[Serious] Lets talk Top raiding guilds and their behavior

[xdrcfrx]

there's also a material difference between, say training the other guild pulling mobs over the aary stairs in the hall, vs. the train incubo dumped on kwsm at the west exit.

one is just a consequence of the competitive atmosphere, and should be handled exactly as you have described.

The other wasn't really a raid-related mistake made in the heat of the moment, and should not be treated the same way.

It's like in football - personal fowl during play? 15 yards. Personal fowl after the play / on the side lines? ejected from the game.

You need to look at this more critically than just "train = the same in all situations."

[Duckwalk]

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

However, you're literally saying you wanted to set a new precedent/raid-rule on the fly, one based on missed opportunity.

All raiding guilds have been trained and wiped by other guilds before, but it has never been the policy or agreed-upon precedent to concede OTHER mobs, when an infraction occurs. Requiring this would be extremely murky waters.

For example, you're saying that if it quakes, and Riot trains AG on Dozekar, that Riot then needs to concede... what mob(s) exactly? AG can pick the target(s) that they'd like Riot to concede, in addition to Dozekar? Seeing as AG is capable of moving on to any other major target next, would Riot have to concede all of ToV? Doze + any other Velious target of AG's choosing?

That's just not how it has ever worked before in the raiding scene. The precedent has been set & agreed upon as conceding that mob that you got trained on/at.

AG actually went well above the precedent, *genuinely* trying to make things right, and conceded 3 different targets, not just the one required. This was turned down/scorned, as you stated.

By all means, a new precedent based on "opportunity lost" can indeed be discussed in the UN channel, but again, things like that can't be requested/demanded on the fly, Ultimately it's really murky waters though, and seems really lawyer-questy to me, which is something we're currently putting a lot of effort into trying to move away from, not toward.

This is an interesting point that should probably be discussed by guild leaders because it gets to the heart of the complaint.

Assume as in your example that Riot trains AG at Doze then concedes Doze. While AG recovers, Riot goes on to knock off a couple NToV dragons and then as AG prepares to killed Doze for the second time Riot trains them again "accidentally". By apparently established precedent Riot should now concede Doze twice in a row? By the time AG has recovered even more high priority targets are dead. Can Riot train AG at the same mob over and over again, assuming "accidental" and by the rules as you've outlined them only fairly be expected to concede that one mob abet multiple spawns of it?

Thinking about it in this manner more accurately describes the situation at hand. Kittens were in west and had been there for quite a bit clearing for LTK. This was known. Assuming the train was intentionally designed to set them back, is concession of that one mob and two far less valuable targets the appropriate penalty especially when AG had very little interest in those targets conceded? If Kittens knowns TSS is preparing to move from Velk to LTK, a target they too desire, can they "accidentally" train them at Velk and offer concession of Velk and Lord Bob as apporpriate recompense, AFTER Kittens has gone on to kill LTK?

[Ashenden]

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

The best days of BHP were easily the Kittens/SOTS/Homeland Days. I miss those days so much. Learned a lot from all those folks... After Tpar was banned i got an email from him with some details.. Part of those details was him explaining his ban, and that ALS had stolen BHP/Hydra Alliances bank.... Who got some more details on all this?

To all the folks around during this time.. I miss yall!

Did he explain he was banned for impersonating a guide for years and that every guild in Hydra voted to leave and form Aegis that same day? Except maybe BHP, think those people formed a new guild (since their leader was banned) to join Aegis, so if anyone had access to some kind of guildbank it was probably those ex officers.

But yes I do imagine the Hydra bank became the Aegis bank since it was essentially the same alliance in the same Sky slot with one less member.

Fun times.

[Grapeape]

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

This is an interesting point that should probably be discussed by guild leaders because it gets to the heart of the complaint.

Assume as in your example that Riot trains AG at Doze then concedes Doze. While AG recovers, Riot goes on to knock off a couple NToV dragons and then as AG prepares to killed Doze for the second time Riot trains them again "accidentally". By apparently established precedent Riot should now concede Doze twice in a row? By the time AG has recovered even more high priority targets are dead. Can Riot train AG at the same mob over and over again, assuming "accidental" and by the rules as you've outlined them only fairly be expected to concede that one mob abet multiple spawns of it?

