People who ninja for their companions

fairness is a subjective concept. What you consider "fair" using your own criteria (which seems to be the idea of equal chance), is not "fair" under others personal criteria.

Fair point.

Wow. First, Khem doesn't even use AIM and second, needing orange gear for him is pointless as it doesn't even show up on him. I'd have kicked him too.

What bias?

nvm, I know what you're getting at...yet I disagree. Allowing people to roll NEED for companions gives different classes more opportunity to use it as an excuse to roll NEED.

Lol, I hate it when I misrepresent my beliefs (or when my beliefs are misunderstood) so I strive to make them as clear as possible. I think we suffer from the same condition: FullyFlushedOutArgumentitis

Again, it's only fair if it's the consensus. Which it's not currently. If everyone needs for companions, then that way is fair, I agree. But since so many people pass on that gear when people are present that need it for their PC, these people are at an unfair disadvantage when grouped with people like you that DO need for companions.


So, no, it's really not fair for all as you suggest.

I think you might be right. And please don't take what I said to heart. It was my attempt at levity. You go right on giving detailed explanations.

I'm not sure what you think I've misread.

No, I'm going to have to say I disagree. These aren't purely subjective issues.

Griefing someone isn't rational behvior; we both agree that your example was rude and insensitive behavior because that's not subjective judgement; that's just what the behavior you described is. What you were talking about doing in that example is objectively irrational behavior: you're talking about lashing out at someone for purely emotional and not intellectual reasons...

Likewise, I'm talking objective fairness; I defined it quite a while back (probably at least a half dozen times in each of these threads): unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced. It's what the word means. If you want to add a bunch of subjective values on top of that, or wax philosophical about it, that's fine... but it's not reasonable to expect other people to agree with your usage of the term at that point.


I do.

I was basically demonized in one of the other threads because I suggesting that people who have an opinion about what other people click on should talk about what they think is acceptable for people to click on (I think that was the one about rolling to strip mods out of something). That agrees with the dev suggestion, by the way.

Are people still trying to rationalize their Ninjaism here?

The one we're primarily talking in this thread is the one in favor of people who think that the item belongs to class X based on some arbitrary set of conditions that aren't agreed on by everyone.

the system you're in favor of is biased that way: it's biased against someone who places more value on gear for companions, or gear based on it's looks. Depending on your specific rules, it may favor people who'll user the mods in an item but not the item itself or vice versa.

open rolls (not restricting them based on your arbitrary criteria) is not biased in favor of anyone. It doesn't give people who value companion loot over everything else priority over people who don't. It doesn't give people who value appearance priority over people who value stats.

It's totally unbiased, impartial, and unprejudiced.