The New TEO Promotes Agreement That Will Make Sacrificial Lambs of Smaller Settlements


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

The Agreement.

This is an agreement primarily to protect their own towers from the Northern Coalition.

Golgotha has suggested "The Slums" is still up for grabs. Basically All of the settlements west of the NC.

Will TEO push back against this crass sacrifice of smaller settlements which violates all of their founding values, or allow others to be sacrificed to save their own membership from PvP?

Will the new TEO prove conclusively they are only interested in their own success and power and that motto I wrote for the about the "protection of the weak and promotion of justice" no longer applies at all?

The TEO I lead was willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. The Sentinels still are. What happened to that TEO?

Goblin Squad Member

Settlement's Thrown Under the Bus By TEO's Suggested Map:

Forgeholm
Agents of Erastil
Brains and Brawn
Iron Gauntlet
Deaders
Bastard Sons of Daggermark
Hammerfist Clan
Sunholm
Open Road
VvV Gaming

Edit: Link re-addressed to Sentinel's site to protect privacy of original host.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh look another Andius thread.

How are you talking about an agreement, given that the first public discussion of such isn't for another four days?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm an officer of a group in Aragon. I was given the information allowed to Aragon's leadership.

That map was made by Cheatle.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay. Place your bets. How long will this thread last before it is locked like the others.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

2 days.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So then I presume that Aragon will not agree to this proposal? And if it does, then you would need to leave that settlement, as you've declared that you'll stand up for the weak.

Further, would you have TEO take the authority to negotiate for every settlement on the map? If other settlements have an issue with the proposal, then come and talk with the community and see what happens.

Your mistake was that TEO owned the map and that we could dictate to every other guild and player how they would be permitted to play. That is arrogance and madness, but I'll love to watch you try to defend every single tower on the map 24/7 and not be a part of Aragon.

Goblin Squad Member

If those settlements come to the table and negotiate with us like everyone else, then we will stick to that agreement. As far as I'm aware those settlements that we may consider our targets, have not reached out to anyone.

There is a summit happening, if those settlements show up to the summit meeting to discuss terms, I will abide to the letter the results of that discussion. If they do not come to the summit, and they do not reach out to us, or any other power block, then they are fair game.

Goblin Squad Member

For the Settlements who've never introduced themselves or their members on these boards, nor any others we've found so far, how are we supposed to be consulting them to learn their feelings about the War of Towers? Is it more arrogant to assign them towers, or not to do so?

Goblin Squad Member

@Alexander

The role of The Sentinels in the war of towers has always been and will remain a role of mercenaries. We have no interest in the ownership of territory which includes the control of towers.

Our intention has been and remains to target the membership of our enemies through feuds. Though this has changed the nature of our conflict from one of vengeance to an effort to bring down a massive and corrupt empire creating agreements that threaten the existence of independent settlements.

That all being said we are certainly willing to take part in helping defend independent settlements from the encroaching forces of those who sign onto this agreement. Does that violate your little treaty? That would be quite rich if anyone defending other's from the attacks of your groups was outed and made "fair game" as those not involved in forum politics apparently already are.

It is not our responsibility to ensure they are all defended 24/7, just our role to protect the weak and promote justice as best we can.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, you'll sign the treaty then? Which means you'd be the same as us. How shocking.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, some settlements *cough*Sunholm*cough* are currently in hibernation during the pre-game. I'd say that lack of contact does not an inherent lack of interest in a NAP make.

I don't oppose the notion that those that don't engage in the process don't get the benefits - in fact, I think I support it. But only on the caveat that the option remains open for others to join in further down the road.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
So, you'll sign the treaty then? Which means you'd be the same as us. How shocking.

No I will not. I don't control a settlement so I won't be signing anything concerning settlement level politics, and my opposition to this treaty has already been voiced within Aragon.

As a small group of PvPers not focused on territory/tower control this treaty does not impede on our ability to perform our role one way or another.

As the largest faction in the game still claiming to hold to the principles of protection of the weak I would hope your role was more than to sit back and create treaties that cover for yourselves while all the weaker groups get ground to dust.

