We could also think about the week after, 14 - 18 July if that week causes too much trouble!
I would like to get an 'Initial Thoughts' Round Table done, and then, in a few weeks as we have the end of the Land Rush, a repeat of that Round Table, to see where the game is headed and how you all think the game is progressing.
Morbis, consider your happy/stabby time on my list of interviews; I appreciate it greatly.
Nihimon, I think that is an excellent idea. The last Community Round Table went splendidly (if I do say so myself!), and I think a select table of Alpha testers offering their unique perspectives in a chat setting would lend itself perfectly to this environment.
The Team has discussed conducting the interview (or in this case a Community Round Table) after this next round of Alpha; as I understand it, the server will be open all 4th of July weekend, and having some sort of get together within the days following (while it's still fresh in your minds) may be the best time.
We are certainly open to suggestions about timing, but does anyone see any issue with the week following (7 - 11 July)?
Again, that would be my fault. Tonight I will upload a mono version of the interview and link it to this thread; I apologize for the audio issues this may have caused anyone trying to tune in.
A little history; Harad and I dusted off GobboCast - along with the help of extremely intelligent but already busy support crew - just last month after a four month hiatus. As we bring everything back online, as we add more people, the quality of these shows will improve.
Harad has already been in discussions with GoblinWorks about the possibility of more interviews, maybe even a reoccurring spot for the developers. We've been looking at getting Alpha testers involved to get their opinion and thoughts (post on that soon). On top of all that, we still have this little Land Rush thing going on that could use a bit more coverage as locations become more set.
Things are heating up in the community, and GobboCast wants to be a part of it; please bear with us as we get ourselves sorted out and into a steady rhythm!
I'll be honest, in our effort to get GobboCasts out at a record pace, we've been bucking the conventional means of recording locally on each system and then sending them in to one editor. Instead, we've been doing a simple recording of the teamspeak server as we're rolling along.
Yes, it does cause sound issues, especially for the one who's not recording locally, but once we understand our pace, get things on a better rhythm, and gain more GobboCast Crew, we will be bringing back the high fidelity local-recordings for each pod caster.
So, take this as a request for more help! If you're interested in GobboCast - helping behind the scenes, assisting with the Pod Cast, writing your own Blog for our website - let either myself or Harad know and we'll get you hooked up to the right department!
It was our pleasure; the representatives of the three settlements were a blast to speak with, and it adds a little more depth to the game when you can have statements directly from these large organizations as to the why and what when it came to their settlement locations and plans for the future.
We can't wait to release Episode 15 in the next day or two!
Excellent Keovar, thank you for this input!
TEO Papaver wrote:
Any plans to put that podcast up on iTunes? You will be the first PFO related one on there too :)
Also an excellent point Papaver, I think we need to look into this "iTunes" business everyone is going on about ;)
This community is also very important to me..
I don't think anyone can or would deny that you have been as much an advocate and enabler for community growth as any of the other major voices on these forums, Nihimon. It was apparent in the few Teamspeak discussions we have had, and in the major resources you maintain.
We all bring something unique to this table, and that, at times, has caused us to butt heads. It also encourages growth, both in terms of hammering out game mechanics, but also the relationships we build before we even have a game to play.
I know I'm still as excited as ever to play this game, and it's not all about the game mechanics for me; Sandboxing is just as much about the politics, and building a solid community.
There are many MMOs, with many forums that see bickering, petty language or cheap shots thrown between community members. Very few, though, are the ones where the community members come out and apologize for those mistakes.
Truth is, I have a handsome face under this mask, but I just don't want everyone else to be jealous of my good looks.
We appreciate this humble gift you deliver to the forums, Sir ;)
A good question, Wurner; I appreciate the flow of thought here. However, Aeternum itself does not have any bandit VCC planned. We will have bounty hunting, route/goods protection, a formal military, but no organic bandit organizations that will conduct SAD in the name of Aeternum.
It is the reason we are allied with UNC. We do not, nor will we, provide this kind of activity within our own lands. By allying with an organization of UNCs caliber, we gain an ally that is more than capable of defending our borders from non-sanctioned entries or, more importantly, raiding/looting parties.
More simply, Wurner, Aeternum is looking at this alliance as a way to bolster our defenses in an area that we do not personally engage in. Organic Aeternum units engaging in SAD will (unless core concepts change on me) be a rarity more than a norm.
