Roseblood Accord


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 958 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a history filled with antipathy between some, and that isn't likely to just melt away in the sunlight when the leopard purrs and his eyes grow dreamy as he softly assures everyone he will change his spots.

Goblin Squad Member

ArchAnjel wrote:
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.

There will always be that group of players teetering on the edge of "griefing" who desperately want there teetering behavior to be labeled acceptable. And although I feel like your intentions are good perhaps those individuals you empathize with, in reality, have you a bit duped.

Goblin Squad Member

@ArchAnjel, first I want to make very clear that I welcome your challenge, and your questions. It's often difficult to convey in text when I respond, so I thought it best to state it outright.

I also agree that it does make sense to know what you're committing to before you commit - in general. I admire the integrity you have for not blindly initialing wherever initials are required. However, the Roseblood Accord is not a real commitment in the sense that joining a formal alliance would be. It is a statement of principles, and an invitation to those who feel they are like-minded to join us, either simply in spirit, or in geographic proximity.

I can, however, try to define my personal definition of what "positive gameplay" means. In fact, I already did so several hours ago:

Our overarching principle is Positive Gameplay. To me, that's not just a commitment to avoid Griefing, but rather a commitment to engaging other Players by being Helpful and Kind.

I'm not sure that definition applies to everyone, though. I understand that a major principle for Keepers of the Circle is "non-aggression". That may be their definition of "positive gameplay". I expect Audacity might define it more in terms of refusing to take "revenge" contracts, but I've never actually heard Darcnes state that so I might be getting myself in trouble trying to speak for others. Perhaps Koinonia Emporou defines it more with respect to being honest merchants, I really don't know. What I do know is that we all agree enough that we feel comfortable telling the community "we're friends with each other, and we're generally pretty cool people, and if you agree and can be friendly, come hang out :)"

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:
Post 300!

Flagged and reported! We don't do "first post!" around here, and we don't do "300th post!" either!

Scalawag!

*grins*

Goblin Squad Member

Saiph the Fallen wrote:
There will always be that group of players teetering on the edge of "griefing" who desperately want there teetering behavior to be labeled acceptable. And although I feel like your intentions are good perhaps those individuals you empathize with, in reality, have you a bit duped.

Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself. All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
There will always be that group of players teetering on the edge of "griefing" who desperately want there teetering behavior to be labeled acceptable. And although I feel like your intentions are good perhaps those individuals you empathize with, in reality, have you a bit duped.

Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself. All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

We can agree to disagree, I'm still just shocked that I used "there" instead of "their". Disgusting! I'm blaming my mobile device... ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
There will always be that group of players teetering on the edge of "griefing" who desperately want there teetering behavior to be labeled acceptable. And although I feel like your intentions are good perhaps those individuals you empathize with, in reality, have you a bit duped.

Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself. All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Seems more like you have a persecution complex to me. If they don't want you to participate in this, who cares. Actually claiming that you are being "griefed" is asinine.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself. All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Some were open to it, though definitely only in a meta-game/OOC facility which unfortunately the Roseblood Accord doesn't cover entirely. It's also an IC alliance which was not something that was going to work with UNC's philosophies.

I don't think you're doing many favors for yourself or the group trying to take that road frankly. Hopefully we'll see you as part of the other Accord being worked out that does cover a more metagame disposition of ensuring a positive gaming environment, but we'll see what happens.

Goblin Squad Member

Although I greatly appreciate ArchAnjel and his showing of integrity and personal honor, as The Goodfellow had stated earlier, the UNC has withdrawn our application.

Although there are a great number of individuals who we respect that have or may sign onto this accord, we of the UNC do not find the accord with its agenda to be worthy of our signature.

I will not address this topic in this thread any further, since by some stretch of imagination this is a recruitment thread and not a policy thread.

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

LOL! You rock Zac. You friggin Rock.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
There will always be that group of players teetering on the edge of "griefing" who desperately want there teetering behavior to be labeled acceptable. And although I feel like your intentions are good perhaps those individuals you empathize with, in reality, have you a bit duped.

Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself. All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Seems more like you have a persecution complex to me. If they don't want you to participate in this, who cares. Actually claiming that you are being "griefed" is asinine.

