People who ninja for their companions

How is this fact? I thought the companion system brought about more unequality to the loot system in regards to who should be allowed to roll on what (assuming we're all rolling NEED for our companions).

I'd give up, you're trying to teach people on the internet to behave like they're not on the internet.

I don't really get what you're saying. I don't understand how i was trying to separate from everyone else?

No.

See, that's my point. They are not trolls. They really believe it. I see people in this thread that are normally completely respectful in other threads that are just spewing hate-fill insults and making blanket statements about the character of anybody that thinks rolling need for a companion is okay.

I'm arguing that this simply isn't true. I see plenty of people with perfectly valid points as to why they think it's okay, and most of them - as a matter of fact -have stated they personally do not roll need in pugs, but they don't have a problem with folks that do.

My entire point is that they are not trolls. It's that it seems to be okay - in this one issue - to act like someone with a different (but valid) perspective is just a terrible person.

At this point I honestly can't tell it you are misreading my statements by accident (because to me it is clear from your response that what you think I mean is not what I actually mean) or if you are misreading my statements on purpose to continue having a discussion.

My point is that the "fairness" and "rationality" of needing on something (however you fall on the issue) is totally subjective. I think I misspoke (mistyped?) slightly in my statement regarding objective fairness, because my statement doesn't take into account that the concept of "fairness" is a subjective concept. One person can say it is fair that they get a lot of money because they worked hard. Another person can say it is fair that they get a lot of money if they get it by random chance. They are using different definitions of fair, and it is very difficult to argue that they are wrong unless: 1) you can establish a standard for fairness or 2) their view of fairness is not consistent with their other beliefs.

The above stuff is merely my attempt (and I must say, certainly not complete since it would otherwise be MUCH longer) to describe my understanding of the concept of "fairness". Fairness seems to be a matter of opinion based on world view, other beliefs, upbringing, experiences, ect. You think it is fair for Mr. Sideline to get loot without doing work, I think that only people doing work in a raid should get loot: we have different definitions of fair. The point of my example of the person with the viewpoint we both disagree with is that his opinion is just that: an opinion. Your opinion of it being okay for you to need on items for your companion is just that: an opinion. My opinion that it is not okay to need on items for a companion is just that: an opinion. My opinion is not more "right" than yours, yours is not more "right" than mine, neither of ours is more "right" than the hypothetical persons (despite our agreed distaste for their opinion). Opinions are only "right" when they are facts (I.E. - I am of the opinion that the sky appears blue to me). In this case, we are talking about opinions as to a matter of "fairness", and since fairness is subjective, we can't definitely say that one opinion is more right than another unless we have a unified agreement on the definition of fairness.

I am not about to get into a discussion with you trying to determine the precise meaning of "fair" because that is something that has been debated by philosophers for centuries and there is no consensus.

However, what we can take away from the realization that the stance on this issue is a subjective matter is that to make people happy (and avoid problems) we need to simply have a quick group consensus on loot rules before adventuring as a group. You may already agree with that, and I hope you do. If you do, then I think the only thing that we could go on to discuss (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread) is what should the "default assumed" rule for looting be when grouping. Perhaps it is naive to have a "default assumed" rule, but it would make grouping go faster to not have to have a loot discussion before hand. If you would like to have that discussion, I would be happy to. We may not be able to get very far in it, based on differing opinions, but I think it could prove interesting.

Wow, this thing is still going?

I think it is safe to say that the group of people here aren't going to come to a solid agreement. So...

Do what you feel you need to do!

it removes a bias from the system, which makes it objectively more fair.

it's probably closer to 2000 pages, if you count the other threads that are basically the same topic ("Don't roll need for your companion" and "no you may not roll need to strip the mods out of my loot" ,etc).

Some of them believe it... probably some of them are trolling though.

Look. I'm going to be blunt here. It's well known that I'm the guy that makes incredibly long-winded posts that most people don't read. I appreciate that ferroz's replies are often so obtuse that it compels you to write a reply so long and detailed that there's absolutely no way it can be misinterpreted. And I appreciate that it's inexplicably made worse by the jawa avatar above his name.

But the next time you feel the need to make a post like this, please consider my feelings. I have ONE talent in this world, and that talent is making posts that are so long most people don't read them. Don't take that away from me.


(FYI, I'm kidding. ferroz, please don't challenge me to a duel; you know rodians can't accurately shoot more than 1.9 feet)