Goblin Squad Member
|
I appreciate the transparency of this matter. It tells something about the community, although I still think that a person who votes for Pax Golgotha, but intends to play with Pax Aeternum with his main character, is breaking the rules. If there are such persons, they probably know who they are. Some personal judgement should be used in the case involved also.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well it looks bad if you ignore what Ryan says about setting good standards for community behavior. Some people don't give a rats arse what Ryan says about having high standards for PVP gameplay ,they just want to know what they can get away with without any GM action.
The story at this point looks like Ryan asked , but did not tell you , to not go for two settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pax Golgotha is considering this matter closed for now, and we are withdrawing from this thread. We have said what we believe needs to be said. We have defended our position such that it is clear where we stand. Again, if anyone has further concerns, they can either message me here, or they can find us at www.paxgaming.com. We are always willing to talk.
Though I can't speak for members of Aeturnum (because we are separate), I would like to publicly request that this be the last post from a member of Pax Golgotha in this thread, barring a substantial development. I would like to take a moment to thank those community members that have supporting Golgotha in this. We are thankful, and we are mindful of what has been said.
To those who disagreed with our position, I hope that we at least swayed you a little bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the transparency of this matter. It tells something about the community, although I still think that a person who votes for Pax Golgotha, but intends to play with Pax Aeternum with his main character, is breaking the rules. If there are such persons, they probably know who they are. Some personal judgement should be used in the case involved also.
It was also said that someone could trade their vote if they liked. Everyone who pledged at a qualifying level gets a vote. If they voted for TEO, Pax A, or T7V in the Paizo-board thread, they've spent it. If not, they can vote for whomever they like. There are a lot of unaffiliated players who haven't chosen or formed a guild, and if existing guilds want to buy their votes, they could.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan , your quote seems clear to me. The first organization to try putting 2 guilds in the landrush is given the option to pull that second guild out, and set a standard .
Well, I think an organization that would pull out their second guild is not likely to have put it in , in the first place. In other words, you may be allowing a biased group define acceptable behavior. Please consider setting the standard by the behavior of all the rest of the backers, instead of the odd man out.
If that doesn't sway you, consider this.
A large part of the game is inter-settlement interaction.
As no settlement is self sufficient, no organizations should be self sufficient, at least not on day 1 of EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2/33 settlements for what will prolly end up around 15% of the voting population for a meta guild that has backed this game hard core since day 1. Even if there is a foul, it's not a flagrant one or a game changer. I would hate to see Pax Gaming get taken to the shed over this, they have done an awful lot for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing, it's not just about Pax getting two settlements, it is about Ryan leading us in building a better PVP game community. Ryan will not tell everyone what to do , he asks us to do things. If we do what he asks then we support his leadership and vision of making PFO different from what is out there. If we refuse to do what he asks we undermine the entire effort to make PFO different and encourage others to also ignore the higher community standards that are essential to make PFO different.
If Pax ignores what Ryan asked them to do then they are replacing Ryan's leadership for the community with their own and in effect telling us all to ignore what Ryan says and do what you want. So you end up with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and the vision of a PVP game that will be different fails. Ryan has to be our leader in community standards , we cant all just decide for ourselves what is good because people will put self interest ahead of the vision for a better game and it will ruin PFO as a better PVP mmo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's the thing, it's not just about Pax getting two settlements, it is about Ryan leading us in building a better PVP game community. Ryan will not tell everyone what to do , he asks us to do things. If we do what he asks then we support his leadership and vision of making PFO different from what is out there. If we refuse to do what he asks we undermine the entire effort to make PFO different and encourage others to also ignore the higher community standards that are essential to make PFO different.
If Pax ignores what Ryan asked them to do then they are replacing Ryan's leadership for the community with their own and in effect telling us all to ignore what Ryan says and do what you want. So you end up with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and the vision of a PVP game that will be different fails. Ryan has to be our leader in community standards , we cant all just decide for ourselves what is good because people will put self interest ahead of the vision for a better game and it will ruin PFO as a better PVP mmo.
Problem is Pax has been put in a no-win situation. Who could have predicted this Land Rush and it's wacky rules? The only crime committed here is "playing the game" prematurely, before the rules were known. Otherwise, they did EXACTLY what Goblinworks is telling everybody to do; make alliances & merge. They brought like 3 CC's into the fold through Golgotha but allowed them to keep a separate identity. They were playing the game the way they understood it should be played.
