Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well then, I'll stop being generous with my interpretation.
I see no way that a policy of refusing to self-police mild behavior is compatible with a comittment to positive gameplay. I think that claiming "no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks punishing the offender is harmful to the community" requires taking a spurious position on one or more of the key issues. And I think that the reason that that position is being taken is to intentionally make "positive gameplay" meaningless enough that few people dedicate themself to improving the community.
The confusion comes from refusing to act as though I believe that any given person is malicious as long as there is a reasonable alternative explanation. "I don't know what this person means when they use this phrase" is a reasonable alternative explanation.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well then, I'll stop being generous with my interpretation.
I see no way that a policy of refusing to self-police mild behavior is compatible with a comittment to positive gameplay. I think that claiming "no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks punishing the offender is harmful to the community"
And so what is your recommended punishment for said "mild" behavior?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And so what is your recommended punishment for said "mild" behavior?Well then, I'll stop being generous with my interpretation.
I see no way that a policy of refusing to self-police mild behavior is compatible with a comittment to positive gameplay. I think that claiming "no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks punishing the offender is harmful to the community"
Make it clear that such behavior is inconsistent with being a member of your group. Start with gentle pushback, such as a "that's not cool", and escalate up as needed, considering the seriousness and number of offenses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Make it clear that such behavior is inconsistent with being a member of your group. Start with gentle pushback, such as a "that's not cool", and escalate up as needed, considering the seriousness and number of offenses.And so what is your recommended punishment for said "mild" behavior?Well then, I'll stop being generous with my interpretation.
I see no way that a policy of refusing to self-police mild behavior is compatible with a comittment to positive gameplay. I think that claiming "no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks punishing the offender is harmful to the community"
Did I not say this repeatedly? That behaviors inconsistent with what GW or we deem to be against our policies would be addressed.
It's the "or" that you've been leaving out in previous posts.
In the event that I receive a report of complaint against one of mybers, and that same complaint was reported to Goblin Works. I would defer to GW decision on the complaint. If GW ultimately determined that the offense, if any, did not require a penalty we would not either.
...
What I don't foresee is our sanctions exceeding those of GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.
This line of questioning has nothing to do with whether or not I used the word "or". This is yet another attempt, this time by another Steward of the Seventh Veil, to control definitions and to demand that all adhere to their determination as to what is positive game play.
Here we have a new and lower threshold. Now even "mild" behavior, not considered a problem by GW is now detrimental to the game. Who has decided this? DeciousBrutus has. Please take note, even Goblin Work's determination makes no difference.
If DeciiusBrutus determines that one of your members has comitted a mild act, that does not conform to his definition, you should punish or even eject a member of your community, otherwise your company is not dedicated to positive game play.
Considering that DeciousBrutus has been following members of the UNC, in multiple threads, with this line of questioning I propose the following be considered. DeciousBrutus does not seem to understand or is not dedicated to the ideals of the Roseblood Accord. He has frequently harassed my members with probing questions, and eventhough our leadership has been open and forthcoming, our motives are continuously questioned.
We are not even in game yet, to let our actions speak volumes as to our dedication to positive game play, and yet we are not to be given that opportunity. We are to be prejudged by the likes of DeciousBrutus?
So the question is, how will the Seventh Veil "push back" on DeciousBrutus' mildly inappropriate behavior that does not seem to be an example of dedication to the Roseblood Accord? What form of verification will TSV be using to inform the other signatories of the Accord that this investigation has taken place?
Or is all of this BS just another UNC exclusive harassment?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.
Right. You have now explicitly said that behavior which does not merit a sanction from Goblinworks is not deemed inappropriate by you.
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
If you want to say that you will have standards that are more stringent than "Don't break the rules", then do so. If you want to actually have standards that are more stringent than the bare minimum, then having a feedback form that doesn't actively mock complainants is... not quite a good start, but at least it isn't a giant leap backwards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.
Right. You have now explicitly said that behavior which does not merit a sanction from Goblinworks is not deemed inappropriate by you.
