Thu Jun 28 21:35:04 2018

At 6 o'clock AM, Day of the Sun, 27th of the Month of the Spring
on the Theran calendar Doryur perished, never to return.

Nt

Nt

From what I saw you started off a bit blood-thirsty, but kinda perked up as you went along. If anything I was amazed to see a gnome warrior landing some pretty neat kills.

-Ish

On one side, I'm a little disappointed to see a character delete over losing leadership. On the other, I'm also not particularly upset over a character deleting from something as utterly non-debilitating as *not having a leader weapon*. That's literally the loss your character experienced.

For the record:

1) I honestly don't think you were so out of line to be punished over the Tribunal fights.
2) I do think it followed a tendency you (and other Ragers have) of having become so paranoid about what you "can" get away with and who you "can" fight, that people've lost track over who Ragers *should* fight.
3) Things *certainly* weren't helped with what I am assuming and hoping was an honest mistake by a matter that likely would have been best served privately becoming a ridiculous public mess.
4) I did appear with the expectation of unleadering you, due to both 2 and 3 above as well calling you out on wanting to boot someone for the same general deficits Doryur displayed. Again, I didn't particularly think either was outrageously egrerious, but you can't tow the hard line if you aren't following it yourself. Somewhere in the process, I had changed my mind and decided to try to make it a learning experience. Unfortunately, the idea that any villager is too good, or otherwise above being called to the circle is unacceptable.

Tribunal fights? Hope you didn't deleader him cause I kept trying to kill him for being wanted.

Before I say this I just want to say that I have not been following this drama at all. I know there were logs posted and comments made on qhcf but I never dug into it.

Regarding your comment about the idea any Villager is above being called to the circle, I always understood that to be not as firm for the Commander and DM.

You give the Commander (and the DM for enforcing the Commander's stances) some leeway on how to run the Village and direct Villager behavior, as well as protecting the firm Village rules, and that has to come with some immunity on being called to the circle. Otherwise, anytime someone didn't like their discipline they could just call the Commander to the circle and hope to win. What else do they have to lose?

This obviously has to come with the Commander being certain he is in the right on the discipline and wouldn't apply if the Commander/DM did something to break Villager RP.

I'm pretty sure stuff like this has happened in the past and the Commander has accepted the challenge, however, were I playing the Commander (and certain I was in the right) and someone tried to skirt my disciple by calling the circle I'd probably just uninduct them and be done with it.

The circle isn't supposed to be a method to weasel your way out of your own f-up, IMO.

I did expect someone to bring up this perspective, and while I don't want to derail Doryur's death thread too much, I will certainly respond since I think it's relevant.

I think the biggest problem people have with the Circle is that the fight itself is less directly about who "wins", and more of a place to lay it on the line and stand for your beliefs/opinion. Being *unwilling* to appear is effectively cowardice from a Battle perspective. It's also sort of the "We don't want to hear you yelling at each other on CB, go punch each other 'til you've settled it".

I do agree that challenging the leadership should be an exceptional thing, and carry the understanding that what may have been a disagreement may now cost you your spot in the cabal. So in that sense at least, there should definitely be a thought of "Is this worth escalating and risk, or should I maybe just listen and follow?"

As I write this, though, I realize that there's perhaps a good amount of this that's always just been carried in whatever "tradition". Panmorne and I have already been discussing a few small spots to tweak/clarify common issues in the village. Adding something that can more easily be referenced about the circle beyond "what everyone "knows"" might not be a bad idea.

I think this is a productive conversation and am more than willing to continue it, but for the sake of not utterly hijacking Doryur's thread, if anyone wants to continue the topic, please post in Gameplay and I'll continue there.

I think Doryur probably had a clear rule in mind that he would follow and enforce, and he did follow it. It goes as follows:

1. If you are struck by a non-enemy, you may defend yourself and attempt to slay them for the following X hours (maybe 6 hours, or 12 hours?), in any location in Thera at all.

2. If you have not been struck by a non-enemy in the past X hours, you may not initiate a fight against them. You may also not purposely run to them, as if provoking them into a fight, if there is no other reason for running to their location (e.g. cabal war).

That's consistent with the behaviour Doryur claims to have followed, and also consistent with punishing Zah: presumably Zah wanted to break (2), by initiating combat against some Fortressites.

If your disagreement is with those rules above, then too bad for Doryur. It was a bit frustrating following your conversation in the log going in circles around one another, when really it boils down to whether you accept the formalizations (1) and (2) above.

Yeah, I don't understand why Jormyr can't see the difference between the two either, one the rager is initiating, one they are retaliating.

It honestly looks like Jormyr just wanted Doryur out and was willing to be pedantic about it to do it.

I also happen to think they're both relatively comparable on the scale of "What Ragers should be doing with their day."

Since clearly everyone has seen Shaapa's logs, my specific inquiry to Doryur was the level of disparity in response to both behaviors.

Also, I'll reiterate the comment that Shaapa wasn't removed from leadership for those actions, but other commentary.

Could explain those rules to the people he was leading, and actually followed those rules, I think he would have been in fine hsape.

But he couldn't even explain them to Jormyr (why someone who attacked him a while ago was more of an enemy than a casual user of magic). He also definitely didn't follow him, which I think about half of the mud can attest to.

No one has ever accused Shaapa of being the best at getting his point across in english. Oh well, it is what it is.

The good is that i finally left this dying game after playing this gnome warrior.

The bad is that many players have already left and many will leave because of the noobish immortals who like to put their noses into all possible holes.

Immortalization process should be changed. Right now with few rare exceptions a players who are less than average in their game knowledge/pk abilities write an area, wait 1 year and become an immortals. Then put their noses into all possible holes without even understanding what's going on.


P.S. Didn't read all this crap you wrote here because who cares about what noobs what like to put their noses into all possible holes write?

I loved the way you played the game from a technical/mechanical point of view. Always played a character to its upper limit.

Also agree with all the points you mention here.

Take a break from CF and maybe check back in when you feel the need.

He is one of the longer standing staff members who actually has one of the single best grasps on how Battle works (I'll give you a hint, one of his former mortals is immortalized in the cabal as an NPC).

If I misunderstood and your gripe is completely with a different staff member then my bad.

Also, we will still be here in a few months after you come back just like the last handful of times you have quit forever. Maybe try to actually RP a little bit when you come back since you have got the PK game essentially mastered, you might even enjoy it!

I'll admit there have been times in the past when I've thought you were a ####.

I'll also admit that there will always be a need for a Valguarnera type in the staff, and you've taken the spot admirably.

This reply was hilarious.

It's possible to master the mechanical aspects of a system, and still fail at the political and social part.

The game doesn't always have fixed rules. Things change. Things evolve. Things can be debated, in game.

You lost a leader weapon on a frigging gnome warrior and decided that *that* was what was going to make you delete.

You're a great player but an absolutely crappy player to play *with,* with the exception of whoever happens to be in your cabal this time.

I admire you opening up the Russian cheat ring (which I have no doubt you profited from massively over the years,) but information from the Putinites has made it pretty clear that you're a drug addict living in your mother's basement, so I look forward to seeing your next character sooner rather then later.