Cultural Lotting Changes, now with no risk of being closed

[Korpg]

Started in this thread (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/10540-Culltural-Lotting-changes)

Original Post, as edited today, June 28th, 2011:


The BG "Warning" Section is really little more than a place where people who have done shameful, shady, or cruel things repeatedly are shown to warn others of their misdeeds. Its not meant to be a halt to their progress, It simply stands as a warning to be cautious with said people as in the past they've done bad things.

When I saw this quote, it made me think why some cultures believe they need to be judge and jury over other people. What is shameful, shady or cruel to some, might just be a cultural difference to others. "People Stole my item", is often quoted as a reason to name and shame. But isnt it just that person played by the FFXI rules and used the FFXI lotting system to get what they wanted. Nothing shameful there. It would seem some people believe they can make up rules that are not enforceable by GM, SE or anyone else and if other people break these rules, it is their given right to name and shame people so other are warned about them. But what did they actually do that was wrong? Play by SE rules. Is it the fault of the leaders by introducing none game rules? Maybe those leaders should go on a name and shame board for not sticking to SE rules.

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

As this was a good topic until katz closed it to save face, I'll start a new one to open arguments to it.

My opinion on the matter:

Linkshells have rules for a reason. It is to encourage cooperation among like-minded people into doing a series of battles to split the rewards as evenly as possible based on the degree of participation of the individual members. It is based on both group-oriented thinking and individualistic qualities to create a harmony among different cultures and ways of thinking.

People who break those rules are the ones who have a reputation among the servers as one who would "steal" items for their own personal amusement. Since they are not limited to one "world" there are message boards across a separate forum to pronounce such acts of "thievery" to warn other players to be cautious of such people. One such player who is notorious of such acts has gone by the name of "Futchy/Deemos/Pewpew (current to date)" among the servers. Such a person needs to be shown among peers to steer clear of such a person, but regrettably, this method would only work if everyone looks at such information the same.

I think that katz wanted there to be understanding of the word "shame" among different cultures, but I could be mistaken.

Any thoughts?

[Valaris]

awsome that you made a thread where people can continue this discussion. but no the lotting system does not need to be over hauled simply because it was put into place for the community to create their own system of lotting. proof of this is when you agree to lotting terms and then you break that agreement if you did win the lot and got the item the person you stole it from can call a gm and if the gm does find that you agreed to those terms before the run then he will take the item from you, and if its a tradeable item he will make you give it back or suffer disciplinary action such as temporary suspension of your account. seen this happen alot in dynamis shells when people try to ninja gear and 100 peices.

[Korpg]

I'm interested in having katz reply to this thread too.

I want to debate on the concept of the need of law (a fancy set of social rules if you wish) with him/her/it.

[Bagel]

If you agree to a set of rules, then break those rules, you are either stupid or selfish. In either case, I want nothing to do with you as I'm sure most folks wouldn't.

I will say that lotting out of turn was praised once way back when RMT were gearing up on Leviathan. They were doing an ohat run, because in 2005 if your nin didn't have an ohat and SH, they were gimp. Somehow a player got in with their group and proceeded to deny them their ohat by lotting it at the last second. Much lulz were had, because they were RMT.

[Korpg]

Please read the previous forum question and answers and add any additional debates to the frame

I did. You stated that there is no such thing as Ninja Lotting or Stealing because SE didn't have a rule in place stating so. You also stated that Linkshell rules are not enforceable because SE didn't make a rule stating that LS rules are enforceable. That you can find starting in the middle of the first page and continues onward until you closed your thread.

So, reply to that please.

[Kimble]

Linkshells are a social network. Social networks have their own rules. If said person does not wish to agree to that social networks set of rules, they arent forced to be in that social network. The end.

[Korpg]

As you read in the previous comments, it was refering to people who make up rules that are not enforceable and a reply to why they didnt want SE to make it more allowable for linkshells to change the linkshell menu to display their rules.

Make up rules to join my club. If you don't like the rules, don't join my club. Simple as that.

Some rules that linkshells use are too big for there to be a menu included too. Also, by having SE impose a set of rules limits the types of linkshells that can be used, which also limits the creativity of said linkshells and their members. What happens if a linkshell that was social for a few years decides to become an abyssea shell? That is a huge change, and usually happens based on the linkshell's website, but having it enforced in a menu is too much.

Also, how is SE going to determine who gets what based on programming? You are asking each linkshell to have their own "judge" from SE, and considering there are thousands of linkshells out there, that is a lot of judges to hire from SE. Not a good way to cut costs, isn't it?



There seemed to be no support for system changes to lotting to allow linkshell leaders or alliance leaders or party leaders to have the right to be able to allocate drops to people using the existing p0-9 etc to allocate treasure drops. Because there doesn't need to be a support system? If somebody steals an item from the linkshell, the leader and/or sackholders have an automatic "kick" function to remove said player from the linkshell. Simple as that.


Instead it became a debate about rules and rule breaking instead of looking at what I was trying to achieve, mechanisms for leaders to stop this happening in the future.

Again, don't like the rules of the shell? Don't join it. I would be more worried about a linkshell that doesn't have a set of rules to go by than one that has a strict set of rules. Too much butthurt going on in that first linkshell if you ask me.

What you are asking is something that doesn't need to be fixed, like SMN spirits.

[Greatguardian]

All I saw was complaining about BG having a warning section.

Is it judgmental for people to deny you access to their linkshell after you've Quartermastered a Riddil from someone else? Possibly.

Is it somehow unethical to inform people about it when you Quartermaster someone's Riddil? Hell no. No one is serving as Judge or Jury in BG player warnings. The primary reason for the entire subsection is to keep people informed about what legitimately bad things people have done.

I absolutely do not see how anyone can have a problem with the populace (or a percentage of it) being informed when people ninja lot or steal unless it is negatively impacting their own reputation. Is it really so outlandish to think that people should be forced to stop and think about the consequences of their actions before stealing from people? Or that said consequences should be enforced when people are guilty of stealing from others? In this case, the consequence being that everyone knows you're a thief.

Warning threads have gone away, too. When there is a legitimate misunderstanding, or a legitimate mistake, and the player being warned about makes amends with the group that was slighted and pays them back such that both parties are mutually satisfied, then warnings get closed.

I've seen threads about players who jumped servers forgetting that they had a friend's Kraken Club on their mule. Of course they were warned about as KC thieves. But when they realized their mistake, they got in contact with the owner of the KC and paid the server transfer fee to have them make a mule on his server and transfer it back to theirs with the KC in tow. The KC was returned, both parties were civil, the warning went away.

You don't get a warning stuck on you unless you find a way to earn it. And even then, it's up to the individual judgment of whoever you're dealing with what sort of stock they want to place in said warning.

In the end, that's all they are. Warnings. They spread information. They don't stop anyone from inviting you to anything. They just let them know that you've been a thief before so that they can use their own judgment in dealing with you.

[Tamoa]

In real life, if you cut in line ahead of 10 (or however many) other people, you aren't breaking the law. You will not go to jail for it. But you are breaking a social rule and you will upset people.

In FFXI, if you ninjalot an item in the loot pool, you aren't breaking the game's ToS. You will not get banned for it. But you are breaking a social rule and you will upset people.

If you keep breaking social rules, you will end up an outcast with a horrible reputation. Both in real life and in FFXI.

[Greatguardian]

See this is why I closed the other thread its not about what rules you write its about how they can be applied better. Sadly no one wants to apply them better they would rather just complain about it.

The rules now are player-made, player-enforced, and player-driven. Anyone can make any rules they want. As long as people are informed and consent to those rules, they become legitimate.

Does this mean people can get ripped off by really crappy rules? Yes. Simple solution? Don't consent to really crappy rules and find someone else to work with.

Any rule set people make, be it DKP or leader assignment or whatever the heck else, is going to be far more complicated than the FFXI client can hope to handle. Keeping them separate from the game has always allowed more freedom in concept, and in implementation. I have no problem with the way things are now.

[Kimble]

Actually, I know of a few cases where JP players do the same thing.

On my server, a JP player lotted a morrigan robe 35 piece that he was told he couldnt lot.

The JPs did a "galka walk of shame" in Aht Urgan where they all made galka mule accounts with the players name in it and lined up naked down the path in the main area of Aht Urgan to shame him.

[Kensagaku]

As GG said, the majority of rules are social ones. Dealing with them is a simple solution: Check the rules before you join a social group. If you do not like them, or you disagree with them, go find another social group. You're only bound by the rules you agree to (such as the game's ToS when you join, or a linkshell's rules when you choose to join it), so if you don't like something, don't agree to it and move on to find something more fitting.

[Korpg]

Culturally rules apply differently. Its ok for a German to march to the front of a queue. The English person would tut about it, the American person would complain about it. I agree social networks are fine if you all play by the same culture rules, but how many people actually think about other cultures when they write rules. Japanese culture doesnt publish name and shame lists, Americans love them. Japanese would feel the shame for the person complaining about the incident.

Why would a German cut in front of everyone like that? That would cause a lot of fighting if you ask me.

English (or British) people would complain like everyone else would, Americans would punch you in the nose for cutting in line.

In case you didn't realize it, you are given the free option to choose which set of social rules to play in this game. Unlike most of the real world, where you are limited by distance and wealth and have to abide by the rules you were born into, you are able to choose who you associate with. If you want to associate yourself with known jerks, by all means, associate with them. Just don't be mad when other people start calling you a jerk in return.

Study Human Psychology and visit different parts of the world, and you will see that many people (Americans included, although they are known to be the most individualistic society in the world) tend to form niches and groups in their society. They wouldn't be in that niche if they didn't feel comfortable and accepted in that niche. Same as with this game. People accepted the rules as what they are, so they can work together towards a common goal.

As for your analysis of Japanese culture, while it is true that they don't publish name and shame lists, they do know who to not associate with, and therefor keep away from such characters. They probably can tell a thief better than anyone based on interactions with other players. And if you are basing your information about American culture by so-called "tabloids" and "entertainment venues" such as movies and music, you are just as biased as a Japanese person is against any Koreans and Chinese.

And Japanese wouldn't feel shame for the person complaining about the incident, they would generally ignore it. Personal observations myself!

