Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I don't really see the point of this thread. You've already declared that you would raze T7V, and that its member should flee.
Is it an attempt at a diplomatic way to resolve the situation ? If it is, it would be more productive to start a discussion in private, asking for a gesture of goodwill, than a public ultimatum.
To be fair to Morbis, he has already done just that.
This thread is not doing anyone any favours. People are just entrenching their positions and digging their heels in. Those of you on both sides who have any common sense at all - please just stop. Both sides. Quite frankly this resembles an "argument" at Kindergarten at the moment, with cries of "but he started it, Miss!", and it's making us all look stupid. We're better than this. Or we should be.
So to my fellow members of T7V - please lay off the Golgothans. If Nihimon feels the need to comment again, I am sure he's a big enough boy to do so for himself (although I personally hope he's said enough). To those from Golgotha - please just give it a rest for a while, let tempers calm, and let those who are talking - not shouting past each other - try to sort things out satisfactorily for all concerned.
Will do, this will be my goodbye to the subject. I'm looking forward to seeing PAX in game and forming new issues to agree (or disagree) upon. May the stars shine brightly upon you!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@JDNYC, Kakafika:
Sure, yet only Nihimon is responsible for his actions.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
The Umbridge link was meant as a joke because of what the character represents and honestly Nihimon's posts kind of come off that way to me in the forums lately. If he sees it as a personal attack, I will remove the link immediately.
I actually thought it was pretty funny =P
You've said enough to attempt to calm the situation that I didn't assume malicious intent
"Take it to PM's"
Again, criticisms that can also be directly leveled at Nihimon.
I have no wish to be seen as "Rightt".
I just want people to see that there is no difference to how the belligerents in this thread are acting.
Let me reiterate - There is no difference in the behaviour exhibited by either side of discussion, Nihimon however is adamant that he is out for the heart and soul of the community when he was the one who chose to air his dirty laundry in public. I didn't see anyone decrying him to take it to PM's then.
The level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance I've observed from this thread is astounding.
Thats just part of what I take issue with. Everyone whos participated in this heated discussion has even blame to take.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More than tired of this topic, and the names it includes, arguing points long since worn out. There is no benefit to continuing either side of this discussion, and only more harm will come of it.
As for claims that no calls have been made to drop this or take it to PMs, you may want to "Retract this statement. Now." as this has been asked for, multiple times, by several people, throughout the duration of this topic, in whichever thread it is occurring. The calls you see now are simply more of the same by the people that are tired of seeing this crap brought up, regardless of who did it, and concerned about the continued damage it is going to inflict to all sides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From now on for each 50 members a charter company will win a settlement. Can we move on now?
You guys need to take a break
I mean seriously...
I am running out of popcorn, and I am scared that if I go get more, I will miss something.
i will watch a let you run to the store if you fast and willing to do the same for me need more Dew here
More than tired of this topic, and the names it includes, arguing points long since worn out. There is no benefit to continuing either side of this discussion, and only more harm will come of it.
As for claims that no calls have been made to drop this or take it to PMs, you may want to "Retract this statement. Now." as this has been asked for, multiple times, by several people, throughout the duration of this topic, in whichever thread it is occurring. The calls you see now are simply more of the same by the people that are tired of seeing this crap brought up, regardless of who did it, and concerned about the continued damage it is going to inflict to all sides.
Show me a post before thursday from someone who is not a member of PAX who asked for this to be dealt with over PMs and I will happily retract my statement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't seem to follow the math you're using in the first post. It sounds like you guys are somehow trying to just play numbers games in terms of balancing votes to make them effectively correct. Which they may, in the end, balance out correctly. But I don't think it's right, still.
All I know is the following:
1) If you are a member of PaxA, your vote in LR2 needs to go to PaxA. Period. If it is ever in PaxG, even if it is to make up for other votes missing somewhere, somehow... tough luck, they still shouldn't be there.
2) If you are a member of PaxG, your vote in LR2 needs to go to PaxG. Period.
3) If you voted in LR1 for ANY of the top 3 that won, you should either a) abstain from voting, or b) vote again for the exact same guild that you voted for the first time (e.g. voted for PaxA, even though you were confused and plan to play in the PaxG settlement, your vote still needs to stay with PaxA due to the rules* of the game. Sorry.) If this means that PaxG will (in the end) miss out on a vote because you already voted for PaxA in LR1, then too bad.
4) If you are a PaxA member that missed out on LR1 for whatever reason, your vote should only go to PaxA in LR2.
5) To reiterate, if there are votes missing from PaxG for whatever reason, it doesn't matter.
(* - rules: obviously the rules are not hard-fast, otherwise we wouldn't have this issue to begin with)
Let me rephrase for clarity.
The only votes that belong in PaxG's LR2 entry are:
a) Individuals that belong to PaxG (plan to play in that settlement) - excluding those who have already voted for PaxA in LR1.
b) That's it.
Again, I don't care about accuracy of the numbers, (e.g. "we moved this individual's vote over here to make up for this other guy who voted wrong here.") I care about individual voters.
We're not talking numbers here, in my opinion, we're talking about individuals and their voting history. If someone @#$%ed up his/her vote in LR1, then too bad. If any individuals that do not belong to PaxG are voting for PaxG in LR2 - regardless of reason - his/her vote should be removed.
[EDIT/ADD]: If you can affirm that all of the above is true, then I have no issues with the way you guys are doing things. All it takes is a simple statement, preferably by the OP, along the lines of : "That's exactly what we're doing."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for claims that no calls have been made to drop this or take it to PMs, you may want to "Retract this statement. Now." as this has been asked for, multiple times, by several people, throughout the duration of this topic, in whichever thread it is occurring.Show me a post before thursday from someone who is not a member of PAX who asked for this to be dealt with over PMs and I will happily retract my statement.
Two posts: here and here, before Thursday, just in my post history alone asking for the matter to be dropped. I was not the only one making these requests.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
filled with vitriol and hate.Stop exaggerating.
Nothing posted anywhere on these forums has risen to the level of "vitriol and hate."Even if we accept the premise that Nihimon is lying and attacking you personally for some nefarious reason, you need to tone your rhetoric way down.
If you think the sorts of accusations and comments that have been flying around in the last week are "vitriol and hate", you are very poorly prepared to be the public face of any political organization.
Blowing things out of proportion in an attempt to convince others? I'd say that makes one all too prepared to engage in politics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the post where I made my accusation. I made my post there because I was asked there why I characterized Pax Gaming as having a policy that "it's okay to do anything we can get away with as long as there's not an explicit rule against it that's clearly defined by Goblinworks", and because it was recommended there that we should ignore Ryan's requests (since they wouldn't be enforced) and "use the same methods as Pax" (which we utterly refuse to do, for what that's worth).
Ryan placed three restrictions on us:
1. If you, as a Guild, won a Settlement in LR1, don't create a second entry for LR2;
2. If you, as a Player, voted for a Guild that won a Settlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2; and
3. If you, as a Player, intend to play as part of a Guild that won a Setttlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2.
I'd like to point out - again - that if I hadn't continued to hold Pax accountable for violating #3, they'd still be doing it. So attacking me for continuing to hold Pax accountable after it had been "resolved" isn't fair. It wasn't resolved.
My accusation was that Pax Gaming had also violated #2. I based that on my reading of this quote:
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?
I explained my reading:
1. They had 5 votes that rightly belong to Pax Aeternum.2. Three of those votes are votes from Pax Golgotha members who voted for Pax Aeternum in LR1 and were now going to move those votes back to Pax Aeternum, to be in compliance with Request #2.
3. Leaving a net of 2 votes that would go away from Pax Golgotha if Ryan clarified that he actually meant Request #3.
I also said I was listening if Pax Morbis wanted to offer a more compelling alternate reading. And that I would gladly offer a full retraction and apology - without repeating the accusation - in a new thread for maximum exposure if I was convinced.
I'm still waiting for that compelling alternate reading.
"We are gaining 5 votes from Aeternum". Was this a statement describing the way things were at the time? Or was it a statement describing how things would be in the future? Given that Pax Golgotha's vote total dropped by 5 sometime later, I take it as a statement that described how things were at the time.
"We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum." This statement seems to be the sticking point. It might either describe things as they were at the time, or describe something that would happen in the future.
"There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?" This is the part that makes it difficult for me to understand how those three votes Pax Golgotha is "losing" should be removed from 5 to result in 2 unless those three votes were being counted as part of the 5 votes they were "gaining from Aeternum". It seems clear to me that they were saying that coming into compliance with #3 would result in a net drop of 2 votes. I believe that's because they had just decided to come into compliance with #2. So, after coming into compliance with #2, they would have 2 votes remaining that would be lost if they came into compliance with #3.
Again, I'm happy to listen to any alternate explanations, but I'm not particularly inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one after your explanation for why you violated #3. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it has been explained repeatedly how that reading is wrong.
1. They had 5 votes from Aeternum members going to Golgotha.
2. They had 3 members of Golgotha who had voted for Aeternum in LR1, meaning 3 votes that *should* have gone to Golgotha but won't.
3. 5-3=2.
Since then, they have shifted those 5 votes from Golgotha back to Aeternum, once they realized they had misunderstood Lee's clarification.
Quit being obtuse, Nihimon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Up to this point, I have refrained from responding in these threads as I don't have a dog in this fight. However, this is now getting out of hand. Personally, if I were in charge at GW, Golgatha would not have been allowed in LR #2. But GW allowed it, so that is moot. Whether or not Pax subsequently bent the rules is also moot, as GW isn't going to change anything now.
Both sides of this argument, as well GW, should frankly be embarrassed by how these threads turned out. The forums right now are all many of us have as a way get to know one another, and frankly, the first thing that now pops in my mind when I hear Pax or Nih is this argument. And that is not good for either of you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who are anything like me are reading these posts basically as "YAK YAK 3 VOTES YAK YAK LAND RUSH 1 YAK YAK 5 VOTES YAK"
It's just making noise at this point.
Down the road we're all gonna be friends in the EE old timers club anyway ya know. Me and Xeen are going to be best of friends, Nihimon and Morbis are going to be drunk, crying, and yelling at the other "No man YOU are awesome", and then we're all going to pick up swords and show the young whippersnappers how it's done.
Fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And it has been explained repeatedly how that reading is wrong.
1. They had 5 votes from Aeternum members going to Golgotha.
2. They had 3 members of Golgotha who had voted for Aeternum in LR1, meaning 3 votes that *should* have gone to Golgotha but won't.
3. 5-3=2.Since then, they have shifted those 5 votes from Golgotha back to Aeternum, once they realized they had misunderstood Lee's clarification.
Quit being obtuse, Nihimon.
So now Nihimon, if you can do Maths, you will see that they are now actually losing 8 votes... The five Aeternum, that we shifted back(5) + three member of Golgotha locked into Aeternum (3) = Eight(8) total votes...
Have we all finished this 1st grade math lesson now?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People who are anything like me are reading these posts basically as "YAK YAK 3 VOTES YAK YAK LAND RUSH 1 YAK YAK 5 VOTES YAK"
It's just making noise at this point.
Down the road we're all gonna be friends in the EE old timers club anyway ya know. Me and Xeen are going to be best of friends, Nihimon and Morbis are going to be drunk, crying, and yelling at the other "No man YOU are awesome", and then we're all going to pick up swords and show the young whippersnappers how it's done.
Fact.
Exactly, twinsie.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And it has been explained repeatedly how that reading is wrong.
1. They had 5 votes from Aeternum members going to Golgotha.
2. They had 3 members of Golgotha who had voted for Aeternum in LR1, meaning 3 votes that *should* have gone to Golgotha but won't.
3. 5-3=2.Since then, they have shifted those 5 votes from Golgotha back to Aeternum, once they realized they had misunderstood Lee's clarification.
Quit being obtuse, Nihimon.
The rule about the 3 members of Golgotha who voted for Aeternum was issued in the same breath as the rule about the 5 members of Aeternum.
I'm confused about how anyone could interpret Lee's later statement to overrule exactly one of those two rules.
Even though I see where the "2" comes from, a close reading shows that it's the difference of two numbers that should never have been subtracted from each other; there were ~55 accounts that were never eligible for LR2 voting because of voting for Aeternum and/or being members of Aeternum. Three of those were Golgotha members that voted for Aeternum in LR1. Five of those were members of Aeternum that didn't vote in LR1.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And it has been explained repeatedly how that reading is wrong.
1. They had 5 votes from Aeternum members going to Golgotha.
2. They had 3 members of Golgotha who had voted for Aeternum in LR1, meaning 3 votes that *should* have gone to Golgotha but won't.
3. 5-3=2.Since then, they have shifted those 5 votes from Golgotha back to Aeternum, once they realized they had misunderstood Lee's clarification.
Quit being obtuse, Nihimon.
So now Nihimon, if you can do Maths, you will see that they are now actually losing 8 votes... The five Aeternum, that we shifted back(5) + three member of Golgotha locked into Aeternum (3) = Eight(8) total votes...
Have we all finished this 1st grade math lesson now?
No, it's only three that they lost, and Golgotha's position is that they never voted. Votes that they never had even the slightest legitimate claim to shouldn't be grouped with votes that they are claiming should be theirs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
It seems pretty clear to me, as an outsider, that they were saying if the first result had simply been thrown out, three people who's votes were originally given to A would have gone to G, as being a better fit for their play, but they couldn't. They had re-voted, and were removed. A further 2 people who would have voted for A, but didn't vote the first time, voted for G because they thought it was the right thing to do to help their (real-life) comrades. They were removed.
In all, five votes were removed from G. Pax members believe that if LR1 had been invalidated and started over, G would have had 2 more votes in LR2 than they do.
The point being, I believe, that although they removed all five votes, had they left them there, G would only have had 2 more votes than if the whole thing had been re-run from scratch.
But they didn't. They acquiesced to the pressure from part of the community, and so have five votes less than if they had not acquiesced, and two votes less than if everything had been re-run from scratch.
In the end, they probably got more votes than they would have, out of sheer annoyance on the part of some of their members who probably plunked down a hundred bucks just because they knew it would irritate some people who made way too big a deal out of it. That's certainly what I would have done were I in their position.
I would have been much happier if they chose to remove G, (as it would have improved my own group's chances) but I take no issue with their decision to stay in the running. They have a perfectly legitimate claim that their play style is not compatible with the other group, regardless of whatever connections they may share outside PFO.
As to the two, or three, or five, votes, the vast majority of the rest of us really don't care.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I explained my reading:
1. They had 5 votes that rightly belong to Pax Aeternum.
2. Three of those votes are votes from Pax...
Not three of THOSE votes, Nihimon. As stated, it is three votes from different people.
LR1 = Aeternum gets 3 votes from Golgothans (Golgotha = -3, Aeternum = +3)
LR2 = Five Aeternum mistaken warriors voted for Golgotha then changed their vote back... = 0
Sooo... er... Fult does not see any problem because, as Decius says, they only lost 3 votes.
Now maybe Fult does not help and adds to confusion?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not three of THOSE votes, Nihimon.
I see many people saying this, but it doesn't make sense to me.
It seemed very, very clear to me that Pax Morbis was saying "If we change our policy and abide by Request #3, we will lose a net total of 2 votes". That only makes sense to me, reading the quote, if he's saying "5 people are changing their votes, 3 because we've already decided comply with Request #2, and 2 if we later decide to comply with Request #3".
As I said, I'm very willing to entertain alternate explanations, but they need to make sense to me, and I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped that Pax Morbis himself would explain precisely what he was trying to say in that quote. I don't really care if he does, though.
I'm as tired of this as everyone else and could care less if no one ever posts on it again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not three of THOSE votes, Nihimon.I see many people saying this, but it doesn't make sense to me.
It seemed very, very clear to me that Pax Morbis was saying "If we change our policy and abide by Request #3, we will lose a net total of 2 votes". That only makes sense to me, reading the quote, if he's saying "5 people are changing their votes, 3 because we've already decided comply with Request #2, and 2 if we later decide to comply with Request #3".
As I said, I'm very willing to entertain alternate explanations, but they need to make sense to me, and I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped that Pax Morbis himself would explain precisely what he was trying to say in that quote. I don't really care if he does, though.
I'm as tired of this as everyone else and could care less if no one ever posts on it again.
Had they not had their understanding of the request clarified, they would have been up by 2 votes.
At this point, I trust Pax more than I trust you. And that grieves me.
Not three of THOSE votes, Nihimon.I see many people saying this, but it doesn't make sense to me.
It seemed very, very clear to me that Pax Morbis was saying "If we change our policy and abide by Request #3, we will lose a net total of 2 votes". That only makes sense to me, reading the quote, if he's saying "5 people are changing their votes, 3 because we've already decided comply with Request #2, and 2 if we later decide to comply with Request #3".
As I said, I'm very willing to entertain alternate explanations, but they need to make sense to me, and I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped that Pax Morbis himself would explain precisely what he was trying to say in that quote. I don't really care if he does, though.
I'm as tired of this as everyone else and could care less if no one ever posts on it again.
Had they not had their understanding of the request clarified, they would have been up by 2 votes.
At this point, I trust Pax more than I trust you. And that grieves me.
OH! TEO, says "FU" to T7V, this is turning into an interesting day.
Not three of THOSE votes, Nihimon.I see many people saying this, but it doesn't make sense to me.
It seemed very, very clear to me that Pax Morbis was saying "If we change our policy and abide by Request #3, we will lose a net total of 2 votes". That only makes sense to me, reading the quote, if he's saying "5 people are changing their votes, 3 because we've already decided comply with Request #2, and 2 if we later decide to comply with Request #3".
As I said, I'm very willing to entertain alternate explanations, but they need to make sense to me, and I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped that Pax Morbis himself would explain precisely what he was trying to say in that quote. I don't really care if he does, though.
I'm as tired of this as everyone else and could care less if no one ever posts on it again.
Btw, I think you're twisting Morbis's words, as usual...
Edit: Also, I'm another TEO member who anonymously said "F You" to T7V today.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Btw, I think you're twisting Morbis's words, as usual...
Edit: Also, I'm another TEO member who anonymously said "F You" to T7V today.
I warned thee that ye tainted words were not welcome 'round here! Ugly slattern you be, twisted and ugly! You leave Old Buurz no choice!
HELAITUS FINATARA BAGAVERIS!
Just a wee killing curse...
<cackles>
<takes a swig of her mead>
Btw, I think you're twisting Morbis's words, as usual...
Edit: Also, I'm another TEO member who anonymously said "F You" to T7V today.
I warned thee that ye tainted words were not welcome 'round here! Ugly slattern you be, twisted and ugly! You leave Old Buurz no choice!
HELAITUS FINATARA BAGAVERIS!
Just a wee killing curse...
<cackles>
<takes a swig of her mead>
*turns into a frog*
ribbit, ... ribbit