Now don't get me wrong, I get a bit of a snicker watching the pre-game meta-game publicity attack backfire on them, but that's different from crying foul and calling them cheaters. I understand the unique circumstances Golgotha was made under and the intentions it was built with. When you look at how it all went down in the macro, I just don't see how anybody can deny Golgotha being clean to participate in this Land Rush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This post is directed to the community at large and not specifically at TEO, TSV, or Pax (either one). They are my own observations and conclusions and nothing more.
Words are irrelevant.
Actions are not.
Words: My interpretation of what Ryan has continually said is that he does not wish PFO to have a community ethic where things that are not strictly and precisely forbidden are acceptable or even encouraged.
Actions: What Ryan has done so far (at least in the opinion of this outsider) is to take a path where trying to write rules specifically to enforce that wish regarding this thread's issue is a no win scenario.
Words: Pax Gaming has said that they believe that Pax Golgotha and Pax Aeternum are separate meta-game organizations and as such are each allowed to win a settlement.
Actions: Pax Gaming is a single meta-game organization from the very start, with an administrative structure that (if I read it correctly) can impose sanctions to any member regardless of which guild within Pax Gaming they belong.
Words: TEO and TSV has said that they are separate enteties and are encouraging those organizations who are like minded to win settlements on their on merit.
Actions: TEO and TSV are distinct meta-game entities with no common organizational umbrella.
We, as individuals in this community, have the opportunity to choose how to respond to this situation. If you as an individual take offense at either position, I make the following suggestion of what to do when EE starts:
Get your friends together, train up, equip up, and go take those cities away from those offenders
It is my hope that the structures in the Land Rush settlements will not be ones that can only be destroyed by siege engines. I think that woud be an unfair advantage to any settlement in the Land Rush to be so invulnerable. If that is the case, then settlement structures can be destroyed by character actions. The founding principle of conflict in PFO (in my opinion) is you can only keep what you can hold onto. If you don't like what is happening, take actions to remove the advantage you feel was obtained in ways you do not support.
Please make no mistake. I believe that there will be character against settlement conflict from the very start, irrespective of who is attacking whom. Those will be actions, not words. Once EE starts I believe the old axiom will be in full force: "Put up, or shut up."
MA have been set up to battle scenarios like this.
We believe that organizations like Pax and alliances like RA, is a negative to the game as a whole.
We already have experience being on the "other" side of the, and seen what it does to a server.
We are fully aware that there will only be one server in PFO, and feel that makes our point even stronger.
When we say we will fight oppression, we mean in a very meta game way.
We are not interested in chaos for chaos sake, but are focused on keeping the game intact and hopefully free of swarm types of guilds.
I have to say, that we also believe we are fighting a loosing battle, but we will do ours to fight it.
If you care about the game, you will sign up, especially if you are among the horde that is taking over PFO right now.
River
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can be argued that allowing Pax to define acceptable behavior is an extension of crowdforging, but it can be equally argued that doing so is an abdication of responsibility.
The decision is not inconsistent with what has been said for the last couple of years, but it does define an 'inner edge' to that fuzzy policy. I find that it seems to be 'OK' worrisome.
This matter is, to my current thinking, an unfortunate signal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I have said before, I really think this was the result of a poor marketing and recruitment decision and not any real attempt to game the system.
However, do keep in mind that this game is not a game for going solo. At the end of the day, this is going to be as true of settlements and nations as it is going to be wandering around in the wilderness by yourself.
Complaining and arguing on the forums is not about to change anything. Golgotha feels justified in their actions and has the support - even without Aeternum - to select a prime location.
Whereas I am willing to bet that this will mostly blow over by the time we are beginning to play, I would like to say that if you really feel that any groups have made the wrong decision regarding not only this, but any aspect of the game, your power is in who you choose to play and do business with. No organization has appeared yet, including the strength of the two Pax groups put together, that can survive simply under their own power. The game will offer diplomacy, economy, and war. These are the tools with which you can most significantly express your favor or disfavor towards any specific groups.
This is part of playing the game. The best response is to play it back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan , your quote seems clear to me. The first organization to try putting 2 guilds in the landrush is given the option to pull that second guild out, and set a standard .
...
I don't think it is a matter of pulling the second company out. It is a matter of permitting, even urging, the members of one company to vote for the settlement of a sister company. If the members haven't voted already they should cast their votes for the settlement they are members of even if that settlement is already guaranteed a location.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm personally okay with Golgotha getting a settlement so long as it is only members of Golgotha voting for it. If Ryan is concerned about other massive Meta-game groups coming in and looking at the situation with Golgotha as approval for them to split up and secure multiple free settlements he can ask that they remove the Pax from the names on the Leaderboard. This way groups would have to at least do research to find out that Aeternum and Golgotha as associated with each other through Pax.
I'm kind of a no mercy kind of guy at times and if Pax tries to artificially inflate votes for Golgotha cut them off and make them live in the same town as Aeternum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Standards on what is acceptable player behavior are being set right now. Now that we know about Ryan's PM to Pax asking them not to go for two settlements at this time, Pax has set a standard that it is ok to ignore what Ryan asks us to do . That is unacceptable , are we all going to follow Pax's example and ignore what Ryan asks us to do?
The issue is we know Pax ignored what the CEO of GW asked them to do about a matter of community standards , that has to change or it becomes what our community is. I am not saying Pax went there on purpose but that is where they find themselves at today. A refusal from Pax to talk about this issue is harmful to the community and they need to fix their mess somehow.
Is Pax going to set the standard that we can just ignore what Ryan asks us to do with regard to higher community standards?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...will not have the experience of knowing what it takes to actually capture a settlement...
But given that settlement-attack mechanics won't be in the game for an as-yet unknown amount of time, no one can say how long it'll be before *anyone* has that experience. It's possible that those attack-mechanics will enter that game simultaneously with those for settlement-construction, but if the latter arrive first, plenty of folk will be building while knowing they're safe--for a time--in doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it is a matter of pulling the second company out. It is a matter of permitting, even urging, the members of one company to vote for the settlement of a sister company. If the members haven't voted already they should cast their votes for the settlement they are members of even if that settlement is already guaranteed a location.Ryan , your quote seems clear to me. The first organization to try putting 2 guilds in the landrush is given the option to pull that second guild out, and set a standard .
...
I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from other than a "post on Pax forums" (Ok I'm lying I've seen it). But let's get some things clear about that:
1. Taking somebody's private forums post to engage in this kind of stuff is really frickin bad form, so shame on this thread to begin with.
2. Anybody who doubts Golgotha has the votes to lead this Land Rush hasn't been paying attention.
3. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you will find similar posts like that on the TSV and TEO forums because there was a LOT of confusion at first about how to play the Land Rush, especially before Ryan made himself clear with the letter. So unless you are looking at a post within its FULL context and date, it's not fair to cause this type of s+!&e storm over it. Even if you are looking at it in full context, you can't discount human error. This Land Rush is wacky and people are confused.
4. I'm out. Pax has already left the building. Pls die thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, your statement is crystal clear. Kudos to you for appealing to the better nature of gamers everywhere.
The only drawback was that your audience was, of its own admission, a Lawful Evil organization (Golgotha). Now, it is entirely conceivable that Pax Golgotha is made up entirely of saints and boy scouts. Regardless of the inherent makeup of the players themselves, the roles they've chosen to play are those of a lawful evil community.
As such, it would be inconsistent for them to not do anything except take what ambiguities there were in letter of what you wrote and put the most favorable spin on it. Alignment based communities were requested and kudos to Gogaltha on fulfilling their end of the bargain.
Outside of the meta-game I'm also aware that there's a fine line to be straddled wherein the devs don't want to be too heavy handed on the one hand or let things get too insane on the other. As PFO is something of an untried experiment at this point I would urge people to give the devs every opportunity to feel through this process. it will take them quite some time and they may stumble once or twice along the way.
As for Golgotha - I've learned a great deal about their thought processes in these 100+ posts. I'm certaon I'm not the only one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Taking somebody's private forums post to engage in this kind of stuff is really frickin bad form, so shame on this thread to begin with.
I'm not sure I understand this objection, Avari. Pax's forums, at least some of them, are (or were) public, and there've been several instances of messages from there coming to here, and to T7V's boards, and who-knows-how-many Teamspeak and Mumble channels.
Public forums are simply another source of information. Private forums...aren't; one never puts something in writing that no one should ever see, because it will happen.
The best one can do is to word-smith everything so that when the inevitable happens, the message is *precisely* what one intends it to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing, it's not just about Pax getting two settlements, it is about Ryan leading us in building a better PVP game community. Ryan will not tell everyone what to do , he asks us to do things. If we do what he asks then we support his leadership and vision of making PFO different from what is out there. If we refuse to do what he asks we undermine the entire effort to make PFO different and encourage others to also ignore the higher community standards that are essential to make PFO different.
If Pax ignores what Ryan asked them to do then they are replacing Ryan's leadership for the community with their own and in effect telling us all to ignore what Ryan says and do what you want. So you end up with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and the vision of a PVP game that will be different fails. Ryan has to be our leader in community standards , we cant all just decide for ourselves what is good because people will put self interest ahead of the vision for a better game and it will ruin PFO as a better PVP mmo.
As long as I'm paying money to play, I'll always put my interests ahead of some vision, no matter who it is held by. When my interests are no longer supported by the game, I reach my definition of "end game", and the game is done for me.
So far, my interests and Ryan's vision are close enough to keep my support for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is a matter of pulling the second company out. It is a matter of permitting, even urging, the members of one company to vote for the settlement of a sister company. If the members haven't voted already they should cast their votes for the settlement they are members of even if that settlement is already guaranteed a location.Ryan , your quote seems clear to me. The first organization to try putting 2 guilds in the landrush is given the option to pull that second guild out, and set a standard .
...I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from other than a "post on Pax forums" (Ok I'm lying I've seen it). But let's get some things clear about that:
1. Taking somebody's private forums post to engage in this kind of stuff is really frickin bad form, so shame on this thread to begin with.
2. Anybody who doubts Golgotha has the votes to lead this Land Rush hasn't been paying attention.
3. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you will find similar posts like that on the TSV and TEO forums because there was a LOT of confusion at first about how to play the Land Rush, especially before Ryan made himself clear with the letter. So unless you are looking at a post within its FULL context and date, it's not fair to cause this type of s$!%e storm over it. Even if you are looking at it in full context, you can't discount human error. This Land Rush is wacky and people are confused.
4. I'm out. Pax has already left the building. Pls die thread.
I have no doubt that Golgotha can secure a location but they could do that fairly.
I have no idea what PAX post you refer to as I don't visit their forums.
I'm not looking at posts anywhere but here and on the T7V forum (where most of T7V seems perfectly fine with Pax taking liberties with reapportioning their members to gain a second settlement.
I'm disappointed with Pax because they value the game less than they value an advantage. I'm disappointed with Ryan for, I currently believe, abdicating responsibility for the rules of the game. And I am disappointed with myself currently for donating a fairly significant chunk of change for a something that was supposed to be a game, when it turns out it has no rules assuring even a roughly level playing field for all.
All I think I can do about it is to give voice to my dismay and hope for the best. And if you think I should just shut up about it you can take your 'think' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm confused. Its been stated that guilds can buy votes, bargain for votes, do whatever they want for votes.
But then its also been said you shouldn't vote for a guild that you're not going to play with.
How are those both true statements?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess I'm confused. Its been stated that guilds can buy votes, bargain for votes, do whatever they want for votes.
But then its also been said you shouldn't vote for a guild that you're not going to play with.
How are those both true statements?
They are both correct, the 2nd part there is meant specifically for those who already won the landrush. Essentially, they didn't want us funneling votes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Problem is Pax has been put in a no-win situation.Nobody put Pax in any position except Pax. Pax is not the victim. I'm not sure there is a player who is a victim. The victim appears to be PFO.
Being, you are part of a group that is setting up one of the first nations in the game. T7V and TEO have been working hand in hand since the end of the kickstarter and probably even before. So your nation has 2 settlements already, and are supporting other groups to get more.
Once settlements are siege able. Most of these starting settlements are going to die. Maybe even ours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess I'm confused. Its been stated that guilds can buy votes, bargain for votes, do whatever they want for votes.
But then its also been said you shouldn't vote for a guild that you're not going to play with.
How are those both true statements?
They are both true because Ryan would not come out and give a complete and precise definition for it. Kinda like griefing.
They also said that the first land rush vote would be thrown out. That didnt happen either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea what PAX post you refer to as I don't visit their forums.
grr....back.
