So, appearantly I got added to a 'list'

[Issac]

Greed I don't think is morally wrong, no, it's the way in which greed is exercised that can become morally wrong. If, like you said, I was merely locking -all- black mage loot, then I could see where the excess would be morally reprehensible. However, locking a single piece, while perhaps an arguably greedy action, is not necessarily one that I would say is morally 'wrong.'

When you lock any loot at all within PF, you are explicitly using strangers to ensure you and you alone are entitled to a particular piece of loot. I think that level of greed is morally wrong. Now if you play with a static, linkshell, or free company in which everyone knows eachothers' goals and and work together long-term to achieve them for everyone, that's something I'd be on board with.

But picking up random strangers just to use them? Not cool with me. It strikes a chord.

[Teppie]

When you lock any loot at all within PF, you are explicitly using strangers to ensure you and you alone are entitled to a particular piece of loot. I think that level of greed is morally wrong. Now if you play with a static, linkshell, or free company in which everyone knows eachothers' goals and and work together long-term to achieve them for everyone, that's something I'd be on board with.

But picking up random strangers just to use them? Not cool with me. It strikes a chord.

At the same time couldn't it be said all the strangers are using everyone else for a different goal? The people that join him obviously have no interest in whatever's he's locking. His locking has absolutely no effect on them because they have other goals, that they are using the rest of the group to get.

[Issac]

At the same time couldn't it be said all the strangers are using everyone else for a different goal? The people that join him obviously have no interest in whatever's he's locking. His locking has absolutely no effect on them because they have other goals, that they are using the rest of the group to get.

This, of course, is assuming that said party has zero interest in the locked item. When it's the only opportunity available and there aren't enough people interested to make a second group and/or the person is too timid to make their own party, they could either give up or silently consent.

Sure, you don't have to care about them. But I do.

What really gets to me is risking a ban for actively standing up for what you believe in.

[Chihaya]

Parties are like, as another poster drew the comparison, the 'private property' of the leader, and the ones who choose to join that party are falling under that leader and wanting them to make an effective party that can clear content and get -everyone- gear in the long run.

Oooo analogies, I like analogies... and someone mentioned setting rules in public settings is bad so... let's see...

I'd compare PF to restaurants.

I open a restaurant, I set the rules... no smoking, no outside food, no shirt no shoes no service. You don't like the rules? Don't come, I'm not forcing you come. You give me trouble, I call the cops.

PFs, leader makes the party, leader sets the rules. You don't like the rules? Don't join, no one is forcing you to join. You join and break the rules, they call GM on you.

For those people that think you are above all laws/rules and deserves everything that comes your way... who is the greedy one here?

[Teppie]

This, of course, is assuming that said party has zero interest in the locked item. When it's the only opportunity available and there aren't enough people interested to make a second group and/or the person is too timid to make their own party, they could either give up or silently consent.
Sure, you don't have to care about them. But I do.

Thing is, the opportunity isn't available, in fact it's the furthest thing from an opportunity. If there is literally no way they can roll on the item for it being locked, there is no "making an opportunity" of it or is there silently consenting. If the only item they want is locked they're not going to join in anyways on the off chance they might see it and settle for less. Normally for groups that are popular enough to warrant locking for loot there's always multiples being made, and if not you can check before every 5-10 minutes or so for a group that doesn't have restrictions you disagree with.

[Mcshiggs]

I sort of like the point another person made. You're acting like you have the right to be in any party, at any time. And to be fair - you don't. Parties are like, as another poster drew the comparison, the 'private property' of the leader, and the ones who choose to join that party are falling under that leader and wanting them to make an effective party that can clear content and get -everyone- gear in the long run.

You have said earlier in the thread that when you make a party like this, then you are only after a single item, you have said it is driven by greed, all parties are, so I have a really hard time believing that if the only piece you want drops on the first run through, that you would stay until everyone got loot.

[Eidolon]

You have said earlier in the thread that when you make a party like this, then you are only after a single item, you have said it is driven by greed, all parties are, so I have a really hard time believing that if the only piece you want drops on the first run through, that you would stay until everyone got loot.

If it helps as a comparison, I actually ran T4 greed party today for a single piece of gear (Bard boots.)

I did 2 runs. During the third run, I said "This is my last run." Lo and behold - my boots drop on the third run, and I get to loot 'em.

I stayed for another run after that. I'm not unreasnable - I'm not going to abandon a party after I get what I want. I try to make a minimum of 3 clears, regardless of how loot distributes. Sometimes I do more. Sometimes I do less.

[Issac]

Normally for groups that are popular enough to warrant locking for loot there's always multiples being made, and if not you can check before every 5-10 minutes or so for a group that doesn't have restrictions you disagree with.

This is another assumption. What if this person has a limited play time? Should they have to wait days to find this mythical party? Or should they be able to jump right in and have a fair shot from the start?

You talk as if this is the new norm. As if this is standard practice. Don't join my party if you want x. It had better not be the majority. That would put a rather foul taste in my mouth.

[Eidolon]

This is another assumption. What if this person has a limited play time? Should they have to wait days to find this mythical party? Or should they be able to jump right in and have a fair shot from the start?

Here's where you lose me. Again, you put the supposed 'victim' as more important than the one taking time out of his day to lead the party.

[Doo]

Here's where you lose me. Again, you put the supposed 'victim' as more important than the one taking time out of his day to lead the party.

The guy that's leading the party is helping organize a chance for 7 others to get their loot drop as well. So what he's doing is a positive for the community by setting up runs that benefit others.