(long post) :( GOA response to the petition in support of TT and Black Falcon members

Sharkith

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
2,798
Hi folks,

OK my biggest concern in reporting this thread is to make the replies by GOA clear for everyone, to avoid misquoting them and to help clear the air on what has happened.

I personally learned a lot here. My intention was never to help one side win over the other as some tried to accuse me of doing. It was to subject some of the key perceptions that where evident in the debates here to some productive scrutiny.

Producing a petition and then bringing it to GOAs attention makes a very clear statement. The petition has 250+ signatures. No matter if you are in support of GOA or on the other side with TT you simply have to acknowledge the significance of that statement. GOA have at all times taken the claims seriously and have been helpful and constructive. They are as keen as many of us are to clear this up. With this in mind I want to turn to the claims we made and to give you their response:

Claim 1 There is a minority of players who habitually engage in alarm clock raids and who are intent on griefing the whole server.

GOA said:
It is not possible to see over such a long period any such pattern. Without the benefit of an indepth investigation however, my subjective impression (based on my not very reliable memory) is that it is not the same individuals for each attempt. I believe the last two raids were done by some of (but not exactly) the same players but at least some of the earlier raids were from different guilds and individuals.

I'm sorry to sound so negative, but there is little possibility of an indepth investigation corroborating your claims. In any case we would first have to agree that such an act could be considered grief play and then establish that the intention of these players was to disrupt. As I have explained to you previously, making the call that taking enemy relics in a legitimate manner can be griefing is not one that we are comfortable in taking. Furthermore, establishing intent in incidents stretching back over such a long period is unrealistic.

I understand your concerns and I entirely see what you are driving at. The sticking point is simply this. The 'antisocial element' are playing the game in a legitimate manner. For us to come out and say that they are griefing opens up a very undesirable can of worms. I am aware that these raids are unpopular and that many players have strong opinions about them, however there is no evidence that it is part of a concerted campaign against other players nor is there any realistic way of collecting such proof. The sentiment on the forums is clear but I would suggest that the players who are part of the RvR community on Freddyshouse are not entirely representative of the server as a whole. Many players are unconcerned by concepts such as AC raids, and some players are actively for them. Much like any other contentious topic, our policy must be to stay clear of telling people how to play and must instead focus on upholding our Code of Conduct.

For understandable reasons GOA are concerned that things would be made worse if they had intervened in the other more recent threads. I tend to agree with them.

Claim 2 TT's actions were not against the spirit of the game (SoTG)?

Now this was slightly more tricky to deal with because for obvious reasons on first response GOA would not discuss individual players accounts.

GOA said:
Thank you for your comments. We are not able to discuss the details of actions taken against other accounts. We remind you that in all cases, actively assisting an enemy realm at the expense of your own is always considered to be against the spirit of the game and as such can be punishable depending on the circumstances.

So I had to return to this a few days ago and put it to them in a more general less divisive way:

Sharkith said:
Is it GOA's view that lowering a keep that contains a relic from 10 to 1 would be in contravention of the SoTG in 'all' cases?

For example, if a guild declared that a relic was obtained through dishonourable means and that as a result it was opposing such action as against its principles of honourable warfare. Would that be deemed as against the spirit of the game? To put the same thing more directly does GOA envisage that it might be possible to have a relic keep lowered to 1 and still be in keeping of the spirit of the game?

GOA said:
Firstly I can't think of any situation where such an act wouldn't be against the spirit of the game. Obviously there are additional complications since the cluster with guilds that may be active on more than one realm to take into consideration. While that wasn't the case in this instance, it's a small part of why we felt that there should be a clear message from us regarding this situation.

I also pushed harder on the issue the petition addresses as follows:

Sharkith said:
Finally. In the case of TT and Black Falcons you stated clearly in your post that it was the combination of 'intent' with the action that led you to interpret it as a breach of the SoTG. Given the additional information now available that has clearly identified the direct concerns of a significant proportion of the player base. Does GOA think that in this case they may well have risked backing up an antisocial element in the game at the expense of that group of players?


