Roseblood Accord


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Papaver wrote:
Lord Zodd wrote:
ArchAnjel wrote:
Internet drama queens just can't be stopped.

Whoa! Whoa! Calling Bluddwolf a queen is a bit much...

He is a princess at best :p

You can't even comprehend how difficult it is to resist the urge to open Photoshop right now and channel the thing that is "princess Bluddwolf" in my head into it.

Make it so.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
WE NEED GOOD BAD GUYS.

Allow me to echo you echoing me by echoing myself, because this really is important.

Nihimon wrote:
Be the "bad guys". Be the conquerors, the tyrants, the expansionist empires. We need you.

Goblin Squad Member

Jester David wrote:

I like the idea of the accord.

But what happens if everyone signs and no one creates drama?

See above :)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to join Roseblood, I will be the guy standing on the corner with a sign giving out hugs!

Other than that, I am really excited about our location, our friends, those who have shown interest in Roseblood, and those have shown interest in taking it down a peg or two. Pathfinder Online is going to be a great game allowing for realistic depth, while other games have pulled this off (EVE, DF), I feel like there is so much more here in the PFO community, so much more potential.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
The game simply wouldn't be fun if we pet kittens[...]

I think we first need to establish how many kittens would be involved.

As awesome as this group of people is, there is still going to be the majority who do not join for one reason or another. Not even necessarily that they disagree with us. I do not think we are in any danger of bringing everybody into the fold and ruining our own lands.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Papaver wrote:
Lord Zodd wrote:
ArchAnjel wrote:
Internet drama queens just can't be stopped.

Whoa! Whoa! Calling Bluddwolf a queen is a bit much...

He is a princess at best :p

You can't even comprehend how difficult it is to resist the urge to open Photoshop right now and channel the thing that is "princess Bluddwolf" in my head into it.
Make it so.

OUT THE QUEEN

Goblin Squad Member

FMS SirZac wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Papaver wrote:
Lord Zodd wrote:
ArchAnjel wrote:
Internet drama queens just can't be stopped.

Whoa! Whoa! Calling Bluddwolf a queen is a bit much...

He is a princess at best :p

You can't even comprehend how difficult it is to resist the urge to open Photoshop right now and channel the thing that is "princess Bluddwolf" in my head into it.
Make it so.
OUT THE QUEEN

<3

Goblin Squad Member

FMS SirZac wrote:
OUT THE QUEEN

In my experience, most of them have long-since taken care of that for themselves :-).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darcnes wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
The game simply wouldn't be fun if we pet kittens[...]

I think we first need to establish how many kittens would be involved.

As awesome as this group of people is, there is still going to be the majority who do not join for one reason or another. Not even necessarily that they disagree with us. I do not think we are in any danger of bringing everybody into the fold and ruining our own lands.

Everyone that plays the game should endorse and model good gamesmanship while they play whether it's heroic pablum like I do or the heel wrestler that goes out of his way to say the thing that makes the audience jeer at him.

That's a separate thing than an in-game alliance of good guys acting to their mutual benefit and welcoming newbs.

I kind of wish there were two different accords, one for each of those ideas. Then UNC (and Golgotha, and others?) could join the good gamesmanship accord as was their first reaction, while lifting a select finger to the other accord for goody two-shoes heroes wandering around to save the day from their mean bandit types.

Goblin Squad Member

A second fair-play accord, as it were, that models the positive gameplay we are evangelizing without the attachment of mutual benefit to it. Is that your idea Proxima? Sounds like a cool idea.

"They ain't no paladins, but at least they got some sense o' honor between 'em"

Goblin Squad Member

So are you all actively blocking evil groups from the RBA?

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Areks wrote:
So are you all actively boycotting evil groups?

Speaking in a personal role, I will not boycott evil groups. I fully intend to visit Golgotha and any other evil town that won't kill me on sight. I believe that trade is possible with any group that will act in a manner that is beneficial to the game as a whole, regardless of their alignment. I would readily advocate for that.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not know that we have that stipulation. I think the current envisioned system is that most of the 'evil' population will be catered to through neutral settlements.

I think the only concern about evil groups is whether they would be likely to turn on or otherwise attempt to cannibalize the rest of the accord.

I could personally see accepting evil groups that are evil by nature of the amount of PvP they are doing against 0-rep loss or otherwise consenting targets, or delving into necromancy or slavery.

As a member of the accord, I am not against evil groups. As a key representative of Brighthaven, I do not want any groups that are going to bring non-consensual PvP to the residents that come to us to escape that setting up shop as our neighbors. It really isn't the alignment, but rather in how that alignment is expressed.

Now, in-character I am likely to stand against and oppose evil actions - including those that are not directly harming other players. But that is entirely not personal.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

I do not know that we have that stipulation. I think the current envisioned system is that most of the 'evil' population will be catered to through neutral settlements.

I think the only concern about evil groups is whether they would be likely to turn on or otherwise attempt to cannibalize the rest of the accord.

I could personally see accepting evil groups that are evil by nature of the amount of PvP they are doing against 0-rep loss or otherwise consenting targets, or delving into necromancy or slavery.

As a member of the accord, I am not against evil groups. As a key representative of Brighthaven, I do not want any groups that are going to bring non-consensual PvP to the residents that come to us to escape that setting up shop as our neighbors. It really isn't the alignment, but rather in how that alignment is expressed.

Now, in-character I am likely to stand against and oppose evil actions - including those that are not directly harming other players. But that is entirely not personal.

Completely understandable. So while IC personally you would object to a group using slavery, you wouldn't find that as a disqualifying factor for their admission into Roseblood?

@Alexander- No mouse traps, I promise =)

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
A second fair-play accord, as it were, that models the positive gameplay we are evangelizing without the attachment of

Hmmm, or we could just let GW give the boot to all the bad actors...then all that is left is people who use positive gameplay.

I would argue however, there is a distinct difference between agreeing to "use" positive play (by avoiding negative gameplay)...and actively promoting positive gameplay, which for instance might be realized as a minimum Rep tolerance.

At the moment, all we can do is share our intent to pursue it.

As far as mutually beneficial goes...any sale in which both parties end up happy is mutually beneficial. As members of the Accord, we do not have to throw rainbows and daisies at each other, we just need to agree to perhaps sacrifice a bit of possible income (not just monetary) to insure both parties walk away feeling happy.

I see no reason why Evil cannot agree to the terms above if they feel it is in the best interest collectively and/or at the individual level of their community members.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forencith wrote:
we do not have to throw rainbows and daisies at each other

Can we still throw prismatic rays and entagles?

(in a non-abusive and gentlemanly way, of course).

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
So are you all actively blocking evil groups from the RBA?

Given the history of the groups involved, I'm surprised you'd even ask. Remember it was a member of T7V who founded Shadow-Haven, with our full support. I'd be extremely surprised if some of the folks who ended up in Golgotha never mentioned to you that they had been courted by T7V.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
It will be very interesting to see how "mutual benefit" plays out if any of the signatories end up on opposite sides of the field.
I think it would come down to good gamesmanship among all parties. I am sure we can each think of ways to engineer the defeat of an opponent using out-of-game advantages. Good sportsmanship would exclude unfair out-of-game instruments and prefer whatever the game developer has expressly provided. Good sportsmanship means all teams play within the rules that afford 'fairness' and distinguish 'what is a game' from 'reality'.
I may be misreading this.
An example of poor sportsmanship is to deliberately misread.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Are you saying that "Good Sportsmanship" can only be achieved if we all yes the same keyboards, mice, VOIP, Internet connection speed, etc?

In which alternate reality did you learn to read? If you wish to practice the conjuration of strawmen, do so on your own time in a vacant field somewhere.

Goblin Squad Member

I was speaking more towards home grown groups than evil off-shoots. I have no doubt that groups established by you and yours would be welcomed into the Accord regardless of alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Areks wrote:
I was speaking more towards home grown groups than evil off-shoots. I have no doubt that groups established by you and yours would be welcomed into the Accord regardless of alignment.

Again, I'll say I'm surprised some of the folks currently in Golgotha didn't tell you they were being courted by T7V. Those weren't "off-shoots", they were "home grown".

Just a little surprised.

Goblin Squad Member

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:

A second fair-play accord, as it were, that models the positive gameplay we are evangelizing without the attachment of mutual benefit to it. Is that your idea Proxima? Sounds like a cool idea.

"They ain't no paladins, but at least they got some sense o' honor between 'em"

That was my take on Roseblood on first reading, before the four pages of what groups of characters it's meant to benefit ensued. Actually our characters in the world don't need any awareness of it at all since what I mean is purely an understanding between the players who control the actions of the characters.

I'm not up on my Golarion lore so I will use the term Pathfinder Accord. The basic idea is to put a name to the concept of open world pvp gaming without being a total dunkheads to each other, as players, that Goblinworks has been promoting as a goal for their game all along.

Our characters can be Good and Evil and Psychotic. They can raid, plot demises, sneak resources off enemies' lands, flat out go to war, etc. as characters in fantasy settings are wont to do.

The Pathfinder Accord would say that we, as actual people behind keyboards playing a game with our recreational time, recognize that there are boundaries to a sandbox and some actions as players are going too far which inhibit the recreational time of other real people.

Signatories of the Pathfinder Accord would agree that 98% of the time we collectively know throwing the sand in other people's eyes when we see it, and agree that shouldn't be a part of our gaming time. Leadership players who act as agents of their companys and settlements to bring those groups of players into the Pathfinder Accord agree to promote that mindset of good gamesmanship and staying within the intended bounds of the sandbox within their groups, have some sort of official code of game conduct along those lines for their members, and enact disciplinary measures on their member players if they make their characters act outside the spirit of the Pathfinder Accord too often.

So when people say they've heard how bad EVE is we can say well that's EVE. Pathfinder Online has whole blocks of players from paladins to druids to assassins and necromancers that all agree that kind of stank doesn't belong in their gaming.

It might affect trade. Two towns, the characters in both are far different in alignment and goals than your own, but you decide to trade with the one that's in the Pathfinder Accord because you have some confidence their members won't use the materials in toxic ways while making the choice to not trade with the other town because they're known for tolerating shifty, troublesome corpse campers and epeen-proving random gankers.

Goblin Squad Member

I like that, Proxima.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
I was speaking more towards home grown groups than evil off-shoots. I have no doubt that groups established by you and yours would be welcomed into the Accord regardless of alignment.

Again, I'll say I'm surprised some of the folks currently in Golgotha didn't tell you they were being courted by T7V. Those weren't "off-shoots", they were "home grown".

Just a little surprised.

You shouldn't be. I've been away for most of the semester. There's quite a bit I missed once they came in the door.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Excellent summary Proxima. I particularly like the metaphorically concrete image of "we know throwing sand in each other's eyes when we see it."

It reinforced that we aren't promising not to step on the castles. We're promising to follow the rules that make stepping on castles fun for everybody.

Goblin Squad Member

+100 Proxima Sin

Goblin Squad Member

Exceptionally well said, Proxima Sin!

Goblin Squad Member

Bigmancheatle wrote:
+100 Proxima Sin

I second that

Goblin Squad Member

I am in favor of having a metagame accord that's just about positive gameplay.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima, could you put some more structure around what you're suggesting? As written, it's too vague to really mean anything. "Some actions as players are going to far" is going to mean 12 different things if you ask 10 different people.

