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

[falkun]

I can see your argument that Xanthias' epic falls under estoppel and is not a good precedent for the other instances it has been applied to. But this is RNF, not Server Chat nor petitions/exploits.

I will repeat that this precedent, rightfully applied or not, has benefitted TMO as well. I doubt the VS wiz staff won by BDA was ever removed from TMO, which would lead to an expansion of the Xanthias' precedent to non-estoppel cases. If you feel the expansion of the Xanthias precedent is in error, I suggest you submit a petition.

[47shadesofgay]

Falkun you seem intelligent, so it surprises me that you would even attempt replying to frieza, when it is so very obvious what exactly it is he is attempting to do. Even mav picked up on it.

I must say freiza is usually right on about a lot of things, but the way he is going about this is the most weasly, and lawyer-like thing I have seen in a long time.

If he has such strong feelings and truly cares about conflict resolution in the future, I suggest he take his argument elsewhere and seek to go about it via other means.

Otherwise, he can keep casting his line. I hope nobody nibbles one way or another.

[falkun]

Xasten is arguing the Xanthias precedent doesn't apply here. I'm arguing its not for him to decide, and that if he is correctly lawyering about incorrect precedent, that a new, applicable precedent that hasn't been discussed does exist, and has existed to his guild's benefit before it possibly benefits FE in this case. I also reiterate he's barking up the wrong tree, again, because he still seems to be missing the memo.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Xasten is arguing the Xanthias precedent doesn't apply here. I'm arguing its not for him to decide, and that if he is correctly lawyering about incorrect precedent, that a new, applicable precedent that hasn't been discussed does exist, and has existed to his guild's benefit before it possibly benefits FE in this case. I also reiterate he's barking up the wrong tree, again, because he still seems to be missing the memo.

My inquiry here has strictly been limited to asking a single question. As I said, I hoped to defer conversation into detailed points until I had my answer. By spilling my thoughts, I was simply responding to a point leveled at me.

(And, for the record, if TMO received a duplicated wizard staff it, in my opinion, should have been instead deleted, or as I cited, a deficit of one owed gnarled staff should be created.)

[falkun]

"New" is the wrong word. "Delimited" is more accurate since its existed at least since TMO stole the wiz staff from BDA's VS, if not longer.

[falkun]

I do not agree that rightfully earned loot should be removed/owed because of illegitimately earned loot in the passed. I feel guilds/persons should be accountable for the crimes they commit, nothing more. What happens in the incredibly unlikely scenario where a guild doesn't get another Trak guts (in this instance) for many months, long enough that bards that attend this new guts Trak kill are there and none of the bards that attended the stolen guts Trak raid attend. These new, innocent bards are now held accountable for actions they did not help commit, and are deprived an epic due to an absent person. In my opinion, that is less fair than allowing the guts to exist for both parties from the stolen guts Trak. Similar to Blackstone's formulation.

[falkun]

If you want to remove the offending stolen item, that is fine, but the idea of possibly depriving future innocent parties does not resonate with this Virtuoso.

[Mortiiss]

2 BCGs.

[Mortiiss]

WIZ epic VS piece too.

[Rettii]

94 pages of crying over another guild out dpsing.