FE knowingly KS's TMO's Trak, Rushes to complete keys and Epics

[maverixdamighty]

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

You must living in your own little world. I find it difficult to argue game mechanics with people that don't understand how the game works. Additionally, the way you inconsistently argue your case, one would think you were in federal court. On one hand you argue the logs are doctored. The other hand you assume they are correct, so you can line up your time line analysis to "prove" Zeelot tanked with other people on aggro while DA.

You fail to account that DA can be clicked off. Which is not reflected in the encounter log or the log provided by Zeelot. You further fail to realize or account for the way aggro works in this game. You go off on tangents about oh clicking trakanon isn't aggro, oh Jugg aggro, oh Trakanon landed melee hits... that has to be when Zeelot got on the aggro list!

Face it Steve, you are a guild leader in a game you know nothing about besides how to buy additional characters with plat you earned spending far too much time at Fungi King. You and your crew come on RNF and spin ever which way but correct. If you truly believed that you were leading the new best guild on the server, you guys would have to keep coming in here crying every single day.

P.S. If you believe that Zeelot's log is doctored, how about Merkk and Option post up their logs? Let's throw everything out on the table and see what you got.

server logs show option with fte not sure what else the GMs could want...

[Ele]

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

server logs show option with fte not sure what else the GMs could want...

How about the logs from Merkk and Options?

[Tiggles]

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

You must living in your own little world. I find it difficult to argue game mechanics with people that don't understand how the game works. Additionally, the way you inconsistently argue your case, one would think you were in federal court. On one hand you argue the logs are doctored. The other hand you assume they are correct, so you can line up your time line analysis to "prove" Zeelot tanked with other people on aggro while DA.

You fail to account that DA can be clicked off. Which is not reflected in the encounter log or the log provided by Zeelot. You further fail to realize or account for the way aggro works in this game. You go off on tangents about oh clicking trakanon isn't aggro, oh Jugg aggro, oh Trakanon landed melee hits... that has to be when Zeelot got on the aggro list!

Face it Steve, you are a guild leader in a game you know nothing about besides how to buy additional characters with plat you earned spending far too much time at Fungi King. You and your crew come on RNF and spin ever which way but correct. If you truly believed that you were leading the new best guild on the server, you guys would have to keep coming in here crying every single day.

P.S. If you believe that Zeelot's log is doctored, how about Merkk and Option post up their logs? Let's throw everything out on the table and see what you got.

Took 57 pages but here it is.

Best post of the thread.


Sloan got slapped down

[Tanthallas]

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

You must living in your own little world. I find it difficult to argue game mechanics with people that don't understand how the game works. Additionally, the way you inconsistently argue your case, one would think you were in federal court. On one hand you argue the logs are doctored. The other hand you assume they are correct, so you can line up your time line analysis to "prove" Zeelot tanked with other people on aggro while DA.

You fail to account that DA can be clicked off. Which is not reflected in the encounter log or the log provided by Zeelot. You further fail to realize or account for the way aggro works in this game. You go off on tangents about oh clicking trakanon isn't aggro, oh Jugg aggro, oh Trakanon landed melee hits... that has to be when Zeelot got on the aggro list!

Face it Steve, you are a guild leader in a game you know nothing about besides how to buy additional characters with plat you earned spending far too much time at Fungi King. You and your crew come on RNF and spin ever which way but correct. If you truly believed that you were leading the new best guild on the server, you guys would have to keep coming in here crying every single day.

P.S. If you believe that Zeelot's log is doctored, how about Merkk and Option post up their logs? Let's throw everything out on the table and see what you got.

Cute, but once again zero substantive content.

1. It is called proof by contradiction; I dont expect someone who argues on the level of a 10 year old to grasp it, so I will forgive you. It works like this: Assume A is true. If A is true, B is true. B cannot be true by definition. The assumption, A, is invalid.

