Official Tower NAP Violation


Pathfinder Online

301 to 329 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atheory wrote:

Antagonists? Perhaps, but I can't see where we object, in our own way, to one thing (the NAP) causing us to have that label full time. Then again, only time will tell.

Damn, and I thought i'd be post #300

I thing that you're intending to be antagonists, and that's why you did what you did.

If you don't intend to be antagonistic, there's something I don't understand about your motivations. Since the last time I asked specifically about that I was ignored, I assume that it's something you might be holding for advantage; that implies that you see the interaction as adversarial, making you the antagonist party.

When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I think duck, even though there are other possibilities.

Goblin Squad Member

Considering it's an open world PvP sandbox game, shouldn't most people be antagonizing someone?


I don't see Atheory as an antagonist for his dislike of the NAP, or for his willingness to engage in "activism". At least he's being proactive about his dislike, unlike us grumblers.

I see Atheory as an antagonist because did you see his alignment? I mean, holy mackerel, I think that guy who rubs shoulders with the kitten eaters and demon summoners might not be the protagonist of this story, guys. Try to wrap your head around that one.

;P

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

This was just pointed out to me:

Aet Kard Warstein wrote:
Just as the Empire of Xeilias didn't make an issue about Phaeros taking Kreuz Bersteins Northern Tower, we simply took it back. Since Phaeros didn't contest, no harm, no foul. We simply felt it silly to blow something causing absolutely no harm completely out of proportion.

I appreciate the fact that you don't think of this as a big deal.

However, I do not appreciate the fact that you made the assertion without providing any evidence. To the best of my knowledge, this did not happen.

The existing strained relationship between our Power Blocs makes it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt that this is not a ploy to cast doubt on Phaeros's integrity without having to do so formally with evidence.

Note that I am not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying I was not aware of it if it did. If you have any evidence, I would very much like to see it. I will also talk to the rest of the Phaeros leadership to determine if any of them have any knowledge of this.

I appreciate with the history between our crews that you might always jump to the worst conclusion, and demand proof for many situations. You'll learn I do not make statements I'm not prepared to back up.

I'm after making money for Callambea and our trade partners in a straight forward manner, with contracts, trade agreements and other lawful means of exchange as they become available. I choose to leave the day to day drama to those more concerned with it.

Screenshot

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aet Kard Warstein wrote:
You'll learn I do not make statements I'm not prepared to back up.

Yes, I am learning that.

Aet Kard Warstein wrote:
Screenshot

Thank you.

Gaskon had already supplied me with his own screenshot, and I posted about it on our own forums, in the thread titled "Tower Map - Don't Take Towers that Aren't Assigned to Phaeros!" from January 13th.

It's quite possible it was an innocent mistake by someone who doesn't frequent the forums. It's also quite possible it was enemy action carried out by a saboteur, since that seems to have happened to a number of other Settlements as well. We're investigating. It would help if we could have some log of who gained Capture Points where, or if we even had Settlement Chat and a Message of the Day.

If anyone should notice something like this in the future, even if you don't think it's a big deal, I would very much appreciate it if you would bring it to my attention as quickly as possible.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hang 'em?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm unclear of whether all parties consider this settled or not.

In the event anything else is required, Ozem's Vigil is prepared to represent either or both sides if they have not reached an accommodation. We have, however, only one member prepared to act in this. If neither side wishes to nominate another representative, then Thod and I will have to reach a consensus.

Caldeathe Baequiannia
For Ozem's Vigil.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe the matter is closed since Cheatle withdrew the petition, instead leaving the resolution of what AGC had done up to Aragon.

In the matter I believe Aragon was harmed more so than Hammerforge, who I'm still not sure is active or not.

I would also hope that the other transgressions that seem to have taken lace be chalked up to irrational exuberance.

When I switch to computer, I will address this issue further.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

I believe the matter is closed since Cheatle withdrew the petition, instead leaving the resolution of what AGC had done up to Aragon.

In the matter I believe Aragon was harmed more so than Hammerforge, who I'm still not sure is active or not.

I would also hope that the other transgressions that seem to have taken lace be chalked up to irrational exuberance.

When I switch to computer, I will address this issue further.

I saw a withdrawal of complaint contingent on several actions; are those actions complete?

None if the conditions said anything about determining any matter of fact; it doesn't matter what AGC did, so long as the specific actions concerning them are taken.

Goblin Squad Member

We don't care about your judgement, just punish them.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:

#1 - Someone from Aragon taking the two towers in question with an unsponsored company, then refraining from taking the towers (since Hammerforge is recognized as inactive) for seven days.

#2 - AGC be reprimanded, publicly, and a penance be placed upon the company, by Aragon.

I feel that this is an accurate penalty to what actually occurred, and takes into consideration that the AGC held the towers before joining Aragon.

#1 On the first count, I offer Hammerforge one better. Should they enter the game, I would assist them in capturing their towers, with an alt that is attached to their settlement. This would dedicate my time and free them up to do other activities, rather than capturing their own towers. I would do this for no fewer than two towers.

In the event that Hammer forge does not come to the game, before WoT ends, well honestly no harm, no foul.

#2. I have made it clear to AGC that any future transgression against any deal that Aragon has accepted will result in severe consequences, including but not limited to removal of sponsorship.

Moving forward, as I have stated earlier, I believe several violations have taken place, and by primary companies (unlike in our circumstances).

I do not see the same call for a tribunal taking place, nor do I believe it should. Bottom line is this...

The server population is dreadfully low, and there are more than enough towers for every settlement to have access to both higher tier training, and PVP opportunities.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I withdraw my Petition.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, Bluddwolf and Cheatle. It's been an interesting few days.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Thanks, Bluddwolf and Cheatle. It's been an interesting few days.

