braveah.com Forum Index
Author Message
<  Member Suggestions  ~  need a less ambiguous policy for legendaries
Temerity
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:42 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 40

As the person who wrote the clause under discussion, I support removing it and putting a definite decision in its place.

I can guarantee everyone reading this that, sooner or later, a situation outside the scope of our written rules is going to come up. There is no way to avoid all judgement calls by the officers.

I would also like to take the opportunity to comment on this:

Quote:
That hunter would have never gotten grief if his class had been explicitly listed as an eligible class, thereby removing any and all questions of utility.


All my experience in the game tells me that this is, in fact, not so.

We have open bidding, we have always had open bidding, and we should continue to have it in the future. And people have complained about "wrong" outcomes and will continue to do so.

Finally, let me chime in agreeing with Laila:

Quote:
For people that do not agree with no class restrictions, they are in the wrong group.

[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaden
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:37 am  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

Temerity wrote:
Quote:
That hunter would have never gotten grief if his class had been explicitly listed as an eligible class, thereby removing any and all questions of utility.


All my experience in the game tells me that this is, in fact, not so.

We have open bidding, we have always had open bidding, and we should continue to have it in the future. And people have complained about "wrong" outcomes and will continue to do so.


All of my experience tells me I am right. I can cite numerous examples of grief caused by ambiguity. The most recent was in ZG with Crive completing his warblade set. Foxy tried to make a judgment call with an appeal to her authority as leader when there was no premise for the decision in my 20-man history with HGA / BAH. That is not to say that the decision was incorrect, but rather that the delivery was poor; it was an on-the-fly decision supported by an ambiguous policy.

You are correct that people will always disagree, but those same people are forced to accept an explicit policy thereby reducing open challenges to loot outcomes; you can't so easily play the victim when there is an explicit policy that says, "this specific outcome is OK." In my example, Foxy would not have gotten grief if we had an explicit policy saying that set items couple in 20-man runs. Instead we have an ambiguous policy saying it's the leader's decision which is naturally open to challenges.

If there is a challenge to be made, then legendary loot is guaranteed to bring it out. Possible disputes must be preempted by explicit policy or they will happen.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lionden
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:45 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 84

We are working on changing the language so that it does not leave any questions. Thanks.

_________________
Lionden - Holy Pally
Glo - Lock (alchemist)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laila
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:48 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 51
Location: So Cal

[quote="Jaden"]All of my experience tells me I am right. I can cite numerous examples of grief caused by ambiguity. The most recent was in ZG with Crive completing his warblade set. Foxy tried to make a judgment call with an appeal to her authority as leader when there was no premise for the decision in my 20-man history with HGA / BAH. That is not to say that the decision was incorrect, but rather that the delivery was poor; it was an on-the-fly decision supported by an ambiguous policy.[/quote]

Have you read the loot rules for 20-person raids?

Quote:
Second, and along that line, you should be aware that many of the BAH raid leaders (including some of the officers) consider 20-person raids to be “gearing up” raids. What this means is that the goal is to improve the overall “firepower” of the BAH as much as possible. The raid leader has the right to restrict distribution of items to certain classes or even certain individuals.The raid leader may also allow individuals to receive MORE than one need item, if that person will benefit greatly from the second item, while others will benefit only slightly. ... Don’t like this rule? Don’t raid with those class leaders. Believe me, when the item for your class comes up, you’ll appreciate it.


I wasn't there, so I can't judge whether the delivery was "poor" or not. However, the rule seems pretty unambiguous, and I fail to see how Fox violated it or even strayed from it.

BAH officers and Raid leaders explicitly have discretion in many situations. Where they don't have explicit discretion, they often have implicit discretion. Part of the reason that people raid with BAH is because the officers/raid leaders have a reputation for being fair and honest.

There is no way to eliminate all discretion in leading a raid - the best we can do is pick people that we think will act in a way that we agree with most of the time. Even the officers are RARELY unanimous about anything (I can't think of the last thing we were unanimous about), but we back each other up on the decisions, because we know (1) there will be 30 more decisions to make next week, (2) everyone is doing the best they can, (3) we believe in the honesty and integrity of the other people and (4) in the end, even if it wasn't the greatest decision in the world, it's still just a game.

