Concerning Pax in the Land Rush


Pathfinder Online

351 to 400 of 968 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Look , if I don't like having a post to me including a link to 'people that cause trouble for no good reason', that does not make me guilty of it . Stop spreading the Pax goodwill please , you are just personally attacking me and I have not done that to any Pax member.

Questions generally express a desire to learn. Rhetorical questions are expressions of curiosity or frustration, and are not necessarily answerable. Leading and loaded questions are dishonest, and indicate a desire to use a person as one's soapbox or strawman. I indicated that I consider the latter type of question to be out-of-bounds. If that makes you lose interest, oh well...

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point, I stand with Pax. I've no reason to, other than common decency. You, sir, are launching a campaign that will accept no alternative but smearing Pax, and I won't stand for it. You repeat accusations to an empty room, and declare yourself the winner for the lack of response.

The question has been asked, answered, and debated. Not only in this thread, but another. Further, it has been handled by private message from several other organizations as well as Goblinworks itself.

You are out of order and acting quite rude. Stop.


Boy, that sure escalated fast. From implications that Pax is cheating the system to implications that...

Actually, no, I think this has been a pretty flat line so far.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Look , if I don't like having a post to me including a link to 'people that cause trouble for no good reason', that does not make me guilty of it . Stop spreading the Pax goodwill please , you are just personally attacking me and I have not done that to any Pax member.
Questions generally express a desire to learn. Rhetorical questions are expressions of curiosity or frustration, and are not necessarily answerable. Leading and loaded questions are dishonest, and indicate a desire to use a person as one's soapbox or strawman. I indicated that I consider the latter type of question to be out-of-bounds. If that makes you lose interest, oh well...

This is the third time you have implied I do something (wrong) that I haven't done, You have an agenda to make me look bad.

If I am going to be personally attacked on this forum I will just leave it.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Another point that I imagine causes the conflation of the Paxes (Paxii?): The "website link" on the Land Rush for both Aeturnum and Golgotha simply direct one to the Pax Gaming website.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Isn't 90% of the problem from the confusion around the "guild" term in the Landrush ?

Goblin Squad Member

We can be thankful the term "guild" disappears from PFO after the Land Rush.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see any reason to discuss the particulars any further.

Some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha. Goblinworks/Ryan is not going to take action, instead letting the community decide what is right.

The other 2 Land Rush 1 winners are going to great pains to ensure that their members know that this is not acceptable behavior in regards to the spirit of the Land Rush 2.

The only question is what the 'consequences' of this action and the community's collective reaction to it will be.

Please note that I have profound respect for many Pax members, and there is still time for them to rectify the issue and make clear what their instructions to recruits will be going forward. Some steps have already been taken to reduce the chance of the misperception that Golgotha has no right to exist on the leaderboard (I think most agree they do have the right to be there).

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
I'm not real interested in doing that.
Are you saying you won't engage in this conversation?..... Hmmm, that does sound vaguely familiar.... where did I read that?
You will just keep it up until you think you have won and beat me in a fight , won't you ? You need to act more mature in how you treat other people, God did not put them here for you to beat up on verbally .Go ahead and have the last word and declare victory.

Hey, check that mirror out.

You never did answer my question.

Who are you voting for in the land rush?

I will sell you my vote, you tell me who to vote for( don't say Pax ). The price is that you will become my forum bodyguard forever.

You vote for Aragon, stay there for 10 weeks, and we win. You got it.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:


You vote for Aragon, stay there for 10 weeks, and we win. You got it.

I don't see Aragon in the Guild Index at the Goblinworks site.

So Aragon has to get a spot or the deal is off?

Goblin Squad Member

They're in the top 10. Settlement: Aragon (CN)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
They're in the top 10. Settlement: Aragon (CN)

Looks like Sir Bluddwolf is going to be my new Lord and Master, but I get the forums best defender , does Bludd run Aragon?. Best to just go click the button and not think about this deal too much.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
They're in the top 10. Settlement: Aragon (CN)
Looks like Sir Bluddwolf is going to be my new Lord and Master, but I get the forums best defender , does Bludd run Aragon?. Best to just go click the button and not think about this deal too much.

he is one of the leaders of aragon settlement


Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe it's a seemingly-lovely coincidence of naming, coming from one source as you say, and another that happened to exist in gaming.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cirolle wrote:

Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

Actually, yes I am quite the fishermen. I caught a 120lbs Blue Shark off the rift about 12 miles off of Montauk Point, Long Island, Ny.

I am also a trained arbitration advocate, and we frequently use "trolling" style questioning techniques to pull information from witnesses.

So I have experience with trolling in both the literal and figurative applications of the term.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You continue to scare me, Bluddwolf. I catch bad guys from the safety of my computer, and I perceive you catch them face-to-face.

Goblin Squad Member

So you think of trolling in the sense of trying to snag something you can't see? That would be a good tactic and not at all like behaving like a disgusting troll.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
You continue to scare me, Bluddwolf. I catch bad guys from the safety of my computer, and I perceive you catch them face-to-face.

I really don't catch "bad guys", I catch careless or incompetent individuals (those usually with administrative power) who violate CBAs or due process and secure the remedy that my clients seek.

In my first two years I had 13 straight victories against the same school principal, assistant principal and network advisor and all three were replaced.

I trolled the principal to the point that he admitted he had duplicate personal files while he was on the stand. He actually admitted to have false records, a felony in a public school, because they are part of public record.

Goblin Squad Member

That's gotta be satisfying...and amazing. At least, I hope it's amazing; if it's typical, the world is doomed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ol' Man Jenkins wrote:
HA! IT WAS ME ALL ALONG! I was gonna scare y'all off the thread while I looked for Nihimon's secret Pokemon collection.

And to think that you would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!

Goblin Squad Member

It's always kids. Get off my lawn!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An' that mangy Bluddwolf!

Goblin Squad Member

Ol' Man Jenkins wrote:
An' that mangy Bluddwolf!

You owe me a new keyboard....


Uh...look behind you! Isn't that He Who Shall Not Be Named gettin' away?!

*Scampers off*

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:

Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

I'm sure the term you're thinking of is 'trawling', but it is a happy coincidence, that one of the principle methods of 'trolling' is to lay some bait, and see who you reel in.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kakafika wrote:
I don't see any reason to discuss the particulars any further.

And yet you do...

Audoucet wrote:
Isn't 90% of the problem from the confusion around the "guild" term in the Landrush ?

Most of the problem lies in GW deciding to split us off in two separate polls. Maybe using the old Paizo landrush poll sped the process up by a couple of weeks, and probably would have produced the same results anyway, but it still caused a side effect.

Golgothans couldn't vote for themselves on Paizo because Golgotha isn't on the list. A few voted for Aeternum, since that was the closest option, but they're on the Aeternum list again, not their own.

Those Aeternians who didn't vote for one of the top 3 groups which GW split off would still have a vote to cast.
If they vote for Aeternum on the GW site, it's wasted because the first round was done with the old poll and Aeternum isn't really in the GW-site poll as a competitor.
If they don't vote at all, it's wasted.
If they vote for what might turn out to be a future opponent, that could be worse than wasted.
Voting for an ally is a rational response the situation.

If GW had started the real voting under the less-abusable system over on their own site, Aeternum and Golgotha would've been in the same competition, not one mistakenly voting for the other because they don't have their own listing, and not needing to cast a vote for an ally since it was now useless to themselves.
We didn't ask for the issue, we're just adapting to it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

My comment wasn't meant to be a critic against you, I don't really have an opinion on your situation, I trust in GW's judgement.

Goblin Squad Member

@Keovar
Maybe I should have used a different term than 'the particulars.' The point of my post was to make a short post about the 'what.' The 'why' doesn't matter so much when one entity is taking actions that are different from the other 2 entities. I don't think what you posted contradicts anything that I posted:

Kakafika wrote:

I don't see any reason to discuss the particulars any further.

Some Aeternum members have voted for Golgotha. Goblinworks/Ryan is not going to take action, instead letting the community decide what is right.

The other 2 Land Rush 1 winners are going to great pains to ensure that their members know that this is not acceptable behavior in regards to the spirit of the Land Rush 2.

