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.
Hi.
Subotai owns an Eaf, and has neither killed fae nor asked someone to kill fae, nor made an eaf himself. I mean, Glom's welcome to enemy him for owning one that Sidd gave him, but that's pretty counterproductive. I mean, if I collar Happiness (being my eaf's name), I'd apparently be permanently enemied to Glomdoring.
What's next, communes get the ability to check your stabled pets?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I guess my point is this: Yes, killing fae is against the treaty. Yes, asking someone to kill fae for you should be considered breaking the treaty by proxy. The act of owning an eaf shouldn't be an enemyable offense, and if Glom presented a treaty to Gaudi banning the ownership of eaf, I'd vote against it out of principle even if I didn't own one.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I guess my point is this: Yes, killing fae is against the treaty. Yes, asking someone to kill fae for you should be considered breaking the treaty by proxy. The act of owning an eaf shouldn't be an enemyable offense, and if Glom presented a treaty to Gaudi banning the ownership of eaf, I'd vote against it out of principle even if I didn't own one.
By owning said eaf, you are enabling others to kill fae. Collared beasts are a tricky situation, too. I could argue the same deal with Shikari's order and the worg I gave to Vivet too, but the fact is... they have her and myself enemied and will likely continue to keep that situation until the offending beast is removed, which it cannot considering it is collared too. Still, you are aware that Glom has an issue with your beast and you have decided to collar it. Problem is yours, not theirs.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I guess my point is this: Yes, killing fae is against the treaty. Yes, asking someone to kill fae for you should be considered breaking the treaty by proxy. The act of owning an eaf shouldn't be an enemyable offense, and if Glom presented a treaty to Gaudi banning the ownership of eaf, I'd vote against it out of principle even if I didn't own one.
By owning said eaf, you are enabling others to kill fae. Collared beasts are a tricky situation, too. I could argue the same deal with Shikari's order and the worg I gave to Vivet too, but the fact is... they have her and myself enemied and will likely continue to keep that situation until the offending beast is removed, which it cannot considering it is collared too. Still, you are aware that Glom has an issue with your beast and you have decided to collar it. Problem is yours, not theirs.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited March 2015
Also: Gaudi trying to dictate Glomdoring's statute of limitations is completely bonkers as a political stance. I don't know how you can criticize the reaction or demands of any org if you, as a matter of policy, don't disagree with the guilt of your own citizens, and just disagree with how long ago you think they should have been enemied. Just bananas.
Also: Gaudi trying to dictate Glomdoring's statute of limitations is completely bonkers as a political stance. I don't know how you can criticize the reaction or demands of any org if you, as a matter of policy, don't disagree with the guilt of your own citizens, and just disagree with how long ago you think they should have been enemies. Just bananas.
I generally agree, but there's a difference between statute of limitations and deciding an opportune time to stop looking the other way.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Which is ultimately semantics when both parties agree on guilt. Which they seem to do, but maybe I'm misinterpreting. I missed the whole shebang.
I guess my point is this: Yes, killing fae is against the treaty. Yes, asking someone to kill fae for you should be considered breaking the treaty by proxy. The act of owning an eaf shouldn't be an enemyable offense, and if Glom presented a treaty to Gaudi banning the ownership of eaf, I'd vote against it out of principle even if I didn't own one.
By owning said eaf, you are enabling others to kill fae. Collared beasts are a tricky situation, too. I could argue the same deal with Shikari's order and the worg I gave to Vivet too, but the fact is... they have her and myself enemied and will likely continue to keep that situation until the offending beast is removed, which it cannot considering it is collared too. Still, you are aware that Glom has an issue with your beast and you have decided to collar it. Problem is yours, not theirs.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
Maybe my explanation wasn't correct. What I mean to say is... you're condoning their actions. You got an eaf. Should you have just gone... "Eh, I don't care, it was gift. Not my fault, not my problem." Try running that by the Police next time someone gifts you cocaine, for instance. It doesn't work that way. The best course of action would have been to double-check with offended parties, and if they were offended at that point, offer to dispose of the offending critter in a manner they see fit. You refused to do that? Well then, ever heard of accessory after the fact? Someone killed fae, someone created something out of fae corpses, someone gave that something to you. You are effectively benefiting from someone else killing fae. Sorry, but I don't see the Raziela analogy in that particular situation. I guess my whole 'drugs as a gift' analogy is faulty, too... so let's go with... someone stole money. In the process of stealing money, they killed a person. They then gave the money to you as a gift. You knew the money was dodgy because there's no way that person could've acquired said money/you heard about the theft/murder on the news/whatever, so you A. go to the Police, knowing that someone else committed a murder and bring them to Justice, see what the Police wants to do about the money in question. B. keep the money, knowing full well it came at the cost of another person's life and become an accessory to murder.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I guess my point is this: Yes, killing fae is against the treaty. Yes, asking someone to kill fae for you should be considered breaking the treaty by proxy. The act of owning an eaf shouldn't be an enemyable offense, and if Glom presented a treaty to Gaudi banning the ownership of eaf, I'd vote against it out of principle even if I didn't own one.
By owning said eaf, you are enabling others to kill fae. Collared beasts are a tricky situation, too. I could argue the same deal with Shikari's order and the worg I gave to Vivet too, but the fact is... they have her and myself enemied and will likely continue to keep that situation until the offending beast is removed, which it cannot considering it is collared too. Still, you are aware that Glom has an issue with your beast and you have decided to collar it. Problem is yours, not theirs.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
Maybe my explanation wasn't correct. What I mean to say is... you're condoning their actions. You got an eaf. Should you have just gone... "Eh, I don't care, it was gift. Not my fault, not my problem." Try running that by the Police next time someone gifts you cocaine, for instance. It doesn't work that way. The best course of action would have been to double-check with offended parties, and if they were offended at that point, offer to dispose of the offending critter in a manner they see fit. You refused to do that? Well then, ever heard of accessory after the fact? Someone killed fae, someone created something out of fae corpses, someone gave that something to you. You are effectively benefiting from someone else killing fae. Sorry, but I don't see the Raziela analogy in that particular situation. I guess my whole 'drugs as a gift' analogy is faulty, too... so let's go with... someone stole money. In the process of stealing money, they killed a person. They then gave the money to you as a gift. You knew the money was dodgy because there's no way that person could've acquired said money/you heard about the theft/murder on the news/whatever, so you A. go to the Police, knowing that someone else committed a murder and bring them to Justice, see what the Police wants to do about the money in question. B. keep the money, knowing full well it came at the cost of another person's life and become an accessory to murder.
Maybe you missed that point where our treaty didn't say anything about owning something made from dead fae. If someone grabs fae and turns them in to a fleshpot, I don't suddenly stop being able to draw power because I might accidently be using that particular power. If someone kills a fae and turns it into a very pretty brooch, I'm not breaking a treaty if I buy that brooch in a shop. If someone kills an angel and turns it into garlic hot wings, I haven't broken a treaty with Celest if I eat them.
Granted, I don't go stand at the Pool and chow down on these wings, smacking my lips. I also don't usually bring out my eaf in front of forestals, because I realise it's rude. That doesn't mean I'm going to get rid of it, nor that I owe it to them to get rid of it.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
0
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
This is exactly what happened when the forests branded Raziela--made it impossible for her to convert fae. But that's neither here nor there.
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.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
This is exactly what happened when the forests branded Raziela--made it impossible for her to convert fae. But that's neither here nor there.
Which is cool, but Raziela hadn't converted fae in a long ass time. Why didn't they go for Gorgulu (or whatever takes the fae) instead?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
0
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
This is exactly what happened when the forests branded Raziela--made it impossible for her to convert fae. But that's neither here nor there.
Which is cool, but Raziela hadn't converted fae in a long ass time. Why didn't they go for Gorgulu (or whatever takes the fae) instead?
I can't remember anymore. It was a long, long time ago. Maybe we tried and failed to get Gorgulu, too. Or maybe we were pissed at New Celest for something.
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.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
This is exactly what happened when the forests branded Raziela--made it impossible for her to convert fae. But that's neither here nor there.
Which is cool, but Raziela hadn't converted fae in a long ass time. Why didn't they go for Gorgulu (or whatever takes the fae) instead?
I can't remember anymore. It was a long, long time ago. Maybe we tried and failed to get Gorgulu, too. Or maybe we were pissed at New Celest for something.
Opportunity. Raziela was in a vulnerable position because events, and events also pushed the forests to do Ail'Fae Runia to bind Raziela.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
This is exactly what happened when the forests branded Raziela--made it impossible for her to convert fae. But that's neither here nor there.
Which is cool, but Raziela hadn't converted fae in a long ass time. Why didn't they go for Gorgulu (or whatever takes the fae) instead?
I can't remember anymore. It was a long, long time ago. Maybe we tried and failed to get Gorgulu, too. Or maybe we were pissed at New Celest for something.
Opportunity. Raziela was in a vulnerable position because events, and events also pushed the forests to do Ail'Fae Runia to bind Raziela.
Good, that's a valid point. Events pushed the forests to bind Raziela. Events pushed Gaudiguch to do this quest.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
And pushing Gaudiguch to do the quest means that Gaudiguchans who do it have to deal with the outcomes of said quest. Not seeing what your point actually is there.
