Selecting need for loot

Can you honestly tell me you've never selected a shell based on how it looks?

Now you are twisting my words. Nowhere did I say you should be forced to play with people you don't like or who do not share your views. If you choose not to play with people you do not like or who do not share your views, then you have the option to leave the group and put that player on ignore. This would enable you not to have to play with that person again, while not attempting to punish that player for disagreeing with you. Attempting a vote kick of each and every person who does not agree with your "right" view that need is for character only is attempting to punish that player. You can call it exercising your right not to play with them and you would be correct when you say that is all you were doing, if no other option existed for you to exercise that right. However, since another option exists that would allow you to exercise your right not to play with that person again, and you choose not to use that option in favor of the one that punishes the offender, it would seem that what you are actually doing is attempting to punish the offender.

What I did say was that I do not choose to attempt to punish someone who does not agree with me. If I choose not to play with another player, then I will add that player to my ignore list. I will usually finish the FP if I'm in the middle of one, but I have dropped group.

Let me ask you, if you had your toon and your companion who use the exact same gear, who would get the priority on better gear. You, or your companion? I'm seriously guessing you'd put the gear on your toon first and your companion would get the hand-me-downs. If that's true, then obviously you also recognize that your toon > your companion.

So if that above premise holds true, what you're trying to justify is Your Toon > Your Companion = Another Player's Toon = Another Player's Companion.

Now you are twisting my words. Nowhere did I say you should be forced to play with people you don't like or who do not share your views. If you choose not to play with people you do not like or who do not share your views, then you have the option to leave the group and put that player on ignore. This would enable you not to have to play with that person again, while not attempting to punish that player for disagreeing with you. Attempting a vote kick of each and every person who does not agree with your "right" view that need is for character only is attempting to punish that player. You can call it exercising your right not to play with them and you would be correct when you say that is all you were doing, if no other option existed for you to exercise that right. However, since another option exists that would allow you to exercise your right not to play with that person again, and you choose not to use that option in favor of the one that punishes the offender, it would seem that what you are actually doing is attempting to punish the offender.

What I did say was that I do not choose to attempt to punish someone who does not agree with me. If I choose not to play with another player, then I will add that player to my ignore list. I will usually finish the FP if I'm in the middle of one, but I have dropped group.

The "social convention" tries to justify Player A>Player B by trying to hide it behind terms like "character" and "lifeless pet". My stance is that Player A=Player B, no matter what "social convention" says or even what I choose to do. The fact that I choose to defer to Player A if I'm Player B does not mean that if I'm Player C I will expect Player B to defer to Player A. I make that decision for myself, I do not make that decision for others.

I don't have time to read all of your "logic" pages after pages, but in this scenario :

In a group of 4, 1 player ninja, 3 others don't want to play with this player anymore, so based on your "logic" all 3 player should leave the group, ignore this ninja, then somehow try to form group again via LFG ( randomness ) or /whisper ( take time ) while getting the LFG lock out ? For 1 NINJA ? Sure we will do it ( btw vote kick take 5 sec max since everyone hate ninja )

And btw while we attemping vote-kick on a ninja, we did punish this player because he's wrong. Why is he wrong you ask ? I don't want to repeat the majority of player already said on this topic ( and a lot other topic ), so just enjoy the kick

Btw you said that you don't roll NEED for companion etc in game but you are so brave in forum, that somehow make me confusing

Let's get one thing straight. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I follow "social convention" because I fear the consequences. I do not give a rat's tookus about your threats of consequences or the fact that you think being a member of the majority makes you right. It does not make you right, but it apparently gives you the sense that you can force your views upon others who do not share your "right" opinion. I choose to follow the "social convention" because I think it is the courteous thing to do, not because you or even the majority think it is.

I find it just as courteous to accept that others may not share my views and not to ostracize or otherwise attempt to punish them simply because they do not share my views.

The second point is where we can agree to disagree. I understand that some will attempt to punish each and every person who does not share their views. I do not agree with that stance, but the fact that I do not agree with it does not make it "wrong".

I find it ironic at best t that apparently most people are perfectly fine expecting courtesy in one respect (need for character only), even if not all members of the group share that view, yet refuse to extend courtesy to someone who does share their views(kick the person who needs for companion and then possibly name and shame him in fleet chat in the hopes that he is ostracized). I have just as much trouble wrapping my head around that concept as people apparently have wrapping their heads around the fact that I choose to follow "social convention" yet will defend someone who does not.

You try to justify that a companion is just as much part of character as the character itself, yet you can't seem to pony up that obviously you're character is more important than your companion because you gear your character first, not your companion and you also use your character a lot more than your companion.

So you prioritize gear for your character and the game has more uses for your character, yet you choose not to see your character as having more importance... good job living in that world of denial.

Do I expect that anyone will actually take this route? No, I don't. I expect that most will take the "punish the offender" route. I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you that you do so to punish the offender and not trying to hide behind "exercising your right not play with the offender".

I prioritize MY character ahead of MY companion, but I do not prioritize MY character ahead of YOUR companion. You prioritize YOUR character ahead of MY companion. That is one of the differences in our philosophies. My philosophy is no more or less valid than yours. It is only different.

Wait, so it's punishment for 3 people to decide they don't want to be grouped with this person anymore, but not punishing to force those 3 people to stay grouped with that person. Wow, you have no sense of fairness and balance, do you?

There's 4 people in a group. 1 person initiates a vote kick, the other 2 people vote yes. That to me is the faster way instead of having 3 people leave a group, reform, and reque. Why should they have to make the effort for all of that when BW gave us awesome tools to just remove the one person so that we're not hindered as much?

You have been the staunch supporter of a person using in-game tools for their own reasons ("It's their right to roll as BW gave them that right.") But you're trying to look down on another in-game tool used for other people's reasons. If one person has a right to roll for their own desires, then 3 other people have a right to kick them from their group for their own desires. And you want to argue against this principle?