[Ilisidi]

A German would cut in front of everyone like that for the same reason a British or American person would. It's not okay to do so, but depending upon who is in the queue they won't publically grumble about it but rather seethe silently and very much complain to their peers later on. Though you might also get someone grabbing you by the gruff and dragging you back while pointing out, not to gently, that the end of the queue is the other way.

[Valaris]

again as i posted earlyer the lotting system does not need revisions to give ls leaders the ability to change the lotting system because they already can and yes SE enforces this if you get someone to type "I agree" to your terms a GM will see this as a contractual agreement with that person and they will punish you for breaking that agreement if you need a GM to confirm this then call one in game and ask him yourself if you need to.

[Malamasala]

In real life, if you cut in line ahead of 10 (or however many) other people, you aren't breaking the law. You will not go to jail for it. But you are breaking a social rule and you will upset people.

In FFXI, if you ninjalot an item in the loot pool, you aren't breaking the game's ToS. You will not get banned for it. But you are breaking a social rule and you will upset people.

If you keep breaking social rules, you will end up an outcast with a horrible reputation. Both in real life and in FFXI.

Some social rules are terrible though, but people keep following them because they don't want to upset others. Like killing family members to preserve the honor of the family. Or the (soon to be completely gone) rule about no sex before marriage.

I think too many worry about what others think, and should just focus on their own lives. Which sounds like I'd promote line cutting, even though I don't. But you need to know which rules benefit everyone, and which rules are just fake.

[Kensagaku]

Some social rules are terrible though, but people keep following them because they don't want to upset others. Like killing family members to preserve the honor of the family. Or the (soon to be completely gone) rule about no sex before marriage.

I think too many worry about what others think, and should just focus on their own lives. Which sounds like I'd promote line cutting, even though I don't. But you need to know which rules benefit everyone, and which rules are just fake.

While I see your point and agree that some social rules are a bit extreme, for the most part social rules tend to be courtesy. If you're told not to lot on something based on the rules, then you don't lot it. Doing so makes you a thief. Now if the rules say "only my best friend gets X items so too bad. It's in the rules." then yeah, that's stupid. But with such stupid rules, you make the obvious decision and leave the shell for a better one. In a family you can't just leave (well you can but there's all sorts of headaches involved), but this isn't a family. This is a game made up of social groups. The situation is different here. :|

Again, if you join a shell, you agree to their rules. If you don't like their rules, leave. Simple enough.

[Korpg]

Some social rules are terrible though, but people keep following them because they don't want to upset others. Like killing family members to preserve the honor of the family. Or the (soon to be completely gone) rule about no sex before marriage.

I think too many worry about what others think, and should just focus on their own lives. Which sounds like I'd promote line cutting, even though I don't. But you need to know which rules benefit everyone, and which rules are just fake.

There are social rules that are bad, there are social rules that are outdated, and there are social rules that are open for interpretation. It is up to you to determine which one is which, and if needed, which one needs to be changed.

As for the second part, I think that too many people don't care about what others think. I live my life for myself, but I don't become a jerk to others to suit my needs. Quite the opposite, I will be kind with others because that is the best way (in my opinion) for me to achieve my goals. I help others that can help themselves. I ask for help only when I can't do something by myself. I'm self-preserving, and at the same time group-relying. What is wrong with that?

[Kimble]

None, because your example is dumb since the person who lotted and won is not someone in his shell so he didnt agree to their groups rules. >_>

[Kensagaku]

So Valaris, you are in WOE and have made your linkshell rules and everyone signs up somewhere outside of the game that says they agree to abide to your rules. Someone in your shell lots and then someout outside your shell lots and wins. Which GM you going to call to say they cant lot

If someone outside your shell lots and wins, that's just bad luck for you. They did not agree to your terms or agreements. Frankly I almost think the WoE lot system is a bit silly, but since larger groups don't generally do it, it tends to be several smaller groups working together for the same items.

Either way, they didn't break any terms or agreements because they didn't make them, so moot point.

[Kensagaku]

Um... no, you missed the point yet again. By agreeing to a set of rules, it's like signing a contract. You are considered a bad person by the community if you break said contract. In this situation, people did not sign the contract. They were not part of the shell's rules, and as a result of not being part of any rules, they are not penalized. They made no agreement. If they had made an agreement then yes, they're a bad person. Bad people tend to get warnings posted up so that people do not invite them and get ripped off in the same way.

WoE is probably one of the only events in which people who have not made an agreement on the rules can lot on the same pool as you. Without a more coherent argument than that, you're not getting anywhere.

Edit: Two things:

1) Edit button. We don't need multiple posts for a single reply.
2) Moot point. ~_~ If you're going to argue don't suddenly toss out a random word when I used the same one in the post above. Geebus.

[Tamoa]

So we finally get my point, your dumb rules are over written by SE rules. They cant be enforced because they were dumb in the first place. But if there were rules in place that gave leaders the right to lot and allocate the lottable to people in their groups it must be a better game play than just complaining about a rule that couldnt be enforced in the current set up.

You didn't get the point made by the 2 previous posters before your post, did you. In your example, the person that won the lot isn't a member of your linkshell and didn't agree to follow your linkshell rules. Big difference.

[Daremo]

So what you're saying is that LS lotting rules are dumb and trying to enforce them is inherently wrong since they have no validity, but if SE added a mechanism that enabled the very same behaviors it would all suddenly be ok. Is that about right?

[Tsukino_Kaji]

1) Edit button. We don't need multiple posts for a single reply.Maybe he's intimidated by your rediculous post count and is trying desperately to catch up.

[Arcon]

We're an imperfect society, simply because we're imperfect beings. What katz said is true, cultures differ greatly in some respects, and it's nearly impossible to define a perfectly fair system, or even a perfectly fair solution to any particular problem. This, however, is often not because of different culture, but because humans are just very diverse in their emotions. I consider myself extremely tolerant and gentle towards people, yet I managed to piss off some people unknowingly, simply because I had no idea that they'd take what I did as an offence (or even that it could be taken as an offence).

However, worrying about that is as useless as it is futile, the first former of the latter. The best we can do is to play (and live) trying to adhere to the categorical imperative. It's the closest we have to objectively define moral obligations.

Either way, there's many social aspects of the game that aren't forbidden according to the ToS, but that some people believe should be. Mob-stealing, ripping off people and ninja-lotting are some examples. Arguing those aren't immoral because they're allowed by the ToS (or not explicitely forbidden, which amounts to the same) is wrong because a legislation and morality are two different systems. What if there's a culture that allows ninja-lotting at the last second, or even encourages it? Is it still immoral if they do it out of their religious beliefs?

As I said, it's pointless to argue about this. That's why every subgroup, be it a party or a linkshell has their own rules. Even some unspoken rules among a large playerbase (like some japanese customs that translated into the western playstyle) show that after a while, there's a common ground established, that many people can adhere to. If they don't, they don't fit in. Whether or not that's a problem, everyone has to decide for themselves.

And what about Germans can skip the queue?

Edit: Damn, missed a good three pages since I started writing this. I blame pizza.

About the warning section:
If a person who can't adhere to the rules messes up the playstyle of others, they are doing a public service by reporting them, by giving others the opportunity to avoid them. Does that mean insulting them? No. Does it mean they suck as moral beings? No. Does that mean they will probably piss off more than just one person, and that can be avoided by reporting them? Yes. Is reporting them immoral in itself? Arguably. Who cares? No one.

[Kensagaku]

Now you have all got over the "Idemand my linkshell rules apply and anyone who doesnt support them is wrong" syndrome out of your systems answer the original question.

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

The hell? I didn't say that at all. Don't be a Krystal. If you don't get the reference... you're prolly better off.

What I'm saying is that if someone agrees to your rules, then they are bound by contract. They have to agree first. If they don't agree first, then they aren't a part of the group and thus are not bound by its rules. Thus in WoE, people did not agree to the rules, and therefore are not bound by them. They are a separate group, not part of the main linkshell or its rules. Social rules do not apply to those who are not part of the social group. Common courtesy is a general social rule that applies to the larger social group of the FFXI community, and everyone is expected to follow it. Lotting rules, however, are social rules that apply only within the confines of the social group. If you are not part of the social group then the rules do not apply.

I've said it, italicized it, and restated it several times in the hopes that you will get it. If you do not, then that's the problem, not us.

[Tamoa]

I see no need to change the lotting rules, as there are no lotting rules set by SE. It all comes down to the people you play with, and what set of rules you all agree upon.

[Kensagaku]

I am asking do leaders want a mechanism to be able to allocate lotables in a more efficient manner, sadly some people just want to rant about their ls and their ls rules.

I'm not ranting about my ls or any ls in particulars. I'm talking in general. Also allowing leaders to allocate things would lead to people just allocating stuff to those who were there best friends/significant others/people who kiss up enough. It would become a favoritism system. So no, I would not like leaders allocating things via a mechanism when rules function just fine.

[Tsukino_Kaji]

Question about the previous examples since I rarely use quartermaster. Could not the only person in the alliance that could set QM be the alliance learder? If so, why was said person evern in charge of such a thing?

[katz]

the Quartermaster I believe was set up in the original design of the game. It gave all the treasure to 1 person and then that 1 person would distribute the treasure. Sadly now there are so many Ex Rare drops this is no longer possible. The rights to lot in the current system is a weak design at best. If treasure drops and a person who has linkshell rights doesnt see it they cant have it. Some would say its their fault they should have been checking. Many linkshell leaders run a list of people who are entitled to what and therefore have the rights to allocate the treasure to people. The ex rare systems stop this natural feature happening now. I believe the current system can be abused and needs looking at. Features that remove the quartermaster and lotting rights and give the rights to the linkshell leader or group leader would be a much better system. It would also stop people being able to ninja lot stuff when linkshells dont want them to have it. This is what I wanted to debate not why people write rules or break rules but way too many people got too precious over their rights to make rules instead of their rights to enforce their rules they want to make.

[Kensagaku]

...Rather than pointing fingers, why not just make your argument and leave it at that? You're pretty much inviting slander back by slandering others. Just stating that now.

