Hey Forsaken

[dafier]

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

Is there a logical fallacy for thinking that copying and pasting the definitions for different types of logical fallacies will make you look like any less of a retard?

Umm....I had to think about a decent response but the only thing I can respond with is:

Fooling a fool is foolish in itself.

[Champion_Standing]

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

Total posts in thread -

Alarti0001 49
Samoht 40
Clark 22
arsenalpow 18

Yikes!

Total dignity in thread: 0

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

1) In my opinion, this 1 statement is too broad. I'm sure you realize that though and are just trying to support your agenda.

So basically "Answering your question would destroy the rest of the straws I'm grasping at, so I will modify your question to give myself wiggle room, and answer that instead." Got it.

Assuming we are following the current raid rules (which I find idiotic to begin with) I would fix that statement by saying you can't skirt punishments assigned to a group of people for bad behavior and you can't skip lockouts.

Yes, Alarti, the entire argument is based on the current reality of the raid rules, not what you do or don't find idiotic. I didn't ask you to modify my question and cherry pick the conditions that you felt should only apply.

However if you are reforming, or rebranding or splitting off from a guild, you should be allowed to switch classes to R as long as you don't kill a class C mob.

So you believe only the punitive actions should follow a player, as well as a lockout. So why do you draw the line at a lockout and not a cool-down period? Both are restrictions created to ensure guilds aren't taking more than their fair share. Interestingly enough, one potentially restricts Class R guilds if they were trying to reform, and one potentially restricts Class C guilds if they were trying to reform.

So, Alarti, why do you feel the Class R restriction (lockouts) should follow a group of players to their re-formed guild, and not the Class C restriction (C to R cooldown period)?

The problem with some people in this forum is they try to label Forsaken as just new TMO. That isn't the case. Forsaken does consist of many ex TMO players... but many players stayed in TMO also or rerolled red... or apped to other guilds. This is a true guild split which created an entirely new entity. New DKP, Leaders, Rules, Memberbase, guild bank, etc etc.

But you just said punitive measures and certain cherrypicked restrictions should follow players when they swap guilds en masse, so technically "whether Forsaken is a new entity or not" doesn't even need to be considered. The issue now is "what restrictions follow those players over to the new guild when it is clear to any reasonable person that the majority of the new guild consists of members from the original guild" and the fact you're cherrypicking.

It is convenient for Class R to try to label them as TMO because it supports the agenda of all things TMO are evil(1) and the agenda of maximizing their (being current Class R members)loot potential(2).

LOL, you honestly don't think there would have been a similar calling out of a guild in Class R if they reformed to evade a lockout restriction?

This isn't about TMO/Forsaken against the server or Class R. This has ALWAYS been about consistency in the interpretation/application of the rules so every guild understands what is and isn't allowed in the spirit of fair competition, however you define "competition".

[Seltius]

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

You keep using that word, fallacy. I do not think you know what that means.

**I stole that from the Princess Bride. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

If your going to steal a line from a movie and then give credit to the movie at least quote it right!


Jk needed to break up the cycle of 2 Cloonies and their loony breakdown.

[Alarti0001]

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

So basically "Answering your question would destroy the rest of the straws I'm grasping at, so I will modify your question to give myself wiggle room, and answer that instead." Got it.

No basically your questions contained unrelated variables that you through into a question that had no meaning and only supported your statement. Unfortunately, your question didn't represent the debate or reality.

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

Yes, Alarti, the entire argument is based on the current reality of the raid rules, not what you do or don't find idiotic. I didn't ask you to modify my question and cherry pick the conditions that you felt should only apply.

Ummmm you kind of asked for my OPINION about a situation. If you read my position early in the thread you would realize my grievance is mainly with the idiotic raid rules.

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

So you believe only the punitive actions should follow a player, as well as a lockout. So why do you draw the line at a lockout and not a cool-down period? Both are restrictions created to ensure guilds aren't taking more than their fair share. Interestingly enough, one potentially restricts Class R guilds if they were trying to reform, and one potentially restricts Class C guilds if they were trying to reform.

So, Alarti, why do you feel the Class R restriction (lockouts) should follow a group of players to their re-formed guild, and not the Class C restriction (C to R cooldown period)?

Who said anything about a lockout? I clearly said that a new guild should be able to be class R unless they kill a Class C mob which dictated by the rules would set them to Class C. Forsaken hadn't killed a Class C mob. Still don't see where I said anything about a lockout.

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

But you just said punitive measures and certain cherrypicked restrictions should follow players when they swap guilds en masse, so technically "whether Forsaken is a new entity or not" doesn't even need to be considered. The issue now is "what restrictions follow those players over to the new guild when it is clear to any reasonable person that the majority of the new guild consists of members from the original guild" and the fact you're cherrypicking.

It seems you are doing the cherrypicking. Punitive measures are assigned to all individuals in a guild class restrictions should be assigned to guilds. Are you are saying that if a TMO member apped to Taken and can now not raid class R mobs for 30 days.
Is the majority of Forsaken the majority of TMO? If TMO instead splintered into 3-4 guilds...are all those guilds Class C? Where do you draw the line?
If Forsaken instead merged with Taken... would they be Class R or Class C? If Forsaken merged into A-Team instead of taking a new guild name would they be Class R or Class C?
You are trying to fight phantom problems. Are you pro-border fence?

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey

LOL, you honestly don't think there would have been a similar calling out of a guild in Class R if they reformed to evade a lockout restriction?


This isn't about TMO/Forsaken against the server or Class R. This has ALWAYS been about consistency in the interpretation/application of the rules so every guild understands what is and isn't allowed in the spirit of fair competition, however you define "competition".

Why would I care if class R is calling out other class R guilds about lockout restrictions other than entertainment value. Also, this isn't a lockout discussion.

Is it not though? Because the rules don't seem intelligent or fair.

[Big_Japan]

anyone else think "Foreskin" every time they see the Forsaken tag?

[Kingore]

What makes Forsaken different then TMO is they left behind things such as the guild bank and trackers that do not belong to them. That is what makes this not a circumvention of the class system.

I was a TMO raid leader that could not understand the raid rules, as someone said TMO raid leaders clearly do. In fact, I even work in a job where I read legal contracts and I could not figure out the rules here.

Quite honestly this move was not a TMO sanctioned activity and should not be seen as such.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Who said anything about a lockout? I clearly said that a new guild should be able to be class R unless they kill a Class C mob which dictated by the rules would set them to Class C. Forsaken hadn't killed a Class C mob. Still don't see where I said anything about a lockout.

WTF? You are dipping, dodging, and diving so much you can't even keep your argument coherent anymore.

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

Assuming we are following the current raid rules (which I find idiotic to begin with) I would fix that statement by saying you can't skirt punishments assigned to a group of people for bad behavior and you can't skip lockouts.

[Magifyre]

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

anyone else think "Foreskin" every time they see the Forsaken tag?

Every time.

[Ciroco]

This thread is no longer relevant to my interes