+ 1 for your for all of your efforts

- 1 for this Captain Obvious post. ;-)


I WISH TO LODGE A COMPLAINT

THERE HAS BEEN NO POSTING IN LIKE A BUNCH OF HOURS AND I STILL HAVE POPCORN I BOUGHT FROM KADERE

Kadere has griefed me and my settlement, Drunktown, in flagrant violation of something on the NAP. Please ban them from the game.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

According to the terms of the deal, you must designate as your advocate... A Shrubbery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't read so I'll assume you're telling the truth.

Now to find a shrubbery who'll defend me...

Goblin Squad Member

Good luck, their notoriously an offensive, not defensive, life form with a very prickly disposition.

Make sure you have a blanket.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I WISH TO LODGE A COMPLAINT

THERE HAS BEEN NO POSTING IN LIKE A BUNCH OF HOURS AND I STILL HAVE POPCORN I BOUGHT FROM KADERE

Kadere has griefed me and my settlement, Drunktown, in flagrant violation of something on the NAP. Please ban them from the game.

Caveat emptor, dear Kobold.

Goblin Squad Member

I.R. Shrubbery Esquire.

I R here to help. I R going to fix. I R good at dis.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Greetings shrubbery. Now please tell me what you told the botanist about what the kobold did to you.

Goblin Squad Member

I R here to help Kobold. I R his lawyer. I R not going to say anything. I R thinking my client wants privacy. I R invoking attorney-client privilege.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Greetings shrubbery. Now please tell me what you told the botanist about what the kobold did to you.

Can you show us on this celery where the kobold touched you?


Wow, thanks.

*Takes celery*

*Dips in peanut butter*

*Munchmunchmunch*

Goblin Squad Member

I see the other instances of violation have been obscured with a page worth of banter.

I'm guessing it only mattered in Aragon's case?

After our own internal discussions we found that AGC had captured the towers in question prior to their admission into our settlement or near enough, that our only recently returned settlement leader had no opportunity to vet their holdings or experience with the settlement controls to vet them.

We found that AGC did not frequent these forums (a defense used by Phaeros, thanks)to the extent that they would have been fully aware of the WoT NAP. What they did learn of them, post decision of Aragon agreeing to them, was that AGC would have been opposed to them in the first place.

While I am not necessarily charging a double standard has been applied in this case, I do see a difference in reporting by various parties and not isolated to this Nap violations.

Members of the UNC and others that follow our forum activity and play style are not prone to complain about player activities that are minor nuisances. For example, I am extremely thick skinned and have perhaps reported 3 posts in two years. In game, the UNC simply recaptured out tower that was being held by a company. I have no idea what settlement they eventually joined, nor do I care.

Goblin Squad Member

Quit your whining Blud, this right here:

Atheory wrote:

I've had the towers nearly 3 days now, I was wondering when the "we are the world police" would show up.

I took'em, damn straight, what you gonna do about it! And I'd do it again.

As I sit cross legged, arms folded at my offline tower during a dream session chanting "heck no we won't go, heck no we won't go"

Since Golgotha wants to help call me out, feel free to ding them for allowing Callambea (yes also Golgotha with a different name) from taking core towers around Iron Gauntlet.

Yes, what a web we weave!

Atheory
Allegiant Gemstone Company

...is the difference between your case and all the others.

Goblin Squad Member

In the end, all incidents regarding Towers taken around inactive settlements resolved the same way. There was some noise but no long term sanctioning of any party and most kept those towers.

This incident received more attention because of comments made by representatives of ACG to demonstrate their disapproval of portions of the NAP. Although there was talk of strong sanctions, the end result was the same.

In the end it was no big deal that towers around inactive settlements were taken by anyone. The use of towers is minimal and none of leadership of those settlements ever said they wanted them back.

Weather or not the NAP should have made any provision regarding inactive settlements of non-signatories is now moot. The one week restriction it did have is no longer in place.

I do think that this was a informational view in to the social dynamics of the game so far and should both the good and bad.

Goblin Squad Member

Shocked! Shocked I am at the suggestion that there might be a double standard for Aragon! :D

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

I see the other instances of violation have been obscured with a page worth of banter.

I'm guessing it only mattered in Aragon's case?

After our own internal discussions we found that AGC had captured the towers in question prior to their admission into our settlement or near enough, that our only recently returned settlement leader had no opportunity to vet their holdings or experience with the settlement controls to vet them.

We found that AGC did not frequent these forums (a defense used by Phaeros, thanks)to the extent that they would have been fully aware of the WoT NAP. What they did learn of them, post decision of Aragon agreeing to them, was that AGC would have been opposed to them in the first place.

While I am not necessarily charging a double standard has been applied in this case, I do see a difference in reporting by various parties and not isolated to this Nap violations.

Members of the UNC and others that follow our forum activity and play style are not prone to complain about player activities that are minor nuisances. For example, I am extremely thick skinned and have perhaps reported 3 posts in two years. In game, the UNC simply recaptured out tower that was being held by a company. I have no idea what settlement they eventually joined, nor do I care.

How great a coincidence that an individual who did not frequent that forums found and replied to this thread within an hour. I'm glad we were lucky enough to catch him so quickly.

As far as I'm concerned, once the petition was unconditionally withdrawn, thE matter became internal to Aragon, and I don't expect transparency in internal settlement business.

If you have a problem with the actions of another settlement, or even just want to play the diplomatic portion of the game, feel free.

301 to 329 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Official Tower NAP Violation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online