So, appearantly I got added to a 'list'

[Eidolon]

I didn't see anything that really qualified as harassment, tbh.

It's perspective, I suppose - and ultimately, it'll be left to the GM to decide if it is a case of harassment or not. But I don't think it's 'petty' to report when you feel you've been harassed by someone.

[Diavolo]

It's perspective, I suppose - and ultimately, it'll be left to the GM to decide if it is a case of harassment or not. But I don't think it's 'petty' to report when you feel you've been harassed by someone.

But it's not like they really harassed you. They just informed you of what they did. That'd be like if I told you that I just ate a hot pocket and you reported me for harassment.

[Niwashi]

In Party Finder, you can set whatever rules you like so long as you're straightforward about them upfront, and anyone who doesn't like your rules doesn't need to join your group. (Though obviously, the more restrictive your rules are, the harder they'll make it for you to find enough other players for your group.)

The only times such "rules" are objectionable is when they're not identified up front, but the party leader announces them after the group is formed and tries to bully people into accepting them, or when the rules are applied differently to the leader's friends than to the other randoms that fill out the remainder of the party. I've even heard of cases in DF where a partially pre-formed group would demand that the random whom DF paired them with should follow their self-made rules. Those sorts of things are the objectionable cases, not PF parties with clearly identified rules.

[Doo]

I would of just laughed it off. Threatening to put you on a list that no one cares about or will even read isn't report worthy. Just sounds like both players being petty. Petty threat, petty report.

[Cap75]

As I have said, I wouldn't allow myself into an actionable situation to defy anyone's self-entitled rules. I'm just calling out the act of doing it in itself. It's selfish to lock out other participants just because you don't want to fairly lot against them. It's the attitude of a dictator. I might be going too far with that statement, but people that do this elicit nearly the same level of disgust in me as the idea of a dictator. Might be my ideals given where I grew up, who knows.

I firmly believe this kind of behavior is morally disgusting.

Holy hyperbole. Dictator? "Morally disgusting"? To have a party with set rules? The only immoral thing would be if you joined a party then broke the rules. An action SE has already stated is bannable.

[Issac]

Holy hyperbole. Dictator? "Morally disgusting"? To have a party with set rules? The only immoral thing would be if you joined a party then broke the rules. An action SE has already stated is bannable.

You say hyperbole like it's a bad thing. This is just how I feel about it. Your opinion seems to differ, but I suppose that's why this aforementioned "list" exists, to avoid the people who think barring people is appropriate to ensure they get their pixels.

I don't know where this private website is, but I kinda want to find out.

diva alert.

You know it, girlfriend! I love to put emotion into my writing. Makes it more fun.

[Cap75]

You say hyperbole like it's a bad thing. This is just how I feel about it. Your opinion seems to differ, but I suppose that's why this aforementioned "list" exists, to avoid the people who think barring people is appropriate to ensure they get their pixels.

I don't know where this private website is, but I kinda want to find out.

A hyperbolic argument is a failed argument by definition. Which is obvious considering your failed logic. Nobody is barring anyone, nor dictating anything, given that joining the party is an informed, consensual act.

[Issac]

A hyperbolic argument is a failed argument by definition. Which is obvious considering your failed logic. Nobody is barring anyone, nor dictating anything, given that joining the party is an informed, consensual act.

"You can't come because this loot is mine and mine alone." I don't understand how you feel this is not a barring act. Yes, you can make your own. Yes, you could try to find another person recruiting that isn't so self-entitled to have such ridiculous, selfish conditions. However, the fact remains that you cannot join this particular group, that's a bar.

I am not arguing the freedom of people to do as they like. If they want to be selfish ****s, more power to them. The fact is that more and more people are beginning to think that this behavior is civil and acceptable. It's morally wrong.

Throw it up to the changing times. Like people who walk around with their pants halfway down. The more people that do it, the more socially acceptable it is.

[Luxx]

i'm sorry but i don't see this as harrassing. he was just saying he put you on some stupid retarded website thing that no one cares about.
if he was harassing you, he'd keep /telling you or insulting you. you actually said more than that guy lol.
i'd say leave it be, the guy a tool but i would of ignored him or blacklisted him. /shrug
o-o

[alhandra]

newflash folks:

you are not entitled to join a group simply because its listed on the party finder

if you join a group under false pretenses or do not adhere to the standards set by the party leader your removal from the group is entirely justified

so far the only arguments ive seen from the anti loot locking camp are

"its no fair for people to lock loot because i need that loot too and now i cant join their group"

which basically implies that your needs are more important than theirs and/or you are to socially incapable to have open discussions about loot and/or you are incapable or organizing and forming your own farming parties

or

"well some people abuse the system and roll on loot that they shouldnt have"

this is a problem with the person, not the group or the rules. these people should be reported and blacklisted for breaking loot agreements and will be dealt with by SE.

its unfair to punish or limit legitimate farming parties based off your selfish desires. and it is also unfair and selfish for one person to join a group of seven and try to change the way the loot agreements should work because they dont like the terms. IF YOU DONT LIKE THE TERMS SET IN THE PARTY FINDER THEN DONT JOIN THE GROUP

there are multiple options in the party finder to set up groups exactly how you want them. if "multiple runs for loot" isnt an indication of farming for the sole purpose of greed as an acceptable practice then SE would not have given us that option.

i suspect that the people that oppose loot locking are also the same people that oppose "xp only/clear only" parties. im also fairly confident that their opposition to such parties is not as altruistic as they would like us to think. it really boils down to "im not good enough to farm content and i dont have the social skills to make friends and im jealous of the people that are"