Petition to Rogean: TMO Raid Behavior

[Ella`Ella]

We saw the fraps and agree that the behavior here was unacceptable. Where our understanding of the situation begins to diverge is over whether this was a raid-related scenario or not. This situation mirrors if someone were to disrupt a Chardok AoE pull. If this is a raid zone because of raid targets spawning, then Dreadlands, Skyfire, Karnor's Castle, Timorous Deep, SolB, Permafrost, Sebilis, Plane of Hate and Plane of Sky (which a raid suspended guild recently killed 3 raid targets in) should all be considered raid zones and any training warrant guild suspensions.

This issue is between a single player of the community and another group of players. The player has been removed from TMO for his actions and the guild has dealt with it internally. Leadership is involved to the extent of coming to a reasonable resolution on how to punish the player. Despite the presence of leadership, you cannot A) assume that a directive was given for this player to act in this manner and B) as any guild knows, you cannot always account for the unpredictable behavior of all members at all times, whether you are present or not.

BDA was offered to have the offending member pull hate and fear for a week for them, which would have been both embarrassing and punishment enough for Dinacarl - BDA rejected that proposal. TMO further extends the offer to voluntarily suspend themselves from Plane of Fear clears (with the exception of Draco and CT, as these mobs weren't even in window during this incident).

Also, there is a mutual fault here that precedes the matter with BDA entering a plane that is currently occupied and laying claim (monopolizing) the entire zone. This continued even after the leader of BDA, Chest, was informed that all we were after were monkey's and fetids to which he dismissed our request and proceeded to AoE those targets along with the rest of the zone. I do not support the motion that one foul deed deserves another, but I do think that appropriate weight be given to this matter as well; not for the sake of retribution, as we really have/had no intention of pursuing that as a matter, but if for any reason to make situations like this fewer and further between.

[Komodon]

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

We have attempted to work it out like reasonable human beings with Unbrella/Mazam, and have not been successful. We are only asking for TMO to be punished for a blatant and clear violation of the server and raid rules. We want the staff to follow the rules they have posted and deal with the situation.

This is the growing concern i have with the "work it out between yourselves" approach. If every "reasonable" attempt to work things out starts and ends with the desire to go fishing for a raid suspension, of course nothing deemed successful is going to come out of it. I mean for all the reasonable talk that did occur between us tonight, i honestly walked away questioning whether you were even genuinely upset that Dinacarl trained you, or more so content with the perceived possibility that you could simply use this as a means to your own individual need to spill TMO's blood as a whole.

Anyway and to essentially echo our conversation tonight, TMO in no way condones Dinacarl's actions. Heck, I initiated the attempt to open up a line of communication between us (months ago) as a show of good faith towards that to begin with. I gave every reassurance possible that this type of behavior wouldn't be permitted here, removed the stated offender from the guild, and even extended my own joint support with BDA in any attempt seeking GM punishment on Dinacarl (or any future offender) for his actions.

If that isn't "good enough" for you, or what one should be reasonably looking to accomplish in the attempt to find a resolution regarding a non-raid incident (minus the rule lawyering that wants to paint what amounts to an exp group tagging along with 18 GT in Fear as TMO acting out as a raid entity, of course)...then yeah, i guess that all was the waste of time *you* claimed it to be.

I'm all for owning up to individual accountability, as i believe we've proven on numerous occasions over the past months. If you want to talk on those terms the door is always open. If you are just looking to grind an old axe and/or play the R&F game, this really shouldn't be the place for it though imo.

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by arsenalpow

but in the end BDA offered a fair resolution of a two week full raid suspension for TMO which has been the usual amount of raid interference.

If this is the only offer you made, you need to go back to TMO and try to be more reasonable. This is absolutely not BDA attempting to work this out or come to a fair agreement - it's looking for a pound of flesh to take with you. Since there wasn't a raid mob involved, you'll have to find some other concession that works for both of you. If the TMO group was separate from the GT group, it's questionable as to whether or not this is even considered a 'raid dispute', but this is how we'd like all disputes to be resolved anyway.

Back to the negotiation table, fellas.

[arsenalpow]

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

If this is the only offer you made, you need to go back to TMO and try to be more reasonable. This is absolutely not BDA attempting to work this out or come to a fair agreement - it's looking for a pound of flesh to take with you. Since there wasn't a raid mob involved, you'll have to find some other concession that works for both of you. If the TMO group was separate from the GT group, it's questionable as to whether or not this is even considered a 'raid dispute', but this is how we'd like all disputes to be resolved anyway.

Back to the negotiation table, fellas.

We've jumped through that hoop multiple times. TMO and BDA are too far apart on the issue.