Could military units of Aeternum end up SADing Trade Convoys of enemy organizations? Possibly, but doubtful; that would require our military to meet them on the road, instead of being at key assault/defend locations, where they are more effective. And if it's in Aeternum land, why in the dickens would our enemies send a convoy through known enemy land?
Could our bounty hunting units end up SADing a possible Convoy carrying a wanted criminal? Possibly, but the purpose of SAD at that point would be the mechanical advantage of stopping and looking through hiding places (if players could hide in barrels or such!), not to loot and pillage.
We are aiming to be a trade empire; SADing and in general banditry is one of the few options we will not focus our efforts on. We instead look to ally with organizations that do focus on those skills, and in doing so, we increase the amount of 'skin' both entities have in the community game. Specifically, the actions of one affect the actions of the other. If anything, this alliance has proven that UNC and Aeternum need to be focused on our image to the community, whether that be as a Bandit Outfit or a Trade Empire.
All information available now is theory and desire. Concrete policies will have to wait for EE.
Bludd hit the nail on the head. I can theorize all day about what is necessary to defend a kingdom, its allies and its trade partners, but without specific game mechanics, we talk in circles.
UNC and Aeternum have done their best to create a Terms of Alliance that is as encompassing as possible, but as Bludd states, there are still major systems not yet revealed that will require adaptation of both organizations in order to make it to launch.
Please understand, Wurner, and everyone else that reads my post, that while this community has been around now for years, we are still all very much waiting on core concepts to be published. Fluidity and an understanding of each others' driving motivations is, in my opinion, much more important than any discussion on possible game mechanics.
Pax is a rather large organization; when a public post is made on our forums to our membership, it would make sense that a portion of that large organization would see the post, read and understand the context, and act in recognition of that post.
That is what happened here; it looks suspicious simply because we are many in number. Charlie George, ZenPagan and Areks are being honest and true when they state that we asked only those who meet Keovar's original requirements should post, and no one was forced to come here and post.
I think we can all agree that the number of lurkers who view these boards who never actually post anything far outweigh those of us who do.
To put it in context, I'm the High Thane of Pax Gaming, and I just now posted my own initial post in this thread; this isn't some secret push by Pax, merely a few of us looking to rectify oversight on this community initiative.
And I think we can all agree that anything that increases (constructive) activity within our PfO community is a win-win for us all.
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Golgotha has deemed it worthy to congradulate both organizations on coming to an agreement. I hope this will not cause a loss of relations between Golgotha and both of your organizations. We look forward to continuing to build ample trade and dimplomatic ties with both PAX and the UNC
The Kingdom of Aeternum appreciates Golgotha's congratulations, and I see no reason why we can not continue to build trade and diplomatic ties; in fact, I look forward to future discussion to do just so.
You are safe in PAX territory if you are doing business with PAX. If you are just passing through, stealing their resources, or trying to "teach them a lesson." You will be subject to NBRI... or NBKI (not blue kill it).
Wow, Xeen, it takes my like four paragraphs to make that summation. Much appreciated, Sir :)
The problem is the definition of what is 'Blue' and what is 'Red.' If the UnNamed Company pillaged every caravan coming into Pax Lands that was not Pax, UNC or one of our allies, we wouldn't be much of a Merchant Kingdom, would we?
The purpose of this alliance is to bring together two entities that see a unique advantage to working together. UnNamed Company gains a place to hang their hat, complete training as needed, and reload/refit. Pax Aeternum gains the assistance of a PvP Hardened crew who understand and follow agreements.
Xeen even points out above that it's all about the reason. If you notify the Nation of Aeternum in advance that you are looking to do business with us, I think you can expect reasonable safe passage to our trade city, Callambea.
I say reasonable not because I worry about the UnNamed Company; they've given their word, and this relationship has been built on weeks of discussion and understanding to where both entities feel comfortable with the other.
Reasonable is due to the fact that we aim to be the largest merchant capital in the River Kingdoms. That would probably make for a good target for individual or non-aligned bandit organizations, wouldn't it? Entities that will stay on the borders, preying on choice targets, causing havoc and disappearing into the landscape. The formal military we are building will focus on protecting us from Siege warfare; our Bounty Hunting outfit will look for High Value and High Profile targets. What, then, is the best way to hunt smaller targets who utilize unconventional warfare?
I may be leading the thought process, but if you think about it pragmatically, why wouldn't a large merchant organization ally itself with an organization it not only trusts to leave alone it's own resources, allies and trade partners, but will destroy the riff-raff that will gather around such an organization?
I apologize on the wait, Nihimon.
It boils down to the fact that we can't truly define 'threat' beyond that there will be actions/organizations/situations Aeternum (and others) will deem a threat. This far in advance, with out all of the game systems and how they will be manipulated by the player available to dissect, that term needs to stay vague.
But more importantly, I was trying to understand the import of that threat being "larger and more experienced".
I don't think it's a stretch to say that Aeternum will be a powerful entity within the River Kingdoms. How powerful is relative to who shows up on day one of Early Enrollment, and even then, power can and will remain a subjective term. It could be that the 'threat' brings more sword arms to the fight; it could be that they wield more allegiance than we do. It could be that they have spent the last 10 years preparing themselves for a Sandbox PvP that they will treat with a 'scorched earth' philosophy.
The point of the statement is to say that Aeternum is not against the community working together when a 'threat' arises, or even that we won't be a part of the 'solution'; Aeternum is not going to put a face on that threat a year from launch, and does not think it will do the community any good to do so this early, either.
Finally, with respect to supporting characters of Low Reputation, I am very interested in your answer because it is a "red line" for me, personally, and I will do whatever I can to make it a red line for The Seventh Veil as well.
I completely respect your statement, Nihimon. We all have our stances, our red lines. Aeternum may have crossed some of those with our statement, but as Bluddwolf pointed out, it Aeternum's stance; it is stated only for clarification, not as a springboard for more argument.
I've enjoyed our discussions in the past, Nihimon, though they were not done as one guild officer to another. I think it would be in the best interest of both our organizations to have those kind of discussions, and I look forward to that chance.
I dread the implications inherent in a game-related organisation with a charter so complex as to require decimal points. I can almost see the point of a charter generally, but even that's a bit murky; it feels on the depressing road from "fun game" to "real life".
I can appreciate the concern. As a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, I can completely see where 'bureaucracy' can, in fact, slow down a system. And as someone who has had to suffer under the weight of too much 'red tape,' I will be the first to admit that there is a point where words on a paper are more oppressive than liberating.
But in larger organizations it can be a useful tool; there's a reason the U.S. Army lives by Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Review the Pax Gaming Charter; it's just as large(r) and vibrant as the Aeternum Charter. The scope of a large organization requires focus, and a well organized charter delivers. It creates a language that every member of that organization can speak with; it's why we have terms like Mil-Speak.
It's not always perfect, but it's worked for Pax Gaming for over a decade; it sees constant updates -as it should- to meet with the changing environment of gaming, but the basics, the core is still there; providing every member with a distinct understanding of the inner workings of the organization they belong to, and the power to affect those systems through their own effort.
It's hard to explain, Jazzlvraz, but take it from someone who is now sold on the idea; the Pax model has worked for multiple games over multiple years, and we aim to prove that for Pathfinder Online, too.
Wonderful questions, Nihimon.
Does Pax intend to lobby Goblinworks to modify their stance to become more in line with this?
Not in the slightest. I think the forums have proven that we have little control of modification of anyone's belief of what griefing is or how it should be dealt with. This is simply our stance, and one that has served Pax Gaming well for more than a decade.
Does this mean you intend to support Low Reputation characters?
Can Low Reputation characters follow laws to the letter? Can Low Reputation characters remain civil in dealing with a nation? I do not know completely how the system will work, Nihimon, and won't until we're that much closer (or even inside) Early Enrollment. I do know, however, that if someone is capable of following laws within Aeternum borders and towards our away entities and allies, they have the capacity for trade, diplomacy, interaction. Will Low Reputation characters brings issues upon themselves that will keep them from following laws, especially all laws and for an extended period of time? Quite possibly, but that would be conjecture, and I'd rather not go far down that road.
Does this mean that any "threats" that don't actually threaten Pax will be ignored, until such time as they grow large enough to threaten Pax directly?
The problem is comparing definitions, Nihimon. What is a 'threat'? Are you a threat to me or Aeternum, because of your jabs at our stance, because of previous situations that occurred between our organizations and allies? Of course not. But that's because you and I agree that that's not what a 'threat' is, if not formally and publicly, through our core ideals.
Threats to Aeternum are just as they are stated above; physical threats to our kingdom, our nation, and our allies. To state more would leave it to ambiguity, and we as a community have already been down that road. There will come a time when a discussion needs to be had about threats, but it is not when we are still more than a year from an actual game in our hands.