As for this particular ZG decision, not only do I think it was within the word of the rules, I think it was within the spirit of the rules and the BAH, as well.

_________________
Harbingers of Sarcasm - The most Sardonic guild in Azeroth
Check us out at http://harbingersofsarcasm.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jaden
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:47 am  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

@Laila
I have read all of the policies. Discretionary powers allow for arbitrary decisions at loot time such that you don't know what will happen, and that is the definition of ambiguous and the root of all loot drama. You are arguing explicitness as a descriptor of ambiguity (i.e. "explicit discretion") which is not my position; an explicitly ambiguous policy is far from being explicit in application.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laila
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:49 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 51
Location: So Cal

Actually, it's not at all. Ambiguous, arbitrary and discretionary are not synonyms. As an attorney, I interpret words very precisely, and I was responding to the word you used - "ambiguous."

The policy is not ambiguous. Ambiguous means that the policy itself is unclear, and, at least with regard to the points you are arguing, it is not ambiguous. It clearly says that the officers have discretion (I am talking about 20-person raids now) - there is no ambiguity. When it comes to applying the discretion, you may think that it is arbitrary, but I would argue that it is not.

But, I am sure that you did not mean for this to be a debate over linguistics, and neither do I. What you seem to be concerned about is not being able to ALWAYS tell ahead of time how the loot will be distributed. That is, according to the policy, sometimes it will be by roll, sometimes subject to need/greed, and sometimes subject to the raid leader's discretion. I understand where this can be a problem for some people. Because I understand this, the officers discussed this policy at length before we put it into the looting rules (and, btw, just so you know, I both proposed this part of the policy and wrote the language). We decided that it was desirable to allow exceptions to the normal need/greed rules when there was a seemingly tangible benefit to the BAH as a whole or one member of the raiding group.

Again, I was not there on the raid where Crive received the second blade, so I cannot speak to how it was handled or explained to the group, but I can say that this seems to me like the PERFECT example of when the discretion SHOULD be invoked. In that instance, there was a notable benefit to one member that far outweighed the benefit to any other member of the raid. Fox obviously felt that the loot should go to that member, and, in terms of the overall benefit to the BAH, I have to say that I agree 100%. I do not agree with arbitrary use of discretion, but giving a set item to someone that already has the other set item is not arbitrary. You may not agree with the reasoning behind the decision, but you cannot argue that there was no reasoning at all.

It has been my experience (and the experience of the other officers) that people are often "greedy" in small raids, putting their own individual needs above the needs of the group. That is, where they would not benefit from an item as much as another player, they will still take it - especially when they see purple - people freak out over epic items, even if they give them very little benefit. I have a different philosophy. I like to think of the higher good and use a you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours attitude. So, I regularly pass on DPS items. As much as I might like to have them, as much as they might benefit me if I respec DPS, I am currently a prot spec warrior, and they just do not do that much good for me. We could be on the last boss of an instance, and I still will not roll need if I think someone else will benefit more than me. In return, the first time the tanking necklace dropped in ZG, all of the other warriors, paladins, and everyone else that could lay claim to it passed, so that my tanking would be stronger, thus aiding the BAH as a whole.

In an ideal world, I think this is how it should work. Unfortunately, not everyone plays that way. Let me use an example. In one AQ20 run, the Qiraji sacrificial dagger dropped. This weapon sports 48 native DPS, +15 stam and +20 AP. It is clearly a weapon intended for melee. However, the person that won the roll was a warlock. He made no bones about the fact that he considered it an "upgrade" for him, because it had 1 more stamina than his current weapon. The second place roll was Ahhzina - a long time BAH member who, at that time, was still sporting 2 blue weapons. This was a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade for him. The other rogues and dps warriors in the party had passed on the item. At the time, we did not allow raid leaders to have discretion over loot distribution, and it went to the lock. We followed the rules, but everyone in the raid (except the lock) was sick about it for weeks. This is where the rule came from in the first place, and I guarantee you that this would not happen again in a raid I am leading. The lock never should have rolled in the first place - because he did and there was no leader discretion, the item essentially went to waste.

