I've been playing since the mid-late 90s and given my general lack of commitment and laziness, I would still consider myself a newb. I have no secret lists, although I did type "charred leather bracer" into Excel once. I forgot to save.

I think the attempt to steer CF away from powergaming is commendable and I'm sure it's difficult to balance the following:
1) Keep veterans engaged while giving new players a fighting chance
2) Reduce the incentives for players to solo their characters (statistics-based playing)
3) Provide incentives to RP without appearing to engage in favoritism.
4) Inject more realism into the game without making it a chore (see previous requests for defecate and urinate skills - I'm still in favor)

Valg's post above at least shows that changes are discussed before implementation, and not just on a whim. I think the only thing that could be improved at this point is perhaps (and when fitting) an explanation of WHY things are changing instead of just WHAT the change is.

Of course, we'll still whine and cry and 2 players from Omaha will leave. If 2 vets leave and 4 new players sign on for the long haul, I'd say that's a win.

Sorry for the rambling. Didn't get much sleep.

Feel free to use new threads to continue discussion on topics that are still active.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

1. More powerful items from area explore, often seen as secret and changed when it becomes common knowledge.

2. More limited items and fewer good unlimited ones.

3. It is more advantageous to solo or stop leveling to practice skills because my giant has easier to tank at low level than hero mobs. I can no longer perfect my skills on low level mobs.

4. RP/Role/Exploration/PK gives more advantages if you tailor them a certain way. If I want to play a simple son of a farmer that went to the big city to be a warrior and explore / rp as I go along I will most likely not get noticed. If I however plays a paladin that defended his village with his family's thousand old sword and it shattered; imbuing him with the souls of all his ancestors. Making him yell out things and seeking some Imm. Then I will get noticed and mechanically rewarded. If I run through htos for the 20th time I will get rewarded.

You don't HAVE to do that but a power gamer will do it and will get rewarded for it.

I feel the game is more steered towards the Immortals deciding who the power players will be.

The following is directly controlled by immortals:
1) Certain area access and thus access to gear
2) Quest forms
3) Necromancer becomings
4) Edges
5) Bonus legacies/dedications/etc

Changes in the game see to always steer towards more Immortal control over characters. It is not the player behind the character that decides the height ceiling for that character, it is the Immortals that decide it. I see them as out-of-control control freaks, trying to neutralise the playing field between grizzled veterans and newbies all the while allowing themselves to pick who who the apex predators will be.

It's their game. They can (and will) change it however they want. The only choice we get is whether or not we want to invest time playing their game.

>I feel the game is more steered towards the Immortals
>deciding who the power players will be.
>
>The following is directly controlled by immortals:
>1) Certain area access and thus access to gear

Like I said in another reply, one area. Just one out of the 250+ areas or 30+ explore areas.

>2) Quest forms

Correct. These are rewards that aren't meant to be a part of standard player expectation.

>3) Necromancer becomings

A) Anyone can attempt to initiate a Lich quest and in my time as an Immortal, every person who has tried has gotten one. The individual that did not had low hours, few accomplishments, and no follow through.

B) We added Mummies and Wights to address your concern.

>4) Edges

Mathamatically, edges are more in player hands than Immortals. Saying that edges are "directly" controlled by Immortals, at least in the sense of your access to them, demonstrates a gross ignorance of how this game works.

>5) Bonus legacies/dedications/etc

Correct. These are rewards that aren't meant to be a part of standard player expectation.
>
>Changes in the game see to always steer towards more Immortal
>control over characters. It is not the player behind the
>character that decides the height ceiling for that character,
>it is the Immortals that decide it. I see them as
>out-of-control control freaks, trying to neutralise the
>playing field between grizzled veterans and newbies all the
>while allowing themselves to pick who who the apex predators
>will be.

You're ####ing crazy, sir.

>It's their game. They can (and will) change it however they
>want. The only choice we get is whether or not we want to
>invest time playing their game.

That's a lame way of looking at things, but I guess it's true. No player the ability to make us do anything we don't want to do or to commit changes to the game themselves. So literally speaking, yeah sure.

But of course we do the best job we can as game designers and administrators and we hope we're successful in our endeavor to create a game that we both enjoy and are proud of and that will attract players who enjoy it too.

Sure - one area with some of the most 'powerful' equipment in it. Some of the items in there can STRONGLY sway PK fights.

THIS is the reason why so many people have a problem with the IMMxp requirement for ST.

It isn't about no acccess to 'one area'

it's about the IMMpets WITH access having gear that makes/breaks fights.

You truly expect me to believe that you don't understand how people could see the IMM's controlling who has access and who doesn't to an area containing some of "the best" gear in the game ripe for favoritism/abuse?

Let me follow up by asking - If everything I said in the prior paragraph is false, then why is this necessary? Why do IMM's need to control who gets to 'go' to ST and who doesn't.

at the end of the day, a spade is a spade sir. And this #### is a spade.

The rest of your points are fine, but ST is total ####.

ST is a subtle area and people would brute force it with throwaways if there wasn't the (easy) imm exp requirement.

Maybe with your 'circle' it is, I'm sure were I a member of that inner 'circle' still I would've been there and back again!

By the way to summarize your post:

"This has been answered, IMM's don't want anybody not on their "A" list to have access because they are afraid of brute forcing"

Well #### that. The funny thing is - even if I had access, I probably wouldn't go explore it - not my thing. The fact that I have to be an IMM sycophant suck-up to get access is the real issue at hand.

And your post has done nothing to discredit that. I am not the only vocal person about this, nor do I believe that I am the minority. I'd wager most folks would want this requirement lifted.

Toning down the requirements is what most would argue for, not removing them entirely. Some people know lots about the area, most people know squat, and going there can seriously F*** a char. (remember the lich that age died there not long ago?) If there are zero reqs to enter the place, how many power gamers would roll throw aways to learn the area, just so they could then gain a PK advantage with ST gear with future characters?

Per your own post, you still wouldn't explore it, so the PK inequities ST allegedly creates (nice gear is far less scary to me than a competent PKer) would only be more evident against the players who don't go there.

2000 might be a little high with the split off from Role xp, but that's not our call as players. If anything, it makes it all the rarer for people to go there, and then limits even more what people are using from there. Are you worried about the super elite RPers having ST gear? Usually, but not always, great RPers are less than stellar at PK. Giving them high end gear doesn't make them death machines.

From my understanding, even people who know the place die there. A lot. It has a lot of risk, even to experienced players. By making it be accessible to people who have invested in their chars, it means they aren't just running in and farming gear out of there, because they have a lot to lose potentially.

Question is, how does ST really effect you.
Sure, the few chars who have access might get gear.
Kill them, take it. It's just like hell gear.
The easiest way to get it, kill the person who has it.

And the Immpet classification of players?
Come on.
That shows your own bias.
Having Immxp is a function of playing CF, not a function of favoritism. Being any kind of net positive for the game gets you there. Imms don't hide the sort of things they look for or reward. If you choose to ignore all those facets of CF in how you play, that's more on you. It's the assumption by players that it is so blatantly ongoing with some sort of inner circle of players, without any real truth to it, that only furthers the divide between player and staff.

I've never had an issue gaining Imm xp. I know zero Imms. My chars usually have an Imm or three who pretty actively won't like them because of how I play or what I do IC. I've yet to experience any negative consequences IC because an Imm doesn't personally like my chars. I know I've annoyed Baer many times with silly IC stuff, and yet I know for a fact on any char I play going forward, if I had a reason to, I could visit her when she was vis and RP with her without any problems. Every player has equal access to the Imms. If a player refuses to play anything that makes use of that opportunity, but blaming others who do, that is on the player, not the Imm.

Some people see players that talk to Imms as working the system. Go spend an hour RPing with Ysal. Tell me it isn't one of the best experiences you have in CF. That's the reason people want to interact with Imms (a few people that do try to work the system can't be used to label everyone) They are great Rpers that are usually extremely good at the RP/immersion side of CF, that believe it or not, lots of players actually enjoy. I'd rather spend an hour in the Inn RPing with characters and Imms then hunting someone to PK the 1000th time.

And since 99% of the MUD is accessible without Imm xp, I fail to see this as such a blatant problem. How often are people really losing a PK solely because one guy had ST gear and they didn't?

"And the Immpet classification of players?
Come on.
That shows your own bias.
Having Immxp is a function of playing CF, not a function of favoritism. Being any kind of net positive for the game gets you there. Imms don't hide the sort of things they look for or reward. If you choose to ignore all those facets of CF in how you play, that's more on you. It's the assumption by players that it is so blatantly ongoing with some sort of inner circle of players, without any real truth to it, that only furthers the divide between player and staff."

