I can't speak for this game as I'm not top of my guild but in other games that have similar concepts that I am the top player in the guild I would vote to sim the rancor to help the lower members. I've been top in the guild in multiple games with multiple great groups of people, and when I become top in the guild in a game my focus completely switches to putting more effort into helping my guild-mates rather than myself. If you don't have a group of people that you as a top 5 player in your guild are willing to help more than or equally as yourself then you don't have a good guild with good fellowship, and if your guild-mates progression simply doesn't matter to you no matter what group of people they are and what kind of fellowship your guild has then I'm extremely glad you aren't in my guild.
You lost me at “democracy is a very oppressive system”
🤦🏻♂️. He's talking about true democracies rather than what you are probably thinking a republic democracy. In a purely democratic society the majority rules in all cases. Thus subjecting the minority to potentially cataclysmic laws or persecution through majority will. A republic democracy "think the United States" has a constitution that limits democratic powers so the minority has a voice. I hope you educate yourself on the differences.
Wow! Thanks, mister!
Are you finished getting your fix of superiority for the day? Ok, my turn to defend myself. I know the differences. I studied political science in college. I stand by original comment.
Yikes! That scares me a little but. I don't know if standing by your original comment is worse than the fact you studied political science at some college. But you are welcome for giving you information you didn't have before making absurd and unintelligent comments
I do wonder what you think the additional information you provided (assuming he actually didn't have that information before you commented) makes his comment absurd and unintelligent.
Is the OP any less ridiculous when knowing the difference between a true democracy and republic democracy? If so, why?
Here's an idea to make it a true democracy(whatever true means, typical no true scotsman fallacy) in your guild; sim it 49 times and then 1 time manual for your representation.
Here's an idea to make it a true democracy(whatever true means, typical no true scotsman fallacy) in your guild; sim it 49 times and then 1 time manual for your representation.
Lol! I think he wanted the opposite of a true democracy but your solution to his problem could work but it sounds like he doesn't make the guild decisions so it's likely he will continue to Sim the raid unless he finds a guild that doesn't.
I dunno what calling something true means. We got all varieties, just pick one that fits your best interest
You lost me at “democracy is a very oppressive system”
🤦🏻♂️. He's talking about true democracies rather than what you are probably thinking a republic democracy. In a purely democratic society the majority rules in all cases. Thus subjecting the minority to potentially cataclysmic laws or persecution through majority will. A republic democracy "think the United States" has a constitution that limits democratic powers so the minority has a voice. I hope you educate yourself on the differences.
Wow! Thanks, mister!
Are you finished getting your fix of superiority for the day? Ok, my turn to defend myself. I know the differences. I studied political science in college. I stand by original comment.
Yikes! That scares me a little but. I don't know if standing by your original comment is worse than the fact you studied political science at some college. But you are welcome for giving you information you didn't have before making absurd and unintelligent comments
I do wonder what you think the additional information you provided (assuming he actually didn't have that information before you commented) makes his comment absurd and unintelligent.
Is the OP any less ridiculous when knowing the difference between a true democracy and republic democracy? If so, why?
His statement was unintelligent because he clearly lacked information about why a democracy is oppressive. If he knew this information he wouldn't have made the comment? Then proceeds to defend himself by saying he studied political science and knows the difference, if he did why did he post the original comment? Im lost on it. Are we really in an age where information and correction of information isn't allowed?
No one is perfect and we gets facts wrong all the time heck he could have known this information and his comment was just quick Witted he didn't have time to think it through all is fine. But to double down on A comment that clearly makes it seem like he doesn't know the difference is 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️.
I shared with him the difference if he doesn't care or doesn't want the information then it's whatever. I would hope he would have educated himself on the differences so the next time that comes up he will have been better for it. Knowledge is power. Keep learning keep striving to be better that's it.
Isn't his original statement just as valid with or without the information you assume he lacks? (with the context of the statement in mind)
Knowing that a democracy is oppressive, it's still a ridiculous statement to make in this context, so commenting you stopped reading after that statement isn't absurd, nor unitelligent.
I feel like you're too caught up in arguing about the statement without considering the context. I assume the guy would have never said he stopped reading after "democracy is a very oppressive system" if we were debating political system. Well, perhaps the "very" would be enough to dismiss the entire argument, but i'm willing to wager he'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
You lost me at “democracy is a very oppressive system”
🤦🏻♂️. He's talking about true democracies rather than what you are probably thinking a republic democracy. In a purely democratic society the majority rules in all cases. Thus subjecting the minority to potentially cataclysmic laws or persecution through majority will. A republic democracy "think the United States" has a constitution that limits democratic powers so the minority has a voice. I hope you educate yourself on the differences.
Wow! Thanks, mister!
Are you finished getting your fix of superiority for the day? Ok, my turn to defend myself. I know the differences. I studied political science in college. I stand by original comment.
Yikes! That scares me a little but. I don't know if standing by your original comment is worse than the fact you studied political science at some college. But you are welcome for giving you information you didn't have before making absurd and unintelligent comments
I do wonder what you think the additional information you provided (assuming he actually didn't have that information before you commented) makes his comment absurd and unintelligent.
Is the OP any less ridiculous when knowing the difference between a true democracy and republic democracy? If so, why?
His statement was unintelligent because he clearly lacked information about why a democracy is oppressive. If he knew this information he wouldn't have made the comment? Then proceeds to defend himself by saying he studied political science and knows the difference, if he did why did he post the original comment? Im lost on it. Are we really in an age where information and correction of information isn't allowed?
No one is perfect and we gets facts wrong all the time heck he could have known this information and his comment was just quick Witted he didn't have time to think it through all is fine. But to double down on A comment that clearly makes it seem like he doesn't know the difference is 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️.
I shared with him the difference if he doesn't care or doesn't want the information then it's whatever. I would hope he would have educated himself on the differences so the next time that comes up he will have been better for it. Knowledge is power. Keep learning keep striving to be better that's it.
Isn't his original statement just as valid with or without the information you assume he lacks? (with the context of the statement in mind)
Knowing that a democracy is oppressive, it's still a ridiculous statement to make in this context, so commenting you stopped reading after that statement isn't absurd, nor unitelligent.
I feel like you're too caught up in arguing about the statement without considering the context. I assume the guy would have never said he stopped reading after "democracy is a very oppressive system" if we were debating political system. Well, perhaps the "very" would be enough to dismiss the entire argument, but i'm willing to wager he'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
You lost me at “democracy is a very oppressive system”
🤦🏻♂️. He's talking about true democracies rather than what you are probably thinking a republic democracy. In a purely democratic society the majority rules in all cases. Thus subjecting the minority to potentially cataclysmic laws or persecution through majority will. A republic democracy "think the United States" has a constitution that limits democratic powers so the minority has a voice. I hope you educate yourself on the differences.
Wow! Thanks, mister!
Are you finished getting your fix of superiority for the day? Ok, my turn to defend myself. I know the differences. I studied political science in college. I stand by original comment.
Yikes! That scares me a little but. I don't know if standing by your original comment is worse than the fact you studied political science at some college. But you are welcome for giving you information you didn't have before making absurd and unintelligent comments
I do wonder what you think the additional information you provided (assuming he actually didn't have that information before you commented) makes his comment absurd and unintelligent.
Is the OP any less ridiculous when knowing the difference between a true democracy and republic democracy? If so, why?
His statement was unintelligent because he clearly lacked information about why a democracy is oppressive. If he knew this information he wouldn't have made the comment? Then proceeds to defend himself by saying he studied political science and knows the difference, if he did why did he post the original comment? Im lost on it. Are we really in an age where information and correction of information isn't allowed?
No one is perfect and we gets facts wrong all the time heck he could have known this information and his comment was just quick Witted he didn't have time to think it through all is fine. But to double down on A comment that clearly makes it seem like he doesn't know the difference is 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️.
I shared with him the difference if he doesn't care or doesn't want the information then it's whatever. I would hope he would have educated himself on the differences so the next time that comes up he will have been better for it. Knowledge is power. Keep learning keep striving to be better that's it.
Isn't his original statement just as valid with or without the information you assume he lacks? (with the context of the statement in mind)
Knowing that a democracy is oppressive, it's still a ridiculous statement to make in this context, so commenting you stopped reading after that statement isn't absurd, nor unitelligent.
I feel like you're too caught up in arguing about the statement without considering the context. I assume the guy would have never said he stopped reading after "democracy is a very oppressive system" if we were debating political system. Well, perhaps the "very" would be enough to dismiss the entire argument, but i'm willing to wager he'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
You do have a valid point context does matter and in the context of what he wrote that i based my information on vs what the poster was trying to convey could be totally lost on me. And sure the op using an oppressive democracy to convey his point is extreme I'll give you that. But as I inferred what the poster assumed when posting about he stopped reading after.... You are also inferring. We will never know what the posters intent was it's possible you read his context more accurate than me. To which i will also have learned something. He also didn't further clarify his point just said he stood behind it so i have no extra information on his thoughts on his original thread.
But you're right context matters
I personally feel like it was safe to stop reading after that statement even if you knew what he meant.
Oppression is inevitable when running a guild, regardless of what structure you're using. That alone invalidates the "oppression" argument imo. Especially when later on stating that simming punishes those who showed up in time while simming wasn't available yet seeying as the raid times had to be chosen in a similar manner.
I obviously couldn't have known his whole OP was based on that argument without continuing to read it, but with the title and the first paragraph i'd say it was same to assume it was.
@leef that's alot to respond to and I just woke up so I'm not gonna go through all the comments. I used the word oppressive by it's definition and not necessarily a cultural or societal context. It would be disrespectful to compare slavery or communism to a gaming guild that doesn't let you manually do a rancor, especially when you have the option to leave. I'm using the word in it's simplest form not to be provocative but to explain my situation.
Now, definitions aside, my logic is simple and easy to follow. Sure not all guilds are the same, in my case my guild gets at best 15, maximum 20 people who raid on rancor. The rest 30-35 usually post 0 and don't raid. Most guilds decide what to do with votes (majority rule). With a system like this the 15 people who raid would never have a saying compared to the 35 who don't. Surely just because you raid it doesn't give you extra votes, but at the same time when the argument is whether we should continue to do what we've always been doing, giving everyone a fair shot to join, I think it's unreasonable to with the option of not doing it at all and just simming it.
BTW, you're right, all human administrative systems are oppressive except voluntarism/anarchocapitalism, you cannot know true oppression until you don't have the option to opt out of it. I understand why people got upset with my choice of words but I don't how else I could describe a situation where 30 people who have had an equal opportunity to participate in a raid, decide to take away rewards from the those who did participate only to add a tiny amount to themselves. If you find a different word that best describes this you are welcome to say it
@leef that's alot to respond to and I just woke up so I'm not gonna go through all the comments. I used the word oppressive by it's definition and not necessarily a cultural or societal context. It would be disrespectful to compare slavery or communism to a gaming guild that doesn't let you manually do a rancor, especially when you have the option to leave. I'm using the word in it's simplest form not to be provocative but to explain my situation.
Now, definitions aside, my logic is simple and easy to follow. Sure not all guilds are the same, in my case my guild gets at best 15, maximum 20 people who raid on rancor. The rest 30-35 usually post 0 and don't raid. Most guilds decide what to do with votes (majority rule). With a system like this the 15 people who raid would never have a saying compared to the 35 who don't. Surely just because you raid it doesn't give you extra votes, but at the same time when the argument is whether we should continue to do what we've always been doing, giving everyone a fair shot to join, I think it's unreasonable to with the option of not doing it at all and just simming it.
BTW, you're right, all human administrative systems are oppressive except voluntarism/anarchocapitalism, you cannot know true oppression until you don't have the option to opt out of it. I understand why people got upset with my choice of words but I don't how else I could describe a situation where 30 people who have had an equal opportunity to participate in a raid, decide to take away rewards from the those who did participate only to add a tiny amount to themselves. If you find a different word that best describes this you are welcome to say it
You are still ignoring the fact that the totality of rewards are slightly better than totality of manual. No wonder you are ignoring to even mention it, as that's the achilles heel of your argument.
So as the majority of guilds we decided to become Smurfs, go socialist on it. Would that make it more bearable for you?
leef that's alot to respond to and I just woke up so I'm not gonna go through all the comments. I used the word oppressive by it's definition and not necessarily a cultural or societal context. It would be disrespectful to compare slavery or communism to a gaming guild that doesn't let you manually do a rancor, especially when you have the option to leave. I'm using the word in it's simplest form not to be provocative but to explain my situation.
Now, definitions aside, my logic is simple and easy to follow. Sure not all guilds are the same, in my case my guild gets at best 15, maximum 20 people who raid on rancor. The rest 30-35 usually post 0 and don't raid. Most guilds decide what to do with votes (majority rule). With a system like this the 15 people who raid would never have a saying compared to the 35 who don't. Surely just because you raid it doesn't give you extra votes, but at the same time when the argument is whether we should continue to do what we've always been doing, giving everyone a fair shot to join, I think it's unreasonable to with the option of not doing it at all and just simming it.
BTW, you're right, all human administrative systems are oppressive except voluntarism/anarchocapitalism, you cannot know true oppression until you don't have the option to opt out of it. I understand why people got upset with my choice of words but I don't how else I could describe a situation where 30 people who have had an equal opportunity to participate in a raid, decide to take away rewards from the those who did participate only to add a tiny amount to themselves. If you find a different word that best describes this you are welcome to say it
I'm not arguing about the definition, i'm using the same definition as you are. I'm arguing that saying democracy oppressive and that's why it's bad to democratically decide whether you sim the rancor or don't, isn't a good argument. It's just an argument crafted that fits what you're trying to accomplish, but not something in itself you actually have a problem with.
The issue you really have is arguably a selfish one, which is probably why you're trying hide that by arguing about oppression instead of just saying what you really want. The problem with that is that you can't apply that same argument consistandly when talking about similar issues, making it a bad argument imo.
For example raid times, which coincedentilly is one of the reasons i do like the sim option. Aren't democratically decided raidtimes just as oppressive? Why is that okay, but it's an issue when deciding whether or not a guild should sim? Or any other guild decision that is made by voting for that matter. It's inevitably oppressive, so just because it's oppressive it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing
The real issue you have is that this change gives guilds the option to sim the raid which rewards lazy players and punishes active/willing players like yourself to a certain extent. Basically you don't want to be given an option that benefits the guild as a whole because it punishes a minority within the guild. In what manner guilds decide whether or not they're going to sim is actually irrelevant, you're just using it as an argument to give your complaint more validity (if that's a word, haha).
Funny enough, i think it's actually a valid complaint. I do not agree with it because i personally prefer the sim option, but valid nonetheless. I could get into why i prefer the sim option eventhough i did always auto the rancor when i had a high rank during the join period, but that's probably wasted effort.
This has gotten severely off topic, the thread isn't to debate the whether democracy is oppressive, it's to discuss rancor simming. Let's keep it that way please or the thread will be locked.
@BaldingHead90@icanectc Hey, I should apologize for my comments. My initial comment started us down the rabbit hole and got us off-track. My apologies to you both
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
@BaldingHead90@icanectc Hey, I should apologize for my comments. My initial comment started us down the rabbit hole and got us off-track. My apologies to you both
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
Nothing to Apologize for i love debating
As im not the original poster i can only assume he's not against the simming just the mediocre loot box associated with it. So my thinking is he wants better rewards for the simmable effort to be more in line with what he was getting as an active participant of the rancor raid which is now technically inferior to what he was getting. So i think his beef is solely with the rewards from it and not the simming of it.
That's true, I have stated it at least twice before, I have no issue with the rest of my guildmates receiving more rewards, I just don't agree with cutting down mine and the people who have showed up almost every rancor for the past year and a half in order to achieve that.
@BaldingHead90@icanectc Hey, I should apologize for my comments. My initial comment started us down the rabbit hole and got us off-track. My apologies to you both
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
Nothing to Apologize for i love debating
As im not the original poster i can only assume he's not against the simming just the mediocre loot box associated with it. So my thinking is he wants better rewards for the simmable effort to be more in line with what he was getting as an active participant of the rancor raid which is now technically inferior to what he was getting. So i think his beef is solely with the rewards from it and not the simming of it.
That's true, I have stated it at least twice before, I have no issue with the rest of my guildmates receiving more rewards, I just don't agree with cutting down mine and the people who have showed up almost every rancor for the past year and a half in order to achieve that.
You mean people obsessed enough for this game to track the time, set alarms at the depth of the night, sacrifice their individual time from other activities to be able to hit a button that will auto the raid? OK.