The initial tendency is to respond with conjecture, theory, things that can be left open to ambiguity. You may find many of my answers will fall short, and for that, I apologize; our statement has been made, and it is the statement of Aeternum, not just Ezekial Krows.
For the past year now, there have been posts about community initiatives in relation to a perceived threat. Thus far Pax Aeternum has rejected such proposals as they crop up. While we believe our opposition has been based on what we as an organization perceive to be feasible, we do understand that merely showing opposition tends to give the community an inaccurate perception of our position. To properly represent our position it is important to include positive solutions to the issues addressed by these past threads. This post serves to identify that as well as to express our goals and clearly express where we could align with other kingdoms.
Why is Pax Gaming Against Current Community Efforts?
It is important to note that Pax is not suggesting that we can dictate what individual players, CC's, or Kingdoms define favorable or unacceptable behavior. It has been said in many threads that people have the right to call behavior out or not as they see fit. We completely agree with that assessment. That view point only runs into issue if you are looking for outside support. We do not agree to such wide initiatives where the terms are subjective, there is little consensus, and when outside viewpoints are not taken into account.
Aeternum has also, as the game information is progressing, been less confident that meta kingdom alliances will be feasible. Kingdom alliances hold an advantage by virtue of shared resources. A settlement or chartered company inside of a larger kingdom benefits from supporting their nation because of the simple fact that their holdings are also at stake. While we certainly acknowledge that temporary alliances (against a greater threat, like BigTown) are possible and likely we do not see the same necessarily holding true for long standing meta alliances.
There is a distinct possibility that kingdoms will (I would even call it likely) go to war with each other when the need to expand arises. In those instances the goal will be to destroy the other settlement, or defend your settlement from destruction. There might be instances of land being peaceably traded, but that could easily be an exception to the rule. One theme of current community talks has been outrage that settlements might be burned to the ground by invaders. That possibility is not as surprising to Pax, after all it is not that uncommon of a sandbox feature. Far from being outraged, we look forward to this function as an extra challenge.
Along with settlement warfare, there seems to be differences of opinion on what is considered meaningful player interaction in relation to player versus player conflict. In an effort to clearly state our position on that subject here is our charter section relating to griefing:
"6.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE): Players have a right to be free from griefing. While most online games are about war, the Pax Gaming Community is against the griefing of other players. In addition to the harassment and verbal abuse rules, Pax members will conduct themselves with the utmost honor in all aspects of the game related to PVP combat. This includes the ban on the initiation of combat on zoning or link-dead opponents as shown in the practice of corpse camping, graveyard camping, or the like. PVP combat between different levels (i.e. higher level player attacking a lower level player) or different numbers (i.e. 10 players attacking 3 players) is considered standard PVP tactics that regularly occur within the rules of fair-play. Pax will not ally or go to war with any guild who does not agree to our rules of engagement. As a no-drama guild our policy is to avoid griefing players (or get back at them with superior numbers and firepower), than to complain and engage with them in any argument about fair-play. Therefore, in certain situations turn-about is fair play when that is the predominant tactic being used by the opposition, but generally such activities are not the rule."
6.5 of our charter identifies non meaningful player interaction (in relation to pvp) as:
1. Verbal abuse and harassment. An example of this is poor sportmanship, vulgarity, etc.
2. Using mechanical limitations to cause undue stress to a player, as in attacking zoning or link dead combatants. This also includes corpse camping and respawn area camping.
Everything outside of those two points is considered meaningful pvp in our organization. Overwhelming numbers (often called ganking), attacking lower powered characters, and sometimes turn-about (a rare situation where we might retaliate against a player or organization through superior firepower or numbers) are explicitly stated as normal player versus player tactics in both sandbox and themepark games. Also notice that RPKing (Random Player Killing) is also not listed under our rules of engagement, because it is also considered a legitimate playstyle in many games.
Another opinion in these community threads lately has been the issue of NBSI policies as a possible indicator of threat. The kingdom of Aeternum certainly plans to run our settlement in the preferred NeRDS system (for purely pragmatic reasons, more on that in a bit) . We do not think it fair, or even reasonable, to oppose other powers for choosing harsher restrictions in their own lands. Not only we will not go to war with such powers purely based on such choices, we will not limit them from our own lands or trade agreements based on territory choices.
