Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

[Knaar]

this is why you don't loot gear until you get to the mailbox.

That's the one and only thing to do when you join a pug : dont loot anything! The Mailbox chest is the best

[Muk]

No-one is ever entitled to your loot.

[SirCowdog]

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.

Hold up.

Yes, he joined the raid for a specific, personal reason. He, along with everyone else, gambled on contributing damage/tanking/healing towards the successful completion of a boss, and was awarded according to his efforts by the rules of the game. There was a cost in both time and effort to the OP. Presumably there were other drops from the boss for other players as well.

That is NOT selfish. That is teamwork, coordination, time, and effort being compensated. The lack of exceptional altruism is not the same as being selfish here.

[arkanon]

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.

Another person who is confusing selfish with wrong. Ironic, considering your previous posts. I never once said it was right or wrong. But the definition clearly states 'lacking CONSIDERATION' it does NOT say "always giving everyone else what they want, because they can benefit from it more than you". This is the Crux of your argument and you have said it more than once - you believe that because the other person would benefit from a large upgrade that they are automatically more entitled to the item compared to op. This is not true, and is not a factor to consider when deciding if the action was selfish.

The evidence we have shows OP had a track record of taking others into consideration. OP made the decision that they would keep the item, rather than giving it away. This does not equate to selfishness.

Using your logic, everything anyone ever earns should be split evenly among everyone else. There is a name for that, you know?

[Darththeo]

Another person who is confusing selfish with wrong. Ironic, considering your previous posts. I never once said it was right or wrong. But the definition clearly states 'lacking CONSIDERATION' it does NOT say "always giving everyone else what they want, because they can benefit from it more than you". This is the Crux of your argument and you have said it more than once - you believe that because the other person would benefit from a large upgrade that they are automatically more entitled to the item compared to op. This is not true, and is not a factor to consider when deciding if the action was selfish.

The evidence we have shows OP had a track record of taking others into consideration. OP made the decision that they would keep the item, rather than giving it away. This does not equate to selfishness.

Using your logic, everything anyone ever earns should be split evenly among everyone else. There is a name for that, you know?

Again read the definition:

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

Do you understand what a semicolon is? The second part is a separate statement from the first. Seriously, thank you for proving my prior post correct about you. It falls under the second statement of the definition ... it is by definition selfish. You have to ignore over half the definition to make your argument.

I am not calling the OP selfish, I am calling that in that act he was selfish. Do you understand the difference?

[Shango]

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.

Im not trying to insult you but i really think you do have a way to simplistic view at things, by your definition i could argue that it is allready selfish to log into the game because you are most likely trying to improve your charakter/account by doing world quests for ap, visions for sockets or pretty much anything else because you could have used that time to help out someone else.

You could even take it further and call taking a meal selfish, because you could have just used it feed someone else instead. Definitions are fine and all but you cant just use them on any given situation without using your brain for context.

[arkanon]

Again read the definition:

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

Do you understand what a semicolon is? The second part is a separate statement from the first. Seriously, thank you for proving my prior post correct about you. It falls under the second statement of the definition ... it is by definition selfish. You have to ignore over half the definition to make your argument.

Again, you ignore the first part, because it makes your argument fall apart. And then you ignore the word "chiefly" because as has been mentioned MULTIPLE times, op had shown a willingness to hand over loot, meaning both the first AND second part of the definition had not been reached.

[Darththeo]

Im not trying to insult you but i really think you do have a way to simplistic view at things, by your definition i could argue that it is allready selfish to log into the game because you are most likely trying to improve your charakter/account by doing world quests for ap, visions for sockets or pretty much anything else because you could have used that time to help out someone else.

That wouldn't even be remotely close to a fair comparison and you know it.

You could even take it further and call taking a meal selfish, because you could have just used it feed someone else instead. Definitions are fine and all but you cant just use them on any given situation without using your brain for context.

Depending on the context, yes. Taking a meal can be selfish. I have never argued it is always selfish. You twist my words.

[Shango]

Again read the definition:
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; [B]concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

By that defintion anything like watching a movie for its entertainment purpose can be considered selfish, you are doing it for your own pleassure without thinking about other people, now the question is would you walk up to a person and call them selfish because the sit in front of the tv minding their own business? Most likely not.

So let me ask another question, if i came here and opened a post with the title "today i was sunbathing, am i selfish?" WOuld you still have opened a dictionary to tell me that by definition i am?

[Darththeo]

Again, you ignore the first part, because it makes your argument fall apart. And then you ignore the word "chiefly" because as has been mentioned MULTIPLE times, op had shown a willingness to hand over loot, meaning both the first AND second part of the definition had not been reached.

