UNC Definition of "In Good, Bad and Ugly Standing"


Pathfinder Online

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


4. Mark the trespasser as trespassing, then kill them.

If the gatherer is outside of the territory that you control enough to declare them trespasser, then killing them and taking their stuff is also being a jerk.

Oh, and there's a difference between being a jerk and griefing, the ONLY system that I look to solve griefing is customer service. The Reputation system is intended to provide the incentive structure such that there are fewer jerks.

Is your company going to give the UNC rights to mark trespassers in your territory?

Killing them and taking their stuff, knowing full well that they are an alt of a target, is meaningful human interaction, which is defined by PFO as not being a jerk.

the OH part, tell that to your buddy Nihimon... according to him being a jerk is griefing.

Not unless we engage the UNC as enforcers. If you are trying to lay claim to resources, but need someone else's permission to declare the characters currently gathering tresspassing, what you are doing is probably raiding, not defending your claim.

EDIT: Fixed broken tag.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
I do not see anyone who is hating on those who will have low-rep. I think the case is more about resisting calls to remove the repercussions of low-rep (Calling the system broken might not be an explicit call, but it is definitely implied).

I don't recall actually seeing anyone wanting those repercussions. What I've seen is people *accepting* them as being worth it to participate in unsanctioned PVP. They're *embracing* those repercussions as a fact of life.

Goblin Squad Member

Sennajin wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
I do not see anyone who is hating on those who will have low-rep. I think the case is more about resisting calls to remove the repercussions of low-rep (Calling the system broken might not be an explicit call, but it is definitely implied).
I don't recall actually seeing anyone wanting those repercussions. What I've seen is people *accepting* them as being worth it to participate in unsanctioned PVP. They're *embracing* those repercussions as a fact of life.

Out of curiosity, what would the realization of the differences between our two positions be and/or what would it look like?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Xeen wrote:

[QUOTE="DeciusBrutus

4. Mark the trespasser as trespassing, then kill them.

If the gatherer is outside of the territory that you control enough to declare them trespasser, then killing them and taking their stuff is also being a jerk.

Oh, and there's a difference between being a jerk and griefing, the ONLY system that I look to solve griefing is customer service. The Reputation system is intended to provide the incentive structure such that there are fewer jerks.

Is your company going to give the UNC rights to mark trespassers in your territory?

Killing them and taking their stuff, knowing full well that they are an alt of a target, is meaningful human interaction, which is defined by PFO as not being a jerk.

the OH part, tell that to your buddy Nihimon... according to him being a jerk is griefing.

Not unless we engage the UNC as enforcers. If you are trying to lay claim to resources, but need someone else's permission to declare the characters currently gathering tresspassing, what you are doing is probably raiding, not defending your claim.

Your quote is all over.

If we have the ability to ask someone to declare another character as tresspassing... then they probably are trespassing and will be killed... If we do not have the ability to ask for it, then they will be SADed.

All subject to change of course.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Sennajin wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
I do not see anyone who is hating on those who will have low-rep. I think the case is more about resisting calls to remove the repercussions of low-rep (Calling the system broken might not be an explicit call, but it is definitely implied).
I don't recall actually seeing anyone wanting those repercussions. What I've seen is people *accepting* them as being worth it to participate in unsanctioned PVP. They're *embracing* those repercussions as a fact of life.
Out of curiosity, what would the realization of the differences between our two positions be and/or what would it look like?

Sorry, I mis-typed. The first line should have read, "I don't recall actually seeing anyone wanting those repercussions removed."

Forgot to tack on removed in my haste =)

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
I do not see anyone who is hating on those who will have low-rep.

To a degree, I am. I believe that if the game works as intended, the players who have Low Reputation will be jerks.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Sintaqx wrote:

Stubborn? Check.

Vocal? Check.
Passionate? Check.

Sounds like faction leadership to me!
...

Almost any child is stubborn, vocal, and passionate. This is not to say any of us is childish, but I would point out those characteristics are wide of the target.

I remember watching some show on the development of Human Civilization. At the point of Agriculture, the show said something about the rise of the first leaders: "Charismatic, Outspoken, and Intelligent".

At the time, I was reminded me of a Meatloaf song...

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
I do not see anyone who is hating on those who will have low-rep.
To a degree, I am. I believe that if the game works as intended, the players who have Low Reputation will be jerks.

