That quake timing. . .

[supercalif]

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

This is cute. Sorry not sorry that we petitioned when there was a serious offense that occurred against us. If there were real accountability, instead of dismissive half hearted attempts to pander our complaints, while concurrently rushing for pixels, it would have been different. But that one event was enough to break the ‘camels back’.

Also, just because we could gather facts, structure them in a logical structure, to clearly articulate a sequence of event, demonstrates seriousness. All of which is required in the current climate manufactured by the ‘toxic few’. Sorry not sorry you were found guilty of exploiting others in order to benefit instead of taking responsibility for your actions.

You might be the cutest! So let's get the cards on the table for this one...

A member of AG accidentally trained wToV without consent of leadership, who also went against the suggestions of said leadership and it somehow is the fault of an entire guild by association? Let's look at what was offered pulling in the direct text from the petition response:

• AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
• AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
• AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
• Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.

Accidents happen based on poor decision making but let's not say there was no accountability, that would be inaccurate. As I read the petitions I didn't get a sense of KWSM making specific arguments at the time of infraction on how clear things up.

Could this have been handled differently, for sure but let's not take things to the extreme here.

[xdrcfrx]

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

You might be the cutest! So let's get the cards on the table for this one...

A member of AG accidentally trained wToV without consent of leadership, who also went against the suggestions of said leadership and it somehow is the fault of an entire guild by association? Let's look at what was offered pulling in the direct text from the petition response:

• AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
• AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
• AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
• Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.

Accidents happen based on poor decision making but let's not say there was no accountability, that would be inaccurate. As I read the petitions I didn't get a sense of KWSM making specific arguments at the time of infraction on how clear things up.

Could this have been handled differently, for sure but let's not take things to the extreme here.

Under the common law theory of respondeat superior, whether or not the liability for the actions of an employee or agent can be imputed to the employer or principal rests on whether or not the employee/agent was acting within the scope of their duties in that role. as a result, whether or not liability for Incubo's train can be imputed to AG / F rests on the answer to the question: was what he did done within the scope of his activity as a member of their raid? Since he was moving from ToV, where they had been raiding, to DN, where they were also intending to raid - the answer is yes, that was within the scope of his role as a raider. He was moving from one raid location, to another raid location, to continue raiding. Accordingly, AG / F should have been considered liable for that train notwithstanding directing Incubo not to do it.

If you get injured by someone's employee, it's not defense for the employer to say "we told him not to do that," if the thing the employee did was within the scope of their employment. Example: employee driving a delivery van hits your car because they were driving recklessly. The employer is liable for the damages, even though they probably told their drivers "don't drive recklessly."

Additional point here is that the petition did not ask for Incubo to be suspended - GM's made that call on their own. In any event, when the main point of the defense offered to that petition was "we told him not to do it, it's all Incubo's fault individually," how can they then turn around and act shocked that the GM's agreed that it was all Incubo's fault, individually? Your leadership threw him under the bus. That's on them, not anyone else.

[gutterbrain]

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

Under the common law theory of respondeat superior, whether or not the liability for the actions of an employee or agent can be imputed to the employer or principal rests on whether or not the employee/agent was acting within the scope of their duties in that role. as a result, whether or not liability for Incubo's train can be imputed to AG / F rests on the answer to the question: was what he did done within the scope of his activity as a member of their raid? Since he was moving from ToV, where they had been raiding, to DN, where they were also intending to raid - the answer is yes, that was within the scope of his role as a raider. He was moving from one raid location, to another raid location, to continue raiding. Accordingly, AG / F should have been considered liable for that train notwithstanding directing Incubo not to do it.

If you get injured by someone's employee, it's not defense for the employer to say "we told him not to do that," if the thing the employee did was within the scope of their employment. Example: employee driving a delivery van hits your car because they were driving recklessly. The employer is liable for the damages, even though they probably told their drivers "don't drive recklessly."

Additional point here is that the petition did not ask for Incubo to be suspended - GM's made that call on their own. In any event, when the main point of the defense offered to that petition was "we told him not to do it, it's all Incubo's fault individually," how can they then turn around and act shocked that the GM's agreed that it was all Incubo's fault, individually? Your leadership threw him under the bus. That's on them, not anyone else.

Thank you. I needed a good reminder why to avoid RnF at all costs.

[MaCtastic]

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

You might be the cutest! So let's get the cards on the table for this one...

A member of AG accidentally trained wToV without consent of leadership, who also went against the suggestions of said leadership and it somehow is the fault of an entire guild by association? Let's look at what was offered pulling in the direct text from the petition response:

• AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
• AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
• AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
• Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.

Accidents happen based on poor decision making but let's not say there was no accountability, that would be inaccurate. As I read the petitions I didn't get a sense of KWSM making specific arguments at the time of infraction on how clear things up.

Could this have been handled differently, for sure but let's not take things to the extreme here.

1. We prioritize people’s time and fun over pixels and cannot be purchased.
2. You weren’t going after those targets so the concede was a worthless.
3. The entire premise of “well send a small crew to help while we still capitalize on the fact we just trained another guild” is why the 3 big bads are banned, toxic.

[JackofSpade]

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

1. We prioritize people’s time and fun over pixels and cannot be purchased.
2. You weren’t going after those targets so the concede was a worthless.
3. The entire premise of “well send a small crew to help while we still capitalize on the fact we just trained another guild” is why the 3 big bads are banned, toxic.

What was done to "capitalize" on the train that occurred. What would you say is an appropriate response to an accidental train? If you're idea is to ban an entire guild whenever an individual member accidentally does something dumb, you're gonna change your tune real quick when it's a guild mate of yours that does it to someone else

[Trademarked]

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

What was done to "capitalize" on the train that occurred. What would you say is an appropriate response to an accidental train? If you're idea is to ban an entire guild whenever an individual member accidentally does something dumb, you're gonna change your tune real quick when it's a guild mate of yours that does it to someone else

AGF continued slamming Earthquake mobs while Kittens spent over an hour recovering/clearing repops... repops that were all put back on the table in obstructing the LTK attempt thanks to the errant, "eh, fuck it," train.
Then AGF took over Riot's Growth clear when Riot made good the malefaction committed by AGF.

I don't know where in that sequence of events you're not grasping what was done to capitalize on the situation.

An appropriate response would be to not engage a raid mob while your competition is dead by your own hands. That seems like the most braindead concept that even the most basic of warmbody raider could grasp.

No one was asking to ban an entire guild.

Petitions get filed when guilds act in bad faith and follow it up with even more egregious shittery like training a guild and then offering up concessions of said mob that they had absolutely no presence at (aside from their kamikaze pilot) while subsequently claiming no ties to said player or their action(s) (despite the very clear affiliation denoted by the guild tag), while subsequently submitting defense footage with clear audio that the offender acted with intent and knowledge --- indicated by the warnings they received from guildmates in the moments proceeding the train.

Can't claim "dumb" or ignorance when they were very clearly warned by own guild. That shows callous disregard if not wanton malice.

No one would change their tune under a repeat circumstance, even with roles reversed.

Better leadership wouldn't throw member(s) under the bus like that, while wiping hands clean of the situation and claiming they don't represent the guild.

Better leadership wouldn't throw meaningless token concessions as amends while continuing to press ill-gotten advantages (while victim shaming to boot).

Better leadership would put forth an actual effort to foster a community (and that's what P99 is, a community) rather than burn it down with bad faith actions, interactions, and negotiations.

Better leadership wouldn't be labeled toxic or be accused of fostering toxic behavior through all of the above, and get their band of followers raid banned.