Welcome to the Directionless Coalition, everyone! Thanks for volunteering. Don't worry, we don't do positive or negative gameplay here. We probably don't even play the game!
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here is the thing...
You can have a Pledge or Statement of Principles and these can be as specific or non-specific as the author of the statement writes. With no mechanism of authority and no mechanism for enforcing specific obligations or requirements on members and including/excluding signatories based upon thier actions, then that's all it is. Now individuals can look at the actions of a specific signatory and say "I really don't feel X is living upto what they pledged" and there may be social/reputational consequences to that, especialy if that's a widely held view among the members, but that's as far as it goes.
You can also have Alliances or Treaty Organizations (e.g. NATO). Those Alliances or Treaty Organizations. Those Organizations can also include a Statement of Principles for why they exist or how they intend to act. However, these must have some mechanism of authority...it doesn't have to be central, it can just be some sort of group voting mechanism among members. As well as specific (the more detailed the better) obligations that are expected of thier signatories and a mechanism for failing to live upto those organizations. As well as a method for including/excluding who the membership is.
Initialy RA seemed to be shooting for the latter (from what I read of the "mutual support" portion of the statement) now it seems to be functioning more as the former. The reason the latter couldn't work in the form put forward is that there MUST be some mechanism of authority and means of including/excluding membership in order for a Treaty Organization to be practical.
Otherwise (if you'll forgive an 80's analogy) the Soviet Union simply joins NATO by simply declaring it's intent to do so....and defeats (or at least undermines) the political rationale for NATO's existance (in the 80's) without ever firing a shot.
Not saying that anyones acting as the "Soviet Union" here... and while I'm pretty sure all the signatories of the RA are likely to support each others OOC goals of making PFO a fun and welcoming gaming community. I'm also fairly confident that with such a broad and inclusive membership some signatories are likely to try to wipe the floor with others in the game at some point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Initialy RA seemed to be shooting for the latter (from what I read of the "mutual support" portion of the statement) now it seems to be functioning more as the former. The reason the latter couldn't work in the form put forward is that there MUST be some mechanism of authority and means of including/excluding membership in order for a Treaty Organization to be practical.
It was somewhere between the two. An inexact document designed for an inexact time in the history of PFO. As we know more about the game, the documents will get more specific. We do not believe in spelling out specifics only to change them at every blog as others have done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. That'd be kinda funny.
Jimmy Carter: "Margaret Thatcher, Stalin sat down in the NATO chamber and he refuses to leave. :("
Stalin (O.S.): "HEY WHILE I'M HERE I'M DRINKING ALL YOUR BEER, HOPE THAT'S OKAY"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Guilty as charged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can have a Pledge or Statement of Principles...
You can also have Alliances or Treaty Organizations...
Initialy RA seemed to be shooting for the latter...
The first step in the process is identifying groups that are friendly and want to work with us; that was the purpose of the Roseblood Accord, and it was a resounding success in that regard.
There will be more steps in the process in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Thank you so much for this answer Lifedragon. I would love to have this conversation as well.
Callambea voted to sign the Roseblood Accord. My one requirement for signing it was owning it. I am just as much the RBA as anyone else. Please don't take any of my comments as an intended insult. To insult the RBA is to insult my myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In that I am in nearly complete agreement with Lifedragn's last two posts, I apologize to him if it seems like I am pressing a point.
However, now that we have clarified the full roster of the Roseblood Accord, before "there will be more steps in the process in the future," I think the current Roseblood Accord signatories might like my previous question to Nihimon answered:
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."
Given that Nihimon has replied since my question was posed, I can be gracious enough to assume he overlooked it, so I have restated it here for him. If the Roseblood Accord, by his statement, is going to change in the future (i.e. "more steps in the future"), I think the current members might first like to know where they stand with the people who seem to know those future process changes.
I think those same current members might like to be in on the discussion of what those future process steps will be, but that's another question, and I think it best if we keep this to one question at a time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the Roseblood Accord, by his statement, is going to change in the future...
My apologies if I gave the impression that the Roseblood Accord would be changing in the future. The Roseblood Accord is and always will be what it always has been. "There will be more steps in the future" taken by TEO, T7V, and our friends and allies.
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."Given that Nihimon has replied since my question was posed, I can be gracious enough to assume he overlooked it...
I have no intention of starting another firestorm by answering that question. Whoever has eyes, let him see.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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."
To answer the question that I think you thought you asked: There is not, and is no provision for there to ever be, an "official" membership list. If there is a dispute regarding what groups and individuals are signatories, the resolution authority is reality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is not, and is no provision for there to ever be, an "official" membership list.
