Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

[ParanoiD84]

Would have loved having that hunter write like that to me what a idiot, you did the right thing if not only because of the way he responded.

[Saltysquidoon]

So in this case, OP got loot and was whispered if he wanted to trade, pretty standard stuff in raids and some dungeons. (I have traded dungeon drops to someone who needed them for enchanting materials, I was just going to vendor it.) OP in this case wanted to keep it on the chance it gets him what he needs for the chance at the chest he wants. How is that reason for not trading not selfish? Don't confuse selfish with wrong ... they aren't synonyms. Going back to the pizza, it could be something I plan on eating for more than one meal because I don't have time to cook or go out, etc ... I would still say that is selfish, but understandably so.

The idea you can't be selfish because it is yours just doesn't follow.

Control of property confers a title that is good against the whole world except the owner of the absolute title (who is also the OP). It's impossible to be selfish with something you have sole legal title to.

Even as a morality question OP wanted it for player power (which is the point of gear). If he was going to just vendor or shard it or use it for X-mog I can understand how it could be perceived as morally questionable (because he receives no power from these resources). Further, it's only selfish in the sense it benefits him, applying your logic here not giving away all his loot is selfish (besides he stated he handed off a trink that dropped before).

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Nope. A tiny bit selfish? Maybe. But that's perfectly okay. After all, you're human. Sure, they had a right to kick you, but it was a dick move on their part. As mentioned, no loot rules were mentioned at the time. So that's on them.

[ONCHEhap]

given that it was a clear upgrade for the other,yeah,you're selfish and deserved the boot

[Amarys]

This^^

But Blizzard have also made the game this way. I never understood why they would do this. They incentivize people to keep items which are upgrades for other players.

How is it selfish? Asking for other peoples stuff is selfish. You do understand that this happened in a PuG?

In case you really aren't lying by saying that, ask yourself this. Is it worse if players keep their own loot or raid leaders ninjaing it for themselves or their friends?

[qwerty123456]

Or it's possible he wouldn't have gotten anything else and he'd have wasted his time. Who are you (or anyone) to say whether or not his need was more than the other guys?

Seems extremely entitled to me.

Are you dense? self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Sure its possible that he wouldn't have gotten anything. But that's what happens with every raid does that make all raids you don't get loot a waste of time? Why is this raid suddenly a need for loot? And would he never gotten another azerite piece? He also could have mentioned that he would give it to them at the end of the raid and then left if it was the only thing he got or asked someone for a trade.

Again I'm not saying it wasn't within his right to keep it. I'm saying it was dumb as he lost out on more potential loot and selfish as he put himself first.

[Spacewalrus2010]

Selfishness doesn't rely on ownership. If I bought a large pizza and didn't share when asked, I could still be selfish despite it being my pizza. I could have valid reasons for not sharing, but at the end of the day my reasons can still be selfish.

Wait wait wait...that logic can lead down a pretty bad path. Does context matter at all or is it just literally "I have X and if I don't share X when asked, I'm at least somewhat selfish"?

Don't confuse selfish with wrong ... they aren't synonyms.

Selfishness is synonymous greed, narcissistic, self-centered etc. It's a pretty darn negative connotation to put on someone.

[xenogear3]

But Blizzard have also made the game this way. I never understood why they would do this. They incentivize people to keep items which are upgrades for other players.

These digital items don't cost Blizzard anything.
If it is truly nice, it would give everyone a full set on day one.

It cannot, because it wants the $15 monthly sub.
It wants people to progress as slow as possible, but not slow enough to rage quit.

The loot drama on a digital item is the stupidest thing a human can do, because you are a sheep to Blizzard.

[arkanon]

Selfishness doesn't rely on ownership. If I bought a large pizza and didn't share when asked, I could still be selfish despite it being my pizza.

What the hell kinda bullshit is this? Seriously, what on earth are you flapping on about? You need to get out of mother Russia as fast as possible because it is warping your mind. If I buy a pizza, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it, and refusing to share it with someone does NOT make me selfish - I consider a few factors - I paid for it, they did not, I don't know them, I don't know their intentions, and I'm not comfortable with the situation. I decide NOT to give them any of my pizza - and that does not meet the the definition of selfish.

That's some seriously warped 2020 logic man.

- - - Updated - - -

Control of property confers a title that is good against the whole world except the owner of the absolute title (who is also the OP). It's impossible to be selfish with something you have sole legal title to.

Even as a morality question OP wanted it for player power (which is the point of gear). If he was going to just vendor or shard it or use it for X-mog I can understand how it could be perceived as morally questionable (because he receives no power from these resources). Further, it's only selfish in the sense it benefits him, applying your logic here not giving away all his loot is selfish (besides he stated he handed off a trink that dropped before).

The irony here is that the only selfish person in the scenario presented is the person asking for loot. The fact these 2020twisted minds can't see that shows how far we have strayed. The begger is only considering themselves, with no thought for the rightful owner of the loot - you know, selfish. If some people put their agenda down they would be able to see more clearly.

[Darththeo]

Control of property confers a title that is good against the whole world except the owner of the absolute title (who is also the OP). It's impossible to be selfish with something you have sole legal title to.

