Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

[qwerty123456]

A single instance of Not Giving Something Up does not impart the title of 'SELFISH'. The only dense one here is you. The OP said they offered up a trinket they, also, got from the same raid. Yet because they wanted to keep that one particular item, because it would possibly benefit them over some fuckhead of a hunter with entitlement issues, you slap on the 'SELFISH' title on someone?

How the fuck do you know what all was going on? You don't. The only dense one here is you, by not taking into account a myriad of possibilities of which we were not privvy to.

That being said, if someone reacted towards me the same way that hunter did, I'd have told them to fuck right off, taken the boot and, given the ilvl of the OP and the DPS they were cranking out, immediately joined another pug that could or could not have been also filled with just enough entitled fuckwits.

You can see all the god damned morons in this thread who think the OP was 'bad', 'wrong', or otherwise by their posts without considering all the facts we have available.

And given his repeated posts in this thread, it's pretty safe to assume he's a chill dude otherwise. But hey, whatever floats your fucking boat, ye?

You clearly don't know how to read do you? look at the definition again.

[MrKnubbles]

Personally, I would've just traded the loot.

[kegudh]

You should have just let it go to your mail box if your sole intent was to scrap it and you had no intention of trading it.

I don't agree with what you did, but I also don't think you're inherently wrong for doing so.

[RobertoCarlos]

Salute o7

So to start things off im still fairly convinced that I am in fact not the bad guy, but considering 12 people just told me i am a dick and only 1 guy was on my side I feel like sharing my story, or ranting, you name it.

After missing my guilds hc raid this week and sitting at ~4600 titan residium i decided to join a hc nyalotha raid to try grab any azerite piece for its scrap value. (my char is currently sitting at ilvl 475 so i dont need anything else in there) Vexiona dropped her headpiece and immideatly afterwards i got whispered by a hunter if i was so kind to trade it to him, considering i allready have Carapace Loot and would most likely not need it.

I declined and got called out in raid chat for being a selfish dick. At that point i was like i was like "eh, is that guy serious?" but people were kinda quick to side with him. Arguments were being made for me to just wait for next reset because i was sure to receive enough residium to just be guaranteed to buy a piece of gear that only had a chance to be an upgrade while our groups hunter was guaranteed an upgrade (if i traded him).

I pretty much did not react in chat, only thing i typed was that the sole reason i joined the raid in the first place was for a few shots at 200 residium so i could try get an upgrade at the azerite vendor. (i failed at that btw, not that it would matter)

Either way, raid leader (being premade with the hunter) told me to either give the headpiece to his hunter friend or be kicked. Told him that i still dont see a reason to to do so and got shafted. After being kicked one pala heal whispered me saying he would not even have a problem if i decided to keep the item for transmog purposes.

What are your thoughts? The group i joined were mostly randoms (4 guys from one guild) and still seemed to agree that i was being selfish.

Edit: a few things that people keep asking

1st: I did not know any of these people nor did i get informed about any loot rules or special purpose of the raid (like trying to catch up people that a behind on gear)

2nd: the exact echange between the hunter and me was the following:

https://imgur.com/IAZAcqQ

3rd: I did not initially pick this one up because frankly i did not matter to me, the hunter did fine for his gear, though he was the weakest DPS, and yes, he would have profited from the upgrade. DPS numbers (there was another hunter above me at 113k dps, i am #2 the hunter this post is about is #10) were:

https://imgur.com/d0VCUU4

The raid leader and hunter were the dicks. They kicked you because you didn't hand over loot to them. They are entitled d-bags

[TheRevenantHero]

It's threads like these that show how incredibly toxic the WoW community has become. People in here are defending someone doing the equivalent of disenchanting an item someone else could use in the middle of raid. It's 200 residuum for him but an actual proper upgrade for someone else. It's selfish as hell to shrug and tell him oh well. You deserved to get the boot. I would have kicked you too.

[Dakara]

It's threads like these that show how incredibly toxic the WoW community has become. People in here are defending someone doing the equivalent of disenchanting an item someone else could use in the middle of raid. It's 200 residuum for him but an actual proper upgrade for someone else. It's selfish as hell to shrug and tell him oh well. You deserved to get the boot. I would have kicked you too.

200 Residuum is literally the only reason the OP joined the Raid. If they didn’t have that goal in mind, they wouldn’t of carried the DPS in the first place and the item in question wouldn’t have existed to be argued over (that’s how PL works).

