Concerning Pax in the Land Rush


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 968 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pax Rafkin wrote:

K

We want to have an nation/empire but it's not a "join us or die" scenario. We will expand to get the resources we need, not just because we can.

Yet...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Decius you are a refreshing individual.

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:

T7V is part of an even larger alliance (or accord, whatever that is), with PAX.

Of course T7V will be fine with PAX getting their way.
Nihimon wrote:
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.

Just stepping in here to address a concern.

I notice some comments from members of the Accord that indicate our two power blocks might end up being enemies.

If that is still the case, Golgotha and Aeternum would be more than happy to remove ambassador status from your diplomats.

This is not a threat, it is purely diplomatic clarity. There is little reason to talk diplomacy if the Accord is considering us enemies.

I apologize for saying something so undiplomatic. Neither The Seventh Veil nor the Roseblood Accord consider Pax an enemy. I was merely trying to address the apparent misconception that we were in fact allies and that would explain why members of T7V were in this thread defending Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
The people who make the decisions that I expect almost every member of Pax Gaming to go along with have clearly and publicly stated that they are not going to encourage shenanigans that match the pattern of "Attention Aeternum members: If you didn't vote in LR1, vote Golgotha in LR2". If they try to publicly say that here, and privately say the opposite in their own 'private' channels, I have very little doubt that at least one credible individual will have some qualms about that and leak it.

Did you not read the posts from earlier in this thread that show them doing exactly that?

EDIT: They are quoted saying exactly that in the very first post of this whole thread, which is what started this mess in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that we have some solid issues, it may make sense to bucket each issue into it's own discussion thread - if continued discussion is desired. Continuing in this thread will lead to a lot of back and forth between different issues and will be impossible to follow.

From my own opinions...

Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.

I agree that this is a valid concern of the community. This is something that could be turned into a show of goodwill from Aeternum members by simply removing votes from settlements they do not wish to live in. But as it has not been strictly forbidden, it is up to them to make the decision.

Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.

I do not view the CEO as the final arbiter of what should and should not be acceptable in the game. Whereas their opinions should be weighed and measured, they are not absolute. I think this will be an issue where folks will need to agree to disagree. I also think decisions made regarding these sentiments do set a tone for how the public perceives an organization and it's allies. Especially when said organization is in a limited position to make a move but is the only one to actually do so. I also feel that if issue #1 were resolved, the negative impact of this is severely lessened.

Issue 3: Non-aggression agreements and solidarity in war make the two Pax guilds appear as one guild.

I do not view this as an issue. The question is what happens if the non-aggression is violated? Is the answer any different from how the violation would be treated in an alliance? Typically in an alliance, the actions of individuals will cause those individuals to be removed from their guild. If the actions are guild-wide, it typically causes the guild to be removed from the alliance. I do not know that membership in Pax is any different from membership in an alliance at this point. The only big one is that the power structure and charter was already in place as opposed to being constructed at the founding of the alliance.

Issue 4: Pax is perceived as a monolithic entity, such that membership in Aeternum and/or Golgotha is membership in Pax, and membership in Pax is membership in Aeternum and Golgotha.

This is where I view Pax as legitimately having to sleep in the bed they made. I do not see Aeternum or Golgotha tags, I see Pax tags. They painted a perception, and now they have some unforeseen consequences. There is nothing I can do or say to change this. It is entirely upon the shoulders of both Pax groups to show that this perception is actually false.

CEO, Goblinworks

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Couple of comments for clarity.

I do not think there is a right answer here. If I did, I'd make that a rule. What Pax is doing is not wrong in any objective sense. It is, however, precedent setting, and opinion shaping. And that will have consequences.

I have been a part of building communities now for close to 2 decades. I've seen pretty much every degenerate condition that can develop. So I have some hard-won opinions about what works and what does not work.

The one thing I have learned over and over is to trust the community. Not necessarily to trust any individual or group in the community, but to trust the community as a whole. Time after time, I have seen that when the community, en masse, makes itself known on some subject, it almost always produces an 80/20 majority. And if you listen to what the 80% are saying, you are almost always going to have a better outcome than if you listen to what the 20% are saying (not always - especially in the case of game balance issues - but most often when the issue involves the community's perception of standards and ethics).

