|
|
#11
08-27-2014, 06:41 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#12
08-27-2014, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
Start the list - GO!
__________________
Anichek Dudeki
Officer, Guild Relations Bregan D'Aerth | ||
|
|
|||
|
#14
08-27-2014, 07:48 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Chest asked you direct questions in the previously locked thread like what, half a dozen times? You ignored responding to the comparative examples and how the current ruling doesn't line up with precedent. I know that every situation offers a degree of offset from the previous situation - even when the root/crux of the situations may be aligned. It's lack of consistency, and lack of courtesy (by multiple sides/guilds/up to and including server staff at times) that boggles MANY of us. If there was consistency, the logic applied would make much more sense and be not only more palatable but more predictable - and would dictate behavior to avoid infractions in the long run.
__________________
Anichek Dudeki
Officer, Guild Relations Bregan D'Aerth | |||
|
|
||||
|
#15
08-27-2014, 08:04 AM
|
|||
|
^I answered Chest's inquiries in previous posts, which was why I didn't single his out and answer them again.
We don't see the two situations as similar. While there are parallels that can be drawn, the Taken/BDA vs TMO dispute was cut-and-dry, whereas this situation was not. If you guys are really so eager to start comparing precedent (instead of letting us make fluid decisions that may change despite similar circumstances), the incident BDA was punished for previously drew a one-week suspension against FE. And I believe IB may have gotten a week out of VP recently for the same thing. I don't see BDA requesting a one week suspension for themselves instead of one naggy based on precedent. Or a week off of 6 of the most highly valued class-R spawns. The reason we were able to give BDA such a light punishment is because we reserve the right to make fluid decisions based on individual circumstances that will vary from situation to situation. BDA jumped a Taken Nagafen, something that the "standard punishment" for is a week suspension. But because we felt the situation didn't warrant such a harsh punishment, we kicked them off a Nagafen (and since BDA didn't actually loot the Taken Nagafen, they will be losing the loots off exactly 1 dragon.... which is very similar to the punishment Taken got). No two situations are alike, and we will always reserve the right to evaluate discipline on the fly. Again, this is what allows us to assign "more appropriate" punishments to guilds based on the exact circumstances. If we followed precedent to the letter, BDA would have lost a lot more than a single Nagafen. And again, those two punishments are incredibly similar at their core - both guilds lost one "dragon loot". While the suspension is clearly the "harsher punishment", it's not by much, and we feel suspending Taken from a Sev when they've already lost the loot on this one isn't an appropriate punishment given the circumstances (which were wild and chaotic). I hope that makes sense. We try to discipline guilds in ways that make sense, without being arbitrary or unnecessary. We'd like for punishments to send a message, rather than just draw blood. I think in both of these situations, the guilds (hopefully) learned their lesson - if they didn't that will quckly become apparent, and further action will be taken. This is another reason why we've moved to the "player mediated dispute" system. It doesn't seem to matter what call we make, there will always be a portion of the population that cries foul - right or wrong, someone will feel they were treated unfairly. Frankly I think we made the right decision, and so does Sirken. If you feel otherwise you are welcome to do so, but beyond an initial explanation we shouldn't need to defend our decisions unless they go beyond the realm of sanity. <3, Deru. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#17
08-27-2014, 09:30 AM
|
|||
|
TLDR
__________________
 Yumyums Inmahtumtums - 59 Shaman Lemonspoon Icebeaner - 52 Enchanter Yumyums Inmahtumtums - 60 Enchanter | ||
|
|
|||
|
#18
08-27-2014, 09:32 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
scales and tails 4 life
__________________
hello i'm cucumbers
 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#19
08-27-2014, 10:26 AM
|
|||
|
These truly are sad times when, "We try to discipline guilds in ways that make sense, without being arbitrary or unnecessary." is a sentenced that has to be typed out by a person.
__________________
Zadrian - RIP 2010-2014 - Blue
Lester - Shammy - Red | ||
|
|
|||
|
#20
08-27-2014, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
the taken/sev situation had nothing to do with BDA (or as much to do with BDA as every other guild there), which is why it's so confusing that we were being singled out on sirken's stream.
the bda nagafen debacle has nothing to do with this there's no parallel to bda's raid interference with draco because we didn't kill it, thus the warning. in the sev situation, taken did kill it (which is why the assumption would be a suspension) someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but the summary of why people (i mean shit, there were TMO and BDA members agreeing with each other in RnF yesterday) are upset about this is: taken's loot being revoked isn't a punishment because they broke the rules to get it. they had no right to kill or loot, according to the rules. any of the guilds there could have decided to kill steal Severilous, but, every other guild there was working under the assumption that killing a raid target without without FTE would lead to harsh punishment (regardless of the circumstances, i.e. Sirken's "respect the FTE" commandment), because that's how it's been ruled in the past almost every single time taken ignored the rules that everyone else were playing by ... we understand the rulings are up to interpretation and we appreciate the time you guys donate to this project. none of us really care about the dragon loot. it's jsut one of those.. what's the point of playing a game if the game doesn't have rules? sorta things. the FTE meta game is all we have to live for!
__________________
Grew | Stable | Doub | Bubb | Locust
| ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