And pushing Gaudiguch to do the quest means that Gaudiguchans who do it have to deal with the outcomes of said quest. Not seeing what your point actually is there.
I don't particularly have an issue with Glom enemying people who did the quest. My issue is with Glom waiting until they found it in their best interest, and in the event that they decide to enemy people who own an eaf, despite how they got it.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
And pushing Gaudiguch to do the quest means that Gaudiguchans who do it have to deal with the outcomes of said quest. Not seeing what your point actually is there.
One of my points was that if the intent was to protect fae then the result puts them more in danger and not less.
That's more or less true, it's a paradox I take fair pains to explain to younglings in my charge in Serenwilde. There comes a point where that doesn't cut it anymore, though.
I guess my point is this: Yes, killing fae is against the treaty. Yes, asking someone to kill fae for you should be considered breaking the treaty by proxy. The act of owning an eaf shouldn't be an enemyable offense, and if Glom presented a treaty to Gaudi banning the ownership of eaf, I'd vote against it out of principle even if I didn't own one.
By owning said eaf, you are enabling others to kill fae. Collared beasts are a tricky situation, too. I could argue the same deal with Shikari's order and the worg I gave to Vivet too, but the fact is... they have her and myself enemied and will likely continue to keep that situation until the offending beast is removed, which it cannot considering it is collared too. Still, you are aware that Glom has an issue with your beast and you have decided to collar it. Problem is yours, not theirs.
I'm confused. By owning an eaf, this causes fae to later be killed? Why, maybe Celest should get rid of Raziela so fae can't be turned in, because by her being alive, fae will be turned in.
Maybe my explanation wasn't correct. What I mean to say is... you're condoning their actions. You got an eaf. Should you have just gone... "Eh, I don't care, it was gift. Not my fault, not my problem." Try running that by the Police next time someone gifts you cocaine, for instance. It doesn't work that way. The best course of action would have been to double-check with offended parties, and if they were offended at that point, offer to dispose of the offending critter in a manner they see fit. You refused to do that? Well then, ever heard of accessory after the fact? Someone killed fae, someone created something out of fae corpses, someone gave that something to you. You are effectively benefiting from someone else killing fae. Sorry, but I don't see the Raziela analogy in that particular situation. I guess my whole 'drugs as a gift' analogy is faulty, too... so let's go with... someone stole money. In the process of stealing money, they killed a person. They then gave the money to you as a gift. You knew the money was dodgy because there's no way that person could've acquired said money/you heard about the theft/murder on the news/whatever, so you A. go to the Police, knowing that someone else committed a murder and bring them to Justice, see what the Police wants to do about the money in question. B. keep the money, knowing full well it came at the cost of another person's life and become an accessory to murder.
Maybe you missed that point where our treaty didn't say anything about owning something made from dead fae. If someone grabs fae and turns them in to a fleshpot, I don't suddenly stop being able to draw power because I might accidently be using that particular power. If someone kills a fae and turns it into a very pretty brooch, I'm not breaking a treaty if I buy that brooch in a shop. If someone kills an angel and turns it into garlic hot wings, I haven't broken a treaty with Celest if I eat them.
Granted, I don't go stand at the Pool and chow down on these wings, smacking my lips. I also don't usually bring out my eaf in front of forestals, because I realise it's rude. That doesn't mean I'm going to get rid of it, nor that I owe it to them to get rid of it.
Owning an Eaf means you have stood up to be counted as against everything the forestals stand for. No one cares how you got it. They ONLY care that you've excepted it instead of killing it( and perhaps handing it's corpse over to Seren/Glom-Gaudi leaders to dispose of but just offering to a (gaudi?)god so it can't be raised would be fine, as then you'd get some good out of it.).
Owning an Eaf means you have stood up to be counted as against everything the forestals stand for. No one cares how you got it. They ONLY care that you've excepted it instead of killing it( and perhaps handing it's corpse over to Seren/Glom-Gaudi leaders to dispose of but just offering to a (gaudi?)god so it can't be raised would be fine, as then you'd get some good out of it.).
I hate to be the one to let you know this, but anyone who lives in a city can be counted as the same.
The problem is this: Technically, anyone in an org can enemy someone in a different org for anything they wish. There's nothing that says Glom can't enemy me to their org for owning an eaf. I've seen Hallifax enemy people in opposing orgs for shouting, and it wasn't even anything against Hallifax. I've seen Celest enemy Serenwilders for owning items which contained angels as comms. Hell, I got enemied once for being killed by someone in neutral territory who was subsequently enemied for killing me.
