Goblin Squad Member
|
Firstly, I would invite all Roseblood Accord organizations that wish to discuss things in further detail to send representatives to the forum hosted by the Keepers of the Circle. Any representative is free to start a conversation on any topic and/or participate in existing discussions.
http://keepersofthecircle.guildlaunch.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=2563523&am p;gid=387175
No RA member is beholden to any other group in taking some specific role or suggestion, we just talk with each other (fairly) openly so we all end up playing the game we'll enjoy. If you want to be part of those discussions, join the Roseblood Accord and we welcome you to the
...
You might want to mention what days and times most of you might be on for such discussions, unless you [generic not specific] are there 24/7.
:-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I see it, the wording of the RA being vague and open to interpretation is a deliberate choice. Most RA members are comfortable with that choice and it doesn't cause *us* problems. The problems seem to come from people who are uncomfortable because they can't put RA members into a neat, defined box. My advice would be to stop trying because it is, in my eyes, purposeless and gains you nothing.
We could leave the RA right now and very little, if anything, would change. We would plan to pursue the exact same in-game relationships as we would have 5 minutes ago. We would still have the same attitude toward positive game play as we did before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first statement says in order to join the RA you must agree to Non-Agression towards a specific area with only two or three settlements covered in that area.
That is not a general requirement for joining the Roseblood Accord. It was a specific request I made, quite civilly, to Bluddwolf in particular. He has been quite clear about his plans to make a living by Bnaditry, and has been quite up-front about his willingness to kill people and take their stuff if he profits from it.
I really don't understand why this request is so difficult to comprehend, or was so difficult for Bluddwolf to agree to. In fact, his doing so probably would have immediately put to rest any residual suspicion I have of his motives and plans in-game.
Most likely, contrary to popular belief, this region is not intended to become an area where safe travel is not possible. It may be a chaotic hive of villainy, debauchery and larceny, but those virtues are typically not practiced where we sleep.
_____________________________________________________________________ _
The second statement says there is no non-aggression agreements needed to sign on with the RA.
Again, the request I made of Bluddwolf was special, for very obvious reasons. We made clear in our original announcement that we were trying to create a safe haven of sorts for folks. It's hard to believe someone would "support" that goal while preying on the very folks we intended to protect.
And again, I made no request whatsoever for a Non-Aggression Pact from Bluddwolf. My request should be clear enough to the reader to realize that he would be perfectly free to attack anyone who was flagged Hostile to him, and he would be perfectly free to attack any Signatory of the Roseblood Accord regardless of Hostile state as long as they were outside the area we're trying to protect.
If Settlement A in the RBA attacks Settlement B, also in the RBA, with the intent of taking over or utilizing the mechanic Lee mentioned in the last Gobbocast of 'razing a settlement to the ground', would that be OK and considered positive gameplay?
I'm sorry but I refuse to entertain these silly hypotheticals. You might as well ask me "If Bobby calls Susie mean, is that positive gameplay?"
The answer to every hypothetical you can possibly imagine is the same. Each Sovereign group that signed the Roseblood Accord will make their own judgments and act in their own interests. There is no enforcement authority. And just to make it clearer, there still would have been no enforcement authority if Bluddwolf and UNC had agreed to my request and then ignored it and began attacking newbies in the southeast mountain.
I actually can put them in the box. They just keep hopping out like damn bullfrogs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problems seem to come from people who are uncomfortable because they can't put RA members into a neat, defined box.
You might think so, but to me, the problem seems to come from people like me who like the concept of the R.A. but genuinely can-not separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to figuring out who does or doesn't speak for the accord when they say different things, some of which imply things we don't necessarily want to support.
That is becoming clearer now, but was not so in the past.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The first statement says in order to join the RA you must agree to Non-Agression towards a specific area with only two or three settlements covered in that area.That is not a general requirement for joining the Roseblood Accord. It was a specific request I made, quite civilly, to Bluddwolf in particular. He has been quite clear about his plans to make a living by Bnaditry, and has been quite up-front about his willingness to kill people and take their stuff if he profits from it.
I really don't understand why this request is so difficult to comprehend, or was so difficult for Bluddwolf to agree to. In fact, his doing so probably would have immediately put to rest any residual suspicion I have of his motives and plans in-game.
Most likely, contrary to popular belief, this region is not intended to become an area where safe travel is not possible. It may be a chaotic hive of villainy, debauchery and larceny, but those virtues are typically not practiced where we sleep._____________________________________________________________________ _
The second statement says there is no non-aggression agreements needed to sign on with the RA.Again, the request I made of Bluddwolf was special, for very obvious reasons. We made clear in our original announcement that we were trying to create a safe haven of sorts for folks. It's hard to believe someone would "support" that goal while preying on the very folks we intended to protect.
And again, I made no request whatsoever for a Non-Aggression Pact from Bluddwolf. My request should be clear enough to the reader to realize that he would be perfectly free to attack anyone who was flagged Hostile to him, and he would be perfectly free to attack any Signatory of the Roseblood Accord...
Ahhh, so it wasn't a Roseblood Accord request that the specific area mentioned would be left alone, it was one individual member's request on behalf of their settlement? I just want to make sure I'm on the right page.
I actually was phrasing it as a general request to be nice and diplomatic. After all, you don't say "No murdering" just to a known murderer, you say it to everyone. If you don't want people attacking nearby the spawn area, why only give that restriction to the group most likely to do it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
some of which imply things we don't necessarily want to support.
What are some examples of this? I have a feeling that my interpretation of such examples is "Well, that's just the way HE sees it" and not "This is official RA doctrine" or whatever. I just don't see anything that would make me think that any particular persons opinions should influence how *I* choose to support positive gameplay.
If someone chooses to support the RA in a purely meta way, in the way Magistry does, what stops them from seeing Nihimon's or anyone else's opinions as just that - their own interpretations that don't necessarily have any bearing on OURS.
And I'm not contesting the idea of only making the restriction in response to the group's application, by the way. I'm just saying, now that it exists, why treat it as a specific, UnNamed-only rule? Is it okay if guys from Magistry start shanking and looting folks nearby the mountains?
Also, and I know I'm gonna get lynched for this: The more I hear about the main intentions for the RBA, the more I think it sounds like Rovagug Pact with a heavier emphasis on friendship.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ahhh, so it wasn't a Roseblood Accord request that the specific area mentioned would be left alone, it was one individual member's request on behalf of their settlement? I just want to make sure I'm on the right page.
No.
The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it. Towards that end, we have come together to announce our intentions to the community, and to invite all who share these goals to join us.
Our intention to protect this area was stated in the original post. Due to Bluddwolf's very clearly stated intentions, I used my judgment and asked him to, in essence, promise not to prey on the very folks we were committed to protecting from predation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually was phrasing it as a general request to be nice and diplomatic. After all, you don't say "No murdering" just to a known murderer, you say it to everyone. If you don't want people attacking nearby the spawn area, why only give that restriction to the group most likely to do it?
If you invite 7 nuns and a cannibal to a pot luck dinner, you'd probably only ask the cannibal not to bring any human meat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ahhh, so it was a special stipulation due to an understanding that UNC Bandits would be doing Bandit things, but that area was to be protected from bandit activity?
If this is the case, would other groups planning to use bandit and SAD mechanics need to also agree to this stipulation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My request, repeated in my previous post in the hopes that people would read it, was that he not "initiate hostilities against anyone in the area in and around the southeast mountains".
I do have to say that this puzzles me a little as well, although I agree with the majority of points you are making. I see no reason why anyone in "the southeast mountains" should be singled out for special status. When we were contemplating the RA, I asked in the thread what exactly the text of it was because I wanted to know what we were getting into. I knew that discussions were happening on teamspeak and so forth, so I wanted an up to date description. This was it:
The text of the Accord is brief enough that it's entirely included in the first post, and easy to see as a summary:
Quote:
"The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it."
The unwritten part is the definition of "positive gameplay".
The big message is obviously positive gameplay, but I definitely don't see anything about the SE mountains. Positive gameplay extends to the four corners of the map. I understand that your personal focus is rightly in the SE mountains, as mine is in the NW, but do you view that as an "RA" focus? I certainly don't.
Side note: What is with the paizo website seemingly constantly coming down. I had to write this post 4 times, and I lost one yesterday as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nihimon,
There is actually too much in your post to quote it all here. I will try to clarify a few points:
1. My quote from the Geopolitical Feature thread: that was voluntary, a UNC philosophy in actuality, and not part of any non aggression pact.
2. Your initial pitch for the RA was not clear in that its goal was to create a safe haven. It was to have a positive gameplay pledge. Positive Gameplay as it relates to players is what I expected the RA was about. It is why in my pledge I not only included anti griefing language, but also language that stated that we would not excessively target any one individual, group or settlement. I also stated that I would not hold any organization accountable for the actions of one.
The shift came when the "mutual benefit" clause was either reiterated, emphasized or ninja inserted after I read the thread OP for the first time.
Regardless, the mutual benefit clause seems not to apply to anyone anymore, because it runs counter to the "everyone is independent" and there are no "hard and fast rules" of the accord. In fact that does not seem to be a consensus of what the accord actually is any more.
