A nice guy or a jerk?

[zyx]

You're analogy isn't complete and is just as different as his (that's what an analogy is, it's something completely different that shows the same situation). Let me help you. Those 3 poor guys turn out to be normal people who pose as homeless people to get free food and money from people and happened to be in the store at that time. Do you understand the point I'm making?

It doesn't really matter if they are normal people, hobos or anything. The important bit is that the 3 guys have more use for the food than the 7 rich people.

[pakoa]

You didn't understand my point. My point is, you don't know whether they are more deserving of the food than anyone else. You don't know them, their situation, and vice versa with every, single other person in that raid and any future raids you do this in.

Also, what if the contest had a rule which means you had to use the free food (Blizzard doesn't want you to need and give to other people keep in mind, for reasons I listed in my previous post)?

[Lackluster]

After seeing another item being won by someone who already left the raid, I'd say the OP is a nice guy.
Worst case scenario? He gives it to the 2nd roller and nothing changes.
Best case scenario? He stops the item from going to someone who already has it or won't even loot it.

[Pancaspe]

If they pulled their weight you did the right thing.

I look at it this way, if everyone preformed at their lvl would we have won? Someone pulling 10k in a raid shouldnt be rewarded with anything, they are lucky to be along for the ride.

If they pulled their weight, they don't need the gear.

[Wishblade]

Both. The intention is nice, but the act is still bad. I could see myself eventually doing the same, but because of the bad aspect I'd probably not do it anyway. I just hope the system will improve greatly by MoP or at least asap.

[zyx]

You didn't understand my point. My point is, you don't know whether they are more deserving of the food than anyone else. You don't know them, their situation, and vice versa with every, single other person in that raid and any future raids you do this in.

Also, what if the contest had a rule which means you had to use the free food (Blizzard doesn't want you to need and give to other people keep in mind, for reasons I listed in my previous post)?

You don't need to know them or their situation. You only need to know if they need it at this very moment.
So you would rather have someone who had no use for an item win it, instead of me winning it and giving it to the 2nd highest roller who does need it?

[pakoa]

Same point, who are you to decide they need it at this very moment. Blizzard has a system in place to determine this in a fair non biased way.

And, in your analogy, assuming those 3 people actually are homeless people, how did you decide which homeless person to give the food? It's fucked up to say one was more deserving of the other for food when all 3 of them maybe havnet eaten in 4 days. Wouldn't it have just been better to let the people that actually need the loo,er i mean food, roll on the food themselves and all you richers (South park reference ftw) stay out of the competition since you don't need it and there's homeless people competing for it?

[Bingles]

I think one thing people fail to realize is that fair and unbiased are not the same thing. Is it unbiased that someone can win a roll on a piece they already have? Yes. Is it fair? No.

[pakoa]

Touche Bingles But, only to you, me, and the people that agree with us is it unfair. To the people on the other side, it's fair and unbiased, so I feel like what you said doesn't apply to every situation. I guess that means I think Blizzards system is unbiased as well as fair whereas others believe its unbiased but not fair? Either way it's an opinion which means it's irrelevant when trying to prove eachother wrong.

So I go back to my previous posts. Blizzard doesn't want you to be able to need on items you, yourself don't personally need as an upgrade. They just don't have the code (if you want my full reasoning, I posted it a page or two ago in a few posts) except for not letting cloth wearers roll on anything but cloth, to implement this idea. Yes, you can do it, but because of a technicality. If you're arguing against me and others who agree with me, just know this. In the future, Blizzard WILL have a system to only let people need if they need the item themselves (if not all, damn sure near most). Simple as that. Enjoy it while it lasts. Btw zyx, lets continue our discussion, I liked where it was going- we weren't flaming or yelling or anything, I enjoyed it

[Srg56]

So earlier today i did my weekly LFR. I was just going through the loot drops in Atlasloot, i didnt need anything from LFR but id still like to see what drops from what. Thats when i remembered a few post here on mmo-champ about how some ppl roll on loot that they dont need and just leave and dont take it if they win or try to sell it to his fellow raiders. So for the 8 bosses of DS i rolled on everything i could equip and when i won the item i checked who rolled 2nd to me and checked his gear. If he really needed the item i traded it to him, free and without any charges. From all these people i got a smiley and a thanks and that made me feel good about myself.

But now to the question: In your eyes is this kinda of a jerk move or a work of a nice guy?

I don't see how it's a jerk move. Extract yourself from the roll list. Had you not rolled, the second guy would have won the item. Now depending on his gear and his motives, he might have really needed it, in which case he would of won it anyway, or he did not need it, and then he rolled just to be a d-bag or to sell it.

In the first case, your action has no impact on the "right" way things should have transpired while in the second you prevented a non desirable outcome. I'm guessing you are repeating the process with the 3rd guy/girl on the roll list and 4th and so on. The only people who would oppose your actions are the ones who benefit from the roll system being fucked (moonkins getting agi items, ret getting haste spelldmg trinket etc), people who need it for their guildies, or who just want to sell it. SCAMBAGZ !

The only point people could bring up is them needing for their offspec,(speaking of tier gear here) and joining the raid on their main spec so that they "contribute" more to the performance/speed of the raid. It's a fallacious point simply because LFR can be completed in 378 and lower ilvl gear.

Logic'd

[Illana]

it's not a debate vs 7 people who don't need the gear vs 3 people who do

all 10 need the gear but 3 of them are terrible players or leechers.

[Deleted]

What if someone considered it an upgrade for them but you didn't realise it was? You'd just be ninja'ing their item and giving it to a random.

[pakoa]

I don't see how it's a jerk move. Extract yourself from the roll list. Had you not rolled, the second guy would have won the item. Now depending on his gear and his motives, he might have really needed it, in which case he would of won it anyway, or he did not need it, and then he rolled just to be a d-bag or to sell it.

In the first case, your action has no impact on the "right" way things should have transpired while in the second you prevented a non desirable outcome. I'm guessing you are repeating the process with the 3rd guy/girl on the roll list and 4th and so on. The only people who would oppose your actions are the ones who benefit from the roll system being fucked (moonkins getting agi items, ret getting haste spelldmg trinket etc), people who need it for their guildies, or who just want to sell it. SCAMBAGZ !

The only point people could bring up is them needing for their offspec,(speaking of tier gear here) and joining the raid on their main spec so that they "contribute" more to the performance/speed of the raid. It's a fallacious point simply because LFR can be completed in 378 and lower ilvl gear.

Logic'd

People are just mixing up being a jerk for disagreeing with the principle of needing on an item the needer does not need as an upgrade. His intentions were good, you can't deny that-it's a fact and the OP stated his intention was good. People,including me, just believe he shouldn't do it regardless of his intentions for reasons we've expressed; that doesn't make him a jerk, it just makes him wrong (in our eyes). I think he just worded the question this way to make the thread a little more original so it wouldnt get closed seeing as this is one of the most talked about forum topics currently.

---------- Post added 2012-01-22 at 06:28 PM ----------

it's not a debate vs 7 people who don't need the gear vs 3 people who do

all 10 need the gear but 3 of them are terrible players or leechers.

So again, I ask, who are you to decide the terrible players don't get loot? Btw I don't get your argument here. If you're talking about the analogy we were discusisng, then you're wrong; 7 people are rich and dont need the food while 3 are poor/homeless/whatever. If you're talking about LFR, there's 25 people, not 10 and it is literally impossible to have one piece of loot needed by 25 people in a raid.

[evilcast]

So you rolled and gave it to the second highest roller anyway...fishing for compliments like a hot girl that says she's ugly. GTFO

^This. I lol'd alot at this

[Seegtease]

If he chooses to go against the systems intended design, fine, he's technically allowed to do that and nobody can stop him. That's not the issue though. You're not supposed to, if blizzard could they wouldn't let you, and your opinion is subjective whereas the system is objective and 100 percent fair.

You're not supposed to, but people do it. People need on stuff just so they can vendor it. It's going to happen. People like the OP are actually making sure it DOESN'T happen by effectively taking those people out of the competition.

Yes, the only way to stop people from "exploiting a flaw" is to use the flaw yourself. Yes, in a perfect world, nobody would need on anything they didn't need to. Unfortunately, the world is not like that, people need to vendor, and that's where people like the OP come in - helping make sure it goes to people who will use the item.

There is nothing wrong with denying someone the right to vendor something when another person actually needs it.

There are two kinds of people in this issue.
-If people believe a person should have a right to need to vendor, then they should also be okay with the OP needing for whatever reason he wants, thus, the OP is fine.
-If people believe a person should only need if they want to use it, then they should be okay with what the OP is doing because they are making sure it DOESN'T go to people who obviously don't need it. Thus, the OP is fine.

The only people who will be mad are people who want to vendor it and don't want people like the OP as competition.

Same point, who are you to decide they need it at this very moment. Blizzard has a system in place to determine this in a fair non biased way.

And, in your analogy, assuming those 3 people actually are homeless people, how did you decide which homeless person to give the food? It's fucked up to say one was more deserving of the other for food when all 3 of them maybe havnet eaten in 4 days. Wouldn't it have just been better to let the people that actually need the loo,er i mean food, roll on the food themselves and all you richers (South park reference ftw) stay out of the competition since you don't need it and there's homeless people competing for it?

He gives it to the highest rolling homeless person. If he did NOT enter the lottery, then a rich person would have gotten it, and NONE of the homeless people would have gotten ANYTHING.

That's like saying I'm a bad person for chasing down a purse snatcher and bringing it back because it's his purse now.

Exactly. This is exactly it - why people are calling the OP a jerk is so irrational.

It's like a criminal is stealing a purse, then a good Samaritan chasing down the criminal and taking the purse back. Then he returns the purse to the woman. Then a bunch of other people yell at the good Samaritan and call him a jerk for stealing the lady's purse, even though he prevented a thief from taking it and it is now in the hands of the person who rightfully owns it.

The ONLY person who loses out on the OP doing what he is doing is the person who needs so he can vendor it. That's the ONLY person who is hurt here. You guys realize that, right? Which means it's clear that anyone who opposes the OP is a person who needs stuff to vendor it.

There's no one else who is hurt. No one. It goes to the next person on the roll list. The person who would have won it anyway if someone didn't try to steal it to sell.

No one is hurt from this except ninjas, and yet you people still call the OP a jerk. Please, think about what you're saying.

[Srg56]

People are just mixing up being a jerk for disagreeing with the principle of needing on an item the needer does not need as an upgrade. His intentions were good, you can't deny that-it's a fact and the OP stated his intention was good. People,including me, just believe he shouldn't do it regardless of his intentions for reasons we've expressed; that doesn't make him a jerk, it just makes him wrong (in our eyes). I think he just worded the question this way to make the thread a little more original so it wouldnt get closed seeing as this is one of the most talked about forum topics currently.

Are you disagreeing with my logic? and btw i read trough the thread and i'm not the only one with this train of thought.

The "who do you think you are to decide who gets loot" doesn't work because the pros outweigh the cons:

+ slackers don't get loot
+ 397ilvl people don't get the loot
+ nepotistic d-bags don't get the loot
+ d-bags who sell the items don't get the loot
+ offspec excuse d-bags don't get the loot

- powerhungry, wants to decide the outcome be it good or bad

It's a totally human move to do. That's what we humans usually do, we look at a picture and based on our beliefs we change it to suit our needs. We don't like RNG, we like to KNOW the outcome, we want it as predictable as possible. That's why we invented allot of shit to make everything more predictable, starting with time, the calendar, etc.

If you can come up with more cons than pros, feel free to add them, but i don't believe in the "you shouldn't seek power" BS excuse. You're living in a country that maybe, probably had a revolution in it's past(i know mine has) and while "absolute power corrupts absolutely" in our case it's just a game with virtual items. I can trust another human being's intellectual hubris to not have it's "right" judgement swayed by teh phat epic purpel lewtz.

[Illana]

People are just mixing up being a jerk for disagreeing with the principle of needing on an item the needer does not need as an upgrade. His intentions were good, you can't deny that-it's a fact and the OP stated his intention was good. People,including me, just believe he shouldn't do it regardless of his intentions for reasons we've expressed; that doesn't make him a jerk, it just makes him wrong (in our eyes). I think he just worded the question this way to make the thread a little more original so it wouldnt get closed seeing as this is one of the most talked about forum topics currently.

---------- Post added 2012-01-22 at 06:28 PM ----------



So again, I ask, who are you to decide the terrible players don't get loot? Btw I don't get your argument here. If you're talking about the analogy we were discusisng, then you're wrong; 7 people are rich and dont need the food while 3 are poor/homeless/whatever. If you're talking about LFR, there's 25 people, not 10 and it is literally impossible to have one piece of loot needed by 25 people in a raid.

its quite easy to see who the terrible players are, get yourself this nice addon called recount or skada and if it's a DPS who can't pull more than 15k or a healer who can't do more than 5k hps on a heal intensive fight or a tank that fails repeatedly on mechanics or is just undergeared.

I think my criteria is pretty lenient in terms of bads actually, most people are a lot more harsh.

[scdogg44]

I just created this thread last week, it was about 40 pages long and got closed.

General thing for me is, is that it's wrong but if you win the roll, it's yours. So you can do what you like.

It's blizzards fault for trying to make this loot system work. Until then, keep on rolling... Haha

Get the joke? Yeahhh buddy!

Tl;dr: You roll, you win, you decide what to do with the item. It's yours!

[Srg56]

Again, the only people who would disagree with the OP's rationale (provided he is truthful) are:

1. nepotists who give the items to their guildies/friends
2. people who sell the items after they got them to same server players or just vendor them (as i've seen done before)
3. people who want to grief the LFR system, see "LFR for apes?" "omg, it's too easy, these inbreds shouldn't get loot" "learn to raid normals idiots" and other special creatures who share the same views.
4. slackers who watch a movie and alt tab in and out just to roll need, etc
5. people who need items for their 3rd offspec, yet do not fulfill the role they are needing it for in the current raid
6. people who exploit the current roll bonus system and can gain items that do not suit their spec (moonkins on agi gear, rets on caster gear etc)

Now i can see how the first point can be compared to what the OP is doing, however the comparison can only go so far. You only need to look at the motive behind each action. The second indirectly helps the nepotist as it directly increases the performance of a chosen guildie within their guild pve progress while in the first case the OP may never see that same player again.

[Seegtease]

its quite easy to see who the terrible players are, get yourself this nice addon called recount or skada and if it's a DPS who can't pull more than 15k or a healer who can't do more than 5k hps on a heal intensive fight or a tank that fails repeatedly on mechanics or is just undergeared.

I think my criteria is pretty lenient in terms of bads actually, most people are a lot more harsh.

It doesn't even matter.

The OP didn't say he was filtering on performance. Only if the gear is an upgrade or downgrade (which IS not subjective and very easy to tell in most cases).

Filtering by performance is quite different - that has room for opinion. Filtering by what they clearly cannot benefit from other than 20g on vendor is different (and if it's okay to vendor, it's okay to do what the OP is doing).