The problem is that the Glom-Gaudi treaty didn't say anything about owning eafs, or owning/eating things made from fae. Can they enemy me for the act of owning one? Sure. But if they enemy Subotai, they're really not getting much out of it. If I saw someone doing Waystations and I see someone slaying ember lizards in Zoaka, I can enemy them for it. I could enemy someone for owning waystation curios, period. It doesn't make it right, especially if I wait several irl months to do it.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Glomdoring can enemy someone for doing the Tar Pits quest.
Glomdoring can enemy someone for doing the eaf quest.
We are equally justified for both. Tar Pits is easy to figure out that it's been done (it releases tentacle-things in Faethorn). Eafs are harder to figure out, it's generally when you see someone prancing around with an eaf. In the case of Gaudiguch, the individuals were enemied when it was discovered that they were doing such.
If Gaudiguch has some kind of worship of lizards, they would also be justified for that, but I don't know that ember lizards are really held in high regard there. Who knows, certainly not me.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Glomdoring can enemy someone for doing the Tar Pits quest.
Glomdoring can enemy someone for doing the eaf quest.
We are equally justified for both. Tar Pits is easy to figure out that it's been done (it releases tentacle-things in Faethorn). Eafs are harder to figure out, it's generally when you see someone prancing around with an eaf. In the case of Gaudiguch, the individuals were enemied when it was discovered that they were doing such.
If Gaudiguch has some kind of worship of lizards, they would also be justified for that, but I don't know that ember lizards are really held in high regard there. Who knows, certainly not me.
You can check someone's honours and see if they've made an eaf. If Glomdoring wants to do that, it's fine by me.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I see. So cutting down trees and living outside of nature isn't against everything the forestals stand for.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Look. Every org has some kind of grudge against every other org. If you really want to stretch it, obviously every city is a target for forestals to kill. Hell, Wyrd is supposed to take over the entire world, as Glomdoring, we're supposed to subjugate and dominate everyone, not buddy up with them and fight domoths or wildnodes or ascension on anyone's side.
Fire, afterall, burns trees. Clearly Glomdoring should enemy the whole of Gaudi because of that, yes?
No, this is a game, with politics and more complex layers of roleplay beyond "I hulk, I smash." Delicious is the drama that results when mortal enemies join hands to backstab another political foe for great rewards. Just like Game of Thrones, you know.
But if you're trying to equate enemying for having an eaf to the ridiculousness of enemying because "Gaudi fire, fire burns trees, Glom angry, Glom smash!" then you're taking hyperbole to a whole new level. I thought we were past that stage of discussion already. As have been said, items that use angels as a comm has been used for enemying reasons before, and in my opinion, that is perfectly valid, not in a "anyone can be a bully and abuse their enemying privs" kind of way, but valid in an actual, proper RP way. Eafs are the same. Just like anyone who cuts forestal sacred trees are enemied and seen as having committed a great crime, so too is the act of creating an eaf to forestals. Why? Apparently Xenthos explained it better than I ever could the last time this came up in tweets.
Now, the problem comes when the someone who does this is an ally. When a Celestian sees a Serenwilder totting around an angel-comm-ring, what's the usual procedure? Enemy right away? Maybe some trigger happy celestians would do so, but my guess is that the first reaction of the org leaders will be to seek conversation, discussion and resolution instead. "Get that guy's ring off." not "BURN! KILL! DESTROY! INQUISITION!"
As far as I know there were Glommies who wanted to go the latter route, but the Shadow Court reined them in. Talks first. After all, Glom wasn't really in a position to start a war unilaterally, what with the lack of people around at that time. Much less by burning bridges with an ally. There was still talk of enemying too, but that was only really okay'd officially by the Court after getting the "agreement" from Gaudi that people caught doing so were open game for the statuses (this is probably what Altrea mentioned she told Ssaliss about, and which, apparently, the Ambassador at that time didn't). As far as I know, Sidd got enemied pretty early on, though more specifically for being caught attacking fae? I think it was Xen who did the enemying, can't remember. Only one or two other Gaudis, however, were positively identified at that early stage as possible people who were partaking in this new quest.
It's not like we had Glom people scouring Gaudiguch, camping the stables to inspect every beast that was stabled in or out, trying to find people to enemy. Hell, we probably missed handfuls of people who actually killed fae, because we didn't even have people camping (or to put it more nicely, guarding) faethorn. I wouldn't be surprised right now if there were, right now, other people who have eaf, or who killed fae, but who are still not enemied to Glom. We don't do it now because we don't have proof, obviously. And I'm pretty sure we didn't enemy anyone back then without proof too, when things were more sensitive.