3. To eliminate the bandits use of SADs is to limit banditry to only feud, faction and war targets, and that is not the intention of the developers. Secondly, that stance also removes outpost and poi raiding, which is the most common PvP to occur by game design. Your definition of Positive Gameplay can not exclude major design features of the game. In fact I would argue that that stance is counter to the game design and potentially negative gameplay.
4. I had asked for clarification on just what area of protection you were referring to. You can certainly claim that the RA holds sway over lands that you control. But that does not mechanically or conceptually include lands (hexes) that the RA does not control.
If you are saying the RA applied to lands outside of your control, than it is a non aggression pact, which would be fine if only you were willing to admit it was one.
Your request of me and the UNC in general was a non aggression pact. It limited our ability to engage in banditry unless the target was already hostile in our view. Since, I assume, that no member of the RA can initiate a hostile state towards another member, because that would not be mutually beneficial, your request would effectively eliminate all banditry or more broadly eliminate all PvP in the region that you claimed to be "RA's lands".
5. A final note, the sorts of folks you are trying to protect is new players, I assume. Yet you wish to extend that protection outside of the new player starter areas, which again is fine if you put the man power to do it. But again, it runs counter to what the Devs, including Ryan had said.
You can not deny the label of Positive Gameplay from activities that are fully supported by the developers. You do not own the phrase nor the definition of it.
The issue is that you are trying to have an alliance, without the appearance of having an alliance. In one post you make it seem that the RA is strictly meta game, and then it has definite game mechanic prohibitions. You claim that everyone is independent, but won't say what happens if an RA member puts self interest above mutual benefit.
The hypotheticals that you called silly were actually very likely events, that the Devs have designed the game to include.
So I ask a final, and I'll admit rhetorical question:
Is the Roseblood Accord meant to make PFO a game, that it is not being designed to be, into what you had hoped it would be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm posting just as a player, not as an official representative of TEO. My 2 coins about where the Roseblood Accord *could* go, if the various companies/groups that signed up were so inclined:
Make the Roseblood Accord a statement of chivalric principles. Define those principles however you all choose. It might include things like the following: Those who agree to the Accord agree to wage any conflict between themselves and other signatories of the accord through declared wars, company feuds (including outpost raiding), and faction warfare. Banditry (SAD), raids outside of feuds, and attacks on unflagged persons are not acceptable against other signatories, unless the other has already violated the Accord. Signatories will not harvest in each others lands without permission. Signatories will depart each other's lands when asked. Wars and feuds will be declared before entering the target's lands. etc., etc.
I think it's good to talk about positive gameplay, but I wonder if that's totally undefinable. I think that there will (or should be) the possibility of conflict (PvP combat-type conflict) between signatories. But if you all want that combat to be conducted by some sort of fantasy-chivalric code, make that the basis for the accord.
(Edit to add - Bluddwolf's post appeared right after I posted. I think the signatories to the Roseblood accord could eschew banditry and attacks on non-hostiles; just because something is in the game doesn't mean they need to use those methods or accept others who do.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
some of which imply things we don't necessarily want to support.What are some examples of this? I have a feeling that my interpretation of such examples is "Well, that's just the way HE sees it" and not "This is official RA doctrine" or whatever. I just don't see anything that would make me think that any particular persons opinions should influence how *I* choose to support positive gameplay.
If someone chooses to support the RA in a purely meta way, in the way Magistry does, what stops them from seeing Nihimon's or anyone else's opinions as just that - their own interpretations that don't necessarily have any bearing on OURS.
It's fine to say that, but how is anyone not already part of the accord supposed to know who is speaking for the accord and who isn't and when? Nihimon made the actual announcement of it's existence (at least as far as I know) But later on people come along and say Nihimon doesn't speak for the accord, only for himself. Well when does he speak for the accord, and when does he speak for himself? Who does speak for the accord? How can we tell what is actually expected, and what is only the expectation of some of the members?
I'm not asking these things as a detractor, I'm asking them as someone who wanted to participate from the moment I saw it, but want to know what it is in which I'm participating.
In the first 48 hours of the primary announcement thread (this very thread)
From the initial announcement of the accord:
The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members.
So is this an in-game alliance or an out of game group working on fostering a good community of players?A little bit of A, a little bit of B. If you're interested exclusively in one or the other, then I'm somewhat confused already.
any use or threat of force is oppression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KC
Yea, Roleplaying? I am only going to be barely doing that, and that is only cause some people in TEO will be. When RPing begins to mess with my game, that is when I am out. I realize that is going to be a big part of some people's gaming, but I don't really like doing that unless I am at a table top or in a play by post in the forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fine to say that, but how is anyone not already part of the accord supposed to know who is speaking for the accord and who isn't and when? Nihimon made the actual announcement of it's existence (at least as far as I know) But later on people come along and say Nihimon doesn't speak for the accord, only for himself. Well when does he speak for the accord, and when does he speak for himself? Who does speak for the accord? How can we tell what is actually expected, and what is only the expectation of some of the members?
