As SJS alludes to earlier: Who gets to define the differences between good or bad? Is it a strict binary switch or are there shades of grey? Is it selfish for someone to demand their family take care of them when they have lost the ability to take care of themselves or is it selfish for the family to contract the care to an institution?
I believe you are misunderstanding the intent of SJS. If I'm not mistaken, SJS is referring to how hard it is to tell if a snipe even occurred because there are too many ways to define snipe and more important, too many ways to game the rule. Simply tip off an outsider that your GB is ready.
This is the most important question for anyone who considers implementing a no sniping rule. Understanding who can use the system to their benefit and track that will help leadership root out the bad actors versus the earnest mistakes. When someone argues you 'just know' the right thing or some other abstract 'feeling' argument, then you should be wary of that leadership's intent. Intuition can be a wonderful tool, but it lacks the analytical intelligence to support and keep the people in power from making mistakes, or worse, abusing their power.
A very strong argument against the No Sniping rule.
To augment JCera & Stephen's side of the argument: Swap threads allows for a hybrid contribution race; It is controlled and overseen by guild leadership and laid back to promote team-building over cutthroat profiteering.
I have a problem with your referring to the very beneficial act of paying for a reward position and bumping down someone who paid nothing as "cutthroat profiteering". Would you say the same about virtually every item on earth that is sold?
This is why the 'No-sniping' portion is implemented, to stamp out profiteering between guildies and direct it towards hoodies or 'enemy' guilds.
This is OSTENSIBLY why the no sniping rule in implemented. In reality, it does nothing of the sort. It does occasionally work, but at a greater cost than the benefit it provides, and also, as discussed at length, it can and is easily worked around. I believe I prove it hurts the smaller players more than it helps them by providing a false promise of "help".
Unfair feelings is where a lot of drama can spawn from, so it makes sense to erect systems that help minimize it.
This is the crux of the matter. I agree with this, of course. It's obviously true, but does the No Snipe Rule help this issue or hurt it? I believe it hurts it and only provides a false sense of security that we care about our "family", all the while providing a bonanza for the bigger player to get their positions for free.
Free Trade systems are less empathetic, as they focus on the numbers game with little regard to feelings of 'fair'. This is why we see many defensive arguments revolving around team-work, family and feeling based put-downs to opposing viewpoints.
Two things: A win/win transaction is more sympathetic than a win/loss transaction, so free trade wins here. Math. Second, I believe the defensive arguments spawn from the illusion that that something was promised for free and was not delivered. I added this analogy since you last read my post, but if you had people line up for a chance to get your car for free if it doesn't sell, of course they are going to be mad at the person that comes along and buys the car. It's all perception and human nature, but the reality is nothing was lost. There was no harm.
Even filthyhorse has waded into the feelings side of the equation by speaking to the 'negative' tone that sniping brings and framing arguments as good/bad in their attempt to convince others.
This is laughable. Are you suggesting I'm human?
.
That's the internet and humanity for you. 10% nuggets of wisdom, 90% garbage spewing. I try to average 13% nuggets myself.
lol. You're very magnanimous, Sir.
.