If that is so, why was the list ever created, posted, and updated as people declared their desire to join? Not only was there a list, but it was apparently important enough to create a second, more up-to-date list as outlined below:
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.
Here's the points I've been patiently trying to make with very straight forward language:
1. There was a list. This is important because...
2. According to Nihimon, at some point the list began to contain groups he felt were hostile to TEO and T7V and that they were joining only to subvert the Roseblood Accord. Apparently this is when he decided the Roseblood Accord had served its purpose and was no longer a "meaningful exercise."
3. Being from one of many groups that signed the Roseblood Accord, I would think that Callambea, Golgotha, and many other later signing groups might be curious if we are one of the supposed subverters and if the Accord we signed was already being deemed no longer meaningful.
I have no intention of starting another firestorm by answering that question. Whoever has eyes, let him see.
I'll start with the biblical sounding last portion. I can only assume this is meant to open readers' eyes to my devious machinations, but if the people you are appealing to have eyes, they'll notice I am not the one who questioned the integrity of Roseblood Accord signatories on a public forum, and then refused to back up those allegations with names. No community member should get away with making such accusations, and then hide behind supposed care for the harmony of the forums to avoid having to clarify such statements.
To the community and forum moderators:
In that my previous posts were not removed by Ms. Courts, I can only assume that the topic and contents of those posts were judged as being appropriate. I hope my above questions will be deemed likewise.
To the concern that this worthwhile topic might cause a "firestorm", to quote Ryan Dancey:
"Meaningful human interaction is often messy and painful. That's not a bug, that's a feature."
Though I am asking specific questions of individuals, I believe this topic has a far larger context - one that is quite important for the community and one that is long over due.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't really get why anyone is arguing, why anyone cares about a membership list, or why anything related to the RA could be considered an important community issue. Maybe some context was lost in the deleted posts.
I have to agree with Toombstone.
And it is clear to anyone that has been around here for awhile that this really isn't about the RA.
serious question :"is the mutual success" thing still rolling?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
serious question :"is the mutual success" thing still rolling?
Again, the RA was a declaration that TEO & T7V had secured Settlement locations in the southeast and an invitation to groups that were friendly to us or supportive of our goals to make themselves known to us so that, together, we could begin working on a nation/alliance.
The unfortunate reality is that some who were neither friendly to us nor supportive of our goals chose to subvert that simple truth and declare that we were instead trying to "own" the definition of "positive gameplay". They insisted that the RA should be forced to include anyone who simply declared their intent to pursue positive gameplay.
Others were more genuine in their friendliness or support. Some chose to settle next to us with every intention of being in a nation with us. Some chose to declare their support fully aware that the game mechanics would likely make it impossible for them to be in a nation with us. Some chose to declare their support with no strings attached. None have yet entered into any binding agreement with us, and none will be forced to do so. The RA was extremely helpful in putting us in touch with some very friendly groups who genuinely support our goals and trust us enough to begin seriously talking about forming a nation or alliance with us.
If there are other groups out there who hold TEO and/or T7V in high esteem and support the goals and principles we've been actively pursuing on these forums for the last two and a half years, we encourage you to contact us directly. We have long realized we'll need many friends by our side to be successful.
My personal driving motivation has always been to help others achieve their goals. I'm very proud that T7V is committed to that as well, and I believe it will make a difference for our friends and allies. We'll make good neighbors, and there are some very good groups in our area who could use your help in securing their own Settlement locations for what will almost certainly be a very "interesting" Week 10 of the Land Rush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Vauge is more fun.
Peoples view of positive gameplay is going to vary widely.
People are more than capeable of maintaining 'positive' game play while killing you in the face and taking your stuff.
Is that easy to accomplish? No. Its actually super hard to do. I have seen it done in online games, and in live action games. Most people can't do it from my experience.
The fact that we have people willing to even try is a good thing. Time will tell if they are successful.
Prior to having my star metal caravan looted, burned, and bleeding to death on the ground, and having my assailants make that experience somehow more than totally crappy, There is nothing to backup any accusations or suspicions that a particular group can't do it or is lying about doing it.
If people are lying and schemeing behing the scenes to make alliances, or undermine them... this is similar to people who like PVP and people who dont. The ability to keep things positive is still there. That and its a kingdom based game, what did you expect.
The second someone shows up at my house and steals my car, or affectes me as a person in any way.. well lets just say that will be a bad plan.
You think anyone likes getting a ticket?
check it
Any experience can be kept positive.
I wish those attempting to do so the best of luck.
