Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Hobs stated, if we have broken the spirit of the requests from the developers we will remove the six votes in question. I apologize in advance if such is indeed the case.
Representatives from a huge power block with a vested interest in discrediting us is not the heart of the community.
We spoke with TEO, TSV, Darcnes, and many others before the land rush went live. We spoke with developers in emails and on these forums. We made a call we thought was in line with the rules.
If that is not the case it is important for us to correct it. It is important for us to apologize, it is important for us to move on.
That determination should not be made by community representatives that are actively engaged in a power structure that benefits from our removal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
400th post!
EDIT: Dammit, what are you guys doing in my thread?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There you have it: The official position of Aeternum is that members of Aeternum are permitted to vote for Golgotha. Additionally, Pax Gaming has made it clear that such behavior does not violate the Pax Gaming Charter
I'm not going to try to change their minds anymore. I won't even do more than mention my position that explicitly refusing to discourage that behavior has the actual effect of encouraging it, mostly because there has been a lot of pressure on the principals to take an explicit stance.
This does not mean that I consider those questions subjective, or that my position is immutable.
The position of The Seventh Veil remains, and will remain, that members of TSV should not vote for anyone else during the Land Rush, even if they didn't vote in the first poll.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aeternum has no official stance on who its members vote for other than to obey the rules as Goblinworks has set forth, not how the community percieves them when their allies have a vested interest in the same competition. We are not going to tell people how to spend their votes, they paid money for their EE accounts that include a vote in the landrush unless they voted in Land Rush one. We are not pushing for or restricting our recruits from doing anything with their votes. I am not saying that officers were not quoted otherwise, but quite frankly that's not their call to make. Our official stance is to abide by the land rush rules as they have been explained. Our members are free to do what they want with their vote as they paid for it, unless Goblinworks says otherwise.
As previously stated, we are more than willing to remove the votes once an official call is made if it is determined that we are out of line. Until then, no Aeternum directive will be published or enforced that regulates anything anyone pays for.
If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it likely to be more productive if we don't immediately assume the other side is slandering/cheating for their own selfish aims? Maybe Nihimon really thinks there's a problem. Maybe Pax folk really believe there's a gray area that needs to be clarified. There clearly have been conflicting statements.
Is personal bias impacting how sides are interpreting things? Definitely. And probably on both sides. But that doesn't mean either side is out to manipulate the game/community.
We aren't barbarians. I say we give each other the benefit of the doubt and drop the charged language. All it's gonna do is get this thread locked.
...
I say we let this one play out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It has nothing to do with a smear campaign. That's why I tried to make a short post, without any namecalling or pointing fingers, about the issue as I see it.
You are right in suggesting that TEO and T7V are involved in this. Partly because they are the other two of the three largest groups now in PFO, and also because they are the other two of three to whom this special rule applies. They are also the two of three that are following the specific rule. The very rule stated that technically, people of the big 3 winning settlements would be able to vote for other guilds, and that Ryan was asking them not too; he then stated he would let the community decide what was right, rather than attempting to police it himself.
This is the other two out of three settlements telling you that we believe having members of a Land Rush 1 winner vote for another settlement is wrong (actually, I haven't directly contacted TEO, but they are also following the rule in the same way T7V is, to my knowledge).
We have as much to gain by funneling votes to other settlements as Aeternum, we simply aren't. It's not that we would gain from Aeternum correcting it's behavior, it's that we lose, along with the other Land Rush 2 participants, if Aeternum does not follow the rule that the other 2 out of 3 Land Rush 1 settlements are following.
I think we're all very happy to let you voluntarily correct the mistake and move on; that is the only action available to us, as GW has already said they have concerns but will trust the community to handle it.
We are especially willing to move on because, as already stated by both sides, many of our members, ambassadors, and leaders have immense respect and friendships with those of the other groups. I'm somewhat disappointed that our friends think so little of us as to paint us in this negative light with so little precedent; though I understand that passions flare up in such a serious situation. It only inflames the situation more that some feel they have been betrayed by a trusted friend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is where we talk our problems out. Getting no response or responses that seem to indicate there is no problem can be frustrating in any conversation.
