The Protean Knights Forum Index The Protean Knights Forum Index The Protean Knights
User forum for the online gaming guild "The Protean Knights"
 
 CalendarCalendar   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   You have no new messagesYou have no new messages   Log out [ sarf ]Log out [ sarf ] 
The Protean Knights Forum Index The Protean Knights Forum Index
Calendar 
Calendar eventCalendar
Wed 29 Mar 2006
Thu 30 Mar 2006
Scholomance - cancelled
Fri 31 Mar 2006
MC - Day 1
Sat 01 Apr 2006
MC - Day 2
Sun 02 Apr 2006
Onyxia
Mon 03 Apr 2006
Zul'gurub run
Tue 04 Apr 2006
BRD 5 man run
What class gets to bid
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Protean Knights Forum Index -> Alliance General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Linkblack
Uber spammer
Uber spammer


Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Wakefield Yorkshire England

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 22:10    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aye salks right my bad Smile
_________________
We can say that to defend these alliance people we are upholding the values of our Guild. That our defence will fail is no reason to avoid the battle. For it is the motive that is pure and not the outcome.

The 30.

You dont judge a man by the way he gets knocked down but by the way he gets back up.
DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Norian
Pretty chatty
Pretty chatty


Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 22:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Embarassed Sorry.. but still.. you must admit Ive always said E.A.E - Epics Are Evil..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malasorte
Too chatty by half
Too chatty by half


Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 22:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

guess nothing evils about epics just the rulez have to been settled good for what it will be and it will be all fine Smile
_________________


warrior dps
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sarf
Wouldn't say boo to a goose
Wouldn't say boo to a goose


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 00:17    Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post

Most of the evil comes from misunderstandings.

If we want to use rules, I'm all for that.
Bidding, point 4:
Quote:
Raid leader states what people are eligible for bidding.

That is the current rule. It is not the current practise.

I'm okay with a) going back to the rules and/or b) changing the rules to fit the practise. What I am not okay with is letting anyone use their DKP on anything. I don't want to see Arcanist going to Druids, I don't want to see 2H weapons ending up with Rogues and I certainly don't want to see shields ending up with Warlocks.

The rules of the current system was meant to allow the maximum amount of leniency to the raid leader, which was supposed to use his/her common sense to determine whom should get what.
People started to argue that class X / subset Y should be eligible for bidding on item Z, and our current practise is that the raid members discuss whom should be eligible for bididng on what items.

Fortunately, no one seem to be of the opinion that items which are usable only by a certain class should be open for bidding from other classes. There are, actually, situations in which this would be be good for one individual (for instance, I'd love to get nexus shard(s) for a handful of DKP, personally, since there are some quite neat enchants floating around). This is balanced by it being - in general - a Bad Idea for "opening up" the bidding on the class/skill (leather people bidding on mail etc ^^ ) limited items.

Mainly, the reason why it is a Bad Idea is because it decreases the "value" of an item - for the raid / alliance - when an item does not end up with the "best" class/subset of a class. In essence, it will mean that it will take a very much longer time before the alliance can do harder stuff - BWL, AQ40, what have you. Smile

The problem - and the basis of misunderstandings - occurs when items drop where people disagree what the supposed class(es) are.

I have certain opinions of where a particular weapon should go first (even though this is - from an "acquiring DKP" perspective - a bad thing since it limits the market for the item at every step). Others have differing opinions - which is a natural and healthy thing (believe me, I've got opinions that I personally don't like very much ^^ ).

The disagreement is also about what we are allowed to do during raids.

Personally I feel that expressing my opinions on where an item should end up is my prerogative (as long as I don't prevent anyone else from expressing their opinion). I do admit that the way in which I express my opinions should be limited - but I do not think that telling people what I think is wrong, as long as I do not threaten or use inappropriate language.

If you allow me to digress, I'll explain where I am coming from with my regards for rules, despotism, trust and common sense.

Rules

Rules, once written down and agreed upon, must be followed to the letter of the rule in question.
Rules should contain all possible exceptions as well as ways to change the rules, should it be necessary.
Changing rules - or interpreting them - on the fly is not allowed.

There is no such thing as "spirit of the rules". There are situations in which rules do not apply where unanticipated exceptions occur. In those situations I prefer common sense and consensus among the people affected by the decision to determine what to do.

Despotism and trust

The form of organisation with the least overhead is one which trusts all members of the organisation to do what is good for the good of the organisation.

Lacking such an organisation, enlightened despotism, supported by trust for one person (the despot) as well as the common sense and wisdom of that one person (the despot, again) is somewhat efficient.

The least efficient organisation is a consensus based organisation whose members does not trust one another.

Therefore, unless we have an organisation wherein all members trusts all other members, we have to choose one person to trust and let that person make decisions. If that person fails us, we must choose a new person to trust (and for social feedback reasons punish that person that fails us).

Common sense

Common sense isn't.

What is sensible to me is not sensible to you.

Common sense is the ability to observe what people say that they want, understand what they really want to say, and finally to gauge what people actually want.

Applied common sense is to do what people want, in such a way as to avoid conflicts. This is an ideal and can probably never be achieved.

In conclusion

This was somewhat more lengthy than what I intended at the beginning, but I will try to summarize:

I prefer broad-sweeping rules because the more specific a rule is, the more it is probable that the rules as a whole does not cover every situation.

I prefer trust in people above written rules. When written rules is required, I tend to try and get the rules written so that they support trust in people rather than "lawyering" the rules.

When the trust in people is lacking, and written rules is required, I will comply. I will also enforce the rules, once written, beyond what may have been the intent of the rules. When necessary, I will try to act to change the rules.

Sarf
---
The Rule of Fives states that all things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly related to five. The Rule of Fives is never wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wardaza
Do they ever shut up?
Do they ever shut up?


Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Location: Sweden, Stockholm

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 09:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that itīs sad that 2 raids ended in a bad mood. My opinion is that we arer in it to have fun. If we say 2 classes can bid on an item then let them bid. If anyone dissagree with who should get to bid then we can have a discusion about it here and not in the raid.
Hopefully next raids will be as good as they ever can be. Very Happy
_________________
/Wardaza human warlock Tailor Enchanter
Warblades Gnome warrior Mining Blacksmith

Zintiz Dwarf priest Tailoring Skinning (second account)

Protean legion:
Zlicer Undead rouge Skinner leatherworker

Venture:
Axoth troll Warrior BS miner
Axanta troll mage Alchemist Herbalist
Axharar Taur Druid Skinner Leatherworker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Salk
Do they ever shut up?
Do they ever shut up?


Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 322
Location: Nottingham

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 16:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

hmm I have read your post a few times Sarf, and its very much in a style of what I do. It offers for discussion your angle on a multi-faceted situation, but like me, it is hard to draw a conclusion from your writings. I don't actually understand where you stand, or what or if you are offering a proposal?

Quote:
Raid leader states what people are eligible for bidding.

(the term raid leader is slightly askew as it actually referes to 2 people, 1 TS and 1 PK member. (it might be easier if each Guild had made it clear who would represent them on each raid, so that we don't have several people all trying to toss in their personal opinion).

The current memorandum between the Guild Councils is that this is to be based on a fuzzy concept of common sence, thats prerequisit it that the bidding classes should be able to utilise the item and its stats adequately. This of course removes the option of bidding on an item that is clealy intended to be bidded on by certain classes (most probably 2+ classes) ie, cloth is avilable to cloth first. It is to be biddable for use, not for resale.

I would recommend each guild takes a look at the drop table, and their officers ensure they are aware of what their own Guild council agree on bid rights so their representative can state who can bid. The two should where they have different answers, opt for the compromise, which fir inclusiveness should error on the side of the more generous. eg
Guild 1 Rep - Priests 1st, Guild 2 Rep - Priests and Druids 1st. The result offered would be "Priests and Druids can bid".
This method would 1. stay within the existing rules. 2. ensure each guild is already sure of it's Preference and has ONE person who will be saying it. 3. Would not give scope for players to belittle, intimidate, bribe or otherwise undermine to DKP system. If an individual is unhappy with a listed bid option, they should take it to their guild officers in /guildchat

Quote:
Personally I feel that expressing my opinions on where an item should end up is my prerogative

Indeed it is, however this should generally not be done on teamspeak. The two guild councils discussed the use of Teamspeak in January 06, and agreed that as a raid tool is would be mandaotory, and that strict control of teamspeak (including withdrawing speach rights) would be required in the event of people becoming disruptive (and abusive). It is clear from the two previous raid nights that the discussion on Teamspeak quickly became obtrusive, upsetting and probably should have been silenced before it got to the stage it got to.

Quote:
Rules, once written down and agreed upon, must be followed to the letter of the rule in question.

