like FE and hopefully BDA got a wiz staff from Jarnuaga's post. I'm not saying the solution was right or wrong, but it does appear it has been fairly utilized and not to the benefit of one side over the other more than individual situations may merit.
Please put a post in the Server Chat section if you'd like to discuss this in a more civil environment.
|
First, I want to seek confirmation, even if it is from RnF before I open a larger thread. Secondly, I was hoping to defer specific discussion until I had such confirmation (or denial).
Suffice to say for now, I suspect Xanthias' situation is completely differentiated because express GM confirmation was given that he owned the SEoC in question. This created a liability on the GM's for one SEoC given authoritative statments detrimentally relied upon. In the present situation, it appears that no such confirmation was given. In effect, Xanthias' situation relies upon the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppe...ssory_estoppel), whereas here no such assurances were made by those in authority with regards to the conjecturally duplicated guts.
Even if the above facts are not dispositive of the conflict, the situation in question was resolved by taking (wrongly perhaps under the estoppel theory) a later emerald as a substitute. If this concept were applied, FE would owe TMO a set of guts which (with TMO already having been reimbursed) would then see the GM's simply confiscate the "owed" drop.