That quake timing. . .

[Scalem]

Originally Posted by nyclin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

honestly don't understand why we don't have quakes every 2 days or so, it would provide for the "competition" that people claim to love and solve the problem of scarcity at the same time

[xdrcfrx]

Originally Posted by supercalif [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You might be the cutest! So let's get the cards on the table for this one...

A member of AG accidentally trained wToV without consent of leadership, who also went against the suggestions of said leadership and it somehow is the fault of an entire guild by association? Let's look at what was offered pulling in the direct text from the petition response:

• AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
• AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
• AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
• Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.

Accidents happen based on poor decision making but let's not say there was no accountability, that would be inaccurate. As I read the petitions I didn't get a sense of KWSM making specific arguments at the time of infraction on how clear things up.

Could this have been handled differently, for sure but let's not take things to the extreme here.

Under the common law theory of respondeat superior, whether or not the liability for the actions of an employee or agent can be imputed to the employer or principal rests on whether or not the employee/agent was acting within the scope of their duties in that role. as a result, whether or not liability for Incubo's train can be imputed to AG / F rests on the answer to the question: was what he did done within the scope of his activity as a member of their raid? Since he was moving from ToV, where they had been raiding, to DN, where they were also intending to raid - the answer is yes, that was within the scope of his role as a raider. He was moving from one raid location, to another raid location, to continue raiding. Accordingly, AG / F should have been considered liable for that train notwithstanding directing Incubo not to do it.

If you get injured by someone's employee, it's not defense for the employer to say "we told him not to do that," if the thing the employee did was within the scope of their employment. Example: employee driving a delivery van hits your car because they were driving recklessly. The employer is liable for the damages, even though they probably told their drivers "don't drive recklessly."

Additional point here is that the petition did not ask for Incubo to be suspended - GM's made that call on their own. In any event, when the main point of the defense offered to that petition was "we told him not to do it, it's all Incubo's fault individually," how can they then turn around and act shocked that the GM's agreed that it was all Incubo's fault, individually? Your leadership threw him under the bus. That's on them, not anyone else.

[MaCtastic]

Originally Posted by supercalif [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You might be the cutest! So let's get the cards on the table for this one...

A member of AG accidentally trained wToV without consent of leadership, who also went against the suggestions of said leadership and it somehow is the fault of an entire guild by association? Let's look at what was offered pulling in the direct text from the petition response:

• AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
• AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
• AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
• AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
• Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.

Accidents happen based on poor decision making but let's not say there was no accountability, that would be inaccurate. As I read the petitions I didn't get a sense of KWSM making specific arguments at the time of infraction on how clear things up.

Could this have been handled differently, for sure but let's not take things to the extreme here.

1. We prioritize people’s time and fun over pixels and cannot be purchased.
2. You weren’t going after those targets so the concede was a worthless.
3. The entire premise of “well send a small crew to help while we still capitalize on the fact we just trained another guild” is why the 3 big bads are banned, toxic.

[JackofSpade]

Originally Posted by MaCtastic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. We prioritize people’s time and fun over pixels and cannot be purchased.
2. You weren’t going after those targets so the concede was a worthless.
3. The entire premise of “well send a small crew to help while we still capitalize on the fact we just trained another guild” is why the 3 big bads are banned, toxic.

What was done to "capitalize" on the train that occurred. What would you say is an appropriate response to an accidental train? If you're idea is to ban an entire guild whenever an individual member accidentally does something dumb, you're gonna change your tune real quick when it's a guild mate of yours that does it to someone else

[gutterbrain]

Originally Posted by xdrcfrx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Under the common law theory of respondeat superior, whether or not the liability for the actions of an employee or agent can be imputed to the employer or principal rests on whether or not the employee/agent was acting within the scope of their duties in that role. as a result, whether or not liability for Incubo's train can be imputed to AG / F rests on the answer to the question: was what he did done within the scope of his activity as a member of their raid? Since he was moving from ToV, where they had been raiding, to DN, where they were also intending to raid - the answer is yes, that was within the scope of his role as a raider. He was moving from one raid location, to another raid location, to continue raiding. Accordingly, AG / F should have been considered liable for that train notwithstanding directing Incubo not to do it.

If you get injured by someone's employee, it's not defense for the employer to say "we told him not to do that," if the thing the employee did was within the scope of their employment. Example: employee driving a delivery van hits your car because they were driving recklessly. The employer is liable for the damages, even though they probably told their drivers "don't drive recklessly."

Additional point here is that the petition did not ask for Incubo to be suspended - GM's made that call on their own. In any event, when the main point of the defense offered to that petition was "we told him not to do it, it's all Incubo's fault individually," how can they then turn around and act shocked that the GM's agreed that it was all Incubo's fault, individually? Your leadership threw him under the bus. That's on them, not anyone else.

Thank you. I needed a good reminder why to avoid RnF at all costs.

[Trademarked]

Originally Posted by JackofSpade [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What was done to "capitalize" on the train that occurred. What would you say is an appropriate response to an accidental train? If you're idea is to ban an entire guild whenever an individual member accidentally does something dumb, you're gonna change your tune real quick when it's a guild mate of yours that does it to someone else

AGF continued slamming Earthquake mobs while Kittens spent over an hour recovering/clearing repops... repops that were all put back on the table in obstructing the LTK attempt thanks to the errant, "eh, fuck it," train.
Then AGF took over Riot's Growth clear when Riot made good the malefaction committed by AGF.