I agree, and I for one failed to remember this on Sunday Night. I should not have allowed myself to be sufficiently upset (by an event at the beggining of the raid, and the Teamspeak fiasco). I should as a PK Council Member and former PK CO-GM Razz (in the deep and dark annals of PK History that mind you) have Tried and inserted some control over the Teamspeak Chat, and listed the agreed ruling on items. The current Rules are clear, and are down to the two Raid leaders (following the agreed wills of their Guilds). We sadly allowed the rules to be interpreted on the night, which will not be acceptable from both Guild councils. We are the people responsible for ensuring events run smoothly, it is up to all of us to ensure the rules are adhered to.

Quote:
Despotism and trust

At the moment we have a Despot (well x2) who has allowed their control on power to slip. However we are a beneficial despot, which is the best option for casual gaming guilds (with 92 accounts in our DKP system we have to be) There is no other option within our current rules, and that part of the rules "Leader deciding" has existed since TS first offered up a fine, fair, open and [cannot think of the word but it's like accountability/openness] DKP system, which I am proud of. (rather than gaining points from ceratin kills/drops)

I doubt many Guilds/Alliances can say that they can cater for 92 accounts, and get past Lucifron every time. There are many guilds out there would do not have even a fraction of the success and the almost 200 (or more) epics we have achieved in less than 3 months.

Sorry for all the spelling errors, I am dyslexic and sometimes it gets the better of me.
_________________
Salk (Warlock[60] Pally[60] Hunter[60] Druid[60] Mage[44] Rogue[20s]+Alts)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malasorte
Too chatty by half
Too chatty by half


Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 19:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheers Smile
_________________


warrior dps
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Linkblack
Uber spammer
Uber spammer


Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Wakefield Yorkshire England

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 08:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salk wrote:

Quote:
Despotism and trust

At the moment we have a Despot (well x2) who has allowed their control on power to slip. However we are a beneficial despot, which is the best option for casual gaming guilds (with 92 accounts in our DKP system we have to be) There is no other option within our current rules, and that part of the rules "Leader deciding" has existed since TS first offered up a fine, fair, open and [cannot think of the word but it's like accountability/openness] DKP system, which I am proud of. (rather than gaining points from ceratin kills/drops)

.


Great post Salk but not sure who or what your refering to with this bit. Is it the Gms of guilds or just raid leaders?
_________________
We can say that to defend these alliance people we are upholding the values of our Guild. That our defence will fail is no reason to avoid the battle. For it is the motive that is pure and not the outcome.

The 30.

You dont judge a man by the way he gets knocked down but by the way he gets back up.
DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Whizzle
Quiet as a mouse
Quiet as a mouse


Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 13:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok I have a couple of things to add here, firstly I know that issue of loot distribution is a difficult one and that it needs to be done fairly. However it also needs to be done in a manner which befits the progression of our guilds further into endgame content. Whilst going to MC every week is an enjoyable experience for the most part, I have no wish to do so for the next 6 months because we are failing to outfit ourselves with the best gear for our classes when we could get the right gear for the right classes in the next 3.

This does mean as the more astute of you are aware that it will make getting loot for some builds of classes difficult. In this case the fury warrior suffers at the hands of the prot warrior and the rogue, this however makes sense I would rather have a prot warrior in full might saving my hide than a fury warrior in might trying to do the same, its just not going to work.

We all have to make choices and sacrifices when it comes to raiding, its an environment that demands specific things for specific classes and those hardest hit are the warriors and the healers. In choosing to raid they are sacrificing their ability to solo, after all how many prot warriors holy priest and resto druids do you see farming, not many.

This is a sacrifice they have made for the good of the raid and the good of the guild, it is right that they are rewarded for this with faster access to the equipment that improves their usefulness even more.

Other classes suffer not as much and some not at all but the point still remains, if our warriors were protection specced they would not be wanting the same weapons that a rogue would want, and that frankly a rogue would put to better use. If the classes present took the roles that best befit them in a raiding environment we wouldn't have this problem at all because the *only* arguments we have had on which classes can bid is on items where a class is not playing its usual raid role.

Onto the second point of discussion of ones views and opinions, I have to say that if one is not to discuss ones views and opinions on Teamspeak then where is one to discuss them? Raid chat often goes ignored in the larger raids being used more for unrelated discussions than anything else and if there are opinions that need to be voiced (and who has more right than a guild leader?) then they should be voiced. I do however agree that using insulting language or personal attacks should not be allowed, but that has not yet happened on teamspeak. However as to the removal of voice rights, if someone is insulting or making personal attacks then fair enough but warn them first, however if an officer wishes to amke their opinion known then they have every right after all it is through them that the other members of the guild are represented.