I'm not asking these things as a detractor, I'm asking them as someone who wanted to participate from the moment I saw it, but want to know what it is in which I'm participating.
In the first 48 hours of the primary announcement thread (this very thread)
No one person speaks for all of the RA.
People speak for their own Settlements and/or Companies/Organizations. They just fail to specifically say that they are doing so, or speaking for themselves.
Nihimon posted the RA post, because I suggested that he post it due to his notoriety on the boards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one person speaks for all of the RA.
People speak for their own Settlements and/or Companies/Organizations. They just fail to specifically say that they are doing so, or speaking for themselves.
Nihimon posted the RA post, because I suggested that he post it due to his notoriety on the boards.
No one person speaks for the RA, but one person can unilaterally decide that some can enter and others can not.
Nihimon is the face of the RA, and yet he does not speak for all.
Nihimon is the face of TSV, and yet he is only one of several stewards.
This is what we keep on reading, but at some point a few questions will be asked:
Is there a perception problem?
Is there a plausible deniability ploy that is not working well?
Do you have a loose cannon on your hands?
Is Nihimon the Emprah of the Roseblood Empire?
@KC
Yea, Roleplaying? I am only going to be barely doing that, and that is only cause some people in TEO will be. When RPing begins to mess with my game, that is when I am out. I realize that is going to be a big part of some people's gaming, but I don't really like doing that unless I am at a table top or in a play by post in the forums.
I understand that some people don't like roleplaying, but it's still a big part of the game. If none those partaking in the NAP wish to invent a story, I can do it. Just give us something to work with here. ;D
I actually was phrasing it as a general request to be nice and diplomatic. After all, you don't say "No murdering" just to a known murderer, you say it to everyone. If you don't want people attacking nearby the spawn area, why only give that restriction to the group most likely to do it?If you invite 7 nuns and a cannibal to a pot luck dinner, you'd probably only ask the cannibal not to bring any human meat.
Jesus, I just realized I never actually got my response to your post up thanks to the meddling goblins.
*Ahem*
That's perfectly understandable, but it's still understood that the nuns aren't supposed to be bringing human meat, either. You made this weird distinction that only the UNC need promise to follow that rule.
The rule itself is fine by me. It's the weird sorta "Cannibals can't bring human flesh, but nuns totally can" policy that confuses me.
That's why I called it a general rule initially: It makes no sense to make it UNC-only. I assumed you weren't, like, crazy drunk eccentric easily misinterpreted Coraline reference doing really weird stuff.
On the other hand, if the rule really does only apply to the UNC, I'll happily join. Even if it's kinda cuckoo.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
This is what we keep on reading, but at some point a few questions will be asked:Is there a perception problem?
Is there a plausible deniability ploy that is not working well?
Do you have a loose cannon on your hands?
Why are you asking those questions here, instead of the UNC policy thread?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's the weird sorta "Cannibals can't bring human flesh, but nuns totally can" policy that confuses me.
It would surprise me if nuns brought human flesh to a pot luck dinner. I wouldn't think I would have to ask them to refrain from doing so. If they do, which they totally can, being free-willed human beings, and which the cannibal totally can as well, even if he does promise not to, then I would use my best judgment to evaluate the system and then act in pursuit of my own interests.
So, I'll clarify: Does this rule apply to any members, or just UC? Am I assumed to be promising the same by joining?
If not, I'd be happy to join. If so, though, I'd rather not make a false commitment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one person speaks for all of the RA.
People speak for their own Settlements and/or Companies/Organizations. They just fail to specifically say that they are doing so, or speaking for themselves.
Nihimon posted the RA post, because I suggested that he post it due to his notoriety on the boards.
No one person speaks for the RA, but one person can unilaterally decide that some can enter and others can not.
Nihimon is the face of the RA, and yet he does not speak for all.
Nihimon is the face of TSV, and yet he is only one of several stewards.
This is what we keep on reading, but at some point a few questions will be asked:
Is there a perception problem?
Is there a plausible deniability ploy that is not working well?
Do you have a loose cannon on your hands?
Is Nihimon the Emprah of the Roseblood Empire?
Actually, on the first bit, I think the issue with some is dictating what you were and weren't going to do. Then you withdrew after the questions were asked. I do not believe you even got on TS to chat about it. Also, taking partly blame, for what happened, I think there were some communication issues.
Either way, there were people that were happy to have you aboard, but the entire thread was derailed to the point where it was all mucked up.
Nihimon was used for his notoriety, past that, it was a failing in saying that he wasn't THE leader of RA, since there is no actual central leadership. As far as TSV goes, that is TSV.