EDIT: In re-reading the original post, I see it suffers from the exact same issue-lack of definition. Nihimon, may I suggest that you get together with the prominent leaders of the Roseblood Accord movement and draw up a clear and concise list of behaviors that fall within and without the boundaries of what you consider acceptible?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

'Clear and concise' led to a tax code that fills libraries. Law libraries that fill campuses and people still find edge cases where they can break the law without really breaking the law.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I may add my take on Proxima's thoughts, I think that one aspect of humanizing play, that is, realizing play is between people but acted out as characters, is integrity. Will we act in game as if we were in a real life setting with a mix of friends and strangers physically present? Will we act toward them as we would wish other people would act toward us?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ArchAnjel wrote:

Proxima, could you put some more structure around what you're suggesting? As written, it's too vague to really mean anything. "Some actions as players are going to far" is going to mean 12 different things if you ask 10 different people.

EDIT: In re-reading the original post, I see it suffers from the exact same issue-lack of definition. Nihimon, may I suggest that you get together with the prominent leaders of the Roseblood Accord movement and draw up a clear and concise list of behaviors that fall within and without the boundaries of what you consider acceptible?

Why are details important in what is essentially a "don't be a dick" agreement? Just don't be a dick.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
ArchAnjel wrote:

Proxima, could you put some more structure around what you're suggesting? As written, it's too vague to really mean anything. "Some actions as players are going to far" is going to mean 12 different things if you ask 10 different people.

EDIT: In re-reading the original post, I see it suffers from the exact same issue-lack of definition. Nihimon, may I suggest that you get together with the prominent leaders of the Roseblood Accord movement and draw up a clear and concise list of behaviors that fall within and without the boundaries of what you consider acceptible?

Why are details important in what is essentially a "don't be a dick" agreement? Just don't be a dick.

Many don't agree where that line is. Not in a game with non-consensual PVP. Sure, we can agree on the most horrendous things. Get down to the questionable things and it gets "too much opinion". "too much outright difference", "too much writing, too little reading" and goes crazy on us.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to admit something here that I feel somewhat ashamed of. I have posted on this thread several times, even unjustly attacking Bluddwolf for which I hereby publicly apologize, without having taken time to read the entire thread, cover-to-cover, as it were.

Having now done so, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think what we've done here to Bluddwolf, The Goodfellow, and the UNC is terribly unfair and mean-spirited. Bluddwolf came to this discussion with an open and honest declaration of his commitment and instead of being thanked for it and welcomed, he was asked to do exactly what Roseblood's leadership has expressly stated they refuse to do - define "positive gameplay." And this despite the fact that he was the ONLY prospective signatory to have already defined specific behaviors to which he was willing to commit.

Not only that, but he was addressed with such emotionally charged language as to immediately be put on the defensive:

Quote:

1. Is it "positive gameplay" to prey on the weak and inexperienced?

2. Would players seeking a "positive gameplay experience" feel fulfilled if they were robbed by bandits who had promised to provide that "positive gameplay experience"?
3. Would robbing members of their valuables or raiding members' Outposts contribute to "our mutual success"?
4. Is Banditry compatible with Milani's stance against oppression?

When I read that again and look at the way those questions were worded, it becomes clear to me that this was an unprovoked attack. These questions were not put forth in the spirit of open and honest discussion of viewpoints; rather, the author already had the answers in mind before ever asking the questions. Who is preying upon whom, here?

And how can any of us, in good conscience, demand that he define what exactly falls within the bounds of "positive gameplay" and "mutual success" when the Roseblood leadership has expressly refused to do exactly that? Does that not strike you as the very height of hypocrisy? And then, when he did his best to answer our questions, even his answers were attacked as being no better than abiding by the terms of service. I say, call it what you will, his commitments are a far sight better than the nonexistant commitments offered up so far by anyone else.

It has been stated in this thread numerous times by numerous people that the good guys NEED the bad guys. The UNC has committed to being the bad guys in the most honorable way they can. Having gone back and re-read the entire thread, it is clear to me that Bluddwolf and The Goodfellow, while sometimes provoked to anger and frustration, were doing the very best they could to try and define their parameters for "positive gameplay" and explain how they fit into the overall picture of fun and challenging gameplay for everyone. It is equally clear that their efforts were doomed to fail; people just had it in their heads that their definition wasn't going to be good enough but no one would offer anything better.

I think we need to consider the true role of the Roseblood Accord. Is it a mutual protection pact? Is it a clubhouse where only the cool kids get to play? Or is it an agreement to behave with honor?

If the latter, I believe we will not find more honorable players willing to take up the role of bad guy than Bluddwolf and The Goodfellow.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it was fair to see where they stood, especially considering their stance on Banditry. While I agree they could probably be apart of the Accord, they are going to be scraping the line pretty close there to griefing.

I think the issue lies in the mutual success line, though. Which does make this akin to something more than just an agreement, but I think most of the people who agreed to this Accord, realize that they want to help others. UNC, while allowing for contracts for merc work are doing it just for that, work/money/whatever.

I don't think it is possible for everyone to be apart of something like this, because there is just too many types of play. Those who want to defend, explore, craft, trade, help other in general will be the ones who will end up, more than likely, drawn to the Accord.

I happen to like UNC, I hope to fight them, work with them, and fight them again as the cycle of Merc type groups go.

Goblin Squad Member

ArchAnjel wrote:
Not only that, but he was addressed with such emotionally charged language as to immediately be put on the defensive:
Quote:

1. Is it "positive gameplay" to prey on the weak and inexperienced?

2. Would players seeking a "positive gameplay experience" feel fulfilled if they were robbed by bandits who had promised to provide that "positive gameplay experience"?
3. Would robbing members of their valuables or raiding members' Outposts contribute to "our mutual success"?
4. Is Banditry compatible with Milani's stance against oppression?
When I read that again and look at the way those questions were worded, it becomes clear to me that this was an unprovoked attack.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can only state again that those questions were addressed both to Bluddwolf specifically and to the community in general. They were the questions that I asked myself when Bluddwolf made his appeal, and I waited until some folks had time to answer before making any decision. I also came back and said that I myself had realized the answer to #2 was likely "Yes" in many cases. And I am still willing to list UNC if a consensus is reached that UNC belongs.

I encourage you, ArchAnjel, if you feel strongly about it, to work towards that consensus.

Goblin Squad Member

Actually, that group of questions was only addressed to the UNC. Anyone else who applied was just accepted.

Maybe that is not the case. It sure is the perception.

What Archanjel said is correct. Those questions were used more as an attack then as honest questions. That really cannot be denied honestly.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

To claim that personal histories did not influence the line of questions would indeed be naive.

But given the history of relations between some of the interacting groups, to feel that there would be no reason to fear being misdirected, baited, or otherwise try to obtain responses intended to sabotage the effort would be fairly naive as well.

I have seen several good ideas and propositions on these boards destroyed by a handful of actors feeding out the rope and letting passionate people get themselves so deeply entangled in it as to practically self-destruct.

The questions were posed as a serious effort to determine the intent of a group that has a history of not getting along with some of the key proponents of this effort. The more the discussion carries on, the more it looks like a deliberate attempt to bait those people in saying things to be used against them.

I may be completely wrong, but this is the perception from my view-point. The animosity present all around is getting fairly old and tiresome already. Neither group is able to trust the other as to when they state intentions. This type of intrigue is certainly to expected in the game, but I am definitely getting tired of seeing it play out again and again.

If there is legitimate desire for mediation and coming to understand each other better, please feel free to PM me with a calm and rational position that you wish to get across and I will do my best to communicate it forward. The current cadence of baiting each other into looking bad is just going to continue to get everybody going all the way to nowhere.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately I think the big challenge here is that a definition of "Positive Gameplay" has arisen that may, but does not necessarily, exclude the play-styles of some groups, such as the UNC, in that definition.

Said groups then view the claim that their play-style is not "positive gameplay" as an attack on the type of game that they do wish to engage in, and that by not being "positive" means that the perception is that their style is "negative". This is compounded by the fact that some groups feel that "good sportsmanship in victory and defeat" is all that is required for a non-toxic and positive community.

We are all getting very hung up on words and phrases that have different definitions for different people. And the constant bickering over what words means is what really drives me crazy here at the end of the day. Everybody wants to rip each other apart based on messages as written as opposed to messages as intended.

What is toxic in this community right now is that people are looking too hard to be insulted and victimized by the words of other people. This is true all across the spectrum here, and not isolated to just one group or the other.

Goblin Squad Member

It is unfortunate that we are limited here to the written word as a means of expression. It is not the best medium for expressing what we actually mean since people can only see what we actually say.

This has undoubtedly been the source of much of the frustration expressed in this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

I would add though, that I believe the choice to make the purpose and standards of the Roseblood Accord intentionally vague and undefined is at the root of much of this debate. If people are to get behind something, that thing needs to clearly expressed and understood or these sorts of misunderstandings are bound to occur.

I urge the leadership to reconsider their stance on this issue and collaboratively come up with a clearly defined statement of what, exactly, is the purpose of the Roseblood Accord and what unambiguous commitments must its adherents agree to.

Goblin Squad Member

The misunderstanding, seems to me, is a result of choosing to interpret the goals stated as a single concept, and as being held up as the only option for one of those goals, which is then corrupted by the other.

I think with Proxima's efforts towards a positive gameplay meta accord that at least we will not be the only option to join such a group of people dedicated to positive gameplay. Those who wish to support those ideals without strings attached are now free to do so. Had this been in place prior to the RA being formed, most of this thread never would have occurred.

People need to read our goals as being separate ideals, each guiding the actions of those who hold to the Accord.

I think that it may not even be a bad idea to correlate the goal of positive gameplay with the results of Proxima's Accord. It gives others a clear idea that the intentions behind it were crowdforged and in itself is not born of self interest, a separate ideal from the mutual success clause, which is definitely born out of self interest.

Goblin Squad Member

ArchAnjel wrote:
I urge the leadership to reconsider their stance on this issue and collaboratively come up with a clearly defined statement of what, exactly, is the purpose of the Roseblood Accord and what unambiguous commitments must its adherents agree to.

This will never happen, for precisely the same reasons Goblinworks will never come up with a clearly defined statement of what, exactly, constitutes griefing.

The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad... Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them... This is why we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people.

It doesn't matter that there's no "unambiguous commitment" defined, because there's no enforcement mechanism for punishing those who violate that commitment.

When you attend a Block Party, do you demand that the hosts provide a clearly defined, unambiguous statement of what might get you asked to leave? The Roseblood Accord is more like a Block Party than a formal Alliance Contract.

Goblin Squad Member

ArchAnjel wrote:

I would add though, that I believe the choice to make the purpose and standards of the Roseblood Accord intentionally vague and undefined is at the root of much of this debate. If people are to get behind something, that thing needs to clearly expressed and understood or these sorts of misunderstandings are bound to occur.

I urge the leadership to reconsider their stance on this issue and collaboratively come up with a clearly defined statement of what, exactly, is the purpose of the Roseblood Accord and what unambiguous commitments must its adherents agree to.

If an individual, after reading this thread, still does not comprehend its general vision then it probably isn't a good fit for them; I'm sorry but it's not that complicated.

Goblin Squad Member

It's not a question of punishment, Nihimon. It's a question of commitment. If you want people to commit to your accord, they need to have something to commit themselves to. Doesn't that make sense?

And in that very quote you provided, Ryan does in fact define griefing. "The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad."

Would you consider, instead of focusing on the negative and what NOT to do, maybe you could work together to publish a list of affirming behaviors that members of the Roseblood Accord SHOULD engage in?

Goblin Squad Member

ArchAnjel wrote:
And in that very quote you provided, Ryan does in fact define griefing. "The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad."

It's a bad idea to define griefing because, beyond what Ryan said, people are far more creative than can be accounted for in some neat and tidy definition. Whatever list of do's and don't you come up with, players will find ways to grief that don't violate your little list. It's an exercise in futility to try and define it.

Saiph the Fallen wrote:
If an individual, after reading this thread, still does not comprehend its general vision then it probably isn't a good fit for them; I'm sorry but it's not that complicated

This exactly. It's not rocket science and insistence to "define" things better is, imo, missing the point.

Goblin Squad Member

Oh, and FWIW, I'm for allowing UNC to sign on if they like. Although I'm not convinced they do in fact care about the gameplay experience of others (Bluddwolf and Xeen, at least), I'm happy to give them the chance to prove me wrong. And down the road if they do act in ways that skirt the line of griefing, they can at least be reminded of what they signed on for via this accord.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ArchAnjel wrote:

It's not a question of punishment, Nihimon. It's a question of commitment. If you want people to commit to your accord, they need to have something to commit themselves to. Doesn't that make sense?

And in that very quote you provided, Ryan does in fact define griefing. "The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad."

Would you consider, instead of focusing on the negative and what NOT to do, maybe you could work together to publish a list of affirming behaviors that members of the Roseblood Accord SHOULD engage in?

That's a VERY short list. In fact, the one thing on it is simultaneously just barely general enough for me to accept that it is a useful goal and far to general for you to accept it as a meaningful term.

We can't provide a list of behaviors which promote positive gameplay, because then that list of behaviors becomes perceived as our terminal goal. There are a few things which are never part of positive gameplay, such as kicking the metaphorical sand into other players' eyes, or flipping the sandbox end-over-end. But those actions are expected to be covered by taking the offender out of the playground entirely. There are exactly zero finite, closed sets of actions which are 100% always sufficient to make one's overall contribution positive. We could create any finite number of rules, and there would exist enough people who saw it as a personal challenge to follow all of the rules unwaveringly while opposing our core goals to pervert all of our actions.

If you don't know what it is we've committed to, then don't commit to it. There will be plenty of room for alliances with well-defined responsibilities, even if you aren't recognized as a member of the Accord.

Goblin Squad Member

Saiph the Fallen wrote:
If an individual, after reading this thread, still does not comprehend its general vision then it probably isn't a good fit for them; I'm sorry but it's not that complicated.

Don't get me wrong, Saiph. I do see the "general vision." And what I also see is that, in order to succeed, any collaboration between various diverse organizations needs more than a "general vision."

It's the difference between a mission statement and a business plan. What you have is a mission statement, though a vague one at that. But no details are present that explain what that mission statement means in real terms nor how anyone is going to go about accomplishing it. That's not the way toward success, that's all I'm saying.

At this point though, I've had my say. TEO is committed to the Roseblood Accord which is why I, as a member of TEO, am urging a clearer vision of what is expected of us, as members. In the absence of such clarity, I'll muddle through as best I can.

And you know, maybe it's just me. I mean, we have a wide diversity of personality types, right? So maybe everyone else is totally good with just slapping each other on the back, and smiling and saying, "welcome aboard" without questioning what it is that they're actually agreeing to. My personality type is different from that. I'm the guy who actually reads his gym membership agreement before signing it. I even refused to initial one of the sub-paragraphs because I had not, in fact, consulted with my doctor before joining. I'm that guy. So maybe I'm the problem here. I'll own up to that. But in all fairness to the broad diversity of personality types represented by our respective organizations... I may not be the only one.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Post 300!

251 to 300 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Roseblood Accord All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.