Gaudi-Glom Treaty Dissolution

This discussion was created from comments split from: Tweets VI: The Tweetsixteenth.
«13

Comments

  • Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
  • Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    What? I'm sorry, I snorted here too. Glom had many meetings with Gaudi leaders to "explain their position". I'm pretty sure at one point the Gaudi leaders even agreed to work together with Glom, that those people who continued to create eafs on their own are outside the Gaudi council's protection blah blah. We actually had things going good, until a few of those enemied started throwing a fuss. Sidd was one of those... who didn't throw a fuss, unless he was complaining where I couldn't hear him, of course. I don't even remember who was it who started threatening to raid Glom after being enemied for creating his eaf, or was it something else he threatened? I think he was even a Gaudi council member at the time... making a fuss after things had more or less settled down a little... I dunno, Glom certainly could have done more to prevent the divorce, but the one who called up the lawyers to get the papers signed wasn't our side.

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    Except that I actually did "step up and explain our position".  I was given thanks for it.  A couple of days later, Gaudiguch voted to dissolve the treaty.

    Sure, due to RL things I wasn't really around for the beginning portion, but Gaudiguch had the information you're talking about when they made their decision.  No need to pretend otherwise!
    image
  • Lerad said:

    Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    What? I'm sorry, I snorted here too. Glom had many meetings with Gaudi leaders to "explain their position". I'm pretty sure at one point the Gaudi leaders even agreed to work together with Glom, that those people who continued to create eafs on their own are outside the Gaudi council's protection blah blah. We actually had things going good, until a few of those enemied started throwing a fuss. Sidd was one of those... who didn't throw a fuss, unless he was complaining where I couldn't hear him, of course. I don't even remember who was it who started threatening to raid Glom after being enemied for creating his eaf, or was it something else he threatened? I think he was even a Gaudi council member at the time... making a fuss after things had more or less settled down a little... I dunno, Glom certainly could have done more to prevent the divorce, but the one who called up the lawyers to get the papers signed wasn't our side.
    That's my point, you met with gaudi leaders, gaudi isn't glom.
  • So we should have sent a letter out to everyone in Gaudiguch instead of assuming that the leaders would pass down the information?
    image
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne
    edited March 2015
    Steingrim said:

    Lerad said:

    Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    What? I'm sorry, I snorted here too. Glom had many meetings with Gaudi leaders to "explain their position". I'm pretty sure at one point the Gaudi leaders even agreed to work together with Glom, that those people who continued to create eafs on their own are outside the Gaudi council's protection blah blah. We actually had things going good, until a few of those enemied started throwing a fuss. Sidd was one of those... who didn't throw a fuss, unless he was complaining where I couldn't hear him, of course. I don't even remember who was it who started threatening to raid Glom after being enemied for creating his eaf, or was it something else he threatened? I think he was even a Gaudi council member at the time... making a fuss after things had more or less settled down a little... I dunno, Glom certainly could have done more to prevent the divorce, but the one who called up the lawyers to get the papers signed wasn't our side.
    That's my point, you met with gaudi leaders, gaudi isn't glom.
    image

    image
  • CyndarinCyndarin used Flamethrower! It was super effective.
    Steingrim said:

    Lerad said:

    Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    What? I'm sorry, I snorted here too. Glom had many meetings with Gaudi leaders to "explain their position". I'm pretty sure at one point the Gaudi leaders even agreed to work together with Glom, that those people who continued to create eafs on their own are outside the Gaudi council's protection blah blah. We actually had things going good, until a few of those enemied started throwing a fuss. Sidd was one of those... who didn't throw a fuss, unless he was complaining where I couldn't hear him, of course. I don't even remember who was it who started threatening to raid Glom after being enemied for creating his eaf, or was it something else he threatened? I think he was even a Gaudi council member at the time... making a fuss after things had more or less settled down a little... I dunno, Glom certainly could have done more to prevent the divorce, but the one who called up the lawyers to get the papers signed wasn't our side.
    That's my point, you met with gaudi leaders, gaudi isn't glom.



    I don't even know what happened during the event, but this comment tells me some people were determined to break it up regardless, and use "freedom," as the excuse.
    image
  • Celina said:

    Steingrim said:

    Lerad said:

    Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    What? I'm sorry, I snorted here too. Glom had many meetings with Gaudi leaders to "explain their position". I'm pretty sure at one point the Gaudi leaders even agreed to work together with Glom, that those people who continued to create eafs on their own are outside the Gaudi council's protection blah blah. We actually had things going good, until a few of those enemied started throwing a fuss. Sidd was one of those... who didn't throw a fuss, unless he was complaining where I couldn't hear him, of course. I don't even remember who was it who started threatening to raid Glom after being enemied for creating his eaf, or was it something else he threatened? I think he was even a Gaudi council member at the time... making a fuss after things had more or less settled down a little... I dunno, Glom certainly could have done more to prevent the divorce, but the one who called up the lawyers to get the papers signed wasn't our side.
    That's my point, you met with gaudi leaders, gaudi isn't glom.



    I don't even know what happened during the event, but this comment tells me some people were determined to break it up regardless, and use "freedom," as the excuse.
    Basically comes down to people being allied to Glom by force and hoping for a way out eventually.
  • You mean aside from the possibility of Gaudi just going "We don't want this alliance anymore, thanks for playing"? There wasn't anything in the alliance that favoured one party over the other, really, aside from (depending on your interpretation) Glom saying "Yeah, don't kill fae, okay?", so there's little to say that it was forced in one way or the other. Not that I was part of the discussions about the alliance, so I can't say what was said in those meetings.
    image
  • CyndarinCyndarin used Flamethrower! It was super effective.
    I don't know how Gaudi was "forced." Gaudi's combatants were from Glom, and the alliance was comfortable and easy because of that. It was the opposite of forced.
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Steingrim said:

    Lerad said:

    Steingrim said:

    Ssaliss said:

    Eritheyl said:

    And the situation really isn't all that 'tricky' for anyone, lol. Either a) be logical and condemn the individual, not the org, b) get over it and get back to skipping through the meadows with us, or c) sit with someone else during lunch period - Gaudiguch reeeaaally doesn't caaare.

    Well, to be fair, when we did a) and enemied the people who created eafs, Gaudiguch got really annoyed and it essentially lead to the dissolution of the alliance. Granted, odds are it would've happened anyway, but... yeah.
    What led to the dissolution is was failure of Glom to step up and explain their position. You could have instead explained your position and urged Gaudi to do a temp ban until you had more Gaudis understanding your situation. Part of diplomacy is explaining your position. But know, Glom maters more than the fae, so instead of working to stop Gaudi from making eaf, you all threw a hissy fit and the result...Gaudi continues to make eaf. Protecting fae < Glom's ego.
    What? I'm sorry, I snorted here too. Glom had many meetings with Gaudi leaders to "explain their position". I'm pretty sure at one point the Gaudi leaders even agreed to work together with Glom, that those people who continued to create eafs on their own are outside the Gaudi council's protection blah blah. We actually had things going good, until a few of those enemied started throwing a fuss. Sidd was one of those... who didn't throw a fuss, unless he was complaining where I couldn't hear him, of course. I don't even remember who was it who started threatening to raid Glom after being enemied for creating his eaf, or was it something else he threatened? I think he was even a Gaudi council member at the time... making a fuss after things had more or less settled down a little... I dunno, Glom certainly could have done more to prevent the divorce, but the one who called up the lawyers to get the papers signed wasn't our side.
    That's my point, you met with gaudi leaders, gaudi isn't glom.
    If your leaders don't talk to the people, then you need new leaders.  There is absolutely no organization in the game whose leaders are going to go talk to every single member of the other organization... that's the entire point of having leaders in the first place!  You elect them to represent you.
    image
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    We had a big argument in Seren about that recently. Someone else gets it.
  • edited March 2015
    Ssaliss said:

    You mean aside from the possibility of Gaudi just going "We don't want this alliance anymore, thanks for playing"? There wasn't anything in the alliance that favoured one party over the other, really, aside from (depending on your interpretation) Glom saying "Yeah, don't kill fae, okay?", so there's little to say that it was forced in one way or the other. Not that I was part of the discussions about the alliance, so I can't say what was said in those meetings.

    Yeah, this is... You were in those meetings for a good three RL months. Most of the discussion that took place was meetings between myself and various Glomdorians, and relaying that back to the Council. The issue was, entirely, Glom enemying people almost a RL month after the fact for something that wasn't actually a crime, since they didn't actually kill fey (rather, received corpses from somebody who did). Claiming you weren't aware of that, claiming Gaudi 'just didn't want it' when I spent a good amount of time with you and others trying to keep the crap together is just dishonest in its entirety, especially since you were there for a good 80-90% of what was discussed.

    I will say that the only person who made any argument that might have saved the treaty whatsoever was Xenthos, and by the time he reached out to me, the city referendum to end the treaty was already up, so it was well beyond myself and the Council.

    EDIT: And since I just noticed there's been a giant thread about the whole thing (I've been away from Tweets for a bit), full rundown for the lot of you who don't care.

    Xeeth Laboratories area is released, people start getting eaf'Eramich. I consider this extremely unfortunate. I start getting, soon after, communications from members of Glomdoring outside of the official Shadow Court. Some of these include threats. Whatever. I wait a bit for anything official, go to the Freedom Council to try to solve this diplomatically. Get it passed that Gaudiguch will not support, whatsoever, anybody creating the eafs. Glomdoring is free to kill any Gaudis in Xeeth trying to make the eafs, and if they are caught trying to kill the fae, enemy them. Whatever. Here's the part where the Glom ambassador doesn't relay any part of "Gaudi has done this" to Glomdoring until I find this out and bring it up directly to Ssaliss.

    Time passes, two people who made eafs right as the whole thing came out, neither of which actually killed fey themselves, get enemied. Yeah, they made a bit of noise. I actively told everybody not to raid (and I'm pretty sure they didn't, as I haven't been told about any raids). Months of noise through various talks, Glomdoring not budging on the whole thing and myself bringing up the 'If you can't enemy in three years of the event, don't enemy' argument, this going on for far longer than it should until the point where I finally have to do something about it because it's not going to be forgotten (during which time Glomdoring was known to have started relations with Serenwilde and, near the end, New Celest, which would understandably piss us off. You guys seriously are quite loud about that stuff, you know. Council referendum goes up, unanimous approval. Pushed to city referendum, where it passes 14-2. Keeping in mind that each person in the city gets one weight on a referendum.

    Nothing was kept from the city, I relayed anything told to the Council to the city for the most part, including Xenthos's appeal after the referendum was up. The whole thing was 'stubbornness v. stubbornness', and I really don't know why it's a topic of conversation now so long after the fact, but this is what happened (as per my perception of events). Ideally, we can stop interspersing arguments about it in Tweets now. Realistically, I realise I just fueled a fire and am dreading hitting the 'Save Comment' button, but whatever.
  • EveriineEveriine Wise Old Swordsbird / Brontaur Indianapolis, IN, USA
    Enyalida said:

    We had a big argument in Seren about that recently. Someone else gets it.

    The argument wasn't what the argument was about.
    Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"

    Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.

    Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
  • Altrea said:

    Ssaliss said:

    You mean aside from the possibility of Gaudi just going "We don't want this alliance anymore, thanks for playing"? There wasn't anything in the alliance that favoured one party over the other, really, aside from (depending on your interpretation) Glom saying "Yeah, don't kill fae, okay?", so there's little to say that it was forced in one way or the other. Not that I was part of the discussions about the alliance, so I can't say what was said in those meetings.

    Yeah, this is... You were in those meetings for a good three RL months. Most of the discussion that took place was meetings between myself and various Glomdorians, and relaying that back to the Council. The issue was, entirely, Glom enemying people almost a RL month after the fact for something that wasn't actually a crime, since they didn't actually kill fey (rather, received corpses from somebody who did). Claiming you weren't aware of that, claiming Gaudi 'just didn't want it' when I spent a good amount of time with you and others trying to keep the crap together is just dishonest in its entirety, especially since you were there for a good 80-90% of what was discussed.

    I think you misunderstood my comment. It was in response to Arcanis stating that Gaudi wanted a way out of our alliance, and that it was forced on Gaudi. I stated that if that was really the case, then you wouldn't need to use the labs as an excuse to do so.

    The meetings I referred to was when the alliance was drafted, not when it was ended, and that was also in response to the alliance being forced on Gaudi by Glomdoring. Those I were not part of.
    image
  • Ssaliss said:


    I think you misunderstood my comment. It was in response to Arcanis stating that Gaudi wanted a way out of our alliance, and that it was forced on Gaudi. I stated that if that was really the case, then you wouldn't need to use the labs as an excuse to do so.

    The meetings I referred to was when the alliance was drafted, not when it was ended, and that was also in response to the alliance being forced on Gaudi by Glomdoring. Those I were not part of.

    ... Oh. I feel stupid now.

    Sorry!

    And yeah, no, the treaty wasn't forced on us at all. When it was signed, it was strategically ideal and more of a 'why the hell not' thing.
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne
    Oh, they just misnamed the crime then. Creating an eaf should've been illegal in addition to killing fae. Gaudiguch was rubbing its junk in Glomdoring's face if they think that letting someone go unenemied just because they had a middleman for fae corpses is wrong.
    Altrea said:

    Get it passed that Gaudiguch will not support, whatsoever, anybody creating the eafs.

    Time passes, two people who made eafs right as the whole thing came out, neither of which actually killed fey themselves, get enemied. Yeah, they made a bit of noise.

    So instead of punishing those two people, you let them destroy an alliance and lost Malarious a chance at Ascension?

    image
  • SynkarinSynkarin Nothing to see here
    edited March 2015
    It's pretty lolsome when people who have no idea what they are talking about interject and make wild assumptions about certain situations

    Malarious lost his own chance at Ascension, having Glomdoring wouldn't have changed the outcome.

    Edit: people were punished according to the terms of the treaty, btw.

    Everiine said:
    "'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in."
    -Synkarin's Lament.
  • edited March 2015
    @Maligorn: Except it wasn't illegal at the time they did it. It took Glomdoring 3 IG years, one RL month, to bother considering it a crime and enemying those involved. That's what the issue was here. If they had enemied them right as the eafs were created, I would have told everybody bitching on Gaudi's side to deal with it. If the Shadow Court had even bothered to say 'Hey, we're deliberating on whether those who made eafs should be enemied. It might be coming.'? Yeah, I would have understood completely and, again, told every Gaudi involved to deal with it. Instead, it was radio silence followed by enemying. Which is stupid in its entirety, in my honest opinion. There was no talks, no agreement, no warning whatsoever. It just happened. You are seriously making it seem more black and white a situation than it really is.

    I will note that I am well aware one of the people who brought it to my attention was metagaming slightly (and was understandably pissed off about some stuff being metagamed on Glom's end) when bringing it up ICly, which is why it got so loud on our end. But regardless, it got brought up ICly, and I had to deal with it.

    And yes, the people involved were punished by the terms the treaty had for a first time offense.

    And seriously, where does ascension come into play on this at all? I don't, whatsoever, see how it's relevant to anything. Yeah, it's entirely unfortunate on the timing. It's also ignoring the fact that Glomdoring was a non-entity during ascension and only had two people up there.
  • Yeah, the whole Glom/Gaudi eaf thing has absolutely nothing to do with Ascension whatsoever, and it's entirely put behind me at this point. It happened, and stuff happened because of it, and that's the end of that. In fact, we've had a relatively cordial status even after the eaf-incident. The Ascension-thing was entirely on Marcellas shoulders.
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Not entirely, Gaudy could have done some more politicking to get people on board (and no, not just Glomdoring, there were other options they could have tried too).  Marcella definitely made that more difficult, however, being on Gaudy's "side".
    image
  • Altrea said:

    ...

    Xeeth Laboratories area is released, people start getting eaf'Eramich. I consider this extremely unfortunate. I start getting, soon after, communications from members of Glomdoring outside of the official Shadow Court. Some of these include threats. Whatever. I wait a bit for anything official, go to the Freedom Council to try to solve this diplomatically. Get it passed that Gaudiguch will not support, whatsoever, anybody creating the eafs. Glomdoring is free to kill any Gaudis in Xeeth trying to make the eafs, and if they are caught trying to kill the fae, enemy them. Whatever. Here's the part where the Glom ambassador doesn't relay any part of "Gaudi has done this" to Glomdoring until I find this out and bring it up directly to Ssaliss.

    Time passes, two people who made eafs right as the whole thing came out, neither of which actually killed fey themselves, get enemied. Yeah, they made a bit of noise. I actively told everybody not to raid (and I'm pretty sure they didn't, as I haven't been told about any raids). Months of noise through various talks, Glomdoring not budging on the whole thing and myself bringing up the 'If you can't enemy in three years of the event, don't enemy' argument, this going on for far longer than it should until the point where I finally have to do something about it because it's not going to be forgotten

    Altrea said:

    It took Glomdoring 3 IG years, one RL month, to bother considering it a crime and enemying those involved. That's what the issue was here.

    ...

    Instead, it was radio silence followed by enemying. Which is stupid in its entirety, in my honest opinion. There was no talks, no agreement, no warning whatsoever. It just happened. You are seriously making it seem more black and white a situation than it really is.
    ...

    The two bolded parts imply a contradiction, Altrea. As I understand it, enemying was actually not done until actual proof was gotten, either by seeing the person killing fae or trotting their eaf around.

    I don't understand what is it that was being demanded of Glomdoring. A few pages back, Eri posted about how we should condemn the individual, not the org, but then, now, we're not supposed to enemy them? Or was it bad because a RL month passed? Are we supposed to then enemy anyone we suspected of getting the eaf, instead of waiting for actual proof, just so we could get it in within 3 ig years of them actually doing the quest... even though we don't know when they actually did the quest? Or was it that there was no communication, despite my understanding (or misunderstanding, as case may be) that there was an actual agreement in the timeline somewhere? Or maybe we're just supposed to boot up Frozen and sing "let it go"? I don't know anymore.

    Hey, Gaudi voted to void the treaty, that's really fine. No one's saying it should be kept if Gaudi wanted out. But if there're comments making things out to be black and white, it'll be statements like, "Instead, it was radio silence followed by enemying. Which is stupid in its entirety, in my honest opinion." or "The issue was, entirely, Glom enemying people almost a RL month after the fact."

  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne
    As far as the Gaudi-Glom and Ascension goes, as -soon- as eafs came out I had some powerful intuition that Kelly was going to win this year (though it could've gone other than expected if Gaudi and Glom actually worked something out, but I highly doubted it). Of course, I'm sometimes wrong, but this time I wasn't. That kind of schism speaks to the disorganisation that followed during Ascension.

    You can say what you want, but if 1 of those 2 fielded Gloms has something like Bonds in their pocket, it's a significant boost to any group.

    image
  • edited March 2015
    @Lerad: I don't see any contractiction in the above, though I do realise my personal syntax is a bit strange. The Council decision to not support any individuals making eafs refers
    to catching them in Xeeth or catching them killing the fae, and was made
    after the individuals in question had already done... everything
    involved. If it was because Glomdoring had no proof that these individuals made the eafs, that was not communicated ICly at all, and this is the first I'm hearing of it (which is bad, because that would have been an actual explanation for why it took so long and likely helped solve the situation). I'm not going to say I handled the situation ideally. I'm also going to say that Glomdoring did not make any decision that supported keeping the treaty together.

    There was no attempt at compromise made (admittedly on either side). Nobody is blameless. But things were handled extremely... improperly regardless, and crap happened as a result.

    EDIT: ... I have no idea why this comment is displaying so strangely. There is nothing in the editbox to indicate why it would break in those locations.
  • edited March 2015
    Maligorn said:

    As far as the Gaudi-Glom and Ascension goes, as -soon- as eafs came out I had some powerful intuition that Kelly was going to win this year (though it could've gone other than expected if Gaudi and Glom actually worked something out, but I highly doubted it). Of course, I'm sometimes wrong, but this time I wasn't. That kind of schism speaks to the disorganisation that followed during Ascension.

    You can say what you want, but if 1 of those 2 fielded Gloms has something like Bonds in their pocket, it's a significant boost to any group.

    I wasn't saying it didn't affect ascension. It did somewhat. I was saying 'this has nothing to do with anything, why are you bringing it into the conversation?'

    As in it's a useless, non-productive point to make that has nothing to do with anything whatsoever short of using it to condemn those who handled these situations.

    And since I see the Oneiroi and Drocilla lurking the thread, I'm willingly going to shut up and stop at this point. Don't want to get Tweets closed again.
  • SynkarinSynkarin Nothing to see here
    edited March 2015
    Maligorn said:

    As far as the Gaudi-Glom and Ascension goes, as -soon- as eafs came out I had some powerful intuition that Kelly was going to win this year (though it could've gone other than expected if Gaudi and Glom actually worked something out, but I highly doubted it). Of course, I'm sometimes wrong, but this time I wasn't. That kind of schism speaks to the disorganisation that followed during Ascension.

    You can say what you want, but if 1 of those 2 fielded Gloms has something like Bonds in their pocket, it's a significant boost to any group.

    You're right, Bonds is sooo OP, it needs to be nerfed hard into the ground because it's obviously the only reason that Kelly won Ascension. 

    Do you even read what you write? You know that shielding is more effective than bonds right? 

    Edit: it's absolutely ridiculous to state that the only reason Kelly won was because Glomdoring was on her side. Did it help her? Most certainly did, but it's not the reason she won. Plenty of other reasons, primarily planning and politicking that wasn't done by our side, at all.

    Everiine said:
    "'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in."
    -Synkarin's Lament.
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne
    Do -you- read what I write?

    I said it was a significant boost. Not the only reason Kelly won Ascension. Your hyperbole is hella tiresome.

    image
  • SynkarinSynkarin Nothing to see here
    edited March 2015
    Maligorn said:

    you let them destroy an alliance and lost Malarious a chance at Ascension?

    Hyperbole right? Considering this comment right here?

    Edit: You're literally saying that because we didn't have Glom, we lost and then justified it by saying 'well we had bonds'

    Everiine said:
    "'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in."
    -Synkarin's Lament.
  • Again, that had absolutely nothing to do with the Gaudi/Glom thing at all. If Marcella hadn't done what she did, then odds are Glom would've ended up helping Gaudi/Mag.
    image
  • ElanorwenElanorwen The White Falconess
    Altrea said:

    @Lerad: I don't see any contractiction in the above, though I do realise my personal syntax is a bit strange. The Council decision to not support any individuals making eafs refers
    to catching them in Xeeth or catching them killing the fae, and was made
    after the individuals in question had already done... everything
    involved. If it was because Glomdoring had no proof that these individuals made the eafs, that was not communicated ICly at all, and this is the first I'm hearing of it (which is bad, because that would have been an actual explanation for why it took so long and likely helped solve the situation). I'm not going to say I handled the situation ideally. I'm also going to say that Glomdoring did not make any decision that supported keeping the treaty together.

    There was no attempt at compromise made (admittedly on either side). Nobody is blameless. But things were handled extremely... improperly regardless, and crap happened as a result.

    EDIT: ... I have no idea why this comment is displaying so strangely. There is nothing in the editbox to indicate why it would break in those locations.

    Pretty sure the whole issue of killing fae has always been part of any Glom treaty I've ever seen. On that note, being that the only way to acquire an eaf is to kill fae and bring them to the labs, well... I don't see how you're going to argue the point, even if 'creating an eaf' is not explicitly in the treaty, the fact that an eaf exists shows that the owner has killed fae or has had someone kill fae for them to acquire said creature. At this point, we're arguing spirit of the law against letter of the law. If the agreement clearly states "Do not kill fae", then asking someone else to go and kill them for you is still illegal being that you are, by your actions, causing harm to kill fae. Pretty simple situation.
    image

    Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Sign In or Register to comment.