This pretty much summarizes everything I felt that needed to be said. I could not say it with this level of decorum because as an individual, I am rapidly losing patience with certain members of the community for continuing to beat a dead horse.

Suffice to say that the particular attitude which some members continue to exhibit, even if linked to their own impassioned opinions (which I hope is the case, rather than just causing outright discord) is not going to be conducive to obtaining the best results from the staff, especially the staff who care about the game/community the most.

Awesome area.

Cool design.

Just doesn't work in today's CF.

Which means that people are more likely to get it closed* than to effect any other kind of change.

This would probably be to the detriment of players who enjoy exploration, and to players who are okay with the current system.

*Not meant as a threat, or whatever, and I wouldn't even begin to suggest what course of action Daevryn should, or would take. But if I was the author, having repeatedly explained the reasoning behind such a function, I think for lack of a better system I'd probably close it off again.

Honestly, is the hate you (the IMMs) and Nepenthe get even worth having the area?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I read people's goodbyes sometimes and they are like 'Awesome area, wish I hadn't lost so much con there'. However, those goodbyes are much less common than posts about "WTF IS UP WITH IMM XP SILENT REQUIREMENTS" or "WHY DID YOU CHANGE THE FOUNTAINS WTF?!?!?!" or "THAT GEAR IS ####, YOU'RE AN IMM PET!" etc etc.

I just harken back to a post made by Zulg (I think Nep or Ray chimed in too) where he talked about how area explores were going to move towards areas like the Dragon Lairs (which are ####ing awesome and exactly how I picture an area explore) because the time when Hell and Silent fit into CF had ended (ie, Silent and Hell are kinda like the Shadow cabal...it's awesome when the secrecy can be kept but guess what...in today's world it can't).

And FWIW I'm not a big fan of "getting an area taken out". Even though I agreed with my brother that Silent was ####, I still emailed Zulg to let him know my bro was about to dump all his Silent info to spite Nep.

'And FWIW I'm not a big fan of "getting an area taken out". Even though I agreed with my brother that Silent was ####, I still emailed Zulg to let him know my bro was about to dump all his Silent info to spite Nep.'

Good of you to let the staff know about that, because areas like ST must take a godawful amount of writing and code work (as well as thought) to design.

Regardless, some players (I am sure) DO enjoy ST, and no, they aren't likely to be in a cheat ring. This just simply boils down to variance in desires within a population. I do enjoy ST, but then I don't really play CF competitively. Rather than seeing the area as a mechanical advantage giving super-area, I view it as a puzzle to explore and figure out.

Judging from the rhetoric here though, I guess I am in the minority.

Edit: But we should make one thing clear here probably (not specifically for you Sam): If ST does get pulled, this is what the general tone of this conversation and many others like it were leading toward, it isn't on the staff that the area went out of rotation. The staff are merely responding to the (extremely impassioned/heated) feedback they were given, thus the players who have made this an enormous issue need to take the lion's share of the responsibility for the change.

(I say this because I just know that if the area goes out of rotation, I'll look over at the other forums and see threads and threads about how crappy we are etc. So pre-emptively it bears stating on record now. People need to be clear about what they want before they go on a personal crusade.)

An area is in and people are complaining about an aspect of it.

Admin says too bad.

Players continue to complain.

Area gets pulled

Admin says it's the player's fault?

Surely this is some form of logical fallacy. Pulling the area isn't the only option for assuaging player moaning, if assuaging player moaning is the goal.

I've never been in or plan to go into the place or know what comes from there. Just confused by the logic of what you're saying.

This issue has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. At some point the time taken to respond to the (repeated) cries to change the system are going to take a lot more effort than keeping the area in is worth.

No system is ideal. This current system is the best (general form of) system that we have to minimize the negatives which we see playing out in game. The reasoning has been explained.

If the shouting over the current state of affairs continues to get louder, the shouters need to assume culpability, especially if that shouting affects a change which they don't want. A change which, incidentally, is the easiest solution to avoid further administrative burden and not disadvantage any particular (group of) player(s) in other ways.

Edit: If it is purely mechanical advantages that the players are worried about, then this isn't an issue at all.

If it is just a case of people wanting an easier ride into the area, then they need to be careful to hide behind the "mechanical advantage" argument for that very reason. And that is the point I am trying to get across.

You folks control the game. If your choice is to remove it instead of find some other solution, that's up to you. I'd remove it myself. You just can't lay the blame the way you're trying to.

Just because it's the easiest route doesn't suddenly make it the whiner's fault.

Now, you can be sure a bystander will say "Now, look what you've gone and done idgit!" to the whiner. However, in reality, the person with their finger on the button makes the call. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

I assume you folks have been around long enough to know that you can pretty much ignore certain names, because you're wasting your time discussing anything with them.

Sarien, Torak, Tsunami, Scrimbul, Eskelian, and now KaguMaru are all people you should probably not even bother responding to. They are all either bullheaded know-it-alls that won't budge no matter what logic is thrown their way OR dingbats that like to jump in on the really feisty debates.

With multiple infractions in game. Lots of negativity on the other forum and spillover affects onto this board.

I do understand that to most players, Immortals are names (or sometimes anonymous figures) who are just out to screw up their fun.

Unfortunately, the reality is, that there are people and personalities behind the name. Those people and personalities have real lives which include many responsibilities aside from hopping on whatever project players need doing at leisure.

Furthermore, whereas players get to sling as much mud as they like on whichever other alternative "free speech" forum happens to be up at the time, the Immortal staff have to attempt to try and remain professional and polite (though I am sure it is hard) and take whatever abuse gets typed out.

Yes the staff tend to be headstrong and thick-skinned, that tends to be due to survivorship bias. Anyone who cares about how they are viewed either won't apply, or won't last long. But it affects a lot of the staff in smaller ways regardless. If, by joining the staff, you hope to improve the game for the players (my own personal motivation), and you are met by an endless stream of angry diatribe, does that really encourage the best results?

And on ST: I am not saying it will close. I am pointing out that it is an option. An option which would be on the table in a discussion, and a logical option at that, given the scope and magnitude of arguments.

On various names being ignored: I don't believe that people should ever be flat-out ignored unless they are not entirely functional (drugs, dehabilitating mental disorder etc.) It is dangerous to completely ignore players. It's not a mindset which should be encouraged, but some players* are making it increasingly difficult when they cannot look past their own personal wishes and desires, and step into the mentality of a game admin, especially when they have an increasing amount of information on hand about various game aspects. Also, as stated, people are busy. There needs to at least be a modicum of respect on that front as it is difficult to code up even logical and absolutely beneficial projects given resources, ie: something that everyone could unequivocally agree upon. Let alone suggestions which are grandiose in design and scope, to entirely redesign the game.

And yes, I get that you are attempting to inject a little levity here and I am taking you literally. But still, the above is worth stating.

*At least I assume these are current players, and not just disgruntled veterans who think that a relatively minor fix in the grander scheme of things (like removing the Imm Xp requirement to ST) is going to suddenly transport them back into the 1990s/early 2000s and usher in another "Golden Era" of MUD playing.

Because Nick Offerman is my new hero.

Sorry you guys are having such a bad week. You can all come to my place and we can sing songs of Matrikification. It's THERApeutic. Get it?

>With multiple infractions in game. Lots of negativity on the
>other forum and spillover affects onto this board.

Damn. Lots of criminals on the streets these days eh? I would not have guessed that. Is it because you opened Hell so the cheat rings came back? Sorry bro.

>I do understand that to most players, Immortals are names (or
>sometimes anonymous figures) who are just out to screw up
>their fun.

That's true. You know who they are though. It's a small community, so even if you don't, you can learn right quick. Ignore the saps.

>Unfortunately, the reality is, that there are people and
>personalities behind the name. Those people and personalities
>have real lives which include many responsibilities aside from
>hopping on whatever project players need doing at leisure.

True. It's unfortunate that we all are afflicted with the human condition. People suck.

>Furthermore, whereas players get to sling as much mud as they
>like on whichever other alternative "free speech" forum
>happens to be up at the time, the Immortal staff have to
>attempt to try and remain professional and polite (though I am
>sure it is hard) and take whatever abuse gets typed out.

You don't have to remain professional and polite. Everyone in the community (the forums) seems pretty brusque. I'd say jump in and have fun with it. I'd certainly welcome a good poo slinging match with any one of you, any day, any time. It's fun.

>Yes the staff tend to be headstrong and thick-skinned, that
>tends to be due to survivorship bias. Anyone who cares about
>how they are viewed either won't apply, or won't last long.
>But it affects a lot of the staff in smaller ways regardless.
>If, by joining the staff, you hope to improve the game for the
>players (my own personal motivation), and you are met by an
>endless stream of angry diatribe, does that really encourage
>the best results?

Headstrong and thick-skinned. Sounds like you could say the same about players. The entire game is in the imagination. It's no surprise that people imagine slights where there are none. In fact, reading Umiron V Sarien in this very thread seems like a strange escalation of anger between both, when neither one seemed intent on insult.

I'm a little uncertain as to why anyone expects CF-land to be full of anything better than the scum walking the streets in real life.

>And on ST: I am not saying it will close. I am pointing out
>that it is an option. An option which would be on the table
>in a discussion, and a logical option at that, given the scope
>and magnitude of arguments.

That's fine. Just don't blame the players. Daev is the only one that can move on that. Any excuse he makes beyond "I wanted to do it" will be rationalization. Regardless of how understandable that rationalization is.

>On various names being ignored: I don't believe that people
>should ever be flat-out ignored unless they are not entirely
>functional (drugs, dehabilitating mental disorder etc.) It is
>dangerous to completely ignore players. It's not a mindset
>which should be encouraged, but some players are making it
>increasingly difficult when they cannot look past their own
>personal wishes and desires, and step into the mentality of a
>game admin, especially when they have an increasing amount of
>information on hand about various game aspects.

I agree that no one should be ignored. I include the drug addled, mentally ill, and all manner of sub-humans. I also recognize that taking that attitude necessarily means that I will have to be willing to listen to a WHOLE lot of #### to get to the useful bits of human diatribe. I like that word, thanks for reminding me.

>And yes, I get that you are attempting to inject a little
>levity here and I am taking you literally. But still, the
>above is worth stating.

I'm not inserting levity. Only sweet, sweet Matrikisms. Listen and ye be wiser.

*How dare you edit sir.

>*At least I assume these are current players, and not just >disgruntled veterans who think that a relatively minor fix in the >grander scheme of things (like removing the Imm Xp requirement to >ST) is going to suddenly transport them back into the 1990s/early >2000s and usher in another "Golden Era" of MUD playing.

Boy howdy. You see how well remakes and rehashes are doing on the game market these days? It's a cash cow and I suckle on that teet allll day long.

I love you Dragon Quest and Baldur's Gate

I've never posted about silent IIRC

"Bull headed know-it-alls that won't ever accept they are wrong."

Has nothing to do with Silent tower. Also, I thought Sarien was TheForsaken and he isn't. He might not belong on the list.

In fact, I probably shouldn't be making lists like that, but it sure was fun.

>Regardless, some players (I am sure) DO enjoy ST, and no, they
>aren't likely to be in a cheat ring. This just simply boils
>down to variance in desires within a population. I do enjoy
>ST, but then I don't really play CF competitively. Rather than
>seeing the area as a mechanical advantage giving super-area, I
>view it as a puzzle to explore and figure out.
>
>Judging from the rhetoric here though, I guess I am in the
>minority.

I really like it. The problem is that people who play this game mainly for exploration don't have access to Silent.

>Edit: But we should make one thing clear here probably (not
>specifically for you Sam): If ST does get pulled, this is what
>the general tone of this conversation and many others like it
>were leading toward, it isn't on the staff that the area went
>out of rotation. The staff are merely responding to the
> extremely impassioned/heated) feedback they were given, thus
>the players who have made this an enormous issue need to take
>the lion's share of the responsibility for the change.
>
> I say this because I just know that if the area goes out of
>rotation, I'll look over at the other forums and see threads
>and threads about how crappy we are etc. So pre-emptively it
>bears stating on record now. People need to be clear about
>what they want before they go on a personal crusade.)

I think the overwhelming majority of players wants Silent to stay. Most of the critique comes from it being gated and only a select few players have access to it.

You turn in your own brother?

My brother did what he did regardless of what I was able/going to do (and, although I disagreed with his reason for doing it, I didn't necessarily disagree with the idea of knowledge dumping).

I wanted to give Zulg and Nep a heads' up. I love this game, I want it to succeed. That might get lost sometimes when I am snarky or argumentative, but it's still the truth.

PS This should let you know I hate cheaters more than you

Edited to add: Oddly enough, never had Silent info shared with me. I've had conversations about Silent (hence why I know about the fountains et al) but never once been inside or had anyone send me a log/info.

I didn't even look at the info my bro posted!

FWIW My favorite area is Eastern Road. No lie. It's got everything you could want. High traffic. Lots of through-fares (access to many different areas). Random mobs that MIGHT attack you depending. A couple secrets that offer no mechanical advantages (I wonder if I'm the only person who constantly looks at the lion corpse on the road or uses the shortcut into the Grove...though I hardly ever use the shortcut with a non-ranger).

>My brother did what he did regardless of what I was
>able/going to do (and, although I disagreed with his reason
>for doing it, I didn't necessarily disagree with the idea of
>knowledge dumping).

Siding with a game over your own flesh and blood. Tsk tsk Sam.


>I wanted to give Zulg and Nep a heads' up. I love this game,
>I want it to succeed. That might get lost sometimes when I am
>snarky or argumentative, but it's still the truth.

It's never been lost. It is quite apparent by your consistent return after numerous "I'm leaving" posts.

>PS This should let you know I hate cheaters more than you

Impossible.

Me and him never used to tell each other our characters (well...that's not true...he used to say he "quit" and I would tell him my char).

He's ganged me with Jerry.

He's been a lowbie I decked out (without knowing it was my bro) and then he deleted because he couldn't kill a RBW without ABS (thanks asshole for wasting my time).

PS I always take blood over the game, except for the game itself. IE If you (Matrik) piss me off in game, we might never talk again (I mean, I probably would still talk to you, but you get the point). Whereas my bro (and Kanye, and Quas, and many others) has pissed me multiple times and I always forgive him because he is my brother. Or, to put it another way, if they had Jindicho'd him (hahahaha) I would have quit in protest.

As it was, he was a ####. I told him he was being a ####. I told the IMMs he was going to be ####. He was a ####. Silent got closed. And c'est fini.

Any ####ty thread can be turned into a thread about how much someone loves their family/friends.

Damn. Finally beaten.

My child... surely you've seen?

>I just harken back to a post made by Zulg (I think Nep or Ray
>chimed in too) where he talked about how area explores were
>going to move towards areas like the Dragon Lairs (which are
>####ing awesome and exactly how I picture an area explore)
>because the time when Hell and Silent fit into CF had ended
> ie, Silent and Hell are kinda like the Shadow cabal...it's
>awesome when the secrecy can be kept but guess what...in
>today's world it can't).

Yep. It's absolutely a relic of another time and I don't really disagree with any of that.

If I started writing it today (also about half my life later), I would produce a really different area, no question of that.

I get it now.

I have been to ST on multiple occasions. That is before I had communicated with Baer, which began in earnest with my heroimm application.

Furthermore I have had more than 2k Imm Xp on several characters which heroed*, even when negating role Xp. Also before I had ever communicated with Baer.

Thus your statement has been proven wrong by contradiction. Sorry chief, but thems the breaks: your statement is neither factual, nor accurate.

Edit: If the persistence remains within certain individuals to continue to mope and blame others for in-game woes, rather than at least shifting (part of) the blame to their own actions, they will not improve and remain in a position of arrested development.

It's entirely within your rights to adhere to this opinion, of course. And increasing time restraints as people continue to age, is an issue that I have tremendous sympathy for, but your statement is just incorrect. On that position I can empathize with folks who simply cannot (for whatever RL reason) become hugely invested in their characters.

*For what it's worth, I am a terrible CFer. I have minimal PK skill, I tend to be a meatshield, so don't take this as me speaking with an air of superiority.

There are 25+ characters on the MUD with enough Imm XP to enter Silent Tower. I'm going to use the top 25 as my sample.

7 of the 25 are Fortress. That's 28%. Fortress accounts for 21% of of caballed characters. Fine, small bias toward Fortress right now, but...

Let's look at those 7 characters:

#1 is not a Baer follower and has more Imm XP than anyone else on the MUD! They only received about 30% of it from Baer.
#2 is not a Baer follower and has ZERO Imm XP from Baer.
#3 is not a Baer follower and has ZERO Imm XP from Baer.
#4 is not a Baer follower and received roughly half of their Imm XP from Baer.
#5 is a Baer follower and received less than 20% of their Imm XP from Baer.
#6 is a Baer follower and received about 50% of their Imm XP from Baer.
#7 is not a Baer follower and received 10% of their Imm XP from Baer.

I'm not going to bother checking the other non-Fortress 18 characters but I think it's safe to assume they didn't make this list because of Baer.

Interpret that how you will.

Sidenote would be that (I assume) some of those 25+ characters are still working under the old RoleXP as IMMXP to meet the requirement.

FWIW we may not see eye to eye on everything but I have lumped you in with the Daevryn/Twist/Sacer/(Immortal formally known as Zulg) group of Immortals who are the life blood of this game.

Good. Neutral. Evil. All of them.
I'm not a wildly good rper nor pker. But I do play the game and make a few role updates here and there. I will interact with anyone in the same area as me, and that'll do it. Try it out sometime. Don't go ooc, don't be a #### to other players, or imms. Just do your thing and try to make the whole experience better for everyone. I suspect you'll have great luck.

If you play a decent, long-lived character you'll gather enough XP just from playing the game...

Participate in a global quest or two.
Sit at the Inn during one of their performances.

Basically, do something that contributes to the game itself instead of just "doing your own thing", and you'll get the xp

Example: Outlander Ranger. Sit in the Inn? No - doesn't jive with hating civilization RP. Global quest? Sure, if you happen to be online at the time.

Whole point of outlander ranger is for people to not know you are around. If a bunch of people are communicating with you left and right - you are doing it wrong.

This can be applied to most stealth archetypes.

Edit to add: RP'ing the stand offish evil murderous stealth archetype is completely valid RP. It just happens to not be the 'type' of RP that gets rewarded in the CF world.

This is one of the big issues I have with the concept of IMMxp. People can be RP'ing spot on, but unless its the 'type' of RP that is appreciated by various staff - that person is likely to get a whole lot of nothing. Nyst is a great example - stellar character...not even on the radar until 250+ hrs.

I will echo that I think IMMxp is net positive for the game. However, I think its no coincidence that per Umiron's stats fortress players lead the charge. that is the 'type' of RP that seems most appreciated.

Why would an outlander ranger go to the ST either, though? Doesn't jive just the same as sitting in the Inn.

I also want to say - from my *current* character. Sub-35 lvl. No role... Cabaled... 60 hours or so... I've received 1200 IMM xp without approaching a single IMM (outside of a global quest).

They're really trying to get more involved, I think. I'm not complaining one bit.

>Sure - one area with some of the most 'powerful' equipment in
>it. Some of the items in there can STRONGLY sway PK fights.
>
>
>THIS is the reason why so many people have a problem with the
>IMMxp requirement for ST.
>
>It isn't about no acccess to 'one area'
>
>it's about the IMMpets WITH access having gear that
>makes/breaks fights.

If by "IMMpets" you mean anyone who is accomplished in certain aspects of the game, then fine, that's by design as I understand it.

If you are implying (as so many do) that "IMMpets" is some kind of Good Ol' Boys Club that requires OOC relationships and a secret handshake then you're wrong and there is a lot of evidence (both anecdotal and factual) that suggests you are wrong and furthermore, I'm simply not going to take you seriously anymore.

>You truly expect me to believe that you don't understand how
>people could see the IMM's controlling who has access and who
>doesn't to an area containing some of "the best" gear in the
>game ripe for favoritism/abuse?

See above, I guess. Sure, we "control" access in the sense that we're the ones (all ~15 of us?) that hand out the XP, but certainly everyone who is concerned about pillaging ST for its shinies is veteran enough to be on equal footing with regards to their ability (maybe not desire or motivation) to meet these requirements.

>Let me follow up by asking - If everything I said in the prior
>paragraph is false, then why is this necessary? Why do IMM's
>need to control who gets to 'go' to ST and who doesn't.

Daev has answered this question before, probably more than once. Personally and individually, his rationale makes sense to me, not that my opinion has any bearing on the subject.

>at the end of the day, a spade is a spade sir. And this ####
>is a spade.

Okay.

>The rest of your points are fine, but ST is total ####.

You're entitled to that opinion.

"If you are implying (as so many do) that "IMMpets" is some kind of Good Ol' Boys Club that requires OOC relationships and a secret handshake then you're wrong and there is a lot of evidence (both anecdotal and factual) that suggests you are wrong and furthermore, I'm simply not going to take you seriously anymore.
"

I am not saying that the 'club' is REQUIRED to meet ST requirements, I should have chosen my wording better. But it is a damn-good leg up

I had a long standing OOC friendship with a current member of the staff. I don't intend to go into specifics, but I can tell you that I can prove that as a result I was not only privy to info I shouldn't have had as a player. I have no intention of exposing the actual chat logs (but yes, I do have them). And this OOC 'circle' does VERY MUCH exist.

I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that cheating and the kind of relationships you admit to having don't occur. Many of the people who join the staff have OOC friendships and perhaps despite their better intentions, sometimes those friendships get the better of them. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is very easy for people to conceal and very difficult for us to become aware of. At the end of the day we're faced with the choice of taking that risk and relying on our judgement or simply not having anyone around to contribute to the game. I hope the decision is obvious.

The fact that you are part of the problem aside, you seem to agree that while the way you cheat might give you an unfair advantage it's not inherently necessary. Furthermore, I think we've adequately accounted for the fact that this kind of thing happens on a very small scale in the way we've approached game design (e.g., how Imm XP works, transparency in PBFs, limiting access to information amongst immortals, etc.).

As long as players like you take the approach you do, the best we can do is trust our judgement and our staff and deal with bad behavior if and when we become aware of it.

I'm done with you.

"The fact that you are part of the problem aside"

What problem am I a part of? I'm part of the problem because I disagree with the direction that the game is being taken in, and I'm not afraid to put my opinion out there?

"cheating and the kind of relationships you admit to having don't occur"

I admitted to having 'had' an OOC relationship with an admin. Many others have had this same relationship, it isn't anything 'new' or 'unique'. Your prior post basically said "There is no such thing as an OOC club with our admins" which is not true, in fact from my DIRECT interactions and experiences it couldn't be more false.

For the record, I currently do not have an OOC communication with any staff members, besides the occasional empowerment meeting request.

"you seem to agree that while the way you cheat might give you an unfair advantage it's not inherently necessary"

I don't fully understand what you are saying to me. I don't currently cheat, nor do I have a OOC relationship with any IMM currently..I feel like you are labeling me a 'cheater'. Are you saying that having OOC IMM contacts "is not necessary to gain an advantage" in that case, sure..but you're still better off with the OOC hookup.

"As long as players like you take the approach you do, the best we can do is trust our judgement and our staff and deal with bad behavior if and when we become aware of it."

What the hell? My current char is just under 200 hrs in age, I've done nothing wrong and in fact, the only IMM interaction I have had has been positive, I have even made it a point to publicize the positive interactions.

This post was to talk about perceived IMM bias, which is a topic that every time it gets brought up ends with lines like "I'm done with you" from the staff.

It seems like you guys love criticizing others but can't handle it at all when it comes back in your own direction. I would LOVE to see you guys have an actual discussion with us in regards to IMM bias.

"I had a long standing OOC friendship with a current member of the staff. I don't intend to go into specifics, but I can tell you that I can prove that as a result I was not only privy to info I shouldn't have had as a player. I have no intention of exposing the actual chat logs (but yes, I do have them). And this OOC 'circle' does VERY MUCH exist."

This reads slightly different than your newest post:

"For the record, I currently do not have an OOC communication with any staff members, besides the occasional empowerment meeting request."

So now I'm just confused. Either you do or you do not have OOC communication with a current staff member.

that's what the grammar points to

"I _HAD_ a long standing (few years) OOC friendship with a current member of the staff. I don't intend to go into specifics, but I can tell you that I can prove that as a result I was not only privy to info I shouldn't have had as a player. I have no intention of exposing the actual chat logs (but yes, I do have them). And this OOC 'circle' does VERY MUCH exist."

Edited the above to emphasize the fact I used the word 'HAD' instead of 'HAVE' very intentionally.

I could have written it better, in retrospect. The point was "I once was a member of the very 'circle' you deny exists, I am no longer a 'member' and they took away my jacket" - Better?

Look, I don't know how I offended Umiron so much (sorry). But really, I think the 'cool kid clique' in CF is a very real thing, or at least it has been in the past. Its also something that at some point we as players/staff really should talk about without getting all uppity. Playing the "It doesn't exist card" doesn't cut it. Because enough of us are "ex inner circle" members. Other people have eluded to this having happened in the past, I chose to be more direct. I am sure JMC can chime in on this topic as well.

He said "had." That's past tense of have. Then he said "currently do have have" stating he no longer has what he had. If that's all it takes to confuse you...

He is asking questions that many players would like explained, and he is answered with "I'm done with you."

Is the the frustration players have on this topic really that hard to understand?

Characters who have a religion that follow an active god have an unfair advantage over characters who are less likely to recieve imm exp. I don't like how a lot of players will scream about how some petty thing is unfair at the drop of a hat. This is not one of those petty things.

Did you see what Cenatar posted just below. Funny how nobody has responded to him, right? Because he makes a good point about something the Imms won't ever talk about. You can say Cabdru didn't "technically" cheat all you want, and you'll be right. But "at the end of the day" as you imms love to say so much, we the players had to deal with that. It wasn't fun. A lot of good players left because of it. Was anything said to the players along the lines of a sorry?