Even as a morality question OP wanted it for player power (which is the point of gear). If he was going to just vendor or shard it or use it for X-mog I can understand how it could be perceived as morally questionable (because he receives no power from these resources). Further, it's only selfish in the sense it benefits him, applying your logic here not giving away all his loot is selfish (besides he stated he handed off a trink that dropped before).

You can't just declare it impossible because you believe it so.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait wait wait...that logic can lead down a pretty bad path. Does context matter at all or is it just literally "I have X and if I don't share X when asked, I'm at least somewhat selfish"?



Selfishness is synonymous greed, narcissistic, self-centered etc. It's a pretty darn negative connotation to put on someone.

Yes, context does matter, 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?

The problem here is that so many people are thinking that selfishness is always a bad thing ... it isn't.

[Molvonos]

Are you dense? self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Sure its possible that he wouldn't have gotten anything. But that's what happens with every raid does that make all raids you don't get loot a waste of time? Why is this raid suddenly a need for loot? And would he never gotten another azerite piece? He also could have mentioned that he would give it to them at the end of the raid and then left if it was the only thing he got or asked someone for a trade.

Again I'm not saying it wasn't within his right to keep it. I'm saying it was dumb as he lost out on more potential loot and selfish as he put himself first.

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?

[Darththeo]

What the hell kinda bullshit is this? Seriously, what on earth are you flapping on about? You need to get out of mother Russia as fast as possible because it is warping your mind. If I buy a pizza, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it, and refusing to share it with someone does NOT make me selfish - I consider a few factors - I paid for it, they did not, I don't know them, I don't know their intentions, and I'm not comfortable with the situation. I decide NOT to give them any of my pizza - and that does not meet the the definition of selfish.

That's some seriously warped 2020 logic man.

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.

[Molvonos]

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.

This indicates repeated selfish actions. He stated he was willing (and did to my understand) trade a trinket he didn't need he'd gotten from Xanesh. Just because one does something for one's self, does not intrinsically indicate SELFISH as the status quo. People don't understand that SELFISH, when slapped on someone, is incredibly negative and have likely never been accused as such.

Self-serving, sure. Selfish? No. He went into the pug to benefit himself, not a bunch of randos he'd never see again. He got the item that would do exactly what he wanted. Had he gotten other items, would he have given them if others needed? Given what we know from this thread, yes. Its incredibly likely.

[Darththeo]

This indicates repeated selfish actions. He stated he was willing (and did to my understand) trade a trinket he didn't need he'd gotten from Xanesh. Just because one does something for one's self, does not intrinsically indicate SELFISH as the status quo. People don't understand that SELFISH, when slapped on someone, is incredibly negative and have likely never been accused as such.

Self-serving, sure. Selfish? No. He went into the pug to benefit himself, not a bunch of randos he'd never see again. He got the item that would do exactly what he wanted. Had he gotten other items, would he have given them if others needed? Given what we know from this thread, yes. Its incredibly likely.

You literally just described how it was selfish.

[Saltysquidoon]

You can't just declare it impossible because you believe it so.

I was paraphrasing Lord Justice Donaldson in Parker v British Airways with respect to the rights possession (and ownership generally) confer on the possessor.

[Darththeo]

I was paraphrasing Lord Justice Donaldson in Parker v British Airways with respect to the rights possession (and ownership generally) confer on the possessor.

That true, but has nothing to do with whether or not someone is being selfish. My issue isn't the claims on ownership it was the use of ownership as an argument against being selfish. Just because you own something does not negate the ability to be selfish concerning said item.

[Arainie]

If you're in a true PUG it's always nice to give things away but ultimately it should be your decision unless any other loot rules have been agreed upon. If you're in a guild/friends run you trade that piece or you're a selfish prick.

I wouldn't say you were a bad guy. You weren't a good guy either though, and I probably would've removed you if we didn't need you had it been my run, but with no hard feelings personally.

[Dunkelzahn]

then imagine it with master loot, you roll, you win a roll on loot but you should give it to someone else bcs he needs it more? is that any different? only difference is that leader would have it easier to give it to his friend rather than to person who won the loot fair and square

I don't need to imagine it any different. Again, "Personal Loot" is a meaningless term; nothing about it is actually personal. If it were, there'd be no need for the game to tell everyone what everyone else got, because it would be none of their business. "Personal Loot" is just a term Blizzard gave to the current system to appease those who aren't particularly bright so that they'd think the problem was solved, when it was anything but.

[judgementofantonidas]

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

if it was your personal loot drop then fuck em. its yours. and crushing for dust to buy another item is just as important to you as it is to them to get the item.

[Saltysquidoon]

That true, but has nothing to do with whether or not someone is being selfish. My issue isn't the claims on ownership it was the use of ownership as an argument against being selfish. Just because you own something does not negate the ability to be selfish concerning said item.

I suppose the issue then is what the difference is between "self-interest" and "selfish" and what part of the spectrum the OP falls on. Or if you see a meaningful distinction between acting in one's self-interest and acting selfishly.

My personal take is you only move from self-interest to selfish if you act irrationally or excessively for yourself. To me the fact the OP showed a willingness to trade-off items specifically and only kept the helm because it contributed to his player power suggests the act falls into the bounds of self-interest