What Lee Hammock stated is a general rule. What Ryan posted is a rule specific to Aeternum, T7V, and TEO. Obviously, the specific supersedes the general. And there needs to be a specific rule, because while other groups may trade votes amongst themselves, they run the risk of losing their own settlement spot. Thus, it is fair enough that they do as they wish, accepting the consequences of their actions.
T7V has a guaranteed settlement.
TEO has a guaranteed settlement.
Aeternum has a guaranteed settlement.
These three could technically influence the Land Rush 2 by funneling new member votes to allies, to the detriment of other groups. T7V and TEO are informing their members of the specific rule that explicitly asks not to do this, and explicitly has no enforcement mechanism other than community involvement. Aeternum has confirmed that they will not attempt to stop their recruits from breaking this rule (leaving aside evidence that some are encouraging it).
Really, if this is a matter of not realizing the rules put forth by GW and being followed by others, then it should now be obvious that a mistake was made.
We can make mistakes, we can correct them, and we can forgive them. It's especially easy for me, since I have nothing but respect for Hobs and fully believe that his comment as linked was made without malicious intent. I mean, cmon, Hobs is one of the pillars of the community...
I have little doubt that Aeternum, Golgatha, and their members can put this behind them and never hear about it again if they take action; we're all respected players at a table. Or it could haunt them forevermore.
I guess there isn't much else to discuss, then.
EDIT: To make crystal clear: I only mention Hobs because his name carries such weight that I believe the mention will, on its own, convince many of those that frequent these forums that this was an honest mistake, to be forgiven without a second thought. Sorry if I've offended you, Hobs; it truly does pain me to recognize that you feel you've been attacked/betrayed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is, and I pose this to the Devs as much as anyone here, what if new recruits from a broader gaming community are not represented by the proposed alignments of their current community's settlement?
We have been told that the land rush voting is for a settlement that fits the criteria for the individual character and does not require that they join the founding company's group.
So if company "A" sets up a LG settlement, none of company "A'"s CN character playing members can vote for any other settlement, even though they can not train in company "A's" settlement.
This essentially limits voting based on alignment. It favors all but the chaotic settlements, and or characters.
It creates a false choice between not voting for any settlement or breaking an "unwritten or specified" rule and voting for a settlement that will suit your character's needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no expert on this game. Why would Company A create a LG settlement if it has CN members?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly clear, if this:
In the interest of transparency, I wanted to share with the community the message I just sent to the leaders of the 3 guilds who won Phase I of the Land Rush - Emyprean Order, Pax Aeternum and the Seventh Veil:
Dear Guild Leaders: Please feel free to distribute this message as widely as you wish - this is all public info!
Congratulations on winning Phase I of the Guild Land Rush!
When we created the promotion in the middle of the 2nd Kickstarter campaign for Pathfinder Online we were trying everything we could think of to help get people excited enough about the project to back it and thus help us hit our funding goal. With the help of folks like you the community responded magnificently and we were able to achieve our goal, which led directly to our being able to expand the development team and speed up the delivery of the game substantially. Both of those factors helped reduce the risk in the project (risk that with all MMOs is already immense!) The time is drawing near for players to begin their first days of exploration in the River Kingdoms and to start telling their own stories in our sandbox.
We announced recently that 3 guilds were being recognized as the "winners" of the Phase I Guild Land Rush: The Empyrean Order, Pax Aeternum and The Seventh Veil. Those 3 guilds were given the chance to select a starting hex to put their initial Settlement into as Early Enrollment begins, and exempted from the need to continue to compete in Phase II of the Land Rush promotion.
We wanted to clarify a few things subsequent to that announcement, and preceding the opening of Phase II to avoid potential confusion.
Everyone who voted for a Guild other than the 3 winners is a "free agent" in Phase II. They can affiliate themselves with any Guild they would like in Phase II.
