Best Of

I get that people are unhappy, but this argument is becoming cyclical.

Both sides end up with a TA. Rather than try to convince someone of something @Xenthos
 why don't you give an option that is manageable and not some mechanical impact? "A perk to all of our people" is a no.  "A better improvement to Choros" would somehow benefit him for having the luck of lag (as stated by Orael). Look at something that isn't just trying to one up people and you may actually get it. Otherwise, we should just acknowledge it and move on. 

Xenthos seems to be the main one driving this whole thing to continue, and he had a special event to get his old name back. 

So, reading this, instead of focusing on diminishing the other side ? Why not just hold something special to celebrate each alliance's efforts. IHC has a lovely event to ascend their TA and Glom/Celest/Hallifax get a little something with Partoleon to celebrate sealing away Kehturu or a follow up Roleplay after sealing away Kethuru?

An event that builds on the end of ascension roleplay wise and offers closure for both sides. It feels like that might be a lovely idea and mend quite a bit in the process.

There's no reasons both sides couldnt even get involved in a culmination that would celebrate everyone that fought so hard post ascension and bring people togheter.

It feels like unity as a themed event moving forward would be really important to help people be drawn togheter,  beyond the themes of Wyrd, taint, light, nature & Etc.

Edit: You could even RP off the Lag as something that was caused by Kehturu ♥

Mboagn said:

Going by Thalkros's idea, we'd finally have a Beauty TA.

It's been my master plan all along All hail Lady PEEPALINE

Because the RP significance of TA is still there, even if the mechanical significance of TA is less so.

Xenthos said:

Orael said:

If you have a solution that makes both sides happy with the outcome, I'm all ears. I'm willing to listen to it and discuss it with Aonia and the other admin. Nobody's presented one though (I suppose besides descending Parhelion, but doesn't that then say that the 'winning' side didn't deserve to win?).

This solution is fair, yes, but I don't think it will do anything except make both sides equally unhappy about the outcome.  Fair doesn't always mean best.  And, when it comes to a competition, fair is entirely subjective anyways.  That's why competitions have rules in place to define the parameters, and what to do if things go wrong (for example, rain delays), instead of making it up on the spot.

Some off-the-top-of-my-head ideas:

- Making Ixion a VA-like-Ascendant would be an option to say that it's different- basically, a TA without any free Domoth powers / domoth affiliation (but not org-locked).  Would he be happy with that though?  Possibly not.

- Giving Glom/Halli/Celest a minor Demigod power associated with some kind of combination / merging of Justice and Time?  You only have access to it if part of those orgs, part of the nature of Choros' ascendance.  Basically, this solution makes his winning more meaningful to us, while not diminishing Ixion's.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that these don't diminish the other side. We already decided that (and we've already mentioned this) that we don't think anything less than making Ixion a TA would be acceptable to Mag/Gaudi/Seren, mechanically speaking. The RP role it takes is again out of my wheelhouse though.

Aramel said:

If you have a solution that makes both sides happy with the outcome, I'm all ears. I'm willing to listen to it and discuss it with Aonia and the other admin. Nobody's presented one though (I suppose besides descending Parhelion, but doesn't that then say that the 'winning' side didn't deserve to win?).

I mean, at this point most of my ideas are RP ideas.

Given that this is the year of the timequake and alternate timelines, perhaps the RP justification can be that Ixion was somehow taken over by an alternate-timeline version of himself that did win the staff. That would allow him to become TA, while still distinguishing between that alternate timeline and the "prime" one in which Choros got to 3600 first.

Just to be clear here- we were never taking away that Parhelion got to 3600 first. I don't know exactly what the event entails, that's not in my purview and I've been too busy responding here to be involved on that side, but this has never ever been about favoring Ixion more than Parhelion or erasing that he got to 3600 first. This has always been about each side getting a TA. Everything we're talking about here is pretty much strictly OOC and not IC.

I will note that other players have displayed concern that Ixion getting a special event makes it 'more special' than Parhelion's win though.

You're right, Glom/Celest/Halli worked really hard and competed well and ended up the first side to 3600. You did win, and as a result you have Parhelion as your TA.

I'm sorry about my poor choice of words there. It wasn't the way I meant to say things so I'm sorry if it comes across that way.

What you're asking us to do is say that Mag/Gaudi/Seren deserved to lose though. That the hard work they put just wasn't enough, that they needed to work harder and compete harder.  That they just need to 'get good' and had they done that, they would have won instead.

I've made the mistake of telling people to get good before and it doesn't go anywhere positive. It has a pretty much universally negative effect. Many of you know this. 

The reality is that I can't tell Mag/Gaudi/Seren that they deserved to lose. The lag that was faced makes that impossible for me (or anyone) to determine. That's why we're trying to make things right by having Ixion as a TA as well.

If you have a solution that makes both sides happy with the outcome, I'm all ears. I'm willing to listen to it and discuss it with Aonia and the other admin. Nobody's presented one though (I suppose besides descending Parhelion, but doesn't that then say that the 'winning' side didn't deserve to win?).

Maybe it's because I'm on the younger end of the player spectrum, but this mentality of "My main goal is to make others lose" seems incredibly destructive.

Ok, Here's what's happening

I'm operating in this discussion as if X = 5.

You are operating as if X = 10.

You are now asking me to answer the question 'what is X+ 5?' and I'm replying 10 and you're trying to tell me that it's 15.

We're operating from different bases and we're never going to agree unless we're at the same starting point.

The game lagged, yes and it's all but certain it had an effect on the end. It's been stated by both sides that it was coming down more to luck than skill. 

Parhelion and Glom/Celest/Halli ended up the first to 3600, but we don't know if that was because of lag or if it was because they earned it. We also don't know if Mag/Gaudi/Seren lost because of lag or because they were outplayed. It's up in the air. Nobody knows (and we'll never know). 

This lag wasn't either sides fault, it was our fault. We should have anticipated it, maybe tried tests. I don't know, the bottom line is we failed and everybody suffered for it. We don't view it as one side won and one side lost - we view it as everyone lost. 

So when we consider our decisions on what to do to make it the most fair for both parties, it comes down to really two options - we either remove Parhelion as TA (and neither side gets one) or we raise Ixion (and both sides get one).  We decided to not remove Parhelion and instead of raise Ixion. No bonus, no extra, just a TA for both sides.

This wasn't a 'let's reward one side' situation and you keep trying to construe it as that. This was a 'what is the fairest outcome for all sides.' situation. The decision we arrived at is this - Glom/Celest/Halli get to have the TA that they fought for, Mag/Gaudi/Seren get the TA that they fought for. They both get the goal they were trying to accomplish. 

It's just not going to fly to me as a 'fair deal' to give one side two TA's because our initial decision was intended to make it fair for both sides by giving both sides one TA. Having two TA's to one TA puts us in the same situation as having one TA to zero TA's. Each side getting one TA is a pretty fair and equal solution.

I won't say that there isn't anything else we're willing to do, but I haven't really seen any solution that comes across to me as more fair -for everyone- presented here.