Drama

[astarothel]

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

What level is your enchanter, soup? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

level 0

but making irrelevant assumptions about people is pretty cool I will admit

True, I guess it's really about possession. I mean you only need to borrow someone elses enchanter.

[President]

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

Sell out? I'm sorry, what exactly am I getting for posting this? I'm poor as hell in mediocre gear, and I've probably pissed off half the guild I'm still an app for, so how am I selling out? I didn't get shit except my name dragged through the mud for something I didn't want to be a part of.

Reputation is the only true currency we have here. Spend it wisely.

Everyone was poor at 40, cept my Jew enchanter room mate. You haven't pissed off half the guild your an app for. Thus far, no one with a brain would consider your name being dragged through mud. He is stating you are "selling out," though probably a bit overboard of a term, for saying your group was a bunch of greedy children when In many peoples eyes it looked as if they were just fighting for the same camp that got taken for them.

Really, I can't see how the "greedy" term can even be used when you are trying to get an item for someone in your group who can actually use it, versus an enchanter who can't.

[Skope]

The only mistake they made was giving this chanter mixed messages (and Pallie's attitude as well). He left the zone, whereas they were there and the sword dropped. Quite frankly, whether or not they told him he can have 1 more attempt doesn't matter, he zoned twice and he wasn't there when they were at the camp. The rules were always on the group's side, despite what anyone else in this thread thinks. Because it doesn't matter, it holds no water. They were there, he wasn't. They got the kill, and according to the rules it should be theirs.

But somehow he has the sword, and somehow they're the bad guys. The big mistake was them sending him a tell in the first place. If things went differently, say they killed him and said absolutely nothing to the chanter but "you leave you lose" this wouldn't have been an incident at all. He'd have been here on the forums ranting about how he zoned and lost a camp and we'd all be laughing at him.

[soup]

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

I would say it is a fairly relevant discussion and explain a lot of your poor logic here where you feel that:

- somehow an enchanter taking a camp from a CRing group with a melee character who could use the mith 2h is magically not a douchebag move

We went over this. He moved in on a fully spawned camp with no knowledge of a group there that had wiped. Nothing douche bag about that. When he finds out, he offers them the camp after one PH and they agree. The nice guy move here would be to move on without doing one PH, but I'm really not seeing how offering to do one and then leaving and the group agreeing is a douche bag move.

- somehow an enchanter is allowed to zone and maintain a camp despite clear rules that dictate you must retain a presence at a camp to claim it

They made an honorable deal and never made a stipulation about zoning forfeits the deal.

- somehow a group that claims the camp after the enchanter zones and gives up his presence at the camp are the douchebags in this situation.

Once again, they made a deal, 100% ready to poach the camp if they saw any way the rules would allow them to toss their deal out the window.

And I understand exactly where Nocte is coming from, because I've been in his place before. I don't want to spend my time on EQ arguing or fighting over digital pixels. It makes me sick to my stomach when a situation like this comes up, because no matter how closely you try to follow the rules we have for these things, someone is always going to try to twist the rules in their favor and try to make you look like the douchebag. But I think it's weak to sell out his group for being "greedy children" when all they were doing was being mindful of the rules and not being spineless doormats about it.

Or maybe he places some value in honorable deals and being courteous to that extent and expects the people he plays with to not make deals just to try and exploit the rules to get out of them.

BTW the fact that you think what class I play is relevant to my logic is pretty lol. It's like some kind of red herring/ad hominem hybrid.

[Stepy]

I agree with that sentiment, there is a difference between "greedy children" and posturing. I noticed a lot were being fair and a few were pushing for more drastic measures but didn't act, i consider this normal behavior and not Representative of being bad people.

[soup]

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

True, I guess it's really about possession. I mean you only need to borrow someone elses enchanter.

