<49 Fire War> (Deleted) Maldikor the Field Marshall
Age: 193, Hours: 128, Align: Evil, Ethos: Chaotic, PK Ratio: 60%

<45 Duerg War> (Deleted) Kycryus the Master of Mithril
Age: 107, Hours: 115, Align: Evil, Ethos: Chaotic, PK Ratio: 35%

<47 Storm Pal> (Deleted) Rutumus the hammer of the heretics
Age: 214, Hours: 135, Align: Good, Ethos: Neutral, Pk Ratio: 25%

<51 Gnome Shf> (Deleted) Witevo the Grand Master of Ignorance, Toy of the Gods
Age: 200, Hours: 140, Align: Neutral, Ethos: Lawful, Pk Ratio: 18%

just some of my most recent higher lvl chars, if anyone wants to talk, 46099585 icq, or aim, StPeteGoofyGuy.


P.S. Thanks thror..

Why wouldn't you tell me what happened in game?

if you got aim, or icq, leave the number/name

At a guess, and by no means do I claim to be certain of this, but considering the title, and the fact that about two minutes beforehand he called on a shaman and paladin to come bail him out of a raid, I would guess that is the reasoning. Although to be honest, I cannot say it was something that anyone would find surprising. Quite use to ragers calling for help.

after the head was taken, and i was at 200/932 hp resting in the maelstorm, i told karhon there was scions at the village, that was it.



oh, forgot my lil dawnie

<51 Human Tra> (Deleted) Kalberoz the Hero of Alteration, Servant of the Dawn
Age: 59, Hours: 292, Align: Good, Ethos: Neutral, PK Ratio: 32%

Head was never taken actually, destructor died and gave up jack. And as I said, you called for help, not something I see as unusual.

You impressed me by not attempting to attack me with overwhelming odds. Good luck on the next.

Jareiah

Not because I don't like you, but it's just that you're one less hero rager to get in the way of...well, everything I do.

>P.S. Thanks thror..


Considering I had a talk with 6+ villagers about what got you booted no more than a week ago...


You're welcome.

Some people actually do more then sit on their asses all day.

Some people actually work, and work hard, and not get much sleep,so they dont recall things as easy.

Some people who play cf, actually do more then cf... i was wrong on that last one. *Immortal on this game, out of game, a doofus*

I'm confused. Are you calling Thror a doofus or what? Cause if so...Well...You just complained about barely getting sleep because of working...and yet....you continue to play CF when you should be sleeping. A game Thror has put much of his life into I'm sure. At any rate...Just curious.

-Some people actually do more then sit on their asses all day.

Yeah. Like Thror and me. What's your point?

-Some people actually work, and work hard, and not get much sleep,so they dont recall things as easy.

Yeah. Like Thror and me. What's your point?

-Some people who play cf, actually do more then cf... i was wrong on that last one. *Immortal on this game, out of game, a doofus*

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and are resorting to cheap shots. You don't know a thing about Thror, but I'll tell you, he's as cool in life as he is in this game. It pisses me off that you would knock someone who has dedicated so much time to help maintain and better something you've obviously taken enjoyment of. Grow up.

Still, it's pretty astounding how fast people get booted with no warnings. It was a good time when Nimbus would bash a rager down for using a long titanium spear (we found it could be used in nomagic/nocommune rooma) and tell him that was his only warning... or when Boltthrower would remain silent for weeks and then suddenly bust out with praise for a raid well handled and then send everybody on a cool scavenger hunt. It was also pretty cool when the battle leaders could actually lead their cabals and decide on policy, number of members, how to handle erratic members ON THEIR OWN etc.... Why, it feels as if the inquisition was just yesterday. Oh, and to be fair, Thror did once make a crack about Jhyrbian living in his mom's basement, it's rather human to expect these responses when somebody assaults something you've spent over a hundred hours on. Whether the assault is justified is all a matter of opinion, and ours doesn't seem to matter anymore.

Recently I was playing a rager, Karug. I was in the cabal for about 4 hours before I got booted for "ganging" a Scion thief. I used tactics that have not only always been approved tactics, but have gotten other people praise and titles in the past. It's very difficult to play in a cabal, where the rules for conduct are so damn subject to whim. What will get one person titles and stuff, gets another person uninducted. It makes a character impossible to play, when you have to spend all your time thinking "Will this get me praise, or uninduction?"

I was told, in a nutshell (and I paraphrase here) "Just because you see leader types, and those with special titles and such doing things, doesn't make it alright to do", which is a crap attitude. Who else are you supposed to use as an example? The leaders set the examples people are supposed to follow, they set the standards by which everyone else (in theory) are judged by.

Basically I was jacked. I made it known to the cabal where I was and that I was jacked, not to get someone to come fight for me, but to get someone to have my back in case I fell. I woke up and another rager had the first thief jacked by then. I said to the Rager thief "I'm following him". He poisoned him, and when this happened, the first thief fled. He started running away, and since I was following, and noone else was on him, I cranialed. (Oddly enough he fled from me ON the cranial hit, which I didn't think possible, if cranial hits, shouldn't they not be able to flee while at near perfect health, immediately after?) within 60 seconds, I'm uninducted.

Lets turn back time a few weeks. I'm playing a different character. An uncaballed non mage. I attack a villager. A different villager sings me to sleep after the first flees. A second villager poisons me. Third villager starts spamming cranial. I talk to a leader type and am told "It's called tactics. Only one person was hitting you at a time. Deal with it." (again, a bit of a paraphrase)I notice a short time later one of those ragers involved in the "non-gang" has a shiny new title.


Sure, I could have tried to get reinducted, instead of telling the immortal in question he was a horses ass, and completely biased. But why should I have to? More importantly, after following the examples set by those with leadership positions and titles proclaiming their prowess and eliteness in battle, and being uninducted, why the hell would I WANT to get reinducted? What in any of that sounds even remotely fun for someone who is playing a game?

It just becomes glaringly apparent when someone is "gifted" and can do no wrong, and when they aren't. There's so much concern about taking away the rager "funstick", but it seems that concern only applies to certain people, while others are just beat down with that same funstick.

>Recently I was playing a rager, Karug. I was in the cabal
>for about 4 hours before I got booted for "ganging" a Scion
>thief. I used tactics that have not only always been
>approved tactics, but have gotten other people praise and
>titles in the past. It's very difficult to play in a cabal,
>where the rules for conduct are so damn subject to whim.
>What will get one person titles and stuff, gets another
>person uninducted. It makes a character impossible to play,
>when you have to spend all your time thinking "Will this get
>me praise, or uninduction?"

You've played enough ragers to know Vladamir. What gets me, is that you continue to try to bend the policies. Each time you are called out on it, you cry foul. Sorry, but the standards don't change based on how many ragers you've played.

Contrary to popular belief, Intronan and I do not spend all afternoon snooping battleragers. We've said it once, we'll say it again, people who constantly get away with gang-banging in Battle will eventually get caught. There is a time and a place to use your particular tactic. You used it at the wrong time and the wrong place. When you can get these two sorted out, you'll probably find yourself getting more praise.


>I was told, in a nutshell (and I paraphrase here) "Just
>because you see leader types, and those with special titles
>and such doing things, doesn't make it alright to do", which
>is a crap attitude. Who else are you supposed to use as an
>example? The leaders set the examples people are supposed to
>follow, they set the standards by which everyone else (in
>theory) are judged by.

Exactly. Think leaders haven't been booted for similar crap? You've got a head on your shoulders, use it. Just because tyrannical governments had strong authority figures (Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hussein) doesn't mean those individuals were 'right'. Again, you've played enough ragers to know that scapegoating your mistakes on the leaders is basically futile.

>Basically I was jacked. I made it known to the cabal where I
>was and that I was jacked, not to get someone to come fight
>for me, but to get someone to have my back in case I fell.
>woke up and another rager had the first thief jacked by
>then. I said to the Rager thief "I'm following him". He
>poisoned him, and when this happened, the first thief fled.
>He started running away, and since I was following, and
>noone else was on him, I cranialed. (Oddly enough he fled
>from me ON the cranial hit, which I didn't think possible,
>if cranial hits, shouldn't they not be able to flee while at
>near perfect health, immediately after?) within 60 seconds,
>I'm uninducted.


Why didn't you specify that you wanted that person to have your back? You had plenty of time, in between rager thief cleaning this guy's pockets, to say something. Instead you said, I'll follow - presuming that once (assailant thief) fled from the initial attack, you'd hit him again in order to keep him from getting away (which you did). No matter how much you try to sugar-coat this, you were part of a gang-bang attempt in a situation where it was not needed. I happened to be watching. If you are willing to take those risks, accept the consequences when an authority figure of battle happens to be watching.

Continuing with this...you then failed to accept that this was wrong. Refusing to accept that this was wrong, and pointing out that it had been done before, is what got you uninducted.

Follow that with the fact that you resorted to cussing at Mr. Immortal over the pray channel and you've basically dug yourself a six foot hole in a matter of minutes.

>Lets turn back time a few weeks. I'm playing a different
>character. An uncaballed non mage. I attack a villager. A
>different villager sings me to sleep after the first flees.
>A second villager poisons me. Third villager starts spamming
>cranial. I talk to a leader type and am told "It's called
>tactics. Only one person was hitting you at a time. Deal
>with it." (again, a bit of a paraphrase)I notice a short
>time later one of those ragers involved in the "non-gang"
>has a shiny new title.

I have no idea of the situation you're referring to. Produce a log and we'll pick it apart. Again, there is a time and a place. If you were raiding and your padres left you hanging to fight in the village alone, I wouldn't bust the chops of villagers who killed you in the village. The same could and would be said of a raid against another cabal.

Also, as I stated up above - We aren't watching every incident. Don't fault us for something we have not seen.

>Sure, I could have tried to get reinducted, instead of
>telling the immortal in question he was a horses ass, and
>completely biased. But why should I have to? More


Let' see. Because this is a game and said immortals happen to be the 'GODS' of this game? You want to play with no policies or restrictions on you? Don't join a cabal. Pretty simple.

>importantly, after following the examples set by those with
>leadership positions and titles proclaiming their prowess
>and eliteness in battle, and being uninducted, why the hell
>would I WANT to get reinducted? What in any of that sounds
>even remotely fun for someone who is playing a game?

>It just becomes glaringly apparent when someone is "gifted"
>and can do no wrong, and when they aren't. There's so much
>concern about taking away the rager "funstick", but it seems
>that concern only applies to certain people, while others
>are just beat down with that same funstick.

The 'funstick' refers to game mechanics, not cabal policies. Policies are pretty cut and dry, but hell, if you feel the need to make a mockery of me by quoting me, more power to you.

On a side note: Something I mentioned in an earlier post.

Immortals (none that I've seen )don't start these long flames that produce slander about other character. More often than not, a player will come here or to other sites to vent their frustrations. These usually result in some immortal being called a 'jackass,' declaring that that immortal 'doesn't know squat,' and turns into a bandwagon of players agreeing with this.

Note: You don't see immortals starting these threads about 'your' character. We have every right to respond in any manner we feel is appropriate, including calling your character out on the spread if misinformation.

I don't think there is much of a line between the immortals and players, but whatever line there is, is propagated by slander on the forums. Stop the slander and you'll probably erase the line. Instead of e-mailing Thror and saying 'Hey Thror, what the hell did I do wrong back there!" - You are in essence going out the door and yelling in public "Thror is an asshole/idiot/stubborn bastard!"

I bet you'll find one approach more constructive than the other.

Just some ancient dwarven advice.

>You've played enough ragers to know Vladamir. What gets me,
>is that you continue to try to bend the policies. Each time
>you are called out on it, you cry foul. Sorry, but the
>standards don't change based on how many ragers you've
>played.

This was actually my first uninduction, so I don't know how "each time" I can cry foul, but ok.


>Exactly. Think leaders haven't been booted for similar
>crap? You've got a head on your shoulders, use it. Just
>because tyrannical governments had strong authority figures
> Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hussein) doesn't mean those
>individuals were 'right'. Again, you've played enough
>ragers to know that scapegoating your mistakes on the
>leaders is basically futile.

I just don't see how you can hand out praise to one person, and punishment to another for doing the same damn thing. Actually what I did was a far cry from some of the utter crap I've seen from some of the titled ragers and leadership types.

>Continuing with this...you then failed to accept that this
>was wrong. Refusing to accept that this was wrong, and
>pointing out that it had been done before, is what got you
>uninducted.

What I asked was, why it was wrong for me, but not the leaders who set the examples for the cabal. I was basically told "Do as they say, not as they do". Since there was about 60 seconds between the incident, and my uninduction, there wasn't a whole lot of time for me to realize there was a mistake on my end. You asked why we were ganging, I said I didn't think what we had done was a gang. As I was moving to a safer position to talk about it, and take my chastisement if warranted, I was uninducted.


>Follow that with the fact that you resorted to cussing at
>Mr. Immortal over the pray channel and you've basically dug
>yourself a six foot hole in a matter of minutes.

At that point, I just didn't care anymore, and fully intended to delete.

>
>I have no idea of the situation you're referring to.
>Produce a log and we'll pick it apart. Again, there is a
>time and a place. If you were raiding and your padres left
>you hanging to fight in the village alone, I wouldn't bust
>the chops of villagers who killed you in the village. The
>same could and would be said of a raid against another
>cabal.

I was uncaballed, and in the battlefields at the time. It wasn't a raid type situation. If I could ever get my autologger to work *slaps Snarf* I'd have all kinds of logs, but being stuck with good old cut and paste leaves me at a logging disadvantage.

>Also, as I stated up above - We aren't watching every
>incident. Don't fault us for something we have not seen.

I'll admit, you can't be everywhere and see everything. But you can't expect me to believe with as much as I see it, and I really don't play that much anymore, that you don't see the same sort of stuff.

>Let' see. Because this is a game and said immortals happen
>to be the 'GODS' of this game? You want to play with no
>policies or restrictions on you? Don't join a cabal.
>Pretty simple.

I'm not saying I want to play with no policies or restrictions, but how about a little consistency in how those policies are implemented? I still don't consider what I did to be a gangbang, and certainly for someone who was just inducted to be removed so quickly, and for such a minor thing is a lot more extreme than the usual handling of this stuff.

>The 'funstick' refers to game mechanics, not cabal policies.
> Policies are pretty cut and dry, but hell, if you feel the
>need to make a mockery of me by quoting me, more power to
>you.

I'm not trying to make a mockery out of anything or anyone. I'm asking you to be consistent. You can't praise one person and punish another for doing the same things under the same circumstances, and just expect people to smile and say "Oh thats alright. Want me to bend over a little further for you?".

>On a side note: Something I mentioned in an earlier post.
>
>Immortals (none that I've seen )don't start these long
>flames that produce slander about other character. More
>often than not, a player will come here or to other sites to
>vent their frustrations. These usually result in some
>immortal being called a 'jackass,' declaring that that
>immortal 'doesn't know squat,' and turns into a bandwagon of
>players agreeing with this.

I think my post was pretty low-flame. I didn't say anyone was a jackass or didn't know squat. (Ok I called you a jackass at the time of the incident, but not in my post ) I pretty much stated my opinion that it takes a lot of the fun out of the cabal, when players have to worry that things they see others get praise for, will get them punished under similar circumstances. I stand behind that opinion. I may not have been completely innocent in these circumstances, but I certainly don't feel that what I did was a bootable offense.

>
>Note: You don't see immortals starting these threads about
>'your' character. We have every right to respond in any
>manner we feel is appropriate, including calling your
>character out on the spread if misinformation.

This was an opinion. You're welcomed to dispute it, but it's still MY opinion. I'm not looking for support, but my opinion certainly doesn't seem to be unique.

>I don't think there is much of a line between the immortals
>and players, but whatever line there is, is propagated by
>slander on the forums. Stop the slander and you'll probably
>erase the line. Instead of e-mailing Thror and saying 'Hey
>Thror, what the hell did I do wrong back there!" - You are
>in essence going out the door and yelling in public "Thror
>is an asshole/idiot/stubborn bastard!"

I've tried the other route, and it got me about as far as going out the door and yelling. I've sent you logs before, and you basically told me the guy in the log was above reproach. A week later he's no longer leader, and denied. It left a sour taste in my mouth.

>I bet you'll find one approach more constructive than the
>other.

Not really, both approaches really accomplished nothing. I went this route to stimulate conversation about the topic. Not just to see who thought I was right, but also looking for opinions that might show me where I am wrong. I certainly don't think I AM wrong, but you know, some of us allow for that possibility.

>>You've played enough ragers to know Vladamir. What gets me,
>>is that you continue to try to bend the policies. Each time
>>you are called out on it, you cry foul. Sorry, but the
>>standards don't change based on how many ragers you've
>>played.
>
>This was actually my first uninduction, so I don't know how
>"each time" I can cry foul, but ok.

I'm talking about the ragers you play, not necessarily what happens to them in the long run. Grolgthus for example.

>>Exactly. Think leaders haven't been booted for similar
>>crap? You've got a head on your shoulders, use it. Just
>>because tyrannical governments had strong authority figures
>> Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hussein) doesn't mean those
>>individuals were 'right'. Again, you've played enough
>>ragers to know that scapegoating your mistakes on the
>>leaders is basically futile.
>
>I just don't see how you can hand out praise to one person,
>and punishment to another for doing the same damn thing.
>Actually what I did was a far cry from some of the utter
>crap I've seen from some of the titled ragers and leadership
>types.

Again, time and situation matter. I'll praise anyone for taking out a critical defender of the Scion cabal before the raid. Use your head about how the odds need to be for this. No one who plays this game deserves to be ganged by a team of 8. I've seen the crap in logs, but until I see it with my own eyes, my hands are tied behind my back. All I can do is make it a point to watch the invididuals in question more carefully (which lately hasn't been too often).

>>Continuing with this...you then failed to accept that this
>>was wrong. Refusing to accept that this was wrong, and
>>pointing out that it had been done before, is what got you
>>uninducted.
>
>What I asked was, why it was wrong for me, but not the
>leaders who set the examples for the cabal. I was basically
>told "Do as they say, not as they do". Since there was about
>60 seconds between the incident, and my uninduction, there
>wasn't a whole lot of time for me to realize there was a
>mistake on my end. You asked why we were ganging, I said I
>didn't think what we had done was a gang. As I was moving to
>a safer position to talk about it, and take my chastisement
>if warranted, I was uninducted.

Right. You know what's right and wrong Grolgthus. You comment on it every day on these forums. The fact that you are sitting here, trying to convince the public that your actions were not 'your fault' is really frustrating.

>>Follow that with the fact that you resorted to cussing at
>>Mr. Immortal over the pray channel and you've basically dug
>>yourself a six foot hole in a matter of minutes.
>
>At that point, I just didn't care anymore, and fully
>intended to delete.

Most people who care usually live with the uninduct/induct that comes after it. Having to practice powers again usually isn't so big a deal.

>>
>>I have no idea of the situation you're referring to.
>>Produce a log and we'll pick it apart. Again, there is a
>>time and a place. If you were raiding and your padres left
>>you hanging to fight in the village alone, I wouldn't bust
>>the chops of villagers who killed you in the village. The
>>same could and would be said of a raid against another
>>cabal.
>
>I was uncaballed, and in the battlefields at the time. It
>wasn't a raid type situation. If I could ever get my
>autologger to work *slaps Snarf* I'd have all kinds of logs,
>but being stuck with good old cut and paste leaves me at a
>logging disadvantage.

*slaps Snarf again for good measure*

I'm at the same disadvantage.

>>Also, as I stated up above - We aren't watching every
>>incident. Don't fault us for something we have not seen.
>
>I'll admit, you can't be everywhere and see everything. But
>you can't expect me to believe with as much as I see it, and
>I really don't play that much anymore, that you don't see
>the same sort of stuff.

You'd be surprised. Imagine how quickly some battles go. Imagine how busy immortals are in other windows working on areas/doing things outside of the mud. I have a wife, a house, a new basset hound pup, and many more things that keep me from just sitting around snooping people because i'm bored. I don't think I need to justify it to the playerbase, but there it goes again.

>>Let' see. Because this is a game and said immortals happen
>>to be the 'GODS' of this game? You want to play with no
>>policies or restrictions on you? Don't join a cabal.
>>Pretty simple.
>
>I'm not saying I want to play with no policies or
>restrictions, but how about a little consistency in how
>those policies are implemented? I still don't consider what
>I did to be a gangbang, and certainly for someone who was
>just inducted to be removed so quickly, and for such a minor
>thing is a lot more extreme than the usual handling of this
>stuff.

It went from minor to a big deal. Initially, I wasn't going to uninduct.

>>The 'funstick' refers to game mechanics, not cabal policies.
>> Policies are pretty cut and dry, but hell, if you feel the
>>need to make a mockery of me by quoting me, more power to
>>you.
>
>I'm not trying to make a mockery out of anything or anyone.
>I'm asking you to be consistent. You can't praise one person
>and punish another for doing the same things under the same
>circumstances, and just expect people to smile and say "Oh
>thats alright. Want me to bend over a little further for
>you?".

Again, I'm claiming ignorance here. I give people praise for things that I feel are worthy of it. I don't know who plays who and really don't care. You can either take my word for it or not. At this point, I doubt anything else is very convincing.