On the other hand, I think people can learn to use their own discretion over loot. As a perfect example, we downed Hakkar tonight, and he dropped the Fang of the Faceless. Guess who won the roll? Crive. However, Crive then decided to pass on the item, realizing that the second place person would benefit from the dagger more than he, in light of his now having the Hakkari Warblades. I complimented Crive on that decision, and compliment him again here. If people use their own discretion wisely, then leader discretion will not be needed. However, had I been raid leader (and I was not) and Crive won, I would likely have required the dagger to go to someone else with higher need, but, as it turned out, I wouldn't have had to do that, because Crive understood how the dagger should be handled in order to benefit the group, instead of just benefitting himself by adding another epic to his collection.

So, we go back to the original point. There is no ambiguity in the rules, but there is a lot of discretion. Often, there is no need to exercise this discretion, but sometimes there is. Anyone who has run with me as a leader can tell you that I have given away, passed and distributed a ton of epics to people in my raids. And I will continue to do so.

You may not agree with leader discretion, in fact you have made it fairly clear that you do not. That is absolutely fine. Nobody says you have to agree. However, the BAH rules say that the leaders have discretion in loot distribution for 20-man and smaller raids. If you do not want leader discretion, you should not raid with the leaders that will exercise discretion. In fact, you should feel free to start your own raids. There are more than enough members in BAH to do several 20-man raids per week. But, if you do raid with one of the leaders who exercises discretion, then you can hardly complain that the rules are ambiguous, because they are not - they are very clear.

Now, as to the legendary drops, that rule is also not ambiguous, but there really is no need for it. The discussion among the officers regarding legendary drops is ongoing, and you may see some new guidelines in the next week or so. However, I can confirm what I have already said above - for the most part, the guidelines regarding legendary items will follow the guidelines for all BAH DKP drops. To be more specific, there will be no class restriction. Since this seems to be the specific point that you keep coming back to, I think you can relax.

_________________
Harbingers of Sarcasm - The most Sardonic guild in Azeroth
Check us out at http://harbingersofsarcasm.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jaden
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:53 am  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

Of primary concern here is the opportunity for dispute, saying nothing of right and wrong. People cannot argue with a policy that says, "all set items are paired in 20-man runs," but they can certainly argue with a decision based on a policy that says it is the leader's discretion. As you yourself just said, people are greedy; if there is an opportunity for dispute then they will take it thereby invoking drama.

As a lawyer, you are an advocate of due process, yet you support a loot system without such protection and expect everyone to accept it. Loot cannot afford appeal because the decisions are permanent, so it makes sense to preempt possible disagreement with well-defined cases covering all possible applications of the policy, leaving nothing to debate where you are certain to have dissenters.

You show a hypocrisy in your downplaying of loot challenges on the basis that it is "just a game." You yourself threatened to leave BAH should there be a decision with which you disagree; you support a system under which such a disagreeable decision can happen, but you justify it by assuming the opposite. WoW is more than "just a game," it's serious business, a fact that is evidenced by your own threats of secession. By your own display, you should take possible disputes more seriously.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laila
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:04 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 51
Location: So Cal

Oh my god - you're joking, right? You are making all kinds of assumptions on my behalf, and I would appreciate it if you would not do that. Taking them in order ...

First, you are assuming that I am "an advocate of due process." I'm not even sure what you think that means. However, based upon what "due process" means to me, the loot system already has it built in. In fact, I think I went to great lengths to explain in my last e-mail how I think the process should work.

If you want to use the U.S. legal system as an argument of what "due process: should be, the law is filled with discretion. First an officer has discretion whether or not to arrest someone and on what charges. The jail has the discretion to hold someone or let them go. Then the DA has discretion whether to charge someone and with what. Then the judge has so much discretion that it's not even funny. There are rules that govern this discretion to a certain extent, but believe me, the discretion that the raid leaders have in BAH is nowhere near the discretion that a judge has in her courtroom. And guess what, just because one judge exercises her discretion one way does not mean that the judge in the next chambers needs to do the same. Again, this is the very definition of discretion, and we have it in our loot policies for the same reason that the U.S. has it in its laws. Discretion and "due process" are far from being mutually exclusive.