Thats because you have not been around this forum for long.

Goblin Squad Member

Ixiolander wrote:
I don't think you're doing many favors for yourself or the group trying to take that road frankly.

I am not looking for favors. I took the Accord as a possibility to shore up some bad blood. It didnt work that way.

But i will follow Bludd's lead and not come back.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Nonsense Nevy, the majority of people here (Accord Members) have done everything in their power to make us out to be griefers in the communities mind. We have no intention of trying to ruin peoples game play. We are here to have fun playing a game and enjoy that game with everyone else.

Actually, I would argue that some in the UNC have made the majority of people here (including many of those in the Accord) feel as if the UNC is okay with griefing...all long before the Accord was formed. Since many people here (including many of those in the Accord) already have this belief based upon past experiences, it is hard for them to take some in the UNC serious when they want to claim they will not grief. Additionally, the Accord has nothing to do with "not griefing" which is what Bluddwolf's list provided earlier in the thread essentially stated as an MO; instead, the Accord is about going beyond that and actually promoting whatever it is that positive game play entails.

The problem with inviting/allowing UNC into the Accord is that it nullifies the purpose of the Accord in the eyes of that majority of people. UNC likes to claim intent cannot be known and therefore is not worth considering in determining whether PvP is "good" or "bad". I would use that same argument to say that unfortunately, at this time UNCs intent as far as positive game play is concerns is also irrelevant because the fact remains that the majority of people in the forums think they lean if not toward negative game play then definitely away from positive.

I entirely agree that UNC might not grief and might have high Reps, and whatever else can be used as evidence of positive game play. When that evidence is available and present in-game, I will fight for their acceptance into the Accord if they are still interested. At the moment however, I fall into the majority mentioned above. I, from past experience only, (in the forums, which admittedly is an environment that seems bring out the worst in everyone) would not accept their claims of intent to "advocate positive game play". At the very least, I would not accept their ability to play positively with the current membership of the Accord.

As to those who have joined since without question. I can certainly see how that seems "unfair". However, every group that has joined, we (the growing Roseblood Accord membership) have spent hours speaking and interacting with on TeamSpeak and have never interacted negatively either here in the forums nor in Voice Chat. They have never given us reason to doubt their sincerity. For wrong or right, it is much easier to envision people who we can already get along with providing positively to the environment we want to be part of.

I respect UNCs right to play the way they want. I am under no illusion about it being the way I want.

Xeen wrote:
Bludd's intentions were sincere. I talked to him about it myself.

Sincere about what? The promise not to grief as illustrated by the provided list? That list should be a core requirement for playing the game...and in my opinion says nothing about a course of action (or lack thereof) that "promotes positive game play" nor "mutual benefit".

As I stated above, if in-game UNC demonstrates it promotes positive game play by being a group we all want to interact with, I personally will show up IC and beg for them to join the RA...after I do my best to convince the Accord it is proper and that UNC will be a beacon of positive game play for bandits everywhere.

Xeen wrote:
All the Accord is about is the us vs them mentality, not a lets play it nice group. Which is all fine by me, us vs them is how it always goes, but dont pretend to mask with high and mighty morals.

I don't see this at all...not in our original post, not in our initial discussions, and not in conversations since. There is a difference between my friend and I work together toward our mutual benefit and my friend and I actively working against everyone else. I was never under the belief that this would be a zero-sum game (in which our win, requires your loss). We have mentioned many times that our goal is to promote win-win solutions.

I am however familiar with the concept of psychological projecting.

Xeen wrote:
By definition, the UNC has been griefed by this group. Its been going on longer then I have been on these boards.

Again, you are falsely assuming we are playing a zero-sum game. Our win does not necessitate your loss; our gain does not require you to loose.

I do not dislike or distrust UNC. In fact, I trust they are going to play the way I understand they have advocated for years. The fact that I have no particular interest in interactions of that sort and hence I advise my leaders to do their best to prevent them easy access to the community I am part of, does not preclude them from having their own fun in game (unless you are claiming you cannot have fun without interacting with me). Hence, I do not see how it can be equated to greifing.

Ryan's definition of griefing wrote:
intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad

What I do not understand is why UNC has not further pushed for the idea of Bandit Council, I think it would be a great counter to the Roseblood Accord. Use the displeasure some people feel toward the conditions of of the Accord to define yourselves; sort of a Samuel Jackson in Unbreakable effect. Doing so insures the more we win, the more you win.

Goblin Squad Member

Great post Forencith. I have high hopes for the UNC being exactly the bandits PFO needs. But the Gods knows I have been more disappointed before.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
I expect Audacity might define it more in terms of refusing to take "revenge" contracts, but I've never actually heard Darcnes state that so I might be getting myself in trouble trying to speak for others.

We have actually agreed to simply not take a hit on Accord members (assuming due diligence does not fail).

Goblin Squad Member

I would like to add that another aspect of "Positive Gameplay" for me involves scrupulous adherence to the expressed intent of the developers. This is why we've asked all Members of The Seventh Veil not to vote in Phase 2 of the Land Rush, even if they didn't vote in the first phase where we got our Settlement. It's also why we made a very clear statement in our Guild Description on Goblinworks that we were not participating in Phase 2 of the Land Rush.

Goblin Squad Member

Like positive gameplay? Eying one of the beautiful settlements in the western Echo Wood? Want to trade and have allies with large, stable bloc? Come talk with the Roseblood Accord! Always open for Teamspeak chats about everything PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
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.

It's like trying to draw a fractal space using only a straightedge and a pencil.

Goblin Squad Member

Six Companies strong. Looking to trade with a major bloc? Looking to join a major alliance? Looking to chat about PFO with players that have been here since the start?

Contact the Roseblood Accord!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tuoweit wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
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.

It's like trying to draw a fractal space using only a straightedge and a pencil.

Indeed. Even if your pencil is infinitely sharp, there are an infinite number of rules, each with an infinite number of exceptions.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd like to take a minute and once again plug our allies in the Roseblood Accord:

Keepers of the Circle - non-aggression, and eight circles of engagement to cover pretty much any playstyle you might want.

Dagedai Alliance - Mercenary/Trade organization.

Forgeholm - Dwarves! Mining & Crafting.

Goblin Squad Member

And we appreciate the plug, Nihimon! The Keepers are most certainly looking to bring on any new blood that finds interest in our "many Rings, one Circle" approach. It also reminds me I need to reach out to the Dagedai Alliance formally for the Keepers...

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks Nihimon! It is going to be an interesting 10 1/2 weeks to be sure. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

I hope Forgeholm continues to get a steady stream of dwarven recruits. I dig their idea of a dwarven city centered around martial pursuits and crafting.

Goblin Squad Member

I love the idea of Forgeholm. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TEO ArchAnjel wrote:
I dig their idea [...]

Ouch. =b

Goblin Squad Member

After I returned from my little jaunt into the unknown, imagine my surprise to find a message from the good Cirolle about a certain accord. And here we are.

Before I go further, and you all know that I "hate" wall of texts as much as I "hate" necro-threading, I'll just point out that it darkens my heart to find that none of you bothered pm'ing me about this issue. I didn't even need read past the third page before I saw two apparent issues, first that there are some serious overtones of my proposed agreement much earlier, overtones which caused major problems in the acceptance of that same agreement, and second that this seems to be something done in the quasi-secrecy of guild forums, much like all else I've seen when it comes to agreements here. These are something I'd like those of you who know what I am discussing to give thought on, for it truly rings dark for the future of this pact. It could even give cause for offense among some, maybe.

But then, I am a forgiving man, thanks much to the recent curing of my afflictions, and no harm done in the end.

And so, to the meat (which is pretty much all in RP, so go easy a bit hey?):

It seems to me that many people who propose to sign onto this accord have a terrible time accepting the differences of the people within. The idea, if I am correct, is not to promote "good" or "evil" alignment or anything remotely like that. Instead, we have the idea of "good" vs. "bad" play wherein these people would determine that for themselves and seek to enforce it within themselves. At the same time there are claims to have centralized command, or enforcement, or anything to the sort.