Are we honestly going to expect PUG’s to hold a loot council on every boss to determine who’s more worthy of the loot? As has been stated already, that Helm is actually trash for Hunters. So was it *actually an upgrade* for the Hunter asking? Or was it just an ilvl upgrade with trash traits? We’ll never know... but again, loot council has no place in a pug.

[srathgar]

It's threads like these that show how incredibly toxic the WoW community has become. People in here are defending someone doing the equivalent of disenchanting an item someone else could use in the middle of raid. It's 200 residuum for him but an actual proper upgrade for someone else. It's selfish as hell to shrug and tell him oh well. You deserved to get the boot. I would have kicked you too.

And this is a prime example of someone thinking they own other peoples loot, which is even more toxic.

[arkanon]

Definition: (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

If I choose not to share for the sole reason, I paid for it ... that's selfish. Is it the worse selfish thing a person could do? No, of course not. But to pretend it isn't selfish on some level is nonsensical.

But that is NOT the case here, and even then, it absolutely 100% is a valid reason. You are completely wrong, in neither the scenario you presented, nor the one OP presented meet the definition of selfishness.

[Darththeo]

But that is NOT the case here, and even then, it absolutely 100% is a valid reason. You are completely wrong, in neither the scenario you presented, nor the one OP presented meet the definition of selfishness.

Except it does in both cases. You just don't consider it to be selfish, which is different than whether or not it is.

You consider selfishness as also "in the wrong" ... these are NOT the same thing. You can be selfish and in the right.

[Ceruion894]

Hard for me to really tell.

Most pugs I see are gear catch-up groups, trying to help others get geared and are advertised as such. You say it wasn't but honestly we have no way to know for sure. If so many other people called you out on it and only one person took your side, I'm inclined to believe it was a gearing group.

At the same time, you don't have to follow the rules even if they were there, personal loot is yours to do with what you want.

My perspective? If they said it was a gearing group and you're lying about it not being one, yeah I'd call you a jerk.

Otherwise, nah. But if I were in the same position I wouldn't think too much about it and get others opinions.

Just my 2 cents

[Sevarin]

gotta say, its rare, but id say you are in fact, not the bad guy. if you join SPECIFICALLY for a single item, and especially if you state that, they can eff right off.

back in cata, i wanted the mage lfr set for transmog. several people in lfr gave me crap for it because i was in full heroic gear and didnt need it. i was also more than carrying my own weight, and then some. so if im there for one specific thing, does that mean i cant have it because its not an upgrade? does that make me a dick? if it does, i honestly dont care, because mage tier was what i was there for.

[Spacewalrus2010]

Yes, context does matter

If context matters then why make such a simplistic scenario as if it's that easy? What would need to change for the person who bought the pizza to not share it with another, but also not be regarded as selfish by you?

but selfishness isn't wrong. We are have selfishness that we deal with. Negative doesn't mean wrong either. Sad is a negative ... is feeling sad wrong?

That is nowhere near the same thing. Also don't know why wrong is the sticking point here.

It's a negative thing to describe someone with. It's regarded as an insult, not a compliment. It's a pretty darn simple take.

[arkanon]

Except it does in both cases. You just don't consider it to be selfish, which is different than whether or not it is.

You consider selfishness as also "in the wrong" ... these are NOT the same thing. You can be selfish and in the right.

No, you are making the (wrong) assumption that other players where not taking into consideration when making their decision, dispute them outlining that it IS a factor they took into consideration, and, had previously SHOWN a willingness to not only take them into consideration, but in that situation, was willing to hand over the loot.

You have a conclusion you are desperately trying to reach, despite the definition and evidence pointing the complete opposite way.

Their is clear evidence op took others wants and needs into consideration when making decisions based on loot = the definition does not fit. It's really not complicated at all, you provided all the evidence to come the the right conclusion yourself, but because it doesn't fit your narrative, you are choosing to ignore it.

[Chumahki]

Don't loot in pugs, it saves a ton of harassment. The loot will be delivered to your mailbox, like Amazon.

[qwerty123456]

No, you are making the (wrong) assumption that other players where not taking into consideration when making their decision, dispute them outlining that it IS a factor they took into consideration, and, had previously SHOWN a willingness to not only take them into consideration, but in that situation, was willing to hand over the loot.

You have a conclusion you are desperately trying to reach, despite the definition and evidence pointing the complete opposite way.

Their is clear evidence op took others wants and needs into consideration when making decisions based on loot = the definition does not fit. It's really not complicated at all, you provided all the evidence to come the the right conclusion yourself, but because it doesn't fit your narrative, you are choosing to ignore it.

Um he took others into consideration when he didn't need anything. When he did he didn't care that it was a sizable upgrade for the hunter. That is the definition of selfishness. You are putting two separate incidents together as one thing but its not.

[arkanon]

Um he took others into consideration when he didn't need anything. When he did he didn't care that it was a sizable upgrade for the hunter. That is the definition of selfishness. You are putting two separate incidents together as one thing but its not.

Haha, no, it's not. You really need to read it again. I'm sorry but you are flat out wrong here.

[SirCowdog]

Um he took others into consideration when he didn't need anything. When he did he didn't care that it was a sizable upgrade for the hunter. That is the definition of selfishness. You are putting two separate incidents together as one thing but its not.

Why is it selfish?
Did he know the hunter?
Was there any prior association or agreement?
Did the hunter or friends even offer to compensate the player?
Didn't the OP have a legitimate use for the loot(upgrade mats)?
Was there any guarantee of later kickbacks?
Aren't the chances EXTREMELY high that any altruism would not be returned, or even recognized after the PUG disbanded?


This idea that he should have given a total stranger a legitimately obtained drop just because they asked for it makes no reasonable sense. Just because something drops that's an upgrade for your character in NO WAY entitles you to that drop. In fact, assuming that it does is more selfish than anything else, especially combined with the reactions of the other players in the raid. Especially when the propensity is VERY high for WoW players to treat PUG players like disposable trash, scamming, cheater, or stealing anything they can get away with. It's just as likely that the OP would have been called a simp or a sucker for giving up the item, then kicked from the raid anyway.

Sorry, but no. You are in the wrong here. If these had been guildies or friends, your point would stand. But random wow players in a PUG have no grounds for the altruism you seem to think should exist.

[Darththeo]

If context matters then why make such a simplistic scenario as if it's that easy? What would need to change for the person who bought the pizza to not share it with another, but also not be regarded as selfish by you?



That is nowhere near the same thing. Also don't know why wrong is the sticking point here.

It's a negative thing to describe someone with. It's regarded as an insult, not a compliment. It's a pretty darn simple take.

We are talking about an event. Not the person. You are conflating the issue.

[Shango]

Um he took others into consideration when he didn't need anything. When he did he didn't care that it was a sizable upgrade for the hunter. That is the definition of selfishness. You are putting two separate incidents together as one thing but its not.

There is not a single item within the entire raid that fits the criteria of being an obvious (as in in itemlvl) upgrade to me, i pretty much joined the raid with it being clear to me that i would just give away any loot that would drop, other than 1 piece of azerite gear.

Now what i really start to find kinda puzzling is that i am somehow expected to join a hc raid for the sole reason to help gear up people that i dont know and most likely will never play with ever again. I'm having a hard time believing that the people suggesting stuff like that would be willing to play like that themselfs.

Another thought, what would be the alternative? Not looking for a raid in the first place? However i logged in, i decided to play, and i was looking for ways to improve my charakters power, the only thing that seemed within reach was to try gamble for a piece of azerite gear which i happened to be 200 residium away from.

Now regarding that selfish discussion, by the very definition of the word selfish i do agree that it seems to apply, however no one in their right mind would walk to a guy eating pizza, ask for a slice and start calling said person selfish if the got refused.

I allready made up my mind, i understand that i could have made my intention clear from the start, stating that i only join for a shot at any azerite piece for its 200 residium scrap value. But i stated earlier and i still stand by my words, im fine with being a bit selfish here.

[Darththeo]

No, you are making the (wrong) assumption that other players where not taking into consideration when making their decision, dispute them outlining that it IS a factor they took into consideration, and, had previously SHOWN a willingness to not only take them into consideration, but in that situation, was willing to hand over the loot.

You have a conclusion you are desperately trying to reach, despite the definition and evidence pointing the complete opposite way.

Their is clear evidence op took others wants and needs into consideration when making decisions based on loot = the definition does not fit. It's really not complicated at all, you provided all the evidence to come the the right conclusion yourself, but because it doesn't fit your narrative, you are choosing to ignore it.

You are really good at projecting. It fits the definition of selfish, thus is selfish. YOU are justifying the action on why it wasn't wrong and conflating that with whether or not it was selfish. It is YOU trying to fit a narrative, not I.

You are ignoring the evidence to make your argument. The definition is on my side, not yours. The events support ... he joined to get a piece to attempt for a upgrade, no matter how hard you twist that his reason for joining and keeping that piece was selfish. Just because you can't understand how definitions work doesn't mean I am wrong.