And I raaaaaan, I raaaan so far awaaaayyyy

[Tanthallas]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why
Do
You
Want
Me
To
Jack off
In
A
Corner
.
.
.
Weirdo!

Because your mental masturbation on these forums is no longer necessary.

[Versus]

What a bunch of nonsense. I literally can't believe you're trying to convince people this was anything more than a FTE snipe.

[Eccezan]

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

Pretty much. It isn't possible to compete in these conditions without the rules and the limitations of those rules being known by both parties. Sniping FTE is a completely legitimate tactic given a raid force being present. Regardless of this, it would not even be accurate to say that this was a snipe and not an attempt to grab FTE to bring the mob to the raid force.

Throwing 1 person at a DT mob with no attempt at having a secondary puller "pull" your CT to your raid is not a valid pull.(lol)

Furthermore, not having anyone on aggro list as doing any damage to the mob does not constitute deserving loot in these circumstances.

FE Fail CT = FE Fail CT

Sloan, Shinko, Somninus, Learn2Everquest pls. PLEASE.

[Alarti0001]

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

Pretty much. It isn't possible to compete in these conditions without actually engaging a raid target.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

This is irrelevant. The point of FTE is not to speculate on how seconds would have matter to change things, because in most instances FTE comes down to a matter of seconds.

I disagree. The inquiry itself is relevant, even if it ultimately bears no impact. The point is that the inquiry might produce results. As you said, most instances come down to seconds, but what if it does not? That bears investigation.

We must remember that rules themselves do not define fairness. They promote fairness. This a key distinction. Both the rules and GM rulings are made in the spirit of fairness and equity, not a slavish devotion to the letter of the law.

I believe my question is relevant here because what if the FE puller was 15 seconds away? What if the situation was such that, had TMO not been present, that CT would have indisputably reset his aggro list before the puller could reach the target?

As I see it, this creates two scenarios that bear thought. It's a policy question. Do we stick to strict FTE rules where sniping is encouraged by the rules? Or, do we allow arbitrators to examine a situation to assess intent and apply the principles of fairness?

In this case, if CT would have reset before the puller could reach the target, it seems within the notion of fairness that TMO engaged in good faith (After all, they did have the 1st DT/engage) and that FE engaged in an effort to snipe. FTE is a tool. It is an objective standard, but it is prone to uncertainty at times as this scenario so aptly illustrates.

Clearly, there is a need for a subjective review from time to time. Rules serve fairness. Equity is not a slave to black letter law.

[hatelore]

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

Question: Assume TMO was not near CT when Scorchin was DT'd. Was it more likely than not that CT would have reset before any puller could have gotten on the aggro list after Scorchin's DT?

In short, had TMO waited ~two more seconds to engage, would Scorchin's aggro have been erased from the kill due to mob reset?

If he fully reset, and went back to banging his scratching post, then yes. Since the first encounter list ends after he is dt'ed and not re-aggroed.

[Tanthallas]

If it was an FTE snipe, it really doesn't matter anyway. FTE snipes are completely within the rules given a raid force being present.

There were more than enough people there to constitute a raid force hands down. What is the difference? That TMO was closer to CT? Lol - I cant believe you are this sure of something which is clearly more nuanced.

[Eccezan]

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

I disagree. The inquiry itself is relevant, even if it ultimately bears no impact. The point is that the inquiry might produce results. As you said, most instances come down to seconds, but what if it does not? That bears investigation.

We must remember that rules themselves do not define fairness. They promote fairness. This a key distinction. Both the rules and GM rulings are made in the spirit of fairness and equity, not a slavish devotion to the letter of the law.

I believe my question is relevant here because what if the FE puller was 15 seconds away? What if the situation was such that, had TMO not been present, that CT would have indisputably reset his aggro list before the puller could reach the target?

As I see it, this creates two scenarios that bear thought. It's a policy question. Do we stick to strict FTE rules where sniping is encouraged by the rules? Or, do we allow arbitrators to examine a situation to assess intent and apply the principles of fairness?

In this case, if CT would have reset before the puller could reach the target, it seems within the notion of fairness that TMO engaged in good faith (After all, they did have the 1st DT/engage) and that FE engaged in an effort to snipe. FTE is a tool. It is an objective standard, but it is prone to uncertainty at times as this scenario so aptly illustrates.

Clearly, there is a need for a subjective review from time to time. Rules serve fairness. Equity is not a slave to black letter law.

I agree with this and would like to the following diagram to prove my point:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Alarti0001]

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

If he fully reset, and went back to banging his scratching post, then yes. Since the first encounter list ends after he is dt'ed and not re-aggroed.

Derp, so we engage a mob take the first dt and you honestly think Scorchin thought he had a chance to pull it? The wool is over your eyes friend. There is nothing honest about this pull. It was clearly an FTE snipe attempt there was 0 chance of a pull.

[hatelore]

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

this.

Tanthallas, There have been countless rulings where DT removes person from FTE list, why it left the DT'd person on the FTE list here is the real question.

Your argument might be given more validity if there was ANY other FE on the aggro list at all to support any claim to engage/pull to anywhere in the zone.

Unfortunately, you are left with nothing but a poor attempt at an FTE snipe ending up in a DT in full view of a GM. Lets see some more rules lawyer attempts tho!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see, this is where you failed. You should have used the image of his wife explaining how the car had a rear differential axel!@^%11one .