Stage 5 - Completed Relic Weapons List

[Lordwafik]

I just don't see how its not selfish to delete the character and not let other people play it.

That's the thing, she did let others play on it for a while, so whatever argument hinges on this fails.

I wouldn't let people have my account either if I quit, but I know its for selfish reasons. I'd let the shit die too. I just don't get what the big deal is w/ calling the action itself selfish.

... rofl

So all this time you're arguing about something you'd do yourself. It's not selfish in brennon's sake. It'll be selfish for your sake because you didn't fund your relic, your LS gave you it. Won't be selfish for aurik to drop his, because pretty much the same thing happened. Maybe it's selfish for me because I sponsored the hourglasses 80% and bought 20% of the currency from bazaars.

Because short of the owner dying, its not beyond the relm of possibilities. The probability is near nothing, I agree, but logic would dictate that unless the person is dead, the argument holds weight.

And if you beleive in yourself you can do anything /disney.

The probability of this happening is ziltch considering the fact brennon's moved on to bigger and better things in her life than something like an MMO.

[Pacha]

I never really saw the point of deleting a character or throwing away items. I guess some ppl figure that they will have better closure by throwing away all their stuff. Figuring that when they feel "the pull" to come back to the game they won't want to because all their items are gone. Whenever I hear about something like this though, I can't help but think of that guy Soraan who threw away full koenig/defending ring etc. and then came back to the game...(he actually has pretty good gear now).

[Sho]

Point being: If she tossed her relic and deleted, she made a good choice. If she kept her relic and deleted, she made a good choice. If she turned over her character to a friend, she made a good choice. If she sold her character to IGE/etc, fuck her then (but she didn't so winnar).

You can't make any wrong choices no matter how you quit this game, unless you sponser RMT buy turning over your character(s) to them.

[Xavier]

I just don't see how its not selfish to delete the character and not let other people play it.

That's the thing, she did let others play on it for a while, so whatever argument hinges on this fails.

No, thats kind of a really insightful thing. It shows a complete reversal of character from trusting friends to not trusting them, and I don't know what would've happened.

So all this time you're arguing about something you'd do yourself.

I'm not arguging against it, just arguing that its selfish. And I have the balls to admit I'd be selfish in quitting too. Whats the reluctance to just call it what it is?

It's not selfish in brennon's sake. It'll be selfish for your sake because you didn't fund your relic, your LS gave you it. Won't be selfish for aurik to drop his, because pretty much the same thing happened. Maybe it's selfish for me because I sponsored the hourglasses 80% and bought 20% of the currency from bazaars.

If you're leaving the game, anything that happens in the game shouldn't matter to you. I'm calling it selfish to deactive your character, dropping valuable things, when instead you could just give it to someone else to get actual use out of it. It is selfish, but I'm not saying I don't understand why people do it.

[Lordwafik]

No, thats kind of a really insightful thing. It shows a complete reversal of character from trusting friends to not trusting them, and I don't know what would've happened.

You're looking too deep into something that's not there. She decided one day "Hmm time to turn brennon off", the same way someone decides one day to dye their hair, buy a poodle, wax their bikini line.

It's not selfish in brennon's sake. It'll be selfish for your sake because you didn't fund your relic, your LS gave you it. Won't be selfish for aurik to drop his, because pretty much the same thing happened. Maybe it's selfish for me because I sponsored the hourglasses 80% and bought 20% of the currency from bazaars.

If you're leaving the game, anything that happens in the game shouldn't matter to you. I'm calling it selfish to deactive your character, dropping valuable things, when instead you could just give it to someone else to get actual use out of it. It is selfish, but I'm not saying I don't understand why people do it.[/quote]

Not selfish not selfish not seliffas;dhsnczxz;xch

It's selfish if she was a loot whore, and wanted to get every item off everyone she can, then go and RMT it, like Zamusww did after getting 5/5 homam 5/5 af2 for multiple jobs multiple AF1+1, Relic, then going off and selling it for 8000 USD - doing that you are playing for extreme personal gain. It's not selfish if if she was playing for fun, decides to upgrade a relic with her own leathercraft that she decided to level a long time ago and build a foundation apon, get other pretty items, then one day something better come up in her life and quit the game. The selfish people would be the ones demanding her character stay in the game against her will instead of leaving the MMO.

[Sho]

I just don't see how its not selfish to delete the character and not let other people play it.

That's the thing, she did let others play on it for a while, so whatever argument hinges on this fails.

No, thats kind of a really insightful thing. It shows a complete reversal of character from trusting friends to not trusting them, and I don't know what would've happened.

So all this time you're arguing about something you'd do yourself.

I'm not arguging against it, just arguing that its selfish. And I have the balls to admit I'd be selfish in quitting too. Whats the reluctance to just call it what it is?

It's not selfish in brennon's sake. It'll be selfish for your sake because you didn't fund your relic, your LS gave you it. Won't be selfish for aurik to drop his, because pretty much the same thing happened. Maybe it's selfish for me because I sponsored the hourglasses 80% and bought 20% of the currency from bazaars.

If you're leaving the game, anything that happens in the game shouldn't matter to you. I'm calling it selfish to deactive your character, dropping valuable things, when instead you could just give it to someone else to get actual use out of it. It is selfish, but I'm not saying I don't understand why people do it.

It's not selfish, she made up for it by giving away non-rare/ex items and free crafts all around. To that end, she *did* care about other's interests and time spent that was put into getting her that relic, and she gave back in the best ways that she could.

This topic needs more Relic pics. >_>

[Shuemue]

What he'd personally do seems a little irrelevant. If everyone in the world were exactly the same, the world would fucking fail. Just because you believe something is the right thing to do based on your ethical standards doesn't make it right. It's just what you believe.

If someone personally thought murder was ok, they should be allowed to murder, yes?

Horrible analogy there, murder is illegal, dropping an imaginary item that you earned almost entirely on your own isn't.

Also, as far as I know, Brennon was going to leave her account with a friend, however he decided to quit, so she then decided to drop/delete so that it didn't end up being passed around like a cheap whore at a bachelor party.

[Xavier]

All things being equal, and assuming that you're going to discontinue the account, NOT dropping your ra/ex shit when you quit serves no purpose, other than vanity.

I was under the impression she dropped them just to SS and post on forums.

I don't get how dropping something to make a point of dropping it isn't equally, if not more vain.

Wafik, why are you just unable to call something selfish? I'm not arguing that she wasn't a very giving, nice person. I'm just saying that deleting something to make yourself feel better is selfish, even if its justified, etc. Its just a word, I don't know why you think it doesn't apply to this particular person, for this particular action. The actual action was selfish, I don't get the reluctance to apply the word to it. Would you rather replace selfish with self-serving? Its the same.

What he'd personally do seems a little irrelevant. If everyone in the world were exactly the same, the world would fucking fail. Just because you believe something is the right thing to do based on your ethical standards doesn't make it right. It's just what you believe.

If someone personally thought murder was ok, they should be allowed to murder, yes?

Horrible analogy there, murder is illegal, dropping an imaginary item that you earned almost entirely on your own isn't.

Its illegal because people decided it should be, not because it naturally is. Laws are just society declaring what is morally acceptable to them, so I don't think its that far off.

[aurik]

Assuming that the account is going inactive indefinitely, both choices involve destruction of gear. So, unless Brennon revives her character, there is no difference.

Both choices involve the -deactivation- of gear, not the destruction. I'd rather not talk about Brennon because I didn't know/have a problem with her (I know she was nice, etc) and its pointless to attack her directly, and I'd rather just talk about the actual situation/circumstance.

If it is permanently deactivated, then it is destroyed. Your argument hinges on the idea that she might come back, but you have no specific reason to think that she will.

Because short of the owner dying, its not beyond the relm of possibilities. The probability is near nothing, I agree, but logic would dictate that unless the person is dead, the argument holds weight.

I was under the impression she dropped them just to SS and post on forums.

I don't have a problem w/ what she did, I just don't get why people are so reluctant to call it selfish/showboating. Like I said, I'd do the exact same thing probably, but I'd know it was selfish.

It was showboating, I'm pretty sure, but I won't call it selfish because the knuckles are hers to dispose of how she wishes. Sure, other people helped her get them (but as has been said before, she did the vaaaaaast majority of the work herself) but that doesn't mean we reserve any right to say what she does with them, especially when we helped her out of good will with no strings attached.

I think it's pretty selfish to think I have a right to determine what she does with them just because I was there when we sac'd the Nue eye. The idea that "I helped therefore they're partially mine" implies that everything is quid-pro-quo, and that nothing I do will be without proper consideration in return. That is what I find selfish, not the fact that she ultimately exercised her absolute control over the account and disposed of her items as she pleased.

Brennon's not coming back, and until she does there's no difference between dropping them and simply deleting the account. Therefore it's unfair to accuse her of wasting the effort of others that went into obtaining the knuckles.

[Shuemue]

No, we're playing by SE's rules, it's a dictatorship effectively, they've decided it's allowed. FFXI =/= democracy.

[divisortheory]

Basically Xavier is projecting his weird obsession and dependence on the game onto other people.

Banned, lol. Faggot. Failure to contribute anything outside of attacking me. Talking about an ethical/moral decision.

What he'd personally do seems a little irrelevant. If everyone in the world were exactly the same, the world would fucking fail. Just because you believe something is the right thing to do based on your ethical standards doesn't make it right. It's just what you believe.

If someone personally thought murder was ok, they should be allowed to murder, yes?

There are certain somewhat universally accepted things, and certain concepts behind friendship, etc, that most people don't question. So I'm asking if the situation here was that there was absolutely nobody to trust with the character, or if the person simply didn't want anyone else to have access on a full-time basis.

Murder is slightly different, lol. It violates one of the most widely agreed upon principles in all of humankind. Somehow I think a virtual item in a videogame doesn't quite qualify.

[Xavier]

Murder is slightly different, lol. It violates one of the most widely agreed upon principles in all of humankind. Somehow I think a virtual item in a videogame doesn't quite qualify.

I agree, but it sounded like you were making a pretty broad commentary about society and not specifically the game.

[divisortheory]

To address all the comments about whether or not to label it selfish or unselfish, does it really matter? Everything you do in this game is selfish. Your argument is akin to saying that if you've ever lotted against someone for any item in any circumstances you were being selfish by not letting them have the item.

The problem I have with your argument is that in practically all possible scenarios, you can take anything someone has done and find some alternative that would have been less selfish, completely trivializing your label in the first place.

[Xavier]

It was showboating, I'm pretty sure, but I won't call it selfish because the knuckles are hers to dispose of how she wishes. Sure, other people helped her get them (but as has been said before, she did the vaaaaaast majority of the work herself) but that doesn't mean we reserve any right to say what she does with them, especially when we helped her out of good will with no strings attached.

Not saying anybody does any have say in the decision other than the owner.

I think it's pretty selfish to think I have a right to determine what she does with them just because I was there when we sac'd the Nue eye. The idea that "I helped therefore they're partially mine" implies that everything is quid-pro-quo, and that nothing I do will be without proper consideration in return. That is what I find selfish, not the fact that she ultimately exercised her absolute control over the account and disposed of her items as she pleased.

But I never said anything to that extent. I just called the absolute control over the account a selfish action, but I never said it wasn't justified, never said it wasn't her right, etc. And I never said that other people had the right to tell her what to do. Just calling the action itself selfish, applying a term to describe it. Self-interest, etc, its just a term. People seem so reluctant to apply a negative connotation to dropping items, I don't really get it.

[Lordwafik]

Wafik, why are you just unable to call something selfish? I'm not arguing that she wasn't a very giving, nice person. I'm just saying that deleting something to make yourself feel better is selfish, even if its justified, etc. Its just a word, I don't know why you think it doesn't apply to this particular person, for this particular action. The actual action was selfish, I don't get the reluctance to apply the word to it. Would you rather replace selfish with self-serving? Its the same.

Why am I unable to call a completely neutral act selfish? Hmm gee I dunno, maybe because it's not a selfish thing to do. Selfish is a negative connotation to put onto something she did.

Question : Millionaire who went from rags to riches on his own accord, buys a BMW that's LE, only 7 made in existance. One day he doesn't want it anymore and crashes it into a wall for shits and giggles. Is he selfish in your opinion? Or in your eyes does he have to hand over what he worked hard for, to someone else who didn't do dick to earn them, just so he's not selfish in someone elses eyes.

You beleive that other people should play your account once you quit the game otherwise you're a selfish person.
I beleive you are not bound by marionette strings to the LS and/or other people in this game once you are over and done with it. Sure be considerate and give them things if you like, you don't even have to do that (and it's not selfish if you don't).

[Sho]

Wafik, why are you just unable to call something selfish? I'm not arguing that she wasn't a very giving, nice person. I'm just saying that deleting something to make yourself feel better is selfish, even if its justified, etc. Its just a word, I don't know why you think it doesn't apply to this particular person, for this particular action. The actual action was selfish, I don't get the reluctance to apply the word to it. Would you rather replace selfish with self-serving? Its the same.

Why am I unable to call a completely neutral act selfish? Hmm gee I dunno, maybe because it's not a selfish thing to do. Selfish is a negative connotation to put onto something she did.

Question : Millionaire who went from rags to riches on his own accord, buys a BMW that's LE, only 7 made in existance. One day he doesn't want it anymore and crashes it into a wall for shits and giggles. Is he selfish in your opinion? Or in your eyes does he have to hand over what he worked hard for, to someone else who didn't do dick to earn them, just so he's not selfish in someone elses eyes.

You beleive that other people should play your account once you quit the game otherwise you're a selfish person.
I beleive you are not bound by marionette strings to the LS and/or other people in this game once you are over and done with it. Sure be considerate and give them things if you like, you don't even have to do that (and it's not selfish if you don't).

Win post.

[solsovly]

Assuming that the account is going inactive indefinitely, both choices involve destruction of gear. So, unless Brennon revives her character, there is no difference.

Both choices involve the -deactivation- of gear, not the destruction. I'd rather not talk about Brennon because I didn't know/have a problem with her (I know she was nice, etc) and its pointless to attack her directly, and I'd rather just talk about the actual situation/circumstance.

If it is permanently deactivated, then it is destroyed. Your argument hinges on the idea that she might come back, but you have no specific reason to think that she will.

Because short of the owner dying, its not beyond the relm of possibilities. The probability is near nothing, I agree, but logic would dictate that unless the person is dead, the argument holds weight.

I was under the impression she dropped them just to SS and post on forums.

I don't have a problem w/ what she did, I just don't get why people are so reluctant to call it selfish/showboating. Like I said, I'd do the exact same thing probably, but I'd know it was selfish.

Did you self fund the vast majority of your shield?

[Xavier]

selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

I asked why drop the item, you answered me by saying dropping it was a way of insuring you never came back to the game, closure, etc.

The act of dropping the item was selfish, regardless of how morally sound the person was. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the sole act of dropping it was selfish.

I said dropping the item was selfish, you disagreed, telling me how wonderful a person she was. I didn't argue she was a wonderful person, I argued that dropping the item was a selfish act, and it was. All other things being equal I'm sure it balanced out, but I don't get how anyone can argue the word selfish doesn't apply to the actual act.

[aurik]

It was showboating, I'm pretty sure, but I won't call it selfish because the knuckles are hers to dispose of how she wishes. Sure, other people helped her get them (but as has been said before, she did the vaaaaaast majority of the work herself) but that doesn't mean we reserve any right to say what she does with them, especially when we helped her out of good will with no strings attached.

Not saying anybody does any have say in the decision other than the owner.

I think it's pretty selfish to think I have a right to determine what she does with them just because I was there when we sac'd the Nue eye. The idea that "I helped therefore they're partially mine" implies that everything is quid-pro-quo, and that nothing I do will be without proper consideration in return. That is what I find selfish, not the fact that she ultimately exercised her absolute control over the account and disposed of her items as she pleased.

But I never said anything to that extent. I just called the absolute control over the account a selfish action, but I never said it wasn't justified, never said it wasn't her right, etc. And I never said that other people had the right to tell her what to do. Just calling the action itself selfish, applying a term to describe it. Self-interest, etc, its just a term. People seem so reluctant to apply a negative connotation to dropping items, I don't really get it.

But that's exactly it, the connotation of the word "selfish" indicates that you are condemning them for making a decision they had every right to make. "Selfish" has the connotation that other people had a legitimate interest in the item and she ignored that interest in exercising her control over it.

Except that the fact of the matter is that other people didn't have a legitimate interest in the item, so the word "selfish" doesn't fit.

[Lordwafik]

selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

I asked why drop the item, you answered me by saying dropping it was a way of insuring you never came back to the game, closure, etc.

The act of dropping the item was selfish, regardless of how morally sound the person was. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the sole act of dropping it was selfish.

Because you seem to have this thing that makes you think the Spharai she had was in debt to others, when in fact it wasn't at all.