And I raaaaaan, I raaaan so far awaaaayyyy

[Frieza_Prexus]

I also think it's relevant to point out that the "rule" has been First to Engage. This does not necessarily mean that being first on the aggro log is that you are first to engage.

Yes, the aggro logs and FTE have been treated very synonymously, but there is still argument that a distinction exists. Perhaps, the aggro logs are simply one informative facet as to who got FTE, though they have been indisputably convenient in making determinations when no GMs are present.

Perhaps an encounter such as CT already DOES have a mechanism to determine who has FTE. Under this theory, TMO's raid engaged the mob first. Even though the logs were clean at the time of Scorchin's DT, it is indisputable that TMO engaged with the first DT. There is no other reasonable explanation for the guild's activities in taking the first DT and charging the mob OTHER than intent to engage.

In short, first to engage is not necessarily synonymous with being first on any particular instance of the encounter logs. Perhaps the rules were followed to the letter here. Perhaps first to engage is a broad concept that can, from time to time, require a factual inquiry into the situation.

[hatelore]

These meme's seriously got me rolling on the floor laughing, thats about the only good thing about this thread. haha

[Tanthallas]

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

I also think it's relevant to point out that the "rule" has been First to Engage. This does not necessarily mean that being first on the aggro log is that you are first to engage.

Yes, the aggro logs and FTE have been treated very synonymously, but there is still argument that a distinction exists. Perhaps, the aggro logs are simply one informative facet as to who got FTE, though they have been indisputably convenient in making determinations when no GMs are present.

Perhaps an encounter such as CT already DOES have a mechanism to determine who has FTE. Under this theory, TMO's raid engaged the mob first. Even though the logs were clean at the time of Scorchin's DT, it is indisputable that TMO engaged with the first DT. There is no other reasonable explanation for the guild's activities in taking the first DT and charging the mob OTHER than intent to engage.

In short, first to engage is not necessarily synonymous with being first on any particular instance of the encounter logs. Perhaps the rules were followed to the letter here. Perhaps first to engage is a broad concept that can, from time to time, require a factual inquiry into the situation.

This is simply wrong. FTE is defined as first on the aggro list of the mob given that the mob is killed without resetting. That's it.

[Alarti0001]

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

This is simply wrong. FTE is defined as first on the aggro list of the mob given that the mob is killed without resetting. That's it.

Find me this definition as it applies to CT !

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

This is simply wrong. FTE is defined as first on the aggro list of the mob given that the mob is killed without resetting. That's it.

I'm not so sure. Looking at the posted rules here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=14667

Originally Posted by Rogean

The rules of engagement for raid bosses on Project 1999 are First to Engage (FTE) in any situation that is not covered below.

FAQ

Q: What classifies a mob as "Engaged"?
A: A mob is classified as engaged as long as it has aggro on at least one player.

It doesn't talk about the Aggro Logs. It talks simply about the first group to "engage" a mob. Perhaps, it is allowable that a distinction exists that FTE as a term is actually more inclusive than just what the logs show.

We need to remember that the logs exist to serve the GMs and the players. Not the other way around. Perhaps the mechanics of CT are such that it is more prudent to apply an intent based standard (which group "engaged" the mob first, in good faith) as opposed to simply checking the logs.

Using this broader definition, TMO indisputably engaged first, but the logs do not indicate that. This creates a situation where a group must technically (per the logs) engage a mob TWICE to kill it. This seems a bit excessive. Perhaps, the rules as they currently are already reflect this by imposing a standard that looks not only to the logs, but also to situational facts.

Even if this above is not true, GMs are allowed to make interpretations and rulings giving P99 a form of common law. Essentially, this new standard of parsing the situation (as opposed to simply checking the logs) is now a valid rule until overturned.

Yes, it's always best to spell things out beforehand, but I believe that it is undeniable that GMs can, and have, altered the written rules via ruling and arbitration. Sometimes an absurd result happens when you have a rote application of the written rules, and that's why the GM's are there. To preserve the spirit and intent of the rules upholding the notion of fairness and equity as they see it.