Multi-tank busters should apply to the main tank in an alliance instead of a DPS

[Shurrikhan]

Shirk was added to combat this entire post, it was added to PREVENT DPS and Healers from having enmity creep.

It neither combats anything in the OP nor my post. In an alliance raid with a "tankbuster" mechanic that targets the highest enmity player (rather than the tank) in each party, "enmity creep" (a non-issue regardless if (A) tanks had their stances on, (B) the stances were on by default, or (C) those mechanics were swapped to target tanks, not lead enmity) cannot be usefully combatted by Shirk, because you (1) need that enmity for yourself and (2) cannot Shirk the tanks from the other parties' tanks with Shirk regardless.

The same was for Diversion. It was there SOLEY to prevent grabbing highest enmity.

These things cannot both be true, seeing as Shirk was not similarly singular in its purpose. In the LL introducing it, Shirk was given as an aid to smooth tank swaps. Yes, it could be used in multi-tank parties for periodic enmity transfer when coupled with Provoke, but that then means it had two ways to utilize it. Diversion has only ever had the one use. And it was removed for being mere bloat as soon as it was understood that it was pure maintenance.

Shirk/Provoke has to be the greatest tool tanks have at their disposal aside from invulns. The control of enmity and where the boss is focusing is crucial in any encounter. Tank swaps would force MT to stop DPSing so the OT could ramp up after a provoke.

All this is wholly irrelevant to the thread at hand, but a brief correction: a tank swap would only force downtime if done poorly.

Shirk is incredibly powerful, and I don't think it was added to make fights easier...I think it was added because they didn't know how to fix enmity generation at the time.

Then it's pure bloat. If it's literally just adding enmity generation by periodic use, that could be have been more efficiently provided by a simply increase to their enmity scaling, or even slight modifications to Provoke itself.

I would prefer more tank swaps in fights just to keep tanks on their toes. Personally.

Same. Again, though, that has nothing to do with this thread.

It is, again:

1. For ALLIANCE RAIDS
2. when a TANK HAS DIED
3. such that TANKS TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF TANKS' SCREW-UPS, rather than a random non-tank being killed for having played well.