Drama

[rioisk]

The agreement is superseded by server rules. When they agreed to this they anticipated you being able to sit in camp and solo it and not have to zone as defined by camp rules. You were unable to do this so, by the same rules, you forfeited the camp by zoning.

Just because somebody tells you you can have a shot doesn't mean "you can zone as many times as you want we'll make sure nobody else takes it while you're gone"

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

The agreement is superseded by server rules.

Actually, it's not.

Any deal between players trumps any of these rules so long as all players agree. These rules are here to be a guide to players for what rights they have while in the game. In my opinion this is very similar to what SoE did with camp disputes in game.

Slappie didn't agree, but it appears he was coerced into agreeing when the OP made a veiled threat to sit there and camp the shit all night on them. Because at that point, the camp was his.

Regardless, the agreement was made void when the OP gave up the camp by zoning, as he no longer had rights to the camp, i.e. the leverage he used to make the agreement in the first place.

[soup]

Let's make an example thats on a larger and more grand scale of how the fact that they made an agreement SHOULD be what everyone is looking at.

Say there's only two guilds that are ever killing the raid bosses, such as Nagafen and Vox. We'll call them guild A and guild B. Say Nagafen spawns and both guilds converge at once, with no one having an obvious rightful claim over the other to the spawn. Say they come to an agreement, guild A will get Nagafen right now, but in return guild A will let guild B kill Vox next spawn. Now say 12 hours later Vox spawns and guild A rolls into an empty permafrost and kills Vox. Server rules allow this 100%, but guild A would certainly be douche bags of the highest caliber for doing that. You could spam server rules all you wont, they would still be worthless douche bags. (don't try to interpret this the wrong way, I'm not trying to imply any guilds in question are douche bags or blahblah, it's just a hypothetical example)

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Let's make an example thats on a larger and more grand scale of how the fact that they made an agreement SHOULD be what everyone is looking at.

Let's try a better example that more closely parallels the situation:

Guild A wipes on Vox and starts their CR for their next attempt. When they return, Guild B is engaging Vox. Guild A says they're on CR and had Vox. Guild B says "Well, you aren't here now and you had your chance, now we got Vox." Then, Guild B says "After we get Vox though, you can camp here and wait for the next Vox spawn... we'll be done with Vox after this spawn. We have jobs so we don't intend to camp the next Vox spawn." Guild A is like "Okay!" because for whatever reason that seems like a good deal to them! Because Guild B could totally be dicks and sit there and wait until the next Vox spawn and kill her again, but they are benevolent and offer this agreement to Guild A.

Then, holy shit!! Guild B can't do Vox without zoning. They are no longer in Permafrost. Guild A is sitting right there, remembering how totally awesome it was for Guild B to take Vox on them when they left the zone (it just happened to be without their corpse/inventories). But they had an agreement with Guild B based on Guild B's leverage over them at the time that Guild B in fact had rights to Vox since Guild A wasn't there. But now Guild B isn't there, so Guild A has rights to Vox.

Guild B no longer has the leverage which the agreement was based on. Part of the agreement was based on the fact that Guild A no longer had rights to Vox and would not be getting a Vox kill that night. But those conditions of the agreement changed when Guild B zoned out.

I don't know where you're from, but when conditions within an agreement change, you no longer have an agreement. Because the agreement was initially made based on a set of conditions that no longer exist.

If you agree to trade 12K for a FBSS, and the conditions of that agreement change because the buyer puts 1200pp into the trade window, you are not bound by that agreement, right? Or are you a douchebag for not hitting TRADE anyway?

[soup]

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

Let's try a better example that more closely parallels the situation:

Guild A wipes on Vox and starts their CR for their next attempt. When they return, Guild B is engaging Vox. Guild A says they're on CR and had Vox. Guild B says "Well, you aren't here now and you had your chance, now we got Vox." Then, Guild B says "After we get Vox though, you can camp here and wait for the next Vox spawn... we'll be done with Vox after this spawn. We have jobs so we don't intend to camp the next Vox spawn." Guild A is like "Okay!" because for whatever reason that seems like a good deal to them! Because Guild B could totally be dicks and sit there and wait until the next Vox spawn and kill her again, but they are benevolent and offer this agreement to Guild A.

Then, holy shit!! Guild B can't do Vox without zoning. They are no longer in Permafrost. Guild A is sitting right there, remembering how totally awesome it was for Guild B to take Vox on them when they left the zone (it just happened to be without their corpse/inventories). But they had an agreement with Guild B based on Guild B's leverage over them at the time that Guild B in fact had rights to Vox since Guild A wasn't there. But now Guild B isn't there, so Guild A has rights to Vox.

Guild B no longer has the leverage which the agreement was based on. Part of the agreement was based on the fact that Guild A no longer had rights to Vox and would not be getting a Vox kill that night. But those conditions of the agreement changed when Guild B zoned out.

You're trying too hard to put tons of parallels in, when all that is relevant is the agreement. Does guild A agree to let guild B kill Vox? Yes. Do they make any stipulations about what nullifies the agreement? No. Do they kill Vox anyway? Yes. They are douche bags, with the only exception being if guild B is physically unable to kill Vox. Not if they wipe once, but if they can't and are forced to give up. You agreed to let them kill it, changing the agreement because you don't like how they do it is shady bullshit. Moving in on the camp because the enchanter is regening his pet isn't much different than a guild leap frogging another that has cleared all the giants and shit while they are medding and buffing up. Zoning out and then in is the enchanters medding and buffing up in this situation. You're not exactly honoring your agreement if you never even let the person prep and engage the mob.

If you agree to trade 12K for a FBSS, and the conditions of that agreement change because the buyer puts 1200pp into the trade window, you are not bound by that agreement, right? Or are you a douchebag for not hitting TRADE anyway?

Okay wow, this is definitely the most retarded thing in this thread I gotta say. The agreement here is "I give you the FBSS, you give me the 12k" and the other person doesn't honor their end, so you don't honor yours. How exactly do you parallel that to the guk situation? The enchanter offered up the camp after one round of spawns, the group offered up that one round of spawns. Sooo if we parallel with your example, the group had a right to back out of the agreement because the enchanter didn't fulfill his end of the agreement, that being that he gives them the camp after this round of spawns. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Sooo if we parallel with your example, the group had a right to back out of the agreement because the enchanter didn't fulfill his end of the agreement, that being that he gives them the camp after this round of spawns. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Sure it does. You're conveniently forgetting that the enchanter was unable to fulfill his end of the agreement, because the camp was NO LONGER HIS TO GIVE THEM, BECAUSE HE ZONED.

Does that make it clear why the conditions of the agreement changed?

[YendorLootmonkey]

By soup's logic, I can go around in LGuk making agreements with other groups about rights to camps I don't have rights to, and when those agreements aren't honored, they are the douchebags.

[soup]

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

Sure it does. You're conveniently forgetting that the enchanter was unable to fulfill his end of the agreement, because the camp was NO LONGER HIS TO GIVE THEM, BECAUSE HE ZONED.

Does that make it clear why the conditions of the agreement changed?

It wasn't his camp anymore because the group he made a deal with stole it from him, rofl

[Alawen Everywhere]

I'm really curious about something here. How many of the people on the pro-solo enchanter side of this argument play an enchanter or a necromancer?

[Stepy]

I play a Necromancer and do not side with this enchanter, unless they all had corpses summoned or dragged to a safe place they should have been seen by the Enchanter.
I'm would believe they would agree to let him have his ONE ph to give them time to buff and med for next respawn.