2. I fail to account for the fact that DA can be clicked off? And then you say THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ENCOUNTER LOG OR ANYWHERE ELSE??? Let me get this straight - I FAILED to account for something that IS NOWHERE IN THE EVIDENCE? You are a real gem. Be good to this one Zeelot.

3. I know how to use those additional characters to take your mobs. I have been using those additional characters to take your mobs. See, I prefer to use my characters to beat you - your guildleader seems to prefer convincing new guides to use half assed logs while spinning stories in their ears and spending 2 hours with them in EC 'testing' what he wants to use as 'evidence' that is nowhere to be found on either encounter log.

[Autotune]

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

Cute, but once again zero substantive content.

1. It is called proof by contradiction; I dont expect someone who argues on the level of a 10 year old to grasp it, so I will forgive you. It works like this: Assume A is true. If A is true, B is true. B cannot be true by definition. The assumption, A, is invalid.

2. I fail to account for the fact that DA can be clicked off? And then you say THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ENCOUNTER LOG OR ANYWHERE ELSE??? Let me get this straight - I FAILED to account for something that IS NOWHERE IN THE EVIDENCE? You are a real gem. Be good to this one Zeelot.

3. I know how to use those additional characters to take your mobs. I have been using those additional characters to take your mobs. See, I prefer to use my characters to beat you - your guildleader seems to prefer convincing new guides to use half assed logs while spinning stories in their ears and spending 2 hours with them in EC 'testing' what he wants to use as 'evidence' that is nowhere to be found on either encounter log.

assuming proof

I like that

[Tiggles]

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

Cute, but once again zero substantive content.

1. It is called proof by contradiction; I dont expect someone who argues on the level of a 10 year old to grasp it, so I will forgive you. It works like this: Assume A is true. If A is true, B is true. B cannot be true by definition. The assumption, A, is invalid.

2. I fail to account for the fact that DA can be clicked off? And then you say THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ENCOUNTER LOG OR ANYWHERE ELSE??? Let me get this straight - I FAILED to account for something that IS NOWHERE IN THE EVIDENCE? You are a real gem. Be good to this one Zeelot.

3. I know how to use those additional characters to take your mobs. I have been using those additional characters to take your mobs. See, I prefer to use my characters to beat you - your guildleader seems to prefer convincing new guides to use half assed logs while spinning stories in their ears and spending 2 hours with them in EC 'testing' what he wants to use as 'evidence' that is nowhere to be found on either encounter log.

I'm not reading any post of yours unless you sign it


Thanks,

Steve

[Ele]

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

Cute, but once again zero substantive content.

1. It is called proof by contradiction; I dont expect someone who argues on the level of a 10 year old to grasp it, so I will forgive you. It works like this: Assume A is true. If A is true, B is true. B cannot be true by definition. The assumption, A, is invalid.

2. I fail to account for the fact that DA can be clicked off? And then you say THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ENCOUNTER LOG OR ANYWHERE ELSE??? Let me get this straight - I FAILED to account for something that IS NOWHERE IN THE EVIDENCE? You are a real gem. Be good to this one Zeelot.

3. I know how to use those additional characters to take your mobs. I have been using those additional characters to take your mobs. See, I prefer to use my characters to beat you - your guildleader seems to prefer convincing new guides to use half assed logs while spinning stories in their ears and spending 2 hours with them in EC 'testing' what he wants to use as 'evidence' that is nowhere to be found on either encounter log.

1. Still contradicting yourself man.

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

No, I am not the one assuming. Saying that there is no evidence whatsoever for something is not assuming; saying that something could have happened without evidence is.

I see Alarti let you borrow his Logic 101 bathroom reader.

2. Again, in your analysis you posit that Zeelot is tanking Trak while DA. You appear to be assuming DA was active the whole 18 seconds. If this is incorrect, please let me know what you actually are arguing.

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

When he was DAed tanking Trak while Kleavage and 5 other people were engaged?

3. Good for you. Please show us your logs that contradict the logs submitted to the GM.