Drama

[Dersk]

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

I understand he is trying to make $

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

Also, the M2H is in the hands of a guildie.

[President]

Of course he gave it to a guildie, if he had tried to sell it would have made him look retarded. Think: Thank you for Smoking & the Marlboro Man.

[soup]

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

Of course he gave it to a guildie, if he had tried to sell it would have made him look retarded. Think: Thank you for Smoking & the Marlboro Man.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be too hard to just pass it to an alt to sell from that character to be discrete.

[President]

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

LOL, you guys have got to be kidding me. You see one group member acknowledge that an enchanter needs to zone to solo the camp, you see them make the agreement (that the enchanter can have the next cycle in return for the camp), you see the enchanter tell one of their group members that he's still in the process of breaking the cycle which they agreed to let him have, and you then see the urgent call from group members to immediately rush the named mob specifically at the very instant that the enchanter zones out for the second time (because the first time, the group was too confused as to what was occurring to jump on the king in a timely manner). When the agreement is first made to let him have the next pop, everyone but Slappie agrees, basically ignoring the possibility that the named pops with the desired item. Only when the named pops with the desired item does the Divinity group decide that the agreement no longer matters.

A person suggests that is how they "solo" this room. That does not mean that they need to let the enchanter zone 5 times just to kill the room.

Basically, those screenshots prove every assumption I had made earlier, when observing that it was of extremely poor character, though not against any server rules, for the group in question to have done what they did. At that point, the response was that there's no way to know if that's truly what happened. Now that we do know that that is exactly what happened, and that the group did in fact know that the enchanter was going to need to be hopping in and out of the zone to handle his cycle (which, again, they agreed to let him have), the goal posts have moved again, and now it's all about the server rules.

Again, one person suggested that's how some enchanters camp it. Doesn't mean its how they have to let him camp it. It was also, in poor character, not to give the camp back immediately to a group who finished CR'ing that had people in the group that needed the item.

Shit, you even have two of the group members -- one explicitly, and one tacitly (by handing over the sword) -- admitting their own fault. Ironically, it seems to be the two group members with the most to gain, as Nocte is an app, and Autum could have used the sword. I applaud Nocte for her morality, and I hope that a) her status in Divinity is not in any way harmed by this, and b) the enchanter does what he can to hook her up, one way or another. IMO, as I've stated earlier on this thread, I have nothing but the respect for Divinity, and I think she's proven herself more than worthy of the guild tag just based on how she handled this situation. It doesn't take much to blindly wave the pompoms for your guild. IMO, it's a lot more impressive to call your own side out when they're doing something wrong. Hopefully she's not punished for that.

Handing back a sword does not equal admitting fault.

If you can't see that what the group did was wrong, you're not looking -- plain and simple. Again, this isn't about the server rules. The amateur lawyers can keep it in their pants for this thread. This is about behavior and ethics. The enchanter did nothing wrong, deceived nobody, and was generally friendly and helpful. The group did do something wrong -- they demanded a camp that wasn't theirs. They did deceive someone. They told the enchanter he could have the next spawn cycle -- knowing that he would have to zone out in order to take it (as evidenced by group chat) -- and then jumped on the mob when it happened to be a named, knowing that he was in the process of breaking the camp, rather than fleeing the camp out of desperation. And, with the exception of Nocte (and later Autum), they were not helpful or friendly. Dravyen seemed helpful and friendly, only to betray the agreement he had made by urging his group to rush the named immediately after the enchanter zoned.

This is not a matter of grey area, or of one act of douchebaggery being met with another. The enchanter did absolutely nothing that constitutes "douchebaggery". The worst thing he did was not call a CC for an often un-camped mob that was currently un-camped, and fully popped. Not exactly a crime against humanity.

People know the group was somewhat at fault, but saying that the enchanter did absolutely nothing wrong or dickish is complete bs.

[President]

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

Yeah, but it wouldn't be too hard to just pass it to an alt to sell from that character to be discrete.

It wouldn't, but it also wouldn't allow him to come on here and say how he gave it to the guildie to make himself look better.