P.S. Kabal362 please be home by midnight on the 3rd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being - I'm interested in discussing how we can attempt to avoid further fracturing of the community, partly by ceasing the continued, not-so-veiled insults made about certain members of that community. If that's only worth a crack about soap operas from one of the more intellectual members of this community, then so be it.
Nihimon - You certainly have the right to decide who you and yours wish to ally yourselves with. If you read back over my post, that was never the question. In-game has nothing to do with the point I'm making. In this most recent instance of jibes/assumptions/accusations/etc., it is about using the accord as a means of making disparaging comments about other players. I have no problem dealing with your not liking Callambea, Golgotha, or UNC as in-game settlements. I'm talking about players.
Painting signatories - which are players - as subversive without any proof in-game of subversive behavior seems like another attack on those players. Publicly posting that opinion allows you to spread your doubt of those signatory's sincerity to others who may not yet have met us to form their own opinion, may not know your personal grievances with us, etc. For something that was meant to be positive in nature (RA), this seems like a very poor way in which to use it on these forums.
So let us cut to the chase. As a player, you obviously don't like or trust us. We can live with that. I've dealt civilly with people I don't care for before - it's part of being a mature adult. So what can we do to reach some understanding of how we deal civilly with one another as players for the sake of the community?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hobbs I understand how seriously some of us are taking this all, and I wish to point out that such gravity is hubris where it aborts our own objective.
Each should step back and look at what they are actually doing and what pawns each has made of themself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully the humor isn't an attempt to distract from the sincerity of my desire to work out some middle ground. Contrary to Nihimon's opinion of me, I'm as dedicated to the health of the community as anyone - a community that includes people who play or post differently than I do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is less significant who owns the hand that moves the pawns and more significant that the pawns are so willing to move at their behest.
Leadership is seeing the way forward toward the objective and moving there. Moving to the right objective regardless of incidental cost where that objective is beyond price.
If 'we' (as if I were one) are leaders whole heartedly signatory to the spirit of the Accord then we agree the objective is of exceeding value. WE each may suffer some personal loss, but the objective is worth it. Where that 'personal loss' is actually acrimony and distrust then it costs less than nothing. Losing the defeat of the spirit of the accord is actually profit.
Each of you must overmaster your own will to power. Accept that each of us is different. Capitalize upon that diversity. We are each of good will, or else we are not.
Nobody here is so stupid as this pass threatens to grow. Wake the hell up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hobbs I understand how seriously some of us are taking this all, and I wish to point out that such gravity is hubris where it aborts our own objective.
Each should step back and look at what they are actually doing and what pawns each has made of themself.
Thank you for the advice, but I have very little pride involved in this. My interest, as I have stated in multiple posts, is that I hope the community as a whole can deal with each other in a civil manner, regardless of what happens in-game. As Sunnfire has said, it's a tough challenge, but it's one I'm willing to tackle. However, if we can't even do that before the game begins, it bodes pretty ill for the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope your assessment is accurate. I do know that pride is a malevolent and evil trickster adept at masquerade. It may well be that my thinking it is pride is more a function of my own failings, but I believe we can agree that there is something very wrong, and that it is somehow common between the various parties now at odds. I think we can be sure it isn't the spirit and meaning of what the Accord itself is. And I think we can probably agree that it is a vice that blinds each of us to the obvious solution of commonly renewing our commitment, while accepting that there are good reasons why we are not all in the same outfit. I don't think the solution is in pointing accusingly at one another.
The problem, I think, is that if the Accord is to work there must be accord. Accord require shared vision, some trust, some courage, and quite a bit of forgiveness whether we think we have judged one another or not. We need to build this or we need to cut our losses and try again another time.
There have been several attempts now to do this thing, from Andius' initial try, through my own weak attempt to inspire a loose confederation (that may not even have been noticed), through to this. There were others as well, some notably worthy efforts.
But the objective and spirit of each of these efforts has prevailed, even now. At times the words get in the way of meaning.
In the mean time let each of us affirm to our respective inner self whether or not we wish to see the cause through to the end. Nobody else need know. We will do our best to play the game rightly. We accept it is okay to be human so long as we pick up from where we fell and take another step forward toward the objective. Then, one by one, we may link up. This path is not behind us, but ahead of us. This is the journey worth the distance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons there is so much trouble in the Middle East is that the bickering has gone on for so long that each side is convinced that the other side is not only at fault, but started the whole thing.