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
If you want to say that you will have standards that are more stringent than "Don't break the rules", then do so. If you want to actually have standards that are more stringent than the bare minimum, then having a feedback form that doesn't actively mock complainants is... not quite a good start, but at least it isn't a giant leap backwards.
It was already said several times in this thread what the UNC policy would be. You have a bad habit of selective reading. Do a re-read for some clarity, reading everything.
Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.
This line of questioning has nothing to do with whether or not I used the word "or". This is yet another attempt, this time by another Steward of the Seventh Veil, to control definitions and to demand that all adhere to their determination as to what is positive game play.
Awesome! Apparently I've been promoted to a Steward of the Seventh Veil!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a conversation in which an individual/organization judges the policies of another organization and how they will handle their internal corrections/discipline is befitting of this thread.
An agreement to promote positive game-play should not try to ostracize any organization that is trying to fulfill a role within the River Kingdoms that will create a dynamic and vibrant world. The policies that organizations choose to enact regarding their own internal discipline are not up for debate. Nor should any signatory attempt to overstep their authority and declare which policies are, or are not right for the community.
I have complete confidence that it will be understood when I say:
Golgotha puts more trust and authority in her own citizens than it does to any outside organization/individual, especially when said organization or individual has no direct ties to Golgotha, The Empire, or the Northern Coalition.
An individual who is not backed by a settlement/organization that has claims against Golgotha will not likely be heard by Golgothan officials. To listen to the claims of every individual that may or may not feel as if they were treated unfairly would bog down our system.
Again to reiterate:
If you are an individual with claims against a Golgothan citizen your first step should be to contact your leadership so that they can address a Golgothan emissary in order to resolve the issue. The burden of proof is placed on Non-Golgothan citizens.
If you are an individual with a claim that is beholden to no organization, you can attempt to resolve your issue by contacting a Golgothan officer on the Xeilian website, if you have no proof to support your claims, you will be dismissed.
Golgotha places a high standard on our citizens, and they reap the rewards for maintaining our standards. If an individual fails to uphold the standards, then they will likely find themselves outside our organization.
Golgotha is a High Reputation, Lawful Evil society, which is not to be confused with Low Reputation Lawful Stupid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.
Right. 2. You have now explicitly said that behavior which does not merit a sanction from Goblinworks is not deemed inappropriate by you.
3. I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
If you want to say that you will have standards that are more stringent than "Don't break the rules", then do so. 1. If you want to actually have standards that are more stringent than the bare minimum, then having a feedback form that doesn't actively mock complainants is... not quite a good start, but at least it isn't a giant leap backwards.
1. At no time did we (UNC) state the nature or structure of any survey. The only person who put forth a guess on that was:
Xeen's public persona, which he's been marvelously careful to keep consistent, tells me that he'll use those messages to giggle a bit, order another drink, then design a training evolution ;-).
Now, I take no offense to what Jazzlvraz posted, because it was clearly meant as a joke. I then continued this line of joking with the following:
I'm planning on Xeen drafting the Victim's Survey. I have little doubt one of the questions will be "What does the color purple taste like?"
Oh.. My..... I forgot to add the ;-)... Seriously? It was obviously a joke.
But from this, DeciousBrutus has attributed what Jazzlvraz wrote as a policy statement of the UNC. Since I do believe DeciousBrutus can read, I'm lead to believe that his misrepresentation is based on poor comprehension skills, an in ability to interpret context clues or another attempt to besmirch the UNC or me personally.
2. I did not explicitly write any such thing. That is another fabrication or another grossly bad interpretation. I never stated one way or the other how UNC policy would match GW or differ from it. How could I? The game is not even out! All I said was that we would defer to whatever GW ruled on, but would still hear complaints. Nothing "explicit" in that.
