Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

[Azerate]

Raiding is a group activity, where you work together to kill a boss. If this were a guild situation, the OP would obviously be in the wrong, because the definite benefit of the group as a whole comes before the potential benefit of one individual.

Not necessarily.

There are different guilds. Some are geared towards hardcore progress, some towards more casual play. Also, it is not necessarily so that his titan residuum is less of a benefit to the group than someone's minor item upgrade. It might be the other way around.

Also, we are in the personal loot world now. So unless specified, asked, and agreed by the raiders on another system - all loot you get is yours and no one is entitled to it.

[Darththeo]

People are judging the scenario as it's described. It's not like we've been given the ingame names of the hunter or RL so why does it matter about the authenticity of what's occurred?

Because it isn't ridiculous or unreasonable beyond personal opinion. If I was told no for something I find to be an unacceptable reason, I am going to be bothered at some level. The thing is that the RL and Hunter in question found OP to be ridiculous and unreasonable.

[Katchii]

I am going to disagree on the assertion that his decision was "selfish". Failing to be generous doesn't automatically mean that one is selfish. Selfishness is more than simply the absence of generosity, it's the opposite of generosity.

Your example is irrelevant as we're not talking about money, salary or charity we're talking about a digital video game item.

The two options in this case were to keep it for themselves when they don't actually need it and were going to destroy the item to get the dust from it, which they could have gotten from any azerite item or give it away to someone that "needs" it the way anyone really "needs" any item in a game like this. It's an upgrade.

The decision was a selfish one, but as I said before, entirely reasonable and justified.

Selfish isn't inherently a bad thing, it just means you're thinking of yourself over other people. You can't take care of or help others if you are compromised, so sometimes being selfish is exactly what's needed and is actually the basis of pretty much every safety training there is....because you can't help someone else if you're dead, injured or out of commission.

I also agree with why you say the Hunter was upset, because he was acting like a selfish and entitled jerk.

[Raelbo]

It isn't unreasonable, they didn't want to play with someone who valued a chance at an upgrade over a player getting a guaranteed upgrade.

Firstly, you can't actually say that this was even their reason. For example, do you know whether they would even have cared had the potential upgrade been for another pug who the rl didn't know? And even if this was their "reason", it's not reasonable because it doesn't benefit them in any way.

Secondly, based on the conversation that the hunter had, it just seems far more likely that they booted him out of spite.

Granted though, maybe they had a genuine reasonable reason, based on something not shared by the OP, but it just seems unlikely to me.

1) doesn't make sense. I believe you mean required, not entitled. Or that that the Hunter is entitled. The first makes sense, the other is a judgment of someone we don't fully know their side.

No, I mean exactly what I wrote: The OP is entitled to a share of the loot (as determined by the PL system) and the hunter (and rl buddy) are too selfish to recognise this.

2) Correct, but irrelevant. He asked for it, felt the response to why it was no was stupid. Then acted childish.

Dismissing the OP's reason as stupid, in favour of his own selfish desire for the item - that is selfishness.

3) so they should have continued to play with OP because ...?

For the same reason they had been playing with him up until that point, and because there was no other reason to kick him other than to punish him for not allowing them to be selfish.

[Exkrementor]

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.
]

Rule #1: Always shift-loot and let the postmaster send it to you so people are not seeing what you are looting.

You are not the dick here, Blizzard is. You went to a raid where you didnt belong to grab some stupid currency you need to buy mythic gear. Also its personal loot so nobody could tell you to trade anything. Exception to this is of course a guild raid, you would want to spread out the loot most efficiently.
You dont owe randoms anything, especially when you are a mythic raider with mythic gear in a heroic raid.

Just shift-loot next time. Saves so much trouble.

[Jonnusthegreat]

1) Yes, but go read again. That OP is entitled to share ... that is what doesn't make sense.
3) And that isn't a reason if they felt his reason for not sharing is not acceptable. I don't care how good you are, if I think you are being a jerk, I am not going to play with you. I rather wipe constantly than play with someone I don't want to.

1) No, you read it again. He is entitled to a share.
3) You asked for a reason, I gave it. If you don't like it, ask a different question next time.

[Nephys]

Its your loot, you do with it whatever the hell you want, you were being selfish for sure, but its your decision to be selfish, they have no business threatening to kick you based on that.

[guisadop]

yeah, you were in the wrong

[Darththeo]

1) No, you read it again. He is entitled to a share.
3) You asked for a reason, I gave it. If you don't like it, ask a different question next time.

