Small Rant on Seal Rolls in Hamlet parties

[Wynn]

Not drama at all really. Simply stating a scenario that happened which I find to be ethically questionable. There was no drama at the time nor any here.

I do find the comments here interesting though.

[RoxyLalonde]

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.

[Chardrizard]

Now you are just bitter lol

[indira]

thats how they help the buddys and keep you from getting anything.

[Reika]

Don't join another LS's hamlet parties unless you know them for not doing such shadey stuff. And even if they appear to be in separate LS's, the moment you sense shady business or get some weird loot rules, just leave.

[Miburo]

I agree with everything Rakkii posted.

Look at it from the other guy's perspective. He had to give up his lot on something he may have wanted for himself so that he could help a friend out. That's actually pretty nice of him. I see nothing morally wrong about that in any way.

The only thing that almost makes sense is the 'lowering your chances' argument. But you agreed with letting him lot for it. Therefore you agreed to having your chance of winning that lot to being lower. Whether he's keeping or passing his winning lot doesn't change your odds any.

And while I agree with the stance that he is free to do whatever he wants with his winning lots, I too would think someone is a d-bag if he lotted on stuff just to drop it for the lulz or if he roleplayed that his retainer was a love interest that could be wooed by giving her lots of rare treasures...or whatever. But this was just a dude helping out a friend, a friend who needs and plans on using these seals.

It isn't immoral to help a friend out, and it isn't unfair to lot on something when it's been agreed on prior to the drop. Hopefully there is a better loot system in ARR than this horrible setup we have currently. One where people won't have to compete against their own party members for frustratingly low drop rate loot.

[Wynn]

If he wins, whatever happens after the fact is irrelevant because you agreed to it. He can keep it, he can pass it to you, he can pass it to his friend, he can destroy it.

This whole thread is a QQ because he passed loot he won in rules that you agreed with.

I never agreed to rules which stated people could give their lots to other people. It was never even mentioned. You guys seem to keep ignoring that and trying to assert the opposite was true.

In any case, simply reporting something I find to be unethical and explaining why is hardly a QQ. Actually, I guess by that logic I could say you are QQing about the existence of this thread.

Stop QQing.

[Meatdawg]

I never agreed to rules which stated people could give their lots to other people. It was never even mentioned. You guys seem to keep ignoring that and trying to assert the opposite was true.

In any case, simply reporting something I find to be unethical and explaining why is hardly a QQ. Actually, I guess by that logic I could say you are QQing about the existence of this thread.

Stop QQing.

Excellent counter point...

[Miburo]

If you really cared about what people are going to do with the loot they're lotting on if they win the lot why didn't you just ask?

It seems a bit weird to suggest that someone should have to state that kind of thing beforehand. It's not like it's a common practice, or we normally do that for anything else.

Still, you let him lot. You chose to vote for that without knowing what he was going to do with the loot. If what they do with the stuff they win lot on matters to you for whatever reason then you should be the one inquiring about it before you agree to letting them lot on things. Your mistake, bro.

[Wynn]

If you really cared about what people are going to do with the loot they're lotting on if they win the lot why didn't you just ask?

It seems a bit weird to suggest that someone should have to state that kind of thing beforehand. It's not like it's a common practice, or we normally do that for anything else.

Still, you let him lot. You chose to vote for that without knowing what he was going to do with the loot. If what they do with the stuff they win lot on matters to you for whatever reason then you should be the one inquiring about it before you agree to letting them lot on things. Your mistake, bro.

Good question.

The answer is because it didn't occur to me why a person wouldn't lot for seals from the start if they needed them until the end when it dawned on me what was going on. I would never dream of doing that to other players and this is the first time I have ever encountered this behavior literally ever.

So yes, you are right. It is my mistake for giving people the benefit of the doubt and believing everyone else has the same respect and sense of fairness for other players as I do.