Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization


Pathfinder Online

251 to 298 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Join me in ts3 and we shall discuss all the boob plates and all the cheesecakes. together we shall rule the galaxy (of boob plates and cheesecakes ) as.... as..... as two guys who share an interest in german chocolate and japanese PnP RPGs( i guess? )!

Goblin Squad Member

Devent Tharashk wrote:
Being wrote:

Not really. Rags is going to be smart if he shows up. When Andius' massive cavalry charge is thundering in, bright steel glinting in the sun and confident in the righteousness of the declared war, all the rags players have to do is drop guild and laugh as they are pounded into a thing red paste beneath the hooves of the trusting, foolish Paladins.

It is more important at this point to have your commuications in place. Plan in secret: don't be broadcasting everything you're gonna do out here in front of, um, certain silent readers dressed merrily in rags.

Yes Brother! All they will have to do is use the in-game mechanic of dropping guilds that anyone can do at any time from anywhere as clearly described in the game we all played!

Those foolish, stupid Paladins have no chance of spreading their chaos on the land!

You might have a point there. If you cannot so easily drop guild because of the need for a mechanism to prevent the payment of bounties to guildmates then maybe Andius' Paladins will not have to be considered so trusting.

Goblin Squad Member

Looks like Tony's will have plenty of business.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Looks like Tony's will have plenty of business.

As a shout out, Tony's is the last safe-haven for good bread and a friendly smile in the entire nuclear fallout of modern society after 'treaty' was signed!

Being wrote:
You might have a point there. If you cannot so easily drop guild because of the need for a mechanism to prevent the payment of bounties to guildmates then maybe Andius' Paladins will not have to be considered so trusting.

Yes! Trust breeds weakness, trust no one!

Especially not on a move for power, zerg mentality, tyrannical, lawful good boot stomping, mission creeping, fanatical zealot, grief spreading, grief stopping, insincere charlaton who is actually chaotic evil goon squad in disguise, trying to force everyone to join his guild and follow all their rules, stamp out role-playing bandits, stamp out role-playing anything, just making themselves targets Empyrean Order!

Goblin Squad Member

I think once Tony's has to get involved in something grand scale, annonymity will cease to exist. I don't think we want that. I guess the treaty can be used for big messes, and we can serve bread to more specific folks in need.

One thing I don't like about this, I must say, is this thread is pretty much calling out folks like the goon squad, daring them to face the community. Dunno that that's a stellar idea.

Just my 2 cp.


Blaeringr wrote:
Darsch wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

They don't need to be a criminal if you declare war. The treaty of Rovagug is not about stamping out individual griefers now and then, it's about dealing with huge groups of them that individual companies can't handle on their own.

So put the conversation you're trying to have into that context, and you'll see why it doesn't make as much sense to me.

then declaring war gives people the chance to circumvent everything GW is setting up to keep people in check, you want to kill someone for no other reason then you can, hey declare war on them, no criminal flag, no bounty, no alignment lost. seems to easy to me when i put the conversation in that context, in which this whole treaty could be used to circumvent repercussions and be used to grief other players simply be declaring war on them because they say things someone does not like.

have to qoute chumbawumba "What about free speech?"

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

Darsch wrote:

then declaring war gives people the chance to circumvent everything GW is setting up to keep people in check, you want to kill someone for no other reason then you can, hey declare war on them, no criminal flag, no bounty, no alignment lost. seems to easy to me when i put the conversation in that context, in which this whole...

IIRC war is consensual, ie both sides have to agree to go to war. I'll have to verify.


Valandur wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
Darsch wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:

@Darsch Declaring war on evil players will neither shift you away from lawful, nor from good. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that they would handle griefers any differently than you would, except that they plan to get as many people involved as possible.

Dividing yourself and insisting on stubbornly standing on your own vs uniting towards a common goal, but otherwise handling the fight itself in the same way in both cases: I'm surprised which one you think is actually lawful stupid.

when they attack someone who is not flagged as a criminal because the are trolling chat like andius has indicated would happen. maybe i did not fully express myself properly.

Andius stated earlier u mad bro commits, laughing at a corpse and tea bagging "trolling" is what he also views as griefing and would be handled similarly, well if they are not flagged as a criminal, and with out backing up a threat of violence there is no deterrence to them. they would goad this allegiance into acting as much as possible with out ever flagging themselves as a criminal until they have been attacked by one of the "good Guys" if you attack first, you are the one treated as a criminal, follow me now blaeringr? Does that make a little more sense in what i am trying to say?

They don't need to be a criminal if you declare war. The treaty of Rovagug is not about stamping out individual griefers now and then, it's about dealing with huge groups of them that individual companies can't handle on their own.

So put the conversation you're trying to have into that context, and you'll see why it doesn't make as much sense to me.

I 'think' what Darsch is saying is that inevitably TEO, or members linked with them via this treaty, will attack and kill people who aren't flagged as criminal, nor are they at war with

the alliance. When that happens the killers will receive criminal flags, possibly bounties and alignment hits. If this occurs enough times...

That is another side I was trying to address with my post. In war there is inevitably innocent casualties. It is something that will need more thought and more knowledge of game mechanics and everyone interested in this treaty needs to be aware of, if hypothetically a filthy rich merchant was that innocent bystander that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and inadvertently killed by accident, i would expect them to not care, you bet your bottom they would put bounties on each and every person involved, since at that point it would seem to them, as a person with no knowledge of what is happening that they just got greif ganked by a bunch of people for no other reason then they could, and then I would also expect them to be contacting the CSR's and making a complaint. how it ends from there is anybody's guess at that point.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well this thread has certainly been a journey, quite the wild ride really.

@Anduis ...

You had me and my company's agreement on anti griefing, right from the get go. I had already written that into our own charter, had my own definition, but I left it to my own membership to take my meaning within their own perception "As a company we strongly discourage griefing."

I may be strong, and harsh, abrasive and tenacious, but I believe in freedom. That is both IRL and IC.

Since you have given up on this project, I'm sure only publically, I will clue you in where you lost me and created this firestorm.

Andius wrote:
"Why not just rob the rich ones and let the poor ones go?

This was from your 3rd post in this thread. Here was the first evidence of that slippery slope. This treaty was not being designed to curtail just griefing, but to curtail any act you do not support.

Many have come here and pointed out the fact that this treaty is being suggested out of fear. Many have asked for clarification and definitions of terms. Many have asked questions of by who's authority, who enforces the terms and what are the consequences.

Your responses, "we will take this to another thread and privately discuss it. Or PM me if you have any further questions. Lets move to to our forums, where you would have control over the debate."

Then in fly your lap dogs... crying and whining about how ungrateful we all are not to place ourselves under your yoke. Even your own threats of "When this negative force comes, don't turn to us for help."

That negative force is Goonswarm, and they will come for you and yours first. Why? Because you put their bull's eye right on yourself.

I was in EVE Online when Goonswarm first arrived. They used a tactic none had thought of. If you fly a fleet made up of hundreds of Tech 1 frigates, no semi disorganized force could stand against you. They did not set their sights on the small or the medium or even the large corporations. They set their sights on the biggest, and most well connected alliance in the game.

It was good for the game, because Bob was corrupt. It was exploiting the game and had inside Developer help in doing it (which is why BoB had 200+ accounts perma banned and 2 Devs were fired).

Sorry for the EVE history lesson, people, but it puts into context what TEO fears.

So I say again, we of The UnNamed Company were on board for anti griefing. You however were unwilling to clearly define it, and instead you took it to where that definition has no place.

@ Papaver

Quote:

Well....... It is a meta-game treaty so one would be best advised to discuss it out of character :)

Also you seem very interested in questioning people who find this treaty appealing...... do you enjoy your new paycheck from The UnNamed Company?

If you know what I mean *wink* *wink* *cough*

The only thing I "paid" to anyone who agreed with me was a does of common sense, but thanks for the laugh! Maybe Anduis will give you 3 biscuits for that quote.... lap dog!


Dakcenturi wrote:
Darsch wrote:

then declaring war gives people the chance to circumvent everything GW is setting up to keep people in check, you want to kill someone for no other reason then you can, hey declare war on them, no criminal flag, no bounty, no alignment lost. seems to easy to me when i put the conversation in that context, in which this whole...

IIRC war is consensual, ie both sides have to agree to go to war. I'll have to verify.

if it is consensual then we go back to square one of killing unflagged people.


Bluddwolf wrote:


That negative force is Goonswarm, and they will come for you and yours first. Why? Because you put their bull's eye right on yourself.

I was in EVE Online when Goonswarm first arrived. They used a tactic none had thought of. If you fly a fleet made up of hundreds of Tech 1 frigates, no semi disorganized force could stand against you. They did not set their sights on the small or the medium or even the large corporations. They set their sights on...

so basicly they came in, cleaned house, and did a great service to the community by fighting against cheaters/exploiters/griefers.

I kinda like the goons.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

Here is the quote about consensual war

Ryan Dancey wrote:
When two entities (characters, Companies, Settlements or Kingdoms) both set their relationship standing to "Hostile", a state of war will exist between them.

Goblin Squad Member

Nice ad hominem you have there dear Trollwolf.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darsch wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


That negative force is Goonswarm, and they will come for you and yours first. Why? Because you put their bull's eye right on yourself.

I was in EVE Online when Goonswarm first arrived. They used a tactic none had thought of. If you fly a fleet made up of hundreds of Tech 1 frigates, no semi disorganized force could stand against you. They did not set their sights on the small or the medium or even the large corporations. They set their sights on...

so basicly they came in, cleaned house, and did a great service to the community by fighting against cheaters/exploiters/griefers.

I kinda like the goons.

Well, that was then. They do flex their muscle every once in a while and shut down the largest trade hub for a few days. Killing any one that enters. I would imagine the same kind of Tom foolery in PFO. But that would remain to be seen.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Papaver wrote:
Nice ad hominem you have there dear Trollwolf.

My pleasure, I guess you feel only you can throw accusations around?


well i for one now know for a fact Andius can not be trusted.

Goblin Squad Member

Sure, if you feel that you have to pic up on a joke to make an accusation than I won't keep you from it :)

Goblin Squad Member

Darsch wrote:
well i for one now know for a fact Andius can not be trusted.

Huh? Where'd you get that?

<searches through his arcane research>

I must have missed something altogether... or was it your more informed estimation of the goons?

I don't believe we are yet fully informed about them, if so.

Goblin Squad Member

The sad truth is when it comes to certain things almost nobody you are not closely allied with should be fully trusted.

Even me. I'll likely not really be a Druid at all. Just to keep my head down, d'you see? As soon as someone sees anyone who looks remotely like a Druid they will be cut down like a birch sapling in the hope that is is me. No... I'll probably be... hmm... A tiefling! That's it! Sure!

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf, on a less confrontational note:

Contrary to your assumption you wouldn't have to force your position into this hypothetical treaty. If you want to contribute and eventually sign it you are as detailed in the first post of this tread welcome to the convention.

Also I happy that this thread at least inspired you to flesh out the policies of the UnNamed Company.

Goblin Squad Member

My own personal opinions on the subject and nothing more,

I would expect/hope that GW deals with straight out "griefing" by use of the ban-hammer. "Greifing" in my book is intentionaly trying to ruin another players day. By any definition that would be covered by the "harrasment" clause that is likely to be in any TOS. Really GW staff are the ones best equiped to deal with "greifing" because real "griefers" won't much care about thier characters being killed...the characters are just a tool used by "griefers" to play thier game of harrassing people..they often don't much care about them beyond that.

Now, there is another type of player that, IMO, doesn't really fit under the definition "griefer" but more RPKer. Those are the guys who seem to think they are playing Halo (single-player) where all the rest of us are hostile mobs. That's not really "griefing" but it is, IMO, a play-style that is going to hurt the community and the game as a whole...because it's not actualy playing the game the way it was intended by the designers and it does end up detracting from others enjoyment.... just like in FPS with vehicle spawns a guy who takes his own sides vehicle and purposefully drives it off a cliff for lols or takes it to the far side of the map and just sits there with it isn't playing those sorts of games the way they were intended.

I do hope everyone, regardless of alignment and regardless of any signed agreement, does what they can to discourage that sort of play. It's one thing if you are doing something within the spirit of play and that thing is a bit jerky (e.g. always grabbing the vehicle spawn even though you know you are a crappy driver). It's another if you don't understand or are purposefully ignoring the spirit of play altogether. YMMV.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

@GrumpyMel Just for reference

Ryan Dancey wrote:

First, there's no hard & fast definition of "griefing" that will satisfy everyone. For some, any limit to their activities is too restrictive, and to others, any non-consensual interaction is too permissive. Where you fall on that continuum is really a matter of personal choice, not definition.

I can tell you that in Pathfinder Online you will be involved in non-consensual interaction with other players on a regular basis.

That is not to say that unlimited poor behavior will be tolerated.

...

People who want to be anonymous jerks will not get much pleasure out of being quickly and unceremoniously silenced, booted, or banned. Without the ability to encite "rage & tears", those folks will have no good reason to haunt Pathfinder Online.

...

Players should also be free from metagame harassment of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political or religious affiliation, favorite college football team, or participation in other MMOs. Taking someone's off-line world into our on-line world will be totally unacceptable and we'll have a very low tolerance for those who break those rules.

Most open world games with unrestricted PvP tend to have very, very hands-off policies when it comes to griefing. Pathfinder Online will be an exception to that trend.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Papaver wrote:

@Bluddwolf, on a less confrontational note:

Contrary to your assumption you wouldn't have to force your position into this hypothetical treaty. If you want to contribute and eventually sign it you are as detailed in the first post of this tread welcome to the convention.

Also I happy that this thread at least inspired you to flesh out the policies of the UnNamed Company.

Why would I attend a convention, at the TEO website, and argue my points when Andius would not concede on the very basic premise that this treaty was not being considered solely to prevent griefing, but other activities as well?

Then I have this, just an excerpt of a lager document:

Quote:
There is a group more frustrating than those who are oblivious to the threat Open World PVP culture poses though. People like PAX, Bloodwulf, and Darsch who support and subscribe to it. That it's ok for this game to be a giant Call of Duty match. That's just what Open World PVP is.

First....@ Andius, please get my name right.... But please explain, where did I ever say I wanted Call of Duty style Open World PvP? Where did I say I wanted to kill anyone with out reason? On the contrary, I have said that if there was a game mechanic that allowed me to see the inventory of a person, without killing them and then use non lethal force to get it, I would prefer to do that.

Please do not misstate my positions. I have been a far more honest broker of where I stand that you!

I'm a bandit, a fence, a mercenary, a spy..... I want to steal your stuff, sell what I stole, take contracts to make war and to gather and sell information. I do not hide this from anyone. I will work for anyone, for the right price. My only motivations are greed and adventure. My only treasure is the freedom to do as I please, restrained only by my own code.

A contract will always be fulfilled; a debt always repaid; a friend always helped; an enemy made to suffer; an opponent respected; the weak left unmolested; and an opportunity never missed.

@Papaver, So tell me, who has acted with more honor? If you can't recognize it, I can accept that, but at least others can now know better.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Papaver wrote:

@Bluddwolf,

Also I happy that this thread at least inspired you to flesh out the policies of the UnNamed Company.

Actually The UnNamed Company had its policies before this thread, they have remained unchanged by this thread.

The one thing that has changed is that the rubber stamp that was expected by TEO, did not happen.

Goblin Squad Member

Wait, does that mean we're on the list of people that need to be crushed under the boot of TEO for being a detriment to the PfO community, now?

Awesome!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
@Papaver, So tell me, who has acted with more honor? If you can't recognize it, I can accept that, but at least others can now know better

You speak of honor and honesty, yet you use ad hominem and slippery slope. You claim to refuse to sign document that is set in stone while being welcomed to draft it.

You demonstrated the ability to attack an argument and not a person yet you refuse to stick to it. And that makes me sad more than anything else.


i think more of that thread realy should be posted so everyone can see just how far teo has fallen from its orginialy advertised ideal.

Goblin Squad Member

Private comms should be kept private. Simple courtesy.


and that is why spies are paid so amazingly well.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Back on subject: I am now convinced that I never understood the proposal that was intended. I would like to request a restatement without any of the emotion currently being thrown around, which I will try to consider without bringing any of my current preconceptions and jumps to conclusions.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


First....@ Andius, please get my name right.... But please explain, ...

And why would he? so you could gloat even more about his frustration?

i wouldn`advice him to.

oh, and on a personal note?
i don`t like been called a lapdog because i belong to an organisation you don`t like.
i find the way you behave rather disgusting.

Darsch wrote:


i think more of that thread realy should be posted so everyone can see just how far teo has fallen from its orginialy advertised ideal.

Yeah maybe the leadership should post the rest.

would you like a summary?
One man being frustrated and taking to his friends about it.
And those friends being resonable.
sadly no fall from grace for you.

@Being and DeciusBrutus
Thanks for being the voices of reason and courtesy.


no andius just decided to insult and attack me and several others for asking questions, pointing out the problems and trying to see this worked out instead of just following him blindly like sheep.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


To the contrary I've found that few things are more effective at combating griefers than turning their own game against them. Griefers do what they do often because of how easy it is to torment newbs. They get their charge from proving to newbs how much tougher they are than them. When veterans come in and spoil their fun they cry harder than anyone else.

Actually I would suggest that you really do not understand what motivates the large/dedicated groups like the GOONS. This very thread and the fact that you are trying to rally a community to prevent them from joining a game that is probably not even on their radar yet... is the very epitomy of what they strive for.

Prior to the launch of GW2 they went onto a RP server's forums and posted that they were coming to their server. They had no intention of ever doing so, but the mere suggestion was enough to send the server into a tizzy with threats to leave etc...

We are at least 17 months from the very first phase of Open Enrollment. Are we truly that insecure that our community needs to have "secret discussions" on how to deal with the unwanted people that may or may not be coming TWO YEARS FROM NOW? (Normal release)

You have referenced Darkfall more than once. What you are doing is creating a Hyperion situation. You are giving the Goons an easy target to rally behind. Just like they did when they got half the server to join them in their Coalition of the Chilin to take out the "good" Dutchy of Wessex (Hyperion). People have an innate distrust of large "zergs". Particularly those that try to force or impose their rules or beliefs on the game.

Goblin Squad Member

It's one thing to "spy" in context of events that are happening in game... e.g. "WE attack the fort at 5:00 A.M."

It's quite another to "spy" in context of communications/things that are entirely outside the context of the game.... e.g. "I really feel X is being an unfair jerk to me on the forums."

Is the latter considered acceptable etiquette here?

Full Disclosure...I'm a member of TEO.

Bluddwolf, I personaly have no problems with your stated rationale for how you intend to do the things in-game that your character/organization intend to do. I'm playing a LG character so we occasionaly might butt heads in game...all part of the fun.

I have no problem with you "spying" in the context of what's happening in game.

I have no problem with you opposing what Andius tried to put forward and making arguements to support that point... although I think you and others might have misjudged the intent that it was put forward under.

I do however find it disturbing that you'd "spy" on comms that were clearly discussing things outside of the game....such as one players frustrations at the turn a forum discussion had taken.

I look forward to playing a game with you and enjoying you do all sorts of underhanded, devious things in game. I really don't look forward to having my phone tapped about discusions that are occuring outside the context of things that are to occur IN GAME. Is that what I am to expect of you going forward?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel, you have confused me sir.

Did you mean Darsch and not Bluddwolf? Or have I missed where Bluddwolf was commenting on TEO internal communications?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Southraven:
This.
Taken from the TEO forum and out of context.

Bluddwolf wrote:


Then I have this, just an excerpt of a lager document:

Quote:
There is a group more frustrating than those who are oblivious to the threat Open World PVP culture poses though. People like PAX, Bloodwulf, and Darsch who support and subscribe to it. That it's ok for this game to be a giant Call of Duty match. That's just what Open World PVP is.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darsch wrote:
no andius just decided to insult and attack me and several others for asking questions, pointing out the problems and trying to see this worked out instead of just following him blindly like sheep.

No, Andius spoke negatively of you on a PRIVATE forum to a group of people who were his FRIENDS.... where I come from that's called "blowing off steam."

Bluddwulf made it an insult when it was posted publicaly when it was not intended as a public communication.... bad form in my book, but I'm going to give Bluddwulf the benefit of the doubt that he too got carried away by the heat of the arguement and was not really thinking about what he was doing.

If anyone did read the entire thread, they'd see that Andius was expressing frustration that several others didn't seem to understand his concerns or intent.

If you further read the thread on the private forum you can see where I expressed the opinion that what Bluddwulf did was a pretty d#$% move. Which I'm happy to share with you publicaly here.

Again, I hope that is NOT characteristic of Bluddwulf, the PLAYER, as his organization actualy sounds like a fun antagonist....but I really wouldn't look forward to having my phone tapped or my e-mail read simply because I want to play a game with him.


Southraven wrote:

GrumpyMel, you have confused me sir.

Did you mean Darsch and not Bluddwolf? Or have I missed where Bluddwolf was commenting on TEO internal communications?

i believe his post was in refrence to bluddwolf sharing an excerpt from a post he read from another forum as well as a reply I said to being as a joke.

for the record when I said "and that is why spies are paid so amazingly well." it was simply a joke reply to being, nothing more nothing less.

I have not used a spy, nor do I need to as things tend to get revealed on their own.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Blaeringr, I'm really surprised to see you defending this treaty so staunchly. Not that I don't trust your anti-griefing bona fides, rather it just seems out of character for you not to revel in the chaos and division on display. It makes me think you must have a vested interest in it somehow... are you enjoying your new home?

There is an important difference between controlled chaos and total anarchy, and that difference is very important to an aspiring tyrant.

Having said that, I won't deny the infiltration you are insinuating, but we're generally very low key with our infiltration at this point. No point blowing our cover this far before the game's even launched.

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

oh, and on a personal note?
i don`t like been called a lapdog because i belong to an organisation you don`t like.
i find the way you behave rather disgusting.
.

This is the first time I have seen you, so the lapdog comment was not meant for you personally. Nor is it meant as a real personal attack, other than to point out a behavior. It is not meant to be taken as a personal condition.

@Being, I agree that private messages should remain private. I have withheld most of the lengthy memo. But, then again, if it were private it still managed to find its way to me. It was posted on a public forum somewhere.

@DeciuosBrutus,

I also agree.... The concept of this treaty if reframed could be something we could discuss. I have said all along, define the terms, establish the authority, lay out the consequences and then we shall see.

There could be agreement, even at this stage, if the treaty be focused on just the established definitions of what griefing is. We all know what they are in a MMORPG. All we have to do is make some adjustments for this particular type of MMO, based on the Pathfinder setting and rule set.

Terms must be uniform
Professions must be taken into account.
Alignment must be taken into account.
Role playing must be taken into account
There needs to be the same rules for all
Enforcement must first be at the company level

In the event that TEO or any other company needs the assistance of The UnNamed Company, we will be available for hire. That is how this thing works.

On a personal note, if I have spoken harshly and offense taken on a personal level, I retract my words and apologize. I do not belive I fired the first shot in this heated debate, but I will refrain from firing back in a less directed manner.

Goblin Squad Member

Southraven wrote:

GrumpyMel, you have confused me sir.

Did you mean Darsch and not Bluddwolf? Or have I missed where Bluddwolf was commenting on TEO internal communications?

Bluddwolf reposted an internal TEO forum communication by Andius which was taken out of context and essentialy Andius venting a bit to his friends.

Apparently Bluddwolf has "spies" on our forums....which is actualy perfectly fine and expected. As long as the "spying" he does is related to things which occur WITHIN the context of the game.

The one in question is a reference to something entirely OUTSIDE the context of the game... and just one gamer venting to other gamers about frustrations over a thread on the PFO Forums...which themselves are entirely outside the context of the game...which hasn't even been developed yet.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dakcenturi wrote:

Here is the quote about consensual war

Ryan Dancey wrote:
When two entities (characters, Companies, Settlements or Kingdoms) both set their relationship standing to "Hostile", a state of war will exist between them.

I question strongly whether that will last. Open PvP is not open if the other company always has the option to just keep the door closed.

@Darsch The question is whether you can declare war against an individual character or not. I'd assume war can only exist between companies or settlements, so declaring war just to gank one person would mean opening your whole company up to retribution from the other company.

@All Maybe I'm missing something the rest of you are seeing in what Andius has proposed, but all I'm seeing him recommending is this: "hey guys, Rovagug situation brewing over on this end of the map. They've already slashed and burned through 5 large and powerful settlements, teabagging their way from east to west. My company is willing to suspend all hostilities until this is resolved."

The idea of this thread is to discuss situations like this ahead of time. If you disagree that it really is a Rovagug situation, then you'll say so at the time. Heck, you may even try to play both sides and sell you impromptu "allies" out to the goons.

The game won't completely collapse if you don't plan for something like this, but it may save a settlement or two of yours or your allies.

If you're convinced that Andius is really out to stab everyone in the back (not an absurd fear), then simply invoke the Rovagug treaty itself against Andius.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Blaeringr. I"ll be in my fallout shelter awaiting the Apocalypse if anyone needs me...

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

@ Southraven:

This.
Taken from the TEO forum and out of context.

Bluddwolf wrote:


Then I have this, just an excerpt of a lager document:

Quote:
There is a group more frustrating than those who are oblivious to the threat Open World PVP culture poses though. People like PAX, Bloodwulf, and Darsch who support and subscribe to it. That it's ok for this game to be a giant Call of Duty match. That's just what Open World PVP is.

I did not post the full context on purpose. To be honest, I thought the full context would be too damaging to TEO. You know the full context, so you know what I'm talking about.

I also did not spy on anyone, outside of the game, nor obviously inside of the game. I received this from someone, not part of my own company. Members of my own company have not been dispatched this early in the game's development.

I can not control what PMs are sent to me, but I can control what I do with them. What I won't do is reveal my source.

The main issue I have with the memo is that my position is completely mischaracterized. There is no way, based on what I have posted that would bring Anduis to those conclusions.

I may shoot my mouth off, and when I do, I apologize. But I very, very rarely hold my tongue and I never roll over without a tenacious defense.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Southraven wrote:

GrumpyMel, you have confused me sir.

Did you mean Darsch and not Bluddwolf? Or have I missed where Bluddwolf was commenting on TEO internal communications?

Bluddwolf reposted an internal TEO forum communication by Andius which was taken out of context and essentialy Andius venting a bit to his friends.

Apparently Bluddwolf has "spies" on our forums....which is actualy perfectly fine and expected. As long as the "spying" he does is related to things which occur WITHIN the context of the game.

I have no spies, the internal document came to me unsolicited. Maybe Andius does not have the friends he thinks? Maybe there is decent in TEO's ranks already?

I can see that PFO is going to have politics very similar to EvE Online. Perhaps that is to be expected in a Sand Box MMO, or maybe just in Open World PvP games, but PFO is both. So maybe we will see twice as much, twice as early?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They say "he who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks".

Should someone really make such a big deal about people venting among friends on their private forums?

Here's a better question: when you are the head of a company that is actively recruiting all comers with doors wide open, knowing there is a another company out there that delights in infiltration and juicy secrets, is it really really a wise long term strategy to make such a stink about a little venting among friends?

Here's another: are you ready to be reminded and reminded of this issue when it bites you in the face?

Really, you guys are making the revenge and espionage business far too easy. Tony's going to be able to retire before the game even laucnhes just based off of all the promised payments for gathered information.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


I did not post the full context on purpose. To be honest, I thought the full context would be too damaging to TEO.

Right, so you posted only this part... why exactly?

Bluddwolf wrote:
You know the full context, so you know what I'm talking about.

yes, i know the full context.

i also know the posts following that particular one.

Bluddwolf wrote:
I also did not spy on anyone, outside of the game, nor obviously inside of the game. I received this from someone, not part of my own company. Members of my own company have not been dispatched this early in the game's development.

which i will believe you, of course... on your word?!

Bluddwolf wrote:
I can not control what PMs are sent to me, but I can control what I do with them. What I won't do is reveal my source.

Which brings me back to my first question.

Gedichtewich wrote:


Right, so you posted only this part... why exactly?
as you clear don`t want to be
Bluddwolf wrote:
too damaging to TEO.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The main issue I have with the memo is that my position is completely mischaracterized. There is no way, based on what I have posted that would bring Anduis to those conclusions.

i could be wrong, but i think that may be because, it was writen in frustration, in a private forum, where he should have been among friends. But that`s just me.

Bluddwolf wrote:
I may shoot my mouth off, and when I do, I apologize. But I very, very rarely hold my tongue and I never roll over without a tenacious defense.

i wouldn`t see an apology as rolling over.

i would see this as a grown up reaction.
it takes guts a apologize.

having said that, i do hope this does not come across as overly aggressiv but what do did, is, in my book no better than reading a personal letter or diary an posting its content on facebook so everyone can have a laugh.

on a differnt note, i`m only critizising this particular behavier.
i would really like to see, everyone taking a deep breath, have some time to think and then come back and try again. without all these emotions and give this a real go.
apart from the details everyone would like to in- or exclude, i really think most of as are really on the same page but to busy to notice that.

and i think a good point to restar would be to follow the wisdom of the bakery:

Blaeringr wrote:


@All Maybe I'm missing something the rest of you are seeing in what Andius has proposed, but all I'm seeing him recommending is this: "hey guys, Rovagug situation brewing over on this end of the map. They've already slashed and burned through 5 large and powerful settlements, teabagging their way from east to west. My company is willing to suspend all hostilities until this is resolved."

The idea of this thread is to discuss situations like this ahead of time. If you disagree that it really is a Rovagug situation, then you'll say so at the time. Heck, you may even try to play both sides and sell you impromptu "allies" out to the goons.

wouldn`t it?

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed posts and locking thread. Be civil to each other, please.

251 to 298 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online