If you voted for one of the 3 winners in Phase I, we ask that you not take part in Phase II. Your votes have already been counted, and your impact on the game is assured.
Every vote cast in Phase I was recorded by Paizo...
Thread supersedes the clarification I attempted to get from this thread:
If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?
Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.
Six months into beta are we going to stop and check to make sure everyone is in the settlement they are supposed to be in based on this vote? No, we're not going to do that. People get mad at each other, things change, stuff happens.This seems in conflict with earlier information, can we be relatively assured that this is indeed the case?If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?
Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.
Then we collectively misunderstood the intent, were wrong, and need to make it right. That is why I am requesting clarification from developers then. That is why I ask for it now.
It is not to find loopholes or play a battle of rule bending. If it is against the rules, we need to change it. If it is against the spirit of the rules then we need to change it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no expert on this game. Why would Company A create a LG settlement if it has CN members?
Because in a large gaming community, not all players are looking to play characters in the same three alignment range that the 1-step alignment rule limits them to.
Furthermore, the Devs have created the strong impression that Lawful aligned settlements will have an advantage over non lawful aligned settlements. Whether that was intentional or not makes no difference. Whether is is accurate or not makes no difference either. The perception is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are chaotic Companies. Why don't the CN players go to those? I hear Freevale is nice.
;)
But seriously, if their Company is leaving them behind, there's nothing the players can do but join someone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is against the spirit of the rules then we need to change it.
Maybe Lee would be willing to come in and clarify whether his general statement about players that didn't belong to a guild was meant to override Ryan's very direct request of the winners of the first phase of the Land Rush.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no expert on this game. Why would Company A create a LG settlement if it has CN members?Because in a large gaming community, not all players are looking to play characters in the same three alignment range that the 1-step alignment rule limits them to.
Furthermore, the Devs have created the strong impression that Lawful aligned settlements will have an advantage over non lawful aligned settlements. Whether that was intentional or not makes no difference. Whether is is accurate or not makes no difference either. The perception is.
Create a new thread about that and I'll respond. :p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is against the spirit of the rules then we need to change it.Maybe Lee would be willing to come in and clarify whether his general statement about players that didn't belong to a guild was meant to override Ryan's very direct request of the winners of the first phase of the Land Rush.
I hope so, because I certainly did not take it as a general statement. Otherwise I would have had no reason to ask for the clarification from him that I did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you for your response. However, the quote you supplied was automatically cut off by the reply funtion, for clarity:
From the thread titled Restrictions on Winners of Phase 1 of the Guild Land Rush:
We announced recently that 3 guilds were being recognized as the "winners" of the Phase I Guild Land Rush: The Empyrean Order, Pax Aeternum and The Seventh Veil. Those 3 guilds were given the chance to select a starting hex to put their initial Settlement into as Early Enrollment begins, and exempted from the need to continue to compete in Phase II of the Land Rush promotion.
We wanted to clarify a few things subsequent to that announcement, and preceding the opening of Phase II to avoid potential confusion.
Everyone who voted for a Guild other than the 3 winners is a "free agent" in Phase II. They can affiliate themselves with any Guild they would like in Phase II.
If you voted for one of the 3 winners in Phase I, we ask that you not take part in Phase II. Your votes have already been counted, and your impact on the game is assured.
Every vote cast in Phase I was recorded by Paizo by Pazio.com username. So if necessary, we can extract the list of user accounts who voted in Phase I and match them to the users who will participate in Phase II and identify people who have decided to violate this request. We hope we won't have to do that - it's a lot of work, and we have an MMO to build. But to protect the integrity of Phase II, we want to make sure everyone knows it can and will be done if we deem it necessary.
One of the first questions we have been asked is if a Guild can have a second entry in Phase II. We would like to discourage that. The purpose of the Land Rush is to get as wide an audience as possible for the game and if you already have won Phase I, adding a new guild to compete in Phase II isn't helping us meet that goal.
