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

[IainC]

How could someone get banned for this then ? (refering to the BF player who did release the keep, and TT did claim it after)
No real profe or evidence fo this, the only ingame action that was take was simply to release the keep and that did still result in a ban.

I still think they took this action because alot of randoms cried.

We don't take any action against anyone without evidence. There was proof and we based our decision on the results of our investigation, not on the number of complaints that we recieved.

 

[Dard]

We don't take any action against anyone without evidence. There was proof and we based our decision on the results of our investigation, not on the number of complaints that we recieved.

How many complaints did you get then ?

 

[Soulja_IA_]

How many complaints did you get then ?

1 it seems Muyl who cried like a baby to them

Soulja

 

[Bugz]

This one is going to be beaten around for a while I think, but heres what I think, take it or leave it.

The "spirit of the game" should be decided by the people of the realms, a democracy if you will. In the realms of "Role playing", which this game is, I would have liked GOA to make an official announcement around the realm concerned ie Albion, that at XX o'clock, an official hearing would be declared by the King for the crime of Treason to the Realm, and he calls upon eight people of good standing (GMs) to make their way to Camelot.

The eight would be invited into a private session with the kings chamberlain (played by a GOA rep), who would present the evidence. Also in the room should be the accused, silent.

Afterthe charges are read, the eight could discuss the options, banning, public hanging (more roleplay!) or set free without charge.

The outcome would then be made public, for all to see before it happens.

I dont think this would take much effort tbh, and would mean RP, customer involvement and the main thing the decision being made by the players.

Just an idea, but I think matters concerning the realms should be handled by its people, and have a little fun to boot.

Comments?

What happens to those who disagree with the final outcome of this meeting?

What happens if something is biased towards those with a life and those who do not?

etc. etc.

GoA HAVE to set down the rules. The rules for this particular matter (SotG) do need to be addressed but ONLY by GoA.

 

[Tallen]

If you want port go take it back, removing boats from NF would make people go through Agramon and centralize rvr more instead of it being spread all over. When the populations in general and this cluster in particular are declining having more people in the same area would increase the fun for many while dragging zergs away from area's tended to be favored by 'solo' players. This is one of the things that made OF so appealing, the concentrated population in one zone.

It's also what made OF very unappealing, it was a huge zerg fest with rediculous bottle-necks.

With the low population all this will encourage is the 1337 guilds/zergers etc to camp the agramon bridges/valleys/milegates and gank anything that moves (wait, that sounds familiar...). The enemy will have to come through the bottleneck (all their tactical approach routes completely removed as there is only one vally to agramon and no other way to an enemy realm), so it's like funnelling sheep to a slaughterhouse.

If the way to Agramon is camped by 3-4 FG's and you die everytime you approach the zone, then what? Log off? Great way to encourage players to stay that..

 

[swords]

I'm glad that this kind of discussion was able to take place and that GOA have engaged with the community regarding this issue. I do think that they have justified why they gave out bans (we knew what we did would generate whine though didn't expect suspensions since people have done it before without getting any). Although you may or may not agree with their justification they have laid it down at any case. Another thing I like is the fact that they have admitted that ACing does have some kind of negative effect, even though there is nothing they can realy do about it. Obviously it is a design flaw when server populations get a bit low. I'm also glad that this amount of discussion has been generated as a direct result of what TT did, this is the main reason why we did it (people protest to get across a viewpoint).
Thanks Shark for being so proactive about this and looking at it in an objectional fashion, without the need to flame bait etc.
As for TT, we've rolled Avalon now with NFD since there is nothing for us on cluster anymore, the FG rvr on cluster is no more.

 

[Dr_Evil]

I think removing Autoboats in NF would be a better idea, player controlled boats are quite a nice idea and they aren't that quick as opposed to the auto ones.

Yes, remove the autoboats!

 

[Nate]

Yes, remove the autoboats!

It would remove drop off points and require a bit more roaming at least imo

 

[old.Whoodoo]

What happens to those who disagree with the final outcome of this meeting?

What happens if something is biased towards those with a life and those who do not?

etc. etc.

GoA HAVE to set down the rules. The rules for this particular matter (SotG) do need to be addressed but ONLY by GoA.

All countries in the world have a juditial system, where its people are randomly chosen to pass judgment on their fellow man, its called a court of law. FYI there are no "rules" set anywhere, its how GOA interpret the rules, nothing is cast in stone here.

The jury in this case could be chosen from random players or other Guild masters in the realm, much like a jury trial where random people are chosen from the electoral roll, and the judge, again like in life, would say "all judgements are final!", end of arguement. The current system we have means GOA are judge, jury and executioners, when you look at it like that its a little too Spanish Inquisition for me.

Ofc this only relates to matters of dispute regarding the realm, not cheating, hacking or greifing, this IS GOAs job, and is written in the CoC and EULA. But the crime against TT and BF is one where they used the tools available to roleplay their own scenario, but also used tools beyond the game (IRC) to tell the enemy.

Really half the players should be banned for this seeing the amount who use IRC and shout "FG hibs on BB!!" when there are both albs and mids in the channel, lol. But I digress.

The SotG is not cast anywhere in stone, but this is an RPG, and in life, this would have been handled by a court, and peers of the realm, not unseen "Gods" who duth struck them down with a ban stick.

 

[Rushie]

Ofc this only relates to matters of dispute regarding the realm, not cheating, hacking or greifing, this IS GOAs job, and is written in the CoC and EULA. But the crime against TT and BF is one where they used the tools available to roleplay their own scenario, but also used tools beyond the game (IRC) to tell the enemy.

we didnt tell the enemy anything or anyone outside our own guild for that matter, the 1st they knew about it was when muyl decided to post it on this forum.

 

[Rolv]

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.

I think the reason is because you need to do things the roleplaying way, if you are against Albion then you need to fight for Hibernia or Midgard. But I understand what you mean, I would never play for another realm than Midgard since I got a strong roleplaying feeling for the realm.

It is called a Massive Multiplaying Roleplaying Game, so its not a very big surprise GOA have to stick to these bounds.

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

Well 250 is a huge minority I think of how many that pay their subs - and yes also in those that only plays on cluster.
Even if only 300 were online everyday, this will not be the same 300. Yes some players are very active and play everyday, but these Im quite sure are the minority of those that pays the subs. I for istance only plays weekends, so I wont count in those numbers.

 

[old.Whoodoo]

we didnt tell the enemy anything or anyone outside our own guild for that matter, the 1st they knew about it was when muyl decided to post it on this forum.

My appologies, I read someones post saying that someone announced it on IRC, maybe that was just after the post on here. (Im actually on your side!)

 

[swifteagle]

All countries in the world have a juditial system, where its people are randomly chosen to pass judgment on their fellow man, its called a court of law. FYI there are no "rules" set anywhere, its how GOA interpret the rules, nothing is cast in stone here.

The jury in this case could be chosen from random players or other Guild masters in the realm, much like a jury trial where random people are chosen from the electoral roll, and the judge, again like in life, would say "all judgements are final!", end of arguement. The current system we have means GOA are judge, jury and executioners, when you look at it like that its a little too Spanish Inquisition for me.

Ofc this only relates to matters of dispute regarding the realm, not cheating, hacking or greifing, this IS GOAs job, and is written in the CoC and EULA. But the crime against TT and BF is one where they used the tools available to roleplay their own scenario, but also used tools beyond the game (IRC) to tell the enemy.

Really half the players should be banned for this seeing the amount who use IRC and shout "FG hibs on BB!!" when there are both albs and mids in the channel, lol. But I digress.

The SotG is not cast anywhere in stone, but this is an RPG, and in life, this would have been handled by a court, and peers of the realm, not unseen "Gods" who duth struck them down with a ban stick.

The main problem with having people in game decide what is and isnt in the SOTG is as you can see from the posts all about this,you might have 3 or 4 reasonable people trying to see things from all sides and think of a solution that would help all.
Then you'd have 20 or 30 who have the red mist descend and start being racist,throw their toys out of the pram and demand everyone sees it only from their PoV or they'll sabotage everything thats being attempted and any sort of reasoning will fall on deaf ears.

This is why GoA are the only people who can decide issues over the SOTG because they are the only ones objective enough without needing to pander to one group or the other and come up with a solution after having discussed it with other rational people.

 

[Raven]

tbh i would ban muyl as he is clearly going against the SOTG by cross realming and announcing to all that the relic keep was level 1

 

[Dr_Evil]

tbh i would ban muyl as he is clearly going against the SOTG by cross realming and announcing to all that the relic keep was level 1

Yup, that's how I found out.

 

[Asha]

I think the reason is because you need to do things the roleplaying way, if you are against Albion then you need to fight for Hibernia or Midgard. But I understand what you mean, I would never play for another realm than Midgard since I got a strong roleplaying feeling for the realm.

It is called a Massive Multiplaying Roleplaying Game, so its not a very big surprise GOA have to stick to these bounds.

Well 250 is a huge minority I think of how many that pay their subs - and yes also in those that only plays on cluster.
Even if only 300 were online everyday, this will not be the same 300. Yes some players are very active and play everyday, but these Im quite sure are the minority of those that pays the subs. I for istance only plays weekends, so I wont count in those numbers.

Sollars was roleplaying an honourable Albion warlord sick of these ACers giving Albion a dishonourable name

250 bothered to sign the petition. No matter how you cut it 250 ppl isn't a small number in this cluster now a days. I doubt ppl who don't play would bother to read/sign a petition that had nothing to do with them.

 

[Reza]

Quote:Originally Posted by Sharkith
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?


Quote:Originally Posted by GOA
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.


From my post in a previous thread https://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?t=210978&page=12

Here's an example where you can argue it is within the spirit of the game to lower the keep lvl:

"For example:

Albs take an enemy relic in the early hours of the morning, and place it in Renaris.

The guild holding Renaris concludes that the hostility created among both enemy realms from conducting an early morning/late night raid, and the subsequent attention it is likely to attract in the way of both enemy realms concentrating their efforts on taking keeps/tower in albion outweighs the benifit of having the relic.

Rather, ther guild holding Renaris decide that it is in their and their realm's long term interest to encourage a quick and easy loss of the relic in Renaris, thus ensuring that they reduce risk of a protracted double team offensive by the enemy realms. Whereby all 3 relics held by albion come under threat and in the event of trying to defend all 3 they loose 2 or more (and we've seen this many times).

The guild holding Renaris also decides that it is in their and their realm's long term interest to proceed with a primetime relic raid once/if the relic in renaris has been lost. Thus hopeing that in the near term future they once again have an enemy relic in renaris, but this time one that has been obtained in a manner that is less likely to cause Albion as a realm a net negative outcome longterm.

End of example."

 

[swifteagle]

Well after this mornings out of primetime relic raid and the response to it I can see the double standards are alive and well on FH at least

Loads of posts with people going mad for days on end about albs out of primetime relic raids and what its doing to the server.

Mids do one on a friday morning at 10:30 am and the response from all the outraged people who want primetime raids ?

Well done mids,I'd rather mids had it than albs etc

All the people who wanted primetime only relic raids and posted page after page about it, now not a peep out of them because its not albs so they cant be bothered or dont want to bash the mids.

Are you surprised that no one can be bothered with trying to work things out when its one standard for one realm but when hib or mid do something its suddenly ok

 

[Bracken]

Decided to take a look at this petition and some of the replies were interesting...

"GOA stop sucking up to the noobs. They are the griefers!!!"
"ffs GOA - why ban TT and BF? Ban the adders and AC raders - they are the real griefers!"
"They took action because of all the noobs on teh server. Its the zergers adders and AC lemons should be banned not TT and BF who are a good bunch of peeps and respect others."

Although that's only a small sample (there were also many anonymous and some double entries), it shows that this is not quite the noble cause it's being bandied about as. Let's face it, the keep lowering was done by a section of the fg community for the fg community, not the community as a whole. The in-game responses by those involved at the time and the subsequent posts on FH, not to mention the well known attitudes of some (although not all) of those involved stretching back in some cases over many years leaves little doubt as to their motives. It's time people stopped pretending otherwise. I suspect it's one of the reasons why GOA took the decision to ban as opposed to lesser options. I felt the ban was heavy handed, but having said that I also suspect that the subsequent uproar from many over the bannings was largely because of those involved (how many of those who've been so vocal would have done the same if an "adding" / "zerging" guild had done it?).

Anyway, it's done with now - and everyone knows the score for the future.

 

[Bracken]

Well after this mornings out of primetime relic raid and the response to it I can see the double standards are alive and well on FH at least .

To be honest I don't think you can draw that conclusion. Although they were only keep takes in the night, the fact they took just about all the keeps and left the relic gates open meant a retake bg was inevitable. Given the current atmosphere the fact that retake turned into a relic take is pretty understandable - I really don't think it makes any other point. If it had happended randomly one morning then maybe, but not given the keep takes in the night.

 

[Rigga Mortice]

I felt the ban was heavy handed, but having said that I also suspect that the subsequent uproar from many over the bannings was largely because of those involved (how many of those who've been so vocal would have done the same if an "adding" / "zerging" guild had done it?)

Works both ways; how many of you opposed to TT's actions would have blamed it on 'ircfanboi's' and 'fg vs fg leetist attitudes' if they had been carried out by an "adding" / "zerging" guild?

 

[swifteagle]

To be honest I don't think you can draw that conclusion. Although they were only keep takes in the night, the fact they took just about all the keeps and left the relic gates open meant a retake bg was inevitable. Given the current atmosphere the fact that retake turned into a relic take is pretty understandable - I really don't think it makes any other point. If it had happended randomly one morning then maybe, but not given the keep takes in the night.

Yep I understand why mids were a bit peeved

But you can make an excuse or reason for any out of primetime or even a primetime raid.In alot of the responses alot of people said they wouldnt mind keeps being taken at night as long as the relics werent touched.

The first test of this attitude and its used as an excuse to do a morning relic raid
which yes you can understand up to a point but it was the lack of a response from the "we only want primetime relic raids" people I was pointing to

 

[Sharkith]

Although that's only a small sample (there were also many anonymous and some double entries), it shows that this is not quite the noble cause it's being bandied about as. Let's face it, the keep lowering was done by a section of the fg community for the fg community, not the community as a whole. The in-game responses by those involved at the time and the subsequent posts on FH, not to mention the well known attitudes of some (although not all) of those involved stretching back in some cases over many years leaves little doubt as to their motives. It's time people stopped pretending otherwise.

You clearly have some kind of axe to grind because there are a lot more constructive statements on the petition from people who are actually not in the FG thing. You selectively choose to ignore those. I respect you Bracken but trying to undermine a statement for what it is seems a moot point - espeically since we have had a largely constructive outcome. I mean why even post that unless you were seriously upset in the past?



Like I said before - you cannot take a petition like this at face value there will be a range of opinions on it to try and reduce it to a few of the comments is once more to do it harm. I just wonder what you or anyone has to gain by doing that?

 

[Sharkith]

Well after this mornings out of primetime relic raid and the response to it I can see the double standards are alive and well on FH at least

Loads of posts with people going mad for days on end about albs out of primetime relic raids and what its doing to the server.

Mids do one on a friday morning at 10:30 am and the response from all the outraged people who want primetime raids ?

Well done mids,I'd rather mids had it than albs etc

All the people who wanted primetime only relic raids and posted page after page about it, now not a peep out of them because its not albs so they cant be bothered or dont want to bash the mids.

Are you surprised that no one can be bothered with trying to work things out when its one standard for one realm but when hib or mid do something its suddenly ok

Read my comments elsewhere on this.

GOA's statement has changed things. Just because some of us worked to honour and a code of honour on the realm side of thing in the past does not mean that we would will be doing it after GOA's reply. People who once championed against AC raids will simply stand aside now.

The key question is are you going to be able to cope with the consequences? If you think it is a good thing then cool if not then stop wingeing about people working to a different rule and get on with the game. Your trying to bind them to a code that no longer applys and you ought to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[swifteagle]

Read my comments elsewhere on this.

GOA's statement has changed things. Just because some of us worked to honour and a code of honour on the realm side of thing in the past does not mean that we would will be doing it after GOA's reply. People who once championed against AC raids will simply stand aside now.

The key question is are you going to be able to cope with the consequences? If you think it is a good thing then cool if not then stop wingeing about people working to a different rule and get on with the game. Your trying to bind them to a code that no longer applys and you ought to wake up and smell the coffee.

I can understand people feeling jaded after the recent events but in all honesty if this was a matter of honour,principle and wanting to play the game in the right way what GoA stated shouldnt really change a thing.

I think most people knew that AC raids werent against the rules but also most didnt like them,the incident with the relic keep was a whole different thing in as much as it was setting a precedent and had to have a response from GoA whichever way they decided to go.

They have now decided on this and we all now know that it isnt allowed,In my view this shouldnt change how people feel about AC raids just about what response they can make to them in game.

If you (as in the "community" not picking you out as a scapegoat or figurehead ) feel strongly enough as seems to have been the case before about AC raids GoAs statement on it hasnt said you cant protest in ways within the game that are legal and also out of the game.

It just seems for such an important issue which alot claim is game breaking they have given up pretty easily after a statement which cleared up one point about how NOT to protest about it.

Oh well i'll leave it at that ,don't feel I'm picking on you just seems strange that it all ended with a whimper so soon after all the uproar.

 

[Bracken]

You clearly have some kind of axe to grind because there are a lot more constructive statements on the petition from people who are actually not in the FG thing. You selectively choose to ignore those. I respect you Bracken but trying to undermine a statement for what it is seems a moot point - espeically since we have had a largely constructive outcome.

I'm simply pointing out the problems with the petition and some of the things that have been claimed. The petition is being quoted as a reliable indicator of opinion when it has obvious flaws which could have been avoided. That isn't to say it doesn't have value, it's just undermined by some of the responses. You shouldn't be afraid of criticism - it doesn't undermine the good work you've done

And I totally agree the outcome has been generally positive in that everyone now knows where they stand - thanks largely to your efforts. That doesn't however prevent people from pointing out the flaws in some of the arguments that are still being presented.

 

[Bracken]

Works both ways; how many of you opposed to TT's actions would have blamed it on 'ircfanboi's' and 'fg vs fg leetist attitudes' if they had been carried out by an "adding" / "zerging" guild?

For some it will undoubtedly be true that they wouldn't have been so critical and may have even supported it - that's the fickleness that bias brings. Personally if their attitude had been the same then at the very least I wouldn't have supported them and would probably have been equally critical.

 

[Sharkith]

I'm simply pointing out the problems with the petition and some of the things that have been claimed. The petition is being quoted as a reliable indicator of opinion when it has obvious flaws which could have been avoided. That isn't to say it doesn't have value, it's just undermined by some of the responses. You shouldn't be afraid of criticism - it doesn't undermine the good work you've done

And I totally agree the outcome has been generally positive in that everyone now knows where they stand - thanks largely to your efforts. That doesn't however prevent people from pointing out the flaws in some of the arguments that are still being presented.

I don't think people saying what they think on a petition is a problem. Your comments above were directed at the comments on the petition as being representative of the argument as a whole but they clearly cannot be because the only argument everyone signed up to is the statement in the petition. That statement is not perfect either.

If I was to trust your sincerity you would have had to provide some of the more detailed comments that are worth noting. Then I would believe you were looking to have a balanced evaluation.

Finally I don't think that those comments in any way undermine the argument of the petition which again is something you haven't commented on directly. In the discussion with GOA it was acknowledged my myself and GOA that it cannot be a reliable indicator of opinion on the server as a whole. We agreed however that it is beyond doubt a significant indicator of disatisfaction.

I think even you have to acknowledge that Bracken.

I can understand people feeling jaded after the recent events but in all honesty if this was a matter of honour,principle and wanting to play the game in the right way what GoA stated shouldnt really change a thing.

I think most people knew that AC raids werent against the rules but also most didnt like them,the incident with the relic keep was a whole different thing in as much as it was setting a precedent and had to have a response from GoA whichever way they decided to go.

They have now decided on this and we all now know that it isnt allowed,In my view this shouldnt change how people feel about AC raids just about what response they can make to them in game.

If you (as in the "community" not picking you out as a scapegoat or figurehead ) feel strongly enough as seems to have been the case before about AC raids GoAs statement on it hasnt said you cant protest in ways within the game that are legal and also out of the game.

It just seems for such an important issue which alot claim is game breaking they have given up pretty easily after a statement which cleared up one point about how NOT to protest about it.

Oh well i'll leave it at that ,don't feel I'm picking on you just seems strange that it all ended with a whimper so soon after all the uproar.

You bring up a lot of good points but GOA have effectively ruled out action across realms as against the SoTG. People could of course continue to drop keeps but because there is a nasty element on the server those people would be delighted to see people get banned for it.

In the end it is not worth continuing with the idea of honour because the terms of reference have been set and all you will do is end up getting frustrated and beaten down. That is perhaps why people are so jaded with the whole thing. They put a lot of energy into the discussion and it was cut down just when they might have found their own solution. I see very little point in continuing to see AC raids as a problem. It makes eminent sense now to drop the term and erase it from memory.

I appreciate your points of course and I also believe you are sincere you have always posted in a sincere way. I just think the whole situation is now different and it would make sense to stop saying people are being inconsistent. I doubt the situation on the server is going to improve much. This is the sad bit about all of it because all of those that put so much energy into getting members of TT banned are completely silent now when the server clearly needs a change of atmosphere. Its like they are completely unable to see the damage they have done and to try and put it right.

The only way it can improve is for people to start making it seem like a nice place to be. Take Mastade it takes a lot of guts for someone like him to try another MRE after this and yet he does it. If you look you will see that for example some of the more vocal whingers have been very silent in this thread.

Why do you think that is?

I don't see them trying to be constructive about the server and trying to promote ideas that will make it attractive to me or many of the others that left.

We still have a lot of characters here, we could still play here but it just seems like such a bad place to be. I always ran in any MRE that was here. I just won't do it now because I seriously dislike some of the vocal Alb whingers who post with rose tinted specs about their own realm and who fail to try and adopted a balanced view on things.

At the end of the day many of the people posting are totally inept when it comes to being constructive and realising that if the population situation was to improve that they have to work to make it seem better. Not one of them has been able to suggest a way to make things better. As soon as a whine thread starts they are in there like a rocket foaming at the mouth with rabid opinion and bullshit.

 

[Bracken]

I don't think people saying what they think on a petition is a problem. Your comments above were directed at the comments on the petition as being representative of the argument as a whole ...

I think you are confusing what I'm saying, probably because I wasn't clear enough.

2 things have been claimed:

1. The initial action was done for "the community" or "the server".
2. 260 people signed a petition to express their dissatisfaction at people being banned for that action.

My point is to show that both those claims are flawed.

1. The initial action was not done for the community or server as a whole, but for a section of the community (the fg community). That is a very different motivation. That may not in itself be that significant, but when claims are made that are simply not true then it should be pointed out.
2. This claim is flawed on 2 points. Firstly, the number of anonymous entries and double posts means the number of people signing cannot be reliably claimed at anywhere near that number. Secondly, the examples I gave show that a minority (but obviously not all) of those signing were doing so because of the individuals involved, not necessarily because of the banning in itself. The logic is that while they clearly object to the banning of those people, if it had been other people banned (e.g. "zergers") for the same action they would not have objected. That undermines the petition to some extent - although I agree there was clearly some genuine dissatisfaction and the petition obviously demonstrates that. I even said myself a number of times I disagreed with the ban

Having said all of that, it's actually pretty much irrelevant as the outcome justifies the means - i.e. everyone is clear now where we stand in terms of actions that can be taken and the AC situation has been highlighted to GOA.

If I was to trust your sincerity you would have had to provide some of the more detailed comments that are worth noting. Then I would believe you were looking to have a balanced evaluation.

Not sure what you mean by this - I have a bias as do you as does everyone involved. Mine is and always has been about what I regard as shit attitudes (some might say that's ironic...). I've clearly set out my points which are to refute 2 claims that have been made - so I don't know what "sincerity" has to do with it.

 

[Bracken]

The only way it can improve is for people to start making it seem like a nice place to be.

There are people both in your section of the community and my section of the community who aren't interested in this, never have been and never will be. It truly cuts both ways. Take the latest incident - it demonstrates it perfectly. Some of those involved in reducing the keep level have a history of acting like twats towards the "zerging" community and did so again in this instance with their responses. Some of those in the "zerging" community have a history of acting like twats to the "fg" community and did so again here. Neither side has any interest in the other. Some of us have tried in the past to get some forms of agreement that suits everyone, but there were always those intent on undermining it on both sides. So let's face it, there's always gonna be hostility because too many on both sides of the fence aren't interested in genuine resolution.