[Anichek]

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

If this is the only offer you made, you need to go back to TMO and try to be more reasonable. This is absolutely not BDA attempting to work this out or come to a fair agreement - it's looking for a pound of flesh to take with you. Since there wasn't a raid mob involved, you'll have to find some other concession that works for both of you. If the TMO group was separate from the GT group, it's questionable as to whether or not this is even considered a 'raid dispute', but this is how we'd like all disputes to be resolved anyway.

Back to the negotiation table, fellas.

Have you spoken to Mazam before making the assumption that it's a "pound of flesh" situation? Maz was in our vent last night for the better part of an hour and we had cordial conversation, but both Maz and the BDA crew that were in there (Chest, Anthrax, Cucumbers, Troubledour, myself - sorry if I left any other officers out) agreed that we can't come to a resolution because we differ in opinion on the severity of the training. Raid dispute vs. individual asshattery is the center of that disagreement.

Individual asshattery, historically, has been policed by server staff and done so typically swiftly and sternly (individual suspensions, bans, etc). Raid disputes are when guild leadership is told to first try to reach a resolution, and to try hard, before escalating.

That's happened. Unfortunately, an agreement has not been made. I can understand server staff requesting that we continue to go to the table with each other - but please stop painting it like it's a one way street where BDA is off the handle and forcing the resolution to never come to fruition. Both Mazam and Chest AGREE that they differ in opinion on the severity of the issue, and therein cannot reach a resolution.

I understand your distaste (both Sirken and Derubael) for Chest individually, but if you'd offer him (and BDA) even 1/2 the respect in public that you do other guild leadership (and stop discounting his statements just because he is who he is) perhaps that would help resolutions be less difficult to solve.

[lilyanna]

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

If this is the only offer you made, you need to go back to TMO and try to be more reasonable. This is absolutely not BDA attempting to work this out or come to a fair agreement - it's looking for a pound of flesh to take with you. Since there wasn't a raid mob involved, you'll have to find some other concession that works for both of you. If the TMO group was separate from the GT group, it's questionable as to whether or not this is even considered a 'raid dispute', but this is how we'd like all disputes to be resolved anyway.

Back to the negotiation table, fellas.

If disputes involving armor clears aren't considered raid disputes, why are raid suspensions also prohibitions on doing armor clears?

[Ella`Ella]

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

If disputes involving armor clears aren't considered raid disputes, why are raid suspensions also prohibitions on doing armor clears?

What would you consider killing Overseer of Air?

[lilyanna]

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

What would you consider killing Overseer of Air?

As you have already been informed on another thread Sirken himself said this was available to raid whilst on suspension. Completely different to the question I raised but please try to divert some more, we can all see you are good at that [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Derubael]

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

If disputes involving armor clears aren't considered raid disputes, why are raid suspensions also prohibitions on doing armor clears?

We don't allow Ragefire kills and fear/hate clears because when guilds are on suspension they tend to spend and focus all of their time on these 3 areas and it causes issues that we'd prefer to avoid.

Fear/Hate trash clears and Ragefire kills aren't usually "Raid Encounters" but sometimes can be considered as such; it all depends on the circumstances surrounding the dispute.

[arsenalpow]

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

We don't allow Ragefire kills and fear/hate clears because when guilds are on suspension they tend to spend and focus all of their time on these 3 areas and it causes issues that we'd prefer to avoid.

Fear/Hate trash clears and Ragefire kills aren't usually "Raid Encounters" but sometimes can be considered as such; it all depends on the circumstances surrounding the dispute.

From your own raid rule FAQ is this raid forum as posted by you:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=147618

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

Copied and updated from the original Raid FAQ. Old FAQ and related posts have been deleted so there is no confusion.

Q: What is considered a "raid" on Project 1999?
A: A raid is any group of players looking to engage a raid target OR any force consisting of more than one group united in a common goal. This means that three people can be considered a raid if they intend to kill Dracoliche, or 20 people clearing fear trash. Most epic NPC's are not strictly considered "raid" mobs. The exception to this is Ragefire, which is considered a 'raid target' for the purposes of qualifying a group as a raid only. For all other intents and purposes, Ragefire is treated like an Epic NPC (IE, camp/poopsock rules do not apply). Please keep in mind that because of the need to clear to a raid target as per our new raid policy, trains enacted on players in the way of your raid are considered raid disputes and action could be taken against your guild as a whole, even though the victims are not part of a raid. It is in your best interest to be very careful when racing for a target.

I underlined the relevant material. Additionally, there's a clause in there saying that once the parties can't agree on a solution then staff will step in, and specifically this was something we wanted Rogean to look it. I believe there are additional examples of staff just moving petitions to resolved that Hokushin was willing to post to establish the pattern.