In summation, the reason for our rejection for the solutions put forward so far are simple. Those solutions have gone beyond the "lets agree to cooperate against BigTown type entities who come with the purpose of wrecking the game" . Instead it seems as if such calls are used as a vehicle for trying to go down the road of setting out acceptable behaviors That in itself would not be a problem if definitions of acceptable behavior didn't vary so much.
So How is Aeternum Planning to Address the BigTown Threat?
In short, by attempting to create AnotherBigTown. That is to say we have, and will continue to aggressively recruit like minded players into the Kingdom of Aeternum. We continue to gather interest internally (from our other active divisions and membership), into Pax Aeternum specifically (maintaining recruitment threads on the Paizo boards), and court other organizations through a kingdom alliance (Being a part of our kingdom, while maintaining your own settlement or chartered company)
Hubris is a dangerous mindset when it comes to games like these, and we operate with a complete knowledge that failure is a possibility. It is the driving factor behind our constant attempt to organize what we can, when we can, and in every way we can. Luckily we have plenty of experience in multiple games at our disposal, and our leader conversations are always actively pinging new ideas.
Failure is instrumental and educational. Arguably equal to success in sandbox games. As an organization we have both flourished in nullsec (in Eve through alliances) as well as been pushed back into lowsec. Rebuilding yourself, recovering from infiltration, and identifying what went wrong is a big step in identifying what you could do better.
It is because of that we are wary of meta kingdom alliances (or alliances between kingdoms). Like has been said above, alliances are more cemented when parties share resources, space, consequences, and representation.
Does That Mean Aeternum Will Not Work With Other Kingdoms?
Aeternum will most certainly work with other kingdoms, both against a larger threat as well as securing favorable trade agreements. In the case of a map wide threat, Aeternum will treat the problem as numerical, and our response will also be numerical.
Simply, if there exists a threat in Pathfinder Online that is larger and more experienced than our own kingdom we will gather together with other powers that are likewise smaller individually than the current threat. What exists in that case is a temporary alliance of necessity. Such an alliance could exist for as long as the threat does, and dissolve or become a permanent alliance once it does not.
An important note is that such an alliance would not exist along alignment borders. We will join up with evil, neutral, or good parties in retaliation to a threat equally. We will also not consider any supported tactic towards success as off limits. This could include hiring or gaining the support of infiltrators, rpkers, gankers, bandits, etc. The goal is to demolish the threat. We have little interest in policing behaviors.
Outside of the threat scenario, we will work with other kingdoms in community events such as the guide program, celebrations, and trade agreements.
So What Does Aeternum Stand For?
This question has been asked of us multiple times in the past, and we have not been specific in that response because in a lot of ways our defining purpose was being dictated by our membership and officer conversations. Over the months our purpose has arisen somewhat organically. Since in the recent past others have sought to define us, for us, the time is ripe for us to put such questions to rest.
Pax Aeternum exists to be a merchant empire. Whether it involves the selling of finished products, resources, or services we hope as an organization to provide for your needs. This means that our settlement, Callambea, will be set up with NeRDS for as long as it can be feasible specifically to facilitate the most trade we can possibly encourage.
We define ourselves as Lawful Neutral because our primary attribute is honesty. In both our alliance contracts and merchant dealings we clearly define what we are offering, and stick with our terms for the duration of the contract for as long as the other party does the same. That is our single largest identifier. We are not (as an organization) crusaders, concerned with altruistic goals. We will have members on every aspect of the alignment scale that the mechanics will allow. We actively plan to provide services such as militia, bounty hunting, and assassins for hire in addition to goods. Please visit the following thread for examples of our merchant goals:
Likewise our kingdom is Lawful Neutral in nature, and we are and will actively continue to court alliances from good to evil and in between. This means that bandits and evil entities will be allowed in our borders for as long as they agree to our laws (cessation of violence in our towns among them). We will entertain alliances with similar organizations for as long as they agree not to target our members and our allies. Otherwise the golden rule is the rule of coin. The bandit's gold clinks just as loudly as the paladin's.
A decent argument could be made that our stance is pragmatic and self-interested. Such an interpretation might not be untrue, but it is important to understand that those qualities are not of themselves detrimental. It is in our interest economically to have safe borders, so we will endeavor to ensure that they are. It is detrimental to our sales to shoot everyone on sight, so we plan our kingdom to fit the NeRDS archetype.
Similarly it is in our benefit to attract other settlements and CC's that hope to provide similar services or goods. It is also to our benefit to ensure that our kingdom is as safe as the mechanics can allow. In that regard we have set up an alliance contract and system that clearly identifies the process. We make sure such powers feel comfortable with their representation on our National Councils while maintaining minimal funnels for espionage. While such systems are never air tight, we feel confident that we have moved positively towards achieving such goals. In short it is because of our self-interest that our potential allies can operate in our borders, with our support, and with an acceptable level of representation. We make our holdings as safe as feasible and as lucrative as possible because quite simply it benefits Aeternum to do so.
On the other side of the coin, our lack of institutionalized altruism means we will not expect our members and allies to police the River Kingdoms in any regard. Our stance on defense is based on the pragmatic concerns of our borders. Protecting Aeternum is protecting your own interests. Outside of that we welcome any player or organization that strives to maximize profits. Similarly we welcome any player or organization that wants a safe base of operations, and a good deal of flexibility to achieve their own goals in addition to the needs of the kingdom.
Aeternum Moving Forward
This message was developed over the course of weeks, with the input of both the High and Low Consul. This is not a message put together lightly, and as such, in the eyes of Aeternum, it is a direct response to the back and forth discussions of 'What is Aeternum?'. While interpretation, conjecture and unproductive comments may arise alongside the constructive discussion, the only part Aeternum will take in those non-constructive discussions is a restatement of the above beliefs. Our message is clear, honest, and open; without further knowledge of in-game systems and until a better understanding of the Sandbox world of Pathfinder Online evolve, it is the statement that we will stand by, and a statement that we welcome the community to use or link to when someone asks 'What is Aeternum?'.
- Krow, High Thane
Forgive me for a slow reply; currently conducting my two weeks of the year for military service, and time has been in short supply for darn near everything else.
Nihimon, I reviewed my notes at specifically the point when Mr. Dancey spoke about Open Enrollment. The statement was that unlimited monthly sign ups would begin; instead of 4.5k(ish) a month, every months, anyone and everyone can jump in as they see fit.
Reviewing that bit of discussion, the point that should have come across (and did not) was that no matter how many players we have wanting to jump into EE, we'll only see 4.5k at most (per month), until Open Enrollment hits.
My focus during the Gobbocast was on those who had jumped into the Kickstarters and had invested already; it makes complete sense that GW would want to inject as many players as they could (towards that cap) each month, Kickstarter backers or no, though I do not know how that system will work (sign ups, pay a Goblin Squad fee, etc).
Also, let me reiterate what Areks said; we would be delighted to have you on the show (and you again, Being). I've always had problems with the written word; there's a lot of confirmation bias and perception that can play into reading someone's words. Putting a voice to a major community member works to alleviate that; maybe not completely, but the show always comes off as invested fans who are genuinely concerned and enthused about their game of choice.
And then there's me; I just come off as Krow ;)
It could be that instead of working on Sudden Death Rounds, I was working on my 'Ultimate Plan to put Keovar and Bringslite to Work,' uh, plan.
How is it possible to cheat on the poll unless the tally masters don't do their homework? It is clear that you have to be a "Goblin Squad Member" to vote at all.
If I remember correctly (it's been a few months), you could easily just vote again; either that, or it wasn't completely tied to the "Goblin Squad Member" requirement.
Throwing myself under the bus here, but I did in fact +1 Pax Aeternum's numbers in an effort to test it. Yes, I know; I apologize, PfO Community. However, it did work, and I had already voted as a +6 with my Guild Kickstarter Package.
In any case, Bludd and Areks are both right; the poll wasn't 100% perfect, GW knows that, and whatever system they are creating will in fact alleviate as much of those concerns as it can.
Edited: Bludd was in the know. Thanks Bludd ;)
Ah ha! At last he confesses!
He was actually speaking to the fact that we (Pax Aeternum) had several votes appear on our Landrush Poll that we could not account for. Further delving showed that it was more than likely someone 'plussing up' our numbers or trying to cause strife when our numbers were close to another organization (I think specifically when we first climbed towards The Seventh Veil the first time).
It was very easy to have erroneous votes added to the Land Rush poll, and it will be nice to see the actual numbers without those off votes.
Bringslite! We welcome you to the process with open arms, friend. You are an intelligent, resourceful fellow, and I am privileged that you would think of Pax as a great group of gamers and friends to call your own!