This community is in a raw, protean state. Whilst many of you have been active for more than a year, we are attracting new people continuously. There are no hard and fast community standards or ethics yet because those things evolve in the face of actions and reactions and we have not had very many things to react to at this point.

You, the members of the community, have many ways to express your opinions and we are listening. We're not just watching these forums. We've got a pretty comprehensive network of ways to listen - we watch many resources and engage in many ways, not all on-line.

A successful sandbox MMO cannot be run within a framework of "everything not permitted is forbidden", or "everything not forbidden is permitted". Do a deep dive on any game that has tried those approaches and all you will find is chaos, alienation, and failure.

Instead, there must be a hybrid between hard & fast rules established by us, the administrators, for the purpose of good order and functioning of the product, fuzzy guidelines regarding appropriate behavior that will be enforced as necessary for the best interests of the game, the community and the business, and standards evolved by the community and policed by the community for the commons you hold jointly.

We do not have a parent/child relationship with you. We are at most your peers, and more rationally your servants. Our goal is not to tell you how to live your lives, but to help you live them in a fulfilling, compelling, and sustainable way.

YOU are responsible for deciding that is the kind of engagement you want to have with Pathfinder Online, and with one another.


Lifedragn wrote:

One statement for the problem being "Aeternum members voting for Golgotha because Aeternum no longer needs to worry about their own land rush position."

This is a valid concern that can be raised and discussed. Let us note it under the list of grievances that we can bring up and address.

Having solid defined issues is the heart of conflict resolution. "It's not fair" is not an argument you can make and have the other side understand when they also feel that the way the land rush was executed was "not fair".

Building on that, what kind of example does it set for the future?


GrumpyMel wrote:

Cirolle,

Speaking only as a grunt in TEO not an officer (and I'm sure those that are will correct me if I speak in error). I'm am not aware of anyone in TEO asking anyone to join another guild in the RA with the intent of them not PERMANANTLY being a member of that guild/settlement.

What I am aware of is that we are recruiting new members for ourselves (TEO) and instructing any such members to ONLY vote for TEO (which doesn't count for anything but show in Landrush II) NOT anyone else. If the person is not interested in TEO or we feel they are not a good fit... we are reccomending they PERMANENTLY join other allied guilds... by essentialy vouching publicaly that those guilds are good people.

We are most definately not reccomending that they "join" (quotes) other guilds so they can vote for them...but that they JOIN (no qoutes) them because they want to be part of them. I rather suspect our leadership would boot anyone out of the guild for advocating such a behavior since it goes against the policies we internaly adopted.

I, for one, am not crying foul about what PAX is doing. However, I don't want anyone under the misapprehension about what our own policies are.

As a gamer.... I would have trouble staying a member of TEO, if those were the sort of tactics. Good sportsmanship is a far more important consideration to me then "winning" anything which is pretty much a nonsense concept in any game that has no defined end or "victory conditions"

Also note, I do not think PAX is engaging in "bad sportsmanship" here... I pretty much agree with Nihimon, they got caught in an unfortunate situation due to incomplete information about the rules of the Landrush prior to it starting.

I agree with you.

We have to realize it WILL happen later, but that does not mean that it have to be done this soon.

Goblin Squad Member

Okay. Thanks Ryan.

What Pax has done is not wrong, it's the new norm.


Lifedragn wrote:

Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.

Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.

Keep the well-defined issues coming. We'll make a list. Just because I am adding positions does not mean I agree or disagree with them. I am merely trying to help sort out the grievances so we can move forward.

Issue 3: Keep PFOs intereset in the FUTURE in mind. What is being done now, will shape the game later

Goblin Squad Member

A vision appears in your mind's eye unbidden: You see an image of an mustachioed gentleman in a silk burgundy smoking jacket seated in a comfortably upholstered chair covered in in soft dark leather. After a moment he nods to you.

Fiat usurps reason.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cirolle wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

One statement for the problem being "Aeternum members voting for Golgotha because Aeternum no longer needs to worry about their own land rush position."

This is a valid concern that can be raised and discussed. Let us note it under the list of grievances that we can bring up and address.

Having solid defined issues is the heart of conflict resolution. "It's not fair" is not an argument you can make and have the other side understand when they also feel that the way the land rush was executed was "not fair".

