Kicked from raid team due to colorblind

[Tiggy]

What is it with these raid statics? Why are they so impatient and so eager to rush to judgement and kick people. What is so wrong with being more inclusive and accommodating?

You along with many others did nothing more than read the OP and then post. A member of that users raid team already posted and said it was a personality issue.

Everyone, try to read threads before shouting off at the mouth. :/

[NyarukoW]

You along with many others did nothing more than read the OP and then post. A member of that users raid team already posted and said it was a personality issue. ...

You obviously didn't read who I quoted. See my post here:

Click link here to ook up post to see the quote please

But why would you believe the spokes person for that raid group over the OP. The spokesperson is just doing PR. But anyways even if it personality issues, why can't they be more accomodating for that? They never explained what was so argumentative or problematic. Everyone makes mistakes, can't people have more patience, understanding, compassion, and forgiveness?

[Tiggy]

But why would you believe the spokes person for that raid group over the OP. The spokesperson is just doing PR. But anyways even if it personality issues, why can't they be more accomodating for that? They never explained what was so argumentative or problematic. Everyone makes mistakes, can't people have more patience, understanding, compassion, and forgiveness?

Why would you refuse the other side of the story? The OP posted first so he is more correct? I don't think that's how things work. The first to speak isn't the most accurate. There are two sides to every story, and In this case the other side is that the OP was argumentative and caused issues between members. Honestly, I find that more realistic than him being treated with prejudice for his disability since those kinds of interpersonal problems happen in groups all the time.

And to be clear. There is NO REASONS AT ALL to accommodate someone who is argumentative, causes problems in the group, and in general brings moral down. None at all. You can gladly play with someone for 6+ dedicated hours a week that you can't stand all you want. Good for you that you have that level of patience. However, there is no reason that anyone should be expected to put up with an attitude like that for hours each week for months on end. None. Also you said they never explained what was so argumentative. Did you ignore the part of the post where that guy explicitly said he didn't think the discussion belonged on the forums and was willing to talk to the OP directly in game? It isn't for us to know because it's not their job to lay their dirty laundry out for all of us to see and judge them. You should know that already. This probably wasn't due to mistakes or a lack of understanding or even a lack of compassion and forgiveness. Toxic elements should be removed from a raid because you will literally spend dozens to 100+ hours in dungeons with these people. You have the right, nay the duty, to ensure you play in an environment that is both fun and stress free. I am not, and others are not, social care givers here to put up with toxic attitudes with the goal of turning a frown upside down. We are here to win the fight and try to have fun all after a long day of work, raising kids, etc. Not for me to come home and put up with some toxic little punk attitude. I'd rather kick them and get someone who is a poorer player with a better attitude every day of the week.

You argue always for people to be more accommodating. Why can't the little punk players who have poor attitudes learn to accommodate the other people? Why is it always the little man who must be treated so much better than everyone else regardless of what his attitude is? Just because he was the minority does not automatically make him a damsel in distress. Sometimes that 1 person was the problem all along. You clearly always pick the underdog in these arguments, but to do so and always protect that person is a fallacy. You're assuming they needed the protection and that they weren't at fault. You literally know nothing about them.

[NyarukoW]

...
And to be clear. There is NO REASONS AT ALL to accommodate someone who is argumentative, ...

There is no proof that that OP is argumentative. Just unsubstantiated character assassination. They don't have to air their dirty laundry here, but without you can't make a call between the two. All I see the typical static turning on people for nonsensical reasons as it usually does. And besides people who can debate and discuss get labeled argumentative and it does NOT mean they are going to cause problems for the group. The static should be a group of equals I'd hope and not some mini personality cult with a dictator in charge so people should be able to discuss things even if it seems argumentative.

[Tiggy]

Once again it is a fallacy to just assume the OP is the correct one here by default. I simply responded to your comment about accommodating. What if he was the problem. Hmm? What then about being accommodating. You're just arguing from the full out assumption that OP was right.

All I see the typical static turning on people for nonsensical reasons as it usually does.

Removing a toxic element is the exact opposite of non-sensical. It's the primary reason to remove someone followed by skill issues. Assuming that all statics that boot someone did so for nonsensical reasons means you lack any and all context to why you might remove someone. You're making assumptions and acting on them. This is a good example of ignorance. Your total lack of understanding of the raid environment makes you yourself a failure at being accommodating. Something you yourself constantly advocate. The reality is you don't want to be generally accommodating. You want things to be accommodating in one context only. The context of raiders being more accommodating to others. Yet you never ask for the same the other way around. You argue from a limited point of view so your solutions come from that same limitation. Accommodation works both ways son.

[NyarukoW]

Once again it is a fallacy to just assume the OP is the correct one here by default. ...
Removing a toxic element is the exact opposite of non-sensical. ..

I did NOT assume the OP is correct one. I am no taking side here. But it sure seems you know who the toxic element is. Truth be told, as in real life, the toxic element often is those in the position of power, or those making the wrong decisions. The so called raid leadership can often be the toxic element, but they will never remove themselves, but instead they will blame it on everyone else. I've even seen them jump servers becaue the rest of us are too scrubby for them and static falls apart because now we are only 4 or 5 of 8 and left to pick up the pieces. And by accomodating, all I am asking for people to be more inclusive and play nice with each other so you can play together. After all this is an MMO. The only thing I know so far is that there is nothing really static about a static unless you consider all the noise static.

[Krr]

Once again it is a fallacy to just assume the OP is the correct one here by default.

Isn't it also a fallacy to assume that someone gets removed from a raid solely because they are "toxic"? There are a number of interpersonal reasons raids have conflicts and it's seldom so cut and dry that attitude alone is the reason a player is removed.

In 4+ years of raiding, "my raid group cares more about loot than me!" and "the player we removed was <insert unlikable personality trait here>" are the top two excuses I see everyone jump to when an interpersonal conflict occurs. Most players won't admit or don't realize they have a personality problem, even if it's the truth, and 90% of raid groups will chalk a player being removed up to "poor attitude" regardless of what their actual internal process is. A removed player being accused of an "argumentative attitude" says as much to me about the raid leadership's view of others as it does the actual player.

Like, okay, a player is "argumentative". This statement could technically be accurate in any number of situations:

-The player is, genuinely, an ass, who makes big problems out of small issues.
-The player starts non-constructive fights whenever criticized.
-The raid leader(s) are stubborn, unresponsive, and even noncommunicative when presented with new ideas.
-The raid leader(s) start non-constructive fights when criticized, and pin such criticisms as being "overly argumentative".
-Someone, at some point, had an argument with someone else, and got kicked out of a raid for it.
-The playstyles between the player and the group just plain don't mesh, resulting in conflict on a regular basis (the NUMBER ONE problem with most midcore raid groups.)
-Other players regularly abuse the 'problem' player, which excaberates their 'bad' attitude or causes outbursts.

A lot of these interpersonal problems can and will be caused or excaberated by performance issues a player might have by having any number of otherwise-managable physical ailments.

I don't see jumping to the conclusion that either party's story is wholly accurate to their word as logical, yet people here are doing it one way or the other. Real-life raid dynamics are never as cut and dry as "x or y is a bad person because, blah blah."

[Almalexia]

But why would you believe the spokes person for that raid group over the OP. The spokesperson is just doing PR. But anyways even if it personality issues, why can't they be more accomodating for that? They never explained what was so argumentative or problematic. Everyone makes mistakes, can't people have more patience, understanding, compassion, and forgiveness?

While I don't doubt the possibility that an entire raid was blind to other distinguishing features of the tether, it's less of a stretch to believe someone was kicked from a raid for chronic interpersonal issues than a completely manufactured issue in turn 11.