GOA said:
Your other question is fairly simple to answer. We aren't stupid and we are aware of how the more vocal members of the community might take our decision. We do not however avoid taking decisions because they will be unpopular. Our concern is for the quality of the game and for the expectations of players that the rules and the spirit of the game will be upheld in all cases. Once we ad concluded our investigation we were in no doubt about how we should act, we were fully expecting it to be an unpopular decision but it was stillone we felt we had to take. We are not making any judgements on AC raiding and neither are we condoning or discouraging any playstyle. We simply made a call on the action taken by TT/BF and I made it as clear as possible that the AC issue was entirely irrelevant to that decision. Regardless of the motivations of TT/BF we would still have made the same call if for example they simply wanted to restore relic balance after a successful primetime raid.

OK so far so good. One idea that I had floated on the forums was the possibility of players entering into a voluntary charter in response to AC raids. To present it in its original context as I put it to GOA I have to recite some of the info I have already given you.

Sharkith said:
For example, if a guild declared that a relic was obtained through dishonourable means and that as a result it was opposing such action as against its principles of honourable warfare. Would that be deemed as against the spirit of the game? To put the same thing more directly does GOA envisage that it might be possible to have a relic keep lowered to 1 and still be in keeping of the spirit of the game?

I am asking this because it might well be possible for the community to generate a voluntary (emphasis on voluntary) charter where guilds sign up to certain principles of honourable warfare. In this they could tell their realm that they either do or don’t condone dishonourable raids for relics and what actions their guild will take as a result of such raids. It is an entirely voluntary thing, made within the spirit of a ‘code of warfare’ negotiated by guilds and alliances amongst themselves. Not binding and it is up to the guilds and persons concerned what they do. Do you think this is possible within the SoTG?

GOA said:
Your point about the voluntary charter is as unworkable as a voluntary charter about not adding or not doing late night raids. I am assuming that this charter would be published on Freddyshouse, but for those guilds or individuals who do not read the forums, it would be entirely moot. It places too much emphasis on playing the forums over playing the game.

Fair point!

Sharkith said:
To clarify the idea behind a charter was simply a voluntary thing to communicate how clearly one's guild feels about any aspect of the game. Not being able to act out one's views of the game as one sees fit undermines the whole spirit of roleplay and actually restricts the game as a roleplaying game. It turns it into a realm versus realm version of counterstrike which is ironic because I originally stopped playing that game to get more from my time here.

You are however the authority on this and your message is very clear. I promise you I will be faithful to your replies. I for one now know the terms of reference I am playing under. I never knew they were so restricted.

GOA said:
You suggest that the terms of reference are narrow but I would submit that they are not. Play your realm and if you can't bring yourself to support your side against the enemy then at the very least don't hinder them. That's pretty much it. I would suggest that a much better way of making a stand on this matter would be to log into an enemy realm and assist with a retake. That way you are playing the game in the way that it is intended, you aren't preventing your original realm from mounting a normal defence but you can still make your point and send the same message in a much more material way.

Sharkith said:
Whatever you say your position is deeply inconsistent. On the one hand you claim you will not tell people how to play and on the other you have very clear views on how they should play. Telling me that I can express my views on honourable play by logging into Midgard is restrictive by the very fact I have to do that because I cannot make that statement as a Hibernian. Maybe I have pride in my realm and I do not wish to see it acting in a way that undermines its credibility according to that code. Your views clearly override my ability to express those views in a material fashion in the game and hence that is a deep contradiction.

GOA said:
I disagree that my position is inconsistent. The game allows for many different play styles and we do not endorse or discourage any legitimate choices that players make with their playtime. We do however insist that players remain within the rules that we set. This is not limiting legitimate choice but delineating the framework that players are able to act within. In situations where the edges are blurry we hope that cases like this will help to define that grey area.
My suggestion in the last reply regarding logging into an enemy realm was mostly aimed at those Albion players who felt strongly about the AC issue, obviously as a Hibernian player you already have the option to pursue a resolution ingame.

