What is going on here REALLY ? For those of us with half a brain. I was in vent most of the day when trackers were coming and going there was no "Master plan" to screw anyone over.

The unguilded puller has been used before without incident. IB also had an unguilded puller. Golden was not guilded simply because it's a pain in the ass to find an officer for a bard who is only used for fay and sev who is bound at the TD pots via locket. TMO has so many alts that it can be hard to find an actual officer at times. Especially for Faydedar. I have a 56 wizard I use for raids who was unguilded for a while because it was a pain in my ass to find an officer.

It's a complete red herring to say that there was no pick up raid forming; there's no need for a PUG. Golden is a TMO member even if that character wasn't tagged. It was a TMO operation through and through, and the guild was assembling in good faith for the kill. Certainly you're not suggesting that we used an untagged puller to circumvent the rules. We're many things, but unaware of the rules we are not. It would be monumentally stupid to try and get around the rules like that. It's not about conscience, it's about convenience. An officer was present, so the bard was tagged.

Just about every Fay, Naggy, and Vox raid with officers present sees a new character join the guild. Please explain to me what you think we did that's so shady, and why it's wrong.

Don't really see a double standard here. Both guilds got banned.

Title irrelevant unless IB's is reversed.

For the record, I doubt TMO was attempting some new diabolical pull tactic...
Hanlon's Razor: 'Do not attribute to Malice what can be attributed to Incompetence.' (or in this case, forgetfulness)

You bring the Forum PR Police out of hiding. (5)

Xasten, you still didn't address why/how he was tagged, which is basically the entire premise of my point. It looks shadier to tag him than leave him unguilded. Lots of words with failure to answer the most important question mark = TMOMO.

It has already been stated by the GMs that it doesn't matter if the puller is not guilded, it is still that persons mob. So who really cares that it "looks shadier to tag him". The intent was not to have a shady untagged puller, the intent was to pull the mob for TMO. Instead, he pulled the mob, and got IB suspended (SUPER VICTORY FOR TMO /CHEER).

Another non-answer. Could you people possibly prove my points any more?

The how is this:

The why is because he was left untagged out of convenience or laziness (pick one), and he took a tag because he needed one. Communication, convenience, guild pride, or whatever. The tag was available, and he took it. Explain to me how having a tag versus not having one changes the outcome of the Fay kill in any way. Even if tagging him was somehow shady, it was not IB or anyone else's call to make to take the situation into their own hands. The GM's have said repeatedly to petition in situations like this. There is no scenario where tagging or leaving him untagged would have made a difference.

What you're failing to address is why this was unethical or shady. My wizard Xastex was tagged on a raid, my rogue Eyashusa was tagged on a Vox raid, and my monk Sakkra was tagged on a Naggy raid. Was this unethical? These characters were untagged because it's a pain in the ass sometimes to find an officer. Alts that were previously tagged were guildless after Zeelot disbanded the guild. Explain to me how I've not addressed your point.

And please drop the forum police schtick.

He got tagged when an officer entered the zone, out of convenience. There wasn't one before then.

Forum Officer Xastex:

Surely you can see the precedent this sets. Guilds that can't field trackers can now hire trackers. If we have un-guilded trackers acting as mercenaries to the highest bidder, I wonder which guild that benefits most?

Why would any of us have reason to believe you would treat this new precedent with integrity?

It benefits them all equally. No guild may have more than two trackers, and joint raid forces are retroactively assumed to have pooled their trackers. I explained this this another post recently:

Because we already have. Zeelot set the precedent for hiring trackers about a year ago. Very little has been done with it since for a very large number of reasons. (Delay, batphone security, etc.)

I notice you've switched the tone from saying this is shady to saying that it's bad policy prone to abuse. I also notice you've failed to address the questions I posed back at you. For someone who rails against evading the question, you sure seem to do it a lot.