Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe if TEO and T7V would tell members that are uncounted for to vote for KotC (which we/they are not btw ) that would be a fitting analogy. What you are referring to is not IMHO.Can you honestly say that TEO and T7V will not be in the same nation once the mechanic goes live?
There is no difference in that and what Golgotha and Aternum are doing. It is the same thing, but with less settlements on the Pax side.
But it appears to me that is exactly what was done in the first land rush.
TEO and T7V each have a settlement, and everyone can see that each work together hand in hand. If you put the rest of my quote in, you can see that I said that. You picked your settlement locations together, and you work together for future expansion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe if TEO and T7V would tell members that are uncounted for to vote for KotC (which we/they are not btw ) that would be a fitting analogy. What you are referring to is not IMHO.Can you honestly say that TEO and T7V will not be in the same nation once the mechanic goes live?
There is no difference in that and what Golgotha and Aternum are doing. It is the same thing, but with less settlements on the Pax side.
But it appears to me that is exactly what was done in the first land rush.
TEO and T7V each have a settlement, and everyone can see that each work together hand in hand. If you put the rest of my quote in, you can see that I said that. You picked your settlement locations together, and you work together for future expansion.
Ok I want to be absolutely certain before I answer:
Are you claiming that TEO or T7V members voted for KOTC?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe if TEO and T7V would tell members that are uncounted for to vote for KotC (which we/they are not btw ) that would be a fitting analogy. What you are referring to is not IMHO.Can you honestly say that TEO and T7V will not be in the same nation once the mechanic goes live?
There is no difference in that and what Golgotha and Aternum are doing. It is the same thing, but with less settlements on the Pax side.
But it appears to me that is exactly what was done in the first land rush.
TEO and T7V each have a settlement, and everyone can see that each work together hand in hand. If you put the rest of my quote in, you can see that I said that. You picked your settlement locations together, and you work together for future expansion.
Ok I want to be absolutely certain before I answer:
Are you claiming that TEO or T7V members voted for KOTC?
We should back away from what TEO/TSV are doing and identify the specific problem with what the two Pax organizations are doing. Once we determine that, then we can determine whether TEO/TSV has been guilty of similar behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I didn't read every post in this thread - mostly the ones that seemed important (ofc including Ryan's).
I'm the leader of a small guild (shameless plug: Deathwatch) - mostly consisting of a small group of friends from the same small town who have been through several MMOs and in most, had our own small guild (frequently taking in many outsiders/acquaintances to make it a medium-sized guild each time).
Seeing these "giants" (e.g. Pax) come in and sweep the leaderboard seems unfair and frustrating... at first. Ryan's post/PM really did remind me of several other posts, articles, and other texts made by Ryan and Goblinworks, where they've clearly stated that they want giant metaguilds to come into their game and make things interesting. It's hard to be frustrated at something like this, when it's sort-of the whole point all along.
Nonetheless, it really does give the smaller guilds/groups a run for their money. It sounds like the best thing that the smaller guilds can do is to band together and attempt to get a settlement this way. Only problem with this is: at the end of the day, who gets control of the settlement? If you have two groups of 20 members each attempting to join together for a shot at the top30, who's going to concede to the other, granting them [what I am assuming is] full control over the new settlement?
Back to the large-guild thing. When I first saw that Pax (and the other two winners of Phase I) had not just added themselves to the Phase II contest, but had ALSO added a 2nd guild... I was quite upset. But now seeing that they could have done MUCH worse (e.g. the idea of creating 40 "guilds" with 100 members each... or maybe not so extreme...), I'm sort of happy that they are only creating these two guilds (and the other two winners only creating one each, it appears).
tl;dr:
I'm a bit unhappy to see that the winners of Phase I are creating guilds in Phase II to gobble up more land, but:
a) They have the right to do so - it's the sort of game that Goblinworks aims to see (e.g. giant guild warfare, creating their "meaningful player interactions"), and
b) They could be total ***hats about it and be far, far more aggressive with this strategy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe if TEO and T7V would tell members that are uncounted for to vote for KotC (which we/they are not btw ) that would be a fitting analogy. What you are referring to is not IMHO.Can you honestly say that TEO and T7V will not be in the same nation once the mechanic goes live?