Secondly, the law is very far from covering "all possible applications" of human action. If it was, there would be no need for lawyers and judges. In fact, the very purpose of lawyers and judges is to figure out how the law is supposed to apply when it is NOT CLEAR. That's what lawyers do. If there was "nothing to debate" then why would they be in court?

The BAH policies are a lot like the law. We have tried to cover most of the major things that might come up. However, there is no way to cover all of them. So, we fill in the gap by allowing the leaders to have some discretion. If you want analogies to the legal and administrative processes in this country, I could site dozens. But, again, I don't think that's the point. The point is that the leaders have discretion for a reason. You're railing against that reasoning, and that's fine, but there are already other alternatives that exist.

If you haven't figured out by now that you're not going to change my mind, you should probably consider that possibility. I have been playing this game since release, and I have always considered "best use" scenarios in distributing loot. Members of my guild can tell you stories about us running a 5-man instance with all guildies except 1, having a guildie win a roll on an epic, and then giving it to the non-guild person anyway, because his need was higher. At least 3 instances immediately come to mind. Thousands of gold worth of resources have "left" my guild, because we believe in being nice to people, instead of being selfish (and, btw, some of those people are in the BAH, so ask around). THIS IS HOW I CHOOSE TO PLAY. As it turns out, so do a lot of other people, including many of the officers, in BAH. However, I am not asking you to accept my play style. I am not trying to convince you that this is a better or worse way to play. All I am telling you is that the discretion exists in our rules for a reason, that it is not about to go away, and that you should not run with raid leaders that use discretion if you do not like it. I am sure there are plenty of people in BAH that would be happy to follow whatever rules you want to propose for your own runs.

*******

Now, there are few things that push my buttons worse than being called a "hypocrite." Especially when it is based upon your misapplied assumptions. First you say that I "threatened to leave BAH should there be a decision with which [I] disagree." I did no such thing! I said that I would leave the BAH if the officers tried to change the looting rules mid-drop, which is a totally different (and very specific) thing. The officers make decisions that I don't agree with all the time - probably 25 a week. I'm still here.

Secondly, you take your misinterpretation of what I said and incorrectly assume that it means that I somehow think this game is "serious business." You could not be farther from the truth.

The very reason I would leave the BAH if the rules were changed during a loot drop is because it's a game! WoW is not serious business, for me. It's not business at all. This is child's play. In the past year, I spent 6 months on a spiritual retreat away from my wife, watched 2 family members die within a week of each other, lived through the anniversary of the death of my 7-year-old cousin's mother, negotiated more than $40 million worth of deals, wrote a proposal for my second book, and applied to go back to school for my PhD. This game is a joke to me, and I play it to have fun.

The reason that I would leave BAH if there was a change in the looting rules during a legendary drop is because we, as officers, agreed in setting up BAH that the entire point was to have fun. One of the biggest things that destroyed HGA was an on-the-fly bickering among the officers, because every decision had to be questioned and debated. Seriously, the raid leader said go right, and three officers had to debate it for 20 minutes. When we set up BAH, the officers all agreed that one of the underlying tenets and purposes of the BAH was to have fun. Should we fail to abide by that agreement (and changing loot rules mid-drop would be one of those times), I'm out of here.

I am amazed that you think I take this game that seriously. You have raided with me, right??? With one notable exception, (which I apologized for profusely after the fact), have you ever heard me complain? Have you ever seen me chastize someone? Have you ever seen me get into a vitriolic debate with someone in the chat channels? On the other hand, have you ever heard me crack a joke? Ever seen me let a mage pull trash mobs in Ony's Lair? Have you ever seen Laila's hot pants? My reason for stating that I would leave the BAH is the polar opposite of what you have tried to attribute it to. And, by the way, that's why many people explicitly told me they were following me to BAH when we set it up. And, by the way, that is why people raid with me and trust my use of discretion when I exercise it. Not just about loot, but about 100 things that happen every raid.

Whatever I have done to give you the impression that I am a hypocrite, I greatly regret, because you clearly have the wrong impression about me. Either that, or you are resorting to hyperbole and name-calling in an attempt to convince me of something that there is no need to convince me of. In either case, I think I have been remarkably consistent in my comments, ideology and personality both during this discussion and throughout my history with the BAH/HGA, and I stand by both the policy as written and my comments regarding it.