@BaldingHead90@icanectc Hey, I should apologize for my comments. My initial comment started us down the rabbit hole and got us off-track. My apologies to you both
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
Nothing to Apologize for i love debating
As im not the original poster i can only assume he's not against the simming just the mediocre loot box associated with it. So my thinking is he wants better rewards for the simmable effort to be more in line with what he was getting as an active participant of the rancor raid which is now technically inferior to what he was getting. So i think his beef is solely with the rewards from it and not the simming of it.
That's true, I have stated it at least twice before, I have no issue with the rest of my guildmates receiving more rewards, I just don't agree with cutting down mine and the people who have showed up almost every rancor for the past year and a half in order to achieve that.
You mean people obsessed enough for this game to track the time, set alarms at the depth of the night, sacrifice their individual time from other activities to be able to hit a button that will auto the raid? OK.
(EDIT: Can't delete comment so I'm editing my comment. Completely got my discussions mixed up and misunderstood what NoTry was saying hahaha)
@BaldingHead90@icanectc Hey, I should apologize for my comments. My initial comment started us down the rabbit hole and got us off-track. My apologies to you both
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
Nothing to Apologize for i love debating
As im not the original poster i can only assume he's not against the simming just the mediocre loot box associated with it. So my thinking is he wants better rewards for the simmable effort to be more in line with what he was getting as an active participant of the rancor raid which is now technically inferior to what he was getting. So i think his beef is solely with the rewards from it and not the simming of it.
That's true, I have stated it at least twice before, I have no issue with the rest of my guildmates receiving more rewards, I just don't agree with cutting down mine and the people who have showed up almost every rancor for the past year and a half in order to achieve that.
You mean people obsessed enough for this game to track the time, set alarms at the depth of the night, sacrifice their individual time from other activities to be able to hit a button that will auto the raid? OK.
But that's ultimately why my guild is overwhelmingly in favor of the sim. It was too much work to coordinate time and login just to hit "auto". I don't mind sacrificing potentially (keyword) better rewards for the convenience factor of simming.
But I can also see how some people, such as OP, would prefer manually doing it to potentially get better rewards.
@BaldingHead90@icanectc Hey, I should apologize for my comments. My initial comment started us down the rabbit hole and got us off-track. My apologies to you both
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
Nothing to Apologize for i love debating
As im not the original poster i can only assume he's not against the simming just the mediocre loot box associated with it. So my thinking is he wants better rewards for the simmable effort to be more in line with what he was getting as an active participant of the rancor raid which is now technically inferior to what he was getting. So i think his beef is solely with the rewards from it and not the simming of it.
That's true, I have stated it at least twice before, I have no issue with the rest of my guildmates receiving more rewards, I just don't agree with cutting down mine and the people who have showed up almost every rancor for the past year and a half in order to achieve that.
You mean people obsessed enough for this game to track the time, set alarms at the depth of the night, sacrifice their individual time from other activities to be able to hit a button that will auto the raid? OK.
Odds are that if your guild raids while you're sleeping you're in the wrong guild. I live in the US and I pick a US guild. I actually was in a European guild for a little while, I left for that reason
Replies
I do wonder what you think the additional information you provided (assuming he actually didn't have that information before you commented) makes his comment absurd and unintelligent.
Is the OP any less ridiculous when knowing the difference between a true democracy and republic democracy? If so, why?
I dunno what calling something true means. We got all varieties, just pick one that fits your best interest
Isn't his original statement just as valid with or without the information you assume he lacks? (with the context of the statement in mind)
Knowing that a democracy is oppressive, it's still a ridiculous statement to make in this context, so commenting you stopped reading after that statement isn't absurd, nor unitelligent.
I feel like you're too caught up in arguing about the statement without considering the context. I assume the guy would have never said he stopped reading after "democracy is a very oppressive system" if we were debating political system. Well, perhaps the "very" would be enough to dismiss the entire argument, but i'm willing to wager he'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
Very democrasies are very oppresive.
I personally feel like it was safe to stop reading after that statement even if you knew what he meant.
Oppression is inevitable when running a guild, regardless of what structure you're using. That alone invalidates the "oppression" argument imo. Especially when later on stating that simming punishes those who showed up in time while simming wasn't available yet seeying as the raid times had to be chosen in a similar manner.
I obviously couldn't have known his whole OP was based on that argument without continuing to read it, but with the title and the first paragraph i'd say it was same to assume it was.
Now, definitions aside, my logic is simple and easy to follow. Sure not all guilds are the same, in my case my guild gets at best 15, maximum 20 people who raid on rancor. The rest 30-35 usually post 0 and don't raid. Most guilds decide what to do with votes (majority rule). With a system like this the 15 people who raid would never have a saying compared to the 35 who don't. Surely just because you raid it doesn't give you extra votes, but at the same time when the argument is whether we should continue to do what we've always been doing, giving everyone a fair shot to join, I think it's unreasonable to with the option of not doing it at all and just simming it.
BTW, you're right, all human administrative systems are oppressive except voluntarism/anarchocapitalism, you cannot know true oppression until you don't have the option to opt out of it. I understand why people got upset with my choice of words but I don't how else I could describe a situation where 30 people who have had an equal opportunity to participate in a raid, decide to take away rewards from the those who did participate only to add a tiny amount to themselves. If you find a different word that best describes this you are welcome to say it
You are still ignoring the fact that the totality of rewards are slightly better than totality of manual. No wonder you are ignoring to even mention it, as that's the achilles heel of your argument.
So as the majority of guilds we decided to become Smurfs, go socialist on it. Would that make it more bearable for you?
I'm not arguing about the definition, i'm using the same definition as you are. I'm arguing that saying democracy oppressive and that's why it's bad to democratically decide whether you sim the rancor or don't, isn't a good argument. It's just an argument crafted that fits what you're trying to accomplish, but not something in itself you actually have a problem with.
The issue you really have is arguably a selfish one, which is probably why you're trying hide that by arguing about oppression instead of just saying what you really want. The problem with that is that you can't apply that same argument consistandly when talking about similar issues, making it a bad argument imo.
For example raid times, which coincedentilly is one of the reasons i do like the sim option. Aren't democratically decided raidtimes just as oppressive? Why is that okay, but it's an issue when deciding whether or not a guild should sim? Or any other guild decision that is made by voting for that matter. It's inevitably oppressive, so just because it's oppressive it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing
The real issue you have is that this change gives guilds the option to sim the raid which rewards lazy players and punishes active/willing players like yourself to a certain extent. Basically you don't want to be given an option that benefits the guild as a whole because it punishes a minority within the guild. In what manner guilds decide whether or not they're going to sim is actually irrelevant, you're just using it as an argument to give your complaint more validity (if that's a word, haha).
Funny enough, i think it's actually a valid complaint. I do not agree with it because i personally prefer the sim option, but valid nonetheless. I could get into why i prefer the sim option eventhough i did always auto the rancor when i had a high rank during the join period, but that's probably wasted effort.
Honest question now for OP and I'm interested in hearing your insight--what is your ideal scenario in terms of simming the Rancor raid? Is it to completely remove the simming capability? Is it to make it less attractive so your guild chooses not to do it?
I just know that my guild loved it. Only one person wanted to keep manually doing it and that was so he could get the portrait but the guild decided that him having a portrait (one he'd probably not even use) wasn't as beneficial to the guild as a whole as simming has been.
That's true, I have stated it at least twice before, I have no issue with the rest of my guildmates receiving more rewards, I just don't agree with cutting down mine and the people who have showed up almost every rancor for the past year and a half in order to achieve that.
You mean people obsessed enough for this game to track the time, set alarms at the depth of the night, sacrifice their individual time from other activities to be able to hit a button that will auto the raid? OK.
(EDIT: Can't delete comment so I'm editing my comment. Completely got my discussions mixed up and misunderstood what NoTry was saying hahaha)
But that's ultimately why my guild is overwhelmingly in favor of the sim. It was too much work to coordinate time and login just to hit "auto". I don't mind sacrificing potentially (keyword) better rewards for the convenience factor of simming.
But I can also see how some people, such as OP, would prefer manually doing it to potentially get better rewards.
Odds are that if your guild raids while you're sleeping you're in the wrong guild. I live in the US and I pick a US guild. I actually was in a European guild for a little while, I left for that reason