Please, Don't Roll on Items for Another Class in Your Team

Aesthetics do no improve a characters ability do do anything.

Three choices are obviously too many.

Remove the need.

Believe it or not, ad hominem can occur through implication as well as explicit statement. In your case, you did more than just state that people who roll need on gear they can't use are d-bags. You implied that anyone who held the position I hold (and my position has been stated clearly in the past, and at no point has it included rolling Need on something I can't use) is in fact a d-bag, which shifts the statement to an attack... "against the man". Try again.

As you've been amply doing in many posts you've been making. It's thus doubly amusing (and heavily ironic) that you accuse someone else (in this case Ferroz) of not knowing what he's talking about.



Trolling. What purpose does this post serve other than to agitate Ferroz?




You're right, there is a hierarchy, which we aren't disputing. However, the dispute arises relating to the conditions in which someone other than the one rolling determines the roller can actually make the choice they did.

You were aware that's what's being argued, weren't you? It might have gotten lost amongst all your refusals to validate your points and the ongoing attacks you make against others here.

baseless speculation.

Yes.

False; I had lots of fun in EQ playing with under geared people. I enjoyed playing with under geared people in wow as well.

No, you aren't actually demonstrating any sort of negative effect on the community, let alone one that is clearly due to that type of looting.

Allow me to shout this

HE DOES!!!!!!

Function before form. When he has the gear to do his job, then you can play "Dress-up"

He may respect it... it just sits under his/her need for function.

Pretty much every option for appearance is available through solo play. Be it from social items, commendation vendors etc. If you want to look pretty, do it on your own time.

Oh, so this is just about "Me, me me! They got more than ME!!!". Got it. We all understand the reasoning behind the madness now. It's good to know it was all about greed for you as we all suspected.

As I've repeatedly explained, it's NOT just as fair to me as it is to him. It's biased toward his loot priorities, not mine.

That's less fair than a system that isn't biased toward either of our loot priorities.


Why is that so hard to understand? If system A is biased toward some subset of Players and System B is not biased, then system B is the fairer system.

According to what objective authority? It's fine if it's according to you, but don't expect that to carry weight compelling other players to behave the same way.



I again ask: who determined, objectively, that function trumps form in this game?



What gives you the right to tell another player how they acquire their gear? You have no authority over them, no matter how much you keep acting as though you do. Yes, they can acquire aesthetic items through the methods you indicated. They can also acquire aesthetic items through group play. You don't get to decide that method is invalid for another player, only for yourself.

You keep saying this. I AM thinking of the other people in the group. Honestly, I'm thinking of them far more than you are.

I express a courtesy to the members of my group that you seem incapable of - respect. If someone wants an item because they love the looks, I respect that. If they see an upgrade in the enhancement and can use it, I respect that. If they see an item that can improve their lives while solo'ing, I respect that. I respect their choice, let them press the button they want, and we all take the results of the roll. I congratulate them on it or go "Woot!", and we move on to the next boss.

The companion won't mind if you make someone press the pass button - but the player will. When you step up and tell them "You're not as important as I am, you don't get to decide if this is an upgrade for you or not, you don't get to decide if you can use this or not, I'll tell you what you can use." At BEST you're telling someone "No, you're doing it wrong, here, let me tell you what's a worthwhile upgrade for you. Yes, I know you think it looks cool, but that's not important."

That you continue to hide behind somehow thinking of the other players in the group while imposing your playstyle on them is just twisted.

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

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.

Why is your priority the correct one, and everyone else's wrong?

Please give objective reasons for this position.

Likewise, pretty much every option for stats is available through solo play.

I'm not really sure what your point is.