Actually I think enchanter is the only class I have never made or played or even logged onto, lol

[Stepy]

Let ths thread be a lesson to all of you, always invite a necro to FD and hold the camp in case of a wipe! Forget a monk or SK they would sell the camp to the highest bidder first chance they got. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[soup]

Let me reiterate my stance here:

The biggest mistake anyone made was when the group agreed to let the enchanter do a round then take over. They should have either told him to fuck off, or they should have agreed and let him actually have a chance at engaging the mob. Making the agreement then taking the camp anyway is where the douche baggery and lack of integrity comes from.

I'd also say that telling the enchanter to fuck off from the beginning would be much more inline with "Not being spineless and getting walked over" or however that was put earlier. Striking an arrangement then looking for any reason to convince themselves that the enchanter failed is when things went sour.

[President]

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

Let me reiterate my stance here:

The biggest mistake anyone made was when the group agreed to let the enchanter do a round then take over. They should have either told him to fuck off, or they should have agreed and let him actually have a chance at engaging the mob. Making the agreement then taking the camp anyway is where the douche baggery and lack of integrity comes from.

I'd also say that telling the enchanter to fuck off from the beginning would be much more inline with "Not being spineless and getting walked over" or however that was put earlier. Striking an arrangement then looking for any reason to convince themselves that the enchanter failed is when things went sour.

I agree with most of this, a deal should never have been made. If the group walked up, didn't say anything, and took the camp the first time the enchanter zoned, nothing would be wrong. If the enchanter did come make a post, he would, as someone else said, get laughed at.

Though, I don't think they made an agreement and then looked for "any way they could to take it from him." From what I gather from logs, they said he could have the next spawn. Then, the group notices that hes not even in the zone anymore. They discuss just killing the king, but someone even says, whatever lets clear the adds he can take the king. They see him zone AGAIN, and go well fucking-a, just kill the damn thing. They kill the thing, the enchanter comes and bitches, and they say ok well lets roll for it. The enchanter LOSES the roll, and comes to QQ on the forum instead of attempting to reach an officer of the guild in question.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

When he finds out, he offers them the camp after one PH and they agree.

Come on. They agree because it is their best interest to do so because the enchanter has the camp at that point. Elisa recognizes that the enchanter rightfully has the camp in the screenshots of groupchat Nocte posted, because the group was not present at the camp. They have no idea how long he's willing to stay, so the best option for them, when they don't have rights to the camp, is to agree to his offer. Come on. Who here would NOT take that offer? The alternative being what... the enchanter camps it all night out of spite, depriving them of the camp altogether?

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

The nice guy move here would be to move on without doing one PH

Correct. But we play on P1999, so of course that doesn't happen here, so we get *this*.

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

They made an honorable deal and never made a stipulation about zoning forfeits the deal.

They made an honorable deal that the enchanter would hand the camp, which he had rights to at the time, over to them after one PH. Now we're suggesting you also have to stipulate every little contingency? I would think that any rational person would agree that if you no longer have rights to the camp (i.e. because you zoned), then you no longer have an agreement to hand over something to them which is no longer yours. I know you want to debate this until we are both blue in the face, but you cannot make an agreement to hand over a camp to a group after one PH if you no longer have rights to the camp. So either you're saying you can make agreements on a camp you don't have rights too, or that somehow the enchanter did not lose rights to that camp when he zoned, even though it plainly says in the server rules you have to maintain a presence at that camp, which someone in the groupchat also correctly pointed out.

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

Once again, they made a deal, 100% ready to poach the camp if they saw any way the rules would allow them to toss their deal out the window.

Again, how does the deal exist any longer when the enchanter gave up his rights to the camp when he left? By your logic, the enchanter could have died, bound in Erudin, and had to run an hour or more to get back there, and because of the integrity of the deal, the group needed to wait until he got back to clear that PH they made the agreement on. Completely ridiculous and you know it.

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

BTW the fact that you think what class I play is relevant to my logic is pretty lol. It's like some kind of red herring/ad hominem hybrid.

Thanks... glad I gave you a little lol to brighten your day.