I participated in a 25 ToC last night. We Killed the 1st boss and 4 items dropped. The first two items were rolled on and the winner was, of course, the highest roller. That, for the purposes of applying Blizzard's own rules constitutes evidence of the loot rules that were in effect. During the roll for the Barb of Tarasque, the only reason I was there and a huge upgrade for this "casual" toon, the rules were further established in a response to a question in raid chat that MS > OS.

I won the roll against a shaman. The weapon was given to the shaman. I immediately announced the mistake. The shaman refused to trade it to me and logged off. The RL in question admitted he was a guildee of his, it was a "mistake" that he got it and agreed he was going to make him give it back to me. This, of course was a bunch of lies.

This is as clear a case of ninja looting as there can be. I don't want a ticket response (as I got) saying you guys don't support ninja looting etc and may punish the person (unlikely). I don't want to be patronized I want the weapon.

I play this game with integrity. I expect Blizzard to protect the integrity of the game and not hide behind platitudes.


Last week in a VoA raid my dual specced DK had a chance at the tier 10 dps legs. With no loot rules announced I typed in OS and then rolled. My roll was the highest. The RL leader gave the legs to me. I was a bit surprised. The person with the highest MS roll typed in chat the my roll was for offspec plus added a :) at the end. I immediately, without further prompting from anyone, traded the legs to him. He tried to give me 1000g. I turned it down (he ultimately tipped me 100g) and thanked me profusely.

That's how I play. That's how everyone should play. I don't want platitudes from Blizzard when members of the community violate clear policies on ninjaing. I want what I earned and rightfully won returned to me.

I want my ticket escalated (I opened another in game) and I want a response of someone with some greater authority please.

---

Q u o t e:
Even if they state the loot rules it doesn't matter, it is up to the GM at the time and how he feels.

---

Actually, Midgatron, that simply isn't the case. I've already stated that 'example two' isn't a good reference, and multiple investigations have reached the same conclusion in the case that you've brought before us. I understand that this was a frustrating situation for you, but I want to reassure you that the inconsistency that you've perceived has not occurred in this case despite what might have been inferred from the emails you've received.

---

Q u o t e:
Loot is giving the looter the right to do whatever he wishes with it, but if you get clear rules they MIGHT help you, they might not.

---

What one presumes to be 'clear', and what actually constitutes 'clear' can differ. Implied loot rules do not typically constitute clear loot rules. Hence the dramatically different definitions of the words 'implied' and 'clear'. On the other hand, our staff are also fully capable of investigating and recognizing patterns. Those that seek to abuse our systems and damage gameplay for others may find that what they believe to be a loop hole can quickly become a noose.

---

Q u o t e:
I made the analogy to law because you all stated that both express and implied words or actions weren't sufficient to constitute evidence of loot rules which itself is a ridiculous proposition.

---

Any analogy should take into account the validity of the comparison, should it not? As we define what 'law' is active within World of Warcraft and how these situations are interpreted (in the form of our Policies and the Terms of Use), and given that no other standards apply (because they do not when it comes to in-game enforcement), comparisons to real world legal systems are largely invalid and useless.

---

Q u o t e:
Unlike you I actually have a law degree and understand concepts such as what should or would constitute evidence.

---

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to state that I do not have a Juris Doctor. Do you presume that this means that I'm unable to understand the concept of what should or should not constitute evidence? In the course of your own studies, did you ever run across the concepts of argumentation and what constitutes a logical fallacy?

---

Q u o t e:
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this was a ninja loot collusion between the RL and his guildee to deprive me of the loot I won so the guildee could benefit.

---

Ah, I suppose that I must be devoid of even an ounce common sense then. A regrettable turn of events, to be sure. I should have foreseen this particular perspective as the perch of all right-thinking, logical and moral people.

Alas, I have not, and so, in my own foolish way, I will point out that there are differing perspectives about virtually anything and everything. Making assumptions about what constitutes common sense, when the contextual definition of 'common sense' is subject to debate, strikes me as absurd.

With the abundance of available perspectives firmly in mind, our staff must, in the interest of preserving an environment that is best for all players, ultimately fall back to our own perspectives and definitions regarding what constitutes a scam.

---

Q u o t e:
If Blizzard has an ounce, an iota of integrity they will reward me the loot in question. If they don't they are as corrupt as the ninja looters in question and don't care about their honest customers.

---

That is a false dichotomy. We take our integrity very, very seriously and strive for even-handed and consistent enforcement of our policies and standards. Merely because our actions do not fit a third party's preconceptions about a specific situation in no way compromises that integrity.

The Master Loot system was put into place to put power over loot distribution exclusively in the Master Looter's hands. For a very, very long time, this power was absolute, and immutable. World of Warcraft has changed since this system's implementation, and as our community shifts and changes, a certain flexibility is desireable so as to preserve an environment that is the best that we can provide for our players.

We very much want to provide a context wherein our players can raid and play together without having to merely 'hope' that loot will be distributed fairly. We will not 'gut' the Master Loot system of its authority. On the same token, we can and do investigate reports where players scam others.

---

Q u o t e:
It's really as black and white and as simple as that.

---

There are very few things in life or art that are truly 'black and white and as simple as that'. This is not one of them.

---

Q u o t e:
I guess the confusion I have is why you can't just say this:

---

We are in a constant state of improving the clarity of communication we have with our players, and this is part of that ongoing process. Sometimes a clearer stance only emerges from discussion, or is part of a thorough vetting procedure.

There are layers of complexity and interaction to measure and consider, and even a seemingly simple statement can invite disaster if not carefully assessed.

---

Q u o t e:


That was the answer I was kinda hoping to get, because I am hoping you realize I am not "venting" but trying to have a discussion and you are the only one who will have it with me. Through multiple emails and phone calls I can not get one person to sit down for 2 minutes and just TALK to me about the rules. I always get these cryptic worded emails that state one thing, then later in the email lead me to believe another.

You have been the first person to try and explain it to this old fart who is too slow to figure it out on his own. I just don't get how saying in an email "Final Say" can be led to the thought that having "clear loot rules" would change the fact that GM's say master loot has "final say" FINAL is exactly that. Final. There is no point passed final. If my boss has final say, regardless of what he says to me the day before what he decides on that day is "final". So I was hoping I would get you to just say that isn't the case, that he doesn't have the "final say" if he already gave cleared and defined rules to start the raid.

Ill leave you alone now I think I have beaten the horse to death.

---

I would like to make absolutely clear that I do not think that you 'just wanted your own way' at all. I also appreciate the measured approach you've taken over the course of these threads. I'm grateful that we had the opportunity to have a discussion and I hope I was able to impart at least a little clarity.

I suspect that you've been promoting a gameplay environment and responses from our staff that you can feel confident about. As it happens, that is also what we want for our players and we appreciate constructive feedback.