There is no difference in that and what Golgotha and Aternum are doing. It is the same thing, but with less settlements on the Pax side.
But it appears to me that is exactly what was done in the first land rush.
TEO and T7V each have a settlement, and everyone can see that each work together hand in hand. If you put the rest of my quote in, you can see that I said that. You picked your settlement locations together, and you work together for future expansion.
Ok I want to be absolutely certain before I answer:
Are you claiming that TEO or T7V members voted for KOTC?
No, I was told a week or two ago that you were going to. Nihimon and Lifedragn have since stated that you were not.
I am saying that your two groups won a settlement in the first landrush and are working together as much as Golgotha and Aternum. Both groups will be a nation when it is available.
You are also helping others get a settlement (however you are doing it). With the full intent of them being in that same nation.
The simple fact is, both groups have people here arguing against Golgotha, and they need to check their own groups before making comments against Golgotha. What Golgotha is doing is completely acceptable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you claiming that TEO or T7V members voted for KOTC?
If Goblinworks takes a laissez faire approach, thereby giving its tacit approval to the strategy Pax has used, it makes sense to start doing that. Or better yet, create a new guild and funnel all of our new members into voting for that new guild so we get extra settlements too.
I don't want to see that happen so I sincerely hope Goblinworks takes steps to rectify this situation. But if they don't, that changes the way the Land Rush mini game is played.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is getting buried in the last page, and I really think these are the questions that need to be answered to understand what people are upset about.
--
I have a question for everybody opposing Golgotha as a landrush participant... Please do not chime in to speculate on the opinions of others. I honestly wish to know whether my claim is correct or not, and 3rd parties trying to speak out does nothing to identify the issue at hand.
Is your problem that The Empire of Xelias (I apologize if I got this name wrong!) is getting two settlements?
Or is your problem that 'Pax' is getting two settlements?
If KotC joined Xelias with their settlement, but did not join the Pax gaming community, would you have an issue with that?
I do not mean to pick on KotC, using them is only by them being the next largest group involved. Also, know that I am not speaking anything on behalf of KotC, I only needed an example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We should back away from what TEO/TSV are doing and identify the specific problem with what the two Pax organizations are doing. Once we determine that, then we can determine whether TEO/TSV has been guilty of similar behavior.
I would happily back away. Once your members are not here attacking Golgotha.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[
We should back away from what TEO/TSV are doing and identify the specific problem with what the two Pax organizations are doing. Once we determine that, then we can determine whether TEO/TSV has been guilty of similar behavior.
Good idea, and also lets look at how things can be fixed ,not just now but on the next issue. The only solution for any issue is if we all choose to do what Ryan or GW ask us to do, the rest is endless debate and people then do whatever they want.
PFO being a better PVP game than what we have seen before will only work if we choose to do what we are asked , GW can not make it happen with rules and punishment.
When I posted that Pax refused to do what Ryan asked them to do in a now public PM , they refused to comment on that and withdrew , in effect declaring themselves innocent .So the whole issue is if a guild refuses to do what Ryan asks ,then it will spread and everyone will do whatever they want. Ryan cant force us to have higher community standards than people doing whatever they can get away with , we have to do what he asks us. So Pax not doing what they are asked to do has set a new and horrible standard for the community, they don't even care what we think because they are gone.
If this attitude of Pax and the concept that we can ignore what GW asks us to do spreads we will have a dog eat dog PVP gankfest game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
We should back away from what TEO/TSV are doing and identify the specific problem with what the two Pax organizations are doing. Once we determine that, then we can determine whether TEO/TSV has been guilty of similar behavior.