3. Your "insistence" is noted, and rejected on the grounds that it violates the Roseblood Accord. The signatories of the Roseblood Accord have been repeatedly told that "there is no central authority and no hard set definition of "positive game play" within the accord". This is something that the vocal leadership of The Seventh Veil (Nihimon, and now DeciousBrutus) seem to have difficulty in grasping.
Based on these points and on the straight forward post made by Deacon Wolf, the UnNamed Company will have the following stance:
1. We will not discuss the internal disciplinary policies of the UNC.
2. We defer completely and without question to GW in moderating their own game. If you feel a member of our company has done something wrong, report it to Goblin Works.
3. We will be disengaging from the idea of any kind of a "Victim's Feedback Survey". It is clear that our transparency and openness will be used against the UNC by certain forum contributes. We therefore shelve this idea until the moderation controls of the game are known.
4. We place our utmost confidence in GW to moderate their game in a way that they are comfortable with. We will adhere to their rulings without question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the way I see this playing out...
1) The RA is a voluntary agreement with no real enforcment mechanism and no enforcing authority nor any strict bylaws. In that it is more like a Pledge or a Statement of Principles.
2) The signatories have agreed to "promote positive gameplay". There is no strict definition of this. It will mean whatever it means to each individual signatory. However, I think generaly the signatories see that minimaly as not behaving like a "jerk" toward the general player base and purposefully setting out to ruin the enjoyment of the rest of the player base at large and thus damage the community and PFO's ability to succeed.
3) There is no set procedure for handling complaints about negative gameplay which is established or required by the Accord. Individual signatories will handle such issues in the way each deems appropriate. However, I expect most will simply take it as an informational item which may raise increased awareness among the signatories leadership toward that players in game behavior and whether they are just having individual beefs or they are acting like a jerk to the rest of the player base as a whole. The latter would likely cause the signatories leadership to evaluate whether the member was appropriate to represent the signatories (OOC) values and take whatever corrective action might be appropriate.
4) There is no enforcement mechanism in the RA nor strict definition of "positive gameplay" but any signatories who's consistantly behave in a manner that the majority of the other signatories consider falls outside thier view of "positive gameplay" will be considered to have failed to live up to thier end of the bargain and will have to bare whatever social cost that carries. It's kinda like the "honor" system in that regard.
Attempts to strictly define or adjucate other signatories policies to see how well they fall in line with the RA are, respectfully, a waste of time. Unless there is some enforcement authority or mechanism vested with the power to say Yea or Nay, there is just no point to that. What can be judged is the results of those policies based on how the signatories members behave in game....and I suspect if there is a consistant problem with such behavior which goes unaddressed by the signatories leadership, people will raise that issue right here in this thread.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
I will give you the benefit of having changed your mind on the subject.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.I will give you the benefit of having changed your mind on the subject.
If you want to continue discussing that, do it in PMs or in a thread appropriate for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want to continue discussing that, do it in PMs or in a thread appropriate for it.I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.I will give you the benefit of having changed your mind on the subject.
Is there a thread more appropriate for this? You are also free to PM me and explain how the two quotes I posted reconcile with each other. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had changed your position.
If that is not the case, this is the place to have that discussion. TSV is a signatory of the accord, and you are a Steward of the Seventh Veil. Every other signatory has the right to know how what they have signed is being interpreted.
I will keep this civil, but I will not take this discussion into the shadows. The UNC has made it a defacto policy to discuss public issues out in public view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears to me that the two of you will not reach agreement on this point, so there is nothing positive from continuing to talk in public about it.
It would be nice if all of us in the R.A. agreed on what "Positive Gameplay" means, but at the moment, the downside to arguing about it in public exceeds the possible value of a change in someone's position.
I have no particular issue with either of your definitions, but I also would like to see the two of you talk a bit in private (if you care to) before bringing it back here.
Personally, I think a lot of drama could have been averted if they, and many of the others involved in the little "feud", had spent less time on the forums and more time chatting on Teamspeak.
At this point, though, I think they'd just end up shouting at each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
There is no conflict between those two statements. Nobody is likely to provide any new information to the discussion, so nobody is going to change their mind.
