Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

[Ragedaug]

Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

Were you the bad guy? Well, you weren't the "good guy". Were they worse bad guys for demanding your loot? I believe so. In a social cooperative game, this is the type of behavior that hurts everyone.

This is why some folks complain about personal loot. Takes longer for everyone to gear as folks horde their drops regardless of how much or how little it helps them. You were completely entitled to that drop. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been better for you to share it with a raid member for whom it's a direct upgrade.

It's been long standing policy to frown upon party members who take gear for enchanting mats or gold when it's a direct upgrade for someone else. Now we have the "personal loot system", so we have more of a "MINE!" attitude that pervades this social cooperative game...which tends to make it less social, and less cooperative. Everyone for themself.

So you have to wait a couple more days to get your upgrade. It's still there. Your 4600 dust doesn't go away. And maybe if you are nice, those you are nice to will pay it back (or forward). Maybe you tell them how much you were looking forward to using the dust, but offer an exchange like talking to the raid leader and offering to give the piece to his buddy and ask the raider leader to put you on his friends list in order to offer raid invites in the future. Maybe you'll never pug again, but maybe you will. And by helping other players you help foster a more social, cooperative, friendly atmosphere.

Or I suppose just figure everyone is going to screw you, so screw them first. Then go to the forums and ask who's the bigger jerk.

[Martymark]

OP is the worst kind of person.

I can say that with 100% certainty, based solely on the title of the thread, having read the body not at all.

[Saltysquidoon]

Nope, still arbitrary. They are putting measures that they feel is sufficient to make the distinction. They can make arguments for why they feel that is the case, it is still arbitrary. I do admit that I am being liberal in that definition here, but just because someone makes the argument that there is a divide, does not mean there is an actual divide.

There are many people that believe it is impossible for humans to not act in a manner that isn't on some level selfish that true altruism does not exist. I agree it is scalar, but where you put the line is arbitrary based on personal preferences, not any hard objective fact.

Arbitrariness is not related to subjectiveness or objectiveness. It's related to the presence or absence of an underlying system of reason or logic attached. For example if I declared an action selfish or self-interested based purely on if when I looked out my window and saw a badger that would be an arbitrary distinction If I based it on some logical system of causation or philosophical moral system it would not be arbitrary.
Which was the point of my post: 1. There is a distinction between selfishness and self-interest; and; 2. That distinction is not arbitrary.

I pointed out customer service because you literally made the argument that swearing and demanding stuff is against the law. Anyone who worked retail or other forms of customer service knows it isn't.

Whether or not something is commonly or even ever prosecuted is not the determining factor as to if something is or is not a crime.
Full context on the facts and circumstances of any specific conduct is needed to ascertain if something is or is not a crime, there may, in fact, be circumstances where an angry customer may be committing a crime by swearing and demanding goods they have no legal title to.

If you feel comfortable you could state the state you reside in and I would be able to show you the code or statute that criminalises using intimidation to gain access to goods for which you have no legal title.

[Whitepaw]

Personal Loot = People can basically fuck off. They have no business in your backpack.

[Darththeo]

Arbitrariness is not related to subjectiveness or objectiveness. It's related to the presence or absence of an underlying system of reason or logic attached. For example if I declared an action selfish or self-interested based purely on if when I looked out my window and saw a badger that would be an arbitrary distinction If I based it on some logical system of causation or philosophical moral system it would not be arbitrary.
Which was the point of my post: 1. There is a distinction between selfishness and self-interest; and; 2. That distinction is not arbitrary.

There is a distinction because people want to be a distinction, not because there is. People view selfishness as a negative make the distinction and one person you list who is an outlier isn't evidence for the distinction being a fact. Again, I admitted I am using a loose definition of arbitrary here, do not get caught up on it.

People define the difference because they wanted to defined the distinction so they made the decision. They way I view it is that it is no different than your badger example outside the laid out their reasoning for it. Just because someone lays out their reason for why they feel there is a distinction doesn't A) mean there is one or B) everyone will agree with that distinction ... to pretend otherwise is nonsense. I personally don't see a reason to define self interest as different than selfishness as we already have ways of describing whether or no someone is acting reasonably or not in terms of self-interest/selfishness.

Whether or not something is commonly or even ever prosecuted is not the determining factor as to if something is or is not a crime.
Full context on the facts and circumstances of any specific conduct is needed to ascertain if something is or is not a crime, there may, in fact, be circumstances where an angry customer may be committing a crime by swearing and demanding goods they have no legal title to.

If you feel comfortable you could state the state you reside in and I would be able to show you the code or statute that criminalises using intimidation to gain access to goods for which you have no legal title.

Correct, but you didn't say "may be a crime" ... you claimed their actions "would be a crime." When in reality, it wouldn't be. Demanding something itself isn't a crime, there has to be more than that. And nowhere, I can think of at this time, is "give us this or we don't want to play with you anymore" is a crime, unless they are asking the person to steal something. You are literally comparing playground behavior to crimes ... seriously.

Now before you get on that analogy, no, they didn't kick him from the playground, then kicked him from playing with them in the playground. WoW is the playground, the Raid is whatever people are playing with.

[Ragedaug]

There is a distinction because people want to be a distinction, not because there is. People view selfishness as a negative make the distinction and one person you list who is an outlier isn't evidence for the distinction being a fact. Again, I admitted I am using a loose definition of arbitrary here, do not get caught up on it.

You have to define something if you want to argue about what it is or means. Every word we say has a distinction based on the common definitions we agree on. If you use your own definitions for words, you won't be able to have a successful conversation with anyone because no one will know what you are talking about.

So yes, words have a distinction because people want there to be distinctions so that we may facilitate communication with one another.

Self-Interested: A high regard for your own interests
Selfishness: A lack of regard for other folks interests

Those two words do not have a direct correlation. You can have a high regard for your own interests, while still caring for the interests of others.

[Darththeo]

You have to define something if you want to argue about what it is or means. Every word we say has a distinction based on the common definitions we agree on. If you use your own definitions for words, you won't be able to have a successful conversation with anyone because no one will know what you are talking about.

So yes, words have a distinction because people want there to be distinctions so that we may facilitate communication with one another.

Self-Interested: A high regard for your own interests
Selfishness: A lack of regard for other folks interests

Those two words do not have a direct correlation. You can have a high regard for your own interests, while still caring for the interests of others.

Except they are used as synonyms in common vernacular. Also, selfishness cannot be defined as just a lack of regard for other folks ... as you can have little to no regards to your own self interests and the same in others.

And then you get into what is considered a "lack of regard" ... some people treat that only as no or low regard, when that isn't what lacking means. It means insufficient, which can be low to no, but doesn't needs to be. Either way, this whole argument started because people objected to the OP being referred to as being selfish.

[WaltherLeopold]

Because in terms of social shit it's a "dick move" but like... There are some "dick moves" you just gotta get over. The way the loot system works promotes stuff like this happening. Blizzard would rather people keep their loot and not trade it versus Master Looters giving it out to who it is a bigger upgrade for. I personally rather the old way of Master Looter giving it to people it is an upgrade for, but I also wouldn't kick somebody who has a reason for holding onto the piece of gear.

Yes, it was an actual legit upgrade for somebody else, but unless the OP was like, "Fuck you, I'm keeping it to spite you," it wouldn't warrant a kick in my eyes. He wanted it for residuum. Fair reason. Blizzard's loot system said he won the loot fair and square. There's no alternative option for group loot systems like we had in the day, so the rules of the loot system applies unless stated otherwise by the group lead in chat before the raid begins. Nobody said he had to give the items to the other person at the start of the raid or else he probably wouldn't have stayed since he was there to scrap the item anyway.

He didn't keep it to spite him though, he needed residuum, the entire premise of your anger is wrong.

[Necromantic]

As others have stated, its your loot. You are under no obligation to give it to anybody. You did nothing wrong.

However, people can kick for whatever reason they want. Blizzard has confirmed this. That does not make the kick technically "justified" or "moral" but it's their choice.

So basically, you got grouped with whiners and they decided to "stick it to the man."

[Nero Duskwind]

The loot dropped for you, therefore it's your right to decide what happens to it, regardless of how nice or mean you come off as. Even if you were behaving selfishly, they were in the wrong for feeling as if they were somehow entitled to your drops.

[Great Destiny Man]

In normal pugs...yeah.
but hc and above i see them asking/promoting it a lot. must be server/time thing.
And if you play with a group that has several guild members in it. you can pretty much be ashured that they will ask it.

Majority of the time I've pugged it's been HC/Mythic level and has at times included several from same guild, I recall very few instances where specific loot rules were announced (let alone asked for) . Could very well be something specific to your region.

[LanToaster]

Were you the bad guy? Well, you weren't the "good guy". Were they worse bad guys for demanding your loot? I believe so. In a social cooperative game, this is the type of behavior that hurts everyone.

No, the only one hurt are People who think they are entitled to more Items then others.
I´ve never seen a random player passing a Roll for someone who would get more Ilvl Upgrade.

This is why some folks complain about personal loot. Takes longer for everyone to gear as folks horde their drops regardless of how much or how little it helps them.

Only the "Mine, Mine, Mine" faction complains about personal loot.

EDIT:
Oh, and the RaidGuilds/Communities who want to decide themselves who get the loot, but they are not really a factor here.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been better for you to share it with a raid member for whom it's a direct upgrade.

Better for whom? The Random guy, who (probably) didnt even pull his own weight?

Tell me, what would the OP have gained if he would have given the Item away? What did he gain for giving away the trinket from the Eariler boss.

Another thought experiment for you: As a 475 Geared player, what would I gain if I joined a raid where I would be supposed/forced to surrender any Item that could drop? I would in 99% of the times not even get a Thanks.

Its the exact opposite, this "Mine Mine Mine", in a like you phrase it, "social cooperative game" hurts everyone else, because everyone should be able to gain something. And if its not allowed or frowned upon to go into a Raid to get your one or two Azerite Items you need for Residuum, or Enchanting Mats, you just get people to "Not go".

It's been long standing policy to frown upon party members who take gear for enchanting mats or gold when it's a direct upgrade for someone else. Now we have the "personal loot system", so we have more of a "MINE!" attitude that pervades this social cooperative game...which tends to make it less social, and less cooperative. Everyone for themself.

Do you even realise that you are saying others have a "MINE!" Attitude because you want their Stuff?
If anything Personal Loot made it possible for Enchanters, or people who need a Transmog actually get it. And thus gives everyone the ability to get something.

Another example for you, I might have a DemonHunter who is Enchanter (I dont though), as DemonHunter I can pretty much solo all Mythic0 dungeons without any Issue, and probably also +2 or even +3 (didnt try it).
Now, I *could* grab 4 People who might need some loot from that Dungeon and take them Along, while I grab some Shards. But why *should* I do that if you would expect me to give them my loot?

So you have to wait a couple more days to get your upgrade. It's still there. Your 4600 dust doesn't go away. And maybe if you are nice, those you are nice to will pay it back (or forward).

And the other will have to wait a couple more days to get his Upgrade. Why is the Upgrade for one person more Important than the other?

Maybe you tell them how much you were looking forward to using the dust, but offer an exchange like talking to the raid leader and offering to give the piece to his buddy and ask the raider leader to put you on his friends list in order to offer raid invites in the future. Maybe you'll never pug again, but maybe you will. And by helping other players you help foster a more social, cooperative, friendly atmosphere.

How about the other side?
The OP joined a Raid while Needing/Wanting only one (possible two) azerite Items. And he helps them kill at least 5 Bosses. He did plenty to help the other Raidmembers to get their Upgrades.

He (probably) didnt call out or mind the obviously undergeared Hunter.

Or I suppose just figure everyone is going to screw you, so screw them first. Then go to the forums and ask who's the bigger jerk.

He didnt "Screw" anyone.

[Hctaz]

He didn't keep it to spite him though, he needed residuum, the entire premise of your anger is wrong.

You gotta read the post better, man. I don't think you read any of it LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, so it puzzles me that you would classify it as a "dick move".

Exactly.

Which is why I maintain my view that the actual selfish party in this story is the hunter and his RL buddy. Because at no point did they ever consider the needs of OP because they were so focused on their own desire for more gear. To them, he was nothing more than an instrument to give them more loot, for absolutely nothing in return.

So.. I'm saying that it's a dick move in terms of social interaction/etiquette, but, ultimately, that it doesn't matter. I believe that OP shouldn't have been kicked.

If I had been that hunter who wanted the gear from OP I would have been excited that OP didn't need it because he had something better, disappointed when he told me he did need it to scrap for residuum, and then been on my way from there resuming raid as normal. Obviously the raid just assumed that the OP would give his gear to lesser geared people, and OP assumed that the group had no expectation of him passing his gear to other people.

It's always been a socially dickish thing to roll or keep something that you don't really "need" over somebody who it's a big upgrade for. In this case, though, there isn't an alternative loot system. It's not like OP /rolled for ML or need-rolled for Group Loot on an item just so he could scrap it, which is why I think the raid shouldn't have removed him from the group. That was a dumb decision on their part.

Gotta play by the rules of the game. This is the way Blizzard requires their loot to be handled now, so the players need to adapt to that or find a game that they think is better. Personally I play Classic because I enjoy that version of the game more, but I'm not going to get on retail and then complain that other people don't play the game like pre-BfA.

