Love Double Standards

[xexbis0]

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

The how is this:



The why is because he was left untagged out of convenience or laziness (pick one), and he took a tag because he needed one. Communication, convenience, guild pride, or whatever. The tag was available, and he took it. Explain to me how having a tag versus not having one changes the outcome of the Fay kill in any way. Even if tagging him was somehow shady, it was not IB or anyone else's call to make to take the situation into their own hands. The GM's have said repeatedly to petition in situations like this. There is no scenario where tagging or leaving him untagged would have made a difference.

What you're failing to address is why this was unethical or shady. My wizard Xastex was tagged on a raid, my rogue Eyashusa was tagged on a Vox raid, and my monk Sakkra was tagged on a Naggy raid. Was this unethical? These characters were untagged because it's a pain in the ass sometimes to find an officer. Alts that were previously tagged were guildless after Zeelot disbanded the guild. Explain to me how I've not addressed your point.

And please drop the forum police schtick.

Forum Officer Xastex:

Surely you can see the precedent this sets. Guilds that can't field trackers can now hire trackers. If we have un-guilded trackers acting as mercenaries to the highest bidder, I wonder which guild that benefits most?

Why would any of us have reason to believe you would treat this new precedent with integrity?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by xexbis0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guilds that can't field trackers can now hire trackers. If we have un-guilded trackers acting as mercenaries to the highest bidder, I wonder which guild that benefits most?

It benefits them all equally. No guild may have more than two trackers, and joint raid forces are retroactively assumed to have pooled their trackers. I explained this this another post recently:

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

It's more of a headache to sort out than it is a loophole. Selling, giving, awarding, FTE to a raid that also had two representatives present will retroactively make them exceed the limit when the two forces merge. Three FTE spammers will be present in a single raid. Thus, a violation.

Pain in the ass to manage, yes. But not a loophole.

Originally Posted by Xexbis0

Why would any of us have reason to believe you would treat this new precedent with integrity?

Because we already have. Zeelot set the precedent for hiring trackers about a year ago. Very little has been done with it since for a very large number of reasons. (Delay, batphone security, etc.)

I notice you've switched the tone from saying this is shady to saying that it's bad policy prone to abuse. I also notice you've failed to address the questions I posed back at you. For someone who rails against evading the question, you sure seem to do it a lot.

[Lazie]

Originally Posted by xexbis0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Forum Officer Xastex:

Surely you can see the precedent this sets. Guilds that can't field trackers can now hire trackers. If we have un-guilded trackers acting as mercenaries to the highest bidder, I wonder which guild that benefits most?

Why would any of us have reason to believe you would treat this new precedent with integrity?

How about you stop smoking the good stuff and lose the paranoia ?

[Hitpoint]

Originally Posted by xexbis0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You bring the Forum PR Police out of hiding. (5)

Xasten, you still didn't address why/how he was tagged, which is basically the entire premise of my point. It looks shadier to tag him than leave him unguilded. Lots of words with failure to answer the most important question mark = TMOMO.

He got tagged when an officer entered the zone, out of convenience. There wasn't one before then.

[Lazie]

There is also the issue of loot. Hiring a "mercenary" to pull a raid mob when say Fay drops 2 water dragon shields would basically mean all he has to say is "TMO killed my dragon where is my loot ?". There is no benefit in the bigger picture to it.

[JayN]

IB scum of the server most toxic players pras sirken and gm staff, they left to destroy EQ mac with their mission accomplished theyve headed back to p99, I can only hope the staff sees them for what they truly are nothing more then troll trash Myg0t wannabes and ban them opnce and for all before they take down p99 like the did to poor lil eq mac

[Rellapse40]

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

IB scum of the server most toxic players pras sirken and gm staff, they left to destroy EQ mac with their mission accomplished theyve headed back to p99, I can only hope the staff sees them for what they truly are nothing more then troll trash Myg0t wannabes and ban them opnce and for all before they take down p99 like the did to poor lil eq mac

***** is about to have a seizure from being so mad

[sulpher01]

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

Ok for Class C to fuck each other over and over again and then each other say "we forgive them" and no one gets suspended or locked out but a Class R guild makes a honest mistake all the Class R guilds show support and yet the suspension still stands. You guys are a piece of work. /smh

You guys have to admit this server is hilariously entertaining because of this shit though.. (from an outside perspective)

[sanforce]

Originally Posted by sulpher01 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys have to admit this server is hilariously entertaining because of this shit though.. (from an outside perspective)

I agree. I haven't played EQ in 2 months or so, decided to check the forums today, and I happily found the drama gems continuing. pras p1999

[Tasslehofp99]

rofl this thread is ridiculous