People who ninja for their companions

We all rolled /random. Whomever got the highest, took the item.

If the item was for a specific class, and that class was present, they made an offer to buy the item. Which more often than not was negotiated.

ad hominem actually has its place in logical discussion, but i believe you are only wanting to refer to one definition of ad hominem where a person discredits anothers arguements based on unrelated facts.

the irony here is your post is little more than ad hominem in itself.

What exactly does that add to the point I made?

Why?

THis is what the folks who are in ok with rolling for companions are saying.

Allowing people to roll on whatever they decide that they need gives them a chance to get an upgrade.

denying people the opportunity to roll on what they decide they need denies them a chance to get an upgrade.

Or they may be taking one of 5 items that drop for an agent/smuggler.

Correct, but that's only because everyone is already entitled to roll on any item.

No, back then those pieces were often BiS for paladins; the plate pieces were generally pretty trashy.

Same goes for shaman... quite a few of our better pieces were cloth, because the mail stuff was horribly itemized. Bracers, for example, were a great example: several tiers in a row the cloth bracers were significantly better than the mail ones... so much that it was worth wearing cloth bracers 2 tiers lower than the top tier mail ones.

So? it makes the difference between being able to do content and not; or between being able to enjoy doing it and the content being painful.


This is the "that item is a bigger upgrade for me, so you shouldn't roll even though it's also an upgrade for you" argument

This statement makes 0 sense; an upgrade for a companion is a human player's upgrade.

Seriously, make some sense...

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

Copied and pasted, but seems to go well here.

So, you're saying tat they don't need on everything, and instead just need on the stuff that they really want?

No, he

1. points out a contradictory argument
2. then disagrees with the label that's being applied.
3. then makes a snide comment about someone being upset due to their sense of entitlement.

nowhere in that does he trivialize someone else's definition of need.

so there's nothing contradictory.

I'm pretty sure you stated we had no choice in the matter. I just proved you wrong.

How does "we all rolled random" prove you had a choice in how to roll?

This seems to be an important point many do not understand.

Saying "you did not roll for your character, you rolled for someone else!" is wrong.

A player's companion is not "someone else". The "companion" abilities are in fact player abilities. The only difference is visual fluff, in that the ability does not appear to fire from the main toon but from the pet following it. That's just pretty graphics

Saying the companion's ability is not mine just because it appears to come from my companion is like saying the smuggler "XS freighter fly-by" is not a smuggler's ability because it is the XS freighter that is dropping the AOE bomb and not the smuggler.

That's just nonsense. They are all your - the player's - abilities. The only difference is the visual fluff.