>...and they are from the same people. People who are
>Veterans at playing Battle who tend to think that they can
>do no wrong. At the same time, I've got immortals telling
>me that while I'm NOT watching, my cabal is ganging the hell
>out of everyone. Then I've got e-mails and forums that are
>consistantly pointing out who is ganging who and why these
>individuals are let off the hook (knowing full well I
>haven't seen the incident). I'm sorry if it offends you or
>anyone else in the playerbase but I'm in the position to
>police battle. Excuse me for trying to do my job.

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be something new? Somehow we got along before you with the exact same sort of complaints. Who cares if there are some sketchy members? Eventually they slip up or draw enough attention so they can't get away with much. God forbid we add that element of realism. Oh, and I wouldn't take those of us rampantly bitchy americans as your only example of who thinks you're doing wrong. Some others I know take it all with a enviable amount of stoicism (those Western Europeans in particular).

>
>Add to the fact that this is not 'random uninductions,'
>these uninductions have merit to them. They have a
>substance and in this particular incident (as with most) the
>individual is given a chance to explain themselves before
>getting la boot.

You completely misinterpreted there. The point was that since the departure of Cador I haven't seen anything like the steady stream of complaints both in ic and ooc channels about the way an immortal polices their cabal and hands out uninductions; with the exception of the period when Empire imms cracked down. So yes, color you cador.

>Battle is a very odd cabal. From past experience as well as
>experience with my peers, if the cabal gets too large, I
>have to micromanage more. Coupled with the fact that we've
>had a rather shitty string of cheating leaders, I don't
>think I'm going overboard by putting a number cap on the
>cabal. If people want to join battle bad enough, they'll
>eventually make it in.

I'm sorry, again, but I don't follow your logic. How exactly do you think that putting a number cap will deter cheating leaders? That just screws the people who they pass over in favor of their friends. And once again, Battle somehow got on in the past with large numbers. Considering the pure number of enemies they have and hinderance in actually allying themself to any particular cabal i'd say that they need the most members. While cabals like Scion can roll through people with insanely wanded mages, liches, summoners, and vast supporting casts of warriors/priests... Battleragers are quite easy to pick apart given the correct sort of resistance. I almost felt bad for them while playing Astirath...
>
>
>>often you tell them how to treat other cabals, you've
>>entirely placed the what's magical and what isn't debate
>>under your control as opposed to it varying from leader to
>>leader, and so on. You don't even let the leader handle the
>
>Every cabal has it's policies. Battle has it's policies as
>well. I shouldn't have to tell Battle how to treat other
>cabals. It's written on the plaque. I will however,
>enforce that plaque when I need to.

I'll concede that point, of course... what other cabal has tomes and tomes of material telling you exactly how to act, god forbid any rampant outbreaks of individualism.

>
>>behavior of their own cabal members. You constantly snoop
>>people and then transfer into the Destructor to yell at them
>>if you think they're wrong. I remember back when I played
>
>I'm calling BS on this. I'm not online enough to constantly
>snoop people. I'd also like to think I'm a bit more
>productive than this.
>You're looking from the outside in, so I'm going to take
>this worth a grain of salt.

Yes, i've taken many long breaks and when I do play it can be sporadic. As I already said, i've played 6 ragers since you've been an imm with any sort of power to thoroughly police the cabal. Since then i've played about 6 other cabal'd characters... with assorted stints in Sylvans, Scions, Warlocks, Entropy, and one attempt at the fortress. You know how many times an imm has bothered me in those cabals? Once, the Astirath affair. You know how many times i've been harangued in Battle? Neither do I, more than once with each character. I was likely in the wrong with how I acted as a rager in some of those situations, and I was certainly in the right at other times (You were once telling me I was lying about how my link had cut out when my computer's power got cut... strange). I was never uninducted nor was I particularly remorseful for most of the ocassions, so apparently they weren't that grevious of mistakes or perceived mistakes. I really don't understand why you must constantly be so negative towards your cabal's members. We're fucking here to have fun, not join the military. And i'm basing this on how many times i've seen you get down on me AND or other cabal members, just not on my own experience... I hardly profess to be a model rager or know the new system inside and out.


>Not really. If you think the immortal staff has 'fun' doing
>much of what we do, you are completely wrong. I've found
>myself missing much of the 'fun' that is associated with
>this game.

Solution seems simple enough, let the cabal self govern? Somehow it got on with minimal interference before you arrived.

>Color me Cador.

Errr, already done I think (: