Bumamgar

[nilbog]

I FULLY SUPPORT the concept of player-made rules, but my staff doesn't have to be fluent in those rules, they mitigate server rules. On more than one occasion I have specifically stated that if you call a GM, they will be showing up to enforce server rules, not yours.

As far as the raiding scene, its terrible, and I agree. I have a simple amendment to the current rules that I think will have a good effect. We're tired of reading about raids, no doubt.

Abacab, I think you misunderstood my question. I asked if GMs showed up to enforce player-made rules. If you are calling the raid rules posted by me "player-made rules", then that is just a misunderstanding. It was a combination of a lot of different people, which in the end was decided on by management, not players.

[Humerox]

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

I FULLY SUPPORT the concept of player-made rules, but my staff doesn't have to be fluent in those rules, they mitigate server rules. On more than one occasion I have specifically stated that if you call a GM, they will be showing up to enforce server rules, not yours.

As far as the raiding scene, its terrible, and I agree. I have a simple amendment to the current rules that I think will have a good effect. We're tired of reading about raids, no doubt..

Thank you. Sorry about the knee-jerk reaction. I hope to god you're right, lol.

[Rogean]

So, I've only been skimming this thread, but it's pretty clear to me that you guys are trying to call Bumamgar out for his guild failing some type of Roll Call? As far as I can see, theres no such rule in the server rules about a roll call, so every single point you make about that, is irrelevant.

[Starklen]

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

So, I've only been skimming this thread, but it's pretty clear to me that you guys are trying to call Bumamgar out for his guild failing some type of Roll Call? As far as I can see, theres no such rule in the server rules about a roll call, so every single point you make about that, is irrelevant.

Guess you shouldn't sticky it and keep the title "Official Raid Rules" then.

[Bumamgar]

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

Guess you shouldn't sticky it and keep the title "Official Raid Rules" then.

Not to mention, since the person who posted those rules has been "banned" I disregarded that whole thread till yesterday when folks explained to me that those were the rules people were following in game.

I've read them, and frankly I think they are an overly complicated mess.

I anxiously await Nilbog's update to the official server rules.

However, until that time, I'll simply allow communication with opposing raid forces and fair play to dictate my actions in game. It's worked so far, and until proven otherwise, I see no reason to overly complicate things.

[Humerox]

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

Not to mention, since the person who posted those rules has been "banned" I disregarded that whole thread till yesterday when folks explained to me that those were the rules people were following in game.

I've read them, and frankly I think they are an overly complicated mess.

I anxiously await Nilbog's update to the official server rules.

However, until that time, I'll simply allow communication with opposing raid forces and fair play to dictate my actions in game. It's worked so far, and until proven otherwise, I see no reason to overly complicate things.

I anxiously await the new rules too.

That overly-complicated mess was because of all the ways people wanted to find to skirt the server rules. Simply that. It was an attempt to clarify raid targets, engagement...yada yada.

Without guild agreement and clarification on things, every Tom, Dick and Harry that sees a loophole in the server rules is going to use it.

That's why it's a seriously good idea to find player-based solutions - in the form a guild agreements - to gray areas. It makes GM participation much less necessary, and I think that's what's wanted.

Without agreement -let the petitions fly.

[Humerox]

And a little addendum to what I said...

Quite a few of you weren't here for all the crying that was going on before the players decided that some sort of clarification on server rules was necessary. Every single raid had some sort of issue. Tons of QQ ensued. GM's were having to step in on nearly every raid. It was a mess then.

Things settled down a bit once everyone adapted the new rules. Until the camping issue.

Now we're going back to what was? Good luck to the GM's...hope your calendars are cleared and you don't plan on doing any coding or development. Or don't you remember how bad it was?

The only thing I can say is, I hope the amendment in the rules puts everything in black and white, because if it doesn't...we go back to the joy that was.

[Loke]

I just want to point out that the player created rules were quoted by GMs as justification for banning of certain members of Dark Ascension. Either enforce them, or don't - but to use them against DA and let WI slide in this instance doesn't semm right.

Bum, since you were asking about a source for whether or not GMs enforce them, there it is. The 2 golems in 50 minutes was cited a number of times by Cyrius as to why DA engaging Cazic Thule made him a contested mob, thus leading to the ban of two individuals.

[Chicka]

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

I just want to point out that the player created rules were quoted by GMs as justification for banning of certain members of Dark Ascension. Either enforce them, or don't - but to use them against DA and let WI slide in this instance doesn't semm right.

Bum, since you were asking about a source for whether or not GMs enforce them, there it is. The 2 golems in 50 minutes was cited a number of times by Cyrius as to why DA engaging Cazic Thule made him a contested mob, thus leading to the ban of two individuals.

Loke, you must know that is not the whole story, or maybe you don't.

First, you killed Draco, it was your mob after you had failed the 50 min timer on Inny, all good, but then you steamrolled into Inny too after IB had downed the golems and now had claim and needed to clear fear. But of course you, AS A RAID, knew you didn't have to clear fear because your guild leader (dressed as one of his alt accounts - winterfresh) and at least one officer rounded up the fear mobs that came to his aid and trained IB with them as we were clearing - the supporting screenshots almost certainly secured those two bans, no player made rules necessary. And you, AS A RAID, knew you did not have rights to both mobs. Frankly I think you got off lightly as a guild, even in retrospect. I don't know how you got 40-50 people or whatever you had to follow that path - they couldn't have all been ignorant of what was going on.

The big difference between that BS, and what happened with WI is that, whether you like it or not, IB chose not to enforce their rights in the situation, and therefore no rule was broken, player made or otherwise.

[Bumamgar]

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

I just want to point out that the player created rules were quoted by GMs as justification for banning of certain members of Dark Ascension. Either enforce them, or don't - but to use them against DA and let WI slide in this instance doesn't semm right.

Bum, since you were asking about a source for whether or not GMs enforce them, there it is. The 2 golems in 50 minutes was cited a number of times by Cyrius as to why DA engaging Cazic Thule made him a contested mob, thus leading to the ban of two individuals.

Just wanted to point out, regardless of GM enforcement of player rules in the past, it is not applicable to this case, since there was no GM involvement. I honestly don't know if the GMs would have enforced the 60 second roll call or not. My gut says no, but I don't really know for sure. However, the facts are, IB chose not to make an issue of it, did not involve the GMs and so it's a non-issue. There's no "either enforce them or don't" or "use them against DA and let WI slide" scenario here, as far as GMs are concerned.

Now if you were referring to IB deciding to not "enforce" the player made 60 second roll call on WI, but pushing the issue in the past with DA, well, that's an issue of player communication and intra-guild politics, and I'm sure has to do with history between the guilds involved. Just like you might give free rezzes/buffs to some people, and ignore others, based on your history with them. Nothing shady there, no one says each guild has to treat every other guild the same way all the time.