That aside, as I stated, it would pretty much give all items to the leader/leader's best friends/relationship partner/shell suckup. Few shells are free of some sort of favoritism, whether it is to people who are active, or people who have a relationship with the leader, etc etc. As a result, giving the leader the option to distribute would just be a foolish idea.

[Arcon]

Few shells are free of some sort of favoritism, whether it is to people who are active, or people who have a relationship with the leader, etc etc. As a result, giving the leader the option to distribute would just be a foolish idea.

Just earlier I pictured you as a "if you don't like it, don't do it" kinda guy. This could essentially be applied to this as well, if you're in a shell where drops are handled unfairly, you could just leave.

I have to argue that statement from my own experience. Many linkshells already do the exact same thing, the leader decides who gets what, and all of the ones I've seen do it in a very fair and unbiased way, often adhering to some sort of system that's publically available, or at least within the LS, so everyone can check whether or not that decision was fair. The only difference to now, to those shells at least, would be that it would save the players the click of a few buttons.

[Daremo]

There is no such thing as a ninja lot. In. Your. Shell. Why are you trying to force your shell's culture on everyone else?

[Tamoa]

What if there are no linkshell leaders present? What if it's a group of people, all from different linkshells?

[Greatguardian]

Question posed: Are players capable of self-enforcement?

Answer: Yes. The ToS even supports them when the agreement is mutually understood and agreed to.

Question posed: Should linkshell leaders be given the ability to assign drops to people in-game?

Answer: No. Why? Because players are capable of ToS-backed self-enforcement.

[Tamoa]

This is why I also included alliance leaders or party leaders in my original note.

But this could be someone you don't know and who might end up screwing you out of your promised item.

[Nawesemo]

:confused: Changes to the Lotting system?

Why? If your not partying with total dicks and dishonorable people, There's nothing wrong with it.

It's the people that Skrew up the current system.:cool:

I get that people want control and power and someone to make sure Linkshell member butthole over there doesn't "steal" their drop.

WHY ARE YOU PARTYING WITH BUTTHOLE MEMBER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! :mad:

Becuase he's part of the shell? if you don't trust your shell that much maybe the problem is deeper.

No two peoples situation here is going to be the same, but this boils down to this.

Don't want to share? don't put yourself in situations where you have to.

Don't want random people making off with long sought after items? Don't put yourself in that situation to make it possible.

Don't want Butt noob to reap the benifits of your 3 years hard work? Don't take butt member.

The people you surround yourself speak volumes of how you roll in this game....

I think a few of ya'll know too many dicks.

[Valaris]

So Valaris, you are in WOE and have made your linkshell rules and everyone signs up somewhere outside of the game that says they agree to abide to your rules. Someone in your shell lots and then someout outside your shell lots and wins. Which GM you going to call to say they cant lot

not 100% on how WOE treasure system is but if its like every other area in the game where only the people in the party can lot whats in the treasure pool then i woulda have had that person agree to the terms if they did not you boot them and if they agree and then ninja loot call gm (it doesnt matter what one you call) they will handle the situation if they find in the chat log that person agreed to the terms.

[Tsukino_Kaji]

:confused: Changes to the Lotting system?

Why? If your not partying with total dicks and dishonorable people, There's nothing wrong with it.

It's the people that Skrew up the current system.:cool:

I get that people want control and power and someone to make sure Linkshell member butthole over there doesn't "steal" their drop.

WHY ARE YOU PARTYING WITH BUTTHOLE MEMBER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! :mad:

Becuase he's part of the shell? if you don't trust your shell that much maybe the problem is deeper.

No two peoples situation here is going to be the same, but this boils down to this.

Don't want to share? don't put yourself in situations where you have to.

Don't want random people making off with long sought after items? Don't put yourself in that situation to make it possible.

Don't want Butt noob to reap the benifits of your 3 years hard work? Don't take butt member.

The people you surround yourself speak volumes of how you roll in this game....

I think a few of ya'll know too many dicks.That's some first post. lol

[Greatguardian]

:confused: Changes to the Lotting system?

Why? If your not partying with total dicks and dishonorable people, There's nothing wrong with it.

It's the people that Skrew up the current system.:cool:

I get that people want control and power and someone to make sure Linkshell member butthole over there doesn't "steal" their drop.

WHY ARE YOU PARTYING WITH BUTTHOLE MEMBER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! :mad:

Becuase he's part of the shell? if you don't trust your shell that much maybe the problem is deeper.

No two peoples situation here is going to be the same, but this boils down to this.

Don't want to share? don't put yourself in situations where you have to.

Don't want random people making off with long sought after items? Don't put yourself in that situation to make it possible.

Don't want Butt noob to reap the benifits of your 3 years hard work? Don't take butt member.

The people you surround yourself speak volumes of how you roll in this game....

I think a few of ya'll know too many dicks.

I like this guy. I approve of this message, as it applies to practically half the threads in GD.

[Nawesemo]

Servers are back up :D

[Korpg]

There is nothing new about linkshell leaders giving out favours to favourite people. Just like there is nothing new about ninja lotter (IYO). As I have previously stated everyone who is in my linkshell has the right to lot on anything that drops. If you took part in the activity then it is fair that you can lot on it. It can be the first time it dropped, it doesnt matter, you helped it happen. This is a much fairly system than most linkshell run. I dont care if you want it to store in your mog house when someone else could be using it, your reason for wanting it is as valid as someone elses. This is in my opinion there is no such thing as a ninja lot. I can see a need for people who want to stop other people from lotting to have a system change. Maybe it would be better for leaders to say who cant lot or leaders to have the right to pass it from others. Ive seen examples where people argue over who has what rights and as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want people will just leave if its a bad shell. I would like to see the quartermaster applied but dont see how it can work with ex rare gear.

If you are in a linkshell that you don't like the lot distribution policies (only certain people get drops, everyone else gets scraps from the tables, and good luck being one of the "certain person" category) then don't join that shell, or if you are in that shell, leave.

Ninja lotters only happen when somebody outside of the linkshell lots on an item that the linkshell won (relic armor used to be a main "ninja lot" item, but not anymore). That or a pick-up group YOYD (your orb, your drop) policy ends up that somebody got XXuber time that wasn't from their "orb".

Your example of Walk-of-Echos is a poor one, because loot distribution is not limited to one group of people (like oldstyle dynamis) but everyone in the "zone" and since anyone can enter that zone up to a limit without a need for an item to trade (like Einherjar) anyone can cast a lot on anything. That is probably why most linkshells don't do WoE (that and the rewards suck mainly).

The lotting system is not flawed, except for WoE. Now most shells (on Asura at least) have a policy of "Pass items or get kicked out of the party within 2 minutes" which is probably the best. It would allow people who have certain items prevented from being stolen from other members (outside of the linkshell mainly, because most, if not all linkshell members are honorable).

What you are asking is a complication of the code and acceptance of cultural viewpoints in the distribution of shared items. Real life does not work like this game, you can't kill a tiger and expect a tiger fang and tiger hide to fall down from the tiger's body. You can expect an arrest warrent on your happy butt for killing an endangered species though, unless you did so in self-defense (good luck proving that one).

Oh yeah, and don't expect tigers to pop out from the ground after you kill them either.

[Ravenmore]

not 100% on how WOE treasure system is but if its like every other area in the game where only the people in the party can lot whats in the treasure pool then i woulda have had that person agree to the terms if they did not you boot them and if they agree and then ninja loot call gm (it doesnt matter what one you call) they will handle the situation if they find in the chat log that person agreed to the terms.

Its zone wide lotting. Coins are open to anyone in the zone no matter if thier party killed the mob or not. So you can enter the zone as long as there is more then 50% of the time remaining for the group that entered.

[Kimble]

No. We dont need it done through the system because its way to much work to even make something like that possible.

They system was made very basic so then people can make their own rules as they see fit. This isnt just done this way in FFXI this is done on a lot of mmos.

[Karbuncle]

I would redesign the lotting system so it could be as flexible as possible.

I'd introduce a simple base system, Like "Cast lot" or "Pass". This allows two simple options. Then I'd allow the community to use their intelligence, courtesy, understanding, and abilities to make regulations/rules/agreements between themselves to govern which drop goes where in a fair manner.

Like DKP, Attendance Based, or Job Based.

This way every play could work and build off the base idea of the lotting system in a way they find fair. This would also make it to where players who don't agree with 1 set of rules could still make their own set of rules based on the base Lotting System.

That way everyone is happy because they can either join another group with pre-determined agreeance on lotting, or simply solo/make their own group to determine lotting.

So a simple base lotting system, where players could build off of using "player made" agreements for distributing loot fairly.

[StingRay104]

First off Thank you Korpg for reviving this post cuz I really wanted to ask Katz something.

@ Katz. Are you on the list of BG warnings?

Second: If I got this job for sitting in a chair and making sure no one press this read button on the wall, and then pressed the button because no physical barrier of any type kept me from pressing it, then I would be fired, and that would follow me around in my work history. If you don't like LS rules then don't join the shell, find one or make one the way you want it to be.

Third: Personally I would love to have Party/Alliance leader to be able to manually select who gets what, it would make it so much easier to deal with afkers.

Fourth: Their is nothing cultural about making peoples names known who hav edone bad. Wanted posters have been posted for thousands of years, and not just for criminals, generic rulebreakers who may know valuable info to. To say its wrong to post someones name on a shame list is cultural is wrong, after all in ancient egyt if you steal fruit you lose your hand, if you speak ill of those in charge you lose your tongue, and this isn't the only example every culture has their own means of dealing with miscreants and online its best to just post the offenders name. BTW if you go to a place and pay by check and its bounces for any reason your name and photo gets posted at all cashiers stations as a don't accept checks from this person list. If you get caught stealing your name and photo gets posted and you can no longer be served at that store. No matter how minor the offense their is always repercussions for your negative actions.

Finally if you don't think its fair then don't agree, sure you won't be allowed to do the run with those people but aleast you won't have to put up with their stupid rules, this is called freedom of choice, you have the choice to accept the rules or not go with that group.

[Korpg]

LALALALA still ignores the original question asked in the op and wonders why it was closed.
Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

This is the highlighted paragraph that specifically was ignored by everyone who answered about linkshell rules. Still waiting for answers instead of what linkshells do with their rules.

What about "events" that there is no set linkshell to determine who gets what? Like Pick-up Groups for BCNM/KSNM/ISNM/KCNM/WoE/Dynamis/Abyssea? Are you suggesting that the leader of that group decides on who gets what drops? Think that is fair?

<Leader> Ok, so you BLM who used his orb, I determined that you get the 2 Pearls and the 1 Black Pearl while I get the Kraken Club and the 3 Oxbloods. If you don't like that, too bad cause SE made it possible for me to decide who gets what.

Sounds fair, right?

That is basically what you are asking.

Also, lets assume the following: 3 man BCNM60 Up in Arms. Myself and a shellmate with another person in the group from outside our shell. Under your system I determine who gets what because of the group, 2 people are in the shell and from the group, I am the sackholder, so I'm technically the leader, no matter who actually has the leader spot. So I'll pick the most expensive/useful item for myself, without regardless of who's orb it was that was used. Sure, we could have agreed on your orb/your drop but leaders of shells get to determine under your system.

See the flaws?

[Vold]

LALALALA still ignores the original question asked in the op and wonders why it was closed.
Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

This is the highlighted paragraph that specifically was ignored by everyone who answered about linkshell rules. Still waiting for answers instead of what linkshells do with their rules.Maybe we ignored it because no one cares except you. We're all fine with how lotting works. We don't need the system to do the work for us. You're the one who has a problem with it, except you push that problem onto us so that we're the ones with the problem and not you in your eyes. Everyone will never agree with everyone on anything, since the beginning of time until the day time stops rolling. Just how it is. If you want to free lot everything that's great. I hope you free lot until the cows come home. But don't expect the rest of us to bend our rules long enough for you to free lot all 4 Empyrean seals that just dropped of a NM in a pick up group so your #5 job that you play once a month can be pimped.



I would redesign the lotting system so it could be as flexible as possible.

I'd introduce a simple base system, Like "Cast lot" or "Pass". This allows two simple options. Then I'd allow the community to use their intelligence, courtesy, understanding, and abilities to make regulations/rules/agreements between themselves to govern which drop goes where in a fair manner.

Like DKP, Attendance Based, or Job Based.

This way every play could work and build off the base idea of the lotting system in a way they find fair. This would also make it to where players who don't agree with 1 set of rules could still make their own set of rules based on the base Lotting System.

That way everyone is happy because they can either join another group with pre-determined agreeance on lotting, or simply solo/make their own group to determine lotting.

So a simple base lotting system, where players could build off of using "player made" agreements for distributing loot fairly.

No thanks karb you're just trying to make it 10 times more complex than it already is. Oh wait.

[Bagel]

Also, lets assume the following: 3 man BCNM60 Up in Arms. Myself and a shellmate with another person in the group from outside our shell. Under your system I determine who gets what because of the group, 2 people are in the shell and from the group, I am the sackholder, so I'm technically the leader, no matter who actually has the leader spot. So I'll pick the most expensive/useful item for myself, without regardless of who's orb it was that was used. Sure, we could have agreed on your orb/your drop but leaders of shells get to determine under your system.

See the flaws?

I understand what you're saying but this example is awful and incredibly obtuse. Introducing an option for a leader to distribute drops would do a whole lot of nothing to the way loot is distributed. In any group, be it linkshell group, pug or what have you, there is an agreed upon standard to which loot is distributed. Just because someone has the ability to hand out drops doesn't change that they are bound socially to abide by the rules they agreed upon when forming the group.

Your argument says that someone agrees to a YOYD bcnm run, then simply because the option exists for them to give themselves the loot, they will ignore the previous agreement and take the KC another member won. I fail to see how this is the distribution methods fault. It's the player for being selfish. You're blaming vidya games for columbine here.

[Korpg]

I understand what you're saying but this example is awful and incredibly obtuse. Introducing an option for a leader to distribute drops would do a whole lot of nothing to the way loot is distributed. In any group, be it linkshell group, pug or what have you, there is an agreed upon standard to which loot is distributed. Just because someone has the ability to hand out drops doesn't change that they are bound socially to abide by the rules they agreed upon when forming the group.

Your argument says that someone agrees to a YOYD bcnm run, then simply because the option exists for them to give themselves the loot, they will ignore the previous agreement and take the KC another member won. I fail to see how this is the distribution methods fault. It's the player for being selfish. You're blaming vidya games for columbine here.

But you are saying that this won't happen? It may be obtuse, but it is plausible, and creates a new breed of stealing.

Why create an additional option for stealing items? This option will abolish pickup groups when it starts to become abusive, and it will be abused because there are people out there who like to abuse things like this constantly! If they didn't, they wouldn't have stolen other's items in the first place!

[Bagel]

But you are saying that this won't happen? It may be obtuse, but it is plausible, and creates a new breed of stealing.

Why create an additional option for stealing items? This option will abolish pickup groups when it starts to become abusive, and it will be abused because there are people out there who like to abuse things like this constantly! If they didn't, they wouldn't have stolen other's items in the first place!

Of course it will happen. It's happening now. Nothing would change if you gave a group this option of loot distribution. Everyone's fear that this would completely ruin everything ffxi is unfounded.

That being said, nothing really needs to change as this system wouldn't truly change anything.

Edit: If you really wanted to exact some change for the good, let r/e items be traded by players in the group that got the kill for a short time after loot drops. This would out those "omg guys i totally meant to hit pass >< sry *grin*" as jerks. It would also help in those instances where "guys i got dc" "oh my item dropped and fell to the floor before i could log back in?" "afk /headdesking".

[Korpg]

Of course it will happen. It's happening now. Nothing would change if you gave a group this option of loot distribution. Everyone's fear that this would completely ruin everything ffxi is unfounded.

That being said, nothing really needs to change as this system wouldn't truly change anything.

Edit: If you really wanted to exact some change for the good, let r/e items be traded by players in the group that got the kill for a short time after loot drops. This would out those "omg guys i totally meant to hit pass >< sry *grin*" as jerks. It would also help in those instances where "guys i got dc" "oh my item dropped and fell to the floor before i could log back in?" "afk /headdesking".

I'm not suggesting this. katz is, not me. Please don't get offended, I am not defending this at all.

I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in the argument.

[Bagel]

I'm not suggesting this. katz is, not me. Please don't get offended, I am not defending this at all.

I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in the argument.

Yeah I understand, it's just that the same flaws are present in the current system, so really adopting this system would be trading an apple for an apple. It's been used in other MMO's like WoW and they have the same problems there that are present in FFXI's current system. Though I would say it is abused more there, but mainly due to the anonymity present in that game.

I really would like to see the change mentioned in my edit. What do you guys think about this? I understand that it would open up other potential abuses such as friends secretly trading loot after an event is over in order to game a linkshells loot system. This would however help in preventing people losing items because they d/c at the wrong time, and make ninjas think twice as they would quickly be asked to trade the item.

[Korpg]

I don't think the coding would work for your suggestion to work, but it is a great idea.

[Bagel]

I don't think the coding would work for your suggestion to work, but it is a great idea.

Probably not, I know even less about coding than I do about loot distribution systems. I do seem to remember something about being able to trade salvage pieces after they were distributed to party members. That may be the booze talking though.

[Khiinroye]

You make it sound like everyone always lots everything in the pool.

Its because we can trust people that we DON"T need an extra system--we determine how we want to handle loot with a system we design and agree is fair or acceptable, and then abide by that system, passing when we are asked to pass and lotting when we are allowed to lot on items we want. People who violate that trust are the exception.

Wouldn't you like to know beforehand that that person you just invited to your bcnm group is known to disband and open the chest before he does it to you? Or that the leader of the shout linkshell you're thinking about joining is on his 7th bought character due to the others getting banned for massive amounts of rmt, blatant 3rd party tool abuse, and harrassment, and has been the ls bank--don't worry, we split all the money monthly--and then rmt'd all the money on his past 8 linkshells?

[Bagel]

no one likes people who breaks the rules and likes to name and shame them.

Don't break the rules you agree to? Not that tough.

[Korpg]

Sorry, hate to interrupt, but what does "it's my thundercloud" tag on the bottom mean?

And who added it?

[Bagel]

Yes, I did. (http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Thundercloud)

[Korpg]

Think you did it wrong.

[Arcon]

<Leader> Ok, so you BLM who used his orb, I determined that you get the 2 Pearls and the 1 Black Pearl while I get the Kraken Club and the 3 Oxbloods. If you don't like that, too bad cause SE made it possible for me to decide who gets what.

Sounds fair, right?

That is basically what you are asking.

That's kinda what's already possible. Everyone is wholly dependent on the party/alliance leader to not kick everyone and score all the drops themselves. The only difference would be whether you trust your LS leader more than the party/alliance leader. It would allow a new kind of stealing, but disable the old kind of stealing, you just put your trust in a different person.

Personally I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. Pretty much all LS I've known have the leader call the shots on who should lot what, so I don't see the difference really. However, it's not really needed either, definitely not enough to make this kinda fuss about it.

[Korpg]

That's kinda what's already possible. Everyone is wholly dependent on the party/alliance leader to not kick everyone and score all the drops themselves. The only difference would be whether you trust your LS leader more than the party/alliance leader. It would allow a new kind of stealing, but disable the old kind of stealing, you just put your trust in a different person.

Personally I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. Pretty much all LS I've known have the leader call the shots on who should lot what, so I don't see the difference really. However, it's not really needed either, definitely not enough to make this kinda fuss about it.

katz's system would put all drops on the leader's hands for distribution. At least with the system in place the "thief" would have to lot on it first/quartermaster it to himself, with his system, all control automatically goes to the leader before distribution. More room for "error" in this case.

[Korpg]

Katz system is too personal. My system is allow everyone to use the existing feature and free lot everything. Its for the whinning populations that like to name and shame I asked what was a better system.

But your system and the "katz" system is exactly the same. Even the name.

As long as there are going to be thieves and ninjalotters, there will be the "name and shame" part of any system.

Take out the stealing, and nobody is going to call others a thief. Simple as that.

On a personal note: Are you one who stolen stuff from others? You seem so adamantly against this current system, is it because you are on the "name and shame" list?

[Korpg]

Yes, I did. (http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Thundercloud)

Weird, why would anyone want that?

I get what you are saying, but isn't it a little too blatant? You should have said "its my kraken club" for it to make more sense, but then again, you were being sarcastic.

[Ravenmore]

When I did KSNM, BSNM always asked for party lead before poping my orb leader didn't like it they had to find another member, even did this with LS KS99 runs.Its been said in this thread and the closed one, just don't lot till everyone passes or gets kick/d2.

[Frost]

Hey Katz, there's no rule against making a thread about one you closed.

Point illustrated.

[Korpg]

I didnt want to make this personal but to be honest you dont seem to see the difference between a) 1 person getting all the stuff and giving it out and b) Katz telling everyone you can lot everything that drops and its your good fortune you won it and hard cheese if you dont.


What I stated as a bad idea was what you stated as number 1. How fair can one person be when it comes to honestly distributing stuff? How honest are people when it comes to admiting what dropped?

When something rare has dropped to the one person, would they announce "Rare item dropped, here is who gets it?" Something like Defending Ring or any of the MNK BB items? Would you announce an item you really want for somebody else to get it?

Now don't get me wrong that I'm saying there are no honest people out there. But there are also pickup groups, and there are more pickup groups than there are trustworthy people.

What I am saying is that your system is just another method of people to get their stuff stolen.

[Khiinroye]

Ravenmore: that still doesn't stop someone from dropping party and opening the chest before someone else in the group can. Doing so gives the chest opener all the drops. There was someone on my server who was "named and shamed" for repeatedly doing this.

Since the game mechanics allow this, it is obviously perfectly acceptable behavior, and we should have expected it from everyone we meet. In fact, it is simply miraculous that every BCNM doesn't have everyone dropping group and racing to be the first to open the chest. After all, we should never trust anyone to honor what they agreed to, and should never warn anyone about people who break agreements, because agreements are artificial and against the TOS.

[Rafien]

I'm just happy I found a LS that is very friendly, you never need to ask for an item because half the members will say "Hey, you need that item for this and that lot on it".

Few weeks ago, me and 2 others received the Quake scroll from a drop, we sat there and said, OK, what should we do with it. We decided even split 200K each person (sells 600K on Bahamut), I ended up paying them both off and kept the scroll.

.. To stay on topic, if you join a party, follow social etiquette. I D2 anyone that doesn't follow it.

[Ravenmore]

Ravenmore: that still doesn't stop someone from dropping party and opening the chest before someone else in the group can. Doing so gives the chest opener all the drops. There was someone on my server who was "named and shamed" for repeatedly doing this.

Since the game mechanics allow this, it is obviously perfectly acceptable behavior, and we should have expected it from everyone we meet. In fact, it is simply miraculous that every BCNM doesn't have everyone dropping group and racing to be the first to open the chest. After all, we should never trust anyone to honor what they agreed to, and should never warn anyone about people who break agreements, because agreements are artificial and against the TOS.

Yes its not perfect but he also has no idea if doing that will pay off were a well timed NIN lot at the last sec could. Buts what better is now Katz is back tracking and he does use players agreeing before hand so its the same thing as LS rules.

[Korpg]

Korgp not being funny but you need to learn to read. My point system used a) and b). Not 1 and 2

Really really want to understand how you believe a free lot system is going to have a ninja lot.

We have a free lot system in place now. When you agree to a "your orb, your drop" BCNM run and something good drops from your orb, and somebody takes that good item away from you, even though you have all agreed that it is "your orb, your drop" that is stealing (aka ninja lot). Quartermaster can take care of this, but not everyone uses quartermaster, or the leader of the group "forgets" to quartermaster the person who pop'd the orb and/or takes it off and places it on himself. You think that has never happened before? Think it isn't happening now?

Also, option "a" is the same as option "number 1." Even I would have thought you could see the similarities.

[Korpg]

Explain your system then. And stop backtracking to try to make yourself look good.

[Rafien]

Alright, this would be out there and will never be implemented. But it here it is..

If you're killing crawlers in an area, you can select treasure and select manage options. You can see the items the mob drops and you can rate how much you want it and if you need it. That way when items drop and if the party already agreed that Person A gets X items while person B gets Z items, they just drop in place.

While I'm in parties I'm constantly selected pass on items that I just don't want. Insect Wings and what not, people that want them should need to cast for every drop but it'll be nice if those who really want them can sorta get the system to play them favorites for that item.

You should also be able to see what people are looking for, so you can see if someone is just wanting to claim everything.

Also, if it's a quested item, it should already be designated to go to the people that have the quest flagged and need it vs the people that don't have it flagged or the people that already completed it and just want to get it to sell.

[katz]

I am getting very annoyed with people who keep saying this and that about me. All I did was ask what was a better lotting system since there were so many people who complain about people stealing from them but they all seem quite happy to just talk about bad people and make accusations about me without any grounds of any lotting systems I have in place. Stop attacking people opinions and decide what your own opinions are about a subject and then write your own experiences not what you think about other peoples.

[Korpg]

Alright, this would be out there and will never be implemented. But it here it is..

If you're killing crawlers in an area, you can select treasure and select manage options. You can see the items the mob drops and you can rate how much you want it and if you need it. That way when items drop and if the party already agreed that Person A gets X items while person B gets Z items, they just drop in place.

While I'm in parties I'm constantly selected pass on items that I just don't want. Insect Wings and what not, people that want them should need to cast for every drop but it'll be nice if those who really want them can sorta get the system to play them favorites for that item.

You should also be able to see what people are looking for, so you can see if someone is just wanting to claim everything.

Also, if it's a quested item, it should already be designated to go to the people that have the quest flagged and need it vs the people that don't have it flagged or the people that already completed it and just want to get it to sell.

Two problems with this:

1) Apkallu Eggs. Sells for 100k a stack. Lets all get together to Abyssea - Mis and kill Apkallus. I need to lot on eggs for cooking. Later sells 7 stacks of Eggs for 700k. Whereas 6 people could have gotten 100k each from all that.

2) Some Genkis (especially the 80/85 cap Genkis) require KS and KCs. Having the quest flagged at 76 (or 80) and having all KS/KCs drop to the person who has the quest flagged will really hurt those who actually want those. Since KCNMs and KSNM99s are really popular now, that one person is going to hog up all the KS/KCs in a party/alliance. Think that is fair?

[Korpg]

I am getting very annoyed with people who keep saying this and that about me. All I did was ask what was a better lotting system since there were so many people who complain about people stealing from them but they all seem quite happy to just talk about bad people and make accusations about me without any grounds of any lotting systems I have in place. Stop attacking people opinions and decide what your own opinions are about a subject and then write your own experiences not what you think about other peoples.

What is your lotting system? Explain it in detail. Nobody is accusing you of anything at the moment. Nor is anyone attacking you at the moment. Nor is anyone saying anything bad to you at the moment.

As for my own experiences, yes, I have had things stolen from me. You know what, I got over it. I told everyone I knew about those types of people. Those people who stole things from my linkshell were kicked within seconds of stealing that item. It also helped me realize a few simple things to prevent such things from happening again.

Just because you are playing all innocent and saying that everyone is an angel and nobody would steal anything because loot pools are free lot to everyone doesn't mean that agreed on item distributions and somebody deciding that that agreement wasn't good enough for them isn't the same as stealing. Read about contractual agreements. They exist, even orally. And Square-Enix honors such agreements between players.

[Korpg]

Your orb your drop is not a free lot system. Your orb your drop is an example where Quartermastering should be applied. The person who has the orb sould be made leader and everything given to him. In the case that was quoted as what if they drop party and then open the chest. I would suggest the first time this happend then it would be the last time they were invited.

Quartermastering only works if you are the leader of the party. If you are not the leader, you are placing a lot of trust on the leader. Most people ask for leadership than quartermaster because of leaders taking off QM right before the chest is opening and/or putting QM on themselves. That has happened.

As for the drop and take chest method, what do you think the "name and shame" is supposed to be for? Think about it. If you don't invite said person again, what is keeping him from doing it to somebody else? Being silent is just two steps below of doing the same thing yourself. Not letting the public know about those types of people just creates those types of people into scamming others. And when they scammed enough people, they jump servers, change their names, and do it all over again. People have done that. See: Futchy.

[Ravenmore]

Katz you said you agree to split high gil items before the run how is this any different then a LS having set of rules so they don't have to go over it every single NM. If you joined the LS you are agreeing to the rules of the LS. So lotting out of turn will result in a) getting kick out the LS if it was a rare/ex item b) giving up the item up if it was tradable. and still run the risk of getting kick. Do it enough and geuss were you end up.

[Azagthoth]

Katz system is too personal. My system is allow everyone to use the existing feature and free lot everything. Its for the whinning populations that like to name and shame I asked what was a better system.

Let's say a group of you get together and farm a bunch of popsets for Chloris for +2 items, as well as Empyrean items. Then, a member you just recently invited decides to show up when you've decided to go pop all the popsets you've farmed. You don't need the person's help, but you let them come anyway. You kill all the Chloris pops and the new members decides to lot on every single item that he possibly can. Then, he does the same thing over-and-over and eventually leaves your linkshell once he has everything he needs/doesn't need. What would you do to prevent this situation?

[Rafien]

Simple, when he casts lot on multiple items D2 him or boot him from the LS and party immediately.

[Azagthoth]

Simple, when he casts lot on multiple items D2 him or boot him from the LS and party immediately.

But their system is all about items being freelot; the person is just exercising their right to freelot.

[Rafien]

SE's system of freelot is just a simple backbone to allow looting of items. It is the parties job to mange how they want to. When you go into a party you should ask whats the rules on loting and how are things dropped.

You exercise your right to freelot, I'll exercise my right to D2 you and kick you from the party/LS.

EDIT:
It's just plain ignorant to walk into a party and just lot on anything you want. A simple, 'Hey, can I lot on that, I need it for....'