I don't know where in that sequence of events you're not grasping what was done to capitalize on the situation.

An appropriate response would be to not engage a raid mob while your competition is dead by your own hands. That seems like the most braindead concept that even the most basic of warmbody raider could grasp.

No one was asking to ban an entire guild.

Petitions get filed when guilds act in bad faith and follow it up with even more egregious shittery like training a guild and then offering up concessions of said mob that they had absolutely no presence at (aside from their kamikaze pilot) while subsequently claiming no ties to said player or their action(s) (despite the very clear affiliation denoted by the guild tag), while subsequently submitting defense footage with clear audio that the offender acted with intent and knowledge --- indicated by the warnings they received from guildmates in the moments proceeding the train.

Can't claim "dumb" or ignorance when they were very clearly warned by own guild. That shows callous disregard if not wanton malice.

No one would change their tune under a repeat circumstance, even with roles reversed.

Better leadership wouldn't throw member(s) under the bus like that, while wiping hands clean of the situation and claiming they don't represent the guild.

Better leadership wouldn't throw meaningless token concessions as amends while continuing to press ill-gotten advantages (while victim shaming to boot).

Better leadership would put forth an actual effort to foster a community (and that's what P99 is, a community) rather than burn it down with bad faith actions, interactions, and negotiations.

Better leadership wouldn't be labeled toxic or be accused of fostering toxic behavior through all of the above, and get their band of followers raid banned.

[Praxcthius]

Kittens you are full of bs.
1. We prioritize people’s time and fun over pixels and cannot be purchased:
You are known to have had officers/cliques that go for epic mobs to sell denying your other guildies fun with pixels.
2. You weren’t going after those targets so the concede was a worthless.:
AG/F should have come back and denied all your pixels after numerous attempts to rectify the situation. Riot has several ex officers from kittens and numerous riot alts inside kittens. this is known. Remember
AG offered to recover Kittens; it was declined.
•AG conceded LTK; it was declined.
•AG invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
•Freedom invited Kittens to Tunare; it was declined.
•AG offered another LTK concession for a total of 2 LTK concessions now; it was declined.
•Freedom and AG conceded the next LTK, Telk, Gozz; It was declined.
sure zlandi > trumps these 3 for target selection. but in an abundance of overcompensating TO BE NICE all this was offered to your guild. You declined.
3. The entire premise of “well send a small crew to help while we still capitalize on the fact we just trained another guild” is why the 3 big bads are banned, toxic.:
Not any other guilds fault that your leadership fails to train its members to be effective raiders. Enjoy your scraps that you will allocate to your officers/officer alts who will then leave for another guild when they get completely fed up with leading xenovorash/vsr/ (insert fairly easy epic mob battle here).

You're guild is by far large enough to do raid content at most times of the day but it's your failing as leaders of your guild to prepare most of your participants. "Have you ever tried herding cats?" your guild is named kittens. your people are not cats. grow several sets of pairs of balls and compete. pixels given cuz finally someone got banned < beating those guys who got banned. everyday.

[feniin]

I really hope this suspension lasts for another couple months. You seem to need to detox from your pixel sickness.

[Praxcthius]

It won't matter if it lasts months or half a year. Once competition kicks in again Kittens will be relegated back to its former status of "We are too good to get caught up in the server strife that is the raiding scene." All due to the lack of good leadership decisions.
If Kittens put in some time to really compete would completely change the landscape of the raid scene. 4 guilds competing for merbs. (yes freedom can do tov dragons by themselves. with lower numbers. just can be a dicey time since less room for error).
Now back to kittens. they do have people with skills. just not the time put in for high end engagements on a consistent level. "We take the high road" is complete and utter hypocrisy due to the fact that once the trained and capable guilds are banned your guild fills the vacuum (albeit temporarily) to satiate the backseat pixel lust in your hearts.
OK one comment on the AOW kill. with the sheer numbers there he would have died due to the overwhelming zerg even if he killed one person a second on tank drop. gratz on doing what you thumb your noses at normally. (zerg zerg zerg zerg)

[feniin]

Originally Posted by Praxcthius [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It won't matter if it lasts months or half a year. Once competition kicks in again Kittens will be relegated back to its former status of "We are too good to get caught up in the server strife that is the raiding scene." All due to the lack of good leadership decisions.
If Kittens put in some time to really compete would completely change the landscape of the raid scene. 4 guilds competing for merbs. (yes freedom can do tov dragons by themselves. with lower numbers. just can be a dicey time since less room for error).
Now back to kittens. they do have people with skills. just not the time put in for high end engagements on a consistent level. "We take the high road" is complete and utter hypocrisy due to the fact that once the trained and capable guilds are banned your guild fills the vacuum (albeit temporarily) to satiate the backseat pixel lust in your hearts.
OK one comment on the AOW kill. with the sheer numbers there he would have died due to the overwhelming zerg even if he killed one person a second on tank drop. gratz on doing what you thumb your noses at normally. (zerg zerg zerg zerg)

Show me on the doll where the kitten touched you