OFFICIAL PROPOSAL from FE/TMO

[aldred]

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

HANDS OFF PERIOD
As of January 1, 2014, Category A guilds will be considered “Hands Off” for any Priority raid targets during the first 7 days of each calendar month. During that time period, Category A guilds will avoid any of their priority targets and open them to the rest of the server. This will however exclude raid targets in Veeshan’s Peak.

There's a copyright on this here.

I'll make a fee of 100pp to use it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[OriginalQin]

The whole thing seems like a headache with a lot of paperwork involved. Difficult to explain, gonna be difficult to enforce. What is so bad about removing variance and having some kind of a rotation or a limit that a guild can't re-kill the same target during the next three spawns?

[goshozal]

Due to FE and IB getting 1 vote each on the council, they would be immune to sanctions which require 5/6.

This is assuming they are still raiding as a unit rather than splitting into 2 guilds.

[Bossman]

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

Due to FE and IB getting 1 vote each on the council, they would be immune to sanctions which require 5/6.

This is assuming they are still raiding as a unit rather than splitting into 2 guilds.

I already mentioned this, but I'm happy somebody else notices as well.

Also everybody needs to stop proposing that variance is reduced that is OFF THE TABLE at this time.

[Pheer]

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

Due to FE and IB getting 1 vote each on the council, they would be immune to sanctions which require 5/6.

This is assuming they are still raiding as a unit rather than splitting into 2 guilds.

Surely youre not suggesting that FE/IB would seriously be able to break the rules of an agreement like that and avoid consequences through some kind of e-politics loophole when the gms already said they would be enforcing whatever the players decide on.

By that same argument ANY guilds on the "council" could form an alliance against the others and make themselves immune, you're simply singling out FE/IB because they already have had a relationship in place.

[Autotune]

I just talked with some people in IB and they haven't agreed with this proposal.

Just like to let people know that this is an FE & TMO proposal.

I'd like to wait and see what the other guilds, including IB would like to propose or what system they would like to back.

[Crosswind]

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

With this proposal the big guilds would be leaving up lots of raid mobs each month that THEY CANNOT TOUCH.

" we have agreed only to track and engage them during this time if there is a need for a specific item."

...Except for the big where if TMO alt #23049834 needs a piece of gear, TMO will totally track that thing. =)

Good try.

-Cross

[Bossman]

FE/IB have essentially been acting like one guild, so they should be treated as one until they present otherwise.

[Bamz4l]

tl;dr

i'd like to make an official proposal to keep all proposals to a two-sentence minimum. This is a sample second sentence.

[Bossman]

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

" we have agreed only to track and engage them during this time if there is a need for a specific item."

...Except for the big where if TMO alt #23049834 needs a piece of gear, TMO will totally track that thing. =)

Good try.

-Cross

Yeah WTF is that BS clause?