I agree, there is obviously a perception issue here. It is getting better though.
I do not agree that there is any ploy going on. I don't think Nihimon is a loose cannon, but I disagree with him at times, and so do others. Because this is the forums, public forums, anyone can say or do what they want, and if they don't specifically state that they are giving their personal opinions, everyone automatically assumes they speak for everyone they are associated with. To further the issue, people begin to back that person up, and then it snowballs. This has happened to most of the organizations on these boards, and will happen again.
Nihimon is most definitely not the "Emprah" or leader of RA. There are a few movers and shakers though that try and organize meetings, hand out TS information, and keep people informed of Landrush information. That is as close to a central leadership as you will find, and that mostly consists of Avari and myself, which neither of us are recognized as anything more than expediters.
Y'know, I can ruin things just by association. If you guys want to get rid of that "Emprah" thing that's caused so much fuss, I can make an alias called "Emprah KC".
:D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are you asking those questions here, instead of the UNC policy thread?
This is what we keep on reading, but at some point a few questions will be asked:Is there a perception problem?
Is there a plausible deniability ploy that is not working well?
Do you have a loose cannon on your hands?
Should be pretty obvious, these questions are about the RA.
Derp...
The UNC does not have any loose cannons, just cannons that are free to fire at will.
"Your cannons are flying everywhere on the ship! They're blowing up everything!"
"All according to plan."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some of you really need to stop pretending like the Roseblood Accord is some complicated document and move on with your lives.
Honestly, it's becoming foolish and desperate.
I think if it were a document with at least a minimum level of complication it would be easier to understand.
Confusion comes in when different people from the same organization, spread across multiple organizations, try to explain the same thing with statements that are not synonomous.
This was compounded when the exact nature of the Accord began to shift... But if I understand correctly, that was part of the intent.
I don't think people are trying to muck it up, I think people are trying to understand. That's difficult when the target of understanding is purposefully ambiguous. If the purpose of that ambiguity is to make it more attractive as something that is non-binding, I think it has been very successful. For those that want a clear understanding the gears of the Accord before pledging to it, it is a little less appealing.
I've engaged a few members in conversation to enlighten myself, but I still feel that my grasp of it and its concepts is inaccurate.
If Callambea or Aragon or anyone else for that matter were to sign the Accord, what does that actually mean? I think that is a question worth answering, what is expected of signatories and is that expectation subject to change? If so, how does that process work?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some of you really need to stop pretending like the Roseblood Accord is some complicated document and move on with your lives.
Honestly, it's becoming foolish and desperate.
I think if it were a document with at least a minimum level of complication it would be easier to understand.
Confusion comes in when different people from the same organization, spread across multiple organizations, try to explain the same thing with statements that are not synonomous.
This was compounded when the exact nature of the Accord began to shift... But if I understand correctly, that was part of the intent.
I don't think people are trying to muck it up, I think people are trying to understand. That's difficult when the target of understanding is purposefully ambiguous. If the purpose of that ambiguity is to make it more attractive as something that is non-binding, I think it has been very successful. For those that want a clear understanding the gears of the Accord before pledging to it, it is a little less appealing.
I've engaged a few members in conversation to enlighten myself, but I still feel that my grasp of it and its concepts is inaccurate.
If Callambea or Aragon or anyone else for that matter were to sign the Accord, what does that actually mean? I think that is a question worth answering, what is expected of signatories and is that expectation subject to change? If so, how does that process work?
No, the confusion initiated when people asked for the obvious to be explained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, the confusion initiated when people asked for the obvious to be explained.Some of you really need to stop pretending like the Roseblood Accord is some complicated document and move on with your lives.
Honestly, it's becoming foolish and desperate.
I think if it were a document with at least a minimum level of complication it would be easier to understand.
Confusion comes in when different people from the same organization, spread across multiple organizations, try to explain the same thing with statements that are not synonomous.
This was compounded when the exact nature of the Accord began to shift... But if I understand correctly, that was part of the intent.
I don't think people are trying to muck it up, I think people are trying to understand. That's difficult when the target of understanding is purposefully ambiguous. If the purpose of that ambiguity is to make it more attractive as something that is non-binding, I think it has been very successful. For those that want a clear understanding the gears of the Accord before pledging to it, it is a little less appealing.
I've engaged a few members in conversation to enlighten myself, but I still feel that my grasp of it and its concepts is inaccurate.
If Callambea or Aragon or anyone else for that matter were to sign the Accord, what does that actually mean? I think that is a question worth answering, what is expected of signatories and is that expectation subject to change? If so, how does that process work?