I thank you for your constructive feedback

That is basically where it ends just to be clear I finished by saying the following:

Sharkith said:
thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. It is very clear what you mean. We might still disagree on whether or not the parameters you provide are restricting but that is not critical to my original query and I would like to acknowldge that you have cleared this problem up.

I think the answers they gave are very clear. The last point is a very interesting one. I honestly had no idea we were operating in such a restricted view of the SoTG all this time. However I found it helpful to be able to explore it like this and I hope you find it helpful in clearing up any further misunderstandings about what can and cannot be done in the game. They are also clear on what has happened -

a) no way of finding out if it was consistent behaviour but they are concerned that an antisocial element are doing it.
b) their interpretation of the SoTG should now be much clearer.

Sharkith
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,616
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sharkith again. /shakes fist
 

Bracken

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,368
Fair play Sharkith, you know how to go about things the right way. Personally I think GOA got it pretty much spot on in their replies, although I still think the ban was harsh as a statement of policy for future reference would have been better. Atleast it's clear now for everyone.
 

Cadelin

Resident Freddy
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,514
It doesn't answer a few things though (unless I misread something).

Downgrading the keep to level 1 made it easy to tell that it was done on purpose. What happens if the keep had been dropped to level 4 or 6? Still much easier to raid than a level 10 keep but much harder to justify that its grief play.

Secondly we don't know what happens if you release the keep. This is in my opinion the most important thing. Releasing the keep makes it drop down to level 1. Making it very easy to take for a while. What happens if TT had released the keep when it was under attack? Obviously some would say clearly grief play but what happens if they release it an hour before an advertised MRE on a public forum? It would be nice to know though. Are we forced to support the actions of all our realm mates or can we make decisions to not help them?
 

Asha

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
1,355
Sorry, but this doesn't address anything new. They think it's ok to interfer in something that should be taken care of in game. This isn't ok, especially since they point blank refuse to even acknowledge what is going on on the server. Their response is basically: Albions are not allowed to stand up to these AC raiders in any way but log in Hib or Mid accounts???

That's just an asinine answer. I have to level another character on another realm in order to combat what is going on in my realm? I am not allowed to decide that I don't want to help hold a relic taken when there was probably 6 Hibs online? It's better to play a cross-realmer than to take a valid stand? Common.

It's also a stupid answer. The Albs that have a problem aren't ONLINE to go log other characters - just like Mids and Hibs aren't.

Originally Posted by GOA
I disagree that my position is inconsistent. The game allows for many different play styles and we do not endorse or discourage any legitimate choices that players make with their playtime. We do however insist that players remain within the rules that we set. This is not limiting legitimate choice but delineating the framework that players are able to act within. In situations where the edges are blurry we hope that cases like this will help to define that grey area.
My suggestion in the last reply regarding logging into an enemy realm was mostly aimed at those Albion players who felt strongly about the AC issue, obviously as a Hibernian player you already have the option to pursue a resolution ingame.

I thank you for your constructive feedback
I call bullshit. They pulled this rule out of their arses because no doubt the Muy's of the world whined like little babies endlessly and GOA gave in.

In the past relics were DROPPED OFF for Albs by Hibs and then returned because a few players didn't like it that way. Keeps have been dropped, put at lvl 1 and so on to enable irvr. It's a joke. They bowed to these whining babies and now they are grasping at reasons why this is different.

I don't think they expected anyone to make too much fuss tbh. How they call 250 people a "vocal minority" is beyond me.

Thanks Sharkith for trying to get some answers.
 

Sharkith

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
2,798
Asha,

sit back a second and think it through. They have been very very clear here what the framework is. Read the first response to our first claim. If there are 'ac raiders' there is no way of 100% proving that this is a steady group of people out to make your life miserable. There is a distinct lack of evidence and any that there is (though a bit shaky because its from memory) indicates that a lot more people have been doing it than we thought. Seriously mate there is no way to prove that there is a conspiracy here it is better to drop the issue.