My only concern is that "as intended" is speculation and wishful thinking at the moment. Why not just encourage GW to continue with their intend and let the low-rep suffer their justice in the end?

Technically, no one has griefed, rpk'd, nor "jerked" yet, so personally I think it makes sense to wait until the system is working and "hate" them through mechanical means.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thats fine, but this thread is about how the UNC will define our standings.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
My only concern is that "as intended" is speculation and wishful thinking at the moment.

Really? I thought it was clearly spelled out by Ryan and the devs.

KitNyx wrote:
Why not just encourage GW to continue with their intend and let the low-rep suffer their justice in the end?

Isn't part of their intent that other Low Reputation characters will be shunned and distrusted by other players?

KitNyx wrote:
Technically, no one has griefed, rpk'd, nor "jerked" yet...

I disagree.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
My only concern is that "as intended" is speculation and wishful thinking at the moment.

Really? I thought it was clearly spelled out by Ryan and the devs.

KitNyx wrote:
Why not just encourage GW to continue with their intend and let the low-rep suffer their justice in the end?

Isn't part of their intent that other Low Reputation characters will be shunned and distrusted by other players?

KitNyx wrote:
Technically, no one has griefed, rpk'd, nor "jerked" yet...
I disagree.

It's obviously *not* clearly spelled out, otherwise people wouldn't have such varied views in regards to it.

For instance, you take sanctioned PVP to mean that is the only PVP that is "allowed". All other PVP is being a dick (as all other PVP is unsanctioned).

I take it to mean something very different.

Sanctioned PVP is consensual PVP. You'll both have certain flags that will allow you to PVP without taking rep hits.

Unsanctioned PVP is non-consensual PVP, you will not have those flags and will, therefore, take a reputation hit (the initiator).

They both have their place, they're both valid, and they both work within the system that was created. Sanctioned PVP, obviously, is encouraged, in that you don't take a rep hit. Unsanctioned PVP is discouraged in that you do take a rep hit.

However, unsanctioned PVP is still ok, and *not* being a dick, no matter how you want to dress it up, or who you want to misquote. Will people who participate in unsanctioned PVP be dicks? Sure, absolutely, but so will some of the folks who participate in sanctioned PVP.

If GW didn't want people participating in unsanctioned PVP, they wouldn't even have it. They would just have a toggle system like SWG had. But, they don't. Why don't they? They don't have it so people who *want* to do unsanctioned PVP (and get all the rep hits that go with it) can.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Thats fine, but this thread is about how the UNC will define our standings.

This is the point that seems to be lost by some who need to argue every post I make.

This is not a debate thread, it is a statement thread. I couldn't care less what anyone believes about our interpretation and declaration of what is "In Good Standing" for the UnNamed Company.

This thread is meant to lay out our definition and policy so that anyone interested in being "In Good Standing" would have a general idea of how to do that.

If you have no desire to know, or no concern whether you are in our good standing or not, that is up to you.

We do not accept someone else's definition of what is a griefer, toxic behavior or being a jerk, at face value. Only if that individual is those descriptions in our opinion is what matters.

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend is not a truism for the UNC. Just as the Friend of My Friend is My Friend, is also unequally true.

I also do not subscribe completely to "Guilt by Association".

Lhan would be treated differently than some other member of TEO or T7V. The same would hold true for other members of our rivals. I'm sure that the same would hold true towards my members, like Talon Fox or Sintaqx.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
...This is not a debate thread, it is a statement thread. ...

Fox is reporting that you refuse to negotiate. Then the fox ran off and I was unable to further question him.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whether or not someone shuns and distrusts a low rep character is a call that they should make. Just remember to not make any judgement calls against the player's reputation without a body of evidence.

I think that this is more or less where 'The Ugly' lies. It's not tied to any reputation score, but rather to prior experiences. UNC can (and probably will) have groups with good standing to us even though they are full of -75s. And UNC will probably have groups with Bad or Ugly standing who are comprised almost exclusively of +75s.

If you don't want to associate with my character or allow him into your settlement because he's dipped to -75, that is your prerogative. Just refrain from placing any labels on me unless you know the history and circumstances.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I would consider it an honor if I could be officially proclaimed the very first to be held "In Ugly Standing" with UNC.

After further development of our standings system, your request would imply that you wish to be placed in a standing that is negative towards us and therefore directed back at you, in a negative way in and outside of the game.

I really hope that this is not the case, and I fully expect that there will be so very few people that fall into this status with me or my company.