I'd like to see one of two things, either
1) a decision that the R.A. is sufficiently important that it's original sponsors can choose to free it of any "ownership" and let it belong to the community while forming something new to achieve their other goals, or
2) The community acknowledge that the R.A. needs to be something different than many of us thought, and we should leave it to be what it's creators envisioned and replace it with something new that the community as a whole can embrace without any sides.
Neither of these needs to involve any further bickering over past mistakes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
None of us is Tom Jefferson, but I think our friend from Canada has the right of it. I think we each need to let go of our possessiveness of the accord so that it has room to breathe. We will otherwise suffocate it in its swaddling clothes. If we can let it go, to let it be the property of the community, then we may yet have a chance that this latest of many worthy attempts will live.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let us cut to the chase. As a player, you obviously don't like or trust us. We can live with that. I've dealt civilly with people I don't care for before - it's part of being a mature adult. So what can we do to reach some understanding of how we deal civilly with one another as players for the sake of the community?
You could start by disclaiming cheating when you see it. Every time, even when it blows up into a firestorm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Hobs
Have I ever told you how much I hate arguing with people who require walls of text? Stuffing 9 arguments into 1 post is not constructive dude, all it does is take the argument in 10 new directions.
I am not going to spend 2 hours on a forum post so I'll start with this little nugget right here:
Bringslite - This is about the RA - about it being used as a tool in this instance to again take public shots at Callambea, Golgotha, and Aragon, and thereby attempt to make us look like we're somehow not as positive, community caring, etc. Instead of doing as Lifedragn advised in his latest posts in this thread...
100% untrue and I don't appreciate the faux victimization banter because we have been over this a million times. The RA was never, ever the trademarked definition of positive gameplay. It was the definition of positive gameplay as TEO/T7V and others who had agreed with us over the course of TWO years of forum debates had defined. If you agreed with the general values of the TEO and T&V, you were invited to the RA. That is EXACTLY what the document says. Anybody who says we have anointed ourselves the judges of positive game play for the whole server is a liar.
You don't get to make accusations about people, then claim you're worried about not causing a fuss as a cover for the attack.
Pax and UNC clearly did not agree with the T7V/TEO version of positive gameplay. We know this over the course of TWO years of forum debates and pretending that information does not exist is disingenuous at best. That is the accusation. Your answer of course is, "hey this dude let us through the back door and said we were invited".
So here we are Hobs. No we aren't and couldn't kick you out even if we wanted to. The question is will we make something positive out of it and actually get something done for positive game play now that you are here? Because so far all I have seen is people tearing up the place and trying to use our own document against us. That is unacceptable, and if that's the way it's gonna play, GTFO out, party's over.
So let's repeat this one more time, because apparently it was not clear in the first sentence of the thread: Do you agree with the positive game play as TEO/T7V and its friends have defined it over the course of the last TWO years.
Or how about the softball pitch version, now that the "mutual success" part has been interpreted as some type of esoteric riddle to be ignored: Do you agree with it enough that you would like to sit down and talk about positive game play meaning MORE than what the designers will enforce?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) a decision that the R.A. is sufficiently important that it's original sponsors can choose to free it of any "ownership" and let it belong to the community while forming something new to achieve their other goals...
Quite easily done. If the community finds value in it, then by all means continue using it. I'm quite comfortable accepting the emergent reality that it is meaningful to others now in a different way than it was meaningful to me before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
serious question :"is the mutual success" thing still rolling?
Apparently it was an esoteric riddle that nobody could decipher. The Pathfinders Society brought its best cryptologists but couldn't make heads or tails of it because it did not have specific wording about war councils, mutual defense and percentages for trade agreements (for a game that doesn't exist). Last I heard the going theory is it had something to do with an online dating service.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being - I agree with the journey being worth the effort or I would not have made the offer. However, all our shared good intentions will be for naught if such accusations, insults, jibes, etc. keep being tolerated. I am hoping that Nihimon's absence in this discussion is not prolonged, since he is the person to whom my question of reaching a middle ground was directed. I am more than willing to talk with whomever, but the accusational finger will only be put away when the accusations cease. I would think no group would be expected to keep turning the other cheek for supposed community harmony.
Avari - I'm not arguing with you. And when I have multiple replies and questions to respond to, it takes more than 140 characters. I didn't grow up with Twitter. :)
As for a discussion on what constitutes positive gameplay, -Aet- Charlie has already spoken for Callambea as having an interest in that discussion at the top of this page.
DeciusBrutus - You seem interested in rehashing a topic I doubt anyone wants to rehash, especially since the outcome of that argument has already been decided. Does the EoX pledge to disclaim cheating when we see it - I suspect so, though I do not speak for all its members.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |