Abuse/Vote-kick in CM

[Coldheart]

I don't care about the ilvl, provided the player doesn't hinder the party. If the player can handle the dungeon, it's OK. I see ilvl 110 players playing a lot worse than ilvl 55.

That said, If you vote a player only because their ilvel is low or he//she is wearing a low level crafted gear, this is a vote kick abuse. Point.

[Zedd702]

You are making a decision to slow the run down to benefit yourself at the expense of others. That's a pretty clear cut case of justified vote kick.

You are not entitled to do whatever you want in a group setting, where your actions affect others. This is exactly what vote kick is for.

Funny thing is that, if you and the three people that liked your post, actually took the time to understand mine and not just click the reply I said:

Please explain how wearing class/dungeon ilvl req appropriate gear is by any means harassment?

Which means if I choose to wear the required item level ranged, DoX(W/M) gear in any dungeon, I can. And furthermore, it is, in no means slowing down the group. There is no such rule that dictates that I must be over-geared for every encounter in the game. In low level dungeons, most of my equipment is usually gimped in comparison to the newbies, or lower levels rather, that out damage me because their gear is more in line with the instance. So you see, the above is not a form of harassment, but player choice. As long as I am still performing my duty on the team, there is no issue and a player should not be removed if they want to wear the required item level gear for that encounter.

People really need to stop using the word "logic" when they have no idea how to apply it. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic

Also no, a new player is not making the decision to slow down the run by downgrading their gear because they have nothing better to use.

Also I believe you meant to link this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic, which was more appropriate to Luna's post, not the roundabout letmelookforadifferentcategorythiswordfallsunderforawittyreply way. You know what she meant by logic and she was right too.

[Ellatrix]

Also I believe you meant to link this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic, which was more appropriate to Luna's post, not the roundabout letmelookforadifferentcategorythiswordfallsunderforawittyreply way. You know what she meant by logic and she was right too.

No I linked the correct one. Thanks for continuously showing that you are uneducated and cannot form or understand a proper argument. You really should read the one I linked, might learn something.

[Zedd702]

No I linked the correct one. Thanks for continuously showing that you are uneducated and cannot form or understand a proper argument. You really should read the one I linked, might learn something.

Ellatrix, you are the last LAST person to call someone uneducated. You always step around the point to everyone's post to act as if you are superior in anyway. This is why it's very hard to take you serious, even when you are correct, which in this case you are not. I'll cut the fluff and get to the point.

So let me help you out, boo boo as you clearly don't understand the difference in what you posted as to what Luna said. And this time, ma'dear, do pay attention...

There are many forms of logic, Luna was referring to the most commonly used one. You elected to choose a different type/form of logic for the sake of arguing...

This is what you were referring to:

Propositional logic: (sentential logic)
Main article: Propositional calculus
A propositional calculus or logic (also a sentential calculus) is a formal system in which formulae representing propositions can be formed by combining atomic propositions using logical connectives, and in which a system of formal proof rules establishes certain formulae as "theorems".

Which by the way was completely irrelevant to what Luna said.

This is what Luna was referring to:

Logic: is the use and study of valid reasoning. The study of logic features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.

Here is Luna's post one more time so you can clearly see she used the word Logic and not Propositional Logic...

So by your logic, all fresh 50s in level-appropriate gear should also be booted for slowing down the run. No new players allowed, i120 or bust.

Nice try though...

[Wintersandman]

No I linked the correct one. Thanks for continuously showing that you are uneducated and cannot form or understand a proper argument. You really should read the one I linked, might learn something.

Actually the proper one would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic

But let's not show our elitism over others.

[ChameleonMS]

No I linked the correct one. Thanks for continuously showing that you are uneducated and cannot form or understand a proper argument. You really should read the one I linked, might learn something.

Ah, a discrete mathematics argument.
Your position: If "player is under-geared" then "Vote to Kick for Harassment is justified" would be your argument.
Since this your argument is based on player Hassassing you: Let's go to the definition again to see if your proof can stand up.
Harassment

Harassment (/h?'ræsm?nt/ or /'hær?sm?nt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

Based upon the definition you must feel either disturb or threatened by the player being under-geared.
Are you threatened by the player being under-geared? This would not be possible as the player being under-geared has no effect on your health.
Therefore, you must be disturbed by the player being under-geared.

The legal system is based on upon precedent and the collective accepted judgements of the populous for behaviour determine the societal stance on every issue.

We need a poll (err... Jury) to determine if your feelings of being disturbed are justified as acceptable to populous at large. This is required, as it is the foundation of your argument.

Currently posting in your favour: you, +3 likes your comments, and MrsFluffyButt, ScarletDawn.
Currently not in your favour: Me (ChameleonMS), Gralna, Raela, Ignnis, Dererk, Nestama, monochromicorn, Amelia_Pond_Behemoth, KitanaiKoneko, Eltaire, VanilleFang, Ariyn, Delta041, Chihaya, Zedd702, LunaHoshino, Sapphic, Deculture, Coldheart
I have omitted the likes on comments not in your favour because I cannot guarantee they did not originate from a person that was not already counted.

Your votes: 6
Votes against: 19
Thus, after 25 votes tallied, more than 67% believe you are wrong. While the sample size is not large enough for true conclusion, the trend is very much in favour an an overwhelming majority against your position.
Thus, you can not legally feel disturbed by the player being under-geared. Therefore, you argument has no merit.

[Wintersandman]

Win.

Shortened.

[Ellatrix]

stuff

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2358628

I'm right, you're wrong.

[Zedd702]

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2358628

I'm wrong, you're right.

There fixt that for ya.

Try reading the GM's actual response while shelving your "selective reading frames."

And you will see that he refers to refusal of doing your job, not that wearing the minimum required ilvl gear in an instance to spirit-bond is a practice of such.

You really need to lern2reed.

[Chihaya]

lern2reed.

I lawl'd, does it make you feel cool typing that.