If you would like to clarify your position in light of this, I would greatly appreciate it. If you would like to reaffirm your desire to be openly hostile on a personal basis, in and out of the game, that would be extremely unfortunate but I would appeal that you do not take this status lightly.

Again, "Ugly Standing" is reserved for those I (We) truly dislike and wish to do harm to in game. You and or your company is not in that status from our perspective.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
it is a statement thread.

Congratulations, the participants have decided that it isn't.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
If you would like to clarify your position in light of this...

I will.

Bluddwolf wrote:
If the UNC is confronted with disproportionate reprisal for our actions, including defamation of our "character" on forums or other meta game actions... They will be found to be "In Ugly Standing".

You have made it quite clear in the past that my stated position of "Millions for Defense, not one Copper in Tribute" was considered a "disproportionate" response, and that my actions in that regard would invite significant and directed attacks from you in order to show me the error of my ways.

In addition, I have been unflinching in my assessment that you are "pro-griefer" to the extent that you advocate for: 1) reduced Reputation penalties; or 2) easier recovery from Reputation losses; or 3) that other players should not judge players based on their Reputation. I understand that you consider these statements to be "defamation" of your character.

For those reasons, I concluded that I was already in "Ugly Standing".

If you would like to clarify UNC's official position towards me or The Seventh Veil, I will listen.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nihimon

First you should consider what I started my previous post with:

"After further development of our standings system..."

Resurrecting old statements, of anyone's, must be filtered through new realities before using them in the previous context or as a statement for today.

Your previous interpretation of my response to "Millions for... Not One Copper For" is over blown.

I will lay it out as I see it:

1. I offer a SAD, and it is by all standards, reasonable lets say 5%.
2. You reject, which is your right.
3. I kill you and take more than 5%, obviously up to 75%.
4. You then take out a Bounty... I'm ok with that
5. You hire an Assassin.... I'm ok with that
6. You place a Death Curse... I'm ok with that
7. You come to these forums and label me a "Griefer"....... That is
defamation and "Ugly" in my point of view.

Even though I think all of your reactions in-game were perhaps an over reaction, they are the in-game tools and I'm ok with them.

My response was that I would use all of the in-game tools to retaliate, in-kind, to that merchant. I would also know not to offer that merchant a SAD offer again, and just use ambush and get my 75% every time.

I have never said to eliminate Reputation, only to balance it so that it does not only apply to the one who wins the fight. Reputation should not only favor the Lawful and or Good aligned or the non PVP inclined.

I never mentioned Reputation recover outside of the exploit potential of grinding rep from PVP flags (only for Neutrals and Goods) while sitting in relatively PVP safe zones or spots. Again, I asked for balance.

I did say you should not judge a PC based solely on reputation alone, because it is not an accurate measure. You could judge them however you wish to. There is the difference between "should" and "could" which you are apparently did not pick up on.

I have never declared that you or T7V is our enemy. I completely disagree with your use of terminology, its definitions and with your concept of what is an Open World PVP MMORPG. But, I do not carry that over to mean the I will be "Ugly" towards you on a personal level on these forums.

Perhaps it is personal for you, and I can't change that. The ball is in your court, how you would like for the UNC to proceed in relations with you and perhaps T7V.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

First you should consider what I started my previous post with:

"After further development of our standings system..."

Are you suggesting that I should read "further development" to mean that: 1) you no longer consider my stance (Millions for Defense, not one Copper for Tribute) to be "disproportionate"; and 2) you no longer consider my opinions about Reputation in general, and my assessment that your own stance with regard to Reputation is "pro-Griefer" in particular, to be "defamation" of your character?

If your answer is "Yes" to both of those points, then I can see why "Ugly Standing" is not warranted.

However, I want to make clear that I am still adamantly in the Millions for Defense, but not one Copper for Tribute crowd, and that my personal assessment of your stance with regard to Reputation is that you are "pro-griefer".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Again, "Ugly Standing" is reserved for those I (We) truly dislike and wish to do harm to in game.

I really hope I am misreading this, Bludd, but that comes dangerously close to a statement of intent to grief. Any time you are targeting the player and not the character you are stepping into a grey area. Please allay my fears on this one.

Nihimon wrote:
However, I want to make clear ... that my personal assessment of your stance with regard to Reputation is that you are "pro-griefer".

By labelling someone as pro-griefer, you are pushing them in the very direction you do not wish them to go. Isn't it better just to ask for clarification? You did so above with:

Nihimon wrote:
If you would like to clarify UNC's official position towards me or The Seventh Veil, I will listen.

I hope I'm not out of line saying this but both of you have a tendency to jump off on each other's words at times. Animosity in game is fine - I really hope it doesn't spin over to meatspace (which is what Bludd seems to be saying too)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

First you should consider what I started my previous post with:

"After further development of our standings system..."

Are you suggesting that I should read "further development" to mean that: 1) you no longer consider my stance (Millions for Defense, not one Copper for Tribute) to be "disproportionate"; and 2) you no longer consider my opinions about Reputation in general, and my assessment that your own stance with regard to Reputation is "pro-Griefer" in particular, to be "defamation" of your character?

If your answer is "Yes" to both of those points, then I can see why "Ugly Standing" is not warranted.

However, I want to make clear that I am still adamantly in the Millions for Defense, but not one Copper for Tribute crowd, and that my personal assessment of your stance with regard to Reputation is that you are "pro-griefer".

Since I know you are fairly intelligent, I have little choice but to accept that you are intentionally overlooking the #7 point in my list, that qualified as "disproportionate" and therefore would lead to the "Ugly Standing".

If you want to continue to define me as "Pro-Griefer" in spite of the evidence that is contrary to that, then as I said early, that is unfortunate and I will have to accept it and respond accordingly using the in-game tools at my disposal.

If you are choosing to self apply the "Ugly Standing" to yourself, without effort to discuss this, I'm o.k. with that. I will not at this time hold all of the members of T7V in that standing, unless they "back your play".

I have already heard that there is strain among the officers of T7V as it pertains to your sycophancy towards Andius' and Ryan Dancey's positions. Perhaps you won't be satisfied until you lose support in much the same way that Andius and TEO has?

You were far more respected when you focused on building your library and playing the role of archivist for the community. Once you shifted to advocacy of the most inflexible views and acted as if your opinion is the sole arbiter of what is good for the community and what is toxic, oh how has your star fallen.

If I am "Pro-Griefer", you Sir are equally "Toxic" in my view. You will be dealt as such in-game.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry Bludd, just ninja edited you ...

Goblin Squad Member

Griefing is strictly prohibited in our Terms of Alliance. Doing so would jeopardize the the Nation of Aeternum.

That being said, we will have a blacklist. For one to be blacklisted, it takes a majority vote from the National High Consul. Bluddwolf would give grounds for the motion and we would vote on it. If approved, that character would be Killed on Sight.

UNC can take whatever actions they want against whomever they want as long as it does not violate Callambean Law. To take that a step further, even if outside of Pax controlled territory UNC were to grief, that would still be a violation of our agreements.

Also, it should be noted that using in-game mechanics to get back at us will not get you blacklisted so long as you are not using them to grief us. It should also be noted that we expect our blacklist to be very small. Even after wars, normally no enemy would be blacklisted, it would go back to being business as usual.

Finally, the "Ugly" standing is not something to be confused with the Nation of Aeternum's blacklist. Although some people may be on both, it is to the UNC's discretion who they give Ugly standing to. The Blacklist has to be voted on by the majority of the National Leadership.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Again, "Ugly Standing" is reserved for those I (We) truly dislike and wish to do harm to in game.

I really hope I am misreading this, Bludd, but that comes dangerously close to a statement of intent to grief. Any time you are targeting the player and not the character you are stepping into a grey area. Please allay my fears on this one.

No intent to grief, just to use the tools of the game:

1. SADs that are unreasonable and likely to produce a rejection

2. Ambush and accept the reputation consequences as accepted.

3. The use of Bounties, Assassination, Death Curses and Feuds in reprisal for any action of Nihimon's that opens that opportunity up for UNC.

I hope that this won't spill over into a policy directed more broadly at T7V as a whole. But, I have to assume that he will have some support from his company and they too will want this big, red target painted upon themselves.

I am not of the mind to allow the words of one person, taint my view of all in his or her company. I don't subscribe to "guilt by association" when it comes to personal affronts.

If any member of T7V would like to further discuss this with me, or would like to correct me if I'm wrong in a PM, I would be all too happy to discuss it.

If Nihimon would like to clarify his position, if I misread it, he too can PM me. Or we can have it out here, I don't shy away from public disputes either.

Goblin Squad Member

Thank you, that's all I wanted (needed) to hear.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Thank you, that's all I wanted (needed) to hear.

I'm glad I was able to assuage your concerns. I also want to note, I did not pick this fight. Nihimon in his arrogance wants to pick this fight with me. He wants to proclaim his ugliness on the forums, and make it personal. He and Andius are obviously upset that the game is not moving in their direction, and their vision is not getting the support they expected to have.

They are upset that Pax and UNC have entered into a sponsorship agreement, because we had mutually pragmatic reasons for doing so. It most likely dashed their hopes that the UNC would be a small group, and an easy target for their attacks. The laugh is, the UNC on its own, is now and will likely remain larger than TEO.

With our alliance with Pax, we will have access to the training that Nihimon and Andius had hoped we would not have. With all of these new ways to PvP without reputation loss, our reputation will likely remain moderate to high, which is also a thumb in their eyes.

If they want ugly, I can dish ugly. I have a whole bag full of ugly.

As I said, I won't hold all of T7V accountable for Nihimon's foolish decisions. If he wants to tie your company's carriage to the Andius "Horse", he is free to do so. I find it odd considering Andius wanted to break that alliance months ago...... Oh, maybe you didn't know that?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
...Resurrecting old statements, of anyone's, must be filtered through new realities before using them in the previous context or as a statement for today...

We understand one another cumulatively. It is not as if any of us can start over with a clean slate just because we slept eight hours: history haunts. History is not an abstraction but an effect of what was earlier.

It is backwards to say "old statements ... must be filtered through new realities". Rather, supposed 'new' realities are inevitably understood in an historical context.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
...Resurrecting old statements, of anyone's, must be filtered through new realities before using them in the previous context or as a statement for today...

We understand one another cumulatively. It is not as if any of us can start over with a clean slate just because we slept eight hours: history haunts. History is not an abstraction but an effect of what was earlier.

It is backwards to say "old statements ... must be filtered through new realities". Rather, supposed 'new' realities are inevitably understood in an historical context.

I was not speaking in a historiographic sense, but I did not advocate the complete rejection of the past, just that it needs to be "filtered". If we have a new reality today, it is not as important to understand where it came from, as it is to understand where it is now and where it might lead to tomorrow.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I am not of the mind to allow the words of one person, taint my view of all in his or her company. I don't subscribe to "guilt by association" when it comes to personal affronts.

Did you not just do this when you mentioned Andius and TEO a post or two above? Not trying to point fingers, I'm genuinely curious as that seems to be your and your company's opinion everywhere else I have seen despite only generally arguing with Andius himself on here.

For reference, I was referring to this in particular:

Bluffwolf wrote:
I have already heard that there is strain among the officers of T7V as it pertains to your sycophancy towards Andius' and Ryan Dancey's positions. Perhaps you won't be satisfied until you lose support in much the same way that Andius and TEO has?

Goblin Squad Member

Aleron wrote:

For reference, I was referring to this in particular:

Bluffwolf wrote:
I have already heard that there is strain among the officers of T7V as it pertains to your sycophancy towards Andius' and Ryan Dancey's positions. Perhaps you won't be satisfied until you lose support in much the same way that Andius and TEO has?

What is your issue with this message? If it is false, then I will inquire if the person who told me of this, if he can produce another witness to support his account.

Goblin Squad Member

@Aleron - I think that what you are missing is that Andius is the leader of TEO, so his statements are automatically the position of his company. If his people think differently then they need to elect another leader.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
@Aleron - I think that what you are missing is that Andius is the leader of TEO, so his statements are automatically the position of his company. If his people think differently then they need to elect another leader.

All right, I wasn't going to get dragged into this mess, but I am moved to take issue with your statement. First, given the number of times Bludd has made it clear that when he posts, he is not posting for all his membership and that they are free to think/post/etc., as they see fit...I have a hard time with one of those very same members now stating that every member of a guild can be summed up by the statements of any one individual, even if that individual is in a position of leadership.

The members of TEO - or any guild - are not little clones of their leadership, so as Bludd wisely stated further up, we should be very careful to assume anything about an individual or group simply due to their associations. Certinly, in any guild, those that a guild retains as a leader will reflect upon that guild, and if the leadership truly misrepresents the beliefs of that guild, its members need to consider changes, but that is not grounds for treating each of that guild's members as if they were their leadership.

Regardless of some people's issues with Andius (I'm not getting into all that, either), TEO has some marvelous players. I would hate to see them, or any group, painted with such a broad strokes due only to personal disputes with one individual.

I was thinking earlier today of starting a thread imploring people to try to keep their discussions to the issues, not the posters, but I stumbled on this fist. In that my post addresses how a UNC member seems to view others, I think it is still in keeping with the OP. If not, you have my apology in advance. Now, can we please go back to discussing ideas rather than each other? If you would rather do the latter, I seriously suggest PFO Fan TS...it seems to be a far more productive means of discussing differences than these forums have proven to be.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Hobs,

I can understand how Xeen may feel that way, based on the typical experience many of us have had with online gaming guilds. In probably 80%+ of the cases, guilds are "Top-Down", do as I say and believe what I believe or GTFO!

I try my very best to be in that 20%. I also try my best to remind myself not to paint with that broad brush you speak of.

As you pointed out, I guide my members with a somewhat free hand. I can assure you all, no one speaks for the UNC except for me, and I don't speak for us unless I have spoken to my council.

No individual member of any company will be held accountable for another's words or deeds outside of the game.... Period!

Inside of the game, it is a bit trickier, not knowing exactly how the mechanics will work. But, if there is a way to treat some differently than others, based on their individual standings with the UNC, then we will make every effort to do that.

Next layer of complexity is an individual's standing or view of another's standing with them. I believe in freedom of thought, and in a game, freedom of action. I'm not paying anyone else's $15.00 per month. If Xeen or anyone else has "beef" with someone, that is a personal matter, unless we agree as a company that it is "OUR MATTER."

Goblin Squad Member

Thank you for the reply, the sentiments, and the effort. I tip my green hat at you.

Goblin Squad Member

BEWARE THE GREEN HATE! MIND CONTROL CURSES!

Sorry, couldn't help myself ;D.

Goblin Squad Member

More in keeping with the thread, I think it a good idea for all organization to have a well thought out, set policy on how they plan to categorize the groups they interact with (either by choice or misfortune). In this way, their course of action and response will more likely derive from reason rather than from the emotion of the moment. That every one else needs to know your policy or agree with it - no - but that you have one, and that it was created while the head was cooler, seems a far more productive practice, both for one's individual guild and the community within which it exists.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I try my very best to be in that 20%. I also try my best to remind myself not to paint with that broad brush you speak of.

As you pointed out, I guide my members with a somewhat free hand. I can assure you all, no one speaks for the UNC except for me, and I don't speak for us unless I have spoken to my council.

The is actually what I was trying to get across. Every time you are naming Andius you are also naming TEO as if one completely equals the other which seems rather unfair if you are calling out others for doing it.

I do want to correct one misunderstanding people seem to be making frequently and often (as shown above).

Andius is amongst our leadership (and easily the best known and one that started the guild which holds it's own honored place), however our governing style is not so different than your own and also governed with a somewhat 'free hand'. We have a council that makes decisions and before any major decision has been made the majority of the guild is informed and allowed to weigh in, whether on the forums or our meetings. The eventual final decision is in the council's hands, but it is not Andius making every decision by himself and he is not the only voice within the guild. Additionally, we are allowed to have our own voices and make our concerns known (not saying you can't either mind you), but the point being it is a group of individuals under one banner...not necessarily one man.

In summary, Andius is ONE of the leaders of TEO (on a council) and while we follow the council, we are all still individuals with our own thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

I'd also like to think that while our organizations might not see eye to eye on everything, we could at least be civil and converse our ideas for the game without hostility or as mentioned above, painting entire memberships with 'broad strokes' and assumptions. I will also say this applies equally towards our own who at times have not been fair and made slights against you and yours they should not have.

I would also like to think that we are not automatically ugly standing based on your past arguments with Andius or that flying TEO will automatically be getting us set to hostile, but that hasn't been made clear by the above (unless I missed it and do feel free to correct me on that).

Finally, thanks for listening and sorry for the massive wall of text.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm, I did not realize that TEO has a council. I have always seen Andius referred to as the leader of TEO... as in the only one.

Goblin Squad Member

Hobs the Short wrote:
The members of TEO - or any guild - are not little clones of their leadership, so as Bludd wisely stated further up, we should be very careful to assume anything about an individual or group simply due to their associations. Certinly, in any guild, those that a guild retains as a leader will reflect upon that guild, and if the leadership truly misrepresents the beliefs of that guild, its members need to consider changes, but that is not grounds for treating each of that guild's members as if they were their leadership.

I agree with what you have said... Its not right to lump people together completely.

The only thing I disagree with here is that, Andius has said specifically that TEO will hunt down the UNC.

So he has made a statement for his company, a company that he is currently in a leadership role of. Which leads me to believe he has the approval of the rest of the leadership of TEO. If he does not have their support, then they may need to reign him in.

Bludd does state that the rest of UNC may or may not agree and etc... BUT he is the leader of the Company, and I will follow his plans for the company. When he has a goal for us, I will happily work towards that end. What I do in my solo time is mine to do with.

Now, as I am not the leader of UNC, what I say means nothing unless I am referring to the actions I plan to take.

TEO may not be Bad or Ugly standing to the UNC, but I will take Andius' word as one of the leaders for TEO that they plan to hunt us... So, sorry TEO, but in my personal standings list they will start off as Ugly, and I will look to hamper their operations.

On the flip side, T7V themselves have been fair and open to most discussions... Except Nihimon. That is one person and has not spoken for T7V as far as I am aware. Neither will have a standing for me personally, and I will not look to work against them unless things change.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Aleron,

In light of what you have written, I agree and I will refrain from lumping the two (Andius and TEO) together, unless it is clear both are of the same mind.

Furthermore, and I'm sure this is known anyway, but I will list the Council and Officers of the UNC (here and on our recruitment thread) so that their words may be understood to be taken with the proper level of reliability (especially Councilors, see note below).

Bluddwolf: Master of the UnNamed (EE)
Milo Goodfellow Councilor (EE)
Talonfox Councilor (EE)
Greedalox: Councilor (EE)
CptLongstreet: Councilor (OE, Pending)
Panama Jack Ring Leader (OE, Pending)
Sintaqx Ring Leader (EE)
XLonewolf99X Troupe Leader (OE, Pending)
Stehlen Troupe Leader (EE)
Xeen DeVir Troupe Leader (EE)

* Councilors:

Milo Goodfellow is my second, and anything he says has the full backing of the UNC. Even if I am not aware of it, he has my backing. Even if I don't agree with it. I will back his play.

Talonfox and Greedalox are both, 3rd in command. What they write carries great weight.

CptLongstreet is an insane (IRL), CE, Ol' Bastard (I kid you not) and even I am a Care Bear in his eyes. His words mean nothing, but his threats will be carried out, no stopping him. He had griefed his own son, to the point that his son quit EVE Online.

Panama Jack is likewise insane, is capable of griefing, and personally hates Longstreet. Yet, they have been officers in my guilds since 2001, in a number of MMOs.

You all know the rest, but Stehlen probably only from The Kingmaker TT on PFOfan TS on Saturday Nights. They are all officers, and have my ear. What gets to my ear, gets to the UNC Council.

I hope that clarifies who to look for or accept what they write as UNC policy or personal views.

Goblin Squad Member

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Goblin Squad Member

The only person/group that starts PFO in the "ugly" status in the little red (for blood) book of "The Goodfellow" is Bluddwolf (because I think he is too loud and I want his power) Everyone else will be grey until we get in-game and then actions speak louder than words. This is a personal standing and not that of UNC or any other.

That being said, I agree with bludd and as his 2nd (until the day he dies) I shall follow his rule and leadership wherever it may go. I am confident enough to claim that all of UNC feels the same and as such, anything said by bludd, unless otherwise rebutted, can be taken as being spoken by UNC. Bludd does very good at thinking before speaking and most of that thinking involves the council.

Getting back to the OP and intention of this thread, very similar to the thread concerning the alliance between UNC and PAX, this is meant as an informative and Q&A thread. We displayed our intent to have standings as a company and to inform the public of their meaning. If there are questions or clarifications needed, simply ask. I think this has been lost among the last several post and several parties, including UNC posters, are at fault. All is forgiven but let us return to this intended use of this thread.

Last thing, I would just like to generally apologize on behalf of UNC members and say that Hobs is absolutely correct and that if everyone, UNC included, could remember his statement concerning keeping threads to their intended purpose. these forums will remain some of the best and "cleanest" forums myself and others have been on. We have a great community and the fact that emotions are present and passion is evident just proves that we have dedicated group of gamers who want the best for PFO.

<Ponders to himself> I wonder if the devs read ALL threads and posts? Wonder what their views are on topics such as this one?.....

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / UNC Definition of "In Good, Bad and Ugly Standing" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online