Building on that, what kind of example does it set for the future?

The example being set is the public backlash on these forums. However words are cheap. What example gets set is how you, the rest of the community, will choose to interact with groups who operating in ways you do not agree with in the game. If you dislike their actions, have yourself and your friends withhold your business. Aeternum seeks to be a trade hub, as such business and money is their language.

If you feel TEO has been acting in bad faith, then attack our members and keep us under constant feud. We've dedicated ourselves to reducing non-consensual PvP in our little sphere of influence. If you don't like what we've done, come interrupt our attempts to be successful.

I believe, but could be wrong, that Ryan's most recent post is stating "These actions are being taken. We do not feel it is our place to forbid them. But they are meaningful, and you the rest of the community now has the chance to decide what kind of example should be set for those who take this action."

TEO is setting our example by not giving out our unvoted member votes, even though we have enough of them to significantly alter the land rush and buy favors or good will. We view that as the proper thing to do. Our organization is based on a Good alignment and building things up. Though individual members have strong opinions that I do not censor, as a whole we are more focused on constructing our own positive examples.

At a personal level, my diplomatic mind had inspired me to dig through the issues and see if we could get any of them to a point where honest discussion can be made towards resolution. It is easy to attack a position before it is well-understood from both points of view. Hopefully that discussion can now happen on focused points where even if they disagree at the end of the day, the two sides can at least understand the way the other group is thinking.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO ArchAnjel wrote:

Okay. Thanks Ryan.

What Pax has done is not wrong, it's the new norm.

Well, its not wrong 'in any objective sense' because the rules are more like guidelines and they are not imposed on us , we can choose to follow them. So because their is no authority that forbids their actions and punishes them, wrong is kinda irrelevant ,its more like bad choices and they made a lot of people mad and now we will have to crush all things Pax , or they could just say 'oops sorry everyone, we didn't mean to try to get ahead of the rest of you , sort of'.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO ArchAnjel wrote:

Okay. Thanks Ryan.

What Pax has done is not wrong, it's the new norm.

It is only the new norm if we allow it to be so. Ryan is delegating judgement to the community. Only two groups exist with the same privileged position and we have both vowed not to engage in funneling member votes.

At the moment, it is not a norm. It is so far from normal that it has drawn all of this attention.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well said Dancey, exactly how I'd assess it. I'd furthermore like to say I believe the OP accomplished what he wanted to do: throw shade without blowback on himself. He is almost effectively 'whistleblowing' and stepping away after stirring the pot. I don't appreciate that underhanded maneuvering by the OP.

As for the current political climate, it is what it is. FMS has been brazenly clear that we understand the landscape and believe in unification of similar companies to create the vision we have as our path. We haven't signed any accord or joined any empire in hopes of beneficent votes.

We are very happy with the work we are accomplishing in creating a wholesome settlement and have no other opinion than to say we do not like the throwaway account tactic to stir this pot.

Goblin Squad Member

Well at the very least Pax should lift the cone of silence and stop acting like they are above criticism.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:

I am saying that your two groups won a settlement in the first landrush and are working together as much as Golgotha and Aternum. Both groups will be a nation when it is available.

You are also helping others get a settlement (however you are doing it). With the full intent of them being in that same nation.

This is simply not true.

I've long expected that we will probably end up in a nation with TEO, but that's never been a sure thing. There's actually not been any real discussion of forming a nation with the other members of the Roseblood Accord - some of them will likely be too far away for that to even be possible.

There's a huge difference between independent guilds forming a loose alliance of sorts, and guilds that use the same name and the same website, and are under the same top-level authority - regardless of how much micro-managing that authority does or intends to do.

It is true. TEO and T7V have been holding hands since before I joined the Paizo forums.

To say it has never been a sure thing, that you would be in the same nation, is just an insulting joke. Anyone who comes to this forum can clearly see that TEO and T7V work hand in hand.

You picked your settlements together. you have forged or tried to forge several other alliances together. When you look at other groups as enemy or friendly you do it together. You are the same group with subforums.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FMS SirZac wrote:

Well said Dancey, exactly how I'd assess it. I'd furthermore like to say I believe the OP accomplished what he wanted to do: throw shade without blowback on himself. He is almost effectively 'whistleblowing' and stepping away after stirring the pot. I don't appreciate that underhanded maneuvering by the OP.