It's not just the fact that we're told it's fine the way it is, it's that you act as if we have no reason to be complaining. It goes both ways.

I think that the whole argument that following a god automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly valid in all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially because most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher level of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god. Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault of the players is hard to say.

Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I don't think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for complaints. What I can say though is that in most instances we (the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our responses to you (the players) and we are often met with hate for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it works far better than most people give us credit for.

Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at me (or the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a dialogue with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries from our players that they want to be treated fair, I think that its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are also treated fairly.

>What I can say though is that in most instances we (the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our responses to you (the players) and we are often met with hate for it<

This happens to players too big fella. It's why the only posts I made on the "forum-that-shall-never-be-named-or-glorified" were straight info dumps or calling people out for being tools.

Usually, the most vocal people are also the most passionate. Passion does not equal reason .

I don't hate any of the IMM staff (I actually like Valg in small doses!) but at the same time, I get sad (frustrated?) when you guys back yourselves into a corner in certain situations (like re: edge points...no sympathy for any of the hate you guys are getting).

Of course, in my "CF solution" I would be able to (hopefully) fix that, but it's something that won't ever happen so why bother.

tl/dr

"I think that the whole argument that following a god automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly valid in all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially because most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher level of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god. Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault of the players is hard to say."

It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point. The point is we're trying to help and we're met with "bu-bye."

"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I don't think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for complaints. What I can say though is that in most instances we (the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our responses to you (the players) and we are often met with hate for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it works far better than most people give us credit for."

Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the players are out of line for complaining. It's what is not said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's the attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone on the immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square one. If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come waving a white flag with their tail between their legs and had better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise they're likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always, but very likely.

"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at me (or the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a dialogue with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries from our players that they want to be treated fair, I think that its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are also treated fairly."

If anything, my response was returning fire to your potshot at Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of sarcasm and nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil dialogue. It goes both ways.

>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly valid in
>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially because
>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher level
>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault of
>the players is hard to say."
>
>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point. The
>point is we're trying to help and we're met with "bu-bye."

You were met with honest answers and well said explanations. At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must say "ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it doesn't mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't need any more chiefs either, so deal with it.


>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I don't
>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>complaints. What I can say though is that in most instances we
> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our
>responses to you (the players) and we are often met with hate
>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it works
>far better than most people give us credit for."
>
>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the
>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is not
>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's the
>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone on the
>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square one.
>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come
>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs and had
>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise they're
>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always, but
>very likely.

There are plenty of examples on these very boards and even THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic with civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue with any of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me. If you feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining things or you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges because some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.

>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it
>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at me (or
>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a dialogue
>with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries from
>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think that
>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are also
>treated fairly."
>
>If anything, my response was returning fire to your potshot at
>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of sarcasm and
>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil dialogue.
>It goes both ways.

It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not however. I too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did I read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god forbid, holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a text based game would understand how and when this sort of thing happens.

>>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly valid
>in
>>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially because
>>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher level
>>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault of
>>the players is hard to say."
>>
>>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point.
>The
>>point is we're trying to help and we're met with "bu-bye."
>
>You were met with honest answers and well said explanations.
>At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must say
>"ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it doesn't
>mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't need any
>more chiefs either, so deal with it.

Honest answers and well said explanations? Where? The same "no" repeated in slightly different words doesn't cut it.

>
>
>>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I don't
>>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>>complaints. What I can say though is that in most instances
>we
>> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our
>>responses to you (the players) and we are often met with
>hate
>>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it
>works
>>far better than most people give us credit for."
>>
>>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the
>>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is not
>>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's the
>>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone on
>the
>>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square one.
>
>>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come
>>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs and
>had
>>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise they're
>>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always, but
>>very likely.
>
>There are plenty of examples on these very boards and even
>THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic with
>civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue with any
>of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me. If you
>feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining things or
>you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or
>punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges because
>some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.

Good for you. Everyone else, is not you.

>
>>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it
>>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at me
> or
>>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a
>dialogue
>>with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries
>from
>>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think that
>>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are also
>>treated fairly."
>>
>>If anything, my response was returning fire to your potshot
>at
>>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of sarcasm
>and
>>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil dialogue.
>>It goes both ways.
>
>It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not however. I
>too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did I
>read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to
>insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also
>understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god forbid,
>holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my
>post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a text
>based game would understand how and when this sort of thing
>happens.
>

Yes, it was quite clear what he said, whether or not he had a tone of anger is irrelevant. There is no misreading. A sarcastic response did not help, it did the opposite.

>>>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>>>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly valid
>>in
>>>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially because
>>>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher
>level
>>>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>>>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault of
>>>the players is hard to say."
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point.
>>The
>>>point is we're trying to help and we're met with "bu-bye."
>>
>>You were met with honest answers and well said explanations.
>>At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must say
>>"ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it doesn't
>>mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't need
>any
>>more chiefs either, so deal with it.
>
>Honest answers and well said explanations? Where? The same
>"no" repeated in slightly different words doesn't cut it.

What form of "no" would convince you (or Sarien) that you're wrong? Or are you saying that you refuse to accept you might be wrong? That seems like a pretty poor attitude to start from.

>
>>
>>
>>>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I
>don't
>>>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>>>complaints. What I can say though is that in most instances
>>we
>>> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our
>>>responses to you (the players) and we are often met with
>>hate
>>>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it
>>works
>>>far better than most people give us credit for."
>>>
>>>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the
>>>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is not
>>>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's
>the
>>>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone on
>>the
>>>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square
>one.
>>
>>>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come
>>>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs and
>>had
>>>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise they're
>>>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always, but
>>>very likely.
>>
>>There are plenty of examples on these very boards and even
>>THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic with
>>civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue with
>any
>>of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me. If
>you
>>feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining things
>or
>>you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or
>>punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges
>because
>>some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.
>
>Good for you. Everyone else, is not you.

You can be just like me if you want. Nothing stopping you. Well, there is that pesky delusion that everyone is out to get you. Medication might help. I'm not doing anything special or hard here.


>>
>>>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it
>>>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at me
>> or
>>>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a
>>dialogue
>>>with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries
>>from
>>>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think that
>>>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are also
>>>treated fairly."
>>>
>>>If anything, my response was returning fire to your potshot
>>at
>>>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of sarcasm
>>and
>>>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil dialogue.
>
>>>It goes both ways.
>>
>>It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not however. I
>>too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did I
>>read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to
>>insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also
>>understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god forbid,
>>holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my
>>post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a text
>>based game would understand how and when this sort of thing
>>happens.
>>
>
>Yes, it was quite clear what he said, whether or not he had a
>tone of anger is irrelevant. There is no misreading. A
>sarcastic response did not help, it did the opposite.

Whether or not he had a tone of anger was very relevant. He can't have a tone of anger and not expect a response bearing a tone of anger. Paid or volunteer, no one has to put up with some nancy's ####.

Furthermore, angry responses don't help anymore than sarcastic ones.

#rekt

PS: Thanks Rhlydarn. I use this all the time now "What's up dude? Pound sign WRECKED bro"

>>>>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>>>>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly
>valid
>>>in
>>>>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially because
>>>>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher
>>level
>>>>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>>>>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault
>of
>>>>the players is hard to say."
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point.
>>>The
>>>>point is we're trying to help and we're met with "bu-bye."
>>>
>>>You were met with honest answers and well said
>explanations.
>>>At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must
>say
>>>"ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it
>doesn't
>>>mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't need
>>any
>>>more chiefs either, so deal with it.
>>
>>Honest answers and well said explanations? Where? The same
>>"no" repeated in slightly different words doesn't cut it.
>
>What form of "no" would convince you (or Sarien) that you're
>wrong? Or are you saying that you refuse to accept you might
>be wrong? That seems like a pretty poor attitude to start
>from.

I did not know this was a matter of right and wrong. I thought we're all trying to figure out a way to better the system the the imms love to say "isn't perfect." Saying "no" over and over without reason seems like the poor attitude.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I
>>don't
>>>>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>>>>complaints. What I can say though is that in most
>instances
>>>we
>>>> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our
>>>>responses to you (the players) and we are often met with
>>>hate
>>>>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it
>>>works
>>>>far better than most people give us credit for."
>>>>
>>>>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the
>>>>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is not
>>>>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's
>>the
>>>>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone on
>>>the
>>>>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square
>>one.
>>>
>>>>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come
>>>>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs and
>>>had
>>>>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise
>they're
>>>>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always, but
>>>>very likely.
>>>
>>>There are plenty of examples on these very boards and even
>>>THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic with
>>>civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue with
>>any
>>>of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me. If
>>you
>>>feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining things
>>or
>>>you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or
>>>punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges
>>because
>>>some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.
>>
>>Good for you. Everyone else, is not you.
>
>You can be just like me if you want. Nothing stopping you.
>Well, there is that pesky delusion that everyone is out to get
>you. Medication might help. I'm not doing anything special or
>hard here.