On the subject of rules, yes they should be followed and they were, the raid leaders made the decision made it known and it was followed. At the end of the day whilst there would have been some animosity Malasorte *could* have chosen to take the weapon he did have the right, but as he said (in raid chat and apparently unnoticed by many) as soon as the issue was raised, he didn't want there to be an argument and a rogue could take it.

At the end of the day I want progression and I want it with the least animosity possible. I am well aware that this is an ideal but it is one that can be at least strived towards.

Whizzle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malasorte
Too chatty by half
Too chatty by half


Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 15:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very Happy
_________________


warrior dps


Last edited by Malasorte on Wed Mar 29, 2006 15:45; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Salk
Do they ever shut up?
Do they ever shut up?


Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 322
Location: Nottingham

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 15:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
loot for some builds of classes difficult. In this case the fury warrior suffers at the hands of the prot warrior

The "Pimp the Tank" rule was discussed between the two guilds during the last Officers meeting. (PK members had already discussed this rule and voted on it). The point PK officers raised at the time was, should this rule be amended to the DKP Ruleset. The two Guilds Officers discussed this issue, and the agreement (though I am sure not all officers agreed) was that the Raid rules would NOT include "Pimp the Tank", and the rules would remain as they were. Classes would be named by the Raid leader (that term btw means 1xTS officer and 1xPK Officer, not just whoever is masterlooter or has L next to their name, as this in an alliance of two guilds, not one raiding guild). Thus at this time there is no Pimp the Tank rule.

Quote:
In choosing to raid they are sacrificing their ability to solo, after all how many prot warriors holy priest

I was not aware that TS required their key Raid players to spec a specific way, but I am afraid that this is not a PK guild rule. Though we do have 5 Healer spec'd priests and 4 Prot Spec''d warriors, our guild is a casual fun guild, and as such allow players to play their characters in a way that keeps them playing. (we do reserve slots in raids for most wanted classes/specs, but we do not order players to respec).
Quote:

if one is not to discuss ones views and opinions on Teamspeak

Since the first and second and Third Alliance raids, even in the first signup in January, it stated that discussion on Tealspeak should be kept to a minimum, so to allow the Raid leaders and strategy tellers uninterupted talk space. Also on loot, the Raid leaders would would make a decision on loot, and that
Quote:
THE LEAD IS NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSION UNTILL I ASK FOR ADVICE.


The rules are there to be read by all, and all should make sure they are aware of them. If you disagree with the rules, then these issues should be raised within your own /guildchat, and then if a guild comes to a decision, then and only then should the two guild talk to dicuss any rule additionas or ammendments. Until then the rules are the rules.
_________________
Salk (Warlock[60] Pally[60] Hunter[60] Druid[60] Mage[44] Rogue[20s]+Alts)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whizzle
Quiet as a mouse
Quiet as a mouse


Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 17:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a note, the views in my post are mine and held by me, they may or may not reflect the views of the other members of the scorned, I was merely putting my own opinion for all to see. As such I wish no-one to take offense at this ^_^

And to clear a few things up, TS don't require people to spec a specific way, most choose to to help the guild but they are not made to, I wasn't suggesting "pimping the tank" merely that gear which helps a prot war live longer and hold aggro better should go to the ones holding aggro away from my easily destroyed hide. Again thats my opinion. If you want the opinions of others, the officers for instance you can talk to them, but I'm sure you've done that Wink

I have no problems with the way things are set up, as no-one else wants things that work best in my hands *shrug* if that was different well then I might have a problem Razz

All I want is no more arguing Wink

Whizzle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rimma
Quiet as a mouse
Quiet as a mouse


Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 08:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
holding aggro away from my easily destroyed hide


Amen Razz

Rim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naewae
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 708
Location: Sheffield/Rotherham. UK.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whizzle wrote:
All I want is no more arguing Wink

And I say Amen to that part Smile
_________________
Naewae.
Forum officer of The Protean Knights & Protean Legion.
GM Protean Legion on The Venture Co: 60 Orc Hunter (attuned to Guinness), 17 Orc Warrior, 18 Orc Rogue, 17 Tauren Druid.
GM The Exterminators on Kul Tiras: 60 Priest, 54 Warlock, 35 Hunter, 29 Mage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Protean Knights Forum Index -> Alliance General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Stop watching this topic
 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group