Small Rant on Seal Rolls in Hamlet parties

[Wynn]

This I can agree with. If Wynn was upset that this person changed his lot and was outvoted by the rest of the party, that were part of the same linkshell, I would agree with him 100%. From his original post, it sounds like he agreed to he change though. I do not, however, see anything wrong with trying to get seals for someone else, since I would be giving up my chance at something else. I will make sure that I am up front about it when I do it myself, just to prevent any unnecessary drama.

The point was that what they were actually doing wasn't communicated at all. I just assumed that this person still needed seals and maybe an item was more important to them at first but they changed their mind for the last run. That's perfectly cool, right? Sure you can lot on seals if you need em! Why not?

I agreed to the change because I didn't see what the actual intention was and that information was not freely provided. To that person's credit, they didn't actually say they needed seals. They just didn't say anything at all other than they wanted to change and was it ok. I just assumed that they needed them because why else would you lot on them, right?

If a person needs seals, of course I want to include them and I would have no issue lotting between four instead of three people to give someone else that needs them a chance. Or any number for that matter. That's just the kind of person I am.

But this wasn't the actual case in this scenario.

Thinking back on it, I should have known this is what was occurring but you see I just don't think that way. I simply wouldn't do that kind of stuff to others because I truly believe it is wrong since you're not just helping someone else by giving them a better chance, you are reducing the chance of other people by adding in an additional roll they could lose to in order to help that person. Other people that should have an equal opportunity to gain that item since they still need it.

This is one thing nobody can argue, try as they might. It is a mathematical fact that, unless the entire party is already lotting for the item in the first place, each additional roll reduces the chances of the people lotting for the item. Now when one person is actually benefiting from that because they will get the item if either they or the new person wins, then it is not a reduction across the board and therefore not very fair to the others in question. In this case two players had their chances reduced while one person's chances were doubled. Totally different scenario than just four people who all need the item, wouldn't you agree?

Now whether or not that is an ethical question is up for debate. Some say no, I say yes. I don't believe that just by virtue of being in a group a person has the right to decide that one person should have a better chance at a drop than the others who also need it by lotting on something they themselves can't use and giving it to the person of their fancy. Unless that is known before hand and agreed upon by all parties involved. That's really where the issue stems from.

What it all boils down to is if they had just said this is what we're doing, I would have thanked them for the party, bowed out, wished them luck, and that would have been that.

The truth is that I wasn't given the opportunity to agree to what occurred because I wasn't given all the facts. And yes, my agreement is necessary because if people can insist it is that person's right to roll on that item to give to somebody else because they put effort into the party then it is my right to say I will not put effort into your party to give someone else a better shot at my expense especially when the party was reaping the fruit of provisioning labor necessary to get hamlet to level 2 that I significantly contributed to.

The party leader actually said no to the guy at first so I can only assume they knew what the others planned to do even though the rest of us did not. They should have laid it out on the table right then and there so that the rest of us could make an informed decision before asking if it was ok. And that is really where I get stuck because I can't imagine someone actually saying that nothing wrong occurred here based on these facts. I can accept they believe it but it is literally dumbfounding to me.

Do I believe that these people who did this necessarily meant harm? No, not necessarily though I have to say it is a little suspicious that they had the wherewithal to try and hide this act. I think that they, like most people in this thread, see it simply as just helping a buddy out or possibly their right. What they don't realize is they were also screwing over the other people lotting for the same item for the reasons I mentioned above and having the capability to do that to other people doesn't mean it is right or that you have the right to do it. I have the capability to do a lot of things that wouldn't be very nice or fair but I don't do them because I have a moral compass.

Truth be told, I really can't really say what their intentions were. If they felt in their heart of hearts it was wrong so they hid it but did it anyway, or if it didn't even occur to them. I can't say for sure. But I do know what they did and what information wasn't given that allowed them to get away with it.

In the end it really doesn't matter. I laughed about it when it happened, told my guildies about it, and went about my business. And then came to the forum later to start a discussion and see what other people thought about it. It's pretty much what I expected.

And on that note I thank everyone for the discussion, even if I don't agree with you.

P.S. sorry for the book

TL;DR: Helping a buddy at the expense of others is wrong now matter how you spin it unless you are honest about it and people agree to it beforehand.

[Mikita]

TL;DR: Helping a buddy at the expense of others is wrong now matter how you spin it unless you are honest about it and people agree to it beforehand.

Despite the fact that I agree with your viewpoint and I would not roll if my intent was to pass it to someone else... There are no rules against it, and the overall community ethos here seems to be saying it IS okay to do this.

We just need to keep in mind that this behavior acceptable in this community, even if we choose not to engage in it for personal reasons.

I had something similar happen, now I only do LS runs or I make sure the loot rules are defined by the PL before I join.

Same here, and this discussion only reinforces it. If I am hoping to a get a drop I will only go with my LS or trusted friends.

And people wonder why the game is so LS and clique centric...

[Molly_Millions]

TL;DR: Helping a buddy at the expense of others is wrong now matter how you spin it unless you are honest about it and people agree to it beforehand.

How is it at the expense of others? 1/8 chance is still a 1/8 chance for everyone except the guy getting his friend's help. It's not like the person that's handing seals to his buddy is standing there doing nothing during the actual fight. They are helping everyone else have a chance at seals too.

Let's put a different spin on this and say folks who have 9 seals are not allowed to help their friends, ie not allowed to join the party at all. How many people do you think would lose out on the ability to obtain 9 seals? My guess is boatloads.

[Miste]

How is it at the expense of others? 1/8 chance is still a 1/8 chance for everyone except the guy getting his friend's help. It's not like the person that's handing seals to his buddy is standing there doing nothing during the actual fight. They are helping everyone else have a chance at seals too.

Let's put a different spin on this and say folks who have 9 seals are not allowed to help their friends, ie not allowed to join the party at all. How many people do you think would lose out on the ability to obtain 9 seals? My guess is boatloads.

I think I understand what Molly is trying to say. Basically when you enter a Hamlet with 8 people with no rules setup, you have a 1/8 chance at anything. Keeping in mind you cannot do Hamlet with less or more than 8. Say 2/8 of those people do not need seals then that makes the 6/8 left have a 1/6 chance of a seal instead of a 1/8, BUT, that is just LUCKY for them that two people happen to be there just for gear. Because you could quite possibly join a party where all 8 need seals. Say you go into Hyrstmill with 8. This time they setup who is lotting on what and you can only pick one thing. 2/8 people pick Militia Robe. 1/8 picks Hamlet Cutter Hat. 5/8 pick seals.
So the people lotting Robe have 1/2 chance
The people lotting Cutter Hat have 1/1 chance
The people lotting Seals have 5/8 chance
If you happen to be in the group lotting seals, unfortunately you have worse luck than the other people in the group, cause unfortunately you joined a group that more people needed seals, BUT, you are still lucky that not ALL 8 needed seals. Then same scenario, say one of the people lotting Robe changed their mind and changed it to a Seal. You got unlucky they happened to want a seal too, but the other person lotting Robe got lucky they changed their lot, since now they are 1/1 for the Robe. So what Molly was trying to say was no matter where that 8th persons lot goes, it will lower one other persons %, but it will up someone elses. You cannot do Hamlet with 7, so that 8ths persons lot roll has to go somewhere. Where they choose may be lucky, or unlucky for one individual.

I sympathize with OP that the parties in question did not express their intentions because then the group could decide where they stand on letting them do that, but Wynn don't worry, you'll get your seals soon I am sure ^^