Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanthallas
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Lots of words cant hide bullshit. Sorry.
Using an exploit to benefit an individual = punishment for the individual.
Using an exploit to benefit a guild - guild punishment.
There was a TMO officer present the entire time. Nothing was done. People can say whatever they want after the fact about how they feel; I dont care about how people feel, I care about how people act.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drob
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Your guild used his exploits to gain an advantage. Therefore, you should be raid suspended. Don't be retarded.
|
Given the severity of a raid suspension, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it would be prudent for the decision maker to do some fact finding.
If it can be reasonably shown that the leadership knew and blessed the obvious abuse of an IP exemption, yes you can put a raid suspension onto the list of possible outcomes. That is not in dispute.
Note: I am NOT commenting as to whether or not TMO's leadership knew of and supported such uses. I was not there, and I am in no position to draw conclusions on that question of fact. I am merely elaborating on what I feel is due process in producing an outcome for the situation.
What I take issue with is the notion that incidental beneficiaries should be punished for actions that were not controlled by them. For example, if it is shown that Aiaus was acting along and surreptitiously, then it would be unfair to issue punishments to the rest of the guild. If you're going to assign vicarious liability (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior), it must be fairly done.
A prime example of an unfair application would be Perun's ninja looting of CT. To punish all of IB for Perun's actions, which clearly exceeded his authority and right, was unjust. (See:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...5&postcount=79)