Thinking about it in this manner more accurately describes the situation at hand. Kittens were in west and had been there for quite a bit clearing for LTK. This was known. Assuming the train was intentionally designed to set them back, is concession of that one mob and two far less valuable targets the appropriate penalty especially when AG had very little interest in those targets conceded? If Kittens knowns TSS is preparing to move from Velk to LTK, a target they too desire, can they "accidentally" train them at Velk and offer concession of Velk and Lord Bob as apporpriate recompense, AFTER Kittens has gone on to kill LTK?

I'm sorry. Could you please clarify this for me? Are you saying that kittens was trained intentionally, for the purpose of setting them back or slowing them down on a quake? Was there a reason to believe Fr/AG would have a motivation to do that?

[Croco]

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

I'm sorry. Could you please clarify this for me? Are you saying that kittens was trained intentionally, for the purpose of setting them back or slowing them down on a quake? Was there a reason to believe Fr/AG would have a motivation to do that?

Watch the video that was posted as defense. Incubo can clearly be heard asking if it was ok to train out west, Furoar says something about the 4 way being dirty and that he wouldn't and would just get a TL, Incubo then says "Nah". Everyone in zone had been seeing Kitten FTE messages on LTK for at least 15-25 minutes while we were clearing trash. That's probably why Furoar suggested not to train west and Incubo did it anyway. It might not have been intentional per se but it was definitely done recklessly and against the better judgment of AG/F raid leaders.

[Duckwalk]

Right, and from what I remember the video was very convienently cut right at that moment seeming to indicate there was more discussion on the matter let out of the video.
Maybe thats just paranoia but prior immediate history between Kittens and AG would lend to the notion that the extremely reckless at best actions of Incubo were potentially far most malicious, especially considering the circumstances and competition for similar mobs during an EQ.

[sydbarrett25]

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

Kittens are corrupt. I recall Dooce attempting to hostile takeover another guild they were aligned with very clearly. This whole, we're just the nice guys here minding our own business act that Kittens is trying to front is absurd.

Why did you get Incubo suspended btw, nice guys?

Lol, furoar told him not to go west and was left with an infamous, “nah”

[Xulia]

From what I've seen in the UN channel, Freedom has been proven to not get as many targets as KWSM but wants to continually use bully tactics (Dogpiling, veiled threats, etc.) to keep them from joining in the discussion. It's disturbing that this behavior is playing out not only in the UN but in RNF as well with no oversight from GMs and nothing from AG leadership calling it out. If they wanted to actually curb toxicity it's playing out right in front of them. I'm hoping that the wheels of justice turn slow, and the GMs are monitoring RNF as well as the UN.

[Dreenk317]

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

From what I've seen in the UN channel, Freedom has been proven to not get as many targets as KWSM but wants to continually use bully tactics (Dogpiling, veiled threats, etc.) to keep them from joining in the discussion. It's disturbing that this behavior is playing out not only in the UN but in RNF as well with no oversight from GMs and nothing from AG leadership calling it out. If they wanted to actually curb toxicity it's playing out right in front of them. I'm hoping that the wheels of justice turn slow, and the GMs are monitoring RNF as well as the UN.

Couple points here.

1. Why is AG leadership responsible for what Freedom does?

2. There has been response from the GM's. They told Kittens that this new agreement had to be made by AG/F/R. As had been originally banned and asked to come up with an agreement between them to reduce the petition quest. Why does kittens think they are part of that?

[Xulia]

Originally Posted by Dreenk317 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Couple points here.

1. Why is AG leadership responsible for what Freedom does?

I never said they were responsible for them. However in the context of raiding, AG partners with Freedom for many targets that are the listed in this ban while Riot does them alone, but they're acting like they're two separate entities. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Originally Posted by Dreenk317 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2. There has been response from the GM's. They told Kittens that this new agreement had to be made by AG/F/R. As had been originally banned and asked to come up with an agreement between them to reduce the petition quest. Why does kittens think they are part of that?

Because they are able to achieve more of the targets listed as raid targets than Freedom is, but the rules are being dictated by a guild that isn't capable of taking down those targets on their own. KWSM - and any guild that can raid - has every right to be a part of discussion on rules that affect them regardless of the guilds that were banned. If the rules are going to affect everyone, why should only a select few be able to provide input?