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

Yes... you're trying to stack the deck in your favor because you feel entitled to the loot; you are, indeed, being greedy.

Yes indeed, because I can't go along with your crow-like looting method...Ohhh my companion can use that, ohhhh its good appearance I want it, ohhhh its shiny I NEED it!

No, I explained above. You're incorrectly reading the people who are arguing with you (or you're intentionally misstating their arguments, you pick)

No, Im not.

No, it works in your favor, not in mine. It's biased in your favor, not mine. It's partial to your priorities, not mine.

Again, how are you figuring every piece of loot that drops is for my class? Or you know its not going to be but you want to roll on that, as well as loot for your class, your companions class, and any alts you may have as well.

In other words, it's not unbiased, not impartial... and not a fair loot distribution method.

Then you're not actually reading most of the posts of people who are disagreeing with you, since virtually none of them are advocating that.

Yes thats true...more and more what I am getting is: I want you to let ME roll need on everything but you just stick to your normal rolls.

If you think that stacking the deck in your favor isn't about entitlement and greed... I'm inclined to heartily agree.

How do you get champion/battlemaster gear without warzones and dailies/weeklies on Ilum?

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.

This really has nothing to do with anything he said.

You're starting to get a bit shrill. Maybe take a deep breath, and try again.

What he said was he's going to define his own concept of what he needs. That's not the same as saying he needs everything, or will take everything, or that once he decides that he needs something his need is more important than your need.

"Need" is a boolean - yes/no, true/false, on/off. If you declare a need, it doesn't matter to me why you did so. That's what he's saying.

Increase in function objectively increases access to the "frivolous". Your way is a waste of everybody's time.

Please explain again how I am stacking the deck in MY favor?

Queuing solo and not talking to anyone (say, with your chat window closed like my friend does) is solo play. This will get you champion and battlemaster gear.

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.

yay, copy pasta

you haven't actually shown how he misused the term.

Out of curiousity, why didn't you continue, with the "But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again."

I mean, if you were going to follow the article's structure, the next bit would be to go over specifically how his claim of ad hominem wasn't an example of argument ad hominem (although, I'm not sure that's what his claim was).

Nope. The fact that you'd be greedy and self centered and need on things that would be better used by others in the group when the boss was a GROUP effort is twisted. Again, if the Sage healed me all through the fight, I try to thank them for their effort by passing on the willpower loot. You, on the other hand would give the Sage the finger and need on it because it's "purdy". That's just messed up and wrong. No worries though. You'll never see that Sage again. Even if you want to you'll likely be on their /ignore list shortly there after. So, good luck with that.