If your characters org was deleted. What would you do?

12467

Comments

  • I mean from an RP standpoint there is more than enough reason to keep most people out of Serenwilde and if you can argue that taking over Serenwilde "en masse" and remaking it in your image would not be punishable by admins then it's also a fair argument to say that keeping you out based on IC actions would not get punished.
  • Orael said:
    Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org. 

    Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.

    Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions. 




    So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.

    Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now. 
  • Xenthos said:
    At which point the admin will let the players in; if you are denying people entry to an org based on forum posts you will be roledocked at the least.  I can't imagine why you would admit to it.
    If they are closing orgs, the players need to go somewhere; the point is to stabilize and grow the game, after all.  The game is built around org membership.  There is a huge difference between "player got booted from their org for bad behaviour and nobody else wanted them" and "Many players got booted because the admin closed it and they all need a new home so they can stay in the game."
    Here's the thing, though: I have no desire to make Serenwilde change.  I would much rather stay right where I am.  The whole conversation is premised on something that I strongly believe will never happen.  They are not going to close one of their largest orgs.  However, on a purely theoretical level, it is worth considering what doing such a thing would mean, and your opposition to the outcomes just cements even further what a bad idea it would be.
    Edit: To clarify a potential point of confusion.  I do see admin stepping in during the transition phase to make sure people at least try to play nicely relating to org membership.  I don't see them spending their time policing every little thing about internal org workings, but only stepping in if something egregiously wrong starts going on.

    And how exactly does Glomdoring rushing into an org and booting out all the players of that org benefit the game?

    You're claiming an intention to cause the people actually invested in the RP of the org you're overthrowing to leave the game. Not only this but you're doing this while showing a significant lack of understanding about an org you're proposing to do this for.

    Over time you'd expect to lose even more Gloms than the loss of Glomdoring would have caused as people get over that initial period and leave because they're not actually interested in Serenwilde and the rp they want to pursue just isn't supported.
    At which point, you've suffered losses in players actually invested in Serenwilde, you've lost aspects of the forests identity that have been built up over years, it's all pretty negative all up. So why would the admin force the issue if they have prominent members of the displaced community going on the forums stating that they would cause such issues.


    In the deletion scenario, it's really going to be Glom vs Seren because two forest orgs is overkill and you no longer need to account for the two when running "nature" events. Some people that alt have started saying that Seren might actually have a larger population, it's just there's barely any combatants which leads to issues with visible objectives.

    Also, it probably doesn't help the argument to keep Glom over when people keep talking about rp changes Serenwilde might have to make... that are already part of Serenwilde's active rp or when we have Gloms recently talking about rp threads they'd really enjoy pursuing that are part of Serenwilde's active rp as that indicates a greater likelihood that Glom's could actually shift over and enjoy themselves than Serens shifting.

    It's not actually that uncommon, the existence of Glom means there's a bunch of Serenwilde rp threads that people think actually belong in Glom, but for a lot of this their presence in serenwilde was reinforced through the guild overhaul. Without Glom you'd also be able to restore the identity aspect of Serenwilde being the last guardians of nature which is all kinds of weird right now which was pretty attractive for newbies back in the day.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.
    image
  • Nice to know that speaking ill of Glom and its players gets posts deleted. The future is bright for Lusternia. No talking down to players, except when you're a Chosen One.

    In any case, you can't really close down some orgs and then mandate that the remaining ones stay the same as they were before. That is a disservice to everyone and to the evolving story of Lusternia.
    WHY WE FIGHT
    Accountability is necessary.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    edited May 2019

    In any case, you can't really close down some orgs and then mandate that the remaining ones stay the same as they were before. That is a disservice to everyone and to the evolving story of Lusternia.
    I am quoting this part of your post because I agree with it 100%.
    image
  • I don't think anyone in Serenwilde expects Serenwilde to stay the same if a bunch of new players move there. What is being said is that players moving in "en masse" and instantly overthrowing the government and remaking Serenwilde in their image is not going to happen for various reasons and should not be allowed to happen.

    If Serenwilde is not to your liking there are two other orgs to choose from. The only person making the choice for you to move to Serenwilde is you, if you don't like it don't move there.

    Back to the first point though, obviously Serenwilde would take on a stronger stance on subjects like Light and Taint, obviously it would become more PVP centric based on the players discussing their move "en masse", it's dumb to even consider that Serenwilde would remain as it currently stands. Hell, a lot of Serenwilde players don't even like Serenwilde as it currently stands. The issue is that there is not enough PVP interested players there to make a difference.

    However, I will find whatever IC reason to keep people I feel need to be kept out and the admin cannot force me to accept anyone. I mean they can, but if it comes down to Estarra and Co. stating "you must accept anyone that asks no matter what" I will happily move on to greener pastures.
  • Nice to know that speaking ill of Glom and its players gets posts deleted. The future is bright for Lusternia. No talking down to players, except when you're a Chosen One.

    In any case, you can't really close down some orgs and then mandate that the remaining ones stay the same as they were before. That is a disservice to everyone and to the evolving story of Lusternia.
    Your post was one sentence, and it was an insult directed at another player. I also explained why I removed it in a message directly to you. Let's keep things moderately civil! Thanks.
  • edited May 2019
    Xenthos said:

    In any case, you can't really close down some orgs and then mandate that the remaining ones stay the same as they were before. That is a disservice to everyone and to the evolving story of Lusternia.
    I am quoting this part of your post because I agree with it 100%.
    Unsurprised that that post was kept up. I thank our Glom overlords for their patronship.

    This is why I posted in the other thread that the game simply keep the winning orgs. The transition would be easier when you keep appeasing those players rather than risk disappointing all players.
    WHY WE FIGHT
    Accountability is necessary.
  • Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.
    You are suggesting that Gloms would alienate the existing players of an org if they were let in, that's a fight between those two sides that would definitely tear the org apart. It's literally the same thing, it seems that you're in favour of scenario you seem convinced you'll "win".


    Displaced players deciding that they're going to work with the players of the org they end up in is how the community grows from this.
  • Esoneyuna said:
    Orael said:
    Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org. 

    Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.

    Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions. 




    So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.

    Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now. 
    If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Saran said:
    Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.
    You are suggesting that Gloms would alienate the existing players of an org if they were let in, that's a fight between those two sides that would definitely tear the org apart. It's literally the same thing, it seems that you're in favour of scenario you seem convinced you'll "win".


    Displaced players deciding that they're going to work with the players of the org they end up in is how the community grows from this.
    How does it seem like I am in favour of it?  I specifically stated that I am against the theoretical proposal because I don't think it would make Serenwilde's playerbase happy.
    If you smash sides together there is going to be conflict.  The admin stepping into that is not going to make it better, though.
    image
  • Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.

    That wouldn't really be overthrowing RP though. At least, not in my opinion. Righteous fury seems just as valid a style for Celest as peace and love. What I meant is that we just wouldn't silently let people come in and dedicate a shrine to the Demon Lords on top of the Pool of Stars.

    I wouldn't think we'd ever move forward with a plan if we thought our primary method of dealing with it would become administrative punishments!
  • Xenthos said:
    Saran said:
    Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.
    You are suggesting that Gloms would alienate the existing players of an org if they were let in, that's a fight between those two sides that would definitely tear the org apart. It's literally the same thing, it seems that you're in favour of scenario you seem convinced you'll "win".


    Displaced players deciding that they're going to work with the players of the org they end up in is how the community grows from this.
    How does it seem like I am in favour of it?  I specifically stated that I am against the theoretical proposal because I don't think it would make Serenwilde's playerbase happy.
    If you smash sides together there is going to be conflict.  The admin stepping into that is not going to make it better, though.
    Your posts are repeatedly indicating that you believe that should the deletion route be taken then admin should not get involved and that the outcome of this would be Glom overwhelming Seren.

    The admin stepping in to ensure that things work out provides assurances to the orgs that remain, the people that are more likely to be lost in this case are the people coming in that refuse to work with the org. Players are lost in both cases and that's expected but the chaos of the admin not being involved not only causes the loss of players but also could significantly harm the identity of the org (i.e all the invested players left the org now you've got a bunch of people practically starting from square one which is a far worse place to rebuild from)
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Ein said:
    Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.

    That wouldn't really be overthrowing RP though. At least, not in my opinion. Righteous fury seems just as valid a style for Celest as peace and love. What I meant is that we just wouldn't silently let people come in and dedicate a shrine to the Demon Lords on top of the Pool of Stars.

    I wouldn't think we'd ever move forward with a plan if we thought our primary method of dealing with it would become administrative punishments!
    This is basically what I have been trying to point out.  It would be super uncomfortable for Celestians who are committed to the idea of Celest as it is, though, and I don't imagine that they all would appreciate outsiders coming in and pushing it on them.
    Yet it does not break the RP of the org itself.
    image
  • The funny thing is nobody other than Glomdoring players are talking about Borg'ing an Org.
  • Here let's flip the coin:

    Serenwilde and Magnagora get deleted.
    They move en masse to Glomdoring.
    Immediately elections start to remove the power grip that Seren/Mag players dislike in Glomdoring
    Whatever law book the Shadow Court has is burned and new laws are made that the new players are more likely to play by because let's face it if we wanted to play in Glomdoring as it is currently we already would be playing there.

    There is nothing current players in Glomdoring could do to stop it.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Well, there is!  Glomdoring has more active people than Serenwilde (check CULTURE) so would be more insulated.  Even so, it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience for anyone, so my comments in that regard are equally applicable.  Why do something if the obvious outcome is so negative?
    image
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne
    Xenthos said:
    Well, there is!  Glomdoring has more active people than Serenwilde (check CULTURE) so would be more insulated.  Even so, it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience for anyone, so my comments in that regard are equally applicable.  Why do something if the obvious outcome is so negative?
    Your entire argument hinges on the idea that people are going to do hostile takeover and refuse to cooperate with their new *mates.

    No offense, but you have a bad habit of assuming the worst of people and their behavior and I think that is very unhelpful.

    image
  • I said specifically "Seren -and- Mag" players.

    Unless you think Glomdoring has enough players to beat both orgs if they moved there.
  • Maligorn said:
    Xenthos said:
    Well, there is!  Glomdoring has more active people than Serenwilde (check CULTURE) so would be more insulated.  Even so, it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience for anyone, so my comments in that regard are equally applicable.  Why do something if the obvious outcome is so negative?
    Your entire argument hinges on the idea that people are going to do hostile takeover and refuse to cooperate with their new *mates.

    No offense, but you have a bad habit of assuming the worst of people and their behavior and I think that is very unhelpful.
    Well ultimately, that Glom will do it. People from other groups seem more focused on working with their new orgs than taking over.
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne
    Afaik, only Xenthos and Enadonella would be unwilling to cooperate with their new home. They may be vocal, but they are unrepresentative of Glomdoring's entire playerbase

    image
  • edited May 2019
    Ein said:
    Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.

    That wouldn't really be overthrowing RP though. At least, not in my opinion. Righteous fury seems just as valid a style for Celest as peace and love. What I meant is that we just wouldn't silently let people come in and dedicate a shrine to the Demon Lords on top of the Pool of Stars.

    I wouldn't think we'd ever move forward with a plan if we thought our primary method of dealing with it would become administrative punishments!
    Does this mean that, seeing a plan develop, players could torpedo that plan by outright plotting something like a shrine to demon lords [or say a hostile takeover of seren] that necessitated admin punishments? Threatening to force admin punishments on themselves to kill any chance of said plan working?
  • That is adorably naive.
    WHY WE FIGHT
    Accountability is necessary.
  • Enya said:
    Ein said:
    Xenthos said:
    Ein said:


    Also - just a comment on "invaders" coming in and overthrowing org RP. I don't think we would allow that to happen IF we went down the path of just deleting certain orgs and leaving the remaining as is. We wouldn't just abandon the orgs to catch fire as groups fought over what org RP should look like.
    I don't think you can reasonably stop it.  Look at RL communities that bring in a number of others from a completely different culture.  The community will change to reflect its new makeup.  Yes, you can step in to assert big things ("We still worship the Light, Demon Lords are bad" in the case of Celest, for example), but if a bunch of Magnagorans wanted to rewrite Celest to go back to a more zealoty aggressive place (downplaying Raziela, wiping out the no-violence-to-innocents stuff-- if they do not believe they are heretics), you would be positioning yourself as the admin against your own org's desires.  Historically this works out terribly.
    Sure, maybe you could just start doing administrative punishments.  If you do though, what do you really think the outcome will be?  You are not going to end up with a healthy happy community, you are pitting yourself against your own org's playerbase and it is going to tear itself apart.  The benefits of this seem to be considerably less than the costs to me.

    That wouldn't really be overthrowing RP though. At least, not in my opinion. Righteous fury seems just as valid a style for Celest as peace and love. What I meant is that we just wouldn't silently let people come in and dedicate a shrine to the Demon Lords on top of the Pool of Stars.

    I wouldn't think we'd ever move forward with a plan if we thought our primary method of dealing with it would become administrative punishments!
    Does this mean that, seeing a plan develop, players could torpedo that plan by outright plotting something like a shrine to demon lords [or say a hostile takeover of seren] that necessitated admin punishments? Threatening to force admin punishments on themselves to kill any chance of said plan working?
    I have a higher opinion of most players than that, so I don't think it would be very productive to entertain that hypothetical. My point was that we'd be heavily involved in making changes, whatever form they may take, as smooth as possible. We wouldn't abandon orgs to riots and anarchy.
  • edited May 2019
    I do not understand this, it isn't a hypothetical.

     Xenthos has spent the last two pages arguing that yes indeed it is what would happen, with a heavy hint that it would happen because some players would make it happen. In the same way that saying "That's a really nice vase you have. Someone could push it off the table and it would break. Must be priceless, surely if someone was upset they could just smash that vase. I wouldn't smash that vase, but it definitely looks fragile!" isn't actually saying "I'm going to smash that vase" or even necessarily entertaining a hypothetical situation where you're going to smash that vase, but just strenuously pointing out "Well it could happen, right?" repeatedly. Threateningly. 

    Note that if the tables would turn Glom wouldn't be protected because players won't try to do this (in his "hypothetical"), but merely because Glom has more players than Seren/Mag and therefore would be insulated. Flip that coin back over, Seren doesn't have more players therefore... not insulated from Glom takeover according to Xenthos. Not because Xenthos/someone else wouldn't do it, but because the population is lower. Hmm, pretty vase.
  • Orael said:
    Esoneyuna said:
    Orael said:
    Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org. 

    Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.

    Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions. 




    So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.

    Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now. 
    If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
    No you literally said you will let the remaining orgs make the players, who never expected having to move and thus followed admin encouraged conflict, jump through hoops when you blow up some orgs. Even when you see the already big OOC divide the -administration- caused reflected here on the forums.

    So yes you might as well tell those that are in an org that is being blown up to quit Lusternia as Pysynne already said he will find -whatever- IC reason to keep certain people out. And he certainly isn’t the only one. So you as -paid admin- saying we will not force an event where everyone enters at equal footing and players can be made to jump hoops is indicative of admins once again punishing part of the player base for playing the game
  • Esoneyuna said:
    Orael said:
    Esoneyuna said:
    Orael said:
    Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org. 

    Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.

    Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions. 




    So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.

    Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now. 
    If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
    No you literally said you will let the remaining orgs make the players, who never expected having to move and thus followed admin encouraged conflict, jump through hoops when you blow up some orgs. Even when you see the already big OOC divide the -administration- caused reflected here on the forums.

    So yes you might as well tell those that are in an org that is being blown up to quit Lusternia as Pysynne already said he will find -whatever- IC reason to keep certain people out. And he certainly isn’t the only one. So you as -paid admin- saying we will not force an event where everyone enters at equal footing and players can be made to jump hoops is indicative of admins once again punishing part of the player base for playing the game
    Arguably... the original three solution means you should have at least your ally/allies as an option to move to. If you've managed to get even them so off side that, on top of the other two, they'd even block you from joining... might be some other issues there.
  • I think that we are seeing what Xenthos says differently. My understanding of his argument is: This is a bad idea because Seren and Glom players just could not share an org harmoniously.


This discussion has been closed.