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

[47shadesofgay]

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

But that is what their decision is based on.....and even so, it is not consistently based on it. My questions have yet to be answered:

1. Options first encounter log posts 538 damage. How is this possible if he FD'd after throwing a Javelin?
2. Why is Zeelot maintaining aggro while DA'd when many other people are engaged on Trak / on his hate list.

If it was based only on the encounter logs, would be clear cut.

I think Zeelot's logs are just as doctored as the next guy (Monk's don't fizzle spells, no explanation offered for this has held up) but that alone probably isn't going to over-turn a GM decision without something else being added to the equation.

The reason being they've already made their decision, without something new coming to light, why would they overturn it? I think there's strong evidence Zeelot may have doctored his logs, but GMs have a track record of not reversing their calls without someone climbing to the top of Everest with 100lbs of server logs on their backs and shouting out they have proof at the top of their lungs.

It makes them look bad, so they don't do it. Same reason we aren't supposed to discuss it, but alas here we are.

I'm pulling for you I really am!

[Tanthallas]

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

You guys are retards trying to determine anything from my 1 log alone without supplements from the server logs and your own logs.

Tell me - what in particular about this ruling used the server log? It was based pretty much exclusively on YOUR personal logs and YOUR explanation of them.

You were testing the FD mechanic that fits with your story with Alovia for over 2 hours or so in WC later that night. You spent all this time testing this with Alovia because it supported your story, period. Showing that a mechanic works a particular way does not mean that you used that mechanic, however, unless you have proof that you did. Your logs do not prove this.

Isnt it strange that the reconstruction of what occured FROM YOUR LOGS that was put forth exactly fits the line that you were pushing when you were 'testing' this FD mechanic? Seeing as it had to be tested, i.e., it wasnt clear how it worked, I indeed find it strange that after you performed it multiple times the ruling made is based on it.

[Zeelot]

lol you think I intentionally typed that Merkk's spells fizzled? IF I were going to doctor anything I would remove that because it doesn't make sense. Ask Rogean how it happened. I have no idea how a monk fizzles, but that's what happened. Deal with it!

[47shadesofgay]

Also, in the future make sure every single monk on your raid is logging and running Fraps for encounters, and have your bards do the same when pulling. It's the only way you're ever going to win these types of ordeals, as Zeelot and his logs have just shown you.

The fact they weren't or haven't posted them yet for some reason cannot possibly help disprove anything Zeelot did or didn't do. We all know he's a scumlord, but unfortunately the GMs need "proof" of it in order to take action. Just like when he AE'd TR mobs at zone in during VS, dude's a fucking sociopath.

[AenarieFenninRo]

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

Tell me - what in particular about this ruling used the server log? It was based pretty much exclusively on YOUR personal logs and YOUR explanation of them.

You were testing the FD mechanic that fits with your story with Alovia for over 2 hours or so in WC later that night. You spent all this time testing this with Alovia because it supported your story, period. Showing that a mechanic works a particular way does not mean that you used that mechanic, however, unless you have proof that you did. Your logs do not prove this.

Isnt it strange that the reconstruction of what occured FROM YOUR LOGS that was put forth exactly fits the line that you were pushing when you were 'testing' this FD mechanic? Seeing as it had to be tested, i.e., it wasnt clear how it worked, I indeed find it strange that after you performed it multiple times the ruling made is based on it.

This argument right here.... amazing that you dont see the irony.

He stated this is what happened, and his logs show it... to validate it, GMs test it... and guess what, it proves to be correct!

Ruling made based on mechanics working this way, and yet.. here you are arguing that its all fake!

[Tanthallas]

Originally Posted by 47shadesofgay [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Same reason we aren't supposed to discuss it, but alas here we are.

Well we should probably stop then.

I said my piece.

[47shadesofgay]

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

lol you think I intentionally typed that Merkk's spells fizzled? IF I were going to doctor anything I would remove that because it doesn't make sense. Ask Rogean how it happened. I have no idea how a monk fizzles, but that's what happened. Deal with it!

No I think you deleted a little too much off your log and that section got left.

Moreover you have a proven history of being a sociopath and a liar, and I would NEVER believe a single thing you or your guild do is legit. I don't in this case either, despite FE lacking common sense logs and fraps.

Anyway enjoy it while it lasts. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Zeelot]

1. I was always clear how it worked, the 'testing' was to enlighten the GMs on the mechanic and provide conclusive evidence that an NPC will not go for 2nd aggro via FD memory, the NPC will always prioritize first aggro in such a case.

2. That mechanic was only part of this whole thing anyways, the second part being that Trak stayed on me while DA, meaning was on no one else

3. If option was also DA and somehow escaped everyone's spell logs, refer to 1, NPC will always prioritize first aggro over FD memory.

[kotton05]

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

This argument right here.... amazing that you dont see the irony.

He stated this is what happened, and his logs show it... to validate it, GMs test it... and guess what, it proves to be correct!

Ruling made based on mechanics working this way, and yet.. here you are arguing that its all fake!

Ok so fd will put you lower on the engage list. Confirmed

So if a MONK lets say Soandso gets fte. 2 fucking raids rush in to kill mob. He thens fd's once he see's tanks engage ='s him not having fte still. Sigh.... not how it works.

[Tanthallas]

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

This argument right here.... amazing that you dont see the irony.

He stated this is what happened, and his logs show it... to validate it, GMs test it... and guess what, it proves to be correct!

Ruling made based on mechanics working this way, and yet.. here you are arguing that its all fake!

I am saying that what he is doing is only POSSIBLE; it is never shown, nor can if be from the data he provided, that it is what happened. It is one of MANY possibilities; and it is not the best choice either, for when it is chosen it brings up many other issues which I have documented above.

If you want to talk more PM me about it; it is probably best to drop this on the public forums for now.