As for the current political climate, it is what it is. FMS has been brazenly clear that we understand the landscape and believe in unification of similar companies to create the vision we have as our path. We haven't signed any accord or joined any empire in hopes of beneficent votes.

We are very happy with the work we are accomplishing in creating a wholesome settlement and have no other opinion than to say we do not like the throwaway account tactic to stir this pot.

Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Being wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Can metagame guilds grab two or more settlements, yes or no?
Yes
I concur. However if a member of a company did not vote in the first landrush they should still apply their vote to their own company and not an affiliate, even if their own company has a settlement assured.
I don't care if they have two settlements , I care that they are now on public record as refusing to do what Ryan asked them to do for the sake of a good community, it is wrong.

Nonsense

Golgotha had full intentions of being its own settlement before ever joining the Pax Community. Nothing has changed.

They have not refused to do what Ryan asked them to do. Read the comments they have made.

THEY ARE NOT SILENT, read the posts

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
...we have both vowed not to engage in funneling member votes.

If Golgotha's statements are accurate--and there's no reason at present to doubt them--they have five votes from Aeternum members in the Land Rush count now visible on Goblinworks. One possible solution is for them to have those five members press the "Leave" button, surrendering their support for Golgotha, and then press "Apply" for Aeternum, re-joining their parent-Settlement in the count.

This won't account for the three Golgotha members who voted for Aeternum in Land Rush I, and thus won't be counted in the the supporters of Golgotha, but there are a material number of folks in that position, including some quite prominent on these boards. Both Aeternum and Golgotha have shown their member-counts can absorb those numeric differences.

Community knowledge that the two large Pax "factions" (I'm unsure of the correct term) have taken deliberate steps to un-wind what seems to be largely a perception-issue may assist everyone in pacifying these concerns somewhat.

EDIT: I've seen some Golgotha members changing their Avatar-names from "Pax X" to "Gol X". That's not a solution I'd've thought to suggest, but it could assist the clarification-effort.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Notmyrealname wrote:
FMS SirZac wrote:

Well said Dancey, exactly how I'd assess it. I'd furthermore like to say I believe the OP accomplished what he wanted to do: throw shade without blowback on himself. He is almost effectively 'whistleblowing' and stepping away after stirring the pot. I don't appreciate that underhanded maneuvering by the OP.

As for the current political climate, it is what it is. FMS has been brazenly clear that we understand the landscape and believe in unification of similar companies to create the vision we have as our path. We haven't signed any accord or joined any empire in hopes of beneficent votes.

We are very happy with the work we are accomplishing in creating a wholesome settlement and have no other opinion than to say we do not like the throwaway account tactic to stir this pot.

Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.

Who are you voting for again?

Pax has answered your concerns, if you bother reading it.

Goblin Squad Member

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:


It is true. TEO and T7V have been holding hands since before I joined the Paizo forums.

To say it has never been a sure thing, that you would be in the same nation, is just an insulting joke. Anyone who comes to this forum can clearly see that TEO and T7V work hand in hand.

You picked your settlements together. you have forged or tried to forge several other alliances together. When you look at other groups as enemy or friendly you do it together. You are the same group with subforums.

While it is true we spend the night at each other's places and make sweet love with regularity, we never got married, own separate bank accounts and are allowed to date other people.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't at least it was funny.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Xeen

You can repeat that as often as you want but it simply is not true and no amount of you spouting it will change that. However, I would like to thank you for pointing out repeatedly that T7V and TEO do have similar aims and are both members of the Roseblood Accord - along with several other fine CCs. You have done world of good to our recruitment drive.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
FMS SirZac wrote:

Well said Dancey, exactly how I'd assess it. I'd furthermore like to say I believe the OP accomplished what he wanted to do: throw shade without blowback on himself. He is almost effectively 'whistleblowing' and stepping away after stirring the pot. I don't appreciate that underhanded maneuvering by the OP.

As for the current political climate, it is what it is. FMS has been brazenly clear that we understand the landscape and believe in unification of similar companies to create the vision we have as our path. We haven't signed any accord or joined any empire in hopes of beneficent votes.

We are very happy with the work we are accomplishing in creating a wholesome settlement and have no other opinion than to say we do not like the throwaway account tactic to stir this pot.

Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.

Who are you voting for again?

Pax has answered your concerns, if you bother reading it.

I see you love a good argument , this isn't one.

Goblin Squad Member

Upon reflection I think Pax may not have full control of how players vote.

There isn't a direct link limiting votes to a Guild's internal member roster. There are no links to guildlaunch, for example.

Guilds generally have an administrative protocol for accepting or rejecting member applications, but I don't believe there is any such mechanism on the GW site, except insofar as the PFO Guild founder might happen to know all members' GW Account names.

This suggests to me that the community should afford guilds the benefit of the doubt. Pax Morbis has voluntarily provided an account that indicates two votes are still undetermined. Those two might belong to anyone.

I recommend we bury the hatchet and try to emerge from this event wiser.

Bud?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like I said before if you want to talk about TEO/T7V go start a new thread Xeen. What Pax is doing has nothing to do with what TEO/T7V is doing. They are both entirely separate circumstances. For someone who has been Mr. "take it to another thread" in the UNC threads you might want to follow your own advice.
TEO/T7V members are allowed to have opinions regardless of what you think of their organizations.
On topic, whether or not someone feels that Golgotha should have a spot on the leaderboard, it's disingenuous IMO to not admit that it's at least a grey area and that the questions of fairness posed are not unreasonable to be asking. Ryan's posts should make that much clear at the very least.
I'm still a bit divided personally. It seems unfair to punish Golgotha, who was Golgotha before Pax was involved, by denying them a settlement. But in this case, perception may be more important than reality because when Random MetaGuild looks at the leaderboard and sees two Pax groups there, they'll naturally figure "Hey, we can do that too." Whatever the reality behind Golgotha's origins, it's the perception that "sets the tone" more so than the reality does.
You know what they say - you have to avoid not just impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Golgothans appear to be changing their alias handles to reflect GOL rather than PAX. This I take as evidence that Pax means well.

Goblin Squad Member

A bit late, but if they do view themselves as collaborating organizations as opposed to a unified singular then it is a step in the right direction as far as aligning external identity with internal identity.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perception is Reality.

It doesn't really matter what is actually going on with Pax and Golgotha, what matters is what people perceive that is going on. Changing their tag from Pax to Gol, is a positive step toward altering perception in a positive way. I would personally recommend they try to get the Pax tag removed from the Leader Board too. Presenting a separate and independent public face would help Golgotha's public perception immensely.

Goblin Squad Member

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Why should I even sign up to play if the game is stacked before the beginning?

Well, because we're awesome. It's going to be fun and if it helps, you can imagine the mega-guilds as the objective to be sundered and their innards strewn across the bloody ground, left for the carrion birds to feast upon.


Hark wrote:

Perception is Reality.

It doesn't really matter what is actually going on with Pax and Golgotha, what matters is what people perceive that is going on. Changing their tag from Pax to Gol, is a positive step toward altering perception in a positive way. I would personally recommend they try to get the Pax tag removed from the Leader Board too. Presenting a separate and independent public face would help Golgotha's public perception immensely.

This is truth

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.

I'm sorry, but I see that as a logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. For my opinion, I do not need to prove the motives to make a move like what the OP did as 'permissible.' There is no social credit at play from the OP, so I still see it as a move to cast aspersions without accepting the ramifications within our social gameplay. In another forum setting I would definitely feel different, but there's more at play here.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
No one is obligated to accurately interpret and then follow the spirit of anything.

True, and hence the existence of the concept of Integrity: Rules you follow when nobody is making you follow them. A concept that, incidentally, could also be applied to the use of anonymous forum alts to stir up controversy.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I'll share my own opinions here. Why? Public forum. Anyhow, full disclosure: I am a member of TEO and have been since the Kickstarter.

Lifedragn wrote:
Issue 1: Taking advantage of security in LR1 choice, some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha.

If any member voting for Aeturnum in LR1 should NOT vote for any other guild regardless of the balance of votes. It was explicitly requested they do not. And if necessary they can track down the votes and manually discount them. In addition, any new member of Aeturnum should not be funneled to Golgotha regardless of the balance of votes because that is against the spirit of the vote. It was mentioned that the difference is only 2-4 votes, so why spoil the waters?

Lifedragn wrote:
Issue 2: A preference of non-participation stated by the CEO was ignored because it was not expressly forbidden. This provides the appearance of putting the best interest of the Pax collective above the best interest of the game.

I'll opt out of responding to this one. I don't have a strong opinion on it. I do appreciate Mr. Dancey providing his opinions and insights on the matter, however.

Lifedragn wrote:
Issue 3: Non-aggression agreements and solidarity in war make the two Pax guilds appear as one guild.

As mentioned by Lifedragn and others, the same applies for any nation or alliance such as the Roseblood Accord.

Lifedragn wrote:
Issue 4: Pax is perceived as a monolithic entity, such that membership in Aeternum and/or Golgotha is membership in Pax, and membership in Pax is membership in Aeternum and Golgotha.

It's extremely difficult for even one such as I who spends a lot of time on these forums to distinguish between Pax Golgotha members and Pax Aeturnum members. Mainly because they actively tag their names as Pax. Using no tag at all would make things easier for them simply because there is less automatic assumption of affiliation. I remember the posts when the two groups allied under Pax Gaming, and it's even hard for me to say straight up that they're truly two separate entities. By having all members of both tag as simply "Pax" it's extremely easy to see all their members as one guild.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

Xeen

You can repeat that as often as you want but it simply is not true and no amount of you spouting it will change that. However, I would like to thank you for pointing out repeatedly that T7V and TEO do have similar aims and are both members of the Roseblood Accord - along with several other fine CCs. You have done world of good to our recruitment drive.

TEO and T7V were working hand in hand long before the BloodRose Accord.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Like I said before if you want to talk about TEO/T7V go start a new thread Xeen. What Pax is doing has nothing to do with what TEO/T7V is doing. They are both entirely separate circumstances. For someone who has been Mr. "take it to another thread" in the UNC threads you might want to follow your own advice.

Negative

Golgotha is separate from Aternum as much as T7V is separate from TEO.

While T7V and TEO people are here talking against Golgotha and Aternum, I will be here pointing out that they have the same relationships.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

While I type up my post, they start making one of my concerns moot. +1

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Xeen, I owe you an apology.

I thought you said that TEO and T7V were directly analagous to Pax Aeternum and Gologotha - you did not; that point was made by someone else.

Having reread all your posts in this thread (properly this time) I can find no fault with what you are saying - yes TEO and T7V have been talking for a long time - though I wouldn't go so far as to say we were "hand in hand". So, for what it's worth, I'm sorry, you were right.

Edit: While I was writing this you posted that Golgotha and Callambea are as separate as Brighthaven and Phaeros - I strongly disagree. But the apology stands.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Notmyrealname wrote:
I see you love a good argument , this isn't one.

Sure it is. Someones allegiances tell the rest of the story.

I am not Pax, nor do I fit the criteria to be a member. But I sure as hell am not going to watch others attack them, for doing what everyone has discussed nor for what those same people are doing.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

Xeen, I owe you an apology.

I thought you said that TEO and T7V were directly analagous to Paz Aeternum and Gologotha - you did not; that point was made by someone else.

Having reread all your posts in this thread (properly this time) I can find no fault with what you are saying - yes TEO and T7V have been talking for a long time - though I wouldn't go so far as to say we were "hand in hand". So, for what it's worth, I'm sorry, you were right.

I have no real issue with what either group is doing. You guys are doing what you want and need to do for this type of game. I just want to make sure the hypocritical look in the mirror a bit.

Golgotha did not deserve to be called out.


Xeen wrote:
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Like I said before if you want to talk about TEO/T7V go start a new thread Xeen. What Pax is doing has nothing to do with what TEO/T7V is doing. They are both entirely separate circumstances. For someone who has been Mr. "take it to another thread" in the UNC threads you might want to follow your own advice.

Negative

Golgotha is separate from Aternum as much as T7V is separate from TEO.

While T7V and TEO people are here talking against Golgotha and Aternum, I will be here pointing out that they have the same relationships.

I dont understand

Is this a for or against Pax doing the "same" thing?

I dont see the Rosewhatever Accord being positive to the game, and I dont see Pax being a positive to the game with encouraging voting for another settlement

Goblin Squad Member

The negative part was for me making another thread. My discussion is relevant to this thread.

As for the positive to the game... Wait till the game gets going, their groups will be small in the long run of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

It would be the same (sorta) if T7V was a member also under the the Covenant of the Phoenix perhaps (which they aren't). That's a better comparison.

It's closer to an alliance set up between two settlements or groups, like what UNC and Pax had before. A truce/alliance but they aren't tied together so tightly or under the same larger organization. I can sorta see why you might consider otherwise, but it's not the case.


Xeen wrote:

The negative part was for me making another thread. My discussion is relevant to this thread.

As for the positive to the game... Wait till the game gets going, their groups will be small in the long run of the game.

I cant but agree to this.

If any of the larger gaming groups decide to join after EE, I think the "big" groups will have a surprise.

I still think Ryan have a very valid point.

is it something the players encourage or is it something that is frowned up in PFO?

I am not saying it will keep the big guilds away, but it might just make some of the more agressive pass it over (not a bad thing in my book)

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:
I dont see the Rosewhatever Accord being positive to the game...

We hope you're wrong. Our charter is intended only in a positive way for the game:

"The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members. It is our belief that positive gameplay improves everyone’s experience, and we are dedicated to providing a place in Pathfinder Online where players who seek such an experience can find it. Towards that end, we have come together to announce our intentions to the community, and to invite all who share these goals to join us."

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
I see you love a good argument , this isn't one.

Sure it is. Someones allegiances tell the rest of the story.

I am not Pax, nor do I fit the criteria to be a member. But I sure as hell am not going to watch others attack them, for doing what everyone has discussed nor for what those same people are doing.

You can be the Pax defender while they are away.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The issue is perception, at the its roots, and Ryan touched on this in his posts, but I believe what we need is facts.

Fact: Golgatha was an entity before Pax

Fact: Golgatha was several entities before joining into Golgatha

Now that, in forums terms, was a very long time ago. The perception from anyone that has joined recently (which is going to be a majority of people playing this game) are going to see all Pax as ONE entity.

This is what several have touched on, and while the GW Staff does want large meta guilds coming in, they don't want them using their numbers to negatively effect the community. Such as, multiple land rush grabs.

While those of us who have been paying attention realize that these are two separate groups working under the same umbrella, people question the umbrella. I realize what Pax has said about this umbrella and how it works, but the truth is this could all change, for better or worse once the game starts. Furthermore, with Golgatha joining Pax, they are actively pulling members from a larger gaming community, the same people Pax is recruiting from. These people are all going to be friends and just intertwine the two groups more and more over time.

I have to give an example of TEO now, we come from several groups to make TEO, and then we joined CotP. CotP did not have any representation prior to us in PFO, so we are their bridge into this game. When OE begins, and even during EE a good many of CotP membership will be checking it out. At this point, we are becoming so intertwined that eventually you won't be able to separate us.

That, I believe is the core of the issue, Pax and Golgatha are viewed as this inntertwined entity, but instead of one settlement, they are attempting to take two. They want to play the game in two different ways, and having two settlements allows not only a partnership, but allows them to recruit even more into the fold.

Do I agree that Golgatha should have a settlement? Yes, because they were an entity BEFORE joining Pax.

Do I agree they should share votes, even one? No, they should suffer the consequences of those couple of missing votes from the first landrush.

Pax, I respect you guys (most of you anyways), but I think you came at this all wrong, based on the multitudes of perceptions out there, there was a better way. With the changing of your membership from Pax to Gol I believe is a good start, as long as you actively maintain that you are in fact separate entities, even when we get in game going forward, I do believe that this will all blow over.

Once Kingdoms/Nations are implemented, this all maybe moot depending on how the mechanics work.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
I see you love a good argument , this isn't one.

Sure it is. Someones allegiances tell the rest of the story.

I am not Pax, nor do I fit the criteria to be a member. But I sure as hell am not going to watch others attack them, for doing what everyone has discussed nor for what those same people are doing.

You can be the Pax defender while they are away.

They are here.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes we are.

Goblin Squad Member

Oo, oo, me too!

What's going on?

201 to 250 of 968 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Concerning Pax in the Land Rush All Messageboards