Again, I am not claiming that OP is selfish. I claiming that the act of not trading the helm was.

I can donate 10,000 dollars to charity, but refuse someone 100 for selfish reason. Just because he was not selfish somewhere else does not mean the act in question isn't selfish.

- - - Updated - - -

By that defintion anything like watching a movie for its entertainment purpose can be considered selfish, you are doing it for your own pleassure without thinking about other people, now the question is would you walk up to a person and call them selfish because the sit in front of the tv minding their own business? Most likely not.

Yes, because it is selfish. I am not calling YOU selfish on whole. I am stating in the case in question, you were being selfish. For example, staying at home taking a "me day" or a "lazy day" is selfish ... there is nothing wrong with it, but to pretend it isn't selfish just seems silly to me.

There are no selfless acts in the first place. They are all degrees of selfishness.

[Poppincaps]

Reading the whispers he sent you, he comes off as extremely entitled. You're definitely not the bad guy in this situation. You definitely weren't altruistic, but there's plenty of space between altruism and selfishness. You're pretty much in the middle.

[qwerty123456]

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.

And thats totally your choice. You could have possibly told people that you were willing to trade non azerite drops for an azerite piece at the start to even better your chances at a azerite piece had you not gotten one to drop.

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.

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

You clearly don't understand what selfish means. Here is the definition again : self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/

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

There is no requirement as to the other person in the situation being somewhat close to you. And yes the hunter was selfish too for not considering the op's needs as well as any other player would could have needed it.

[arkanon]

Again, I am not claiming that OP is selfish. I claiming that the act of not trading the helm was.

I can donate 10,000 dollars to charity, but refuse someone 100 for selfish reason. Just because he was not selfish somewhere else does not mean the act in question isn't selfish.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because it is selfish. I am not calling YOU selfish on whole. I am stating in the case in question, you were being selfish. For example, staying at home taking a "me day" or a "lazy day" is selfish ... there is nothing wrong with it, but to pretend it isn't selfish just seems silly to me.

There are no selfless acts in the first place. They are all degrees of selfishness.

Again, you are totally getting this horribly wrong. You are making the claim that ANY action that benefits a person in any way is selfish - this goes completely against the definition. I can take someones pov into account, consider it, and still decide to act in a way that benefits me - THIS IS NOT SELFISH. You are having a painfully difficult time understanding a very, VERY simple concept - to meet the definition of selfish, op would need to have NOT taken the other players into consideration when making their decision, and the evidence we have shows that is NOT the case.

Taking something into consideration does not mean that you will always lean in their favor - it means you will consider it. OP considered it, and decided to keep the item.

- - - Updated - - -

And thats totally your choice. You could have possibly told people that you were willing to trade non azerite drops for an azerite piece at the start to even better your chances at a azerite piece had you not gotten one to drop.




You clearly don't understand what selfish means. Here is the definition again : self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/

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

There is no requirement as to the other person in the situation being somewhat close to you. And yes the hunter was selfish too for not considering the op's needs as well as any other player would could have needed it.

Link it all you want, it does not mean what you think it means. They key word here is CONSIDERATION. No where in the definition does it claim that by acting in a manor that benefits you, you are selfish. It says a lack of consideration.

Some people are trying to claim that any action taken that benefits you, but could have benefited someone else, is selfish - that is NOT what the definition says.

For example: I am at the bus stop - a homeless person approaches, and asks for $5. I have $5 for the bus, and make the conscious decision to keep the $5 for the bus instead of giving it to the homeless person. Based on the information i have at the time, i am unsure how much this person will really benefit from the $5, and if i give it to them i will have a 3 hour walk home.

Some are making the argument this is selfish - that is entirely untrue.

[SirCowdog]

You clearly don't understand what selfish means. Here is the definition again : self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/

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

There is no requirement as to the other person in the situation being somewhat close to you. And yes the hunter was selfish too for not considering the op's needs as well as any other player would could have needed it.

Do you see that bolded part? The dictionary definition is more than just the second half. It's being chiefly concerned with ones own personal profit while ALSO lacking consideration for others.


The problem here is that you're arguing from the perspective than anything that isn't completely, 100%, purely selfless is selfish. Which, while technically true by the barest thread of truth, isn't practically relevant to the thread. Because if that's what you're standing on, then literally anything a human being ever does is selfish. Oh..what's that? You're breathing? Stop taking up that air that other people could be using. Do you see how ridiculous that technicality is?

Again: The lack of extreme altruism is not the same as selfishness in any practical application.

