Cultural Lotting Changes, now with no risk of being closed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kensagaku

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

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.

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?

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.