>>On a side note: Something I mentioned in an earlier post.
>>
>>Immortals (none that I've seen )don't start these long
>>flames that produce slander about other character. More
>>often than not, a player will come here or to other sites to
>>vent their frustrations. These usually result in some
>>immortal being called a 'jackass,' declaring that that
>>immortal 'doesn't know squat,' and turns into a bandwagon of
>>players agreeing with this.
>
>I think my post was pretty low-flame. I didn't say anyone
>was a jackass or didn't know squat. (Ok I called you a
>jackass at the time of the incident, but not in my post )
>I pretty much stated my opinion that it takes a lot of the
>fun out of the cabal, when players have to worry that things
>they see others get praise for, will get them punished under
>similar circumstances. I stand behind that opinion. I may
>not have been completely innocent in these circumstances,
>but I certainly don't feel that what I did was a bootable
>offense.
>
>>
>>Note: You don't see immortals starting these threads about
>>'your' character. We have every right to respond in any
>>manner we feel is appropriate, including calling your
>>character out on the spread if misinformation.
>
>This was an opinion. You're welcomed to dispute it, but it's
>still MY opinion. I'm not looking for support, but my
>opinion certainly doesn't seem to be unique.
>
>>I don't think there is much of a line between the immortals
>>and players, but whatever line there is, is propagated by
>>slander on the forums. Stop the slander and you'll probably
>>erase the line. Instead of e-mailing Thror and saying 'Hey
>>Thror, what the hell did I do wrong back there!" - You are
>>in essence going out the door and yelling in public "Thror
>>is an asshole/idiot/stubborn bastard!"
>
>I've tried the other route, and it got me about as far as
>going out the door and yelling. I've sent you logs before,
>and you basically told me the guy in the log was above
>reproach. A week later he's no longer leader, and denied. It
>left a sour taste in my mouth.

Do you ever think that maybe those logs you sent me have me watching the person even more? I can think about one incident that led me to.

The approaches I see, again are on other forums with a big fat sign claiming innocence and damnation to the immortals. I won't take any concerns worth a grain of salt if the source uses those means of getting their point across.


>>I bet you'll find one approach more constructive than the
>>other.
>
>Not really, both approaches really accomplished nothing. I
>went this route to stimulate conversation about the topic.
>Not just to see who thought I was right, but also looking
>for opinions that might show me where I am wrong. I
>certainly don't think I AM wrong, but you know, some of us
>allow for that possibility.

Yeah. Again, I've got my standards. I trust Intronan to make the right decisions. We usually talk about who gets the boot and why. He usually supports my decision so I don't generally feel bad about those I make.

>I'm talking about the ragers you play, not necessarily what
>happens to them in the long run. Grolgthus for example.

I didn't really care so much about the Grolgthus thing, that was really a matter of politics more than anything. Yeah it irritated me, but I stuck it out and kept playing the character, and enjoyed him.


>Again, time and situation matter. I'll praise anyone for
>taking out a critical defender of the Scion cabal before the
>raid. Use your head about how the odds need to be for this.
> No one who plays this game deserves to be ganged by a team
>of 8. I've seen the crap in logs, but until I see it with
>my own eyes, my hands are tied behind my back. All I can do
>is make it a point to watch the invididuals in question more
>carefully (which lately hasn't been too often).

Ehh, I see your point on this.

>Right. You know what's right and wrong Grolgthus. You
>comment on it every day on these forums. The fact that you
>are sitting here, trying to convince the public that your
>actions were not 'your fault' is really frustrating.

I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. I take full responsibility for my actions, and sure it might have warranted a warning, but booting me was really extreme. I would have had no problem with a dressing down, and would have taken it in stride. But to uninduct someone who was making a conscious effort NOT to gang, was a bit over the top IMHO.


>Most people who care usually live with the uninduct/induct
>that comes after it. Having to practice powers again
>usually isn't so big a deal.

I wasn't worried about practicing the powers, I hadn't even been in the cabal long enough to improve at anything I don't think. (Curse that fire giant int) I was pissed at being uninducted for such a minor thing, and didn't think I should have HAD to go through the effort of re-applying and all that nonsense, after having just spent so much time to get in. You have to understand, I had 4 recs for over a month before I even got a chance to speak to the commander. To wait all that time, just to be uninducted within a few hours was just all the frustration I could handle as far as being in the cabal. I had already decided earlier that day if I didn't get inducted that day I was deleting out of frustration. This was just the icing on the deletion cake.

>*slaps Snarf again for good measure*
>
>I'm at the same disadvantage.

Hit him again. The ugly little bastard.

>You'd be surprised. Imagine how quickly some battles go.
>Imagine how busy immortals are in other windows working on
>areas/doing things outside of the mud. I have a wife, a
>house, a new basset hound pup, and many more things that
>keep me from just sitting around snooping people because i'm
>bored. I don't think I need to justify it to the
>playerbase, but there it goes again.

Alright, I see your point here. But you have to understand the frustration as a player, to see 3 or more on 1 ganks get passed over for punishment, then to be uncaballed for the relatively minor situation I was involved in.

>It went from minor to a big deal. Initially, I wasn't going
>to uninduct.

Then why did you? I was still being attacked by 2 other people, I really didn't have the time to sit and chit chat about it over a nice mug of ale, so naturally my answers were abrupt. If you were snooping me, I assume you knew this. Had I had a chance to get somewhere safe, I would have been glad to discuss my opinion, hear yours, and then make the appropriate apologetic gestures, whether or not I felt I was in the right.

>Again, I'm claiming ignorance here. I give people praise
>for things that I feel are worthy of it. I don't know who
>plays who and really don't care. You can either take my
>word for it or not. At this point, I doubt anything else is
>very convincing.

I wasn't saying you did this because it was me, maybe I wasn't clear on that point. I'm saying certain CHARACTERS, not players, get a lighter hand when it comes time for punishments than others would in the exact same circumstances.

>Do you ever think that maybe those logs you sent me have me
>watching the person even more? I can think about one
>incident that led me to.

No actually, I hadn't thought that, thats why I stopped bothering.

>The approaches I see, again are on other forums with a big
>fat sign claiming innocence and damnation to the immortals.
>I won't take any concerns worth a grain of salt if the
>source uses those means of getting their point across.

I never claimed to be wholly innocent, but damn, an uninduction in the middle of multiple fights when I didn't really have time to stop to think, let alone talk?

>Yeah. Again, I've got my standards. I trust Intronan to
>make the right decisions. We usually talk about who gets
>the boot and why. He usually supports my decision so I
>don't generally feel bad about those I make.

Standards are spiffy things if applied evenly. Thats been my point all along.

Not taking any sides, but when did a 2 on 1 become a gangbang? Years ago, a gang was something like 8 imperials chasing down someone, or nightgaunting them. Now adays, if someone doesn't think they had a fair chance in a fight they start crying about getting ganged.

In my humble opinion, a 2 on 1 is perfectly fine. Your obviously not doomed to die, and you have a chance to escape. In the particular situation that is described, the two ragers were trying to AVOID attacking him at the same time. They weren't spamming trip and cranial, which to me would indicate they were aiming on killing him. Not that my opinion is heavily weighted, but I think you were splitting hairs, Thror. Not trying to be an ass, but if you think a 2 on 1 is a gang then good god you didn't experience any REAL gang'in. Loosen the reigns man, a fight has to go perfectly for two people to totally gank 1 person without them getting a flee in or recalling.

In a cabal that prides itself on victory, and not losing any men, it's awful risky constantly forcing individual battles. I just don't see an army in a war taking risks like that. Two villagers travelling together wouldn't think twice about killing a mage TOGETHER. Its silly to let the mage have a chance to escape because fear of getting kicked out for not fighting fair.

<sarcasm>Before long two ragers might get two scions jacked, and both of them attack one of the sleeping guys...then get kicked out for gang'in them.</sarcasm>

Just as an aside, alignment should play a role in how this pans out in the world. A good aligned warrior might try and fight the fair fight, but by god a duergar or drow are going to try and kill their enemy ruthlessly. As it stands now, alignment doesn't really play much of a role in battle at all. Everyone has to play the same "fair" character or they might get booted.

</rant>

Gabe

> Not taking any sides, but when did a 2 on 1 become a
>gangbang? Years ago, a gang was something like 8 imperials
>chasing down someone, or nightgaunting them. Now adays, if
>someone doesn't think they had a fair chance in a fight they
>start crying about getting ganged.
>

I'd still consider 2 people both attacking 1 target at the same time to be a gang, especially a warrior/thief combo. The possibilities for endless lag with that combination are pretty gross. Warrior bashes, thief trips, thief gets cheap shot on both. Lag stacks up. Ick.

> In my humble opinion, a 2 on 1 is perfectly fine. Your
>obviously not doomed to die, and you have a chance to
>escape. In the particular situation that is described, the
>two ragers were trying to AVOID attacking him at the same
>time. They weren't spamming trip and cranial, which to me
>would indicate they were aiming on killing him. Not that my
>opinion is heavily weighted, but I think you were splitting
>hairs, Thror. Not trying to be an ass, but if you think a 2
>on 1 is a gang then good god you didn't experience any REAL
>gang'in. Loosen the reigns man, a fight has to go
>perfectly for two people to totally gank 1 person without
>them getting a flee in or recalling.

I don't know if he needs to "loosen the reigns", and that really wasn't my point. My point was consistency. I want to know, going into a fight just what is, and is not acceptable. My only real complaint is the way certain tactics, like mine, are acceptable for some, but noth others. (Not counting raids and the like, when all gloves are off)

> In a cabal that prides itself on victory, and not losing
>any men, it's awful risky constantly forcing individual
>battles. I just don't see an army in a war taking risks
>like that. Two villagers travelling together wouldn't think
>twice about killing a mage TOGETHER. Its silly to let the
>mage have a chance to escape because fear of getting kicked
>out for not fighting fair.

Ehh, I kind of agree with this. But again, I think tactics come into play. I wouldn't like to see two ragers spamming bash/trip/cranial/whatever on one target, but what I did was also a far cry from that.

><sarcasm>Before long two ragers might get two scions jacked,
>and both of them attack one of the sleeping guys...then get
>kicked out for gang'in them.</sarcasm>
>
>Just as an aside, alignment should play a role in how this
>pans out in the world. A good aligned warrior might try and
>fight the fair fight, but by god a duergar or drow are going
>to try and kill their enemy ruthlessly. As it stands now,
>alignment doesn't really play much of a role in battle at
>all. Everyone has to play the same "fair" character or they
>might get booted.

I wouldn't mind seeing alignment play more of a role in the village, but then the problem is, you'll develop strife between factions within the village, and they won't work as a cohesive unit.

></rant>
>
>Gabe

I'm responding just to be polite. I've got a million other things to do.

> Not taking any sides, but when did a 2 on 1 become a
>gangbang? Years ago, a gang was something like 8 imperials
>chasing down someone, or nightgaunting them. Now adays, if
>someone doesn't think they had a fair chance in a fight they
>start crying about getting ganged.

It's never been acceptable with battle. Remember Takashimi/Dhaevor? Aradan's incident with a Battle thief and another member of battle? BoltThrower layed the smack down in this incident. I'm quite fond of a few more, but I don't really think this needs to be explained.

> In my humble opinion, a 2 on 1 is perfectly fine. Your
>obviously not doomed to die, and you have a chance to
>escape. In the particular situation that is described, the
>two ragers were trying to AVOID attacking him at the same

I disagree here. Two on one - including a thief, is like tampering with the slot machines. Your chances of victory increase dramatically.

In this particular incident, the two ragers were trying to AVOID attacking at the same time, using the old "follow and attack when he flees technique," which is just another way around the no-gangbang rules that apply to battle.

"Hey officer, the open bottles were just sitting in my car, I wasn't going to drink the contents!"


>time. They weren't spamming trip and cranial, which to me
>would indicate they were aiming on killing him. Not that my
>opinion is heavily weighted, but I think you were splitting
>hairs, Thror. Not trying to be an ass, but if you think a 2
>on 1 is a gang then good god you didn't experience any REAL
>gang'in. Loosen the reigns man, a fight has to go

That's an understatement and you know it.

>perfectly for two people to totally gank 1 person without
>them getting a flee in or recalling.

Ragers with deathblow really don't need many perfect fights. With great power comes great responsibility grasshopper.

> In a cabal that prides itself on victory, and not losing
>any men, it's awful risky constantly forcing individual
>battles. I just don't see an army in a war taking risks

You're misquoting the plaque completely here. Come on Gabe, even you know better than that. Is arguing this point really worth looking this bad?

>like that. Two villagers travelling together wouldn't think
>twice about killing a mage TOGETHER. Its silly to let the
>mage have a chance to escape because fear of getting kicked
>out for not fighting fair.

No comment.

><sarcasm>Before long two ragers might get two scions jacked,
>and both of them attack one of the sleeping guys...then get
>kicked out for gang'in them.</sarcasm>

<seriousness>Common sense.</seriousness>

>Just as an aside, alignment should play a role in how this
>pans out in the world. A good aligned warrior might try and
>fight the fair fight, but by god a duergar or drow are going
>to try and kill their enemy ruthlessly. As it stands now,
>alignment doesn't really play much of a role in battle at
>all. Everyone has to play the same "fair" character or they
>might get booted.

I actually like this idea. I'll talk to Intronan/Kastellyn and see what they think. However, I don't want alignment to dictate that you get a free gang-bang pass. That, again is not fair.

></rant>
>
>Gabe

heh..I can't remember the plaque half the time..

Gabe: 1, Thror: 2482 Booyah..

>Instead you said, I'll follow - presuming that once (assailant thief)
>fled from the initial attack, you'd hit him again in order to keep
>him from getting away (which you did). No matter how much you try to
>sugar-coat this, you were part of a gang-bang attempt in a situation
>where it was not needed.

A tear falls from my eye when I see this. Thank you for clearing it up
that tag-teaming is almost as bad as all assaulting at once. I have
dealt with too many who see that as a perfectly honorable tactic.

Again, thank you

>Still, it's pretty astounding how fast people get booted
>with no warnings. It was a good time when Nimbus would bash
>a rager down for using a long titanium spear (we found it
>could be used in nomagic/nocommune rooma) and tell him that
>was his only warning... or when Boltthrower would remain
>silent for weeks and then suddenly bust out with praise for

In all fairness. I'm not Nimbus. I'm not BoltThrower. Nor am I Intronan or Kastellyn. We all have our ways of giving out punishment and praise. The warning regarding this incident came three days before it occured, when I warned the village that I will not hesitate to remove them from battle regarding things like this. I also specifically got on those 6+ villagers about calling other cabals to handle their dirty-work. Knowing full well this individual was present for the discussion, I wasn't about to give him another warning.

>a raid well handled and then send everybody on a cool
>scavenger hunt. It was also pretty cool when the battle

Wierd. I'd like to think I've done my share of quests etc.

>leaders could actually lead their cabals and decide on
>policy, number of members, how to handle erratic members ON
>THEIR OWN etc.... Why, it feels as if the inquisition was
>just yesterday. Oh, and to be fair, Thror did once make a
>crack about Jhyrbian living in his mom's basement, it's
>rather human to expect these responses when somebody
>assaults something you've spent over a hundred hours on.

Exactly. We're all human. I'd like to think I can walk in a bar and slug it out with the best of them. Try to remember, Immortals do not come to the forums and begin slinging around insults just for kicks. We just respond to them.

>Whether the assault is justified is all a matter of opinion,
>and ours doesn't seem to matter anymore.

Not when you are basing your opinions on a forum that is filled with half-truths and edited logs.

>In all fairness. I'm not Nimbus. I'm not BoltThrower. Nor
>am I Intronan or Kastellyn. We all have our ways of giving
>out punishment and praise. The warning regarding this
>incident came three days before it occured, when I warned
>the village that I will not hesitate to remove them from
>battle regarding things like this. I also specifically got
>on those 6+ villagers about calling other cabals to handle
>their dirty-work. Knowing full well this individual was
>present for the discussion, I wasn't about to give him
>another warning.

It wasn't really this case in particular, it's just the fact that there is a long string of these sort of complaints about you and they don't ever stop. The only other case i've seen anything like it was when Empire was doing the random uninductions... but that's Empire. I really have no idea about this particular one, but that wasn't really the point.

>>a raid well handled and then send everybody on a cool
>>scavenger hunt. It was also pretty cool when the battle
>
>Wierd. I'd like to think I've done my share of quests etc.

You have, my point was just that Boltthrower was fairly positive.

>>leaders could actually lead their cabals and decide on
>>policy, number of members, how to handle erratic members ON
>>THEIR OWN etc.... Why, it feels as if the inquisition was
>>just yesterday. Oh, and to be fair, Thror did once make a
>>crack about Jhyrbian living in his mom's basement, it's
>>rather human to expect these responses when somebody
>>assaults something you've spent over a hundred hours on.
>
>Exactly. We're all human. I'd like to think I can walk in
>a bar and slug it out with the best of them. Try to
>remember, Immortals do not come to the forums and begin
>slinging around insults just for kicks. We just respond to
>them.

I would like a bit of response for the first half of that, which is really something that bothers me. Mortal control of cabals spices things up a lot. I was on one of my many periods of hiatus during the time Intronan was leader and I heard that got fairly interesting, and I know leaders might have a little control of affairs... but for the most part you tell them how many people they're supposed to have, often you tell them how to treat other cabals, you've entirely placed the what's magical and what isn't debate under your control as opposed to it varying from leader to leader, and so on. You don't even let the leader handle the behavior of their own cabal members. You constantly snoop people and then transfer into the Destructor to yell at them if you think they're wrong. I remember back when I played Bastian we had Arbiters being bribed to remove flags. The Arbiter Lords convened and we planned some stuff like paid spies and so on. We even met behind the evil lord's back and tried to figure out a way to keep tabs on him. That was fun, that would not have existed if an immortal sat there constantly snooping members and just uninducted the culprits. That's just an example of what I think the game is losing.

>Not when you are basing your opinions on a forum that is
>filled with half-truths and edited logs.

I was the first rager inducted under the new changes and i've played tons before and after that. One quick example. I get back from a hard day of studying biochem at the library. I log on, jack a scion ap in hamsah and proceed to call it out over the cb. Two ragers in his range are on and I have a couple other Scions in range. I figure if he calls for help then I should have some help on the way too. I wait two ticks for any protections to drop and then attack him (nobody is in Hamsah yet on the where). The battle takes a while cause I decide to resort to flee/knife and the other ragers show up and bash him down. You transfer into the Destructor, call us over, and spend the next half an hour arguing about the incident. Perhaps what they did was wrong, but you yell at me for asking help with a single mage. I argue that I clearly attacked him on my own and just wanted even odds if other scions showed up. Is that fun for you? It certainly isn't for me. At some point I realize my break hour is over and I have to log off to get back to work... wishing I had instead fired up the ps2 or done something less irritating and more relaxing. At one point you said you were going to stop micromanaging and let the cabal handle itself for a while. Personally i'd like to see that happen.... the only time I would like to see your heavy handed rule is when the cabal leadership is continually absent and things get too lax.

>>In all fairness. I'm not Nimbus. I'm not BoltThrower. Nor
>>am I Intronan or Kastellyn. We all have our ways of giving
>>out punishment and praise. The warning regarding this
>>incident came three days before it occured, when I warned
>>the village that I will not hesitate to remove them from
>>battle regarding things like this. I also specifically got
>>on those 6+ villagers about calling other cabals to handle
>>their dirty-work. Knowing full well this individual was
>>present for the discussion, I wasn't about to give him
>>another warning.
>
>It wasn't really this case in particular, it's just the fact
>that there is a long string of these sort of complaints
>about you and they don't ever stop. The only other case
>i've seen anything like it was when Empire was doing the
>random uninductions... but that's Empire. I really have no
>idea about this particular one, but that wasn't really the
>point.

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

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

>>>a raid well handled and then send everybody on a cool
>>>scavenger hunt. It was also pretty cool when the battle
>>
>>Wierd. I'd like to think I've done my share of quests etc.
>
>You have, my point was just that Boltthrower was fairly
>positive.

Fair enough.

>>>leaders could actually lead their cabals and decide on
>>>policy, number of members, how to handle erratic members ON
>>>THEIR OWN etc.... Why, it feels as if the inquisition was
>>>just yesterday. Oh, and to be fair, Thror did once make a
>>>crack about Jhyrbian living in his mom's basement, it's
>>>rather human to expect these responses when somebody
>>>assaults something you've spent over a hundred hours on.
>>
>>Exactly. We're all human. I'd like to think I can walk in
>>a bar and slug it out with the best of them. Try to
>>remember, Immortals do not come to the forums and begin
>>slinging around insults just for kicks. We just respond to
>>them.
>
>I would like a bit of response for the first half of that,
>which is really something that bothers me. Mortal control


A response to the first part of this is explained further below. I'm a scrapper. Anyone wants to sling mud my way, expect to have it thrown back at you.

>of cabals spices things up a lot. I was on one of my many
>periods of hiatus during the time Intronan was leader and I
>heard that got fairly interesting, and I know leaders might
>have a little control of affairs... but for the most part
>you tell them how many people they're supposed to have,

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


>often you tell them how to treat other cabals, you've
>entirely placed the what's magical and what isn't debate
>under your control as opposed to it varying from leader to
>leader, and so on. You don't even let the leader handle the

Every cabal has it's policies. Battle has it's policies as well. I shouldn't have to tell Battle how to treat other cabals. It's written on the plaque. I will however, enforce that plaque when I need to.

>behavior of their own cabal members. You constantly snoop
>people and then transfer into the Destructor to yell at them
>if you think they're wrong. I remember back when I played

I'm calling BS on this. I'm not online enough to constantly snoop people. I'd also like to think I'm a bit more productive than this.
You're looking from the outside in, so I'm going to take this worth a grain of salt.

>Bastian we had Arbiters being bribed to remove flags. The
>Arbiter Lords convened and we planned some stuff like paid
>spies and so on. We even met behind the evil lord's back
>and tried to figure out a way to keep tabs on him. That was
>fun, that would not have existed if an immortal sat there
>constantly snooping members and just uninducted the
>culprits. That's just an example of what I think the game
>is losing.

Can't help you there. Everyone has their own perspective.

>>Not when you are basing your opinions on a forum that is
>>filled with half-truths and edited logs.
>
>I was the first rager inducted under the new changes and
>i've played tons before and after that. One quick example.
>I get back from a hard day of studying biochem at the
>library. I log on, jack a scion ap in hamsah and proceed to
>call it out over the cb. Two ragers in his range are on and
>I have a couple other Scions in range. I figure if he calls
>for help then I should have some help on the way too. I
>wait two ticks for any protections to drop and then attack
>him (nobody is in Hamsah yet on the where). The battle
>takes a while cause I decide to resort to flee/knife and the
>other ragers show up and bash him down. You transfer into
>the Destructor, call us over, and spend the next half an
>hour arguing about the incident. Perhaps what they did was

Perhaps? It was wrong. Find yourself on the other end of this kind of attack, time and time again and you'll realize why it was wrong.

>wrong, but you yell at me for asking help with a single
>mage. I argue that I clearly attacked him on my own and
>just wanted even odds if other scions showed up. Is that

Make your intentions clear. If you want people in Hamsah to back you up, make sure you tell them this. If you are with two buddies who decide to pull over at a store and rob it, does that make you any less innocent? Don't put yourself in that situation and you have nothing to worry about.


>fun for you? It certainly isn't for me. At some point I
>realize my break hour is over and I have to log off to get

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

>back to work... wishing I had instead fired up the ps2 or
>done something less irritating and more relaxing. At one
>point you said you were going to stop micromanaging and let
>the cabal handle itself for a while. Personally i'd like to
>see that happen.... the only time I would like to see your

Again, I think you are making statements based on an earlier time. I've been around so little I'm surprised I'm still making an uproar in the cabal. Guess everyone has to have their scapegoat right?

Color me Cador.

>heavy handed rule is when the cabal leadership is
>continually absent and things get too lax.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

>Color me Cador.

Errr, already done I think (:

Persecuted, no. Sick of defending myself, yes.

>>...and they are from the same people. People who are
>>Veterans at playing Battle who tend to think that they can
>>do no wrong. At the same time, I've got immortals telling
>>me that while I'm NOT watching, my cabal is ganging the hell
>>out of everyone. Then I've got e-mails and forums that are
>>consistantly pointing out who is ganging who and why these
>>individuals are let off the hook (knowing full well I
>>haven't seen the incident). I'm sorry if it offends you or
>>anyone else in the playerbase but I'm in the position to
>>police battle. Excuse me for trying to do my job.
>
>I'm sorry, is this supposed to be something new? Somehow we
>got along before you with the exact same sort of complaints.
> Who cares if there are some sketchy members? Eventually
>they slip up or draw enough attention so they can't get away
>with much. God forbid we add that element of realism. Oh,
>and I wouldn't take those of us rampantly bitchy americans
>as your only example of who thinks you're doing wrong. Some
>others I know take it all with a enviable amount of stoicism
> those Western Europeans in particular).


I'm fairly bitter about some of your more sarcastic comments, but that's just your style right Cathoir? I'll try to be civil.

Exactly. Those complaints have been rolling along for years now. However, with the introduction of the forums, we have the more vocal group of complainers crying foul to the public. It's great for the Cf image, it really is.

I care of there are sketchy characters, because I have my responsibilities to the mud and to the cabal. If I happen to be online and see someone doing something against cabal policies, I'll bust them. Why is this so hard for you and other people to swallow? Should I simply ignore the fact that someone (I do check roles mind you) is going completely against beliefs they have sworn to uphold? That they are simply in a cabal for powers. I don't think much justification is needed for that.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at about bitchy Americans and Europeans, so I'll leave it be.

>>Add to the fact that this is not 'random uninductions,'
>>these uninductions have merit to them. They have a
>>substance and in this particular incident (as with most) the
>>individual is given a chance to explain themselves before
>>getting la boot.
>
>You completely misinterpreted there. The point was that
>since the departure of Cador I haven't seen anything like
>the steady stream of complaints both in ic and ooc channels
>about the way an immortal polices their cabal and hands out
>uninductions; with the exception of the period when Empire
>imms cracked down. So yes, color you cador.

Don't forget the steady stream of complaints from people outside of the cabal. I could quote some of the e-mails I get from frustrated players who are constantly getting ganged by battleragers that will do anything for the victory. Balance it out. That's our jobs right? Immortal mediators who attempt to balance the game out? Hell, I'm usually the one to get blamed if Kast or Intronan does any uninductions. I'll accept that. Those ooc channels need a scapegoat and since these forums allow those scapegoats to be publicly slandered the propogate. I'll take the blame as well. Why I feel the need to come to these forums to justify my actions I'll never understand. I figure most times the players are looking for answers, so I attempt to give them some. That's were I've managed to error.

>>Battle is a very odd cabal. From past experience as well as
>>experience with my peers, if the cabal gets too large, I
>>have to micromanage more. Coupled with the fact that we've
>>had a rather shitty string of cheating leaders, I don't
>>think I'm going overboard by putting a number cap on the
>>cabal. If people want to join battle bad enough, they'll
>>eventually make it in.
>
>I'm sorry, again, but I don't follow your logic. How
>exactly do you think that putting a number cap will deter
>cheating leaders? That just screws the people who they pass


Exactly what do you think this number cap is? It's not a simple number that is given that means 'stop at this point.' It's a number given to make sure the cabal does not overpopulate with a bunch of bloodthirsty ragers, deathblowing through members of Tribunal because they are bored.

>over in favor of their friends. And once again, Battle

Some people know this better than others right?

>somehow got on in the past with large numbers. Considering
>the pure number of enemies they have and hinderance in
>actually allying themself to any particular cabal i'd say
>that they need the most members. While cabals like Scion
>can roll through people with insanely wanded mages, liches,
>summoners, and vast supporting casts of warriors/priests...
>Battleragers are quite easy to pick apart given the correct
>sort of resistance. I almost felt bad for them while
>playing Astirath...


I agree. Which raises the bar on those ragers who happen to be part of the cabal. The whole immortal staff agreed on keeping ragers from being the dominant cabal with a host of dormant characters. We try to do our best to steady the pendulum. Sorry chap.

>>
>>>often you tell them how to treat other cabals, you've
>>>entirely placed the what's magical and what isn't debate
>>>under your control as opposed to it varying from leader to
>>>leader, and so on. You don't even let the leader handle the
>>
>>Every cabal has it's policies. Battle has it's policies as
>>well. I shouldn't have to tell Battle how to treat other
>>cabals. It's written on the plaque. I will however,
>>enforce that plaque when I need to.
>
>I'll concede that point, of course... what other cabal has
>tomes and tomes of material telling you exactly how to act,
>god forbid any rampant outbreaks of individualism.

From past experience, these tend to be supporting materials to help guide members of battle. We don't force every character to follow every piece of literature we put in battle. How many ragers have you had again?

God forbid we give a little direction.


>>>behavior of their own cabal members. You constantly snoop
>>>people and then transfer into the Destructor to yell at them
>>>if you think they're wrong. I remember back when I played
>>
>>I'm calling BS on this. I'm not online enough to constantly
>>snoop people. I'd also like to think I'm a bit more
>>productive than this.
>>You're looking from the outside in, so I'm going to take
>>this worth a grain of salt.
>
>Yes, i've taken many long breaks and when I do play it can
>be sporadic. As I already said, i've played 6 ragers since
>you've been an imm with any sort of power to thoroughly
>police the cabal. Since then i've played about 6 other
>cabal'd characters... with assorted stints in Sylvans,
>Scions, Warlocks, Entropy, and one attempt at the fortress.
>You know how many times an imm has bothered me in those
>cabals? Once, the Astirath affair. You know how many times
>i've been harangued in Battle? Neither do I, more than once
>with each character. I was likely in the wrong with how I
>acted as a rager in some of those situations, and I was
>certainly in the right at other times (You were once telling
>me I was lying about how my link had cut out when my
>computer's power got cut... strange). I was never

Oh, I'll be the first to say I'm not polished or perfect. I've made my mistakes and asked myself if I could have handled a situation better. I'd like to think I've learned from some of my earlier mistakes and grown as an immortal but that's not for me to decide. I've probably wronged a few players and I hope I've done my fair share of making a few players enjoy this game even more. I'll never claim to walk on water.

>uninducted nor was I particularly remorseful for most of the
>ocassions, so apparently they weren't that grevious of
>mistakes or perceived mistakes. I really don't understand
>why you must constantly be so negative towards your cabal's
>members. We're fucking here to have fun, not join the
>military. And i'm basing this on how many times i've seen

*Resists his urge to bark*

Do me a favor and do it. Immort. Police the cabal and make things right. I will have no qualms about it.


>you get down on me AND or other cabal members, just not on
>my own experience... I hardly profess to be a model rager or
>know the new system inside and out.


Neither do I. I do profess that I am one of the individuals who sets the standards. I'll abide by those standards as well as I possibly can. If that's a deteriment to characters who have played battle for years and assume they are right, so be it. However, in game, you RP. When players choose to forsake RP in order to gain powers and argue (not the same as dispute) with immortals, I'll reserve the right to make my point clear.

>>Not really. If you think the immortal staff has 'fun' doing
>>much of what we do, you are completely wrong. I've found
>>myself missing much of the 'fun' that is associated with
>>this game.
>
>Solution seems simple enough, let the cabal self govern?
>Somehow it got on with minimal interference before you
>arrived.

I've done that champ. You've said this once, you'll say it again. I've responded the same way, I'll respond again. I have let the cabal self govern itself into the ground on a number of occasions. If you want me to 'walk away from the cabal' I'm very well near doing so. I won't do it for your pleasure, I'll do it because I have to deal with justifications on arguements about things that occur IC which people bring OOC. Very few people have the merit to respond on those situations until they've seen exactly how things have occured.


>>Color me Cador.

...and while this seems childish, I'm through. I see Valguarnera get the ridicule for attempting to answer playerbase questions and I've gotten way too much of it with Battle. I see how Bria/Astein/Zulghinlour/Sebeok and others refrain from doing this and they need not worry about the bickering and flame wars that occur on this forum. I'm busy putting myself in the position of scapegoat and I'm through. I'll accept a bitter graveyard post and bitter remarks on other forums. That'll just come with the job. Hasta to my forum. If Intronan or other immortals want to take up the mantle, more power to them. Too many headaches, to much repeating of my own words and too much wasted time.

>Errr, already done I think (:

Thror.. You don't have to listen to them or answer hundred of times. If you ignore them, a big part will just stop whining and pissing and wasting your time. I've had only one rager thus far.. Was when Intronan was mortal leader. I had a great time, and you do a very good job. I'd have heroed my char (Felbund, Assassin Scout), but I wasn't doing good as an assassin so I deleted. My point being, work with those who enjoy what you do. If some don't like it, they just have to NOT make a rager. When someone does 10 ragers and say at each that he hate this and that and blah blah blah.. The problem isn't you. It's like if they were doing a rager just to be able to whine. I may try to do another rager some day soon, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it again as much as the first time... Just don't listen to those who try to make you quit.

... but you're still a top dogg C =)

>It wasn't really this case in particular, it's just the fact that there is a long string of these sort of complaints about you and they don't ever stop.

Kinda agreed, there's been a lot of whining/complaining on this subject since the village renessaince. I haven't had any first-hand experience of the trigger-happy uninduction stuff with my post-change ragers. (5 of them now).

Also, I can only remember person that, imho, got uninducted for ##### reasons. (Merithias(sp?), the other ones deserved it.)

What I don't understand is why the no-ganging rule is being enforced in the neo-village. If you're to be an effective, ruthless army, ganging is a way to go. In addition to that, a group of villagers has way less synergy gains than your average scion group. Especially, I don't think the no-ganging rule goes well together with the no-bash-potionquaffer rule. Even if you're only a quasi-barbarian, it doesn't make sense to cuddle people you hate. Moreso since the current implementation of no-ganging rule has nothing to do with courage.

>You constantly snoop people and then transfer into the Destructor to yell at them if you think they're wrong.

Not that I really have a clue, but I bet imms who snoop people actually hope the snoopees will do some splendid stuff, so that the imm gets a reason to reward them/give them a title or stuff. If they instead choose to ##### up, they gotta be treated accordingly. Every time Thror has talked to me, he's been all nice. Except for once, and then I asked for it, kinda.

>but for the most part you tell them how many people they're supposed to have, often you tell them how to treat other cabals, you've
>entirely placed the what's magical and what isn't debate under your control as opposed to it varying from leader to leader, and so on.

Yeah, the village is a bit too micromanaged, and the no-can-do boundaries are set a bit too tight. Would love to see more leeway to the leaders.
And about the fixed magic flag stuff shrinks the rager funstick a good bit, since almost all the *really* nice items are magic flagged.
Before the change, you could atleast play around with a couple of them. (Humansunder, and that funky mask for example). Now all you can do is to destroy them, and make your enemies wait for a reboot until they get it back.

ps. sorry about the incoherence, I'm at work so I wrote this stuff 2 lines at a time with breaks inbetween.

ps2. point of post: Thror is a pretty nice imm, but the village policies/standards are a bit screwwy

>... but you're still a top dogg C =)

no diggity

>What I don't understand is why the no-ganging rule is being
>enforced in the neo-village. If you're to be an effective,
>ruthless army, ganging is a way to go. In addition to that,
>a group of villagers has way less synergy gains than your
>average scion group. Especially, I don't think the
>no-ganging rule goes well together with the
>no-bash-potionquaffer rule. Even if you're only a
>quasi-barbarian, it doesn't make sense to cuddle people you
>hate. Moreso since the current implementation of no-ganging
>rule has nothing to do with courage.

Aside from the whole "chaotic" organization of Entropy (formal applicant process and everything!) I always wondered what the hell was going on with these new Battle ideals. I was the first guy inducted under them and apparently I had it all wrong. I assumed that it meant they were sort of hybrid, army with tactics and intelligent drive to efficiently get rid of magic comibined with the sort of Barbarian pride... meaning you better exhibit some courage and willingness to fight alone cause you're supposed to be one of the greatest warriors in the land. I really don't know why, if you were a supposedly an intelligent tactician, you'd forsake two warriors cranial'ing for one. Honor and organized war just don't mix cause that's what the 1 person vs. 1 person rule really is all about, it's clearly possible to be a courageous sort of character who will partake in gangbangs to get the job done, oh well... maybe we'll never know.

He is going to call me stinking in real life too then ?? }>

Of course! And if you ever met me in real life, I'm sure you'd be impressed by my paper mache beak and glued on feathers!

>Of course! And if you ever met me in real life, I'm sure
>you'd be impressed by my paper mache beak and glued on
>feathers!

and by my ability to kick people in the groin while they're already down! My backstab needs some work though...

Let's see if you're still such a loudmouth after I sang you a fiend !!

you're immortal

When I was Yuber, I totally enjoyed my time with Kycryus and the same with Kalak and Witevo...just a damn shame I got pissed at you in the end heh...