A follow on question to that regards federations of guilds where several independent groups pledge to work together in-game. This is a bit of a corner-case but we would rather err on the side of engagement than in disengagement. So we are ok with federated guilds participating in Phase II, with the proviso that anyone who voted for a winning guild in Phase I is still ineligible to participate in Phase II. A "federated guild" is a separate organization of people organized primarily independently of a guild that won Phase I, not just a subset of a winning Phase I guild's members who want to have their own identity and take part in Phase II.
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.
Ryan made a long, specific, and formal post about T7V, Aeternum, and TEO on May 5th, while Lee put out a brief, very general 3 sentences on May 6th.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand, and I was certainly not attempting to cut the message off short for nefarious purposes.
Again, I asked for clarity from Lee specifically because I thought it conflicted with earlier information. I stated in that reply I thought it conflicted with earlier information.
I walked away from that conversation with a different perception of the expectations than you. That is why I asked, bluntly, in that thread. That is why I am asking now.
If we were wrong, we are willing to own it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope so, because I certainly did not take it as a general statement. Otherwise I would have had no reason to ask for the clarification from him that I did.If it is against the spirit of the rules then we need to change it.Maybe Lee would be willing to come in and clarify whether his general statement about players that didn't belong to a guild was meant to override Ryan's very direct request of the winners of the first phase of the Land Rush.
I'm quite certain you'd have gotten a much clearer answer if you'd been direct about applying Lee's statement to one of the three Land Rush winners.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite certain you'd have gotten a much clearer answer if you'd been direct about applying Lee's statement to one of the three Land Rush winners.I hope so, because I certainly did not take it as a general statement. Otherwise I would have had no reason to ask for the clarification from him that I did.If it is against the spirit of the rules then we need to change it.Maybe Lee would be willing to come in and clarify whether his general statement about players that didn't belong to a guild was meant to override Ryan's very direct request of the winners of the first phase of the Land Rush.
Then in the future I will make certain to be extra clear. I thought my tag, and my past emails with developers made my association clear.
It simply did not occur to me at the time that my question would be taken as a general one.
Again, if it was a blunder, it needs to be owned. That said nothing either group has done involved nefarious intent.
I am willing to be the school dunce, I am not willing to be the community Gargomel. There is enough time in game to earn that reputation.
It's "Gargamel". And preying on the smurfs is supposed to be my job.
Uh, not that I created the smurfolds through hideous experiments on kobold and smurf DNA befouling the very essence of nature.
...smurf? :D
This post brought to you by the Stone Bear Clan: Be Legendary!™
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, Nihimon and T7V guys (along with a couple TEO guys)... WTF is wrong with you? Do you guys seriously fear Pax so much that you have to go on this witch hunt?
They are not breaking the rules one bit. Ryan was pretty clear about it. You guys just look like fools and cry babies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Phew! I was worried we'd come to some sort of well-mannered agreement for a second there!
I'm just gonna hop in before the argument starts again and ask Xeen, as a fairly disinterested fourth party, to tone down his post. A lot. Or just remove it and wait for someone at GW to settle the matter without any more drama, accusations disparaging someone's integrity, and general namecalling.
Alternatively, those Xeen is targeting can choose to just ignore his post and likewise wait for someone's word. Better yet, whoever heads the company Xeen belongs to (I don't know his affiliations) can step in and personally have him stand down. We do not need to extend this debate further, and certainly not with the tone Xeen is trying to set.
All further arguing will do is bring in yet more opportunity for folk to hold grudges against each other. I know this post may be a bit naive, but I figure someone should at least try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody deserves to be flamed. At worst, people deserve to be ignored or blandly called out. Flaming just makes you and your organization look childish.
I don't look at my posts because kobolds can't understand Common unless they have a high Intelligence bonus, and thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice papercut and pour lemon juice on it? THREAD CLOSED!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Phew! I was worried we'd come to some sort of well-mannered agreement for a second there!
I'm just gonna hop in before the argument starts again and ask Xeen, as a fairly disinterested fourth party, to tone down his post. A lot. Or just remove it and wait for someone at GW to settle the matter without any more drama, accusations disparaging someone's integrity, and general namecalling.
Alternatively, those Xeen is targeting can choose to just ignore his post and likewise wait for someone's word. Better yet, whoever heads the company Xeen belongs to (I don't know his affiliations) can step in and personally have him stand down. We do not need to extend this debate further, and certainly not with the tone Xeen is trying to set.
All further arguing will do is bring in yet more opportunity for folk to hold grudges against each other. I know this post may be a bit naive, but I figure someone should at least try.
Funny, you didn't have this speech for Nihimon when he disparaged Hobs.
I founded Xeen's company, and I not only fully endorse his statements, but I tell him Unleash All Hell!!!!
Here once again in this thread we have Nihimon trying to play for the "Soul of the Community" yet all he is attempting to do is limit his competition vs. his Carebear Protectorate
Now beat it, or I'll call the Goblin Squad!
Funny, you didn't have this speech for Nihimon when he disparaged Hobs.
Because I didn't know the full story. I later told him to stop implying Hobs was cheating, and the argument has since been postponed until GW gives word, so I think he might have listened.
I founded Xeen's company, and I not only fully endorse his statements, but I tell him Unleash All Hell!!!!
You know what? I went between several responses here—one a Puff the Magic Dragon parody—and I've got nothing. Speaking as someone who's on multiple occasions defended you when I felt you were being unfairly harassed, I've just got nothing more to say to you.
I only hope that the two halves of Pax will be more mature than UNC seems to want to be. And I really hope that UNC reconsiders. If you truly do think Nihimon is being immature, why would you be so eager to stand at his level?
Thank you for your posts, KC (it's alright if I call you that, right? I thought I saw Nihimon refer to you that way...)
I feel like you came back right when we needed you. I've already had several good laughs that have helped me keep things in perspective here.
Thanks, Kakafika. You honor me. Your own efforts have been admirable—this thread doesn't seem to want to chill out anytime soon. :P
And yes, KC is an old nickname of mine, along with "lizard boah".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Funny, you didn't have this speech for Nihimon when he disparaged Hobs.
Because I didn't know the full story. I later told him to stop implying Hobs was cheating, and the argument has since been postponed until GW gives word, so I think he might have listened.
I founded Xeen's company, and I not only fully endorse his statements, but I tell him Unleash All Hell!!!!You know what? I went between several responses here—one a Puff the Magic Dragon parody—and I've got nothing. Speaking as someone who's on multiple occasions defended you when I felt you were being unfairly harassed, I've just got nothing more to say to you.
I only hope that the two halves of Pax will be more mature than UNC seems to want to be. And I really hope that UNC reconsiders. If you truly do think Nihimon is being immature, why would you be so eager to stand at his level?
Why are you taking my support for Xeen as an attack on you? I only questioned the balance of the application of your speech, not what you had said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought you said you do not want to continue any more drama. You are doing a fine job of it.
Those guys do not deserve respect. If they wanted to talk to Pax about it, they know very well where to do that. They do not like us bringing up these kind of things about them.
Oh yeah, I forgot.
We already have one gaming group with two settlements. And they are pushing to get others within their group some as well. Hmmm, So it looks to me that The BloodRose Accord will have six settlements. Huh, but that is ok right?
I don't see it as an attack on me. But supporting Xeen means supporting statements like:
Do you guys seriously fear Pax so much that you have to go on this witch hunt?
You guys just look like fools and cry babies.
Really? Have you not looked at your posts?
If they wanted to be treated as men, then they should have handled this as men.
Xeen is also reviving an argument which has been deliberately put on hold—by members of those groups that are actually a part of this controversy. As far as I know, UNC is not being accused of misunderstanding any systems. Xeen is stepping in to flame on behalf of people that are trying to maintain a no-smoking zone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought you said you do not want to continue any more drama. You are doing a fine job of it.
Dude, how do you equate "Stop yelling at people!" with continuing drama? The dust had settled before you came in and started shooting the ground like Yosemite Sam.
However, I will say that I agree with Hobs that Nihimon should have handled this more personally, instead of issuing edicts on the forums. A PM discussion probably would not have settled things, but it would have shown more commitment to working things out peacefully. And quietly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...that kobold sent us 500 requests for us to make this "My Little Pony: The MMO."
"Well, Ryan, you know the Goblinworks Edicts. Majority of posts rules."
"Crowdforging seemed like such a good idea at the time!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We already have one gaming group with two settlements. And they are pushing to get others within their group some as well. Hmmm, So it looks to me that The BloodRose Accord will have six settlements. Huh, but that is ok right?
You really aren't capable of seeing why this is a terrible argument? To you, 2 Pax groups each getting a settlement = a loose agreement of independent groups saying "let's not be dicks to people in game".
Yeah, OK Xeen.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see it as an attack on me. But supporting Xeen means supporting statements like:
Do you guys seriously fear Pax so much that you have to go on this witch hunt?You guys just look like fools and cry babies.Really? Have you not looked at your posts?
If they wanted to be treated as men, then they should have handled this as men.
Xeen is also reviving an argument which has been deliberately put on hold—by members of those groups that are actually a part of this controversy. As far as I know, UNC is not being accused of misunderstanding any systems. Xeen is stepping in to flame on behalf of people that are trying to maintain a no-smoking zone.
I dont care what they decided to do.
I brought it up in the first place. I went after T7V and TEO for doing the same kind of thing they are attacking.
Let's keep in mind that we already resolved the issue of Pax being one group, Toombstone. The issue of whether Pax is allowed to hand out votes between its two, separate groups, is the only matter that was still being discussed. I expect that's what you meant, but clarity's important here. ;D
I "have my doubts", but I don't think there's anything duplicitous going on any more than I think people who say paladins can't kill morlock babies are deliberately trying to help morlocks take over the work. We'll wait and see. All it takes is one word from GW and the whole matter is settled.
GW: "Yes."
Everyone: "Yes to what?"
Well, maybe 2-3 words. You get my point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already have one gaming group with two settlements. And they are pushing to get others within their group some as well. Hmmm, So it looks to me that The BloodRose Accord will have six settlements. Huh, but that is ok right?You really aren't capable of seeing why this is a terrible argument? To you, 2 Pax groups each getting a settlement = a loose agreement of independent groups saying "let's not be dicks to people in game".
Yeah, OK Xeen.
With mutual non aggression. That keeps getting left off in some cases, and included in others.
If you are protecting each other you are a nation with a looser reputation model. You are in a meta kingdom agreement. That is not an attack, I wish we had thought of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We already have one gaming group with two settlements. And they are pushing to get others within their group some as well. Hmmm, So it looks to me that The BloodRose Accord will have six settlements. Huh, but that is ok right?You really aren't capable of seeing why this is a terrible argument? To you, 2 Pax groups each getting a settlement = a loose agreement of independent groups saying "let's not be dicks to people in game".
Yeah, OK Xeen.
If you think they do not have a leadership and a plan to play as a kingdom, then you may not have been around these forums long enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really? Have you not looked at your posts?
If they wanted to be treated as men, then they should have handled this as men.
Nothing about ANY of TSV's posts here have been anything BUT well-mannered...
...You guys just look like fools and cry babies...
That is what most people would consider 'ill-mannered'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you taking my support for Xeen as an attack on you? I only questioned the balance of the application of your speech, not what you had said.
Also, Xeen already said he doesn't care if his post gets deleted. That indicates he doesn't care if his messages are considered abusive by the Paizo staff, something I'm troubled to find you support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really? Have you not looked at your posts?
If they wanted to be treated as men, then they should have handled this as men.
Nothing about ANY of TSV's posts here have been anything BUT well-mannered...
...You guys just look like fools and cry babies...That is what most people would consider 'ill-mannered'.
If passive aggressive is well-mannered, then you are right.
I am not here to be well mannered.