And I raaaaaan, I raaaan so far awaaaayyyy

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

This is irrelevant. The point of FTE is not to speculate on how seconds would have matter to change things, because in most instances FTE comes down to a matter of seconds.

I disagree. The inquiry itself is relevant, even if it ultimately bears no impact. The point is that the inquiry might produce results. As you said, most instances come down to seconds, but what if it does not? That bears investigation.

We must remember that rules themselves do not define fairness. They promote fairness. This a key distinction. Both the rules and GM rulings are made in the spirit of fairness and equity, not a slavish devotion to the letter of the law.

I believe my question is relevant here because what if the FE puller was 15 seconds away? What if the situation was such that, had TMO not been present, that CT would have indisputably reset his aggro list before the puller could reach the target?

As I see it, this creates two scenarios that bear thought. It's a policy question. Do we stick to strict FTE rules where sniping is encouraged by the rules? Or, do we allow arbitrators to examine a situation to assess intent and apply the principles of fairness?

In this case, if CT would have reset before the puller could reach the target, it seems within the notion of fairness that TMO engaged in good faith (After all, they did have the 1st DT/engage) and that FE engaged in an effort to snipe. FTE is a tool. It is an objective standard, but it is prone to uncertainty at times as this scenario so aptly illustrates.

Clearly, there is a need for a subjective review from time to time. Rules serve fairness. Equity is not a slave to black letter law.