[Ragedaug]

snip

In my first line I agree with you, the RL and other player don't have a right to demand anyone else's gear and noted they were wrong for that they did, then you went on a tirade trying to explain why an MMORPG is better off with every man an island, playing for themselves.

I get it that you disagree with me. I'm fine with that. I just think we're all better off when we cooperate in this type of a game. But to each his own. I suspect you are not one to complain about the "toxic" community, because the community is behaving as you deem best.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally I play Classic because I enjoy that version of the game more, but I'm not going to get on retail and then complain that other people don't play the game like pre-BfA.

Same here. I'm not going to complain about the attitude in retail. It is what it is, and the players who play it can have it. The attitude towards gear and drops in Classic has been refreshing. Random players grouping to help you simply because you asked is also nice. In BFA a request to join group is typically met with an instant decline and no communication.

[SirCowdog]

It's always been a socially dickish thing to roll or keep something that you don't really "need" over somebody who it's a big upgrade for. .

Amd yet the item in question represented a chance at a legitimate uograde for the OP.

Both sides could have explained their positions better and come to an agreement. But the assumption that the drop was an immediate upgrade for the hunter, and therefore granted him some sort of social pressure to be given it, is nonsense.

Had the hunter and the OP known each other in advance, I could see the trade making sense. But a complete stranger in a PUG? No chance. The PUG community at large has spoiled any sense of altruism or generosity a long time ago. The reaction of the hunter and the raid leader only reinforces that. "Gimme gimme gimme or fuck you!" is exactly the wrong kind of attitude to foster the type of social niceness you think should exist.

[Ragedaug]

Except they are used as synonyms in common vernacular. Also, selfishness cannot be defined as just a lack of regard for other folks ... as you can have little to no regards to your own self interests and the same in others.

And then you get into what is considered a "lack of regard" ... some people treat that only as no or low regard, when that isn't what lacking means. It means insufficient, which can be low to no, but doesn't needs to be. Either way, this whole argument started because people objected to the OP being referred to as being selfish.

The OP could have been both selfish and self-interested. That doesn't mean those words share the same definition. You are probably both smart and good-looking. That doesn't mean those words share the same definition.

As far as the definition, lack of regard for other folks is the primary principle of the word:
adjective: selfish (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.


The OP was self-interested because he wanted the item to progress his character. I don't believe that's a debatable point. Whether or not the OP was selfish is more subjective and that's the part people will argue about.

I give to charity, but I don't give 100% of what I have. I keep most of my resources and use them for myself and my family. It's my self-interest that leads me to keeping most of my money. You can be selfless and self-interested at the same time. For example: "I can't give a whole lot of money to charity because I still need to provide for myself (self-interested), but I will still give what I can to charity instead of going on that vacation because those people need help more than I need to play (selfless).

So if you can be self-interested and selfless at the same time, self-interested cannot share a definition with selfish.

[Darththeo]

The OP could have been both selfish and self-interested. That doesn't mean those words share the same definition. You are probably both smart and good-looking. That doesn't mean those words share the same definition.

As far as the definition, lack of regard for other folks is the primary principle of the word:
adjective: selfish (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.


The OP was self-interested because he wanted the item to progress his character. I don't believe that's a debatable point. Whether or not the OP was selfish is more subjective and that's the part people will argue about.

I give to charity, but I don't give 100% of what I have. I keep most of my resources and use them for myself and my family. It's my self-interest that leads me to keeping most of my money. You can be selfless and self-interested at the same time. For example: "I can't give a whole lot of money to charity because I still need to provide for myself (self-interested), but I will still give what I can to charity instead of going on that vacation because those people need help more than I need to play (selfless).

So if you can be self-interested and selfless at the same time, self-interested cannot share a definition with selfish.

Why does everyone ignore the second half of the definition of selfish? Even that being said, he had no consideration for others anyway so that part is moot. He didn't consider at the time he said no that the item could have more value to someone else.

That assumes there is only one reason for doing something. And I can argue why do you donate to charity in the first place? Why do you feel they need it more than you do? It is entirely possible to act selflessly with selfish motivations (hence why people believe there is no truly selfless act.)

[Saltysquidoon]

Why does everyone ignore the second half of the definition of selfish? Even that being said, he had no consideration for others anyway so that part is moot. He didn't consider at the time he said no that the item could have more value to someone else.

Because the semicolon exists to contextualise the second half of the definition.
A semicolon intimates both factors have to be read together to get the resultant definition, i.e., in this case, that definition is to be read as "concerned with one's own profit or pleasure to an extent that you act without consideration for others". The section before the semicolon is essentially acting as the bounds of the degree of self interest, neither half can be read alone and people are focusing on the first half because you're totally ignoring it and everyone agrees on the second half.

Ergo in light of that reading of the definition people are saying OP's act was not selfish because:
1. He has a record of handing off gear he didn't need that would be an upgrade for others (he has a tendency to act with consideration in this context); and;
2. The gear was going to be used as fuel to get an upgrade for his character (his reason for keeping the gear wasn't capricious or avaricious) which is the point of gear.

As for the bolded section, I'm tempted to pull a you and throw a reverse hypothetical that can't possibly be answered. How do we know the item produced ultimately wasn't a bigger upgrade for the OP then the helm would be for the hunter (since multiple people have stated the helm is dispute is bad for hunters)?

[Darththeo]

Because the semicolon exists to contextualise the second half of the definition.
A semicolon intimates both factors have to be read together to get the resultant definition, i.e., in this case, that definition is to be read as "concerned with one's own profit or pleasure to an extent that you act without consideration for others". The section before the semicolon is essentially acting as the bounds of the degree of self interest, neither half can be read alone and people are focusing on the first half because you're totally ignoring it and everyone agrees on the second half.

Ergo in light of that reading of the definition people are saying OP's act was not selfish because:
1. He has a record of handing off gear he didn't need that would be an upgrade for others (he has a tendency to act with consideration in this context); and;
2. The gear was going to be used as fuel to get an upgrade for his character (his reason for keeping the gear wasn't capricious or avaricious) which is the point of gear.

As for the bolded section, I'm tempted to pull a you and throw a reverse hypothetical that can't possibly be answered. How do we know the item produced ultimately wasn't a bigger upgrade for the OP then the helm would be for the hunter (since multiple people have stated the helm is dispute is bad for hunters)?

No, lack of consideration does not mean NO consideration. My car is lacking gasoline to get me to Boston ... does that mean my car's gas tank is empty? No, it means the gas I have is not enough to get me to Boston. You can be selfish and have considered the other person to some level, it is that what consideration you gave is considered to be insufficient.

In the case of trading the helm to the hunter, the OP did not consider which meets part one. He had no consideration for the Hunter, in that moment. The fact he gave a piece of gear he didn't have any use of to a Demon Hunter in the raid does not grant him anything here. If I gave 100 dollars to a friend so they could get groceries, but later said no to another friend because I wanted to get a video game more than I care for that second friend eating, the fact I gave money to another friend does not mean my action to the other wasn't selfish. (Yes, I understand this example is more extreme; it is done so to emphasis that prior acts of altruism do not matter when talking about another.)

His reason for keeping the gear was for a chance at an upgrade for his character, he wasn't guaranteed one. If it was a guaranteed upgrade vs a guaranteed upgrade this point would have more weight. And yes, the point of gear is to empower you character ... but that doesn't mean that someone can't selfishly pursue getting gear. You can have an valid and/or understandable reason for acting selfishly. Again, this argument boils down here that it is wrong to be selfish which isn't a universal belief.

So yes, you can use those reasons as "evidence he isn't being selfish" however neither of them actually are evidence to that statement.

As for your hypothetical, it is because while it isn't the best helm for hunters it was likely still better than the helm the hunter currently had. Even if that possibility is only says 40%, it was still a higher chance that OP getting an upgrade (which I don't have time to go back for was 2/7 or was it 3/7?). The hunter could have been rocking a blue helm (meaning just the fact it has more stats and Azerite traits alone could be argued it is better), a bad helm from the prior tier, a helm from one of the first two raids, etc and where it may not be an upgrade would include things like the helm he has was BiS from the prior tier and is better than the other helm's increase stats. This would then need to be balance with the fact the Hunter felt it was an upgrade (I know feelings don't matter, but in this case they do. If I feel something is better, I am going to pursue it.)

[Saltysquidoon]

You can have an valid and/or understandable reason for acting selfishly. Again, this argument boils down here that it is wrong to be selfish which isn't a universal belief.

No. This argument boils down to you bullheadishly trying to jam any act that could conceivably enrich the self into the hole of being selfish.

Why? So you can push this needlessly edgy pseudo 'gotcha' moment on people that "Being selfish isn't bad guys... No matter what Mum says." Like some rebellious teen that just read Rand for the first time and thinks the concept of the invisible hand and the Nietzschean ubermensch is the hottest shit on the block.

We get it you played Bioshock. Guess what though, Rapture flooded...