Quote Originally Posted by Rogatum View Post
I do not see how their comment was attack against you, and yeah the comment did have a hint of salt.
It was an obvious jab at people against the change. And a "hint of salt" is putting it mildly.

so what irony are you pointing out?
The irony to call everyone wanting the loot rules reverted back are "town criers" when people in favor the initial change can be labeled as just that. Especially since it wasn't the original loot rules.

Also I do not think many requested for the old look system to be changed
Exactly. They attempted to placate such a small group at the expense of the majority.


...however the need side did go above and beyond to have their voices heard.
Above and beyond... by sharing their opinions and experiences on the forums created specifically for feedback? Okay yeah, they went above and beyond.

So while I will agree both sides have an element of hypocrisy...
W-w-w-wait. Where's the "pro-Need/original loot rules" hypocrisy? The first stone/insult cast in this situation was against those wanting the loot rules changed back. When people had to ask for a change to the loot rules, they don't get to act holier than thou when there's an overwhelming number asking for it to be changed back.


those in favor of need did make a lager fuss over.
Of course there was a larger fuss, because there was waaay more players against it. So naturally we are seeing what follows. They're "criers" for outnumbering them. Shame. On. Them.


So their comment was not wrong, and I do not think it was an attack more so an observation.
You're entitled to your opinion, and on that note I made an equal observation right back.