Selecting need for loot

This is where things got ugly:

Indeed. That's the thing, though - you, personally, roll greed as well as need. But if someone were to stick to the mindset you are defending (i.e. rolling need on whatever is perceived as being 'needed' by that person), it would soon create the scenario I've been describing of people getting frustrated by the lack of consensus and rolling need on everything.

Thank you for your answer, and no, I never expected to agree with it. I think it's a sub-optimal solution since I don't consider companions as important as the main character, but that's a matter of opinion. (As is this entire argument, of course, but it's an opinion I can understand even if I disagree.)

My main issue really is that you don't seem to mind someone defining when they can roll need for themselves wihout any sort of justification. In fact, it appears you are against people wanting everyone to stick to a more or less generally accepted set of rules. I'm not really closer to understanding why now that we've been exchanging views a couple of times. The only explanation I can find is that you don't want anyone to be forced stick to rules they don't like (even if you yourself don't seem to have any problem sticking to them even though you don't seem to perceive them as 'fair').

It does seem to me as though we're at an impasse. I doubt anything else I could say would change your mind and I also doubt you're going to change mine. Unless you'd like to keep this discussion going, thank you for taking the time to explain yourself and keeping your tone pleasant in spite of getting a lot of opposition.


Edited for better wording.

No that was my reply to ugly thrown at me first. I was perfectly civil before that.

Are you lying?
Or if the above is true, do you like arguing for the sake of arguing?

Or... do you lack the spine to do what you believe so vehemently about, that you've been posting for 26 pages?

Yep, right there, you nailed it.

There was nothing uncivil about what he stated. If you took offense to it, that was your own prerogative. Nothing there was directed at you.

Ratajack, why not tell us your char names and your server?


What's the worst that can happen?
People who don't agree with your loot rules can avoid you.
People who agree with your loot rules can party on with you.

Win, win for all, no?

Also that way those of us who would rather not have the pleasure of your charmingly argumentative self and who would rather not have the pleasure of running partway into some content, kicking you, finding another replacement, etc can just add you to our ignore lists and the game will save us all that trouble

Precisely.

In fact, when someone takes offense to another person speaking generally on a subject, isn't that what you call incriminating yourself?

There's no extreme verbiage that I'm aware of. I simply used a real life situation in which "social convention" was used as justification for taking away another person's rights. Isn't that what is happening with regards to loot? People expect the "social convention" of need is for character only to trump another person's right to roll on loot he helped produce. In addition, people are threatening consequences if someone actually has the stones to stand up for their rights and roll need. I've seen mention of consequences ranging from the offending party being yelled at and insulted to being "named and shamed" on fleet in the hopes that no one will group with the offending party.

I disagree, it started with:
Even if you're not saying it against a particular person, it's still labeling and offensive. It's like saying, "If you like blue then you're a terrible person". If someone gets upset by that statement because they like blue, the OP can't say, "Hey, I wasn't directing it at you."

No, you weren't, you were throwing a blanket insult onto an entire group of people. That's offensive.

Even though I disagree with this guy's viewpoints, he's right to say that civility ended the moment someone made that statement.