Lols TMO

[Hitpoint]

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

You're reinforcing my point. It's not an excuse. It's the reason why he wasn't the person to file the petition. It's the reason why Cucumbers proxied the conversation initially after the event.

I don't have any problem with you or most of the trolls in RnF - but the hard-on's you carry from your Chesthate is second to none.

Take him out of the equation. Train occurs. Train is denied as being a train by an officer of TMO. Talk ensues later in vent, doesn't go well. Petition is filed. Petition was immediately denied without being vetted completely. Talks continue, and post is made in Raid Discussion in an attempt to escalate, as direct attempts to contact Rogean in an escalation effort are not fruitful.

Seems like a logical progression of events, from "train occurs" up to this point....just haven't come to an agreement yet.

The logical progression of events should have been.

Train occurs. Train is denied as being a train by an officer of TMO. Talk ensues later in vent, doesn't go well. Petition is filed. No mention of absurd two month suspension is made. Trainer is dealt with by GMs via petition forum as per usual. Case closed.

[Hitpoint]

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

The logical progression of events should have been.

Train occurs. Train is denied as being a train by an officer of TMO. Talk ensues later in vent, doesn't go well. Petition is filed. No mention of absurd two month suspension is made. Trainer is dealt with by GMs via petition forum as per usual. Case closed.

It's Chests crusade to destroy TMO that turned this into a complete shitshow. Not every dispute that occurs between guilds is taken directly to the raid discussion forums when the petitioner's ridiculous demands aren't immediately met by GMs.

[cams]

An issue that seems to be lost on by some people in this thread is the proportionality of the punishment vs. the crime when negotiating between guilds. TMO believes that because they trained a raid, that offering to pull a raid for that guild and removing a member is a proportional response. However, when dealing with other guilds TMO hasn't always had that stance. For example, there was a time when IB trained Nexona over TMO. The train did not even result in TMO losing the mob (they still got Nexona), but because of the train they felt they should be compensated for something IB agreed to give them the next Nexona. This was deemed by them to be insufficient to make up for the train and they requested 3 separate mobs in VP uncontested.

So when TMO gets trained but still kills the mobs, they feel entitled to 3 completely unrelated mobs, however, when they train someone and wipe their raid they feel that guild is only entitled to what they potentially lost. With that sort of mindset, it is difficult to reach an agreement on punishment between guilds. While Chest's request for 2 months is equally ridiculous, if TMO isn't willing to lose more than their train caused, I don't see how anyone can expect BDA to accept any of their offers or to even offer something less that what they have already. BDA is the offended party here, they should not be required to accept the offer TMO is making, and the onus to avoid GM intervention should be on them, not BDA.

[Fael]

That nexona train agreement was totally isolated as your describe, and not connected to numerous prior disputes and demands by Getsome and company.

Are you really suggesting that iB has been more willing to make consessions in raid disputes these past few months ?

Dolic.

[Lazie]

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

An issue that seems to be lost on by some people in this thread is the proportionality of the punishment vs. the crime when negotiating between guilds. TMO believes that because they trained a raid, that offering to pull a raid for that guild and removing a member is a proportional response. However, when dealing with other guilds TMO hasn't always had that stance. For example, there was a time when IB trained Nexona over TMO. The train did not even result in TMO losing the mob (they still got Nexona), but because of the train they felt they should be compensated for something IB agreed to give them the next Nexona. This was deemed by them to be insufficient to make up for the train and they requested 3 separate mobs in VP uncontested.

So when TMO gets trained but still kills the mobs, they feel entitled to 3 completely unrelated mobs, however, when they train someone and wipe their raid they feel that guild is only entitled to what they potentially lost. With that sort of mindset, it is difficult to reach an agreement on punishment between guilds. While Chest's request for 2 months is equally ridiculous, if TMO isn't willing to lose more than their train caused, I don't see how anyone can expect BDA to accept any of their offers or to even offer something less that what they have already. BDA is the offended party here, they should not be required to accept the offer TMO is making, and the onus to avoid GM intervention should be on them, not BDA.

Someone lied to you about that Nexona situation. I imagine it was leadership again.

[sanforce]

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

An issue that seems to be lost on by some people in this thread is the proportionality of the punishment vs. the crime when negotiating between guilds. TMO believes that because they trained a raid

Can you please explain what BDA was raiding in Fear? I'm fairly certain that Draco and CT weren't even in window at the time of this incident, meaning there was no "raiding" going on. It was two groups of people, one person stepped out of line and has been internally punished by TMO for his actions. This was not a raid, so asking for raid punishment is ridiculous.

[Man0warr]

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

Can you please explain what BDA was raiding in Fear? I'm fairly certain that Draco and CT weren't even in window at the time of this incident, meaning there was no "raiding" going on. It was two groups of people, one person stepped out of line and has been internally punished by TMO for his actions. This was not a raid, so asking for raid punishment is ridiculous.

We were raiding Fear - it's a raid because we had a raid force, per the rules:

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.

[Anichek]

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

The logical progression of events should have been.

Train occurs. Train is denied as being a train by an officer of TMO. Talk ensues later in vent, doesn't go well. Petition is filed. No mention of absurd two month suspension is made. Trainer is dealt with by GMs via petition forum as per usual. Case closed.

The 2 months is the antithesis to "we'll have him pull for you" as punishment.

Would TMO ever, EVER want a BDA member to pull a raid for them?

Both were equally ridiculous.

[Lazie]

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

The 2 months is the antithesis to "we'll have him pull for you" as punishment.

Would TMO ever, EVER want a BDA member to pull a raid for them?

Both were equally ridiculous.

There really isn't another resolution to this though. I mean besides us AoEing Fear for you guys and letting you loot the corpses. We don't know what the compensation should be for people being immature and one guy doing something wrong on his own.

I understand the view point many of you have and how what he did is upsetting. You can't blame the entire member base of our guild for that... Just like we can't hold grudges and hold all of your members accountable because Chest is the way he is. Just put something reasonable on the table and you will be surprised how easy everyone is to work with.

[arsenalpow]

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

There really isn't another resolution to this though. I mean besides us AoEing Fear for you guys and letting you loot the corpses. We don't know what the compensation should be for people being immature and one guy doing something wrong on his own.

I understand the view point many of you have and how what he did is upsetting. You can't blame the entire member base of our guild for that... Just like we can't hold grudges and hold all of your members accountable because Chest is the way he is. Just put something reasonable on the table and you will be surprised how easy everyone is to work with.

Except chest didn't train a TMO raid. Me being an intolerant curmudgeon isn't against the rules.