And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.
Your position remains unproductive and argumentative towards the principles of the Roseblood Accord.
The principles of the accord are:
1. There is no central authority
2. There is no hard set definition of what constitutes positive game play.
3. The only requirement of a prospective signatory is that they pledge to adhere to positive game play, as GW will deem that to mean.
Now the UNC, myself in particular, has stated what our definition of " positive game play" is in our view, and that was widely accepted by many who read them. They did bit accept them as their own, but they did accept them as being adequate to include Tge UNC as a signatory.
I will add, that our definition does go beyond the basic "bare minimum, we will follow the rules." We have frequently stated that we will limit our own, permitted, game activities if banditry if we felt that we may be "over fishing the pond".
These two facts you have willfully ignored and instead have decided to lodge baseless agrumebts that we somehow are not dedicated to positive game play.
This is not a UNC issue, this is a TSV leadership issue and a Roseblood Accord membership issue. Your bringing this discussion here instead of in the Roseblood Accord thread will not work. You will not shield yourself from the spot light of the other signatories.
This was reposted from the UNC policy thread, which is not appropriate for Roseblood Accord discussions that involve multiple parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reposting something I asked in the UNC discussion thread by request.
I didn't have anything constructive to add to this new line of conversation until this point was brought up by Decius.
This is not trying to start a fire, if there are discussions on positive gameplay and proactive building I and my ambassador would love to be privy to the conversation.
because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.I am curious of this point as well. If the RBA is talking about what steps we need to take towards a positive gameplay goal I have not been privy to that conversation.
I would not mind having that conversation, but it isn't happening in the KotC RBA forums.
Have I misinterpreted your statement or are there more permissions I and my ambassador need?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Reposting something I asked in the UNC discussion thread by request.
I didn't have anything constructive to add to this new line of conversation until this point was brought up by Decius.
This is not trying to start a fire, if there are discussions on positive gameplay and proactive building I and my ambassador would love to be privy to the conversation.
because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.I am curious of this point as well. If the RBA is talking about what steps we need to take towards a positive gameplay goal I have not been privy to that conversation.
I would not mind having that conversation, but it isn't happening in the KotC RBA forums.
Have I misinterpreted your statement or are there more permissions I and my ambassador need?
At the risk of sounding like inquisition: Isn't there discussion about how to contribute to positive gameplay on the Aeternum forums? I figured Hobs would be working on how the guide program should function, what kind of central authority, repository, or consistency of service it should have, and the like.
There simply is no central authority for how to go about our goals, and as of yet we haven't gotten enough feedback to share iterations on our various methods.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to note in passing that "positive" and "non-negative" are not synonymous.
While this is true and I tend to have the same interpretation of the situation as Decius has, not playing negatively is not advocating positive play, and therefore not sufficient for membership in the RA. I must concede based on what is on paper, to Bluddwolf.
If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.
But the gist is the same, "be the [social] change you want to see in the world."
As written, if Bluddwolf considers himself (and his krewe) to be an example(s) others will try to emulate, then his choice of gameplay, is self-advocating. He is, by playing a certain way, advocating it (leading by example). The question simply becomes at what point we draw the line between negative and non-negative...and positive. Bluddwolf obviously draws the line at the point GW will intercede, below is negative, above is positive. Again, I would disagree, I think GW will be too busy to bother with much that i would consider negative gameplay, and I think there is a not insignificant gap between negative and positive...but I concede that his opinion is as good as mine.
I understand that some people are displeased with the direction the RA has gone, specifically with a watering down of the RAs goals stemming from a broadening of the definition "positive gameplay". I do however, want to point out that it was many of those same people who were specifically against giving the RA both more teeth and defining terms that might be questionable. I know those in TSV are probably getting sick of me saying this, but no norm can be expected to be universal without being explicitly documented.
I also want to remind those same people that all members of the RA have at minimum agreed to Wheatons Law, which is more than we had prior to the RA...for me, that alone is a huge success. My advice to those who want more out of the RA, find others who agree with you and go make it happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figured Hobs would be working on how the guide program should function, what kind of central authority, repository, or consistency of service it should have, and the like.
How the guide Program will function is something we - the Guides - will discuss when we get closer to the need for our services. I do not plan to decide in isolation how the Guide Program should function. Though there will likely be some need for leadership, especially if we go the third Company route, I hope to have very few rules for "consistency of service", as you put it. The one unifying, "consistent" factor will be that Guides want to help new players. How they do that is dependent on their own time limitations, knowledge base, skills, etc.
Actually, it seems very similar to my interpretation of the RBA - we all want to help promote "positive gameplay", but I certainly don't want to be dictated to by anyone else as to what that needs to look like. If the RBA was meant to be a private club with specific rules for membership, and certain members being able to decide if you're being "positive enough," than that should have been in the description from the beginning.
I would agree with -Aet- Charlie...this might be a discussion better had on the RBA forums, especially since these have been used for very little else since Golgotha and Callambea signed the RBA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RA and its wording had way more fans than critics. The critics were just very loud, very persistent and finally got their way. C'est la vie.
Not sure your statement is accurate. Questions were raised and some of the previous signatories said "wait, that isn't what we signed on for". Then changes were made, and many more individuals and groups signed on. That to me says that it is a better product now then it was in its first edition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you go back and read the original post for the Roseblood Accord, I think it should be fairly obvious that it was a declaration of our (TEO & T7V's) intent to make a safe haven of sorts in the southeast, and an invitation for friendly groups to either come and settle next to us or to simply declare their support for our goals and values. We already had the support of a number of groups when we made the announcement, and I'm extremely grateful that we've made some more good friends as a result of it. Our greatest responsibility now is to live up to our promise (again, in the OP) to support those friends.
At the point that groups that were openly hostile to TEO or T7V and our mutual goals began to try to subvert the Roseblood Accord, the unfortunate truth is that it was no longer a meaningful exercise. It served its purpose, but at this point arguing about "what it means" is nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the point that groups that were openly hostile to TEO or T7V and our mutual goals began to try to subvert the Roseblood Accord, the unfortunate truth is that it was no longer a meaningful exercise. It served its purpose, but at this point arguing about "what it means" is nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.
Unless your ideas represent the sum total of TSV or TEO, no one has been openly hostile towards the companies of TSV or TEO.
Where the Accord went astray was when you tried to link the accord membership's self interest to what would define "positive game play". You do not own the term or dictate its definition.
The fact that you see it as no longer a meaningful exercise speaks more to the loss of that self interest than it does to actually producing something that benefits the entire PFO community.
Nothing in the new interpretation of the Roseblood Accord denies you the ability to create an alliance if you wish to. Nor does it prevent you from having a protected zone, as long as you can enforce it. What it denies you from doing is labeling that self interest as the only form of positive game play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless your ideas represent the sum total of TSV or TEO, no one has been openly hostile towards the companies of TSV or TEO.
Where the Accord went astray was when you tried to link the accord membership's self interest to what would define "positive game play". You do not own the term or dictate its definition.
The fact that you see it as no longer a meaningful exercise speaks more to the loss of that self interest than it does to actually producing something that benefits the entire PFO community.
Nothing in the new interpretation of the Roseblood Accord denies you the ability to create an alliance if you wish to. Nor does it prevent you from having a protected zone, as long as you can enforce it. What it denies you from doing is labeling that self interest as the only form of positive game play.
There is one, and only one, official RA document. If you want to stay in this thread and continue to lecture the people who wrote it on what it means, that is your River Freedom.
Til next time Blud, and there will be a next time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is one, and only one, official RA document.So which one is that?
One document. Different rosters.
If you want an example of different documents, go through the history of Pax Gaming and the several dozen incarnations you guys "announce" about as often as you go to the bathroom.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The RA is not the list of signatories. Nor is it the thread. The original post was intended to stand by itself with no clarifications required. Empirically, that failed. However, the RA intentionally provides no mechanism for changing it and can only be clarified by supplemental posts, not changed by them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is one, and only one, official RA document.So which one is that?
Cheatle sent me a PM with a new list to track Roseblood Accord members, apparently I've missed a few before and the PFO Forums are getting so active, I often don't have enough time to do anything more than skim the threads looking for dev posts or posts from friends. That list has replaced the one I had been maintaining in Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links.
Welcome to all the Roseblood Accord signatories, past, present, and future!
I didn't expect anyone to save a link to the old list after I delisted it. I have deleted it now, since it was obsolete.
Sorry if there was any confusion; I meant to be extremely clear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Avari,
I asked a simple question. Yes, I was thinking roster (I'll get to why in a minute) whereas you said "Official RA document". My mistake. Do you usually answer mistakes with snide remarks about the poster's group? Odd, especially when the poster is willing to admit they erred.
My stress of the roster is that two exist. The question is, which of those is official, since I'm guessing those who signed the longer one but not the shorter one will want to know if they're included in Nihimon's comment a few posts before:
"groups that were openly hostile to TEO or T7V and our mutual goals began to try to subvert the Roseblood Accord."
Edited to reply to Nihimon's most recent:
Ah. You've referenced the original thread several times lately, so I clicked on the link that was on the initial post. That clears up the discrepancy between lists, but not who on that list are "openly hostile to TEO or T7V" and tried to "subvert the Roseblood Accord."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not there is a reason for concern about some members and how they interpret Positive Play, this going to continue to be a contentious issue for at least as long as people treat those who are playing an "evil" style differently from those who are not.
If someone has signed on, saying they intend to play positively, people should not be asking them to prove their intentions any more often than they ask anyone else. Erastil's Irregulars has never once been asked what positive play means to us, nor should anyone ask that specifically of us. It's a commitment by players as to how we will run our characters. Why is there any reason to ask specific groups what they think it means?
If you want each group to define what positive play means to us, then ask every group, not one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Avari,
I asked a simple question. Yes, I was thinking roster (I'll get to why in a minute) whereas you said "Official RA document". My mistake. Do you usually answer mistakes with snide remarks about the poster's group? Odd, especially when the poster is willing to admit they erred.
My stress of the roster is that two exist. The question is, which of those is official, since I'm guessing those who signed the longer one but not the shorter one will want to know if they're included in Nihimon's comment a few posts before:
I am truly sorry that your genuine concern was misinterpreted as a subversive attack to further damage the goodwill created by the RA.
The latest roster is the current roster of the RA. Again congrats to all who made it possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am truly sorry that your genuine concern was misinterpreted as a subversive attack to further damage the goodwill created by the RA.
Thank you. It didn't seem like your usual style.
The latest roster is the current roster of the RA. Again congrats to all who made it possible.
Agreed.
|
I´m not liking these "positive gameplay" that some people are doing in foruns. I don't think it is "positive" be hostile, nasty, malicious or harasser.
When I read about Roseblood Accord, I understood that was a Code of Conduct to assegure a fun and meaningful experience in PFO while game, while interations between players. At that point I made clear that Lion Council will pursuit it too, but we were not signing any Accord without our Settlement. I posted what I think it was "positive gameplay" and some people thought was good enough (include you Delcius, at that time you were less confused than now).
But by the tone in these lasts posts, it was not the case.
DeciusBrutus are moving a cruzade to antagonize UNC here in foruns in a way that is leading to harrasment and trolling. Making assumptions and twisting words to declare repeatly his point of view, regardless on what was saying.
We understood your point of view. What else you want? Interfere in our Company/Settlement/Coalision decisions? Tell us what you think we have to do? We were not doing it to you, you won't do it to any of us.
If the objective of this group is permit to feed trolls and create reasons to continous harassment some of its members, I don't think it's worth it nor it's reaching their objective.
I and my friends (RL ones from Lion Council) will play in a positive way with or without the label RA. We do not need anyone approval for it.
I'm sensing more of this positive contibution for whole community in Bluddwolf, Nihimon, Caldeathe comments than DeciusBrutus and others that acting like him. Are you trying to construct a better community, or trying to divide it on what you think it's ok/not-ok based on assumptions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite honestly I was on the fence signing the thing to begin with because of all this. It is not for anyone to define Positive gameplay. Judge me by my actions in the game! I believe GW has done many things already to promote meaningful gameplay. But I got to tell you if this quickly becomes a spam the complaint box then the complaint box gets thrown away. And no one has answered what sort of "meaningful evidence" can be collected to verify the difference between a ligitimate complaint and whining.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have admittedly not been following this thread very closely for some time. My intent in signing and supporting the Roseblood Accord was a way to declare our desire for friendly and supportive relationships with those who wish to uphold a few simple ideals about being respectful of the desires of other players.
This is different than a declaration to have friendly rivalries with those who wish to uphold similar ideals but are more interested in competing with us than supporting us. I think that falls within the Don't Be a Jerk Accord, which I believe was an excellent thing for Proxima Sin to spin off. Though I haven't posted there, largely because there were more than 100 posts I did not have time to read through, I do support that notion as well.
My own understandings and intentions aside, what in the heck is all of this bickering about? From the outset, there has been no declaration of a Central Authority, and honestly no solid definition on what constitutes the ideas of positive gameplay beyond "we'll know it when we see it". What is before us is a vague statement of intent. Its primary mission is to help groups of like mind find other groups of share purpose to potentially build deeper relationships with. Just because someone signs on does not mean you HAVE to treat them as a friend. It simply means they DESIRE to be treated as a friend. The thing about friends is you still get to pick them. If someone signs on in an attempt to be subversive, it does not mean you are obligated to lend them support. If they sign a public statement of intent and then act contrary to that, then let their own behavior mark them for who they are.
This whole thing where somebody goes down into a mud pit and starts trying to sling it around is old. What is getting even more tiresome is the full willingness for everyone else to go join them in the mud-pit. By joining them, you just got yourself dirtier than any slinging they could possibly do if they were just left on their own.
The Roseblood Accord - I am in it through a desire to establish friendly and supportive relationships with other companies and settlements - heck even individuals. If you wish to join, then great, we can talk! But just because we have both joined doesn't obligate us to anything. We have a shared base to build from, but I still reserve the right to make judgements as to whether you are serving the spirit of the accord as I see it. I am not interested in publicly calling out those who I do not think fit. I am not even really interested in trying to debate what is or is not acceptable behavior at this point. I have some ideas, but nothing I want to nail down until the game has been played for a little bit. I may find I want nothing to do with a given group. That doesn't mean that other signatories share my concerns. If a group that is hostile to TEO/T7V joins, or a group acting specifically against the goals of the Accord, then let them look bad by themselves.
Given all of that, what is there really to fight over here? What is there that can possibly be subverted unless we choose to act in ways that make ourselves look bad?
You want positive gameplay? Step 1: Check your ego at the door. Define yourself through your own words and actions. Arguing back and forth with others is allowing that other person to define you far more than your self-defense ever will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reposting something I asked in the UNC discussion thread by request.
I didn't have anything constructive to add to this new line of conversation until this point was brought up by Decius.
This is not trying to start a fire, if there are discussions on positive gameplay and proactive building I and my ambassador would love to be privy to the conversation.
To my knowledge, nothing has been defined. I would be more than interested in discussing "Ways to contribute to a positive gameplay experience" such as open events, good-natured meet-and-greets even between parties who are usually hostile to each other and more. I am not as interested in laying down minimum definitions required for something to be positive gameplay at this point in time. I think the core of positive gameplay is being respectful of the other players.
For people who love PvP, that is understanding that some people do not want to be constantly and repetitively engaged in PvP.
For people who hate PvP, that is understanding that some people play the game only for that aspect and that a death here or there is not personal.