You can claim that's arrogant madness but the moment you make that claim you need to stop pretending to promote the values which TEO was founded on. Clearly the new crowd is there to be protected, not to do the protecting as originally intended.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
So, you'll sign the treaty then? Which means you'd be the same as us. How shocking.

No I will not. I don't control a settlement so I won't be signing anything concerning settlement level politics, and my opposition to this treaty has already been voiced within Aragon.

As a small group of PvPers not focused on territory/tower control this treaty does not impede on our ability to perform our role one way or another.

As the largest faction in the game still claiming to hold to the principles of protection of the weak I would hope your role was more than to sit back and create treaties that cover for yourselves while all the weaker groups get ground to dust.

So, based on your deep morality and concern for these smaller settlements, you will in fact depart Aragon and join one of these smaller, "weaker" settlements?

Goblin Squad Member

We will help defend those left out of this treaty and continue in our plans wage war against TEO's new membership who promote these kinds of selfish programs.

Should this treaty bar us from either of those objectives, or force us into enforcing it's tyrannical objectives, and Aragon still sign it then we will find a new home from which to carry out those goals.

I'm not really concerned that will happen but I'll stand by that if it does.


Gol Phyllain wrote:
2 days.

I'm gonna go for a longshot. Five days.

No interfering with the results, though!

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

We will help defend those left out of this treaty and continue in our plans wage war against TEO's new membership who promote these kinds of selfish programs.

Should this treaty bar us from either of those objectives and Aragon still sign it then we will find a new home from which to carry out those goals.

Honestly, I would stay in Aragon. Whatever collateral Aragon has with the EoX is already diminishing. Use the remainder of your effort to convince your settlement to align with your game goals.

You might have some good success. Moving forward towards your goals is more likely than us entertaining theirs.

Goblin Squad Member

I have no interest in and have never intended to make Aragon follow my ideals. Aragon has so far offered a place I can pursue my goals free of most restrictions and not be forced into actions I would rather not partake in. That is why I choose to call it home.

I do not believe Aragon will sign this agreement if it too heavily restricts their membership's freedom or forces too much upon them. It does not seem in their nature.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm entirely too amused that you presume know how Golgotha will operate.

Goblin Squad Member

I made no presumptions here about what you intend to do. I simply relayed the information given to me that Golgotha had mentioned this treaty leaves towers in "The Slums" up for grabs.

A fact those living in "The Slums" and anyone truly concerned with protecting the weak should note.

This treaty as I have heard outlined forces everyone into accepting it's terms by making targets out of everyone who does not. They leave their territory as the only path to expansion for the massive power blocks within the treaty.

What power do you presume these groups will have in affecting the terms of a treaty you are pretty much forcing them to sign at gunpoint?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Edit #2: Not worth my time

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find Andius' argument against this NAP compelling and consistent with what he has always fought for on these forums.

To be honest, we have some within our ranks (at times including myself) that have argued against this NAP for a very different reason. We initially had claimed that this NAP takes too many targets off the plate, and gives us nothing that we were not already willing to fight to hold.

There is a bit of new information that we did not have prior to Gobocast 20, concerning the War of Towers and the influence cost of capturing and maintaining towers.

It will be interesting to see how many towers any of us are able to secure and hold, whether we sign this NAP or not. I would imagine that even "designated" towers will not be left dormant and unused if the settlement that has been bequeathed those towers can't gain control of them in the first place.

Both Aragon and Freevale, now the Nation of Kathalphas, will send representatives to this summit and maintain an open mind. If it is in our best interest to agree to the terms, then we will. If the terms do not, we won't and it is that simple.

If Andius and his Sentinels want to go protect those settlements that have been slated for sacrifice, that is his right to do so. It in no way violates any of the terms that I am aware of that we previously discussed. If this leads to occasions where Andius is fighting for one of these towers and I am trying to conquer that tower, then we fight for our ideals / goals and the side that wins the tower deserves to have what it holds.

We in Aragon do not force our members to remain silent or to play the game in a way they do not wish.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously though, why do you make a hobby out of getting upset about what your old friends are doing without you, and try get as many threads locked about the situation as possible?

You ARE the toxicity that chases people away from games dude, just take a breather and learn to let go man.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First off,

The map was a hobby map, that has been explained to all parties considering the NAP, it was an EXAMPLE of possible power blocks in 6 months after release. It started from a map where Everbloom was designating towers within our area.

Second, TEO has an interest to see everyone succeed and have a stable foundation..... with those that intend to actually play the game and communicate with those around them.....

There are 6-7 groups that have had little or no contact with not only TEO, but Everbloom, EoX, Highlanders, or anyone for that matter. TEO will never have the numbers to police the server, so we must pick and choose our battles, like Ryan states, "meaningful choices." If we spent all our time defending everyone on the server from everyone else, TEO would crumble under that weight.

TEO's Goals are stability, protection of the spirit of the game, as well as Brighthaven, and eventually several other TEO sponsored communities. Protecting the weak and serving justice is important, but we must utilize the resources at hand, making grand statements and not being able to fulfill those obligations is what the New TEO wants to avoid.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

So then I presume that Aragon will not agree to this proposal? And if it does, then you would need to leave that settlement, as you've declared that you'll stand up for the weak.

Further, would you have TEO take the authority to negotiate for every settlement on the map? If other settlements have an issue with the proposal, then come and talk with the community and see what happens.

Your mistake was that TEO owned the map and that we could dictate to every other guild and player how they would be permitted to play. That is arrogance and madness, but I'll love to watch you try to defend every single tower on the map 24/7 and not be a part of Aragon.

Aragon is open to the discussion to be held on Wednesday. We have agreed in principle, but not detail, to the idea. We have done this on the Xeilias boards, and on the COTP boards.

Andius clearly stated his position as an officer, of a group , in Aragon. He has both the freedom to speak for or against this agreement and the freedom to act as he wishes. The consequences of his actions will be felt by him and his own, and I expect that he accepts that.

If he feels the need to defend these towers, he will be providing both himself and others with additional content. That I thought is the design goal of the game.

I'm certain that in every group that may end up signing this agreement, there are dissenting voices. Some of them have been publicly vocal, others silent for whatever reason, and others disinterested in becoming involved in the drama.

I give more credit to those that are willing to publicly dissent then to those that tow the party line in silence, unless they truly agree with the terms.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
We in Aragon do not force our members to remain silent or to play the game in a way they do not wish.

If Everbloom wanted to force its members to remain silent or to play the game in a way they do not wish, I think I would have been banned already.

Honestly, until now, I happen to think that most Nations are pretty open-minded about freedom of speech.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
We in Aragon do not force our members to remain silent or to play the game in a way they do not wish.

If Everbloom wanted to force its members to remain silent or to play the game in a way they do not wish, I think I would have been banned already.

Honestly, until now, I happen to think that most Nations are pretty open-minded about freedom of speech.

I was not speaking for Everbloom, nor suggesting that they or anyone else does not allow their members to publicly dissent. I was simply stating a fact that we do not.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Of course, sorry, didn't mean it to be aggressive.

Goblin Squad Member

Cheatle wrote:
Protecting the weak and serving justice is important, but we must utilize the resources at hand, making grand statements and not being able to fulfill those obligations is what the New TEO wants to avoid.

You dress it up quite fancy but what you're doing is signing a contract that obligates you not to launch a counter-offensive if those who do not sign this treaty face obliteration by aggressive expansionists who have.

You go on to basically state that lack of pre-game forum involvement justifies this, and neglect to mention that this is an as of yet uncreated and unsigned treaty but already those promoting it are talking about how not signing it is pretty much a death sentence.

So outside the big three alliances they really are forced to agree to the terms exactly as you lay them out or be destroyed.

You don't have to make grand claim. You just don't create a treaty that forces all the smaller communities into such a horrible position, just because you are unsure of your ability to hold the towers you want.

You be the protectors not the protected.

Goblin Squad Member

Considering that we aren't going to make any final decisions till we know the mechanics of the game, all of this could be a moot point and nothing will be signed.

I don't consider this pre-game, the game started a long time ago, there are people who won the land rush and have yet to even say anything here. Besides that, some groups are so small at this point that I seriously doubt, even with help, they could even hold enough to be on par with the NPC towns.

I don't understand this, "forced to agree to terms exactly as you lay them out or be destroyed." It isn't like were going to go take their towers from them. Golgotha, by extension EoX, are the only ones who have talked about major expansion, I doubt they will have the numbers to destroy said settlements.

By destroy, I meant take enough towers from each of them to cripple said settlements (if they aren't already crippled from lack of membership). Mainly due to the fact that holding a tower requires upkeep cost of influence, which is going to limit each company to how many towers they can control.

Furthermore, some of the smaller settlements would probably be better off merging into some of the larger ones. IF it takes 30-50 people just to run some outposts and a PoI, that means half the groups that got a Settlement are going to be out in the cold, while the middle populated settlements need to double/trip their numbers just to maintain a small settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
...on par with the NPC towns.

That would require holding about seven towers, is that in the right neighbourhood?

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds about right Jazz, and they said with the influence costs, a small company will be able to hold 2-3 towers at max. Small company being 20-30.

Goblin Squad Member

GW has said influence is going to be how you hold towers. Tiny groups can in no way generate enough influence to hold the 6-8 towers they'll need for their settlement, they are in for a bad time, without anyone setting foot on their hexes.

The game mechanics forcing everyone to play in large groups ( settlements of ~500, etc ) that is GW's vision, not any player groups 'terms'.

As to the treaty, it is open, not closed. The EE map has hexes for all, IF they can make the influence to utilize the hexes around them. No one needs to 'go hungry', but neither can you hand them the influence to live on. And community betterment =/= a welfare state in any case.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
TEO Cheatle wrote:
...on par with the NPC towns.
That would require holding about seven towers, is that in the right neighbourhood?

I believe it is or will be about 6 to be on par.

Here is a point that I think has been overlooked or glossed over, the WoT is not the only prep time to gather, train and complete achievements needed to unlock higher training.

Even if you managed to unlock level 15 training, it will still take your players over a year to be ready for that training. Just because you unlocked that potential, does not mean you don't have to build it. That too can take months of gathering, refining, crafting and even fighting for.

If the War of Towers is going to grant buildings, instantly, to gain access to those upper tier training, than what powerful group (numerically) is going to limit itself?

Yes, I know there is the belief that all of the other signatories will gang up on that rogue settlement and take all of their towers. I believe there is an equal chance that the whole thing devolves into a FFA.

It is very likely that someone will violate this agreement, for no other reason than they got bored and thought it would be fun. Some players actually play games for fun, and having fun is not a short term or short sighted goal.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
Sounds about right Jazz, and they said with the influence costs, a small company will be able to hold 2-3 towers at max. Small company being 20-30.

A small company might be as small as 6 - 10. A company of 30 could conceivably control up to 9 towers.

But as Pino brings up, will they have the influence to maintain those towers? I also add, we will have to discuss what we do with "designated towers" that remain unclaimed because the company / settlement does not have the influence to hold them?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
But as Pino brings up, will they have the influence to maintain those towers? I also add, we will have to discuss what we do with "designated towers" that remain unclaimed because the company / settlement does not have the influence to hold them?

Until people have advanced to a point that they need the towers to gain skill, those towers might be considered sparring sites. Likewise, if a settlement's companies don't have the influence to hold them, the sites could be used as terrain for PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say I appreciate this politicking, and those that have the gumption to put it out in the open. While I don't care for it when it takes a turn towards the ad hominem attacks, I think it bodes well for a vibrant and dynamic community.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
...it will still take your players over a year to be ready for that training.

I've not done the math, so I'll accept yours. That means that no one will need nor be able to use 15 towers, because the War of Towers isn't going to last a year; all else is now negotiating whatever number of towers will support characters 8-9 months old, thus allowing for the War to last longer than expected.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Just because you unlocked that potential, does not mean you don't have to build it.

Did you mean "doesn't mean you have to build it?" Otherwise, I need to ask about your meaning.

Bluddwolf wrote:
It is very likely that someone will violate this agreement...

That says it's all the more important for the formal agreement to address what'll happen when someone does.

Goblin Squad Member

I can't speak for Ozem's Vigil on my own, but my guess is that we wouldn't sign anything that leaves us no towers to fight over. Many of my fellow citizens are looking forward to the Tower Wars, and eager to test their mettle against other groups, whether friendly or a bit more than that.

Any pronouncements about what is going to happen before any formal, let alone final, discussions have happened is bound to be erroneous.

Goblin Squad Member

I won't be there for the meeting but I imagine any Settlement that doesn't have the Influence to hold their Tower will make that Tower FFA. Most of the Settlements except for the top ones that won the Landrush will probably fall in that category.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
...it will still take your players over a year to be ready for that training.

I've not done the math, so I'll accept yours. That means that no one will need nor be able to use 15 towers, because the War of Towers isn't going to last a year; all else is now negotiating whatever number of towers will support characters 8-9 months old, thus allowing for the War to last longer than expected.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Just because you unlocked that potential, does not mean you don't have to build it.

Did you mean "doesn't mean you have to build it?" Otherwise, I need to ask about your meaning.

Bluddwolf wrote:
It is very likely that someone will violate this agreement...
That says it's all the more important for the formal agreement to address what'll happen when someone does.

What I meant was, you might not have the resources to build it. I don't know how I got that sentence so jumbled.

Goblin Squad Member

6 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is yet another of Andius' attempts to speak ill of TEO at every chance he can fabricate. That guy mainlines drama like a degenerate junkie. I guess this thread is his next fix.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TEO Pino wrote:
And community betterment =/= a welfare state in any case.

So does this mean that if one of these "slum" settlements decides to join your alliance you will give them fewer or even no protected towers? Who will be determining "slum" settlements and what measure will they be using?

I'm not advocating we create a welfare state. I'm advocating tower holdings be determined by the armies, allied armies, and mercenary forces a settlement can muster. Not TEO and Pax telling everyone "you get these towers and you don't touch these ones or we'll destroy you."

Within that system I would have seen TEO's role as assisting other settlements in mustering their forces and sending the aid of their own forces to those they feel worthy. Not selling out smaller settlements in an agreement designed to let their own players avoid PvP. It's just plain sad and disgusting. There is nothing that sets you apart from any other self serving faction at this point.

That's fine, as long as you fess up to it and stop claiming to serve anyone but yourselves.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious. This trend of referring to the unaffiliated settlements as "The Slums"... is this something people were doing already, or something Andius is doing to attempt to add a veneer of moral righteousness to his personal vendetta against TEO? I haven't seen the term used prior to this thread, and the need to define the area he's talking about in the first post suggests its not a sufficiently common descriptor for the area to assume people are familiar with it.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO Cheatle wrote:

First off,

The map was a hobby map, that has been explained to all parties considering the NAP, it was an EXAMPLE of possible power blocks in 6 months after release. It started from a map where Everbloom was designating towers within our area.

Second, TEO has an interest to see everyone succeed and have a stable foundation..... with those that intend to actually play the game and communicate with those around them.....

There are 6-7 groups that have had little or no contact with not only TEO, but Everbloom, EoX, Highlanders, or anyone for that matter. TEO will never have the numbers to police the server, so we must pick and choose our battles, like Ryan states, "meaningful choices." If we spent all our time defending everyone on the server from everyone else, TEO would crumble under that weight.

TEO's Goals are stability, protection of the spirit of the game, as well as Brighthaven, and eventually several other TEO sponsored communities. Protecting the weak and serving justice is important, but we must utilize the resources at hand, making grand statements and not being able to fulfill those obligations is what the New TEO wants to avoid.

Let me preface this statement by saying that I am no longer the Thane Blade of Pax Aeternum and a State Representative of Callambea. 15 cr hours of College, my transition out of the military, and my family take up just about all my time. I voluntarily stepped down from that role.

That said, Cheatle shared the map linked above with me willingly when we were engaged in a conversation about a different subject entirely. He asked me if the NC would consider a NAP with Everbloom... I didn't know. I said I'd bring a proposal back to the Northern Coalition. I never pitched it. I told folks within the EoX about it and a day or two later, I stepped down.

There was no talk dividing up to the map or anything dastardly like that. It was a simple premise. "No touchy touchy during War of the Towers". It wasn't "target other folks, not us." It was "we'll worry about defending our stuff and not attacking you if you promise to do the same." No other parties were discussed. As Cheatle said, the map was given to me and we spoke about EVERYONE that had a settlement having a solid foundation.

The developers have said it from early on... you will have to work together to succeed. Smaller settlements will make sacrificial lambs out of themselves if they do not begin to organize and get bigger, however they decide to.

The title of the thread may as well read, "Attention!!! People are going to play Pathfinder Online!!"

Goblin Squad Member

Well if it turns out that the big settlements will not do any real harm to each other but they are free to smash little settlements (if they want to) ,then this NAP is going to be something far different in practice than in theory. But I expect the people involved already know that it will be a big guys can smash the little guys but not each other deal.

I suppose like all people that try to run things they think the world would be a better place if everyone would just join in their plan.

You can't deny that ,we won't attack each other (much) ,means that we will attack others more.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:

*looks west of Golgotha*

*grins*

you mean the slums?

used it in Re: Land Rush Week 10 on Friday.

Edit: corrected quote.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:
2 days.

Feelin' lucky and taking the over?

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think anyone in the Everbloom alliance has called them "slums."

@Areks, thanks for clearing that up. The conversation we had, is very similar to the one I have had with most of those considering any sort of tower NAP.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
TEO Pino wrote:
And community betterment =/= a welfare state in any case.

So does this mean that if one of these "slum" settlements decides to join your alliance you will give them fewer or even no protected towers? Who will be determining "slum" settlements and what measure will they be using?

I'm not advocating we create a welfare state. I'm advocating tower holdings be determined by the armies, allied armies, and mercenary forces a settlement can muster. Not TEO and Pax telling everyone "you get these towers and you don't touch these ones or we'll destroy you."

Within that system I would have seen TEO's role as assisting other settlements in mustering their forces and sending the aid of their own forces to those they feel worthy. Not selling out smaller settlements in an agreement designed to let their own players avoid PvP. It's just plain sad and disgusting. There is nothing that sets you apart from any other self serving faction at this point.

That's fine, as long as you fess up to it and stop claiming to serve anyone but yourselves.

Some settlements have 17 or fewer members, that does not make them slums, or any other slur. They just don't get the mechanics of this game. They can probably hold 3 towers. The first 2 count double, so they may in fact be happy through WotT, and enter EE as a 17 member settlement. Suddenly, POI and influence rules are in full effect, and they can comfortably make 1 POI, perhaps if they are patient and plan well, they could eke out 3 POI's. This will not keep their settlement up to the level of NPC towns, and they will have to face facts then.

When you say "I'm advocating tower holdings be determined by the armies, allied armies, and mercenary forces a settlement can muster."
You have to include TEO and everyone else in that logic, not relegate us to helping everyone who *by choice* remains too small to function, much less contribute, in that milieu.

Show me the screenshots of TEO leadership threatening anyone about touching 'our' towers. Or stop slandering us, sir.

You would have seen TEO's role... well, you quit TEO, and you don't lead any settlement. So your vision can stay in your company chat, thanks. And your opinions can go to your settlements leadership, and perhaps sway their policy, but not anyone else's. This should all be obvious by now, but I want to be clear.

What's sad and disgusting is your wholehearted earnestness in pursuing a personal agenda of hate against people who did nothing but watch you self destruct in pity and wonder.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The New TEO Promotes Agreement That Will Make Sacrificial Lambs of Smaller Settlements All Messageboards