Almost every party I've been to say go ahead and take it. I was in a party once when the tank lotted on an item I needed and we already agreed that I would get the item when it dropped. He did it in the middle of a battle and I was the healer.. I let him die than kicked him from the party, this was pre-adjustment to losing exp while dieing.

[Swords]

You know just bare with me on this for an idea that might even the stakes on lotting rules and to help prevent ninja lotters and all that jazz.

Basically the idea is rounded around a selection of rules which apply to the leader of the group.

General Rundown:
- When a party/alliance is formed the leader of that alliance will have the option to select one set of lotting rules.
- The leader can only do this once, once the rules are accepted they cannot change reguardless if a new leader takes charge without fully disbanding the alliance leaders party. (To prevent ninja editing by shady leaders.)
- If no rules are selected, they automatically fall to the current lotting system by default, the option to change this will remain however unless the leader selects the original lotting rules.
- If the leader of the group alliances with another party with or w/o a different set of rules already selected, the alliance leader's rules will supersede the other parties rules and will remain that way for the duration that individual party is formed.
- When lotting rules are selected by the alliance leader, all members will be given dialog saying so as well as new party members.
- An alliance/party cannot disband, nor any members zone or warp as long as there is treasure in the pool.

Checking/Selecting Lotting Rules:
- A new option will be added to the Party menu that allows all party members to check the current rules for that individual group or alliance.
- If no rules are selected the party/alliance members will be told so and that the original lotting rules or "free for all" are in play.
- The same option will be used to selecting the rules by the party/alliance leader.

Groups of Rules:

Original/Free for all:
- Current Lotting system.
- Anyone can lot anything.

Pros:
- System everyone is familiar with.
Cons:
- Still run the risk of ninja lotters, warpers, and alliance breakers.


QuarterMaster:
- All items fall to the individual who selected.
- The rule cannot be changed once selected, however the selectee can be changed to different individuals.
- NEW TWIST- The selectee will have the option to pass gear to the alliance pool, if he does not pass gear in the selected time all gear will automatically fall to him.
- NEW TWIST- While a person is under quarter master status he will be unable to zone/warp out of the zone without lotting/passing drops in his pool or until the gear autofalls to him.

Pros:
- Allows more flexability with Quartermaster, letting others have the option to select unwanted/unneeded r/ex drops.


Group Rules/Custom:
- Since most items are groupped into their own pool the leader will have the option of selecting from a small set of rules for each of these individual grouppings.

Groups:
- Synth Materials - Including food ingredients, beastmen armor
- AF/Relic/Emp related items - Armor, Weapons, Accessories, Seals, +2 items
- Scrolls - Including Dice, Pup attachments
- Consummables - Cooked Food, ammo, ninja tools, phantom roll cards
- General Equipment - Weapons, Armor, Etc.
- Misc. Groupings - Quest, currency, alexandrite, NM pop items
- Meds - Potions, oils, powders, ointments, etc.

- For each of these groups you have the option of selecting from this set of rules for each, each rule may not be avaliable for all groups however.

Restrictions/Rules:

- Level Requirement - Implement a level requirement in order for people to lot on said piece of equipment.
- You can only set the minimum level, if the gears level is lower than the minimum set, that items
level will be the minimum level.
- When in effect you must have at least one job that can equip that piece meet the minimum
level set, you do not need to be on said job.
- Items such as seals and +2 items are null and void of this rule.

- Free for all - All items within a group that has this rule will be lottable by all.

- Auto-fall - All items in groups with this rule will fall to random party members automatically clearing the treasure pool.

- Quarter Master- All items in this group will fall to a selected individual.
- All rules for Quartermaster see above.
- Quartermaster can only be used in Group/Custom settings once.

- Selection/Reserve - Similar to Quarter Master, however the alliance leader has full power over who gets what in said
group.
- Selection can only be used in Group/Custom settings once.
- The Leader can only select one item to take/give to individuals, turning to free for all rules after.


Pros:
- Enormous lotting flexibility

Cons:
- The complexity of the rule can lead to confusion.



The ideas still a work in progress and open to more suggestions, just keep in mind it would need to be taken with a grain of salt. There will be people who will ALWAYS be unhappy with whatever lotting rules that are out there, and there will ALWAYS be people who try and abuse the system through less than respectable means. The suggestions I put out there kind of tread on the main issues people have always had and hopefully circumvent most of the problematic instances in the bud. At least with rules like these everyone will have the option to see how lots are going to go, and nobody not even the leader will be able to circumvent them. If you don't agree with the current rules you can always leave, beyond that if you get "screwed" out of something a grand majority of it would be your own fault because everything was laid out for you.

[Bubeeky]

why do we have to have a thread open like this that's entire existance is to argue over something that's pointless to argue over when the two arguing are from different servers, therefore they'll never interact in game, so Korpg and Katz can each go about doing their own thing and one will never interfere with the other.

[Ravenmore]

Katz first started a thread over BGs player warning thread. Only reason to get all up tight over that thread is if they are the people stealing in the first place. I'm surprised he didn't make make a thread bashing the cross server app thread. In a game were all it takes is $26 to force a name change and server hop it is possible to interfere.

[Bubeeky]

Katz first started a thread over BGs player warning thread. Only reason to get all up tight over that thread is if they are the people stealing in the first place. I'm surprised he didn't make make a thread bashing the cross server app thread. In a game were all it takes is $26 to force a name change and server hop it is possible to interfere.

lol too much drama for my taste...I have better things to do with my time and money than interfere with ppl cuz of a post on a forum lol

[Ravenmore]

Its really useful but 9/10 time if some one pulls anything worth getting thm on BG warning thread people will shout it in port jeuno. I have a blist full of said players and thanks to the merge adding new names to it.

[Karbuncle]

lol too much drama for my taste...I have better things to do with my time and money than interfere with ppl cuz of a post on a forum lol

I'm probably reading ya wrong Bub, But the BG Warning section aren't threads created because of Forum posts. They're generally created because people do what the community would consider shady things. ("stealing" items, "ninja lotting", "Stealing" a linkshell bank and jumping servers, etc!)

Even after being created, they aren't directly meant to deter people from interacting with the warned player, Nor are they meant to try and be spread across all the interwebs. They simply stand as a warning or caution to those who would seek the knowledge.

[Korpg]

Good thing katz can't delete any quotes.

[Karbuncle]

So he's deleting his posts in ALL of the threads?

Wow, That seems rather... unusual...

[Korpg]

Only way to save face now.

[katz]

Removing myself from personal attacks and this forum. This forum supports personal attacks by members who see it fit to slander other users. I been called a coward, accused of stealing, accusing people who read "some people" as attacks on themselves. I would rather remove myself and my comments from such people in the future I will keep all suggestions to myself. Good luck everyone with discussing your views Im sorry I cant support the board that allows people to mock and slander other people.

[Ravenmore]

Removing myself from personal attacks and this forum. This forum supports personal attacks by members who see it fit to slander other users. I been called a coward, accused of stealing, accusing people who read "some people" as attacks on themselves. I would rather remove myself and my comments from such people in the future I will keep all suggestions to myself. Good luck everyone with discussing your views Im sorry I cant support the board that allows people to mock and slander other people.

You started a disscussion on a topic that it was wrong for people to warn other players of "shandy" "unwanted" "dishonest" action that have happen to them and are simple helping other be informed.

Some of the Posters here my self included came to reason only reason any one could get mad at such a thread is a)they did something like what was being warned about b)some on they know did such a action and are not a outcast or c)all of the above.

Then you went on to say that there can be no stealing since free lotting is SE only option on lotting if not QM, and LS rules, other player agreements didn't mean anything. You later went on to say that your group agrees to sell and split gil items that drop which goes agenst what you posted before.

Debates are people attacking each other postions and for the most part thats what has happen.

[katz]

I started a discusstion about the lotting system and whether people wanted changes to it and if they could change the lotting system what would the do. The attacks came as people wanted to discuss linkshell rules and the right to name and shame people rather than the subject matter.

[Azagthoth]

Katz, you're the cause of the attacks and the attacks are being inflicted by you, on yourself.

If you're intelligent why would you be upset if somebody calls you a moron, on the internet? It's insecurities and lack of confidence that contribute to being insulted on the internet; it's obvious that you're insecure/unconfident when you have to use a mule, as your identity, to prevent any potential repercussions.

In any case, the lotting system is fine, as it stands. It allows for a great deal of flexibility and even if they did change it problems would persist; it would just be a huge waste of resources when they could be working on new content.

[katz]

Slanderous statement breaches forum rules. Last time I checked being accussed of something that you didnt do is slanderous.

[Rafien]

Katz, you really need to calm down..

[Bubeeky]

I'm probably reading ya wrong Bub, But the BG Warning section aren't threads created because of Forum posts. They're generally created because people do what the community would consider shady things. ("stealing" items, "ninja lotting", "Stealing" a linkshell bank and jumping servers, etc!)

Even after being created, they aren't directly meant to deter people from interacting with the warned player, Nor are they meant to try and be spread across all the interwebs. They simply stand as a warning or caution to those who would seek the knowledge.

ohhhhhhhh I see now, thanks for clearin' that up, I've never seen or read a BG warning section before lol I just get notified by someone in game that <insert person name here> is bad to pt with or somethin'

Thanks Krab!

[Azagthoth]

Slanderous statement breaches forum rules. Last time I checked being accussed of something that you didnt do is slanderous.

Why are you hiding the identity of your real character, if you don't have anything to hide? If you're going to do things that create suspicion then you can't really expect there not to be questions or speculation. Being so defensive only serves you by making you seem guilty of the accusation.

[katz]

Why are you hiding the identity of your real character, if you don't have anything to hide? If you're going to do things that create suspicion then you can't really expect there not to be questions or speculation. Being so defensive only serves you by making you seem guilty of the accusation.

Im not hiding anything, its got screwed up again. Im a 56 nin.

[Ravenmore]

When you make a thread attacking another site for having a player warning thread what do you think people would first think of if some one does that. Like if some one starts attacking DWI laws being to strict in a public forum, first thought would be geuss they drank and drive.

Now had you open with how do the JPs handle the same kinda of actions with out using such a thread you could have avoided most of the attcks. Then came the response of if SE allows for items to be free lotted then any rule plays make iother players can ignore them since SE will do nothing agesnt them. That is were the warning thread comes in.

[katz]

there fixed....sighs or maybe not

[Azagthoth]

I don't believe for a minute that your highest level job is a level 58 NIN and the second highest being MNK at 38; otherwise, you can't have much, if any experience with the lotting system.

[Korpg]

Slanderous statement breaches forum rules. Last time I checked being accussed of something that you didnt do is slanderous.

You attacked my lotting rights. You also accused me of being unfair, since I respect mine and everyone else's lotting rights and you wish to change that. So, in respect, you also have committed slanderous statements.

[katz]

You attacked my lotting rights. You also accused me of being unfair, since I respect mine and everyone else's lotting rights and you wish to change that. So, in respect, you also have committed slanderous statements.
Hence the deletion of anything that might have been slanderous or deemed as slanderous. I have never attacked anyones lotting rights. You can lot however you like, I have defended the rights of linkshells to set their own rules. What I have done is asked people to contain their comments to the Cultural lotting rules and how the system can be made better but time and time again keep putting words into my phrases that sound like I am against all of this and Im not. when I stated there is no ninja lots under the free lot system the whole population decided I was saying ninja lotting doesnt exist and that I condoned such actions. Trying to explain the differences became a personal attack at me instead of trying to understand what I was asking.

[katz]

I don't believe for a minute that your highest level job is a level 58 NIN and the second highest being MNK at 38; otherwise, you can't have much, if any experience with the lotting system.


Played the game for 7 years, this is my second character once you have levelled all you want to you need a new character. I needed a better dd

[Khiinroye]

I have defended the rights of linkshells to set their own rules.

You said that linkshells setting rules for lotting was against the TOS.

[katz]

You said that linkshells setting rules for lotting was against the TOS. Someone else probably mis quoted it. What I said was there is nothing in the game that can store rules for people to see and I even suggested putting a new linkshell menu in for them.

[Azagthoth]

Played the game for 7 years, this is my second character once you have levelled all you want to you need a new character. I needed a better dd

Why do you need a new character when you'll have the same jobs available regardless. If you want a better dd then level a dd job? It doesn't really make much sense unless you were planning on dual-boxing. In which case, you're hiding your main character.

[katz]

Why do you need a new character when you'll have the same jobs available regardless. If you want a better dd then level a dd job? It doesn't really make much sense unless you were planning on dual-boxing. In which case, you're hiding your main character.

If you have never tried it I recommend you do. There are differences between the races despite what people think about armour fixing it. The same armour on a different race does have an impact. I play the game to enjoy these differences and to see what I can do.

[InfamousDS]

I remember shouting in PJ once if I could pull an Abyssea lot system onto Royal Jelly. Phalanx scrolls were 700k at the time, and I really didn't wanna pay that. 2 people responded it would be selfish to want the one scroll from any orb, but as long as I was giving away the much more valuable Ni it would be okay. For clarification, the lot system I mean is like this: "/sh Glavoid, Do You Need It? Shells X. All Else FL. /tell <me>". I actually did get 2 other people to join, but we didn't get any drops. The next day I bought it after all. The rules as they are now are just fine, even when some people don't play fair. I rest easy knowing that not everyone I see wants to stab me in the back. As long as everyone knows the rules, the rules work. This extends across all cultures and people, even in an online game.

There is no need for overhaul because the system leaves room for player application, and language barriers prevent a good amount of cross-cultural rule-breaking. People who speak multiple languages are also at least partially aware of the customs surrounding that language, and are more than happy to comply unless they are habitual rule-breakers. Warning lists in general are to both inform other players of wrongdoing and force the accused to make amends or face dire social consequences. The only concrete reason to want a change is to create unfair advantages that don't rely on the ever-present faults of humanity.

[katz]

ith the intention of improving the experience of the game for all participants, if a post includes any of the following violations, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to, editing/deleting/locking/moving the content without notice, restricting your forum usage, temporarily suspending either your FINAL FANTASY XI Account or Square Enix Account, or permanently banning either your FINAL FANTASY XI Service Account or Square Enix Account.
Posting that constitutes discrimination against another forum member or group (also including forming groups for the purpose of discrimination), insults, slander, libel, harassment of a group or individual.

[Korpg]

Posting that constitutes discrimination against another forum member or group (also including forming groups for the purpose of discrimination), insults, slander, libel, harassment of a group or individual.

You still posted slander towards me, regardless of deleting it or not.

The thing is, since you have no proof as to otherwise, it must be true.

So, this post is not slander since it is true.

[katz]

If I did slander you then I can only apologize as it was unintentional. I dont recall ever saying anything personal about you unlike some of the comment you and others have said about me.

[Korpg]

If I did slander you then I can only apologize as it was unintentional. I dont recall ever saying anything personal about you unlike some of the comment you and others have said about me.

Automatic slander again. We did not say anything bad about you and you are making accusations that we all made verbal attacks on you again. And since you deleted everything, you knew of your slanderous words just to protect you from the very rules you accuse us of breaking.

And the above is true, because it follows logically. So this post is not slanderous.

[katz]

Taken from a quote with the quote context highlighted for those who keep accusing me of believing shouldnt write their own rules. "
There is nothing new about linkshell leaders giving out favours to favourite people. Just like there is nothing new about ninja lotter (IYO). As I have previously stated everyone who is in my linkshell has the right to lot on anything that drops. If you took part in the activity then it is fair that you can lot on it. It can be the first time it dropped, it doesnt matter, you helped it happen. This is a much fairly system than most linkshell run. I dont care if you want it to store in your mog house when someone else could be using it, your reason for wanting it is as valid as someone elses. This is in my opinion there is no such thing as a ninja lot. I can see a need for people who want to stop other people from lotting to have a system change. Maybe it would be better for leaders to say who cant lot or leaders to have the right to pass it from others. Ive seen examples where people argue over who has what rights and as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want people will just leave if its a bad shell. I would like to see the quartermaster applied but dont see how it can work with ex rare gear.

[Korpg]

Taken from a quote with the quote context highlighted for those who keep accusing me of believing shouldnt write their own rules. "
There is nothing new about linkshell leaders giving out favours to favourite people. Just like there is nothing new about ninja lotter (IYO). As I have previously stated everyone who is in my linkshell has the right to lot on anything that drops. If you took part in the activity then it is fair that you can lot on it. It can be the first time it dropped, it doesnt matter, you helped it happen. This is a much fairly system than most linkshell run. I dont care if you want it to store in your mog house when someone else could be using it, your reason for wanting it is as valid as someone elses. This is in my opinion there is no such thing as a ninja lot. I can see a need for people who want to stop other people from lotting to have a system change. Maybe it would be better for leaders to say who cant lot or leaders to have the right to pass it from others. Ive seen examples where people argue over who has what rights and as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want people will just leave if its a bad shell. I would like to see the quartermaster applied but dont see how it can work with ex rare gear.

And since I don't need a change for the new lotting system, and you do, but the old lotting system had people steal drops from others, you have basically said that I am a thief! More slander!

Since I back linkshell distribution methods and you don't, and I don't want to change the system at all, and those who have such a linkshell distribution system must be a bad linkshell, you just called my entire linkshell and a lot of other's bad people! Even more slander!

When are you going to be satisfied with slandering everyone here?

The above post is not slander, since it follows logically and therefor must be true.

[katz]

Your slanderous quote "On a personal note: Are you one who stolen stuff from others? You seem so adamantly against this current system, is it because you are on the "name and shame" list? "

[katz]

And since I don't need a change for the new lotting system, and you do, but the old lotting system had people steal drops from others, you have basically said that I am a thief! More slander!

Since I back linkshell distribution methods and you don't, and I don't want to change the system at all, and those who have such a linkshell distribution system must be a bad linkshell, you just called my entire linkshell and a lot of other's bad people! Even more slander!

When are you going to be satisfied with slandering everyone here?

The above post is not slander, since it follows logically and therefor must be true.

Im not against linkshell distribution as the bolder underlined statement shows. I just dont operate it. You on the other hand are determined to make up stuff that I havent said (see bold above)

[Korpg]

Your slanderous quote "On a personal note: Are you one who stolen stuff from others? You seem so adamantly against this current system, is it because you are on the "name and shame" list? "

Slander: To make a false statement against somebody to defame or create malicious insinuations towards another.

Since what you quoted was a question, not a statement, that is not slander nor was it a slanderous statement.

[Korpg]

Im not against linkshell distribution as the bolder underlined statement shows. I just dont operate it.

It wasn't the bolded underlined, it was the second bolded statement.

Still a statement of slander.

[katz]

as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules. so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want, people will just leave if its a bad shell

Clarified for the purpose of making you understand it better.

create malicious insinuations towards another. And you think by asking this isnt insinuation

[katz]

I dont care to continue this line of thread. Subject closed.

[Korpg]

as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules. so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want, people will just leave if its a bad shell

Clarified for the purpose of making you understand it better.

Logic:

1. As we all said means We = everyone but you. You do not agree with our methods, so you are excluded from the group of we. There are 2 groups now, we and you. You are one who is excluded from we, and we are everyone but you.

2. We accepted linkshell leaders rules, meaning everyone but you excepted linkshell leaders rule.

3. Linkshell rules is not SE ToS.

4. We who accepted linkshell leaders rules means we accepted an alternative set of rules.

5. You do not accept linkshell leaders rules, therefore you don't accept alternative set of rules.

6. People who steal from linkshells did so by not obeying alternative set of rules. Therefore, they have accepted linkshell rules before.

7. People who steal are bad.

8. You have never accepted linkshell rules, so you have never stole before. Therefore you are not bad.

9. People who have accepted linkshell rules and stolen from linkshells are not you, since you never accepted linkshell rules.

10. Since you are not we, we have accepted rules, and we have stolen (by this logic) then that must mean we are bad, since we are not you, and there are only two groups of people. You never stole because you never accepted rules, so therefore we have stolen, and there are only two groups of people; we and you, we are bad because we have stolen from linkshells.

You just called everyone bad by logic. Slander!

[Korpg]

create malicious insinuations towards another. And you think by asking this isnt insinuation

Malicious: a form of lie used to defame or slander another.

Since I did not lie by logic, I did not create malicious insinuations towards anyone.

[Korpg]

I dont care to continue this line of thread. Subject closed.

See you tomorrow.

[katz]

Logic:

1. As we all said means We = everyone but you. You do not agree with our methods, so you are excluded from the group of we. There are 2 groups now, we and you. You are one who is excluded from we, and we are everyone but you.
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AGAIN!!!!!!!!This doesnt mean I dont agree it means I never signed up to those linkshells who set up rules.
2. We accepted linkshell leaders rules, meaning everyone but you excepted linkshell leaders rule.
I ACCEPT LINKSHELL RULES APPLY AND HAVE EVEN PREVIOUSLY STATED I FOLLOW PARTY LEADER RULES.

3. Linkshell rules is not SE ToS. AND I HAVE STATED THEY CAN SET RULES AND PUBLISH THEM

4. We who accepted linkshell leaders rules means we accepted an alternative set of rules.

5. You do not accept linkshell leaders rules, therefore you don't accept alternative set of rules. MADE UP THAT I DONT ACCEPT LINKSHELL LEADER RULES BECAUSE I DO ACCEPT THEM

6. People who steal from linkshells did so by not obeying alternative set of rules. Therefore, they have accepted linkshell rules before.

7. People who steal are bad.

8. You have never accepted linkshell rules, so you have never stole before. Therefore you are not bad. WTF

9. People who have accepted linkshell rules and stolen from linkshells are not you, since you never accepted linkshell rules.

10. Since you are not we, we have accepted rules, and we have stolen (by this logic) then that must mean we are bad, since we are not you, and there are only two groups of people. You never stole because you never accepted rules, so therefore we have stolen, and there are only two groups of people; we and you, we are bad because we have stolen from linkshells.

You just called everyone bad by logic. Slander!

OMG HOW CAN YOU TWIST SO MUCH TO BE SO WRONG AND NOT AT ALL WHAT I BELIEVE

[Korpg]

OMG HOW CAN YOU TWIST SO MUCH TO BE SO WRONG AND NOT AT ALL WHAT I BELIEVE

I don't know, I'm just stating things by your rules.

Nobody has slandered you, but you have accused us all of slandering you.

I'm playing by your rules now. That way, you have nothing to complain about.

[katz]

I havent accused everyone and there are still plenty of slanderous statements in this thread.

[Korpg]

I havent accused everyone and there are still plenty of slanderous statements in this thread.



1. As we all said means We = everyone but you. You do not agree with our methods, so you are excluded from the group of we. There are 2 groups now, we and you. You are one who is excluded from we, and we are everyone but you.


Yes, you have accused everyone. Since everyone is every single living being except you, you have accused everyone. Logic dictates it.

[katz]

Logical dictates its your logic not mine that you are quoting maybe its your logic at fault maybe not. You excluded me from the we, not I

[Korpg]

Logical dictates its your logic not mine that you are quoting maybe its your logic at fault maybe not.

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. I was hoping for a response like this from you for a long time now.

Now, look further. Who is the one who determines slander? Is it just you? Is it just me? Or is it society as a whole? Who's to say who is right? Who is to say who is wrong? Who are we to judge others in this matter? But that is for another time.

Nobody has slandered you, because a majority of the people will agree that there was no slander involved here. Who is right, the individual or the consensus?

[katz]

Ultimately its the moderators that will determine it.

[Korpg]

You excluded me from the we, not I

Remember this from bottom of page 13?


Ive seen examples where people argue over who has what rights and as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want people will just leave if its a bad shell.

You state: "As you have all said...."

You excluded yourself from the group. The logic started as you extracting yourself from the group, therefore creating two groups (see: Logic 1)

Therefore, my logic still stands. You have yet to attack anything but the first part of the logic, and failed to show why it is flawed.

[Bagel]

This thread is terrible now.

















^slander

[Korpg]

This thread is terrible now.

















^slander

Watch out, katz might report you for slander there bub.

[katz]

Remember this from bottom of page 13?



You state: "As you have all said...."

You excluded yourself from the group. The logic started as you extracting yourself from the group, therefore creating two groups (see: Logic 1)

Therefore, my logic still stands. You have yet to attack anything but the first part of the logic, and failed to show why it is flawed.

ok just for you Ill clarify it, I was not one of the people who said they signed up to abide by linkshell rules, I was quoting that other people had said they had. This doesnt mean I havent or have, it just meant others did.

[Korpg]

ok just for you Ill clarify it, I was not one of the people who said they signed up to abide by linkshell rules, I was quoting that other people had said they had. This doesnt mean I havent or have, it just meant others did.

Oh no, no backtracking allowed.

You don't need clarification because clarification isn't needed. You are changing your words to suit your needs, but you already said it in the manner you said it.

You have backtracked so much, I'm not sure what your position is anymore. So please, restate your position....again....

[katz]

My linkshell lots by the exisiting free lot rules and therefore cant ninja lot what is already a free lot. I can see a need for linkshell rules to be displayed if they have them and that there is no current system in place for this. I can also see a linkshell leader not having anything in place to stop anyone ninja lotting if their rules dont allow it. I can also see no one wants changes to the existing format as they are all happy to post ninja warnings outside of se.

A part from the last bit which I have added, this has always been my point of view.

(I can also see no one wants changes to the existing format as they are all happy to post ninja warnings outside of se.)

[katz]

The only person who needs to back track is the person who has decided my point of view for me that wasnt me.

[Korpg]

My linkshell lots by the exisiting free lot rules and therefore cant ninja lot what is already a free lot.
That is your linkshell. Your linkshell is limited by order however, since everyone can lot everything and nobody can really get anything done. Tell me, does your linkshell do any emp weapons?


I can see a need for linkshell rules to be displayed if they have them and that there is no current system in place for this.
There doesn't need to be a system for this. Do you want everything to be controlled by Square Enix?


I can also see a linkshell leader not having anything in place to stop anyone ninja lotting if their rules dont allow it.
A) I thought you didn't believe in ninja lotting?
B) Most successful linkshells have a system for ninja lotters. Anyone take an item they weren't supposed to have? Automatic kick and a player warning thread on the usual 4 forums.

I can also see no one wants changes to the existing format as they are all happy to post ninja warnings outside of se.

Slander! You are making it sound bad that people rather go to forums that have existed for years and are well known to have a good source of information about other players than having Square Enix forums do it for them. You are defaming everyone who uses outside sources for information about other players now! Slander!

Now that I got that out of the way, why would you care? Unless your name is on that "name and shame" list you are so adamantly against, why are you even bothered about it? Note that the last two sentences were questions, not statements.

[Korpg]

The only person who needs to back track is the person who has decided my point of view for me that wasnt me.

Why do I need to backtrack? I have not said anything to conclude a new set of rules at all. I pointed out the flaws of your argument and you keep changing them to suit the latest need, even when it means contradicting yourself. Then you delete all your posts and try again.

[katz]

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

Wonder really how you came to believe I said Leaders cant write their own rules when I asked do you think the lotting system needs overhauling to allow leaders to do exactly that.

Im sorry you believe making everyone happy to use existing forums is a slanderous statement. Why do I care about improving a system, I do wonder myself, maybe I care to help others rather than leave it.

[Korpg]

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people?
So far the consensus is no.

If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

Why change the lotting rules when the rules aren't broken or being severely misused? It is being misused yes, but not to the point that it needs any changed.


Wonder really how you came to believe I said Leaders cant write their own rules when I asked do you think the lotting system needs overhauling to allow leaders to do exactly that.

You said that, not me. I'm not putting words in your mouth here.

[Korpg]

Im sorry you believe making everyone happy to use existing forums is a slanderous statement

You were the one accusing people of slanderous remarks. Not me. I was just showing you your own slanderous remarks in your context.

[katz]

You were the one accusing people of slanderous remarks. Not me. I was just showing you your own slanderous remarks in your context.

OK then for the 3rd time today,I apologize for any unintentional slanderous statements that I make in error of understanding other peoples points of view.

[katz]

Why do I need to backtrack? I have not said anything to conclude a new set of rules at all. I pointed out the flaws of your argument and you keep changing them to suit the latest need, even when it means contradicting yourself. Then you delete all your posts and try again.

Did I accuse you, if you read it that way then I apologize.

[Korpg]

OK then for the 3rd time today,I apologize for any unintentional slanderous statements that I make in error of understanding other peoples points of view.

I'll only accept your apology if you stop throwing out the word "slander" or anything that goes off the word "slander" which includes but not limited to: malicious, defame, derogatory.

[Korpg]

Did I accuse you, if you read it that way then I apologize.


The only person who needs to back track is the person who has decided my point of view for me that wasnt me.

Seeming how in the last 5 pages only you and I have spoken, then yes, you did accuse me.

Seeing as we were the only two talking at the time of your statement. And you even said that it wasn't you who decided your point of view. By logic, that someone has to be the person of the two people who wasn't you. Since I am the only other person talking, that had to be me. Logic dictates so.

[Trumpy]

Is it just me or is every post by Katz before post #74 blank and then a few here and there since. I see the quotes from Katz posts but the actual post are blank til the more recent ones. Did Katz edit and delete the content?

There is no message saying they were edited or changed by a moderator either. Just curious cause i do see these empty posts now and then.

EDIT: the post directly above this one is blank.

[Korpg]

Is it just me or is every post by Katz before post #74 blank and then a few here and there since. I see the quotes from Katz posts but the actual post are blank til the more recent ones. Did Katz edit and delete the content?

There is no message saying they were edited or changed by a moderator either. Just curious cause i do see these empty posts now and then.

EDIT: the post directly above this one is blank.

katz deleted most of his posts because now he gets to say that he didn't say what he said.

It is a chicken way out of a conversation.

[Baccanale]

Greetings, everyone!
It seems that the thread has travelled quite far away from its original subject, and it seems that tempers have been flared, so I have made sure to close this thread. I understand how heated these conversations can become, but please try to keep away from posting any comments that are non-constructive to the thread, in addition to avoiding any attempts to personally attack your fellow players. I wish you all the best of luck with your future contributions to the forums.