_________________
Harbingers of Sarcasm - The most Sardonic guild in Azeroth
Check us out at http://harbingersofsarcasm.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jaden
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:07 pm  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

Quote:

Oh my god - you're joking, right?


Nope, I'm not joking.

Quote:

<stuff about due process, discretion, and covering all possible applications>


Our loot system involves due process amongst the officers, but not the members. The member has no vote on decisions at the time of loot, nor do they have an appeal mechanism. It is a decision made without their consent and without prior knowledge of what that decision might be. The members are not protected.

As for discretion... the law can afford discretion as a matter of process with a system of appeals to balance against possible mistakes. Loot decisions cannot be appealed which makes discretion dangerous and necessitates well-defined policy.

As for covering all possible applications of a policy, that is not feasible in law due to the huge number of permutations of the variables. However, with only two current legendaries to consider, the number of permutations is quite managable which eliminates the need for discretion.

Quote:

<stuff about how your guilds works, loot decisions you prefer, etc>


I share those opinions and use similar systems myself. We are both selfless guild masters with equal amounts of experience in the game. None of this is relevant.

Quote:

Now, there are few things that push my buttons worse than being called a "hypocrite." Especially when it is based upon your misapplied assumptions. First you say that I "threatened to leave BAH should there be a decision with which [I] disagree." I did no such thing! I said that I would leave the BAH if the officers tried to change the looting rules mid-drop, which is a totally different (and very specific) thing. The officers make decisions that I don't agree with all the time - probably 25 a week. I'm still here.


Discretion allows for changing the rules. You will not tolerate changing the rules. By the transitive property of equal statements, you should not tolerate discretion.

Let:
discretion = change
change = no

Therefore:
discretion = no

Quote:

Secondly, you take your misinterpretation of what I said and incorrectly assume that it means that I somehow think this game is "serious business." You could not be farther from the truth.

The very reason I would leave the BAH if the rules were changed during a loot drop is because it's a game! WoW is not serious business, for me.


That is your qualification to make. In my mind, leaving a raid group over loot disagreement implies that you take it seriously, otherwise you would roll with it.

Quote:

<stuff about you>


I have no beef with you as a person or as a player. I think you are the best raid leader here. But that is irrelevant.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Temerity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:40 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 40

Quote:
Our loot system involves due process amongst the officers, but not the members. The member has no vote on decisions at the time of loot, nor do they have an appeal mechanism.


"Due process", as in "due process of law", does not mean that everyone gets to vote on an application of the law at the time the law is applied. "Due process" means that the rules have to be followed- the "process" has to be respected.

Members always have an appeal mechanism. You are using it right now. What they don't have, and I am sorry for this, is a remedy, because the officers lack the power to unbind loot.

Now, back to our ongoing discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaden
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:47 pm  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

Temerity wrote:
"Due process", as in "due process of law", does not mean that everyone gets to vote on an application of the law at the time the law is applied. "Due process" means that the rules have to be followed- the "process" has to be respected.


Absolutely correct. The problem comes when the rules, which must be followed, have an unknown result as is the case here. The result, which cannot be known in advance, might disagree with some one who is victimized by the decision. Now you have drama.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laila
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:03 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 51
Location: So Cal

I think we're losing the thread.

What Tem said about due process is correct. Due process means that the process was followed IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES. Where the rules provide for discretion, that is due process. You're not using the term correctly (or not the way that it is used under US law, at least). You are disagreeing with the rule, but the rule is being followed. Following the rule is due process. Our rule allows discretion. Exercising discretion is, therefore, the process due under that rule.

@Jaden
"The members are not protected."

I disagree. The person who does not receive a particular item of loot may feel like they got a bad deal, but that does not mean the members are not protected. It just means some people disagree.

@Jaden
"However, with only two current legendaries to consider, the number of permutations is quite manageable..."

Here is where I think we are losing the thread. I am going to say this again (I think it's the third or fourth time in this thread), and then I hope we can drop it. The current language in the loot policy regarding epics, the language you originally seemed concerned about, is being eliminated. Have a little patience while we work out the new language, please.

