This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Did i really deserve to get guild kick?
Return to board index
Post by
barthem
Lol, so if you woulda pugged 25 man OS they wouldnt have had a problem?
its only 10 mans, wanst agains the rules to pug 25mans
Post by
Davidson
Gkick was 100% right. We have a rule that you
must
donate 100g to the guild bank every week. This is easy right? I mean, in 7 days you can make 10,000 gold if you wanted to. 100g is NOT a hard thing to ask.
So, I noticed one week that a guild member missed a donation. I waited till he signed on (he hasn't been on all week). Once he signed on, I confronted him, this is how the conversation went:
Me: Why didn't you donate your weekly 100g last week?
Him: I wasn't on last week.
Me: Havent you seen the guildrules? Must donate every week
I then guild kicked him.
Him: I'm at the bank now, about to donate 2 weeks worth of gold...wth?
Seriously, how hard is it to follow the rules? Rules are rules. Sign on for 1 second and donate. There are no excuses. If simple rules can't be followed, then the whole guild will implode.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Davidson is a troll, trying to make discussions explode so he can watch them and giggle to himself.
Post by
547709
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Davidson
You shouldn't call people names. That's quite rude.
It's a discussion forum. Is it against forum rules to argue both sides?
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I thought this would happen. Vague was the wrong word, I realize - it's technically extremely explicit. No 10 mans, right down to Karazhan. We catch you in Kara - instant kick. My point was that the technical explicit meaning of those four words is extremely far from what they imply, and what they imply makes a lot more sense as a rule for a guild. Because really, why is a guild going to kick you for pugging Kara, especially if it's not on the calendar? It's technically a ten man, after all, so technically against the rules, but that's a pretty dumb rule. Now, I realize we're talking about OS, not Kara, but Kara's included in there, too. It says 'no 10 mans' and I'm talking about a ten man.
Whether you think it should or not doesn't have any bearing. It
does
, so you ask.
The implication I'm trying to direct attention to is that 'no pugging 10 mans' implies 'no pugging relevant ten mans' if left at those four words.
No. It means no 10-mans...period. Until you ask.
...it's not like typing is hard in this day and age, surely.
Then what's so hard about
asking
?
Post by
Braevia
I thought this would happen. Vague was the wrong word, I realize - it's technically extremely explicit. No 10 mans, right down to Karazhan. We catch you in Kara - instant kick. My point was that the technical explicit meaning of those four words is extremely far from what they imply, and what they imply makes a lot more sense as a rule for a guild. Because really, why is a guild going to kick you for pugging Kara, especially if it's not on the calendar? It's technically a ten man, after all, so technically against the rules, but that's a pretty dumb rule. Now, I realize we're talking about OS, not Kara, but Kara's included in there, too. It says 'no 10 mans' and I'm talking about a ten man.
Whether you think it should or not doesn't have any bearing. It
does
, so you ask.
The implication I'm trying to direct attention to is that 'no pugging 10 mans' implies 'no pugging relevant ten mans' if left at those four words.
No. It means no 10-mans...period. Until you ask.
...it's not like typing is hard in this day and age, surely.
Then what's so hard about
asking
?
He's not a child, and they have no right to forbid him. It's not on the guild schedule. A law without valid justification has no moral basis. Obeying or enforcing an immoral law is an immoral act.
Post by
pezz
I think the kick was a little harsh for what really was a fairly petty infraction,
but not even asking beforehand says 'my judgement as a random member of this guild is sufficient to fully understand the intent of even vaguely written rules, to the point that I don't even need to ask a readily available officer' is pretty much not okay. I would've been upset as an officer, although I wouldn't have kicked you.
Nothing is hard about asking, HSR, which is why I believe the OP was wrong not to, and stated as such where I've bolded here.
My only point is that we have this problem because common sense wants to apply sub-clauses to this rule. Whether that's a fault or not, it's the work of about six seconds to get rid of any possible ambiguity, so why not do so?
If I make the rules, I don't want any chance for any confusion about what they mean to exist.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Nothing is hard about asking, HSR, which is why I believe the OP was wrong not to, and stated as such where I've bolded here.
My only point is that we have this problem because common sense wants to apply sub-clauses to this rule. Whether that's a fault or not, it's the work of about six seconds to get rid of any possible ambiguity, so why not do so?
If I make the rules, I don't want any chance for any confusion about what they mean to exist.
I see absolutely no ambiguity. As I said, 3 simple words. Yes, of course everything can be interpreted wrongly...but it's just that,
wrong
.
He's not a child, and they have no right to forbid him.
Yes, they do have a right. It's a raiding guild. He can leave at any time, but until he has done so, he has given up certain things in exchange for a stable raiding environment.
It's not on the guild schedule.
The rule said nothing about guild schedules.
I know very few guilds that schedule raids immediately on Tuesday morning.
A law without valid justification has no moral basis.
Morality has no bearing on anything we've been talking about.
And it does have justification. Read, ffs.
Obeying or enforcing an immoral law is an immoral act.
I'm going to warn you right now. You're trying to argue morality with a guy with a degree in philosophy. Don't try. You obviously don't understand the terms.
Not moral =/= immoral. There are 3 possibilities. Moral, immoral, and
amoral
. This issue falls under the latter.
Post by
146856
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Davidson
yes, it's called trolling
Well ain't that a bummer
Post by
pezz
Nothing is hard about asking, HSR, which is why I believe the OP was wrong not to, and stated as such where I've bolded here.
My only point is that we have this problem because common sense wants to apply sub-clauses to this rule. Whether that's a fault or not, it's the work of about six seconds to get rid of any possible ambiguity, so why not do so?
If I make the rules, I don't want any chance for any confusion about what they mean to exist.
I see absolutely no ambiguity. As I said, 3 simple words. Yes, of course everything can be interpreted wrongly...but it's just that,
wrong
.
It would be a wrong interpretation, but, it would be a fairly sensible one to come to. 'Run absolutely no ten mans, including completely obsolete ones without explicit prior consent from an appropriate-level officer' seems kind of like overkill when it's stuff that hasn't been on the calendar in about a year and the guild is 50 ilvls past it. 'Run absolutely no ten mans, except relevant content' seems much more likely. A person might (admittedly wrongly) understandably decide to apply an interpretation to that rule, and get it wrong. The person writing the rule is not at fault really, but that person is the one most easily able to universally correct the misunderstanding.
Think of it this way, if I'm trying to teach a complicated subject to a group of students, and I have two methods, one of which technically can only possibly lead to the correct conclusion, but lends itself to being misinterpreted or misunderstood, and one which is crystal clear and is actually difficult
not
to understand, which am I going to use? In this analogy, my point is that the second method is better to use. Not because there's any fault with the professor, should s/he choose to use the first method, since technically they're giving their students everything they need to understand the concept, and any misinterpretation is not their fault, but because if you can be as clear as possible, why wouldn't you be?
Remove the fodder for a likely misinterpretation, and there'll be less misinterpretation of your rules. It isn't your fault that people understand them incorrectly, at all. The onus for overextending personal judgement falls squarely on the guild member. I just don't see why you wouldn't add like, 5 words to that rule to eliminate the chance that someone else makes a mistake.
Edit: I used some contradictory language in this thread so let me clarify. My point is 1) the OP was wrong not to ask for clarification. A guild kick might have been fairly harsh but he did do something wrong. And 2) If your rule is subject to interpretation or ambiguity, even if it all stems from a mistake on the part of a reader, do yourself and your guild a favor and put it a little bit of redundant language to make absolutely sure everyone's on the same page. It can't hurt.
Post by
Braevia
Nothing is hard about asking, HSR, which is why I believe the OP was wrong not to, and stated as such where I've bolded here.
My only point is that we have this problem because common sense wants to apply sub-clauses to this rule. Whether that's a fault or not, it's the work of about six seconds to get rid of any possible ambiguity, so why not do so?
If I make the rules, I don't want any chance for any confusion about what they mean to exist.
I see absolutely no ambiguity. As I said, 3 simple words. Yes, of course everything can be interpreted wrongly...but it's just that,
wrong
.
He's not a child, and they have no right to forbid him.
Yes, they do have a right. It's a raiding guild. He can leave at any time, but until he has done so, he has given up certain things in exchange for a stable raiding environment.
It's not on the guild schedule.
The rule said nothing about guild schedules.
I know very few guilds that schedule raids immediately on Tuesday morning.
A law without valid justification has no moral basis.
Morality has no bearing on anything we've been talking about.
And it does have justification. Read, ffs.
Obeying or enforcing an immoral law is an immoral act.
I'm going to warn you right now. You're trying to argue morality with a guy with a degree in philosophy. Don't try. You obviously don't understand the terms.
Not moral =/= immoral. There are 3 possibilities. Moral, immoral, and
amoral
. This issue falls under the latter.
I argue with philosophy majors quite often. Where did your degree come from? Internet Tough Guy University? If your argument is merely that the officer "could" behave in the way that he did, then you are correct. If you believe that he was "right", then you are absolutely wrong. You cannot have law without reason.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I argue with philosophy majors quite often. Where did your degree come from? Internet Tough Guy University?
Ave Maria University.
If your argument is merely that the officer "could" behave in the way that he did, then you are correct. If you believe that he was "right", then you are absolutely wrong. You cannot have law without reason.
Your refusal to even read my posts is sad.
'Run absolutely no ten mans, except relevant content'
This is way more ambiguous that the rule in question.
What is relevant content? ToC? ToGC? VoA? Uld Hardmodes?
You're trying to "fix" something that doesn't need fixing, and you're really just making it worse.
Post by
Braevia
I have read your posts. You are simply wrong.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I have read your posts. You are simply wrong.
Yet, you provide no evidence, no argument, nothing.
I very much doubt you even have an argument against what I've said.
Post by
Braevia
I have read your posts. You are simply wrong.
Yet, you provide no evidence, no argument, nothing.
I very much doubt you even have an argument against what I've said.
There are no facts to cite, other than those listed in the OP's post. This is entirely a matter of one's opinion on the appropriate way to run a guild.
I've stated that I believe a guild can reasonbly demand that its members keep themselves open for guild runs. This is to ensure that the guild can actually play through content. A guild *cannot* reasonably demand that a guild member ask permission before accepting an invitation to run through content that the guild is not engaged in. A guild does not "own" its members, thus it does not have any justification in demanding that level of authority over their actions in-game.
In punishing a member for "getting saved" to content that the guild had no intent of running, they were behaving unfairly and irrationally. I have made this argument before, and I see no reason why I should have to type it again, merely to save you the trouble of going back and reading the thread.
Post by
leonheart87
I've stated that I believe a guild can reasonbly demand that its members keep themselves open for guild runs. This is to ensure that the guild can actually play through content. A guild *cannot* reasonably demand that a guild member ask permission before accepting an invitation to run through content that the guild is not engaged in. A guild does not "own" its members, thus it does not have any justification in demanding that level of authority over their actions in-game.
The OP had a choice, obey the rules or leave. He did neither, so he was kicked.
Seems fairly reasonable to me.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.