Semantics in loot rules

(Locked)

90 Worgen Death Knight
6570
During a ICC 25 PUG group, i lost out on the Bloods from Festergut and Rotface. The group leader had previously established that no items were reserved and that it would be Free Rolls on all items. After Rolling and getting the Highest roll for the items the group leader/Master Looter gave the items to another group member regardless of my roll. After filing my ticket for the scamming incident a GM replied that:

After looking in our logs we were unable to verify any indications of loot rules stated by the raid leaders. Without loot rules the Master looter may award loot in any means the seem fit. I can understand how this may seem unfair, but in the future attempt to raid with a group that provides specific loot rules in the game chat. No items reserved or MS>OS are not specific enough to be considered. What you are looking for is loot rules are Highest roller Main spec. This provides with the loot rules we are looking for. We apologize for any troubles this may have caused you. We wish the best of luck in the future and good luck!


Doesn't that sound like very similar rules that are understood by all players? At what point do we draw the line with semantics on posted rules? And why am I plagued by unaccommodating GMs?
92 Human Death Knight
11160
04/09/2012 08:22 PMPosted by Frostfang
Highest roller


This here defines the winning condition. What happens is most times this winning condition is assumed when things like "free rolls" is said. That is fine, but what if the ML wanted the lowest roll? The roll closest to 42? The first prime number rolled? Those are still free rolls.

The trick is to define exactly *how* an item is won in all its legalistic glory. Just like the card game 21 has a defined winning condition, and conditions on which one loses, so to do verbal loot rules need them in the game.

"MS>OS free rolls" says nothing about how an item is actually won. There is too much assumption that it is 1-100, closest to 100 wins. This is where most players err with dishonest loot masters.
Edited by Maul on 4/9/2012 8:31 PM PDT
69 Orc Death Knight
11095
Why are GMs plagued with people who insist on trusting a stranger with all loot, but come running to GMs when they prove untrustworthy?

This is an outmoded instance. Need Before Greed is perfect for this.
1 Goblin Warlock
0
04/09/2012 08:28 PMPosted by Maul
The roll closest to 42?


Bah I was totally going to use that line too! <3 the closest to 42 loot rolls.
80 Blood Elf Paladin
7490
04/09/2012 08:22 PMPosted by Frostfang
Doesn't that sound like very similar rules that are understood by all players?


What the majority of players THINK are "fair" loot rules is irrelevant. It's set to Master Looter, so that means that the Master Looter has full discretion to distribute loot how they see fit. They do not have to distribute loot by rolls...unless they specifically say that they are going to do so.

Saying "Free rolls" doesn't mean that the highest roll wins. It doesn't even mean that any particular roll will win. The term "Free rolls" literally means that it is free to roll on an item. But being Master Looter, the ML can give the item(s) to whomever they feel like giving them to.

04/09/2012 08:22 PMPosted by Frostfang
At what point do we draw the line with semantics on posted rules?


It's not semantics. It has to do with boxing the Master Looter into a loot agreement that has no loopholes.

04/09/2012 08:22 PMPosted by Frostfang
And why am I plagued by unaccommodating GMs?


You are confusing them saying "No" for being "unaccommodating". GM's are unable to intervene in loot disputes.

Master Looter is not intended for a random PUG raid. It is intended for groups/guilds who have reason to trust each other, and use their own method of loot distribution (Loot Council, DKP, etc.)
92 Human Death Knight
11160
Bah I was totally going to use that line too! <3 the closest to 42 loot rolls.


Well, it *is* the answer to the ultimate question :)
90 Orc Shaman
10620
Also "free rolls" (in common WOW terms) simply means it is not a GDKP run. Meaning, you don't have to pay gold to roll on items.

It doesn't specify what the conditions to win are.
90 Worgen Death Knight
6570
I have to admit that I see the flaw in the language used when determining the loot rules for my group. However, I still feel that malicious looting after a group has trusted you to lead/distribute loot fairly should be something a GM can intervene on. I understand Blizzard wanting to take as much of a hands off approach as possible to limit game interaction interference but perhaps a warning sent to the offending player and stiffer penalties can be used as deterrent? At this point I've pretty much given up on getting the items restored to their rightful owner (me if you hadn't guessed), but I am still frustrated that after re-opening my ticket twice I keep getting the standard boxed answers from GMs. Not even a little thought seems to go into their replies on an issue that seems to be fairly widespread.
61 Worgen Priest
10505
04/11/2012 04:37 AMPosted by Frostfang
I have to admit that I see the flaw in the language used when determining the loot rules for my group. However, I still feel that malicious looting after a group has trusted you to lead/distribute loot fairly should be something a GM can intervene on. I understand Blizzard wanting to take as much of a hands off approach as possible to limit game interaction interference but perhaps a warning sent to the offending player and stiffer penalties can be used as deterrent? At this point I've pretty much given up on getting the items restored to their rightful owner (me if you hadn't guessed), but I am still frustrated that after re-opening my ticket twice I keep getting the standard boxed answers from GMs. Not even a little thought seems to go into their replies on an issue that seems to be fairly widespread.

this is not the case at all. I think you are completely misinterpreting what blizzard is telling you. For every reason you have saying that you think the master looter is scaming, that master looter probably has just as many as to why he isn't. OR at least as to what his intent it. That is why it is important to get the loot rules spelled out exactly in raid chat so there is not confusion. If blizzard were to get involved in ever loot dispute such as this ticket times would be quadrupled what they are currently.

Blizzard does not recognize main spec over off spec. This really isn't a fair method of loot as several classes have to change spec for different fights. It needs to be said clearly in raid chat, the stat you are able to roll on is the one you came to raid with. All the time on pugs when we need healer or tank, they will make deals that they only want to role on dps gear. That is find with us as wee need that role in the raid and don't care what loot they roll on. We have macro's tat very clearly spell out loot for pugs. We have never been accused of being dishonest.

It has been my experience that when filling needed classes for a raid run is really the only time that this loot type should be used. that said, if they refuse to spell out loot rules in a clear acceptable way that cannot be verified in case of wrong doing, then I just leave. Unless I need no gear and just want points or achievements.

GM's have to use form letter replies. If they didn't do that first tickets would take twice to three times as long to answer. Also they have what is called standards that must be met. That means all GM's trying to give the same reply to the same issues. That way there is no accusations of favoritism, nepotism, any other isms. They really just do not have the time to hold our hands and give us personal responses with little funnies in them. They would still say the same exact thing. I would, along with a huge amount of the player base, have them use form letter response to get to my tickets faster, then have to wait 3 weeks instead of 3-4 days. This is also nothing new for customer service. Almost all use this type of response.
90 Human Mage
9825
At this point I've pretty much given up on getting the items restored to their rightful owner (me if you hadn't guessed), but I am still frustrated that after re-opening my ticket twice I keep getting the standard boxed answers from GMs. Not even a little thought seems to go into their replies on an issue that seems to be fairly widespread.


You're frustrated by consistency on the part of GMs? You open multiple tickets asking for the same thing over the same issue and you get the same reply each time. Sounds as if it's working as intended. Try reading the response you're getting: They've read your complaint and there is nothing they can do about it. At least they suggested what you can do in the future to avoid this from happening again. Learn your lesson and move on.
36 Blood Elf Hunter
210
04/11/2012 04:37 AMPosted by Frostfang
I have to admit that I see the flaw in the language used when determining the loot rules for my group. However, I still feel that malicious looting after a group has trusted you to lead/distribute loot fairly should be something a GM can intervene on. I understand Blizzard wanting to take as much of a hands off approach as possible to limit game interaction interference but perhaps a warning sent to the offending player and stiffer penalties can be used as deterrent? At this point I've pretty much given up on getting the items restored to their rightful owner (me if you hadn't guessed), but I am still frustrated that after re-opening my ticket twice I keep getting the standard boxed answers from GMs. Not even a little thought seems to go into their replies on an issue that seems to be fairly widespread.


You joined a pug with Master Looter as the loot setting. Master looter means you want Blizzard to stay completely out of the loot and let the Master Looter handle it. Now you have a problem and you want Blizzard to come in and fix it. It doesn't work that way.

The only condition Blizzard can "fix" is if there is a scam. A scam means you have a well-defined clear agreement and the Master Looter violates that agreement. Even if a scam is determined, you won't get the items. They will just be removed from the person who received them and the Master Looter will be punished. You also won't be told about the Master Looter's punishment.

Here you didn't even have clear loot rules. You need to define who is eligible to win, specifically how they will win (roll 1-100, highest wins), and any reserves or exclusions. You didn't have that, so a scam can't even be determined. Next time help yourself by using Need Before Greed, the correct loot setting for a pug.
MVP - World of Warcraft
100 Troll Rogue
14465
04/11/2012 04:37 AMPosted by Frostfang
However, I still feel that malicious looting after a group has trusted you to lead/distribute loot fairly should be something a GM can intervene on.


The problem is that there are far too many loot interactions in the game for the GM's to be able to intervene on an individual basis. This is why loot rules were built into the system.
Support Forum Agent
Given semantics is how humans communicate, yes - they are important.

There is a vast difference between a scam, and a looting dispute. When you agree to participate in a group running under Master Loot - you are saying you absolutely agree that one person has sole discretion to make decisions in such matters.

Master Loot really was never intended to be used with people you don't know and trust, it was designed more for guilds with elaborate loot hierarchies.

Anyway, if rules are very very clear, then it may be a scam. Those we investigate and if appropriate may sanction and/or remove loot - but in only the very rarest of cases is loot ever redistributed.
This topic is locked.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]