The only question is what the 'consequences' of this action and the community's collective reaction to it will be.

Please note that I have profound respect for many Pax members, and there is still time for them to rectify the issue and make clear what their instructions to recruits will be going forward. Some steps have already been taken to reduce the chance of the misperception that Golgotha has no right to exist on the leaderboard (I think most agree they do have the right to be there).

But if you want to continue discussing the particulars, I'll oblige you for as long as I feel it's not detracting from the meaningful conversation that we can still have.

Keovar wrote:
Golgothans couldn't vote for themselves on Paizo because Golgotha isn't on the list. A few voted for Aeternum, since that was the closest option, but they're on the Aeternum list again, not their own.

Right, I didn't repeat this because it has already been said several times that some Golgothans voted for Aeternum in the 1st Land Rush.

Golgothans voted for Aeternum because they chose to. I won't guess at their motivations, as that is inconsequential. We all were making decisions based on imperfect information (of the game, of the land rush, etc), and I think the explanations in this thread have convinced most people that Golgotha should be allowed in the Land Rush 2: We're all playing this game for fun, and though I'm sure they would have no problem getting a settlement outside of the land rush mechanic (while the much smaller 31st guild might have difficulties), the community (and myself) seems to have accepted that Golgotha being in the 2nd Land Rush is within the spirit of the competition.

While unfortunate that they lost a few votes to Aeternum, in the end it was their choice. A choice that helped their ally and that has a minor negative impact on their own success, considering that they have dozens of votes for Land Rush 2 and are 2nd on the leaderboard.

In the end, if Aeternum feels they should do something to 'make right' with Golgotha's decision to help them in the Land Rush 1, there are many ways they can do that both in-game and out-of-game.

To reiterate, telling Aeternum members to vote for Golgotha in the 2nd Land Rush is, I believe, against the spirit of Land Rush 2. This is the conclusion that the two other groups in the same position as Aeternum came to, and they are making clear to members that they are to vote for the settlement they apply to join and intend to reside in.

Keovar wrote:
Most of the problem lies in GW deciding to split us off in two separate polls...[snip]...If GW had started the real voting under the less-abusable system over on their own site, Aeternum and Golgotha would've been in the same competition, not one mistakenly voting for the other because they don't have their own listing, and not needing to cast a vote for an ally since it was now useless to themselves.

I'm not sure you're going to get a lot of sympathy by blaming GW for Pax policy, when those policies are negatively impacting the players you're appealing to ('GW did this to us so we're doing that to you'). The rules are the same for everybody, Pax is the only group out of 3 taking the actions you describe. Whenever people get together to play, they follow their own set of unwritten rules in addition to the written ones. Pax is breaking this social contract, the idea of 'good sportsmanship,' and there will be consequences. Consequences for Pax, Pax members, other groups on the Land Rush 2 leaderboard, and the community as a whole.

I think the best solution for the community as a whole is for Pax to simply adjust behavior to the norms. Even if HALF of all Golgotha votes are Aeternum members, a wild overestimate I think, they would still be on the top 10 leaderboard when they switch their votes. Even that isn't a lot of pain to endure in order to avoid setting a terrible precedent for all the new players and groups that will be joining us soon in Land Rush 2. I'm sure it will buy Aeternum and Golgotha a lot of goodwill, besides, including my own; as we used to say in neighborhood pick-up games: No harm, no foul =)

EDIT: I thought it might be helpful to repost the message from Ryan that led at least T7V to nix their plans for 'not wasting votes' by funneling new votes to allied settlements, from
Restrictions for Winners of Phase 1 of the Guild Land Rush

Ryan Dancey wrote:

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. There are so many potential special cases and exceptions within this aspect of the promotion that we can't write a hard & fast rule to cover them all. So we're asking for you to each use your individual discretion and best judgement: If it feels like what you're doing goes against the spirit of the promotion - getting new people interested and excited about Pathfinder Online - we suggest that you opt out of taking part in Phase II.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:

Those Aeternians who didn't vote for one of the top 3 groups which GW split off would still have a vote to cast.

If they vote for Aeternum on the GW site, it's wasted because the first round was done with the old poll and Aeternum isn't really in the GW-site poll as a competitor.
If they don't vote at all, it's wasted.
If they vote for what might turn out to be a future opponent, that could be worse than wasted.
Voting for an ally is a rational response the situation.

This is the only part that really bothers me. You're saying outright that it's okay for "Aeternians who didn't vote" for TEO, Pax, or T7V to go ahead and vote for "Pax Golgotha" even if they're really Pax Aeternum members. And you're trying to justify it to the community by saying Ryan's not forcing you not to. That seems petty and irresponsible, and I think I'm beginning to understand more clearly why Ryan was so concerned.

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. There are so many potential special cases and exceptions within this aspect of the promotion that we can't write a hard & fast rule to cover them all. So we're asking for you to each use your individual discretion and best judgement: If it feels like what you're doing goes against the spirit of the promotion - getting new people interested and excited about Pathfinder Online - we suggest that you opt out of taking part in Phase II.

TEO & T7V have both made a very conscientious effort to have folks vote for us directly if they plan to be a part of our Settlements. Your insistence on pursuing this tactic - in the face of very direct requests from Ryan not to - is a very bad decision and I seriously hope you reconsider before it's too late.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the point we are trying to get across is "Mutually Assured Destruction." If this (Shadow Settlements) becomes a tactic we have to use to compete, the exploitationists will have won before the game even began.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.

Frankly, if it were the case that Pax Gaming was instructing members to cheat, there are bigger problems.

What I think [i]might[/b] be happening is Golgotha is using their connections with Pax Gaming to recruit from that community. That's not against the spirit or letter of the rules; it's actually supporting the direct goal of the Land Rush.

The evidence that makes me think the latter is more likely than the former is that I haven't seen a screenshot of an officer of Aeternum or Pax telling people how to vote. If that was happening, at least one person with a grudge or who likes drama would have found and published that evidence.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.

Golgotha was a separate entity before it joined under the big umbrella of Pax Gaming, not under Pax Aeternum.

Two parts of this problem were created by GW:

First, the settlement alignment restrictions of 1-step which is foolish and I have little doubt GW does not have the capacity or will have the desire to hold settlements to it.

Alignment as a funnel = flawed vision, not role playing. It encourages min-maxing, with disproportionate number of Lawful based settlements. A failure of imagination.

Second, the first land rush results were to be discarded and this second was to be used. The first Land Rush was not tied to accounts, it was not explained what people were really voting for, and many of the votes were bogus secondary accounts (people with no intentions of even playing PFO).

Now, based on the numbers, the top three may not have been any different (other than order, perhaps), but all of this controversy (real or fabricated) would have been avoided.

As I wrote earlier, GW wins the internetz... They have the first controversy over an in-game items, before day one of Alpha testing. That has to be a record.


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

Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

I'm sure the term you're thinking of is 'trawling', but it is a happy coincidence, that one of the principle methods of 'trolling' is to lay some bait, and see who you reel in.

*Cough*

Actually, they are two different types of fishing.

Trolling is where you drag a line.

Trawling is where you drag a net.

I know this because I made a joke about it in some fanfiction I wrote once. :P

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
The evidence that makes me think the latter is more likely than the former is that I haven't seen a screenshot of an officer of Aeternum or Pax telling people how to vote.

The posts were actually linked in the OP and referenced a few times later.

Here's the screenshot, and here's the link to the publicly visible thread.

In addition, Keovar makes it very clear that this really is their policy above:

Keovar wrote:

Those Aeternians who didn't vote for one of the top 3 groups which GW split off would still have a vote to cast.

If they vote for Aeternum on the GW site, it's wasted because the first round was done with the old poll and Aeternum isn't really in the GW-site poll as a competitor.
If they don't vote at all, it's wasted.
If they vote for what might turn out to be a future opponent, that could be worse than wasted.
Voting for an ally is a rational response the situation.

It is this insistence that this blatant, brazen abuse is justified that has me very concerned right now.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I don't think that Hobs or Keovar were officers in either Pax Gaming or Aeternum. Am I wrong on that point of objective fact?

EDIT: officers status is relevant because of Pax security rules, where the information shared with Rawn was obviously not disseminated to lay members.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.

Pax Gaming has made no such directive to the members of Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, or Pax Fidelis, nor would it. Nor would it be within the rights of the Inner Sanctum make such a directive, if it wanted to, as it would be considered a Divisional matter rather than a Community matter.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I don't think that Hobs or Keovar were officers in either Pax Gaming or Aeternum. Am I wrong on that point of objective fact?

Hobs is the "Emprah" of The Empire of Xeilias, which is the in-game umbrella organization for Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, and Pax Fidelis.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Rawn wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.
Pax Gaming has made no such directive to the members of Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, or Pax Fidelis, nor would it. Nor would it be within the rights of the Inner Sanctum make such a directive, if it wanted to, as it would be considered a Divisional matter rather than a Community matter.

If anyone in a position of authority over any members of Pax Aeternum or Pax Golgotha is so instructing those members to vote for Pax Golgotha despite a clearly expressed desire to be a member of Pax Aeternum, then my objections remain.

Being clearly asked by Ryan to - on your honor - not vote for another Settlement if you don't plan to live there, and then voting for another Settlement even though you don't plan to live there sends a very clear signal.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Pax Rawn wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If Pax Gaming is instructing all of their members to vote for Pax Golgotha as long as they haven't already voted for TEO, Pax Aeternum, or T7V in the first Land Rush, then I think it's very clear that Pax is a single Guild and I would emphatically withdraw my support for Pax Golgotha even being in this phase of the Land Rush.
Pax Gaming has made no such directive to the members of Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, or Pax Fidelis, nor would it. Nor would it be within the rights of the Inner Sanctum make such a directive, if it wanted to, as it would be considered a Divisional matter rather than a Community matter.

If anyone in a position of authority over any members of Pax Aeternum or Pax Golgotha is so instructing those members to vote for Pax Golgotha despite a clearly expressed desire to be a member of Pax Aeternum, then my objections remain.

Being clearly asked by Ryan to - on your honor - not vote for another Settlement if you don't plan to live there, and then voting for another Settlement even though you don't plan to live there sends a very clear signal.

Nobody has a position of authority over Aeternum, Golgotha, or Fidelis, since each of those three guilds has a member sitting on the Inner Sanctum. And, like I said before, the IS has not and can not direct the members of those guilds to vote for other guilds. The IS exists to maintain the Community, not the Guilds (as was pointed out somewhat earlier in this thread). So, nobody in a position of authority over the three Pax Gaming PFO Divisions has instructed anyone to do anything.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I don't think that Hobs or Keovar were officers in either Pax Gaming or Aeternum. Am I wrong on that point of objective fact?
Hobs is the "Emprah" of The Empire of Xeilias, which is the in-game umbrella organization for Pax Aeternum, Pax Golgotha, and Pax Fidelis.

That's a "no", as I understand it. If Hobs was in a position to tell Aeternum, Golgotha, and Fidelis members how to vote, that alone would be sufficient evidence that they are one division (using Pax jargon) or guild (using Land Rush jargon).

Of course, that just pushes the question of fact slightly elsewhere; what authority does the Emprah of Xeilias have?

It would be nice to see an instruction from Charlie George telling all members of Aeternum that they should not vote for anyone else, and the lack of such a directive is one reason I still think there is discussion to be had. The other big reason is that Pax Gaming has taken the position that the alleged behavior (being a member of Aeternum in fact, while voting for Golgotha) is compatible with the rules of Pax Gaming as regards complying with the intent of developers.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I don't think that Hobs or Keovar were officers in either Pax Gaming or Aeternum. Am I wrong on that point of objective fact?

Of course, that just pushes the question of fact slightly elsewhere; what authority does the Emprah of Xeilias have?

"Emprah" is an in house joke. Hobs is the Ambassador of Xeilias. Xeilias has no actual emperor.

Goblin Squad Member

There are multiple long-term members of Pax either instructing new members to vote for Pax Golgotha even though the new member has expressed a clear intent to join Pax Aeternum, or justifying Pax Aeternum members voting for Pax Golgotha.

Your dancing around technicalities, Rawn, does nothing to alleviate any of my concerns, and the lack of anyone in authority over Pax Golgotha or Pax Aeternum instructing their Members to vote in accordance with the clearly expressed restrictions from Ryan further convinces me that Pax Aeternum members who did not vote for TEO, Pax, or T7V in the first Land Rush are expected and encouraged to vote for Pax Golgotha in this phase of the Land Rush.

It is a remarkable display of a lack of honor, although I have no doubt being called out for that will motivate even more Pax Gaming members to come to PFO and support their Guild.

Goblin Squad Member

Seriously did anyone NOT see this coming they day they announced the landrush?

Its human nature to exploit the system whenever possible for personal gain at the expense of others.

My personal opinion is if the members of the two guilds involved want to vote for there own guild and both get a settlement, thats fine and dandy, they deserve them.

If however, as is rumored to be the case the first guild has a settlement already and is directing its members to vote for another guild, allied or otherwise, then GW should put there foot down and strip BOTH guilds of there settlements for trying to cheat the system against the spirit of the rules.

My understanding is the landrush only exists to GIVE free settlements to a select few people because GW is releasing a vastly incomplete and barely functioning game (and charging a subscription fee for last time I checked) that will not have the mechanism for gaining settlements the way they should be gained, through game play and force of arms.

If in fact settlements are as important as GW seems to imply then this could very well create a game where people not GIVEN there free settlements will never ever be able to catch up or compete.

If so giving any one group two such settlements through chicanery and fraud would be inexcusable.


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

Wait... a little behind here.

There is something I think I have misunderstood.

Concerning trolling, I have always thought it originated from the fishing term, and people less fishy later just assumed it had anything to do with actual trolls.

Am I missing something?

Would make more sense, if Blud is a trained fisherman.

I'm sure the term you're thinking of is 'trawling', but it is a happy coincidence, that one of the principle methods of 'trolling' is to lay some bait, and see who you reel in.

Pretty sure I am thinking trolling, which involves lures and bait vs trawling that involves nets (like commercial fishin they do on all 5 boats my family own).

You made me double check if it was a language thing though, so kudos :-)

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nihimon and the PFO Community,

First, the term "Emprah" has been cast in my direction as a running gag within Pax even before I joined Pax Gaming. It was started as a friendly and absurd joke about all my social networking, community efforts, and the like being a cover for a deep, dark plot of world domination. It is a joke that others outside Pax have joined in on as well...though all the while knowing it was a joke, and that I have no more authority in Pax than any other teal ranked officer. That you, Nihimon, have taken it at face value without pursuing the source of its meaning among those who use it, even so far as to link our recruiting thread in your post so as to discredit me personally and The Empire of Xeilias by association, is quite possibly the lowest maneuver I have witnessed on these forums. At least those who have attacked others simply because they dislike one another have, in the past, made their true motives clear. But to attempt to discredit me and Pax in an ongoing effort to invalidate the bulk of Golgotha's legitimate votes in the Land rush, then wrap it in a seeming sheath of "for the good of the community and in the true spirit of the game" should be so far beneath you as the actions of those truly nefarious posters you have called out in the past.

To the topic at hand. Yes, I posted that reply to a new member of Pax not to promote some rule breaking, evil plot, but because my understanding of the rules came from a post by an actual GW developer, Lee Hammock, and as with everything I try to do in gaming, I was attempting to be helpful. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Ryan Dancey and his developers have made contradictory statements, or that one has said something initially, only to be superseded by the other. Mr. Hammock's post that led me to believe that you could "join a guild" (which is how the voting button on the Land Rush board is phrased), whether you intend to be a member of that guild or not, is linked below. His mention of selling one's vote for promised favors seemed far less in keeping with Mr. Dancey's directions than my perception of aiding a fellow nation level member, thus reinforcing my belief that you were able to vote for whichever guild you wished as long as you had not cast a vote for any of the top three in the previous landrush. I have nothing against either Mr. Hammock or Mr. Dancey, but such contradictions leave far too much open to interpretation.

Lee Hammock's Post

He further states:

Lee Hammock's Second Post

For the good of our members' paid right to vote, our three Divisions made their decision on the matter of Golgotha's inclusion in the Landrush. Though provided the right to choose, it has apparently not pleased everyone, though many people (many more than the vocal few would like to admit) have posted that they certainly understand the choice we made.

If Goblin works would be so kind as to make a final call on the matter of the misunderstanding I have outlined above, and if it is found that I acted wrongly in my advice, we are more than ready to remove the six votes made by Aeternum members.

That aside, I fully understand and believe in Ryan's view that some part of "policing" PFO needs to be left in the hands of the community itself, but hopefully more by in-game actions than slur campaigns on the forums. Contrary to his comments about Ultima Online, I have witnessed at least one UO community successfully police itself in an open world, PvP format, so I know it is possible. However, policies that impact on paying customers rights, especially when policy is exacerbated by potentially contradictory statements from company employees, is not one of those times. This matter deals with the first stage of PFO's competitive gameplay, since the ownership of settlements, the structures at the very heart of PFO, are being determined.

I do not believe GW should be leaving any part of this decision to the community, especially not left to the devices of some competing individuals, especially those who espouse to fight for the soul of this community, yet attack one of its own in this shabby fashion, and especially when the possible ramifications for which would nullify votes in that very same competition. Is Golgotha competing with The Seventh Viel for a settlement position - no...but there are plenty of other Roseblood Accord Chartered Settlements would potentially benefit from this political maneuvering and attempted public opinion manipulation.

Put plainly, Nihimon knows where to find me. T7V has an ambassador with The Xeilian Empire (a person I consider a friend) with whom I spoke just two days ago and who also has multiple means of contacting me. If this was at all an issue Nihimon wished to question me about or address in any fashion at all rather than smear it across the Paizo forums for his possible gains, the opportunities were present. This is not how positive, meaningful community building is conducted.

I, the Imperial Ambassador for the Empire of Xeilias, and the Empire as a whole, await word from the only real authority in this matter. I have no plans, and will hopefully not be tempted by ongoing postings of misinformation and attacks, to reply until that time.

Hobs

Goblin Squad Member

As a last comment, responding only to my own post, I apologize to the PFO community that I had any part in causing misunderstanding or in any way needing to drag out this unproductive thread.

I have avoided involvement in flame wars for the better part of a year or more. I have always tried to practice patience and temperance when tempted to post with emotion. I have tried to give others the benefit of the doubt and let things go, even if I thought I was in the right, for the sake of not causing drama. So again, I apologize to the community, regardless of the cause, for not being able to do so in this instance.

Hobs

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The guidance so far is unambiguous. The only bit in question is what the actions of Pax officers have been, and the answer to that appears to be "nothing".

The leaders of Arternum, Golgotha, and Pax Gaming have apparently neither encouraged nor discouraged a specific behavior that is arguably outright cheating even through six (according to Hobs) members are engaged in it.

If 5-10% of your organization is engaging in behavior that the community questions, you might want to do more than nothing.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EoX Hobs wrote:
That you, Nihimon, have taken it at face value without pursuing the source of its meaning among those who use it, even so far as to link our recruiting thread in your post so as to discredit me personally and The Empire of Xeilias by association, is quite possibly the lowest maneuver I have witnessed on these forums.

You're dancing around technicalities the same way Rawn did, and making a false appeal for Ryan to do the very thing he said he would not do as a means of trying to insulate your Guild from the consequences of your actions. It doesn't matter if you're an officer or not, what matters is that Keovar's post makes very clear that it is standard policy for Pax Aeternum members to vote for Pax Golgotha, and that your guild feels justified in doing so.

I supported Golgotha getting a Settlement in the Land Rush, vocally and sincerely, before this thread was made and again as soon as I saw this thread. I still support Golgotha getting a Settlement, because of my personal knowledge of the history of that group, and because of my personal respect for some of its leaders.

I had also ignored the fact that the OP and a later post by TEO ArchAnjel both linked to your involvement, because I didn't think it mattered, and it certainly wasn't worth fighting over.

What has me seriously concerned right now is Pax's decision to blatantly flaunt the fact that they're utterly ignoring Ryan's restrictions, a fact made very clear by Keovar's post above.

351 to 400 of 968 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Concerning Pax in the Land Rush All Messageboards