The post was mentioned by OP, that's the "evidence" for Pax gaming the votes. Very sorry if you felt I was attacking you personally, simply felt that there were assumptions in this thread that were getting out of hand. Didn't mean to imply anybody should keep from voicing their opinions either, just feel that this thread has served whatever purpose it had and should be laid to rest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And House Karnath. Any Golgothans that voted for Aeturnum in the first land rush are barred from voting elsewhere this time around. There are maybe three of us, and we all did it by mistake. It's why my vote is currently on Aeturnum, which makes roster checks really difficult.The last question we got involves members of a winning Phase I guild who did not vote in the Phase I poll. Technically, these people are free to participate in the Phase II promotion by affiliating themselves with another guild. The temptation to use this exception as a way to create a shadow guild to snag two (or more) spots in the Land Rush will be high, and we strongly urge you not to do so. If you don't plan to play as a member of another guild, we'd ask that you just not participate in Phase II of the land rush.The last bold point is key. If you have no plans of being I the same guild as you voted for in the first land rush, you are free to vote for your intended gaming guild in the second land rush.
Bludd, I think you are wrong in that reading. I'm fairly certain voting TWICE is taboo. Voting ONCE, no matter who you vote for seems within the bounds of the rules. I don't think PAX, TEO, T7V or anyone else is violating that. What PAX is doing may be a bit of a grey area. TEO has told it.s members not to go that route. That is an internal decision, PAX is free to go a different route for it's members. I have no problem with it.
Voting TWICE is what anyone would consider going beyond the bounds. If yopu read Ryans quote that you posted, the very first sentence is "The last question we got involves members of a winning Phase I guild who did not vote in the Phase I poll." Clearly the rest of the paragraph only applies to people who didn't already vote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is Pax has been put in a no-win situation.Nobody put Pax in any position except Pax. Pax is not the victim. I'm not sure there is a player who is a victim. The victim appears to be PFO.Being, you are part of a group that is setting up one of the first nations in the game. T7V and TEO have been working hand in hand since the end of the kickstarter and probably even before. So your nation has 2 settlements already, and are supporting other groups to get more.
Once settlements are siege able. Most of these starting settlements are going to die. Maybe even ours.
This is a straw-man argument meant to incorrectly paint the collaboration of TEO and TSV in the same light as the Pax issue. The point of collaboration is not the problem here. The problem is the perception and reality of identity. TEO wears TEO tags - or at least those who choose to do so. TSV wears TSV tags. Our individual groups still identify as individual groups working together both internally and externally. Pax Aeternum wears Pax tags. Pax Golgotha wears Pax tags. Internally they have structured themselves as individual groups working together, but externally they have identified as one body through the use of their forum tags.
Outsiders looking in cannot differentiate the members of one group from the other. It is the difference between how folks view the relationship of the US and Great Britain versus the relationship of New York and Georgia. Most outsiders will recognize the difference between Brits and Americans. But not the differences between New Yorkers and Georgians (aside from the accents) and call them all Americans.
The entire problem here is that external identity and the general belief that there might be a super-structure of authority that would prevent Aeternum and Golgotha from in-fighting. What is true and correct is confused in this jumbled mess.
Everything is perception.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Cirolle my concern is not for T7V or any alliance: My concern is for PFO.
Whether I am emotionally 'down' or not is irrelevant. I am fine, but I am currently disappointed. I have been disappointed before and will be again. I have also experienced relief before and expect I will again. Whether it is here or not remains to be seen. This isn't a rage-quit it is a registration of my disapproval. I had not considered the fuzzy rule proposition adequately and now I am recognizing some of the downside as I had not before.
I will not be hurt in anyway by my decision to donate to PFO, but I would regret having to take a lesson from it instead of gaining a fun game. And a few of my friends would get to tease me with 'I told you so's.
To be a game it must have rules that, in part, differentiate it from reality, providing a level playing field for the environment in which players compete. That isn't something you find in reality except where there is law and regulation. In a manner of speaking civilization is game-like. Games take law and regulation to a new and imaginative level.
The problem with the proposition that game rules can be fuzzy, indistinct, or unpredictable is that those who would seek out edge cases to push the boundaries of the rules will simply use the inner edge of the fuzzy line exactly the way they would were the rules clear and distinct. The fuzzy rules proposition essentially rewards the rulebreaker with a minigame. The only advantage to Ryan's 'fuzzy' rules goes to those who will push the rules whether clear or blurred, and that advantage is due to the breadth of the line. PFO gave up ground to have fuzzy rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My support for Golgotha getting a Settlement is based largely on my understanding of the history of their organization, and my respect for some of the people involved.