As I have also said numerous times, the "new rules," once we get the language hammered out, are going to be very much in line with the current looting rules. There will be no class restrictions - a cornerstone of the BAH. Items will go up for bid (there will be no automatic assignment of legendary items). We will also be specifying the minimum dkp. So the two things that the officers currently have "discretion" over (class restriction and minimum bid) will be spelled out very clearly. Just as a forewarning, there will also likely be an eDKP minimum for bidding on legendaries - since we think this adequately reflects a certain level of commitment to the BAH in accordance with the materials that will be handed out (just as we have an eDKP minimum for crafted items). So, as far as legendary items go, just take a breath, and give us a day or two - we've been working on this, I swear.

In the meantime, I haven't been talking about legendary items, at all. I am talking about the discretion in 20-man raids, and I think these are very different things. As I have said in other places, including the loot rules themselves, there is a big difference between someone spending DKP that they earned versus someone randomly rolling on an item. A warlock will easily use up his random roll on a dagger with +1 stam on the last boss of the night, but no warlock (well, few) is going to spend 100dkp to get that same +1 stam upgrade.

I have never once in this thread disagreed with you about the legendary items. I said from the beginning (well, more or less) that that language was meant as filler, and that it needed to be corrected. We are doing that right now.

As for the 20-man raids, your so-called transitive property statement is wrong, yet again. Because we are talking about 20-man raids (well, I am at least), discretion is the rule. It says it right in the rules for 10-20-person instances. Following a rule that specifically gives discretion and changing a rule are two different things. The old language about legendaries was not meant to be a rule - it was meant to be a placeholder, while we focused on more important things like getting the DKP to work and getting the forums up.

Now that we've done that, and thanks to your reminding us, that language will be changes. But the "rule" with regard to legendaries was always supposed to be no class restriction. You may not have had any way to know that, since it wasn't written down, but the officers all knew it, because we had discussed it. That is why the officers suddenly implementing a class restriction would be a rule "change" - because we had an agreement, and I would be upset if people broke that agreement. So, while we're sorry for being unclear on that point, we are changing it. Again, patience, please.

Regarding the rest of the stuff, first off, thank you for the compliment. I try to be a good raid leader, but it can also be exhausting at times. This may let up after the expansion, but somehow I doubt it. As for not taking the game seriously, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it ... or not. The people that actually know me in real life (which includes all the members of my guild) know the truth.

So, new language about legendaries is coming to clarify what the policy actually is. The rule regarding leader discretion in 10-20-person raids will remain. Other than that, I think I am pretty much done with this topic. Thanks for a lively debate. Cool

_________________
Harbingers of Sarcasm - The most Sardonic guild in Azeroth
Check us out at http://harbingersofsarcasm.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jaden
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:17 pm  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

Quote:

I think we're losing the thread.


That happened a while ago. Unfortunately I can't help myself... I am the energizer bunny of online debates. It's a personality flaw.

Quote:

What Tem said about due process is correct. Due process means that the process was followed IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES. Where the rules provide for discretion, that is due process. You're not using the term correctly (or not the way that it is used under US law, at least). You are disagreeing with the rule, but the rule is being followed. Following the rule is due process. Our rule allows discretion. Exercising discretion is, therefore, the process due under that rule.

...

I disagree. The person who does not receive a particular item of loot may feel like they got a bad deal, but that does not mean the members are not protected. It just means some people disagree.


Due process is more than following rules. It speaks of protection against arbitrary decisions (see definition). Without representation or a system of appeals, the player who disagrees with such a decision will feel wronged (enters drama). The decision that is made in advance is no longer arbitrary because members choose to join the raid which is bound by that decision.

I would like to preempt yet another semantical debate by drawing a distinction between 'decision' and 'policy.' The current legendary policy makes the decision to delay the decision which is not a decision. For example, this is not a decision:

Leaders shall have discretion over legendary loot restrictions at the time of loot.

This is a decision:

There are no class restrictions on TF bindings other than those on the bindings themselves (only Warrior, Paladin, Hunter, Rogue can bid). A minimum bid of 100 dkp is required as well as a minimum eDKP of 500. No other restrictions apply. The player who wins one binding will be given the second one for free.

Quote:

Here is where I think we are losing the thread. I am going to say this again (I think it's the third or fourth time in this thread), and then I hope we can drop it. The current language in the loot policy regarding epics, the language you originally seemed concerned about, is being eliminated. Have a little patience while we work out the new language, please.


I know. I saw Lion's post. I have been replying to your posts after that decision was made.

Quote:

As I have also said numerous times, the "new rules," once we get the language hammered out, are going to be very much in line with the current looting rules. There will be no class restrictions - a cornerstone of the BAH. Items will go up for bid (there will be no automatic assignment of legendary items). We will also be specifying the minimum dkp. So the two things that the officers currently have "discretion" over (class restriction and minimum bid) will be spelled out very clearly. Just as a forewarning, there will also likely be an eDKP minimum for bidding on legendaries - since we think this adequately reflects a certain level of commitment to the BAH in accordance with the materials that will be handed out (just as we have an eDKP minimum for crafted items). So, as far as legendary items go, just take a breath, and give us a day or two - we've been working on this, I swear.


Sexy.

Quote:

In the meantime, I haven't been talking about legendary items, at all. I am talking about the discretion in 20-man raids, and I think these are very different things.


I haven't been talking about 20-man raids, at all. I only used a recent 20-man example to support my more general arguments which apply directly to the legendary policy. Although the same arguments can apply to any size raid, this thread is specifically about legendary loot as the ultimate drama machine.

Quote:

As for the 20-man raids, your so-called transitive property statement is wrong, yet again. Because we are talking about 20-man raids (well, I am at least), discretion is the rule.


I was right, the context was wrong (20-man vs legendary). You have just stated that you are removing discretion from the legendary policy, so we are in agreement.

Quote:

Regarding the rest of the stuff, first off, thank you for the compliment. I try to be a good raid leader, but it can also be exhausting at times.


Raid leader is a shit job (pardonner mon français), otherwise I would have been leading my own raids long ago. I am just grateful for the opportunity to raid from the backseat without having to abandon my guild.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Temerity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:06 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 40

Quote:

Due process is more than following rules. It speaks of protection against arbitrary decisions (see definition).


Sigh.

Here's one way the rest of this post can go. I can quote from the page you linked to, pointing out that I am talking about "procedural" due process and you are dragging in the legal concept of "substantive" due process. And you will then come back at me with some response that makes it sound as though we are talking past each other. I do not have that kind of time. So let's skip ahead.

Quote:
The decision that is made in advance is no longer arbitrary because members choose to join the raid which is bound by that decision.


The officers interpret and apply the BAH rules. While any member is perfectly free to question or appeal our decisions, the interpretations of the officers (acting as a body) are considered binding. In particular, on a given raid, the raid leader's interpretation is considered binding.

As far as I am aware, there is *no* right of substantive due process in the BAH loot system.

This is relevant because anyone who raids with us needs to be aware that officers will make decisions on the fly, and any attempt to "eliminate drama" by having all loot decisions made in advance will come to nothing.

Having made this point twice, I am now done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaden
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:49 pm  Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post



Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 36

@Temerity
Your post is well-taken. I do not dispute that the raid leader has the power to make decisions, but the security of that position requires good looting practice. It is for your own benefit that I am pushing for a clearer legendary policy to avoid what I see as an inevitable backlash under the current policy. Whether they are overly restrictive or not at all, legendary loot decisions are bound to be challenged without explicit policy to back them up. Refer to my previous post for an example of an explicit policy that leaves nothing to question:

Quote:

There are no class restrictions on TF bindings other than those on the bindings themselves (only Warrior, Paladin, Hunter, Rogue can bid). A minimum bid of 100 dkp is required as well as a minimum eDKP of 500. No other restrictions apply. The player who wins one binding will be given the second one for free.


Notice how it details the class and DKP restrictions, then addresses all other possible arguments for restriction by saying, "No other restrictions apply," thereby preempting other possible arguments for restrictions that some will say should have been there but that weren't specifically denied by the policy. It is airtight.

You say you want to skip the "due process" debate but then you use it in your own arguments. Call it what you will, but you are well-advised to implement such protections where legendary loot is concerned, and that is exactly what you are doing which is good.

_________________
water plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
braveah.com Forum Index  ~  Member Suggestions

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Watch this topic for replies
 
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 can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB and NoseBleed v1.09