[Daldolma]

If one more person says that the enchanter "failed", I'm going to have a conniption fit. Do you play EverQuest? This is how an enchanter solo's. Everyone, including Elisa (as evidenced by her quote from group-chat, when she states that the enchanter will have to zone to handle the camp, at which point they can just reclaim it) understands that. It's not a failure. It's a strategy. You zone to heal your charm, come back, re-charm, continue the clear. It takes 45 seconds. It's faster for an enchanter to charm, kill, zone, re-charm, continue killing than it is for most other solo'ers to root rot. The enchanter did not fail, he did not wipe, he did not need help. He was handling everything just fine; by the letter of the law, he did not own the camp (unless, of course, you acknowledge that an agreement between parties supersedes the server rules, in which case he did still own the camp for that cycle.) But by any rational observation from anyone that knows the game even a little bit (as Elisa clearly does, and as Nocte and Autumn clearly understood) he was in control, and his 45 second absence from a camp in the process of being broken was not equivalent to the 20+ minute absence of a group that had wiped, CR'd, and then picked up new members from the zone line.

It would be somewhat understandable, from an ethical standpoint, if the Divinity members did not understand at the point of the debacle that the enchanter needed to strategically zone to solo the camp. BUT THEY DID. Elisa says as much in group-chat, after the agreement is made, but before the King is stolen. They knew what he was doing. They knew he had to do it. They made the agreement knowing that he would be doing this. But then the named spawned with a valuable sword, and the agreement went out the window, and the Divinity members hid behind willful ignorance of the method of his zoning.

I footnote this post with an apology for referring to the group as "Divinity members", because I do not believe their actions reflect fairly upon Divinity as a whole, and I gladly acknowledge that at least two members of the group (Nocte and Autumn) both went above and beyond the typical call of morality. I simply use "Divinity members" as shorthand because they were in fact Divinity members, and "the group" grows repetitive.

[President]

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

If one more person says that the enchanter "failed", I'm going to have a conniption fit. Do you play EverQuest? This is how an enchanter solo's. Everyone, including Elisa (as evidenced by her quote from group-chat, when she states that the enchanter will have to zone to handle the camp, at which point they can just reclaim it) understands that. It's not a failure. It's a strategy. You zone to heal your charm, come back, re-charm, continue the clear. It takes 45 seconds. It's faster for an enchanter to charm, kill, zone, re-charm, continue killing than it is for most other solo'ers to root rot. The enchanter did not fail, he did not wipe, he did not need help. He was handling everything just fine; by the letter of the law, he did not own the camp (unless, of course, you acknowledge that an agreement between parties supersedes the server rules, in which case he did still own the camp for that cycle.) But by any rational observation from anyone that knows the game even a little bit (as Elisa clearly does, and as Nocte and Autumn clearly understood) he was in control, and his 45 second absence from a camp in the process of being broken was not equivalent to the 20+ minute absence of a group that had wiped, CR'd, and then picked up new members from the zone line.

It would be somewhat understandable, from an ethical standpoint, if the Divinity members did not understand at the point of the debacle that the enchanter needed to strategically zone to solo the camp. BUT THEY DID. Elisa says as much in group-chat, after the agreement is made, but before the King is stolen. They knew what he was doing. They knew he had to do it. They made the agreement knowing that he would be doing this. But then the named spawned with a valuable sword, and the agreement went out the window, and the Divinity members hid behind willful ignorance of the method of his zoning.

I footnote this post with an apology for referring to the group as "Divinity members", because I do not believe their actions reflect fairly upon Divinity as a whole, and I gladly acknowledge that at least two members of the group (Nocte and Autumn) both went above and beyond the typical call of morality. I simply use "Divinity members" as shorthand because they were in fact Divinity members, and "the group" grows repetitive.

He does not "need" to zone it to clear the camp. As another enchanter in this post stated, you only need to charm one mob, kill a roamer, and then pull king to the hall and kill it.

[Daldolma]

By the way, if we're going to delve into the letter of the law, nobody owns the Quillmane camp, or the AC camp in SRo. That doesn't mean you're not a douchebag if you know a guy has been tracking and killing PHs for 4 hours, but you see Quillmane pop and down his ass. You're in total compliance with server rules. And you're a dick. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[President]

It's also worth noting that they discussed taking the camp back after the enchanter messed up BEFORE the mith 2h spawned.

[President]

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

By the way, if we're going to delve into the letter of the law, nobody owns the Quillmane camp, or the AC camp in SRo. That doesn't mean you're not a douchebag if you know a guy has been tracking and killing PHs for 4 hours, but you see Quillmane pop and down his ass. You're in total compliance with server rules. And you're a dick. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Which is the point many of us have made. Shewz was in compliance with the server rules, but somewhat dickish for not handing the camp back when the CR'ing group showed up.

The group was in compliance with the server rules when they engaged the mob after Shewz zoned out, but they were also dickish for doing so.

What I find interesting, after both groups being dicks, that they still offered a roll off which Shewz lost.