If it were obvious, synonomous answers would have been given negating the need for explanation. The fact that at least one signatory is confused about certain aspects of the Accord is a clear indicator there are less obvious aspects of the Accord requiring explaination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Act as best you can to promote positive gameplay. What does that look like? Nobody knows just yet, since we aren't in game. The commitment to making the game a better place is all that I would require.
That is something that *personally* I find acceptable. I can do that and kill you. I can do that when I feud with you, when I'm at war with you. The question is what happens after that.
In war, cutting off supply lines is a common tactic as it renders your enemy ineffective. Would camping a supply outpost be considered "positive"? Your opponent has to get supplies, so they keep coming and either die over and over or break through. Perhaps they work a deal to get supplies some other way. Those are all examples of positive game play, as long as you aren't a jerk while doing so.
My understanding is that if that were to happen between signatories of the RA, you all would come together and talk about it. Nothing would be mandated, but signatories could independently decide to not act or take action based off of that action.
Is that accurate?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Callambea or Aragon or anyone else for that matter were to sign the Accord, what does that actually mean? I think that is a question worth answering, what is expected of signatories and is that expectation subject to change? If so, how does that process work?
Magistry's understanding was that it would simply mean a belief in positive gameplay and a desire for everyone to have fun. This could be fun through war or banditry just as much as any other method.
I don't believe that "PVP is not fun" fits the bill of being "griefed". I think there needs to be an acceptable amount of understanding on all sides, not just on the side of the bandits. At it's core Paizo has created a PVP game and as much as some of us will try to create an environment fun for everyone, even those not interested in PVP, we need to accept that it is a part of the game.
Positive gameplay to me are those that are willing to do what they can to understand each other and where possible have fun regardless of the circumstances.
To me the things that are negative game play are things like:
I was killed by bandits, so I'm going to get on the forums and talk about how Player X is a terrible person.
I killed some players so I'm going to go laugh about how they suck.
I found out those players spawn over here, let's keep killing them so they get frustrated and quit the game.
Exceptional (not expected) positive game play might be:
We've won the battle and taken their settlement. Let's help them get setup somewhere else or assist their rebuilding endeavors elsewhere.
After a merchant pays against a SAD, "Thanks for your contribution, I'll buy you a drink at Tavernhold"
Magistry assumed that these types of things were the concern of the accord itself. Any other agreements that derive between members of the accord are a separate matter entirely. That is all that we're interested in being associated with. The fact that the whole thing is loosely defined and means different things to different people can be irksome, both for those that agreed to it and those looking in from the outside trying to figure out just what's going on.
I'd love to see everyone sign on for positive gameplay. I'd love to believe that the community will force out people that behave like the examples shown above for negative gameplay by making them feel unwelcome. That's really what I'd hope something like the Roseblood Accord accomplishes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I'm not asking these things as a detractor, I'm asking them as someone who wanted to participate from the moment I saw it, but want to know what it is in which I'm participating...
Thank you for this statement; it sums up my own feelings as well. Or at least it did at one point.
I don't think it's that hard to imagine that people can get confused when they ask "How does the Accord work?" and people give multiple contradictory answers (and it wasn't realized that those people were just putting forth independent opinions); I certainly don't think ridicule is needed for outsiders asking questions and trying to understand the agreement. It's hard to know what the spirit of the agreement is when every person asked about said spirit gives a different answer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Callambea or Aragon or anyone else for that matter were to sign the Accord, what does that actually mean? I think that is a question worth answering, what is expected of signatories and is that expectation subject to change? If so, how does that process work?Magistry's understanding was that it would simply mean a belief in positive gameplay and a desire for everyone to have fun. This could be fun through war or banditry just as much as any other method.
I don't believe that "PVP is not fun" fits the bill of being "griefed". I think there needs to be an acceptable amount of understanding on all sides, not just on the side of the bandits. At it's core Paizo has created a PVP game and as much as some of us will try to create an environment fun for everyone, even those not interested in PVP, we need to accept that it is a part of the game.
Positive gameplay to me are those that are willing to do what they can to understand each other and where possible have fun regardless of the circumstances.
To me the things that are negative game play are things like:
I was killed by bandits, so I'm going to get on the forums and talk about how Player X is a terrible person.
I killed some players so I'm going to go laugh about how they suck.
I found out those players spawn over here, let's keep killing them so they get frustrated and quit the game.
Exceptional (not expected) positive game play might be:
We've won the battle and taken their settlement. Let's help them get setup somewhere else or assist their rebuilding endeavors elsewhere.
After a merchant pays against a SAD, "Thanks for your contribution, I'll buy you a drink at Tavernhold"
Magistry assumed that these types of things were the concern of the accord itself. Any other agreements that derive between members of the accord are a separate matter entirely. That is all that we're interested in being associated with. The fact that the whole thing is loosely defined and means different...