I misread, but also false. OP is not entitled to a share of the loot. It is possible to get no loot, he is entitled to potentially get loot, not by default get it. So either way still wrong.

And the reason you gave didn't answer my question. "so they should have continued to play with OP because ...?"

[Saltysquidoon]

Because it isn't ridiculous or unreasonable beyond personal opinion. If I was told no for something I find to be an unacceptable reason, I am going to be bothered at some level. The thing is that the RL and Hunter in question found OP to be ridiculous and unreasonable.

Why the fuck do you need a 460 head?

Yes, this is only an unreasonable way to speak to a complete stranger in someone's personal opinion. Give me a break

Stop trying to be this ludicrous internet drone that can only see things in pure absolute technicality. If someone stranger on the street came up to you and started demanding your property while swearing at you that's not just subjectively inappropriate that's objectively a crime.

The way the hunter acted is by any metric available to humans inappropriate, it boggles my mind why you have persisted in trying to argue for multiple pages you believe this to be acceptable behaviour.

[Darththeo]

Firstly, you can't actually say that this was even their reason. For example, do you know whether they would even have cared had the potential upgrade been for another pug who the rl didn't know? And even if this was their "reason", it's not reasonable because it doesn't benefit them in any way.

Secondly, based on the conversation that the hunter had, it just seems far more likely that they booted him out of spite.

Based on the conversation as told by OP you mean. And no, it does.

No, I mean exactly what I wrote: The OP is entitled to a share of the loot (as determined by the PL system) and the hunter (and rl buddy) are too selfish to recognise this.

Except you aren't entitled to gear. PL either gives you gear or does. It is possible you could go the entire raid and not get a drop. You are only entitled to the chance, not anything else when it comes to gear.

Dismissing the OP's reason as stupid, in favour of his own selfish desire for the item - that is selfishness.

Not really, that's your opinion. I think the OP reason is stupid, I don't think it is wrong. You are asserting a reason that may have played a role.

For the same reason they had been playing with him up until that point, and because there was no other reason to kick him other than to punish him for not allowing them to be selfish.

Which is they needed a body ... which they can replace easily. It is hardly a reason to keep playing with him.

- - - Updated - - -

Why the fuck do you need a 460 head?

Yes, this is only an unreasonable way to speak to a complete stranger in someone's personal opinion. Give me a break

Stop trying to be this ludicrous internet drone that can only see things in pure absolute technicality. If someone stranger on the street came up to you and started demanding your property while swearing at you that's not just subjectively inappropriate that's objectively a crime.

The way the hunter acted is by any metric available to humans inappropriate, it boggles my mind why you have persisted in trying to argue for multiple pages you believe this to be acceptable behaviour.

I am sorry. I don't have an issue with swears. I don't see them as inappropriate when you are shocked that someone says something you find to be ridiculous. I don't have to agree with the opinion, but you are putting a lot on a word.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I misread, but also false. OP is not entitled to a share of the loot. It is possible to get no loot, he is entitled to potentially get loot, not by default get it. So either way still wrong.

And the reason you gave didn't answer my question. "so they should have continued to play with OP because ...?"

It's not false. His share of the loot is an equal chance at the loot. I did not say he is entitled to a piece of loot. He is entitled to his share of the loot. His share of the loot was a chance at loot. How dense are you? Admit you're wrong and move on.

It does answer your question. They should continue to play with him because he is hard carrying them. They chose not to because their desire to have more loot was greater than their desire to get carried. I gave a reason they should. That doesn't mean their aren't reasons they shouldn't.

Really think about these things before you go around telling people they're wrong. It doesn't look good for you.

[Great Destiny Man]

Because it isn't ridiculous or unreasonable beyond personal opinion. If I was told no for something I find to be an unacceptable reason, I am going to be bothered at some level. The thing is that the RL and Hunter in question found OP to be ridiculous and unreasonable.

I'm sure they would find OP "ridiculous and unreasonable" but that doesn't automatically justify behaviour.

I'm sure there's a stranger out there who would find me "ridiculous and unreasonable" if they demanded I give them $40 to help them out with something and I refused. That doesn't mean he's justified in asking that of me.

[Darththeo]

It's not false. His share of the loot is an equal chance at the loot. I did not say he is entitled to a piece of loot. He is entitled to his share of the loot. His share of the loot was a chance at loot. How dense are you? Admit you're wrong and move on.