Good idea, and also lets look at how things can be fixed ,not just now but on the next issue. The only solution for any issue is if we all choose to do what Ryan or GW ask us to do, the rest is endless debate and people then do whatever they want.
PFO being a better PVP game than what we have seen before will only work if we choose to do what we are asked , GW can not make it happen with rules and punishment.
When I posted that Pax refused to do what Ryan asked them to do in a now public PM , they refused to comment on that and withdrew , in effect declaring themselves innocent .So the whole issue is if a guild refuses to do what Ryan asks ,then it will spread and everyone will do whatever they want. Ryan cant force us to have higher community standards than people doing whatever they can get away with , we have to do what he asks us. So Pax not doing what they are asked to do has set a new and horrible standard for the community, they don't even care what we think because they are gone.
If this attitude of Pax and the concept that we can ignore what GW asks us to do spreads we will have a dog eat dog PVP gankfest game.
If Ryan does not want people doing something then he needs to make it so. Not play in the middle of the road hoping not to get run over.
Golgotha was a settlement plan before they ever considered joining Pax Gaming Community.
Do not forget that Pax has a third settlement planned called Fidelis. Pax is not running with Fidelis because of what Ryan asked them to do. Fidelis was created after the merger and is off limits to them for the Land Rush. If they were so inclined they would have 3 settlements easy. They have chosen not to do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against Golgotha as a landrush participant because Golgotha is a separate company from the other Pax companies. I am against Golgotha accepting the votes of affiliated company members illicitly. If all those voting are actually part of Golgotha I have no quarrel with their internal matters. My reaction is based off a post on the PFO forums stating that four of the votes Golgotha enjoys were submitted by four members of Pax Aeternum who didn't vote in the last landrush. My position is that if those four are members of Aeternum they should establish their votes as Aeturnum, even though Aeturnum already has a settlement secured.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a bit unhappy to see that the winners of Phase I are creating guilds in Phase II to gobble up more land, but:
a) They have the right to do so - it's the sort of game that Goblinworks aims to...
Phase I winners are ineligible for participation. Our ability to create guilds in the Land Rush is so that we do not get overlooked in general recruiting efforts. TEO/TSV/Pax Aeternum do not get to select a location for additional land.
The Empyrean Order and The Seventh Veil are collaborating with and endorsing friendly groups in hopes of getting beneficial neighbors. As Xeen says, we are in essence courting potential members of some potential nation - though no expectations or contracts are being made to that end. No further settlements are being attempted to be claimed by TEO or TSV, but we are playing politics to help get favorable neighbors.
Pax Aeternum is providing their endorsement, and some claim members who did not vote in Land Rush I, to support Pax Golgotha in hopes of providing them with a settlement beneficial to the nation they wish to build together. Aeturnum and Golgotha are separate divisions of the Pax Gaming meta-organization that are collaborating for mutual benefit. At issue, as I understand it, is whether or not these two groups are viewed as separate player groups in collaboration with each other or one monolithic player group with two (actually 3) parts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that we're not Goonsquad. I'm not in a leadership position but I've never seen any indication that we want to dominate The River Kingdoms. I've never seen a discussion on "how will we take someone's settlement away from them".
We want to have an nation/empire but it's not a "join us or die" scenario. We will expand to get the resources we need, not just because we can.
I'm speaking for a lot of people and I shouldn't be but my impression over the last year with Pax is that we'll have a lot more fun with trading and diplomacy than we will with conquering.
The settlement alignment restrictions is what drove us to split into three guilds. We needed a place for every member to play whatever alignment they wanted. It wasn't a strategic move. One massive Pax Aeturnum would have been more of a threat than what we have now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One statement for the problem being "Aeternum members voting for Golgotha because Aeternum no longer needs to worry about their own land rush position."
This is a valid concern that can be raised and discussed. Let us note it under the list of grievances that we can bring up and address.
Having solid defined issues is the heart of conflict resolution. "It's not fair" is not an argument you can make and have the other side understand when they also feel that the way the land rush was executed was "not fair".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The settlement alignment restrictions is what drove us to split into three guilds. We needed a place for every member to play whatever alignment they wanted. It wasn't a strategic move. One massive Pax Aeturnum would have been more of a threat than what we have now.
We did not split into three guilds. Aeturnum and Golgotha existed before the merger. Fidelis was created after that merger, and we are not running it in the land rush specifically because we believe it goes against the spirit of the land rush.
One statement for the problem being "Aeternum members voting for Golgotha because Aeternum no longer needs to worry about their own land rush position."
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
The concept of Pax (either group) being an enemy has not been formally discussed by the Accord. I will say that I was alarmed by the statement made and do not support it at this time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr:
I'm a bit unhappy to see that the winners of Phase I are creating guilds in Phase II to gobble up more land, but:
a) They have the right to do so - it's the sort of game that Goblinworks aims to...
Just to clear something up Aou: neither Pax, nor T7V/TEO have created new guilds for LR2.
We in T7V and TEO have been vocal in our support of other Roseblood Accord members' recruiting drives, but all new members of our companies have been told in no uncertain terms that their votes should be cast for us - useless though that may seem - if they are cast at all. The other Roseblood companies, such as KotC, for example, are completely separate entities, with separate leadership and goals.
The case with Pax seems more complicated. Originally there were two guilds: Pax Aeternum and Golgotha. Sometime before LR2 was announced, these two merged into a meta "empire" Xelias. Both companies remain distinct CCs, but under the Pax Gaming meta-umbrella. What's in dispute here is a different issue to what you are suggesting - it's questioning that degree of separation. I'll make no comment on that - I think Pax have already stated their position clearly enough without anyone else muddying the waters.
What is clear - absolutely clear - is that neither Pax nor the Roseblood Accord created new companies for LR2. Pax has 1 that was there from the beginning (Golgotha), Roseblood has members who have joined but are still independent companies. Just wanted to make that point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Pax not doing what they are asked to do has set a new and horrible standard for the community, they don't even care what we think because they are gone.We aren't responding. That doesn't mean we aren't reading.
You refuse to comment on your refusal to do what Ryan asked your guild to do for the purpose of building a better community, then you don't care about what Ryan says or about what is best for the community. So you have set that as a standard of behavior, it is wrong.
Is the official position of Pax that you can refuse to do what a CEO asks you to do for the best interests of the game and do whatever you want, or are you breaking from the official Pax policy?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that we're not Goonsquad. I'm not in a leadership position but I've never seen any indication that we want to dominate The River Kingdoms. I've never seen a discussion on "how will we take someone's settlement away from them".
We want to have an nation/empire but it's not a "join us or die" scenario. We will expand to get the resources we need, not just because we can.
I'm speaking for a lot of people and I shouldn't be but my impression over the last year with Pax is that we'll have a lot more fun with trading and diplomacy than we will with conquering.
The settlement alignment restrictions is what drove us to split into three guilds. We needed a place for every member to play whatever alignment they wanted. It wasn't a strategic move. One massive Pax Aeturnum would have been more of a threat than what we have now.
That is incorrect. Golgotha existed before they joined Pax, we did not create them to fill a LE desire.
Fidelis does fit that definition, which is why they will be citizens of Callambea for the foreseeable future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can metagame guilds grab two or more settlements, yes or no?Yes
I concur. However if a member of a company did not vote in the first landrush they should still apply their vote to their own company and not an affiliate, even if their own company has a settlement assured.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cirolle,
Speaking only as a grunt in TEO not an officer (and I'm sure those that are will correct me if I speak in error). I'm am not aware of anyone in TEO asking anyone to join another guild in the RA with the intent of them not PERMANANTLY being a member of that guild/settlement.
What I am aware of is that we are recruiting new members for ourselves (TEO) and instructing any such members to ONLY vote for TEO (which doesn't count for anything but show in Landrush II) NOT anyone else. If the person is not interested in TEO or we feel they are not a good fit... we are reccomending they PERMANENTLY join other allied guilds... by essentialy vouching publicaly that those guilds are good people.
We are most definately not reccomending that they "join" (quotes) other guilds so they can vote for them...but that they JOIN (no qoutes) them because they want to be part of them. I rather suspect our leadership would boot anyone out of the guild for advocating such a behavior since it goes against the policies we internaly adopted.
I, for one, am not crying foul about what PAX is doing. However, I don't want anyone under the misapprehension about what our own policies are.
As a gamer.... I would have trouble staying a member of TEO, if those were the sort of tactics. Good sportsmanship is a far more important consideration to me then "winning" anything which is pretty much a nonsense concept in any game that has no defined end or "victory conditions"
Also note, I do not think PAX is engaging in "bad sportsmanship" here... I pretty much agree with Nihimon, they got caught in an unfortunate situation due to incomplete information about the rules of the Landrush prior to it starting.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Aeternum members who didn't vote in LR1 voting for Golgotha in LR2 wouldn't harm the idea of meaningful human interaction, but it would demonstrate contempt for the rules set forth, and normalizing a culture of contempt for the rules is a different problem.
Don't normalize a culture of contempt for the rules. If you are actually a member of Aeternum, TEO, or TSV, don't vote for anyone else.
DO maximize meaningful human interaction: If you are a member of some other group, start discussing deals with other groups where votes now are exchanged for favors in the future; right now it takes only 3 votes to get into a position with a payout, but that number is probably going to rise before the end of the first round. It would be very interesting if a federation of guild formed and drew in all of the smaller groups- a federation that managed to make a deal with everyone not currently in a settlement position would have about 60 members, enough to put it firmly at the top of eligible guilds. It would be even MORE interesting to see lots of federation-style guilds forming, absorbing multiple groups each too small for a settlement and ending up with a group that IS large enough. FMS and PTV have apparently come to some agreement that brought them up from being individually unremarkable to having a very notable combined ranking; it's likely that other alliances have formed that I'm not aware of.
And it's also important to note that there is little means of direct enforcement: If someone who voted KoTC ends up playing with TSV, there probably won't be any real repercussions. Likewise if two groups of players come to some level of agreement in order to band together into a settlement, but one of them fails to hold up their end, it probably won't be possible to hold them to their word using game mechanics. For that, I suggest making the nature of the agreement public and archived, so that if another party fails to hold up their end of a bargain, they can be called out in a manner that will harm their metagame reputation- not out of spite, but because if breaking the agreement has significant costs, it it less likely that breaking the agreement will become the rational thing to do in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I concur. However if a member of a company did not vote in the first landrush they should still apply their vote to their own company and not an affiliate, even if their own company has a settlement assured.Can metagame guilds grab two or more settlements, yes or no?Yes
I don't care if they have two settlements , I care that they are now on public record as refusing to do what Ryan asked them to do for the sake of a good community, it is wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
If you are being considered enemies, it's the first I've heard of it.
And I respectfully disagree; if things are getting hostile, that's when you need you diplomats the most. It's easy to jump to conclusions and make sweeping statements without actually thinking about their consequences on a forum - it's much harder to do that "face-to-face" on TS or vent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?
It is your call to make, unless GW steps in and says otherwise. You can only do what you can do. Where you have a choice is what defines you.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
I would be careful about speaking for Golgotha- the precedent that any officer in Pax can speak for any division of Pax has aggravated the confusion over the issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.
Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.
Keep the well-defined issues coming. We'll make a list. Just because I am adding positions does not mean I agree or disagree with them. I am merely trying to help sort out the grievances so we can move forward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be careful about speaking for Golgotha- the precedent that any officer in Pax can speak for any division of Pax has aggravated the confusion over the issue.Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
My statement was meant to illustrate that anyone that wishes to end diplomatic talks can contact the appropriate representative (for Golgotha or Aeternum).
This is my final statement towards this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be careful about speaking for Golgotha- the precedent that any officer in Pax can speak for any division of Pax has aggravated the confusion over the issue.Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
All Pax members everywhere have agreed to never attack any other Pax member and always help defend each other. That is in the charter , unless I remember wrong , the two Pax guilds are one guild when it comes to war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am saying that your two groups won a settlement in the first landrush and are working together as much as Golgotha and Aternum. Both groups will be a nation when it is available.
You are also helping others get a settlement (however you are doing it). With the full intent of them being in that same nation.
This is simply not true.
I've long expected that we will probably end up in a nation with TEO, but that's never been a sure thing. There's actually not been any real discussion of forming a nation with the other members of the Roseblood Accord - some of them will likely be too far away for that to even be possible.
There's a huge difference between independent guilds forming a loose alliance of sorts, and guilds that use the same name and the same website, and are under the same top-level authority - regardless of how much micro-managing that authority does or intends to do.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.
Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.
Keep the well-defined issues coming. We'll make a list. Just because I am adding positions does not mean I agree or disagree with them. I am merely trying to help sort out the grievances so we can move forward.
Talking point: Pax is perceived as a monolithic entity, such that membership in Aeternum and/or Golgotha is membership in Pax, and membership in Pax is membership in Aeternum and Golgotha.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.
Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.
Issue 3: Non-aggression agreements and solidarity in war make the two Pax guilds appear as one guild.
I have opinions on #3 but we'll save the deep discussion for later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.
Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.
Issue 3: Non-aggression agreements and solidarity in war make the two Pax guilds appear as one guild.
Issue 4: Pax is perceived as a monolithic entity, such that membership in Aeternum and/or Golgotha is membership in Pax, and membership in Pax is membership in Aeternum and Golgotha.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or is your problem that 'Pax' is getting two settlements?
My objection is that the Pax gaming community, the meta-guild, is directing the votes of their members, assuring them of getting the highest ranking so they have first pick of all the settlement locations.
Since the analogy to real-world politics has already been made, let me put it another way. Smith and Jones are two democratic candidates vying, along with a myriad of other candidates, for a seat in a prestigious subcommittee. Smith is already guaranteed a seat but Jones has to struggle along with the other candidates to explain his position, share his values, and generally sway the voters to his cause. But here's the problem; the democratic party has two candidates where the other parties each represented themselves individually. Smith is already assured a seat but votes are still coming in for Smith since he's on the ticket. That splits the vote, weakening Jones' position and reducing the chance that Jones will get the coveted spot. So to solve this problem, the democratic party starts taking votes that were due to be cast for Smith and stuffing them into the Jones box. There! Now Jones doesn't have to worry about competing anymore.
That is illegal because it is not fair. It is not fair to the others competing for that spot on their own merits. They don't have anyone stuffing the ballot box in their favor.
A situation exists where the Pax vote is split. While other guilds have to struggle and form alliances where disparate guilds start working together for their mutual benefit, Pax just diverts more Aeternum votes into Golgatha to ensure they stay on top. That is what I see as unfair and that's what I have a problem with.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All Pax members everywhere have agreed to never attack any other Pax member and always help defend each other. That is in the charter , unless I remember wrong , the two Pax guilds are one guild when it comes to war.I would be careful about speaking for Golgotha- the precedent that any officer in Pax can speak for any division of Pax has aggravated the confusion over the issue.Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
That is not sufficient reason to consider Aeternum and Golgotha the same guild- TSV and TEO are very likely to not ever declare war on or fail to aid each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All Pax members everywhere have agreed to never attack any other Pax member and always help defend each other. That is in the charter , unless I remember wrong , the two Pax guilds are one guild when it comes to war.
That sort of definition of "one guild" would lump in everyone who ever agrees to have any allies at all. It sounds as if your position is that no group should have anything to do with any other group--possibly only for the term of the Land Rush--to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
I suggest that's un-realistic, especially for a game that's been so long anticipated, and in which Crowdforging (which works to affect both devs and players) is a central part of the whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is not sufficient reason to consider Aeternum and Golgotha the same guild- TSV and TEO are very likely to not ever declare war on or fail to aid each other.All Pax members everywhere have agreed to never attack any other Pax member and always help defend each other. That is in the charter , unless I remember wrong , the two Pax guilds are one guild when it comes to war.I would be careful about speaking for Golgotha- the precedent that any officer in Pax can speak for any division of Pax has aggravated the confusion over the issue.Just stepping in here to address a concern.
I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.
If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.
This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.
Its a PVP game , what do you think we will be doing where it wont matter that they act as one guild in combat? They HAVE to defend each other , it is in the PAX guild charter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?
Nope. But those 2 votes are also easily rescinded.
Personally, I really don't care how many settlements people go for. If GW succeeds in its cash grab of going for the MEGA guilds to participate in the land rush, we can all kiss our spots goodbye.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All Pax members everywhere have agreed to never attack any other Pax member and always help defend each other. That is in the charter , unless I remember wrong , the two Pax guilds are one guild when it comes to war.That sort of definition of "one guild" would lump in everyone who ever agrees to have any allies at all. It sounds as if your position is that no group should have anything to do with any other group--possibly only for the term of the Land Rush--to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
I suggest that's un-realistic, especially for a game that's been so long anticipated, and in which Crowdforging (which works to affect both devs and players) is a central part of the whole.
Agreeing to the guild charters rules when you join Pax binds you to follow them. That is different than belonging to a settlement that has allies .Allies are bound at the leadership level, Pax members must obey the rules they agreed to, it is on an individual level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Issue 4: Pax is perceived as a monolithic entity, such that membership in Aeternum and/or Golgotha is membership in Pax, and membership in Pax is membership in Aeternum and Golgotha.
As a former member of Pax Aeternum, I've stayed out of this discussion, but thought I would note here that while I resigned from Pax Aeternum I am still a member of Pax Gaming at large (so to speak). Membership in Pax overall is not necessarily membership in the PfO branches.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A situation exists where the Pax vote is split. While other guilds have to struggle and form alliances where disparate guilds start working together for their mutual benefit, Pax just diverts more Aeternum votes into Golgatha to ensure they stay on top. That is what I see as unfair and that's what I have a problem with.
There are two key elements in that objection, and one major error in the premise:
First is the question of morality: Is it wrong for members of Aeternum to cast votes for Golgotha?Second is the question of fact: Using the same definitions, senses, and intents of the first question, are member of Aeternum casting votes for Golgotha?
There is reason to be uncertain about both of those questions, and I've seen several arguments become confused about which question they were answering.
The error in the premise is that "Pax" is not an agent, can take no actions, and does not make decisions. Only specific, individual people can do that.
The people who make the decisions that I expect almost every member of Pax Gaming to go along with have clearly and publicly stated that they are not going to encourage shenanigans that match the pattern of "Attention Aeternum members: If you didn't vote in LR1, vote Golgotha in LR2". If they try to publicly say that here, and privately say the opposite in their own 'private' channels, I have very little doubt that at least one credible individual will have some qualms about that and leak it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Issue 4: Pax is perceived as a monolithic entity, such that membership in Aeternum and/or Golgotha is membership in Pax, and membership in Pax is membership in Aeternum and Golgotha.As a former member of Pax Aeternum, I've stayed out of this discussion, but thought I would note here that while I resigned from Pax Aeternum I am still a member of Pax Gaming at large (so to speak). Membership in Pax overall is not necessarily membership in the PfO branches.
Emphasis on "perceived as". Perception is correlated with but not strictly dependent on reality.