Trust me, we have plenty of people who would not hesitate to enemy the moment they had the reason to. There's absolutely zero reason Glomdoring will hold off enemying someone who we knew had an eaf until some kind of opportune moment. That we'd wait until we found it was in our "best interests" to do the enemying. The best interest for enemying is the moment we get the actual reason to. The charge that there was some kind of political machination on Glom's part, as though we had a list of names we clutched tightly to our breasts, murmuring until the stars aligned before enemying for some kind of big reward, is something I find ridiculous. But hey, what do I know. Maybe Ssaliss really is an evil mastermind who wanted to rule the world with the One Enemy-List.
Now, Altrea mentioned that this (the delay most likely being caused by lack of proof before the actual enemying) wasn't communicated properly IC. Obviously, that was a major mistake on Glom's part in saving the relationship, I agree. But if you're trying to make out that Glom enemying was some kind of over-reaction, was un-deserved, that somehow having an eaf isn't grounds for enemy status, then the only thing I can say in response is:
ლ(ಠ_ಠლ)??
Like I mentioned, and like Altrea mentioned, what's done is done. Gaudi and Glom broke up, and it was unfortunate for some of us, and a joyous thing for others. No one is saying Gaudi should have done this, or should have done that. As an org, they didn't feel like the alliance was something that should be continued, in the light of the events surrounding the quest. That's perfectly fine. The admin pushed the event on Gaudi? Yeah, that's fine too, perhaps they were the ones who wanted the breakup. Or maybe it was just another normal event. Whatever, the actions resulted in consequences. That's all.
Just to clarify, I was already enemied to Glom from my Halli days, so there was no 'enemying' per se, but I did get reprimanded by the Freedom Council and a good finger wagging (especially from @Iari, she was harsh)
I haven't commented much on the whole situation, expect to point out when people are out of their depth and make silly comments like 'you lost Ascension because you created eaf' (inb4 another 'hyperbole' comment, #srynotsry #sarcasm)
In general, things could have gone very different. Gaudi could have taken a 'whoa lets slow down and consult with our ally first' approach just as easily as Glom could have gone 'well, we're not above killing fae if something calls for it, so lets not be rash.' It's very easy to make RP work especially when underlying themes of the two orgs involved are 'For Freedom' and NMBG. In the end, things went the way they did, I'm okay with it, I don't once think to myself 'man, if only we had Bonds during Ascension, we'd totally have won'. If you haven't noticed, we're not really taking the Arcanis/Feyr approach to Glomdoring. Some Gloms have joined the North for some fights, but pretty sure it's just because they like to fight. Several prominent Gloms were absent during the wildnodes for instance so it's not an 'always happening' thing either.
Comments
Subotai owns an Eaf, and has neither killed fae nor asked someone to kill fae, nor made an eaf himself. I mean, Glom's welcome to enemy him for owning one that Sidd gave him, but that's pretty counterproductive. I mean, if I collar Happiness (being my eaf's name), I'd apparently be permanently enemied to Glomdoring.
What's next, communes get the ability to check your stabled pets?
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Granted, I don't go stand at the Pool and chow down on these wings, smacking my lips. I also don't usually bring out my eaf in front of forestals, because I realise it's rude. That doesn't mean I'm going to get rid of it, nor that I owe it to them to get rid of it.
The problem is this: Technically, anyone in an org can enemy someone in a different org for anything they wish. There's nothing that says Glom can't enemy me to their org for owning an eaf. I've seen Hallifax enemy people in opposing orgs for shouting, and it wasn't even anything against Hallifax. I've seen Celest enemy Serenwilders for owning items which contained angels as comms. Hell, I got enemied once for being killed by someone in neutral territory who was subsequently enemied for killing me.
The problem is that the Glom-Gaudi treaty didn't say anything about owning eafs, or owning/eating things made from fae. Can they enemy me for the act of owning one? Sure. But if they enemy Subotai, they're really not getting much out of it. If I saw someone doing Waystations and I see someone slaying ember lizards in Zoaka, I can enemy them for it. I could enemy someone for owning waystation curios, period. It doesn't make it right, especially if I wait several irl months to do it.
Glomdoring can enemy someone for doing the eaf quest.
We are equally justified for both. Tar Pits is easy to figure out that it's been done (it releases tentacle-things in Faethorn). Eafs are harder to figure out, it's generally when you see someone prancing around with an eaf. In the case of Gaudiguch, the individuals were enemied when it was discovered that they were doing such.
If Gaudiguch has some kind of worship of lizards, they would also be justified for that, but I don't know that ember lizards are really held in high regard there. Who knows, certainly not me.