Other post: Why it's a terrible system.

Distribution of the mount ought to be based on effort or randomness. Attendance is a factor of effort and ought not to be its sole indicator. I believe it is vastly too difficult to come up with a fair system based on effort, and as such randomness should be used. I don't think anyone believes that there was anyone present on the kill that didn't deserve the mount. Perhaps some people deserved it more than others, but how do you quantify that? I don't know.

What I do know is that you don't quantify it the way it's been done. If the purpose of attendance is to represent effort, then you ought not preclude someone from getting the mount because they haven't attended for a reason outside their control, such as sickness, or having an exam the day after. You oughtn't preclude the person who single-handedly led us to victory for a multitude of bosses, because they had exams.

You also shouldn't choose an arbitrary start date. The start date should be the date at which people joined the guild. This gives you a measure of their attendance. If that seems unfair to you, that's indicative of how difficult it is to make a fair system, which is why we should just roll.

And if you [i]were[/i] to choose an arbitrary start date, why would you choose one immediately before some people had to go on holiday or had exams? For heaven's sake. It's a terrible system.

All of this I would have been happy to enumerate, and if you disagreed with me, discuss further, if you'd told us months ago like you should have.