[Darththeo]

Again, you are totally getting this horribly wrong. You are making the claim that ANY action that benefits a person in any way is selfish - this goes completely against the definition. I can take someones pov into account, consider it, and still decide to act in a way that benefits me - THIS IS NOT SELFISH. You are having a painfully difficult time understanding a very, VERY simple concept - to meet the definition of selfish, op would need to have NOT taken the other players into consideration when making their decision, and the evidence we have shows that is NOT the case.

Taking something into consideration does not mean that you will always lean in their favor - it means you will consider it. OP considered it, and decided to keep the item.

No, I am claiming all choices we make have an aspect of selfishness as there is no truly selfless act. I am getting tired of your strawmans.

The reason you are having a hard time is because you lack understanding on what selfishness IS. You focus on ONE WORD in the definition and go "Well, I did consider it so it can't be selfish." You are twisting your justification of why something isn't selfish into the definition and then telling other people they don't understand it when that's YOU.

You can consider another person AND still respond selfishly. Lacking consideration does not mean no or low consideration. It means there was a measure of consideration that wasn't there. Just because you thought about it doesn't mean it stops being selfish.

[arkanon]

No, I am claiming all choices we make have an aspect of selfishness as there is no truly selfless act. I am getting tired of your strawmans.

The reason you are having a hard time is because you lack understanding on what selfishness IS. You focus on ONE WORD in the definition and go "Well, I did consider it so it can't be selfish." You are twisting your justification of why something isn't selfish into the definition and then telling other people they don't understand it when that's YOU.

You can consider another person AND still respond selfishly. Lacking consideration does not mean no or low consideration. It means there was a measure of consideration that wasn't there. Just because you thought about it doesn't mean it stops being selfish.

Well no, you cant - the definition is clear. The irony here is astounding. "the definition clearly sates "consideration", but i dont like that part so IGNORE!!!!!

Please, i beg you, outline the strawman i used. ill wait.

[Darththeo]

Well no, you cant - the definition is clear. The irony here is astounding. "the definition clearly sates "consideration", but i dont like that part so IGNORE!!!!!

Please, i beg you, outline the strawman i used. ill wait.

I literally did, in the post you just quoted. Are you even reading at this point?

I am not ignoring it, I literally explained that in that post. The definition IS clear, and you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. It states "lacking consideration" ... you acting like that means "no" or "low" consideration ... when it doesn't.

You focus on herp a derp ... it says consideration and I consider it therefor I can't be selfish DESPITE the semicolon indicating what follows is a DIFFERENT statement from the first.

[arkanon]

I literally did, in the post you just quoted. Are you even reading at this point?

I am not ignoring it, I literally explained that in that post. The definition IS clear, and you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. It states "lacking consideration" ... you acting like that means "no" or "low" consideration ... when it doesn't.

You focus on herp a derp ... it says consideration and I consider it therefor I can't be selfish DESPITE the semicolon indicating what follows is a DIFFERENT statement from the first.

A different statement that includes the word "chiefly" which again, has been shown to have NOT been met in this scenario. And you did not outline the strawman. Please, present it for all to see.

"It states "lacking consideration" ... you acting like that means "no" or "low" consideration ... when it doesn't. "

lacking
/ˈlakɪŋ/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: lacking

not available or in short supply.



...OUCH.

[TheRevenantHero]

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.

I can guarantee he didn't tell the raid leader that he was just trying to junk gear for residuum before joining the raid because he knows for a fact he wouldn't have gotten an invite. Also, I haven't seen exactly what helmet it was so I don't see how you could know it was trash. If I missed the post, then enlighten me. Otherwise, it makes me think the OP was lying to make himself look better.

You can pitch any way you want. As I said, this is why WoW has become so utterly toxic. Everyone is selfish as hell.

[arkanon]

I can guarantee he didn't tell the raid leader that he was just trying to junk gear for residuum before joining the raid because he knows for a fact he wouldn't have gotten an invite. Also, I haven't seen exactly what helmet it was so I don't see how you could know it was trash. If I missed the post, then enlighten me. Otherwise, it makes me think the OP was lying to make himself look better.

You can pitch any way you want. As I said, this is why WoW has become so utterly toxic. Everyone is selfish as hell.

Oh i know right? I miss things back in the day when loot drama was non existent, and in pugs, everyone just shared everything - no one took any loot if someone else needed it more, and in every possible scenario the loot went to the person who wanted it the most - it was a great time to be alive, and i really miss those days in wow.

Imagine if people had been like they are now back in the day. People could easily have abused ML - taken items others were entitled to simply to give it to friends - taking all the loot for themselves. DKP as a system could certainly be gamed for advantage - bidding against others just to make them use more DKP on an item simply so they cant bid against you later on, i mean thank GOD no one ever behaved in that way in the glory days of old.