It does answer your question. They should continue to play with him because he is hard carrying them. They chose not to because their desire to have more loot was greater than their desire to get carried. I gave a reason they should. That doesn't mean their aren't reasons they shouldn't.

Really think about these things before you go around telling people they're wrong. It doesn't look good for you.

Or maybe you should be more clear and not blame others and call them dense.

[Raelbo]

Your example is irrelevant as we're not talking about money, salary or charity we're talking about a digital video game item.

I was explaining the concepts of selfishness and generosity and how the absence of one doesn't necessarily imply the existence of the other.

The two options in this case were to keep it for themselves when they don't actually need it and were going to destroy the item to get the dust from it, which they could have gotten from any azerite item or give it away to someone that "needs" it the way anyone really "needs" any item in a game like this. It's an upgrade.

Yes, but just because the decision to keep the item for the residuum wasn't generous, is not sufficient to call it selfish.

The decision was a selfish one, but as I said before, entirely reasonable and justified.

By definition a selfish decision is neither reasonable nor justified.

Selfish isn't inherently a bad thing, it just means you're thinking of yourself over other people. You can't take care of or help others if you are compromised, so sometimes being selfish is exactly what's needed and is actually the basis of pretty much every safety training there is....because you can't help someone else if you're dead, injured or out of commission.

You're confusing selfishness with concern for your own wellbeing. I totally get where you're coming from, and to be fair, the term selfish is often used in the way you describe (because, as far as I know there isn't a good english word to describe what you're talking about), but that isn't technically the way it should be used. The term "selfish" carries with it significant negative connotations.

From Wikipedia: "Selfishness is being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism or selflessness"

Just do a google for the "selfish synonyms" and you'll be confronted with a long list of terms that most people would not like to be labeled.


Anyhow, the reason I feel it's pertinent to draw this distinction is that "being selfish" is often assumed to be synonymous with "being the bad guy".

[Saltysquidoon]

I am sorry. I don't have an issue with swears. I don't see them as inappropriate when you are shocked that someone says something you find to be ridiculous. I don't have to agree with the opinion, but you are putting a lot on a word.

So this is just contrarian shitposting?
My point stands, if this interaction happened irl it would be a crime. WoW is not real so it's not a crime but by extension, it is still an inappropriate way to speak to a complete stranger, that's not an opinion.

[Darththeo]

I'm sure they would find OP "ridiculous and unreasonable" but that doesn't automatically justify behaviour.

I'm sure there's a stranger out there who would find me "ridiculous and unreasonable" if they demanded I give them $40 to help them out with something and I refused. That doesn't mean he's justified in asking that of me.

No, it doesn't justify it. But just because something isn't justifiable doesn't mean a person is being unreasonable or ridiculous.

They were being childish yet, but on the same measure they are not required to continue to play a game with someone that they are feeling is being ridiculous and unreasonable.
It would be like me asking to use your bat at the softball game that I planned and you tell me no because it is your bat, then inform you that you have to let me if you wish to continue to play. I don't see Raid Leader as being unreasonable ... childish? Sure, but I understand where they are coming from.

I am of the stance everyone is wrong or no one is.

- - - Updated - - -

So this is just contrarian shitposting?
My point stands, if this interaction happened irl it would be a crime. WoW is not real so it's not a crime but by extension, it is still an inappropriate way to speak to a complete stranger, that's not an opinion.

Calls my post shit posting. States if it happen in real life would be a crime.
What? Swearing at someone because you didn't like their reason for saying no isn't a crime (at least in the US).

[Raelbo]

Except you aren't entitled to gear. PL either gives you gear or does. It is possible you could go the entire raid and not get a drop. You are only entitled to the chance, not anything else when it comes to gear.

Good. I am glad you get what I was trying to say

I don't have an issue with swears. I don't see them as inappropriate when you are shocked that someone says something you find to be ridiculous. I don't have to agree with the opinion, but you are putting a lot on a word.

It's pretty clear that the hunter is trying to convey his contempt for the OP. And the way the story ends confirms it. Also, viewing the OP's reason as "ridiculous" is a strong hint that they are not trying to be reasonable.

[Zuido]

Dude. This is literally the reason why i disable auto-loot(or pick up any gear) when im running any type of content that awards tradeble loot with random people.

[ZazuuPriest]

if it were a guildie I would have given them the gear, this was a pug. Fuck them.