I profess confusion at this point. Who is your jurisdiction including, why is your jurisdiction in place, what is your jurisdiction, and what spurred this on?

In my earlier proposed treaty I suggested that willing parties would sign on and would self-govern themselves through courts, councils whatever. I proposed an inward-looking group that policed themselves and only themselves that represented strong overtones of liability, responsibility, and the repercussions of flaunting those. I was ultimately shot down because it would seem impotent, that is to say nobody would bother wanting to sign on in the first place, and that it would turn into a PfO League of Nations. When I tried to elucidate a viable answer I was told it had too much centralization and that such a policing agency was unwelcome; a PfO UN.

Both were not my intention at all, but that is not the point.

Here we see, or at least I see, an agency which is attempting, by consensual council, to determine the right and wrong of the metaphysical world that would exclude others (such as the UNC) simply for having possibly at-odds opinions with other members, and that would propose to, after implementing these vague universals, not bother to enforce themselves to uphold that, except by nature of their own virtue.

In short, it would appear that in trying to get away from my so-called universal policing agency of a too strong centralized, pretentious power, we have come full circle and now reside at the impotent League of Nations who would purport themselves to be enlightened beings of virtue, holding to the one true justice and say b!~~*~#s to the rest.

Many of you see a bastion of chivalry that is standing for the poor, the meek, the simple, and whoever else you deign to notice as "in the light". To me I see another tyrannical regime masking themselves as the "knights of valor" setting for to start yet another bloody crusade to free the holy land from the heathen menace.

In short, I feel you are all too busy basking in, and looking at, the light to see the much larger shadow you are casting on the masses what stand behind you.

You folks do not have the monopoly on these matters, nor does anyone.

At first I applauded your efforts, the drive to decide individually to join, the brotherhood feel, the seeming equality, the equanimity, but as I continued reading, I saw as you all decided to delve back into the politicking and obfuscating, the conditions and the limitations, the terse words and terser looks, the doubt and even some of the hatred (buried, forgiven, and forgotten though it may be). I realized this accord for what it is. It saddens me that such illuminated people as the TEO, TSV, Deepforge, and others can not see this for what it is, but I do.

Truly I say to you, if you cannot accept all into your embrace, what right have you to play the caretaker? The true caretaker does not discriminate with logic or emotion between the murderer and the shepherd. The true caretaker does not pretend to know all virtue, and by such, define it. The true caretaker does not revel in the glory of the deed of redemption, patting himself on the back, giving herself to the joy of prideful contemplation.

It saddens me to see such activities here, but know you this, I see the rot festering in your shadows, the discrimination that is the doorway to your world.

And know you this, brothers and sisters, friend and allies, I am always watching. And I will be there when the suffering you cause needs be tapped.

And, when the pain is overflowing, and the shadows revealed, and the mistakes are reckoned, I will still be watching, and the tears on my cheeks will be real.

For your misdeeds will not yet be done.

And neither will I.

~Letholdus Zael

Goblin Squad Member

Brother Zael,

It may be that I am incorrect in my own understanding, but this accord is not exactly the same as the system in which you proposed. There are certainly some similar elements, however this accord is more of a regional bond between neighbors and those we would be doing business with. More akin to the North American Free Trade Agreement than it is the League of Nations. You ascribe authority and reach beyond what we currently envision or intend.

I feel as much of this is from flaws in the communication on our end as it is from the interpretations of readers.

Goblin Squad Member

To answer you:

The accord wasn't meant to be something in which we go around the entire map enforcing. While we promote positive game play, it will be within our own borders that we are able to establish policy.

To sign the Accord is essentially saying that not only do you want to promote positive game play, but within our borders and your own, you want to attain mutual levels of success. In this endeavor we, the Roseblood membership, would attempt some sort of mutual help.

The way I see UNC, is a group who is going to be using the SAD mechanic, while that is apart of the Positive Game play aspect, it isn't part of the mutual success part of the accords. Furthermore, IMO, I believe it would be akin to harboring thieves within our own borders, potentially protecting them, while they go outside and plunder (which we are all pretty much against).

Goblin Squad Member

The central authority you speak of is not one that exists as yet, and its jurisdiction would only hold sway over those who wish to willingly remain a part of the accord, and by extension to the territory thus controlled by those in the accord.

Many people confuse the intent of this accord with the more recently proposed River Kingdoms Pledge; ours is not without expectations above and beyond positive gameplay. It is however still an open offer to any that will abide by and promote its goals.

We were never shady or ambiguous about this, indeed, it is plainly stated within the first few sentences. Nevertheless, there are some that disagreed with the presence of the mutual benefit clause. That is fine, this accord is not for them.

I am sure we will repeat this several more times for all those that do not bother to read past page three.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lifedragn: One last tilling of that old field, I never proposed the treaty, rather the idea of it.

My point was thus, it isn't the system i proposed, it is the exact opposite, and that is the problem I see with it. Communication is, as ever, a flaw we have. This is why I am not telling you to stop the treaty, only my concerns.

@TEO Cheatle: My point exactly. Boundaries and pontification.

Goblin Squad Member

The lack of central authority is the reason I felt comfortable asking my fellow Keepers if they would be interest in the Roseblood Accord.

Goblin Squad Member

Some folks are more comfortable adhering to principles than to rules. In my personal opinion, rules often stand in the way of principles.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm afraid I disagree on a few points here.

To Nymerias: You all collectively are making yourselves the central authority that you seek to escape, which is what I was alluding to. This, however, is not something worth arguing at the moment, much like abortion, religion, etc.

To Darcnes: I'm sorry if I was unclear but I accept that you are only taking those who willingly sign on, that was clear on the first page alone. Allow me to restate: Where does it end? If I walk through your land for a brief few seconds, am I subject to those righteous virtues and morals? Should I deal with your people am I subject to those "proper" forms of dealings?

Further, what if I were to sign on and break the accord? What if I were to sign on and you break the accord? What if one person in TEO breaks the accord and not the whole?

What even is the accord? Is it the base value of mutual acceptance or is it the string of conditions that came off of it?

You see part of my problem here.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimonnnnnnnnnnn quit giving them the answerrrrrsssssss

ruining the fun. Heh. Still remains though.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The punishment for breaking the accord is proportional to the reward for adhering to it.

Goblin Squad Member

The accord was specifically defined for reasons already talked about.

If you were to break the accord most likely there would be social pressure put on you: An embargo on trade and training, calling you out publicly, any mutual agreements would be rescinded, possibly removing any mutual defense pacts.

Everyone would be held to the same social standards.

One person? That would be up to the individual companies since we all encourage autonomy. If they continued, probably pressure to have that person removed.

If the accord was broken with violence, depending on how bad it was, it might lead to war, but that would be something we would consider last.

Goblin Squad Member

So, in the end, it is just a conglomerate bandying a fancy title? I mean nothing stated is a drastic change to any of your groups' policies, is it? I mean you all joined up because you already decided what your opinion was and this fit it, unlike anything else seen, no?

And so the fester grows, alas.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

So, in the end, it is just a conglomerate bandying a fancy title? I mean nothing stated is a drastic change to any of your groups' policies, is it? I mean you all joined up because you already decided what your opinion was and this fit it, unlike anything else seen, no?

And so the fester grows, alas.

More specifically, we created the accord to announce what we were already doing and invite people to join us.

Goblin Squad Member

Alas.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brother Zael, were you to write it, how would you have done so?

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
Where does it end? If I walk through your land for a brief few seconds, am I subject to those righteous virtues and morals? Should I deal with your people am I subject to those "proper" forms of dealings?

Using our territory as an example does not make your point for you, we are not part of the Southeast, we have no obligations to how they conduct business in their lands, save for when we visit.

The Roseblood Accord itself does not dictate our reactions to goings on within our borders, that is the purview of each land holder. If players have the poor taste to disrupt the gameplay of others in the lands Audacity tends to, completely apart from the Accord, this is an attack on the well-being of what we have worked to build. We will respond, it will probably not be with an invitation to stay.

We are autonomous, we have our own interests and it is these very interests that even make it possible for anyone to engage in anything involving mutual success with us, as without interests you are not succeeding at anything.

Our support of the Accord comes in the form of mutual benefit, within the context of positive gameplay. That simple. We help others who are helping us, and we do it cleanly.

If we were to break the Accords, we would likely be disinvited. If we severely abused the trust of the other members, it would not be a stretch to imagine that war would be declared, for betrayal of that trust. Not because we violated the Accords, because we did so while part of the Accords. Because we at that point would have violated the other members of the Accord so badly they felt war was necessary. This is no different than how war would normally be declared, save that the offense would be more keenly felt and more strongly reacted to, coming from a trusted friend.

BrotherZael wrote:
What even is the accord? Is it the base value of mutual acceptance or is it the string of conditions that came off of it?

See above: help others help you, do it cleanly.

BrotherZael wrote:
You see part of my problem here.

I really do not. You are protesting a collection of groups acting to help each other out, in a fashion we all believe will improve the game experience for any players that come in contact with us. We even opened our arms to others that wish to be part of a group that helps each other out. Some have joined.

The one group that has so far, very publicly, been found to be a poor fit was one that hedged their support of what even makes this an attractive venture to start with. They subsequently backed a pledge that did not involve a mutual benefit clause.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander,

I wouldn't have. You shouldn't argue what it is to be a good man. You be a good man.

Darcnes,

My problem is, what is the point here? What are you all trying to prove? You say you are promoting a better experience and a better playership. You see light and happiness and unity. I see blindfolds and another organization playing at hero, not realizing the discord they cause just by their sheer presence. If the reason this accord exists is simply to prove how righteous the groups who agree to it are, I would question the need to state it in the first place. But then again, I suppose now it is official right?

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

Alexander,

I wouldn't have. You shouldn't argue what it is to be a good man. You be a good man.

And yet, look at throughout history those who have done great evil and yet thought they were a good man. If you disagree with what we claim supports positive gameplay, then tell us. Lets have a discussion on what would promote positive gameplay for the whole of PFO. In at least admitting that we all want a positive experience, we've taken the first step in establishing it. Is it not better to discuss things, rather than ignore them?

It may be that the Roseblood Accord is seen as an alliance, and the fruit of our discussion is an agreement of what we believe will promote a good environment.

Goblin Squad Member

You mention blindfolds, yet our intentions are openly stated. It seems you are looking for shadows where there is simply not enough structure to have such.

You said we are trying to hold ourselves above others. This is not some moral high ground, it is a conscious decision to not partake in a given range of activities.

This is no different than any other meta group having rules of conduct and helping each other out, except joining is stupid easy.

I can not help but notice you busy not decrying other gaming groups as have made themselves public. You should get to work. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Although I've followed the thread enough to understand the spirit of the Accord...what is the actual text of it?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Although I've followed the thread enough to understand the spirit of the Accord...what is the actual text of 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".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well Magistry certainly plans on adhering to those principles, so we'd be happy to be included as signatories on this. Although I can't promise we'll end up in the southeast.

BrotherZael wrote:
My problem is, what is the point here? What are you all trying to prove? You say you are promoting a better experience and a better playership. You see light and happiness and unity. I see blindfolds and another organization playing at hero, not realizing the discord they cause just by their sheer presence. If the reason this accord exists is simply to prove how righteous the groups who agree to it are, I would question the need to state it in the first place. But then again, I suppose now it is official right?

I don't get this AT ALL. It's looking for problems where none exist. I don't get what's so controversial about support for positive gameplay.

Goblin Squad Member

No requirement to end up anywhere than where you want to be. Audacity has signed up and as far as I know have made no commitment to the SE of the map. The only caveat is that the further away you are the harder some of that mutual support becomes.

As for BrotherZael's comments, I concur. But if we all had the same opinions, PFO would be a non starter as a game. To each their own - that's what the River Kingdoms are all about.

Goblin Squad Member

One of the roles we are taking upon ourselves is to connect the SE with the rest of the map. If you feel more comfortable elsewhere, we will make sure you have every opportunity to remain connected, depending on your chosen location, this may end up requiring a bit of effort on your part though.

That said, Welcome to the Accord! Glad to have you.

Please feel free to PM me if you have any concerns or questions on this front.

301 to 350 of 958 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Roseblood Accord All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.