Depends who you're grouping with. For example, from the first page of this very thread:
Yes, in that case you would.
Whether or not it appears to have zero effect is irrelevant because you don't have a comparison of what the situation currently would be otherwise. I mean, let's think about this carefully here.Because they've used the justification before for tells in dungeons even though it appears to have zero effect.
Present situation: Cannot send tells in DF because it might lead to harassment in private. Some people still harass in public.
Assumption: Some people bite their tongue because they don't want to look like a jerk to the entire group because THEY might be kicked instead.
Potential abuse situation: Someone harasses someone else in public, leaving it up to the group to decide who should be kicked, the jerk or the target.
Now let's think about this hypothetical situation in which you can send tells.
Hypothetical situation: Can send tells in DF.
Logical assumption: The people who harass in public are clearly not going to suddenly become nicer. They will either continue to harass in public or just take it to tells.
Assumption: People who bit their tongue to avoid harassing in public now have a private forum to harass.
Obvious statement: You cannot see who's being harassed in tells, which means you have no clue who is being harassed and, most importantly, have no evidence.
Potential abuse situation: Someone wants someone kicked, complains that they're being harassed in tells. Group believes them, kick target gets kicked because the person lied.
Other potential abuse situation: Someone IS getting harassed in tells, complains to group. Group tells them they're a whiner and kicks them.
Other potential abuse situation: Someone is getting harassed in tells, complains to group. Harasser lies and says that the person is lying. Group believes harasser, ignores or kicks the person getting harassed.
I don't think it's particularly arguable which is more easily abused.
If you're responding to a point with something, then yeah, preferably it'd be nice to have that response have a point.Does literally every sentence you make have to be directly in support of your argument
An incredibly, incredibly weak form of suffering, I suppose. However, there are PS3/PS4 players perfectly happy without being able to see their DPS numbers, which means it's also not objective suffering. It's self-inflicted suffering.Because PS3/PS4 players having to rely on others in order to just see their DPS numbers isn't a type of suffering.
It's an option. Of course, if they took reasonable steps to prevent RMT spamming, that'd make the blacklist cleaner, but that's a different subject.I'm guessing other servers have better things to do with their blacklists.
Like I said, if they're new, I'll try to help. If they're loaded with 50s, it's either willful ignorance or apathy, and it's not worth the time trying to break through that.So people aren't worth helping if they don't help themselves? Very altruistic of you.
It's part of the higher tiers of content, evidenced by the stricter DPS necessities and harder mechanics. I didn't say anything about it being harder than A4S. What I did say was maybe people shouldn't try to do the hardest content with random people. That includes Savage, not excludes.But you said it was the hardest content. ... That means you technically put Bismark Ex over, say, A4S.
Still runs on the assumption that it's accurate and objective, which, obviously, what is considered harassment by any specific person is not objective.Heck, it's something some people could do at work.
Objective performance of a class is irrelevant to their subjective decision of what are unacceptable projections of elitism.That's how stagnation happens.