You're logic is the same as "I've never seen racism in America, so it must not exist." I don't want to be you. I thought you said sarcasm isn't the way to go, yet you continue to spread it on thick.

>
>
>>>
>>>>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it
>>>>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at me
>>> or
>>>>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a
>>>dialogue
>>>>with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries
>>>from
>>>>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think
>that
>>>>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are also
>>>>treated fairly."
>>>>
>>>>If anything, my response was returning fire to your
>potshot
>>>at
>>>>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of sarcasm
>>>and
>>>>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil
>dialogue.
>>
>>>>It goes both ways.
>>>
>>>It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not however.
>I
>>>too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did I
>>>read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to
>>>insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also
>>>understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god
>forbid,
>>>holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my
>>>post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a
>text
>>>based game would understand how and when this sort of thing
>>>happens.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, it was quite clear what he said, whether or not he had
>a
>>tone of anger is irrelevant. There is no misreading. A
>>sarcastic response did not help, it did the opposite.
>
>Whether or not he had a tone of anger was very relevant. He
>can't have a tone of anger and not expect a response bearing a
>tone of anger. Paid or volunteer, no one has to put up with
>some nancy's ####.
>
>Furthermore, angry responses don't help anymore than sarcastic
>ones.
>
>#rekt
>
>PS: Thanks Rhlydarn. I use this all the time now "What's up
>dude? Pound sign WRECKED bro"
>

Tone or not he makes a good point, and keeps getting swept under the rug. Who's the Nancey? The one who speaks up when something is wrong, or the one telling the loud guy to keep his head down and shut?

>>>>>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>>>>>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly
>>valid
>>>>in
>>>>>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially
>because
>>>>>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher
>>>level
>>>>>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>>>>>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault
>>of
>>>>>the players is hard to say."
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point.
>>>>The
>>>>>point is we're trying to help and we're met with
>"bu-bye."
>>>>
>>>>You were met with honest answers and well said
>>explanations.
>>>>At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must
>>say
>>>>"ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it
>>doesn't
>>>>mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't need
>>>any
>>>>more chiefs either, so deal with it.
>>>
>>>Honest answers and well said explanations? Where? The same
>>>"no" repeated in slightly different words doesn't cut it.
>>
>>What form of "no" would convince you (or Sarien) that you're
>>wrong? Or are you saying that you refuse to accept you might
>>be wrong? That seems like a pretty poor attitude to start
>>from.
>
>I did not know this was a matter of right and wrong. I
>thought we're all trying to figure out a way to better the
>system the the imms love to say "isn't perfect." Saying "no"
>over and over without reason seems like the poor attitude.

Reasons were given. They weren't liked by the opposition. What more can you do? Sometimes when two people talk about something, they can't reach a consensus.

Israel vs. Palestine. They STILL can't figure that #### out. With full blown, real lives at stake.


>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I
>>>don't
>>>>>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>>>>>complaints. What I can say though is that in most
>>instances
>>>>we
>>>>> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our
>>>>>responses to you (the players) and we are often met with
>>>>hate
>>>>>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it
>>>>works
>>>>>far better than most people give us credit for."
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the
>>>>>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is
>not
>>>>>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's
>>>the
>>>>>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone
>on
>>>>the
>>>>>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square
>>>one.
>>>>
>>>>>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come
>>>>>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs
>and
>>>>had
>>>>>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise
>>they're
>>>>>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always,
>but
>>>>>very likely.
>>>>
>>>>There are plenty of examples on these very boards and even
>>>>THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic with
>>>>civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue with
>>>any
>>>>of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me. If
>>>you
>>>>feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining things
>>>or
>>>>you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or
>>>>punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges
>>>because
>>>>some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.
>>>
>>>Good for you. Everyone else, is not you.
>>
>>You can be just like me if you want. Nothing stopping you.
>>Well, there is that pesky delusion that everyone is out to
>get
>>you. Medication might help. I'm not doing anything special
>or
>>hard here.
>
>You're logic is the same as "I've never seen racism in
>America, so it must not exist." I don't want to be you. I
>thought you said sarcasm isn't the way to go, yet you continue
>to spread it on thick.

Then much the way you misread Umiron, you misread me. I'm not being sarcastic either. You really can let it go. You really CAN be wrong on something. My logic here is that I insult these people all the time. I'm just smart enough to know that they PROBABLY don't care enough about my one online persona to HATE me SO badly that they will track my IP down everywhere I go and #### on me. They have as much reason to do it to me as they do to you. Why don't they? Because it's your own paranoid nonsense brother. Just let it go.

It's not sarcasm when I say: Only I am always right.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it
>>>>>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at
>me
>>>> or
>>>>>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a
>>>>dialogue
>>>>>with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries
>>>>from
>>>>>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think
>>that
>>>>>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are
>also
>>>>>treated fairly."
>>>>>
>>>>>If anything, my response was returning fire to your
>>potshot
>>>>at
>>>>>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of
>sarcasm
>>>>and
>>>>>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil
>>dialogue.
>>>
>>>>>It goes both ways.
>>>>
>>>>It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not however.
>>I
>>>>too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did I
>>>>read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to
>>>>insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also
>>>>understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god
>>forbid,
>>>>holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my
>>>>post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a
>>text
>>>>based game would understand how and when this sort of
>thing
>>>>happens.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it was quite clear what he said, whether or not he had
>>a
>>>tone of anger is irrelevant. There is no misreading. A
>>>sarcastic response did not help, it did the opposite.
>>
>>Whether or not he had a tone of anger was very relevant. He
>>can't have a tone of anger and not expect a response bearing
>a
>>tone of anger. Paid or volunteer, no one has to put up with
>>some nancy's ####.
>>
>>Furthermore, angry responses don't help anymore than
>sarcastic
>>ones.
>>
>>#rekt
>>
>>PS: Thanks Rhlydarn. I use this all the time now "What's up
>>dude? Pound sign WRECKED bro"
>>
>
>Tone or not he makes a good point, and keeps getting swept
>under the rug. Who's the Nancey? The one who speaks up when
>something is wrong, or the one telling the loud guy to keep
>his head down and shut?

Eh, look on the other thread bubba. I'm quite vocal about my feedback. Take a gander at my 10k posts on QHCF with TONS of examples of me "Fightin' the Powa' brutha." I'm almost never nice about it either. Guess what? I still understand that throwing a tantrum when I'm told "no" doesn't help.

Let's not forget the guy flat out admits to cheating (which you yourself admit that it takes 10+ years to outlive your cheating past right?). Why do you expect admin to bother with an admitted cheater that by your own definition shouldn't be forgiven?

Did he say sorry and I didn't notice?

>>>>>>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>>>>>>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly
>>>valid
>>>>>in
>>>>>>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially
>>because
>>>>>>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher
>>>>level
>>>>>>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>>>>>>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a fault
>>>of
>>>>>>the players is hard to say."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the point.
>
>>>>>The
>>>>>>point is we're trying to help and we're met with
>>"bu-bye."
>>>>>
>>>>>You were met with honest answers and well said
>>>explanations.
>>>>>At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must
>>>say
>>>>>"ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it
>>>doesn't
>>>>>mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't
>need
>>>>any
>>>>>more chiefs either, so deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>Honest answers and well said explanations? Where? The same
>>>>"no" repeated in slightly different words doesn't cut it.
>>>
>>>What form of "no" would convince you (or Sarien) that
>you're
>>>wrong? Or are you saying that you refuse to accept you
>might
>>>be wrong? That seems like a pretty poor attitude to start
>>>from.
>>
>>I did not know this was a matter of right and wrong. I
>>thought we're all trying to figure out a way to better the
>>system the the imms love to say "isn't perfect." Saying
>"no"
>>over and over without reason seems like the poor attitude.
>
>Reasons were given. They weren't liked by the opposition. What
>more can you do? Sometimes when two people talk about
>something, they can't reach a consensus.
>
>Israel vs. Palestine. They STILL can't figure that #### out.
>With full blown, real lives at stake.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I
>>>>don't
>>>>>>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>>>>>>complaints. What I can say though is that in most
>>>instances
>>>>>we
>>>>>> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in our
>>>>>>responses to you (the players) and we are often met with
>>>>>hate
>>>>>>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that it
>>>>>works
>>>>>>far better than most people give us credit for."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though the
>>>>>>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is
>>not
>>>>>>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and it's
>>>>the
>>>>>>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone
>>on
>>>>>the
>>>>>>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from square
>>>>one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better come
>>>>>>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs
>>and
>>>>>had
>>>>>>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise
>>>they're
>>>>>>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always,
>>but
>>>>>>very likely.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are plenty of examples on these very boards and
>even
>>>>>THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic with
>>>>>civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue
>with
>>>>any
>>>>>of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me. If
>>>>you
>>>>>feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining
>things
>>>>or
>>>>>you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or
>>>>>punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges
>>>>because
>>>>>some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.
>>>>
>>>>Good for you. Everyone else, is not you.
>>>
>>>You can be just like me if you want. Nothing stopping you.
>>>Well, there is that pesky delusion that everyone is out to
>>get
>>>you. Medication might help. I'm not doing anything special
>>or
>>>hard here.
>>
>>You're logic is the same as "I've never seen racism in
>>America, so it must not exist." I don't want to be you. I
>>thought you said sarcasm isn't the way to go, yet you
>continue
>>to spread it on thick.
>
>Then much the way you misread Umiron, you misread me. I'm not
>being sarcastic either. You really can let it go. You really
>CAN be wrong on something. My logic here is that I insult
>these people all the time. I'm just smart enough to know that
>they PROBABLY don't care enough about my one online persona to
>HATE me SO badly that they will track my IP down everywhere I
>go and #### on me. They have as much reason to do it to me as
>they do to you. Why don't they? Because it's your own paranoid
>nonsense brother. Just let it go.
>
>It's not sarcasm when I say: Only I am always right.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does it
>>>>>>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at
>>me
>>>>> or
>>>>>>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a
>>>>>dialogue
>>>>>>with people over an issue? When we constantly have cries
>>>>>from
>>>>>>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think
>>>that
>>>>>>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are
>>also
>>>>>>treated fairly."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If anything, my response was returning fire to your
>>>potshot
>>>>>at
>>>>>>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of
>>sarcasm
>>>>>and
>>>>>>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil
>>>dialogue.
>>>>
>>>>>>It goes both ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not
>however.
>>>I
>>>>>too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did
>I
>>>>>read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to
>>>>>insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also
>>>>>understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god
>>>forbid,
>>>>>holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my
>>>>>post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a
>>>text
>>>>>based game would understand how and when this sort of
>>thing
>>>>>happens.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was quite clear what he said, whether or not he
>had
>>>a
>>>>tone of anger is irrelevant. There is no misreading. A
>>>>sarcastic response did not help, it did the opposite.
>>>
>>>Whether or not he had a tone of anger was very relevant. He
>>>can't have a tone of anger and not expect a response
>bearing
>>a
>>>tone of anger. Paid or volunteer, no one has to put up with
>>>some nancy's ####.
>>>
>>>Furthermore, angry responses don't help anymore than
>>sarcastic
>>>ones.
>>>
>>>#rekt
>>>
>>>PS: Thanks Rhlydarn. I use this all the time now "What's up
>>>dude? Pound sign WRECKED bro"
>>>
>>
>>Tone or not he makes a good point, and keeps getting swept
>>under the rug. Who's the Nancey? The one who speaks up
>when
>>something is wrong, or the one telling the loud guy to keep
>>his head down and shut?
>
>Eh, look on the other thread bubba. I'm quite vocal about my
>feedback. Take a gander at my 10k posts on QHCF with TONS of
>examples of me "Fightin' the Powa' brutha." I'm almost never
>nice about it either. Guess what? I still understand that
>throwing a tantrum when I'm told "no" doesn't help.
>
>Let's not forget the guy flat out admits to cheating (which
>you yourself admit that it takes 10+ years to outlive your
>cheating past right?). Why do you expect admin to bother with
>an admitted cheater that by your own definition shouldn't be
>forgiven?
>
>Did he say sorry and I didn't notice?
>

Reasons weren't given, it was brushed off like usual. 10k posts of you playing with your pud means nothing to me. Even if I was paranoid it wouldn't mean everyone wasn't after me.

Sarien and "Current Leader" in this thread have it right. You try to shush anyone who rocks the boat and you lumping them in with the worst vitriol spewers. It's almost as if you're paranoid of the paranoid.

>>>>>>>"I think that the whole argument that following a god
>>>>>>>automatically gets you piles of imm xp is not exactly
>>>>valid
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>all cases. Yes, in a lot of cases it is. Partially
>>>because
>>>>>>>most characters who follow a god tend to have a higher
>>>>>level
>>>>>>>of RP than a lot of characters who do not follow a god.
>>>>>>>Whether that is a fault of ours (as the imms) or a
>fault
>>>>of
>>>>>>>the players is hard to say."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It doesn't matter who is to blame, that's not the
>point.
>>
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>point is we're trying to help and we're met with
>>>"bu-bye."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You were met with honest answers and well said
>>>>explanations.
>>>>>>At some point "nuh uh, you" "nuh uh, you" one party must
>>>>say
>>>>>>"ok, im done." If you don't like the expalantion, it
>>>>doesn't
>>>>>>mean the other reasoning is wrong. We certainly don't
>>need
>>>>>any
>>>>>>more chiefs either, so deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Honest answers and well said explanations? Where? The
>same
>>>>>"no" repeated in slightly different words doesn't cut it.
>>>>
>>>>What form of "no" would convince you (or Sarien) that
>>you're
>>>>wrong? Or are you saying that you refuse to accept you
>>might
>>>>be wrong? That seems like a pretty poor attitude to start
>>>>from.
>>>
>>>I did not know this was a matter of right and wrong. I
>>>thought we're all trying to figure out a way to better the
>>>system the the imms love to say "isn't perfect." Saying
>>"no"
>>>over and over without reason seems like the poor attitude.
>>
>>Reasons were given. They weren't liked by the opposition.
>What
>>more can you do? Sometimes when two people talk about
>>something, they can't reach a consensus.
>>
>>Israel vs. Palestine. They STILL can't figure that #### out.
>>With full blown, real lives at stake.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Maybe its cause I'm still fairly new as an imm, but I
>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>think anyone has ever said that there is no reason for
>>>>>>>complaints. What I can say though is that in most
>>>>instances
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>> the staff) take a very calm and collected stance in
>our
>>>>>>>responses to you (the players) and we are often met
>with
>>>>>>hate
>>>>>>>for it. Is our system perfect? Nope, but I think that
>it
>>>>>>works
>>>>>>>far better than most people give us credit for."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like I said, nobody says it, but many acts as though
>the
>>>>>>>players are out of line for complaining. It's what is
>>>not
>>>>>>>said, it's the questions that are not answered, and
>it's
>>>>>the
>>>>>>>attitude we meet. Not everyone who argues with someone
>>>on
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>immstaff hates them, but we often feel hated from
>square
>>>>>one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If someone argues with the immstaff they had better
>come
>>>>>>>waving a white flag with their tail between their legs
>>>and
>>>>>>had
>>>>>>>better be ready to get their nose brown. Otherwise
>>>>they're
>>>>>>>likely to be dismissed or worse punished. Not always,
>>>but
>>>>>>>very likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are plenty of examples on these very boards and
>>even
>>>>>>THIS thread of cool-headed people discussing a topic
>with
>>>>>>civility. I argue with immortals the same way I argue
>>with
>>>>>any
>>>>>>of the players. I don't feel like any of them hate me.
>If
>>>>>you
>>>>>>feel like they hate you, I'd guess you're imagining
>>things
>>>>>or
>>>>>>you're a ####ing cheater. I've never been dismissed or
>>>>>>punished. Aside from losing newbie channel privileges
>>>>>because
>>>>>>some immortal is jealous of my cleverness.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good for you. Everyone else, is not you.
>>>>
>>>>You can be just like me if you want. Nothing stopping you.
>>>>Well, there is that pesky delusion that everyone is out to
>>>get
>>>>you. Medication might help. I'm not doing anything special
>>>or
>>>>hard here.
>>>
>>>You're logic is the same as "I've never seen racism in
>>>America, so it must not exist." I don't want to be you. I
>>>thought you said sarcasm isn't the way to go, yet you
>>continue
>>>to spread it on thick.
>>
>>Then much the way you misread Umiron, you misread me. I'm
>not
>>being sarcastic either. You really can let it go. You really
>>CAN be wrong on something. My logic here is that I insult
>>these people all the time. I'm just smart enough to know
>that
>>they PROBABLY don't care enough about my one online persona
>to
>>HATE me SO badly that they will track my IP down everywhere
>I
>>go and #### on me. They have as much reason to do it to me
>as
>>they do to you. Why don't they? Because it's your own
>paranoid
>>nonsense brother. Just let it go.
>>
>>It's not sarcasm when I say: Only I am always right.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Your response to me is a perfect example of it. Does
>it
>>>>>>>actually accomplish anything when you take a potshot at
>>>me
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>the rest of the staff) when I am attempting to have a
>>>>>>dialogue
>>>>>>>with people over an issue? When we constantly have
>cries
>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>our players that they want to be treated fair, I think
>>>>that
>>>>>>>its only reasonable to ask that we (as the staff) are
>>>also
>>>>>>>treated fairly."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If anything, my response was returning fire to your
>>>>potshot
>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>Sarien. It was clear what he said. A response of
>>>sarcasm
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>nothing more is hardly attempting to have a civil
>>>>dialogue.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It goes both ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was quite clear what he said. His tone was not
>>however.
>>>>I
>>>>>>too read his tone as escalating anger, though so too did
>>I
>>>>>>read Umiron's as such. I suspect neither really meant to
>>>>>>insult the other's sensibilities intentionally. I also
>>>>>>understand Umiron may have misread him slightly (god
>>>>forbid,
>>>>>>holy mother of god protect me from someone misreading my
>>>>>>post!) You would THINK that a bunch of nerds who play a
>>>>text
>>>>>>based game would understand how and when this sort of
>>>thing
>>>>>>happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it was quite clear what he said, whether or not he
>>had
>>>>a
>>>>>tone of anger is irrelevant. There is no misreading. A
>>>>>sarcastic response did not help, it did the opposite.
>>>>
>>>>Whether or not he had a tone of anger was very relevant.
>He
>>>>can't have a tone of anger and not expect a response
>>bearing
>>>a
>>>>tone of anger. Paid or volunteer, no one has to put up
>with
>>>>some nancy's ####.
>>>>
>>>>Furthermore, angry responses don't help anymore than
>>>sarcastic
>>>>ones.
>>>>
>>>>#rekt
>>>>
>>>>PS: Thanks Rhlydarn. I use this all the time now "What's
>up
>>>>dude? Pound sign WRECKED bro"
>>>>
>>>
>>>Tone or not he makes a good point, and keeps getting swept
>>>under the rug. Who's the Nancey? The one who speaks up
>>when
>>>something is wrong, or the one telling the loud guy to keep
>>>his head down and shut?
>>
>>Eh, look on the other thread bubba. I'm quite vocal about my
>>feedback. Take a gander at my 10k posts on QHCF with TONS of
>>examples of me "Fightin' the Powa' brutha." I'm almost never
>>nice about it either. Guess what? I still understand that
>>throwing a tantrum when I'm told "no" doesn't help.
>>
>>Let's not forget the guy flat out admits to cheating (which
>>you yourself admit that it takes 10+ years to outlive your
>>cheating past right?). Why do you expect admin to bother
>with
>>an admitted cheater that by your own definition shouldn't be
>>forgiven?
>>
>>Did he say sorry and I didn't notice?
>>
>
>Reasons weren't given, it was brushed off like usual. 10k
>posts of you playing with your pud means nothing to me. Even
>if I was paranoid it wouldn't mean everyone wasn't after me.
>
>Sarien and "Current Leader" in this thread have it right. You
>try to shush anyone who rocks the boat and you lumping them in
>with the worst vitriol spewers. It's almost as if you're
>paranoid of the paranoid.

Except I have proof posted all over that I'm not after the status quo. That is a common argument for the people who can't come up with an argument though. Especially the cheaters that complain about cheaters. I can feel your drive to post in this discussion flagging.

At what point do you say "Matrik, I'm done with you"?

Won't that make you just like Umiron? Like the guy you're so hard up on proving is a ####bird for deciding not to take place in an endless argument where the two parties simply don't agree?

Or.

You can put your money where your mouth is and we can double that 10k posts right here in this thread.

Can you prove a point better than me? I don't think so.

Did you just play right into my hands like Sam?

I bet you'll deny it. I bet you won't man up and apologize.

You have proof posted? You have proof because you say you have proof, all over? I don't care about your past posts. Nor does this issue. You keep trying to make this about you and me, and I have no clue why. I'm trying to agree with some other people who I think have a good solution to a problem at hand. One was told no with no good reason, and the other one ignored.

Edit: I don't know why but this post won't go where it is intended. It was intended to be replied to Tsunami.

>You have proof posted? You have proof because you say you
>have proof, all over? I don't care about your past posts. Nor
>does this issue.

You keep accusing me of sycophancy. I'm just pointing out that I'm not. Your assumption is incorrect.

>You keep trying to make this about you andme, and I have no clue >why. I'm trying to agree with some other people who I think have a >good solution to a problem at hand. One was told no with no good >reason, and the other one ignored.

I disagree. I think it's a damn fine reason. You'll note once again above that I am not a sycophant (so please don't repeat that argument, again). I just happen to agree with him on this and think it's a good reason. You disagree. We almost certainly will not find a consensus between us. I guess we should keep posting endlessly and never say "Ah well, we gave it the ol' college try. I'm done with you."

Is any of it reason enough to be a turd? Angry? Sarcastic? Goonly?

From a third person standpoint, I'd say probably not. I'd also say you're probably better off listening to my third person than to me directly. But speaking strictly as Matrik: I don't need much of a reason to be any of those. I'm glad you chose to decide the same so far. Please stay around and continue being a scumbag with me.

>Edit: I don't know why but this post won't go where it is
>intended. It was intended to be replied to Tsunami.

I noticed. Kinda wonky. Who knows with this place?

While I do not agree with all of your posts, I am impressed at the calm, insight, and focus of this post.

You really hit the nail on the head here. It is also good to note that your own mood can change how you perceive something written in text. It is very different than having a face to face conversation. But I think all rational parties would rather have a civil conversation than a pointless flamefest.

In the wake of all of this arguing, I've yet to see an actual suggestion to fairly balance the distribution of imm exp from a follower to people not following a particular imm. Now, keep in mind they would have to "earn" it some how. As a player, I'd be totally for having different avenues for imm exp aside from following a particular immortal. This seems to be the root problem that I've seen from all these posts.

Maybe this would be in the form of a structured system that rewards RP in a better way or being more liberal with the amount of exp given when imms see something cool from a character.

I do not know what is the right answer or if the system will work out itself. I suppose an interesting question is, what do people believe imm exp should be awarded for and in what amounts?

I'm glad you don't agree with all of my posts. You probably shouldn't bother reading most of them.

I was being mean to Akresius yesterday because I like to add flavor to my criticism. But these people... It's like a surge of old-hatred vomit comes spewing up at random times. Best to cool the inanities for a while.

I won't say I'm sorry, because I was definitely right on with my feedback. However, I sure hope he can forgive me within the next DECADE.

We (they?) are supposed to forgive him for #### (cheating) he was doing 1-2-3-4-5-6? years ago?

When can you folks forgive Daev/Valg/whoever for their ####?

I love Daev and everything he does for the game. But I'll always hate when he cheats the entire playerbase, and then cut and run without anything as much as an "oops." And ever since anyone who brings it up is met with "get over it already." If it wasn't for him the game might not be around anymore, but does that give the right to cheat? Cabdru wasn't the only one.

I mean...

Dude brah...

You love Daev? Like... really? Do you like this guy? Do you think he is swell and has been a positive contribution to CF in general?

Don't you think you can give him one? Just one from a decade ago? That one time he accidently slapped your wife's ass? Are you going to give up a comrade for some #### like that? Who cares if he said "Oh, sorry bro" or maintained it was an accident/didn't happen when confronted?

I don't like the guy (read: he needs to be whipped into shape by hanging out with me for a couple weeks so he can deal with this cesspool of turd burglars without resorting to extremely rare posts/participation), but jesus I can give him one. If nothing else, he plays the same game I do.

If you think cheating is fine, good for you. It's not what I think.

>If you think cheating is fine, good for you. It's not what I
>think.

Where do you get that? I absolutely hate cheating. In fact, I suspect you are likely a cheater. You use triggers and aliases I can almost guarantee. My standards are WAY to high for you to live up to.

It's just sad that you can say something like "He doesn't play the same game" and "He's a cheater!" when your most recent example is from a decade ago.

Wow. I'm a cheater? You can almost guarantee? I'm sure you have a ton of factual evidence to base that suspicion on. Cabdru was not the last one, by far.

Please share your factual evidence of post-Cabdru cheating.

Put up or shut up my friend.

You're right. I'm wrong to assume you cheat. I can find out with a simple question though...

Do you use aliases or triggers? Yes? Then you're a cheater. No? Welcome to the Matrik-club.

The point was not that you're a cheater, but I'm not going to sit here and fume for 10+ years about your cheating even if you are the WORST of them.

No, there is no point with you, only post count.