However, I well understand how it looks to third parties who see two "Guilds" with Pax in their name, each of which links to the exact same "guild web site". I think Pax and Golgotha squandered an opportunity to set a good example and win the support of the players and the devs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a straw man argument. The people here know full well that Golgotha is not Aternum. The people here are not ignorant of the situation.
It is not incorrect to paint it in the same light. TEO and T7V picked settlements while talking together about it. You chose your locations with the intent of full collaboration. You have full intentions of working together in a way that makes you one nation. You are also working to get other groups into that same area to work with you completely.
Can you honestly say that TEO and T7V will not be in the same nation once the mechanic goes live?
There is no difference in that and what Golgotha and Aternum are doing. It is the same thing, but with less settlements on the Pax side.
It is brought up because it is some of your people here arguing against what Golgotha is doing. (and some for it) I would suggest that you reign them in and tell them not to post here if you do not want to be involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me restate that I am all for Golgotha having their own settlement.
I am against any company trying to skirt around the rules, whether fuzzy or not, most especially when they have absolutely no need to do it. Pax has plenty of players without applying the votes of one settlement to the benefit of another. It's like we're getting a demonstration of how some humans want the world to burn just to see it burn.
Golgotha can gain a settlement easily without having to resort to borrowed votes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize, I thought T7V was part of that accord.T7V is part of an even larger alliance (or accord, whatever that is), with PAX.The Seventh Veil is not allied with Pax in any way.
If you're talking about the Roseblood Accord, then yes, The Seventh Veil is a part of that accord, but Pax is not. At this stage of the game, it's much more likely that we'll be enemies with Pax than friends or allies.
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.
While it's true that I personally suggested forming a second guild to take another Settlement in the next phase of the Land Rush, I immediately dropped that plan once I read Ryan's Restrictions for Winners of Phase 1 of the Guild Land Rush, at which point I very strongly objected to any such plans from anyone else in the Roseblood Accord.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you honestly say that TEO and T7V will not be in the same nation once the mechanic goes live?
There is no difference in that and what Golgotha and Aternum are doing. It is the same thing, but with less settlements on the Pax side.
I believe if TEO and T7V would tell members that are uncounted for to vote for KotC (which we/they are not btw ) that would be a fitting analogy. What you are referring to is not IMHO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it's true that I personally suggested forming a second guild...
Nihimon had a lot of support in that idea: emotional, vocal, and financial support. Many of us read tea leaves and reached the conclusions Ryan wrote about in his post earlier in this thread.
As Nihimon said, it was only a few hours later when Ryan made his thoughts clear, and we unanimously changed our stance to encouraging others to join groups with whom we could be friends, and facilitating both the Land Rush and PFO in general. My only lingering concern about this topic is the perception-issue so many have written about: it's nigh-impossible for a "stranger", coming to look at PFO for the first time, to perceive what others--those who've watched the history--know is acceptable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The people here know full well that Golgotha is not Aternum.
This is our primary point of disagreement. I do not believe that the people taking issue with this see the two groups as separate entities.
This is why I claim again and again, the problem has been with identification and perception, not with collaboration.
If right here and now, the Keepers of the Circle claimed they wanted to join Xelias but did not wish to identify as Pax, there would be no issues. If Keepers of the Circle claimed they were joining our groups in the SE and moving under the CotP umbrella and began changing their tags to reflect it, I fully believe public ire would fall upon us for shenanigans.
I have a question for everybody opposing Golgotha as a landrush participant... Please do not chime in to speculate on the opinions of others. I honestly wish to know whether my claim is correct or not, and 3rd parties trying to speak out does nothing to identify the issue at hand.
Is your problem that The Empire of Xelias (I apologize if I got this name wrong!) is getting two settlements?
Or is your problem that 'Pax' is getting two settlements?
If KotC joined Xelias with their settlement, but did not join the Pax gaming community, would you have an issue with that?
I do not mean to pick on KotC, using them is only by them being the next largest group involved. Also, know that I am not speaking anything on behalf of KotC, I only needed an example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... we unanimously changed our stance to encouraging others to join groups with whom we could be friends...
We also continued to recruit for The Seventh Veil directly, making it clear to each new applicant that they should vote for The Seventh Veil in Phase 2 of the Land Rush - if they voted at all. It is my sincere hope that they have all done so.