Again... These are things that *personally* are reasonable and acceptable. Certain things remain unanswered, like what would happen if group a does something to the mechanical or strategic detriment of group b and group b cries foul.
I do greatly appreciate your indulging me with cited examples of what your expectations are. That allows me to compare how our values stack up and between you and I, they seem to be very agreeable.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one person speaks for the RA, but one person can unilaterally decide that some can enter and others can not.Nihimon is the face of the RA, and yet he does not speak for all.
Nihimon is the face of TSV, and yet he is only one of several stewards.
You seem to be fixated by the opinions of a single member to the point of a Feud. This is fair to say, but I want to personally tell you that the big N may have been a founding member, organizer, and participant in the RA, but that doesn't mean he can make any kind of decisions about your participation. He's a face because... that's who he is. That's like saying a duck is a duck, because... it's a duck. You really think he's the only participant or author that has participated here?
All he did was question you, which truth be told, gets you off and you KNOW it! No sense being shy.
From my RP perspective it felt like walked into the hall, started a debate,signed the document, continued to evade the argument pose the on the way out the door, then crossed it out and wrote a phallic image all over its face in spite of reasonable suspicion. I'm sorry you have a reputation around here man, really we get it, it sucks but that isn't anybodies fault but your own.
Your name is still on it as far as I'm concerned, and fellow member you are if you wish to be, and know this, NOBODY can tell you you can't be a member of the RA, unless you really just want to play to ruin other peoples fun. I'm SURE that's not what you have in mind, and if you feel marginalized perhaps the rest of us should have spoken up sooner in defense for your Chaotic response, but many of us really dislike getting involves in heated rhetoric about a game that we cant even play yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm not asking these things as a detractor, I'm asking them as someone who wanted to participate from the moment I saw it, but want to know what it is in which I'm participating...Thank you for this statement; it sums up my own feelings as well. Or at least it did at one point.
I don't think it's that hard to imagine that people can get confused when they ask "How does the Accord work?" and people give multiple contradictory answers (and it wasn't realized that those people were just putting forth independent opinions); I certainly don't think ridicule is needed for outsiders asking questions and trying to understand the agreement. It's hard to know what the spirit of the agreement is when every person asked about said spirit gives a different answer.
I am not sure what you mean by "how does it work". In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained by joining the RA. It is not a defensive pact, it is not an economic treaty, it is nothing more than a self defining group comprised of sovereign bodies that have each promised that they, individually, advocate positive gameplay.
An additional caveat is obvious (whether it was assumed in the original design or has since evolved does not really matter) that some subset of the current signatories have to have enough trust in the meaning behind any given promise for it to be taken at its word. What that subset is, I have no idea. It was not discussed because all the original signers trusted each other, so there was no requirement for that subset to be defined for the RA to come into existence.
Returning to the question of "how does it work", I have to answer this with a question and an example. How does what work? If I promise to make a gnome, and Areks independently promises to make a gnome...and we decide to officially call everyone who promises to make a gnome a "Gnome Bro" for no other reason that we all intend to separately make gnomes and even though we have different allegiances and associations, how does that work? What work is expect to be done? It offers nothing more than a bit of comradeship and perhaps some food for interesting discussions about how best to make a gnome. If Areks decides in the end to not make a gnome...he obviously is no longer a "Gnome Bro".
EDIT: Just using Areks as an example because I just read his post above...no offense to Areks or gnomes intended.
EDIT2: But since there is already at least a minimal level of trust among the RA signatories, it makes sense that other agreements, voiced or not, might emerge out of the relationships initially forged in the RA. There is nothing about the RA that forces a greater relationship, but nor is there anything that precludes it.
EDIT3: And Areks exclusion from the "Gnome Bros" because he is no loner making a gnome includes no judgement about the elf (for example) he does end up making.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for my absence--my wife had ankle surgery yesterday (she's doing very well for those concerned).
Some summary statements:
Bunibuni, the forum hosted by the Circle is indeed open 24/7. It's not TeamSpeak or anything like that. Just a forum hosted on GuildLaunch, so any member can post any time.
For how the gears of the RA work. It's very simple. There are no gears. There is no grand scheme for how we work together as a group, no overarching idea to take over the map, etc. We are simply a group of people coming together to say "we want to play the game in a way that makes PFO generally fun." As should be obvious, different groups and different individuals interpret this statement broadly. That's okay. When there is a disagreement, we should ideally be able to come together as members and have an adult discussion. We can ensure those discussions are fruitful by having proactive conversations, just like this one, on the nature of the Accord.
For who is our leader and/or spokesperson in the RA, this is also very simple. There is none. We are individual, sovereign organizations, all with our own rights and voice. The RA has no official power to force us to do anything. Rather, we act, as friends united behind a purpose, to support positive play.
It is truly as simple as that. Anyone that says otherwise, if already a member of the RA, please join as at the above mentioned forum so we can have a reasoned conversation and resolve any discrepancies. Anyone that says otherwise from outside the group, I would ask you to consider what's already been presented. If you still see hidden agendas and backdoor conspiracies, well, I don't know what more I can say to convince you otherwise. If you truly think this is the case, join the RA and see for yourself. I personally guarantee you'll find nothing of the sort.
For any friends in the RA that might be confused by my continued stance that we're not in any formal agreements, and think this means the Keepers of the Circle do not want to be, I want to assure you this could not be further from the truth. I make this stand simply to ensure everyone understands the nature of the Accord. We welcome any talks for more formal non-aggression pacts, military alliances, trade agreements, training coordination, or other such discussions. It's indeed my hope that our friendship in the RA will make such talks smoother as we have a mutual understanding of the desire for positive play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've won the battle and taken their settlement. Let's help them get setup somewhere else or assist their rebuilding endeavors elsewhere.
After a merchant pays against a SAD, "Thanks for your contribution, I'll buy you a drink at Tavernhold"
Athansor, it's contributions to the game just like this that make me very much look forward to playing with you and yours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks to my friends--my wife is a fellow gamer and so already knows the loyal, if sometimes weird, support gamers show to one another.
And I failed to note, Athansor's interpretation and expectations are in line with my own. A particular challenge I look forward to is trying to get 2+ groups (including my own, or not) to accept some sort of non-aggressive way to solve a dispute. As noted earlier, I do not believe hostile conflict is the only viable solution to certain situations, even for groups that favor PvP. Given a little bit of forethought and conversation, folks can still duke it out, win or lose, and walk away friends as Players (not necessarily Characters--RPing character hostility can be fun when properly understood as separate from Player hostility).
EDIT: And to solidify the stance of the Keepers of the Circle on non-aggression with other RA members, I would like to formally request discussions with all RA organizations regarding a non-aggression pact with the Keepers of the Circle. Non-aggression is a central tenet of our group, and we would welcome formal acknowledgement of this with our RA friends. In addition, we fully expect and respect that some RA members may not take us up on this offer. We are still friends in the RA, and I'm sure our Rings of Steel, Shadow, Wood, and Light look forward to some friendly military competition with your members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your name is still on it as far as I'm concerned, and fellow member you are if you wish to be, and know this, NOBODY can tell you you can't be a member of the RA, unless you really just want to play to ruin other peoples fun. I'm SURE that's not what you have in mind, and if you feel marginalized perhaps the rest of us should have spoken up sooner in defense for your Chaotic response, but many of us really dislike getting involves in heated rhetoric about a game that we cant even play yet.
Well said, Carbon D.
Bandits and bandit hunters in the same TS/forums will help keep things character vs character, and 'positive', so let's encourage it.
Besides who else is going to appreciate the little play-by-plays after each good skirmish better than our fellow participants : D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For how the gears of the RA work. It's very simple. There are no gears. When there is a disagreement, we should ideally be able to come together as members and have an adult discussion. We can ensure those discussions are fruitful by having proactive conversations, just like this one, on the nature of the Accord.
....
It is truly as simple as that. Anyone that says otherwise, if already a member of the RA, please join as at the above mentioned forum so we can have a reasoned conversation and resolve any discrepancies. Anyone that says otherwise from outside the group, I would ask you to consider what's already been presented.
Those are things I would identify as simple gears. A very simplistic protocol. Kinda like how an amoeba is a simple form of life... but that is really just splitting hairs.
Again, I am refreshed by what has been presented as of late by folks in this thread. It paints a different, clearer picture than I had previously held.
The question that remains is, on a ideological level, how is this different from Proxima Sin's "Wheaton's Law" Pact if at all?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd probably reverse that question actually. The Roseblood Accord was in development and put forth well before Proxima Sin's pact.
Personally I think they are both very close, but don't see that as a detriment either. I consider the other more an individual level as opposed to a company's involvement in the Roseblood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am aware of the time line. The order is simple because from my perspective and the perspective of others Roseblood started out as more than JUST Wheaton's Law, regardless of where it stands now. Please take no offense as none is intended.
I understand the fundamental differences for appealing to organization vs individual. Again, I just wanted to ensure that my current understanding is accurate not trying to troubleshoot or split hairs. Proxima's pledge was the closest idealogically sibling despite the different target audiences, and it was something that I supported and still support.
I'm thoroughly satisfied with the clairification that has been given and appreciate the time you all have taken to assist in the explaination of the particulars. Thanks!