This tell you more about the situation on the server and who your enemy is (i.e. a significant number of Albs have been doing it). GOA were helpful here please see that. They also acknowledged for the first time that the behaviour is antisocial - they can just do nothing about it.

This is clear.

The SoTG issue is also very clear and even if I remain in disagreement. However like I said you don't have to agree you simply have to understand how this is to be interpreted.

Cadelin said:
Downgrading the keep to level 1 made it easy to tell that it was done on purpose. What happens if the keep had been dropped to level 4 or 6? Still much easier to raid than a level 10 keep but much harder to justify that its grief play.

Against the SoTG from GOA's perspective.

Cadelin said:
Secondly we don't know what happens if you release the keep. This is in my opinion the most important thing. Releasing the keep makes it drop down to level 1. Making it very easy to take for a while. What happens if TT had released the keep when it was under attack? Obviously some would say clearly grief play but what happens if they release it an hour before an advertised MRE on a public forum? It would be nice to know though. Are we forced to support the actions of all our realm mates or can we make decisions to not help them?

Answer is clear - not against the SoTG because you are 'at the very least not hindering' your realm mates.
 

pip

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
3,977
Sharkith said:
Hi folks,

OK my biggest concern in reporting this thread is to make the replies by GOA clear for everyone, to avoid misquoting them and to help clear the air on what has happened.

I personally learned a lot here. My intention was never to help one side win over the other as some tried to accuse me of doing. It was to subject some of the key perceptions that where evident in the debates here to some productive scrutiny.

Producing a petition and then bringing it to GOAs attention makes a very clear statement. The petition has 250+ signatures. No matter if you are in support of GOA or on the other side with TT you simply have to acknowledge the significance of that statement. GOA have at all times taken the claims seriously and have been helpful and constructive. They are as keen as many of us are to clear this up. With this in mind I want to turn to the claims we made and to give you their response:

Claim 1 There is a minority of players who habitually engage in alarm clock raids and who are intent on griefing the whole server.



For understandable reasons GOA are concerned that things would be made worse if they had intervened in the other more recent threads. I tend to agree with them.

Claim 2 TT's actions were not against the spirit of the game (SoTG)?

Now this was slightly more tricky to deal with because for obvious reasons on first response GOA would not discuss individual players accounts.



So I had to return to this a few days ago and put it to them in a more general less divisive way:





I also pushed harder on the issue the petition addresses as follows:






OK so far so good. One idea that I had floated on the forums was the possibility of players entering into a voluntary charter in response to AC raids. To present it in its original context as I put it to GOA I have to recite some of the info I have already given you.





Fair point!









That is basically where it ends just to be clear I finished by saying the following:



I think the answers they gave are very clear. The last point is a very interesting one. I honestly had no idea we were operating in such a restricted view of the SoTG all this time. However I found it helpful to be able to explore it like this and I hope you find it helpful in clearing up any further misunderstandings about what can and cannot be done in the game. They are also clear on what has happened -

a) no way of finding out if it was consistent behaviour but they are concerned that an antisocial element are doing it.
b) their interpretation of the SoTG should now be much clearer.

Sharkith
Well done atleast you made them acknowledge this problem:) To me this whole situation as got out of hand:( by a small number of people that as give us all lots of grief:(
 

Belisar

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
357
I agree with Asha from the point of view of an alb being restricted as to how they show their displeasure at something like an AC raid or anything else they regard as unsocial.

Logging onto an enemy realm is not a practical response.

Given you cannot have a hard and fast rule for every circumstance is always going to leave a SotG kind of open to debate (I was going to say mass debate but perhaps I should resist). That is true for us as users and GOA as enforcers (or in this case judge and jury). So it is hard to see where anyone can go from here.

I remain of the opinion that their response was heavy handed and unnecessary.

Thanks for the time and the effort Sharky - good job mate.
 

Skg

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
101
With telling us to log on to the enemy realm they are practically telling us to crossrealm? What about the spirit of the game? Cross realming is clearly against the rules?
 

Mastade

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,083
Skg said:
With telling us to log on to the enemy realm they are practically telling us to crossrealm? What about the spirit of the game? Cross realming is clearly against the rules?

I asked GoA the exact same thing. I was concerned that if i were to make a mass rvr event on mid or alb and went for i.e. hib it was seen as being against the SOTG because i were to "harm" my "own" realm. They were pretty clear on that subject aswell, "as long as you are playing for the realm you are logged onto, you arent doing anything wrong".
 

Mastade

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,083
Anyways, respect for your efforts Sharkith..

All i can say really, is that im sorry all this have ended in such a way.
 

Bugz

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,297
I've always admired your ability to cool down a situation and have such a clear-head about a tender issue Shark.

Well done on getting some answers :)
 

rampant

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,565
well done m8 on your tenacity on getting answers and opening up discussion on this issue.

at the end of the day it is all about perspective

some people play early morning, some people play evening - this is the price you pay for a 24/7 game.

What is unfair to a majority of the FH community is not unfair or against the coc or sotg.

Personally i dont care much about the AC raids - but nor do i take part in them (cant be arsed staying up till 4 am or getting up at 4am). they are a part of the game and unless mythic change the whole ethos of the game then there is bugger-all that will be done.

Now ... with the population dropping so much recently (it was showing a major slowdown in the summer periods) - GOA and mythic HAVE to take a long hard look at the impact of the relics on gameplay and adjust accordingly.

I have stopped playing now so take or leave my comments as you will :)
 

Chosen

Resident Freddy
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
2,615
Well, it was all quite constructive! But I don't like the idea off GOA deciding for us what the spirit of the game is. Thats in my opionion up to each player that is paying for this game to decide.(And ofcourse this doesnt involve bad language, or behaviour etc)

But for this case, there should've been an exception to their rules. Since its obvious more than half of the eu cluster player base is against AC raids this late in the game, especially when so few players are left.(You hear and see more players leave because of these kind of events, in the end there is nothing left to fight, or enjoy.)

And most of us agree on that what TT/BF did was in favour to the spirit of this game. Even tho I am a albion myself.
 

Soulja_IA_

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
2,279
Sharkith you done a nice job m8 have a rep :)

Tho I disagree with goa's stance on this as I think the SOTG has well and truly been destroyed by the AC crews actions I totally disagree with the banning of TT for they actions./Salute to TT on that.

As Goa have put final nail in this servers coffin with they stance on this and with the amount of people leaving the Excal/Pryd server because they felt the SOTG was being destroyed by the very small % who were doing this.

People leaving the server are not leaving the game they just leaving for other servers be it Avalon or to US Servers as they felt that Excal/Pryd was a losing battle with the AC crew.

Hope it picks up but with the SOTG being destroyed then I see no hope for this server.If Hibs get relic back how long would it be before it was AC again is it worth it :confused:

Soulja
 

tierk

Part of the furniture
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
2,884
Well got to hand it to you mate u did a pretty good job just a shame they answered in that way, it was not anything that surprised me though. This is not a issue that GOA can attend to as they only run the game for Mythic and they are not allowed to do serious changes to the game, as was shown with the barrels.

The only way this issue will be resolved is for individual realms take the matter in hand and deal with the issue in a serious and concerted manner. The odds of that are somewhere between never and ever as people across the realms are incapable of coming to any kind of meaningfull agreement.
 

Bugz

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,297
Chosen said:
Well, it was all quite constructive! But I don't like the idea off GOA deciding for us what the spirit of the game is. Thats in my opionion up to each player that is paying for this game to decide.(And ofcourse this doesnt involve bad language, or behaviour etc)

But for this case, there should've been an exception to their rules. Since its obvious more than half of the eu cluster player base is against AC raids this late in the game, especially when so few players are left.(You hear and see more players leave because of these kind of events, in the end there is nothing left to fight, or enjoy.)

And most of us agree on that what TT/BF did was in favour to the spirit of this game. Even tho I am a albion myself.


In GoA's defence, the spirit of the game, if choosen by the player-base, is going to be very biased and subject to change.

If one group of people support one view and another group support another (as shown by the FH thread - you had those supporting, and those who didn't support), then you have conflicting views about something which is a bannable/warnable offence.

It is right that GoA set down regulations that are not subject to change. Otherwise, the game would be in sheer anarchy, since everyone could have a claim on what the spirit of the game is and they could report or act depending on that.
 

Tuthmes

FH is my second home
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
5,495
Bugz said:
In GoA's defence, the spirit of the game, if choosen by the player-base, is going to be very biased and subject to change.

If one group of people support one view and another group support another (as shown by the FH thread - you had those supporting, and those who didn't support), then you have conflicting views about something which is a bannable/warnable offence.

It is right that GoA set down regulations that are not subject to change. Otherwise, the game would be in sheer anarchy, since everyone could have a claim on what the spirit of the game is and they could report or act depending on that.

Expressed by GOA itself already, this "against the spirit of the game" is very much a grey area. Although seemingly defined by rules, those rules are open for interpertation. Also noted by Asha, relics have bin dropped quite some times in the history of DaoC. Nobody got banned for it back then, though its clearly sotg.
What makes it all the more sad is that they hade a discussion about it, after they recieved RN mails complaining about the lvl 1 keep.

Ill give you the log i got from GOA in responce to my question on what is the sotg.

Hello again,
It is not possible to give a precise definition or a complete list of all actions which may be considered against the spirit of the game. Every incident is weighed on its merits and is treated according to the special circumstances that may have caused it. In general though what was said earlier is the best definition: Materially aiding an enemy realm at the expense of your own is agains the spirit of the game. The game is intended to be played as a continual war between 3 realms, anything that goes contrary to that ideal is potentially against the spirit of the game.

First it whas actively assisting an enemy realm, now materially. Anyways I get the point (that there's no definition for it, they simply check if it is against sotg, if they recieve complaints about it), but the last part of this strikes me again. If you'd follow that rule, 8vs8, 1vs1, leaving people to fight is "potentially" against sotg. Not to mention mids helping hibs to get a relic, or whatever combination you like.
 

Bracken

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,368
Tuthmes said:
If you'd follow that rule, 8vs8, 1vs1, leaving people to fight is "potentially" against sotg. Not to mention mids helping hibs to get a relic, or whatever combination you like.

No it's not. Actively working against your own realm is the thing they define as being against sotg, and your own realm is definded by that which you are currently playing. Choosing not to attack an opponent or even not to defend your own realm is not actively working against your realm (it's a "realm neutral" action if you like). Lowering a keep so that an enemy realm can take a relic inside is. I agree there have been examples in the past which they haven't taken action against (and as I said earlier I thought banning was too much in this case) - but now everyone should be clear about how it is from this point.
 

Soulja_IA_

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
2,279
Must admit tho the Relic capture and taking it to APK in Hib never caused this much outrage infact most found it exremely funny Mids doing it Even myself.

Believe it was done then in OF to show Albs that a Relic could be captured at a primetime and with numbers.Scaithaig old keep at that time was for weeks every friday getting taken by Mids that when they took Relic it was complacency on Hibs part more than anything.It was Oh Mids at scaith again farming lol next minute Relic gone lol.

So even back then all them years ago Alb couldn't really in the SOTG do a good relic raid.Yes it wasn't in the SOTG by Mids but it didn't cause as much controversy as This AC is doing now which is destroying this Server.

OH and if I remember correctly Herbal wanted nothing to do with the Relic which was finally picked up by Albs and when retaken by Hibs we met meagre resistance reason was Herbal felt that getting Relic by Mids dropping it wasn't way he wanted to capture it so really Herbal was speaking for whole Alb realm at time ??

Soulja
 

Tuthmes

FH is my second home
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
5,495
Bracken said:
No it's not. Actively working against your own realm is the thing they define as being against sotg, and your own realm is definded by that which you are currently playing. Choosing not to attack an opponent or even not to defend your own realm is not actively working against your realm (it's a "realm neutral" action if you like). Lowering a keep so that an enemy realm can take a relic inside is. I agree there have been examples in the past which they haven't taken action against (and as I said earlier I thought banning was too much in this case) - but now everyone should be clear about how it is from this point.

I whas refering to the last part.
- The game is intended to be played as a continual war between 3 realms, anything that goes contrary to that ideal is potentially against the spirit of the game. -
 

Cadelin

Resident Freddy
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,514
Sharkith said:
Against the SoTG from GOA's perspective.

But there does become a bounty point issue. Even a large guild can have problems maintaining a high level keep.



Sharkith said:
Answer is clear - not against the SoTG because you are 'at the very least not hindering' your realm mates.

I also find this extremely hard to believe, if you release a keep thats under attack it will drop to level 1 immediately. Your realm mates won't expect it either. At least with TT actions every other alb logged his buffbot in hurbury to defend it.
 

tamtap

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
171
i cba to read all of that GOA bullshit bit i did do a ctrl+f "goa apology" and none was found.

Why havent the clueless retards apologised ?

If the wankers put this much resources into sorting out the Lag over the last 4 years then maybe there would be more than 55 level 50 hibs online at 6pm tonight.

Keep digging your own grave french *****.

Tam
 

Bracken

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,368
Tuthmes said:
I whas refering to the last part.
- The game is intended to be played as a continual war between 3 realms, anything that goes contrary to that ideal is potentially against the spirit of the game. -


I think you're reading too much into it. I'd say the key bit is the first part of that line "Materially aiding an enemy realm at the expense of your own is against the spirit of the game.".
 

Zede

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
3,584
Sharkith said:
Asha,

sit back a second and think it through. They have been very very clear here what the framework is. Read the first response to our first claim. If there are 'ac raiders' there is no way of 100% proving that this is a steady group of people out to make your life miserable. There is a distinct lack of evidence and any that there is (though a bit shaky because its from memory) indicates that a lot more people have been doing it than we thought. Seriously mate there is no way to prove that there is a conspiracy here it is better to drop the issue.

This tell you more about the situation on the server and who your enemy is (i.e. a significant number of Albs have been doing it). GOA were helpful here please see that. They also acknowledged for the first time that the behaviour is antisocial - they can just do nothing about it.

This is clear.

The SoTG issue is also very clear and even if I remain in disagreement. However like I said you don't have to agree you simply have to understand how this is to be interpreted.



Against the SoTG from GOA's perspective.



Answer is clear - not against the SoTG because you are 'at the very least not hindering' your realm mates.


Its piss easy to see who is AC raiding all the time and who isnt.

Log on, /who emain

Go emain, join grp, take screenshots, repeat over say a week if u cba.

ps. I joined the relic raid grp last week at 4am. I looked, I saw what they said in group chat - and yes without a fuckin doubt they were looking forward to pve'ing the relic away, same as 2 night before.

The nonchalant mood of the players, revelling in the notoriety ( supplied by freddyshouse i might add) was very obvious. Imho its a vicious circle, maybe without the new found fame on fh, they would not have been so determined.

I said i was tired and went to bed after they started on a keep.
 

Hrymf

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
246
Alot of words but no real answers - Even though i respect your effort in this Sharkith i cannot help but think this is all a waste of time. Trying to cummunicate with GoA is pretty much impossible, and i for one is simple not gonna renew my accounts, at least that is a simple and quite understood action by all sides.
 

chretien

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,079
OK Sharkith, this is much more constructive and I applaud you for pursuing it this way which is always how this should have been done rather than by damaging the game experience further as your previous action seemed to encourage.
I have to ask though as I note you seem pretty neutral in your posts in this thread, have you changed your mind on this? Do you still disagree with the action that Goa took? It is possible to agree with TT and agree with Goa so it's not an exclusive choice.

tamtap said:
...clueless retards...
My irony-o-meter just went off the scale.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom