[SBR] My impressions
sl...@netplexgroup.com
possible (http://members.xoom.com/LSSR/bar.htm) but I am crossposting this
here for those rangers who may not read the board. That said, on with my
post.
**********
If there is anyone in the rangers or in any of these forums who feels that I
am a stubborn, unreasonable, biased person who cannot see both sides of any
issue, please raise your hand now. I won't blame you, I'd just like to know
who you are.
*waits*
And now I will tell you my impression of the events of the past few weeks,
and especially this weekend's council meeting. First, an apology to all the
rangers and allied guilds who feel that they were left in the dark. To be
perfectly honest, most of you know as much as I do about last night's
happenings. Why is this? Well, at the council meeting all the councilors
present agreed that on the issue of Quaestor, every one of us would remain
silent until all councilors had been polled. Shortly afterwards we ended our
four hour meeting. The next thing we know, we hear reports that Quaestor has
resigned, that the guildstone has been moved, that Marianne Moon is in charge
of the stone, and that due to a bug, many rangers were dropped from the
stone. It took a good hour to gather just those few facts. None of us were
given any forewarning. I felt that this was irresponsible on Quaestor's
part, and I will admit I am disappointed that he would put the guild into a
situation of temporary chaos. I would have hoped he would be more considerate
of us, although given his feelings on the matter I can certainly understand
why he did it.
Now, on to the past. I can't speak for the rest of the rangers, but I felt
like it was time for Quaestor to stop speaking for the guild. We ALL agree
that he is a great military leader, and I think we also ALL agree he is a
valuable member of our guild. All very well and good, but we also agree he is
a lousy public speaker. He's good at negative propoganda, when what the
rangers need, in my opinion, is positive propoganda. I merely came to the
point where I was spending 4 times as much time defending Quaestor and
repairing damage made by his statements as I was spending in game.
I also want to state that this was not about Corwin. In fact Corwin and I
never even spoke about this situation, and he is no power on the throne or
behind it, as far as I am concerned. I came to my own conclusions about
Quaestor's ability to speak for all of us, based ONLY on Quaestor himself. I
did not see him getting any better at representing us in public forums, and I
felt it was time to change that the best way I knew how.
Quaestor implied that I was influenced by Corwin, that I had my own agenda,
that I was unreasonable, that I was biased, that I was a coward who refused to
take responsibility. So I took responsibility. Full responsibility. My
proposal was phrased "Sunlight Fade proposes that Quaestor be removed from his
position as GM, although he shall remain a ranger and a councillor if he so
wishes." There, I said it. You all know that I am the one responsible for
this chaotic affairs, that *I* am the one with an agenda. I'll say it a third
time - I am willing to take full responsibility. If any ranger wants someone
to throw flames at or crucify, my ICQ is 192452, and my email is
sl...@netplexgroup.com. I stand firm in the knowledge that I did what I
thought was best *for the guild as a whole*. And this is *despite* how I feel
about Quaestor. I liked him, and respected him, and I still do. This is all
taking a heavy toll on me, but I think it's the right thing to do.
So now you all know - I was the one who held the bloody axe, and I am ready
and willing to be judged by all of you, eithe rpublicly or privately.
Now, I am not absolutely certain of this, but so far I have seen him say in
one forum that the council is being given a week to change our minds, and in
another imply that he may start a new guild (although my interpretation could
be wrong). Frankly what Quaestor decides to do is up to Quaestor. This mass
confusion that has occurred in the last 24 hours simply confirms to me more
clearly than anything else that Quaestor is allowing his pride to come
between what's best for him and what's best for this guild. That is my
opinion, and he can flame me for it, but it's what I think.
And lastly, to all the rangers, nothing should really change. Your council
will, as always, work this out to the best of our ability. Squads will still
go out, new members will still be accepted, business will go on as usual. If
you have any questions or concerns, your councillors are: myself, Kyriana,
Gil'omion, Ian, Corwin, Vauhea, and Mir. Once again, my ICQ is 192452, and
my email is sl...@netpexgroup.com. I am ready and willing to answer any
questions or accusations that come my way.
Sunlight Fade, SBR
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jadesfyre
sl...@netplexgroup.com wrote in message
So I took responsibility. Full responsibility. My
>proposal was phrased "Sunlight Fade proposes that Quaestor be removed from
his
>position as GM, although he shall remain a ranger and a councillor if he so
>wishes." There, I said it. You all know that I am the one responsible for
>this chaotic affairs, that *I* am the one with an agenda. I'll say it a
third
>time - I am willing to take full responsibility.
I will take responsibility also, since I am council member and I did say
aye.
>I stand firm in the knowledge that I did what I
>thought was best *for the guild as a whole*. And this is *despite* >how I
feel
>about Quaestor. I liked him, and respected him, and I still do.
This goes for me as well.
>I can't speak for the rest of the rangers, but I felt
>like it was time for Quaestor to stop speaking for the guild. We ALL
>agree
>that he is a great military leader, and I think we also ALL agree he is >a
>valuable member of our guild. All very well and good, but we also >agree
he is
>a lousy public speaker. He's good at negative propoganda, when >what the
>rangers need, in my opinion, is positive propoganda.
Gil hasn't been around for a couple days because of what has been going on
the last week or two. His predictions are right on target, it seems
*sighs*. I know that he has the same kind of thoughts but will let him
speak for himself when he comes back. I sure hope he does.....
Kyriana
Who misses her Gil. :(
Dundee
>And lastly, to all the rangers, nothing should really change. Your council
>will, as always, work this out to the best of our ability. Squads will still
>go out, new members will still be accepted, business will go on as usual. If
>you have any questions or concerns, your councillors are: myself, Kyriana,
>Gil'omion, Ian, Corwin, Vauhea, and Mir. Once again, my ICQ is 192452, and
>my email is sl...@netpexgroup.com. I am ready and willing to answer any
>questions or accusations that come my way.
Ah... so _that's_ the council. Well I take back the nasty things I've
said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>never even spoke about this situation, and he is no power on the throne or
>behind it, as far as I am concerned. I came to my own conclusions about
>Quaestor's ability to speak for all of us, based ONLY on Quaestor himself. I
>did not see him getting any better at representing us in public forums, and I
>felt it was time to change that the best way I knew how.
>Quaestor implied that I was influenced by Corwin, that I had my own agenda,
>that I was unreasonable, that I was biased, that I was a coward who refused to
>take responsibility. So I took responsibility. Full responsibility.
Dang Sun ... I *really* was willing to be the marytr on this one.
Someone for Q to yell and scream at until the end of time.
I gotta say my first dissapointment with Q was probably during our
first couple of weeks with the way he mishandled the charges DS and
HaN brought against the Rangers. He makes enemies faster than he can
make friends ... and that is not a good thing.
I wish I could had done something back then. But probably even as
recent as last week ... if we had taken a vote on removing Q it would
had been defeated. Everyone still just wanted to work things out.
Q, buried himself with some of his recent public statements. But in
reality, he never had the experience, patience, respect, or the
personality to lead a guild like SBR.
What he does have is an all driving hate for the people who ruin the
game for him. Some people came to SBR to get revenge with Q. Most
flocked to SBR because they thought it would be a lot of fun. For
those of us who dare to object to his little hate fest ... we become
the hated.
Corwin (somehow I think Q will still think it's all my doing)
MrChips
>
>And now I will tell you my impression of the events of the past few weeks,
>and especially this weekend's council meeting. First, an apology to all the
>rangers and allied guilds who feel that they were left in the dark. To be
>perfectly honest, most of you know as much as I do about last night's
>happenings. Why is this? Well, at the council meeting all the councilors
>present agreed that on the issue of Quaestor, every one of us would remain
>silent until all councilors had been polled. Shortly afterwards we ended our
>four hour meeting. The next thing we know, we hear reports that Quaestor has
>resigned, that the guildstone has been moved, that Marianne Moon is in charge
>of the stone, and that due to a bug, many rangers were dropped from the
>stone. It took a good hour to gather just those few facts. None of us were
>given any forewarning. I felt that this was irresponsible on Quaestor's
>part, and I will admit I am disappointed that he would put the guild into a
>situation of temporary chaos. I would have hoped he would be more considerate
>of us, although given his feelings on the matter I can certainly understand
>why he did it.
>
As I was reading this as I was listening to the "Sisters of Mercy" by
Leonard Cohen in which there's the line, "Yes you, who must leave
everything that you cannot control.." Spooky.
Not that I have a strong opinion on this matter, for truly I do not.
Stanley - LS
MrChips - Sonoma
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
>that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
Oh cmon, Dundee. It hasn't even been 24hrs since we took the first
vote to drop Q as GM and place him back on the council.
Our first vote was deciding on how to vote. Sorta like deciding what
sort of table to meet at ... but as it turned out, our published rules
did not actually say. Mir finally applied some bistro mathematics and
derived a formula which we all quickly accepted.
The second order of business ... was discussion about removing Q.
We currently have 5 votes to remove Q. I don't recall that Q voted
himself ... unless resigning from the guildstone was his way of doing
so. Again unless Q resigns on his own, we currently need 1 more vote
and the response of 2 more councilors. i.e. We need to hear from
Vauhee, and Gil. Lloric resigned from the council a few weeks ago.
Q actually pushed this, I guess he expected a quick vote of confidence
or something so he could move on to more important things ... like
tossing me.
Corwin
gil
responsibility.
No one person started the rangers (if I _had_ to pick one it would be
Dundee, but the idea behind the rangers existed independently). No one
person is, or was, the rangers. No council is the rangers. The members
are the rangers. The rangers are an idea, and SBR is just an attempt to
make that idea come alive. If the rangers don't survive to bring that
idea to life, then the idea will find another means to come into being,
because the idea is a good one, and a necessary one if UO is to be more
than just another Quake shoot-em-up.
My idea of what the rangers are:
-helping others
-fun
-comraderie
-standing up to the jerks, not letting them ruin UO for others
-showing others they don't have to let the jerks ruin UO for them
Things that the rangers are not about:
-cheating - either in practice, or advocating cheating
-trash talking
-any one person
-making enemies out of friends and those who are trying to help us
-any one person putting their own interests/ego/whatever above the good
of the group
-a war where anything is considered acceptable
-hate or other negative feelings against the jerks (pity and the like -
yes, but hate - no)
The above is, of course, just my opinion. Many will disagree, and
that's fine.
I'm on the council. If rangers feel I have not done a good job I will
step down. I won't pout or take it personally. My goal has been to
represent what I think the members want, not what I want. I have spent
a lot of time trying to learn what members want, and then figure out how
to reconcile our many diverse views and wants. I'm human and make
mistakes, as do we all. If any of you know how to do this while keeping
everyone happy, please let me know. Better yet, take my place on the
council. I never asked to be on the council. I did accept the job
though, and have tried to do my best.
rend
gil'lomion LS
gil
> We currently have 5 votes to remove Q. I don't recall that Q voted
> himself ... unless resigning from the guildstone was his way of doing
> so. Again unless Q resigns on his own, we currently need 1 more vote
> and the response of 2 more councilors. i.e. We need to hear from
> Vauhee, and Gil.
I vote aye to remove Q.
rend
gil'lomion LS
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
Nowhere did you mention Armies, Dress codes, Ranks, Regulations,
Lootlessness, Discipline, etc. etc.
Do you think it's time the guild lightened up?
If you can balance the lootless goals, and real needs for leadership
with the other things you have said, we'd have one heck of a charter.
Corwin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
colin...@my-dejanews.com
> This mass confusion that has occurred in the last 24 hours simply
> confirms to me more clearly than anything else that Quaestor is
> allowing his pride to come between what's best for him and what's
> best for this guild.
Any man can overcome adversity.
To really test his mettle, give him power.
- Colin aka Mir, a druid on LS
colin...@my-dejanews.com
<FBD4C93D6FA06819.A9E8F64C...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, Dun...@LakeSuperior.com (Dundee) wrote:
> Ah... so _that's_ the council. Well I take back the nasty things I've
> said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
> that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
What nasty things have you said?
Colin
Dundee
Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
>>Ah... so _that's_ the council. Well I take back the nasty things I've
>>said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
>>that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
>
>Oh cmon, Dundee. It hasn't even been 24hrs since we took the first
>vote to drop Q as GM and place him back on the council.
Heck, I'm talking about *last week*.
Dundee
>> Ah... so _that's_ the council. Well I take back the nasty things I've
>> said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
>> that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
>
>What nasty things have you said?
Last week when all this first blew-up, it seemed like the council was
general just not around, and not interested, and not doing anything at
all to address the issue.
Silverlock
wrote:
If your talking about the whole GC blow up thing then what could they
do? They couldn't get Q to shut up, he kept on making statement to
rile them up. SF and I posted to their boards to try and explain that
the Rangers wouldn't use exploits, and I think most council members
thought Q should be quiet. What would have helped maybe would have
been a post with all the council members taking the stand that they
wished Q to be quiet but somehow I doubt he would have listened.
--
Silverlock, ICQ 474725
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
The Philosopher Primus
> Q actually pushed this,
This is a lie.
> I guess he expected a quick vote of confidence or something so he could move
> on to more important things ...
I jumped on the issue to demonstrate something you lack. Courage.
> like tossing me.
That will have to wait.
The Philosopher Primus
> If your talking about the whole GC blow up thing then what could they do?
They could stop being the biggest jerk outfit on the shard. :-)
If they have fooled you, that is a real shame. All their pathetic pretense of
roleplaying aside, GC are a jerk guild. They have a few people that some
respect, but in general they are jerks. And they harbor some of the worst
jerks in the world. The kind who are proud to be known as the worst jerks in
the world, and strive to become ever worse. These facts are known to me
because I made the effort to find out.
> They couldn't get Q to shut up, he kept on making statement to rile them up.
So? Are we supposed to say we're fearless because we're lootless, but let's
be afraid of this particular boogyman? It is a war. We're supposed to fight
them. They make mistakes when they are riled up. The more riled, the better.
Not that ANYone has ever asked, but I'll explain, there is some method to what
I did. In going to their site and posting about our policy (if they come back
we'll kill them again) I was trying to make it plain that they could not win a
war of terrorism. They could only lose if they tried. And I was right. They
won it by assassination.
> SF and I posted to their boards to try and explain that the Rangers wouldn't
> use exploits, and I think most council members thought Q should be quiet.
Unfortunately, the thought interface does not work on usenet.
If they had ONCE tried to do the right thing, discuss with me what joint
statements should be issued, I might not have felt the need to go and set the
record straight. When I went there and saw this "I do not speak for the
Rangers" stuff, I felt it was about time someone Did. They did not consult
me, so of course I did not consult them.
> What would have helped maybe would have been a post with all the council
> members taking the stand that they wished Q to be quiet
What they should have done was the right thing. Discuss with me our position
and response. Instead we had them each doing their own thing.
> but somehow I doubt he would have listened.
This looks like a failure to judge or even observe well. Whenever anyone has
spoken civilly, rationally, with some sort of evident good intent, I have
listened quite well. I have engaged in civil and constructive dialogue. And
I would have. And I did. But we had too many little dictators going around
making their own policy. No one was talking to me about it, so I did not talk
to them. I wanted to. It's amazing how people can be unavailable just when
they want to. No one came to me and said let's discuss it. No one was
available for me. The councilors were not being good counselors.
At any rate, it's done. None of these politicians is going to admit to having
done wrong. None is going to change their mind. At the end of the week I
will be out. Go read the log of the meeting and you will see that this became
apparent rather early into the meeting. NOTHING is going to sway them from
their goal. No amount of truth, compromise, giving in, discussion, least of
all the needs of the Rangers, anything. This is an extremely vicious bunch.
I do not intend that anyone will not know who swung the axe, at whom, or why.
The Rangers cannot survive such misrule. That I'm not too concerned about --
I built the Rangers once, I can do it again. It's just a shame that so much
ugliness has to be dealt with first. We could be dealing with the jerks
instead.
The Philosopher Primus
> I agree completely with what Sun said, and also accept full responsibility.
If only you could have done that before you did what you did.
The Philosopher Primus
> Any man can overcome adversity. To really test his mettle, give him power.
You got yours, and look what you did with it. You are the one who
disappointed me most. I actually considered you a friend. That's what is so
horrible about backstabbing, it doesn't just hurt, it takes away your friends,
because they are the ones who do it. You, of all people, I would have thought
incapable of such a thing.
Ok, I'm not the judge of character I thought I was.
Dundee
wrote:
>If your talking about the whole GC blow up thing then what could they
>do?
No, the blow-up which came before GC ever entered the picture.
I did see council members post regarding the GC thing, including to
their own board. I assumed the "blackout" everyone was refering to
was before that.
I mean, the thing is, I thought the council *was* the GM, but back
before any sort of GC things happened at all, I heard vague rumors of
this "power struggle" to oust Q as GM. And I thought... Q is the GM?
When did that happen? I thought that was settled when the council was
formed. I've even seen numerous posts here, that the rangers are led
by a council, not an individual.
He had final say on recruitment, promotions, dismissals... I mean,
just what _was_ the council doing?
And if Q was not the GM, then just what position was he asked to
resign?
I'm not trying to stir up trouble. All seems over and done with now,
anyway. But I'm genuinely confused.
Truly.
Drasten@l.s
*rant on.... not a flame, because I am trying not to shout curses*
Ok, that DOES IT. Q, I'm sick of listening to you insult some of the
best people in this game. I once held you up in the same regard that
I hold many of my good friends on Lake Superior. When I listened
quitely to this newsgroup for several months, I decided there were a
number of people I really wanted to meet online. Happily, they were
on all the same shard. Well I've met those people, and they have
managed to become better friends and nicer people then my 8 months on
atlantic allowed me to believe. Now a few months on LS and I never
think about going back. What you're doing here sickens me.
Mir is one of the best people I've met. He was a great TNO GM, and is
a good friend. For god's sake I read the chat log, I've seen the skew
you've tried to put on these things. If you think that Mir in any way
"backstabbed" you, and has some sort of agenda against you, then you
are right about one thing: You're not the judge of character you
thought you were.
In UO, the virtue of the ranger is spirituality. The pursuit of
truth. When will you stop and look for the truth?
*ranting off*
If problems from RL are intruding into UO and making you act this way,
for your sake, take a break. Despite what you think, you do have
friends here. But friends can only take being insulted so many times.
Feel free to flame me, and continue burning bridges. I'm beyond the
point of caring.
-Drasten, TNO
Jaquar
council is the GM. It is when Quaestor decided that his title made
him a god that the problems occur. Somewhere I heard a comparison of
the Borg to SBR. I thought that was fitting. No one ranger can win
but together they are frightening. Together does not mean that one
person speaks for them. They are a collective.
Go and look at their web page. Quaestor has reworked part of it to
promote his own agenda. That is the sign of an unstable personality.
Now, rather than stay with the ones that do care about him, he wants
to burn every bridge in sight.
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:38:32 GMT, Dun...@LakeSuperior.com (Dundee)
wrote:
Jaquar of The Shadow's Soul
Guildmaster
Grandmaster Mage
Jeff Gentry
: They could stop being the biggest jerk outfit on the shard. :-)
If you *truly* believe that's what they are, then you are far too blind
to even begin to be leading a group like the Rangers in the fight against
Jerks. If anything, they have chased away and fought off more of the
*real bad jerks* than you ever could hope to. Mainly because GC doesn't
sit around moping all day about how everyone backstabbed them.
: roleplaying aside, GC are a jerk guild. They have a few people that some
: respect, but in general they are jerks. And they harbor some of the worst
They have bad people who do bad things. They do *not* harbour the *worst*
of the game - and if you want to cut out the bad folks in GC, as you saw,
you're going to unite the whole of the guild. *FAR* easier is it to start
with the guilds that are *all* jerks, that are *only* about being jerks,
etc. GC at least spends a lot of its time content w/ order/chaos. Far
more than I can say of some other guilds which I *never* see you even frekain
mention.
: record straight. When I went there and saw this "I do not speak for the
: Rangers" stuff, I felt it was about time someone Did. They did not consult
: me, so of course I did not consult them.
Actually ... look. Sunlight went to you a few weeks ago and told you
to quit posting as "Skara Brae Rangers" because I pointed out to her that
your messages were mean, bitter & generally nto the sort of thing that
would create a "oh these are nice people" attitude about you. You stated
that as the GM you were more than legit posting as Skara Brae Rangers.
YOU HAD WARNING.
: I do not intend that anyone will not know who swung the axe, at whom, or why.
: The Rangers cannot survive such misrule. That I'm not too concerned about --
: I built the Rangers once, I can do it again. It's just a shame that so much
: ugliness has to be dealt with first. We could be dealing with the jerks
: instead.
Any rangers you build will be the laughingstock of the shard. The
true Rangers are going to be stronger than ever. If you think otherwise,
you're sorely mistaken.
LD
Jaquar
main post on the GC board was NOT signed by him. He instead signed it
"the Skara Brae Rangers" This is a major point that is being over
looked.
While I am at it let me also point out the Quaestor has yet to answer
the question of why he was not there during the GC attacks. He was
obviously on line, look at the timestamps on his posts.
Now, I have no doubt I am killfiled, but why doesn't he want to answer
the question? I'll tell you. He left you all to die.
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:07:24 -0800, The Philosopher Primus
<He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
>Silverlock wrote:
>
>> If your talking about the whole GC blow up thing then what could they do?
>
>They could stop being the biggest jerk outfit on the shard. :-)
>
>If they have fooled you, that is a real shame. All their pathetic pretense of
>roleplaying aside, GC are a jerk guild. They have a few people that some
>respect, but in general they are jerks. And they harbor some of the worst
>jerks in the world. The kind who are proud to be known as the worst jerks in
>the world, and strive to become ever worse. These facts are known to me
>because I made the effort to find out.
>
>
>> They couldn't get Q to shut up, he kept on making statement to rile them up.
>
>So? Are we supposed to say we're fearless because we're lootless, but let's
>be afraid of this particular boogyman? It is a war. We're supposed to fight
>them. They make mistakes when they are riled up. The more riled, the better.
>
>Not that ANYone has ever asked, but I'll explain, there is some method to what
>I did. In going to their site and posting about our policy (if they come back
>we'll kill them again) I was trying to make it plain that they could not win a
>war of terrorism. They could only lose if they tried. And I was right. They
>won it by assassination.
>
>
>> SF and I posted to their boards to try and explain that the Rangers wouldn't
>> use exploits, and I think most council members thought Q should be quiet.
>
>Unfortunately, the thought interface does not work on usenet.
>
>If they had ONCE tried to do the right thing, discuss with me what joint
>statements should be issued, I might not have felt the need to go and set the
>record straight. When I went there and saw this "I do not speak for the
>Rangers" stuff, I felt it was about time someone Did. They did not consult
>me, so of course I did not consult them.
>
>
>> What would have helped maybe would have been a post with all the council
>> members taking the stand that they wished Q to be quiet
>
>What they should have done was the right thing. Discuss with me our position
>and response. Instead we had them each doing their own thing.
>
>
>> but somehow I doubt he would have listened.
>
>This looks like a failure to judge or even observe well. Whenever anyone has
>spoken civilly, rationally, with some sort of evident good intent, I have
>listened quite well. I have engaged in civil and constructive dialogue. And
>I would have. And I did. But we had too many little dictators going around
>making their own policy. No one was talking to me about it, so I did not talk
>to them. I wanted to. It's amazing how people can be unavailable just when
>they want to. No one came to me and said let's discuss it. No one was
>available for me. The councilors were not being good counselors.
>
>At any rate, it's done. None of these politicians is going to admit to having
>done wrong. None is going to change their mind. At the end of the week I
>will be out. Go read the log of the meeting and you will see that this became
>apparent rather early into the meeting. NOTHING is going to sway them from
>their goal. No amount of truth, compromise, giving in, discussion, least of
>all the needs of the Rangers, anything. This is an extremely vicious bunch.
>
>I do not intend that anyone will not know who swung the axe, at whom, or why.
>The Rangers cannot survive such misrule. That I'm not too concerned about --
>I built the Rangers once, I can do it again. It's just a shame that so much
>ugliness has to be dealt with first. We could be dealing with the jerks
>instead.
>
>
>
Jaquar of The Shadow's Soul
Guildmaster
Grandmaster Mage
Richard Cortese
>
> I mean, the thing is, I thought the council *was* the GM, but back
> before any sort of GC things happened at all, I heard vague rumors of
> this "power struggle" to oust Q as GM. And I thought... Q is the GM?
> When did that happen? I thought that was settled when the council was
Funny, but I thought almost the same thing. I think I am going to have
to kill file you so I at least create the illusion of having my own
opinions.
Not a big thing I guess, but how did this happen<Any Councilor !Dundee>?
I assume it wasn't a general election kind of thing but something like
the electorial system w/o a populus vote?
I would have thought we would have seen a post here saying get your
ballots in by X date or something.
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:13:32 GMT, cor...@wind.atlantic.com (Corwin of
>Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
>
>>>Ah... so _that's_ the council. Well I take back the nasty things I've
>>>said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
>>>that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
>>
>>Oh cmon, Dundee. It hasn't even been 24hrs since we took the first
>>vote to drop Q as GM and place him back on the council.
>
>Heck, I'm talking about *last week*.
Oh, was there a blackout in effect last week?
*chuckle*
We weren't doing anything because everything broke down over our
voting rules. i.e. it turned out we didn't have any - or they never
got published. That got fixed in the last meeting.
Corwin
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
You call me a liar in your first response for saying you "pushed" the
issue, and in your next you admit to "jumping" on the issue ???
I really should start keeping count. 1001 stupid things Q has said to
me.
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>before any sort of GC things happened at all, I heard vague rumors of
>this "power struggle" to oust Q as GM. And I thought... Q is the GM?
>When did that happen? I thought that was settled when the council was
>by a council, not an individual.
You understand correctly Dundee,
However we also recognized a fact of life that noone outside the guild
would have the patience to discuss important matters with a council.
That when people come knocking at the door and want to see the GM they
want to see a person, and not wait around for a month for 9 people to
get online.
The GM/"Lead Councilor"/Whatever is supposed to represent the thoughts
of the Council and the guild when one voice is needed.
Unfortunately the only voice he represents is his own. Everyone who
disagrees is the enemy.
Corwin
Silverlock
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:08:20 GMT, cro...@earthlink.net (Silverlock)
>wrote:
>
>>If your talking about the whole GC blow up thing then what could they
>>do?
>
>No, the blow-up which came before GC ever entered the picture.
>
>I did see council members post regarding the GC thing, including to
>their own board. I assumed the "blackout" everyone was refering to
>was before that.
>
>I mean, the thing is, I thought the council *was* the GM, but back
>before any sort of GC things happened at all, I heard vague rumors of
>this "power struggle" to oust Q as GM. And I thought... Q is the GM?
>When did that happen? I thought that was settled when the council was
>formed. I've even seen numerous posts here, that the rangers are led
>by a council, not an individual.
>
>He had final say on recruitment, promotions, dismissals... I mean,
>just what _was_ the council doing?
>
>And if Q was not the GM, then just what position was he asked to
>resign?
>
>I'm not trying to stir up trouble. All seems over and done with now,
>anyway. But I'm genuinely confused.
>
>Truly.
Well the way I understood it was, that Q was the Head of the Council
with equal voting rights and was to propose things to the council for
approval with him having some sort of Veto and them having some sort
of Override, and the whole Council being the Leader of the guild.. My
only real concern was the public speaking. I never said Q could speak
with my voice and by speaking as a Skara Ranger he was doing that and
frankly I didn't like what "I" was saying.
Silverlock
<He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
>Silverlock wrote:
>
>> If your talking about the whole GC blow up thing then what could they do?
>
>They could stop being the biggest jerk outfit on the shard. :-)
>
You think GC are bigger jerkoffs then FuQ guild, 666 Guild etc? No
friggan way. GC loves pvp, they at least try to have a roleplayed
Guardian worshiping aspect to it, and although there definitely are
jerks in their group the reason they slammed us was because we, er
excuse me, YOU advocated using an exploit to break into their tower.
Do Jerk Guilds have conniption fits about people using exploits? Not
usually, since they are using them also.
>If they have fooled you, that is a real shame. All their pathetic pretense of
>roleplaying aside, GC are a jerk guild. They have a few people that some
>respect, but in general they are jerks. And they harbor some of the worst
>jerks in the world. The kind who are proud to be known as the worst jerks in
>the world, and strive to become ever worse. These facts are known to me
>because I made the effort to find out.
>
No ones fooled me Q, I read the board. And I know perfectly well they
have jerks in their guild. So does Xanadu but we aren't fighting
them... yet. Our job isn't to take on everyone. Our job is to take on
the Jerks. When you have guild like FuQ, 666, etc and compare them to
GC, GC shouldn't even show up on our radar.
>> They couldn't get Q to shut up, he kept on making statement to rile them up.
>
>So? Are we supposed to say we're fearless because we're lootless, but let's
>be afraid of this particular boogyman? It is a war. We're supposed to fight
>them. They make mistakes when they are riled up. The more riled, the better.
>
I was at that particular war, where were you? And we didn't get
anything done that day except fight them. And it sure didn't look to
me like they made mistakes, course I was there so what do I know.
>Not that ANYone has ever asked, but I'll explain, there is some method to what
>I did. In going to their site and posting about our policy (if they come back
>we'll kill them again) I was trying to make it plain that they could not win a
>war of terrorism. They could only lose if they tried. And I was right. They
>won it by assassination.
>
>
Problem is Q, they LIKE PVP. And they don't bitch and whine when they
lose stuff. They would have killed us and we would have killed some of
them and for what? I didn't join a guild to Pvp I joined it to kill
jerks. If all I wanted was pvp I would have joined Xan or a chaos
guild.
>> SF and I posted to their boards to try and explain that the Rangers wouldn't
>> use exploits, and I think most council members thought Q should be quiet.
>
>Unfortunately, the thought interface does not work on usenet.
>
Your not a stupid person Q, you could see what was going on. You
obviously saw that people here were not pleased to be defending a
statement about exploiting.
>If they had ONCE tried to do the right thing, discuss with me what joint
>statements should be issued, I might not have felt the need to go and set the
>record straight. When I went there and saw this "I do not speak for the
>Rangers" stuff, I felt it was about time someone Did. They did not consult
>me, so of course I did not consult them.
>
Q, what's your ICQ number? I have Sunlights, I have Corwins, I have
Jaq's i have Canticles, I have dozens. Does anybody have yours?
So you went to their board, saw that people were trying to distance
the Rangers from your statement about exploiting or turn it into a
joke, and because you didn't like that fact decided to throw yellow
snow in their faces?
>> What would have helped maybe would have been a post with all the council
>> members taking the stand that they wished Q to be quiet
>
>What they should have done was the right thing. Discuss with me our position
>and response. Instead we had them each doing their own thing.
>
People have been asking you to tone down or stop the "Skara Brea
Rangers" posts for weeks. Did you? When you saw that GC was pissed
about you saying we, the rangers should use a boat breakin exploit to
get in their tower did you post to their board that you were kidding
because you were pissed? I must have missed that post.
>
>> but somehow I doubt he would have listened.
>
>This looks like a failure to judge or even observe well. Whenever anyone has
>spoken civilly, rationally, with some sort of evident good intent, I have
>listened quite well. I have engaged in civil and constructive dialogue. And
>I would have. And I did. But we had too many little dictators going around
>making their own policy. No one was talking to me about it, so I did not talk
>to them. I wanted to. It's amazing how people can be unavailable just when
>they want to. No one came to me and said let's discuss it. No one was
>available for me. The councilors were not being good counselors.
>
>At any rate, it's done. None of these politicians is going to admit to having
>done wrong. None is going to change their mind. At the end of the week I
>will be out. Go read the log of the meeting and you will see that this became
>apparent rather early into the meeting. NOTHING is going to sway them from
>their goal. No amount of truth, compromise, giving in, discussion, least of
>all the needs of the Rangers, anything. This is an extremely vicious bunch.
>
Out of the Rangers or out of speaking for them? If the latter then yes
you deserved to be out, because you have problems with knowing when to
stop taking. No one as far as I know and I will read the Logs to
confirm it, wanted you out of the Rangers.
>I do not intend that anyone will not know who swung the axe, at whom, or why.
>The Rangers cannot survive such misrule. That I'm not too concerned about --
>I built the Rangers once, I can do it again. It's just a shame that so much
>ugliness has to be dealt with first. We could be dealing with the jerks
>instead.
>
>
>
--
Silverlock
>Here is a fact that I feel the Rangers are entitled to. Quaestor's
>main post on the GC board was NOT signed by him. He instead signed it
>"the Skara Brae Rangers" This is a major point that is being over
>looked.
>
>While I am at it let me also point out the Quaestor has yet to answer
>the question of why he was not there during the GC attacks. He was
>obviously on line, look at the timestamps on his posts.
>
>Now, I have no doubt I am killfiled, but why doesn't he want to answer
>the question? I'll tell you. He left you all to die.
>
>
I didn't overlook it. I stated quite clearly on their board that
whoever was posting as "A Skara Ranger" wasn't speaking for all of us.
I don't have any problems with Q from a personal perspective, had he
simply let Sunlight or someone else do the talking for the Rangers.
Spewing out reams of viscousness on public boards isn't what we should
be about.
Silverlock
Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
>>I mean, the thing is, I thought the council *was* the GM, but back
>>before any sort of GC things happened at all, I heard vague rumors of
>>this "power struggle" to oust Q as GM. And I thought... Q is the GM?
>>When did that happen? I thought that was settled when the council was
>>formed. I've even seen numerous posts here, that the rangers are led
>>by a council, not an individual.
>
>You understand correctly Dundee,
>
>However we also recognized a fact of life that noone outside the guild
>would have the patience to discuss important matters with a council.
>
>That when people come knocking at the door and want to see the GM they
>want to see a person, and not wait around for a month for 9 people to
>get online.
>
>The GM/"Lead Councilor"/Whatever is supposed to represent the thoughts
>of the Council and the guild when one voice is needed.
>
>Unfortunately the only voice he represents is his own. Everyone who
>disagrees is the enemy.
>
>Corwin
And you know that's exactly what I thought the Diplomats were for. To
hear what other guild and people were saying and to present the
Rangers views back to them. When you give a title like Senior Diplomat
to Sunlight Fade and then go out and do your own thing, talking and
burning bridges it makes the diplomat nothing more then a fancy title.
As my role as a Diplomat I never handled anything bigger then a hurt
feelings and referred anything bigger up the line to the council, but
I thought when Diplomats were brought up and made that the senior of
them, SF was to be the voice of the Rangers. Something about the
definition of Diplomat made me think that.
Dundee
Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
>>Heck, I'm talking about *last week*.
>
>Oh, was there a blackout in effect last week?
Seemed like it...
>We weren't doing anything because everything broke down over our
>voting rules. i.e. it turned out we didn't have any - or they never
>got published. That got fixed in the last meeting.
Ah.
The Philosopher Primus
> If you *truly* believe that's what they are, then you are far too blind
This is what has become of your posts when I get them now. I used to like you a
lot better when I didn't read your stuff at all. Do you want me to read what you
post? Keep it civil and maybe I will.
The Philosopher Primus
> Ok, that DOES IT. Q, I'm sick of listening to you insult some of the
Do what I do. Stop reading.
And you'll miss this part.
We ageed (at my insistance) that we were not going to go public with what they had
done. That the subject was closed until resolved. On my life, I was bound to keep
this committment.
I found the rumors going around, somewhat accurate rumors, and (I'm only human) I
assumed at least one of them had simply broken the agreement. I was (I'm only
human) angry. I let that push me into saying much that now I wish I had not said.
It's still true, it just didn't need saying.
I already put out one appology. Here is another. I appologize for being human. A
human who has been injured very deeply.
The Philosopher Primus
> He had final say on recruitment, promotions, dismissals... I mean, just what
> _was_ the council doing?
The council was being a council. As Jeff-boy pointed out, this is the worst
thing that could have happened, putting such a bickering outfit in control of
what was supposed to be a war machine. I know, a lot of people wanted it to
be much more, and maybe I should have seen more clearly that this would make
it much less. Maybe we needed two guilds right from the start, one for war,
the other for everything else?
But I was dealing with the council. The issues where we did not agree over
the first few weeks were generally minor, stuff we could live with, up until
the time corwin decided to blow up and leave the meeting, stopping all council
activitiy (since we were left without a quorum), refusing to even Talk to me
until I backed off on the idea that the majority of a quorum can pass most
legislation. Then, since he had made it clear that this was an impasse, I
felt I had no choice but to propose his expulsion from the council so that we
could vote again. Nobody ever asked if I was ready to drop my complaint as
soon as he stopped this total blockage of our efforts.
The next meeting, everyone came there intending to throw me out (read the log,
it's very clear, if humongous). They claimed it was all about getting GC
upset with us, as if GC needs to be Gotten upset at anyone. They were totally
uncompromising, totally unwilling to deal with their specific complaints,
totally unwilling to accept anything but my head on a plate.
This is what politicians do. This is what councils do. They destroy anyone
with vision and a lack of personal political power. Can't blame the
councilors. They were just being councilors.
> And if Q was not the GM, then just what position was he asked to resign?
That is indeed the real question. I pointed out that a certain tower was
susceptible to the boat breakin, and ended up on a cross.
> I'm not trying to stir up trouble. All seems over and done with now,
> anyway. But I'm genuinely confused.
>
> Truly.
It is indeed over. I'm still going to make them wait and reflect (unless they
decide to ignore their own rules and pretend I'm already gone). But we now
have to deal with a new SBR with no evident direction or guidance, just some
good people and a lot of bad habbits (and if you start seeing a lot of Rangers
in yellow, RUN!).
I suppose to anyone who bothers to look, it should be evident by now that
there have been changes in me. All combativeness aside, I have the courage to
look at myself and find the problems and try to fix them. I can do this when
people just talk to me too, but most never seem to want to test that, just
denounce it with the flaming language of usenet.
So I would certainly make a better GM (recruiter, stone operator, even
diplomat) today than yesterday, which is what I was trying to achieve in that
meeting. But that is no longer an issue, is it? None of those councilors is
going to change their minds.
The Philosopher Primus
> Your not confuse I think you are bringing clarity to the issue. The
> council is the GM. It is when Quaestor decided that his title made
> him a god
Can anyone see a pattern here?
colin...@my-dejanews.com
<8115254BE1055272.55ECE90D...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, Dun...@LakeSuperior.com (Dundee) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:39:47 GMT, colin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >> Ah... so _that's_ the council. Well I take back the nasty things I've
> >> said about you. That "blackout period" certainly have the impression
> >> that you guys weren't doing _anything_.
> >
> >What nasty things have you said?
>
> Last week when all this first blew-up, it seemed like the council was
> general just not around, and not interested, and not doing anything at
> all to address the issue.
>
That's not very nasty. Pretty accurate, actually.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
marian...@my-dejanews.com
The Philosopher Primus <He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
> It is indeed over. I'm still going to make them wait and reflect (unless they
> decide to ignore their own rules and pretend I'm already gone). But we now
> have to deal with a new SBR with no evident direction or guidance, just some
> good people and a lot of bad habbits (and if you start seeing a lot of Rangers
> in yellow, RUN!).
>
> I suppose to anyone who bothers to look, it should be evident by now that
> there have been changes in me. All combativeness aside, I have the courage to
> look at myself and find the problems and try to fix them. I can do this when
> people just talk to me too, but most never seem to want to test that, just
> denounce it with the flaming language of usenet.
>
> So I would certainly make a better GM (recruiter, stone operator, even
> diplomat) today than yesterday, which is what I was trying to achieve in that
> meeting. But that is no longer an issue, is it? None of those councilors is
> going to change their minds.
I'll be glad to talk about it :).
Is it your opinion that SBR must have a single person at high command?
Is the equal partnership of council members enough to guide policy of SBR?
Must controlling the stone functions necessarily mean council veto powers?
Can the diplomats be given the chore of speaking as the SBR's public voice?
Would you actually be happy as just a recruiting head, diplomat or councilor?
(you're welcome to take recruiting :)
Doesn't rule & policy enforcement fall on all councilors & sergeants equally?
Is there currently a charter in place somewhere that states the GM has final
say in anything anyway?
My opinion is that after all of the last two weeks, I'm not convinced we
even need a general or GM running the guild as a "commander-in-chief". I
guess I agree with Dundees' ideas. Now, I'm not saying this to join the corps
of politicians against you or anything. Please dont read my opinions that
way. It just looks to me that we're most effective with the sergeants &
rangers just getting out there & patrolling, there's been more of it lately
and I think the guys like it, I still see good accounts here. It's what we're
here for. Let Sunlight do the talking for SBR, she's good at it. Let Ian
manage supplies & goods we gather. Let's the rest of us be the ones who chew
gum without bragging about it, they know who it was. My dad once told me he
admired John Riggings the old Redskin running back way back when he set a
touchdown record because the man scored his goals and walked off with nothing
more than a "job done" look on his face. Impressive when the rest jumped &
ranted like grade school boys. What do you think? This doesn't have to be a
terrible betrayal, lets make it into a chance to finally do more ranger
things and gum chewing. Can it be done? Where can we go from here?
Marianne Moon -the other scantily clad ranger temporarily tending the stone
as Chief Recruiter-
colin...@my-dejanews.com
The Philosopher Primus <He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
> They were totally
> uncompromising, totally unwilling to deal with their specific complaints,
> totally unwilling to accept anything but my head on a plate.
I think you are wrong, here. I didn't want your "head on a plate."
I thought you had made (and would probably continue to make) some bad
decisions. I wanted you to step back one step, not leave entirely.
Staying with us, but not being the figurehead, isn't giving you the
proverbial axe.
Between retaining the same control and power (as you had done in the
past) and leaving the guild entirely, is a compromise. Please think
about this.
> This is what politicians do. This is what councils do. They destroy anyone
> with vision and a lack of personal political power. Can't blame the
> councilors. They were just being councilors.
This vitriolic use of language I find personally insulting.
> So I would certainly make a better GM (recruiter, stone operator, even
> diplomat) today than yesterday, which is what I was trying to achieve in that
> meeting. But that is no longer an issue, is it? None of those councilors is
> going to change their minds.
For the record, I change my mind, and my vote. Instead, I abstain.
I also tender my resignation.
Please tell me to not let the door hit my butt on the way out,
and plonk me while you are at it.
sl...@netplexgroup.com
> : Rangers" stuff, I felt it was about time someone Did. They did not consult
> : me, so of course I did not consult them.
>
> to quit posting as "Skara Brae Rangers" because I pointed out to her that
> your messages were mean, bitter & generally nto the sort of thing that
> would create a "oh these are nice people" attitude about you. You stated
> that as the GM you were more than legit posting as Skara Brae Rangers.
Actually I do have to say it wasn't just you, Loki. :) I do have the "5 ICQ
rule."
But as for warning Quaestor on the issue of his post (and Q, I don't think
this is so bad I should send it to email instead), I did send him two ICQs on
the matter as soon as I had read his post. It's entirely possible that he
did not get them, but I do have them in my logfile. Quaestor, I'll send them
to you just in case.
Sunlight Fade, SBR
Jaquar
<He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
>Jaquar wrote:
>
>> Your not confused I think you are bringing clarity to the issue. The
>> council is the GM. It is when Quaestor decided that his title made
>> him a god
>
>Can anyone see a pattern here?
Please point the pattern out. You were or are part of the council.
Does equality bug you?
Richard Cortese
>
>
> This is what politicians do. This is what councils do. They destroy anyone
> with vision and a lack of personal political power. Can't blame the
> councilors. They were just being councilors.
wear yellow if you come over to my side" That 'side' being either yours
or anybody elses.
I saw no politics here.
Not that I would like to see you become one, but it is an interesting
method of problem solving. You may want to explore it a little more if
you get the time. Most people, GC, think what they do is policital.
Nope, just shit stirring. Really a complete lack of sophistication.
My uncle was a politico for ~30 years, and was quite good at it. I think
he could negotiate anything in 25 words or less. Eventually he got
exhausted by the efforts so he stepped down when he lost some of his
effectiveness. First thing a politico seems to do is find out what you
want vs what they want. Everything goes from there.
I don't think anybody asked what anybody else wanted in several megs of
posts, ergo a complete lack of politics.
Saying what you want up front is the political equivalent to laying your
cards on the table, face up, in a poker hand as soon as they are dealt.
Everyone seemed to wear their heart on their sleaves here.
'Cept me of course, just being my normal usegroup wag I think. Andy
Rooney is my hero!
Then my uncle missed politics so he ran for the school board<grin>.
Some people wonder how anything gets done with politics, I wonder how
anything gets done with out them.
>
> > And if Q was not the GM, then just what position was he asked to resign?
>
> That is indeed the real question. I pointed out that a certain tower was
> susceptible to the boat breakin, and ended up on a cross.
>
> > I'm not trying to stir up trouble. All seems over and done with now,
> > anyway. But I'm genuinely confused.
> >
> > Truly.
>
> It is indeed over. I'm still going to make them wait and reflect (unless they
> decide to ignore their own rules and pretend I'm already gone). But we now
> have to deal with a new SBR with no evident direction or guidance, just some
> good people and a lot of bad habbits (and if you start seeing a lot of Rangers
> in yellow, RUN!).
>
> I suppose to anyone who bothers to look, it should be evident by now that
> there have been changes in me. All combativeness aside, I have the courage to
> look at myself and find the problems and try to fix them. I can do this when
> people just talk to me too, but most never seem to want to test that, just
> denounce it with the flaming language of usenet.
>
Richard Cortese
I definately see a pattern here, but it may not be the same ones you two
are seeing.
That is headers running [Phil, Jaq]^n which is to expected & I think
everyone picks it up.
The one that is less subtle is two people that control chrs that have
attacked other chrs in the game with little or no provocation.
*REALLY* dead issue, I can't remember who did what to who now, but I
think Phil hit newly rezed Bob with a Lbolt & I seem to remember an Ed
or Bob that died during some negotiations with DS?
I think the excuses for why these events happened were uncanily similar.
What will be just as similar is how soon this current diatribe is
forgotten.
You guys are both controlling type personalities & God bless you for it.
It takes all types & the world would not function w/o you.
Your compulsive controlling make it possible for me to exist in my
chaotic state. Someone needs to watch the store while I go off fishing.
I give you guys a week tops before you are dancing cheek to cheek again.
There just isn't any meat *ANYWHERE* in this whole debate to sustain it.
Phil wanted to run his mouth in public, others don't like it. BFD! Not
like someone is delaying the freaking polio vaccine!
This damn thing is sillier then the "Queso Yellow" debate. At least that
one was funny. I will grant you that this is better entertainment for my
dollar then either UO or cable. I don't want you to stop until you are
ready.
Jaq was a hot head, but it really didn't matter. Whole thing blew over &
at this stage, I don't think people could possibly care less. I can't
even remember who died. I can remember the Kennedy assasination 37 years
later: Sense of proportion.
Phil lost his composure, give it week & everone will forget it.
By the end of another week I will be tweeking him on one topic or
another to see what his current hot buttons are, no big thing, I don't
mean anything by it. Just that I like to find out how things work, like
bowyering for example, so I have a tendancy to take them apart so I can
see what makes them tick.
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>As my role as a Diplomat I never handled anything bigger then a hurt
>feelings and referred anything bigger up the line to the council, but
>I thought when Diplomats were brought up and made that the senior of
>them, SF was to be the voice of the Rangers. Something about the
>definition of Diplomat made me think that.
A diplomat *can* speak for the guild or the council once the guild or
the council has made a decision. But so can the GM of a guild. Mostly
a diplomats job is to listen.
Now, all councilors share responsibility for leadership in the guild
and can act on their own if they feel they are representing the guild.
For instance, we have explicitly made Sun in charge of making truces
with guilds and individuals. Just as I was given the authority to put
people on the shit list. Being a councilor AND a diplomat does give
more authority to her words ... but still if a decision has to be
made on the spot, the GM of the guild clearly has the most authority
to do so.
If our intention was to remove Q from ALL decision making we would had
to kick him from the Council and probably not allow him to SL either.
SL's can start wars too ....
Corwin
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
council meeting ... think this might have had something to do with the
rumors?
All you had to do was swear fealty to Marianne ... you didn't have to
resign at all.
----------------------
Silverlock
Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
Oh I agree. I didn't mean that I was thinking she was going to speak
whatever she wanted to only that when the council had an official
something to say it would have gone out though her since she seems to
have a way with words.
Silverlock
>In article <36AF1B4B...@Fight.SPAM>,
> The Philosopher Primus <He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
>
>> They were totally
>> uncompromising, totally unwilling to deal with their specific complaints,
>> totally unwilling to accept anything but my head on a plate.
>
>I think you are wrong, here. I didn't want your "head on a plate."
>
>I thought you had made (and would probably continue to make) some bad
>decisions. I wanted you to step back one step, not leave entirely.
>Staying with us, but not being the figurehead, isn't giving you the
>proverbial axe.
>
>Between retaining the same control and power (as you had done in the
>past) and leaving the guild entirely, is a compromise. Please think
>about this.
>
>> This is what politicians do. This is what councils do. They destroy anyone
>> with vision and a lack of personal political power. Can't blame the
>> councilors. They were just being councilors.
>
>This vitriolic use of language I find personally insulting.
>
>> So I would certainly make a better GM (recruiter, stone operator, even
>> diplomat) today than yesterday, which is what I was trying to achieve in that
>> meeting. But that is no longer an issue, is it? None of those councilors is
>> going to change their minds.
>
>For the record, I change my mind, and my vote. Instead, I abstain.
>
>I also tender my resignation.
>
>Please tell me to not let the door hit my butt on the way out,
>and plonk me while you are at it.
>
>
Please don't let Q destroy the rangers. You are doing a good job Mir
and all we have to do is let this issue settle itself one way or
another on next sunday. Just ignore the insults and political
bickering until that's over with and then return. The Rangers NEED
people like you.
Honest.
Jaquar
<rico...@netmagic.net> wrote:
>Jaq was a hot head, but it really didn't matter. Whole thing blew over &
>at this stage, I don't think people could possibly care less. I can't
>even remember who died. I can remember the Kennedy assasination 37 years
>later: Sense of proportion.
Let me say this though, and I will leave it at that. I humbly
appologized and made no excuses. I did not cover up or justify. I do
appreciate your thoughts though.
gil
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:20:05 -0800, Richard Cortese
> <rico...@netmagic.net> wrote:
>
> >Jaq was a hot head, but it really didn't matter. Whole thing blew over &
> >at this stage, I don't think people could possibly care less. I can't
> >even remember who died. I can remember the Kennedy assasination 37 years
> >later: Sense of proportion.
>
> Let me say this though, and I will leave it at that. I humbly
> appologized and made no excuses. I did not cover up or justify. I do
> appreciate your thoughts though.
I was there for most of it. I don't remember the details either,
because they don't really matter. What does matter is that afterwards
Jaq told the truth, took responsibility for his behavior, learned a
lesson (I think most of us learned a lesson that night), remains a good
friend and ally of the rangers, and he earned my respect. In other
words he acted like a man.
rend
gil'lomion LS
Brian Pemberton
: Gee Gil,
:
: Nowhere did you mention Armies, Dress codes, Ranks, Regulations,
: Lootlessness, Discipline, etc. etc.
:
: Do you think it's time the guild lightened up?
:
: If you can balance the lootless goals, and real needs for leadership
: with the other things you have said, we'd have one heck of a charter.
:
: Corwin
I've held since day 1 that the important part of the lootlessness
code has not to do with the fact that we give little loot to the pks,
but the fact that you don't have to put 80 hours into building a pvp
character plus 4 hours of fundraising between pvp rounds to replace
lost equipment. Lootlessness's highest virtue is that it maximizes
active time in the field. I haven't done anything solely to raise
money for weeks, except drop down to the mage areas of despise and
kill mages, and that's just as much for the resist.
Now, people who DO die a lot should stick to leather or ring,
which is what I do, but once you've proved some durability in the
field the possibility should exist that you can move up.
Barbados Mann
Brian Pemberton
:
: > Q actually pushed this,
:
: This is a lie.
:
: > I guess he expected a quick vote of confidence or something so he could move
: > on to more important things ...
:
: I jumped on the issue to demonstrate something you lack. Courage.
That's it, Primus/Quaesator, I have no more time left to waste on you.
The fact that you think anyone on the other side of your issues is a
coward does highlight one coward, but it isn't Corwin.
And you do have issues. Many of them.
*PLONK*
Ingot Head
I'm also beginning to agree with Big Ed. This childish bickering is one
thing among a couple of players, but gives the impression of weakness to our
enemies when it is two of our council members. Maybe you both SHOULD be
busted down to raw recruits.
From the history, and the log of the council meeting, I fully expect a
series of "He started it" posts, and that would fit in with the impression
of childishness I am beginning to develop about both of you.
Stop it please.
Milllo
game, but on the newsgroup you might as well stop posting because more of us
are going *PLONK*.
Ingot Head
colin...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<78nrup$ii6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>For the record, I change my mind, and my vote. Instead, I abstain.
>
>I also tender my resignation.
>
>Please tell me to not let the door hit my butt on the way out,
>and plonk me while you are at it.
Ok, this about caps it. The public relations nightmare of this whole
incident is bad enough, but now the petty bickering and childish
recriminations are starting to force the resignations of our more reasonable
council members.
When I first started posting on this subject, I tried to be be diplomatic.
I emphasized the unimportance of the leadership in a group like the SBR, and
the importance of the singleness of purpose possessed by the rank and file.
As I've gone along, I've become more and more pointed and direct in these
positions. There have been many similar posts lately, I seem to be getting
through loud and clear with the Rangers.
The leadership on the other hand...
Okay, I'm going to stop calling them the leadership. They are CORWIN AND
QUAESTOR, for the most part.
While my original intent was to calm things, the lack of maturity is REALLY
beginning to irritate me. Mir, I would rather have both Corwin and Quaestor
busted to recruits than to lose you. I read that council transcript, and
thought you did an excellent job.
As to the bickering and sniping, I think you folks are digging your own
graves. When a groundswell occurrs to have the childish members tossed, you
will most likely start talking about compromise again. The compromise is
that we've allowed it to go on this long. Please view this post from a
common grunt of a SBR member as a warning sign. If this continues, you will
have no complaint when you are demoted to S^R.
*sigh*
The hubris of some people...
Engot Klone
SBR
Ingot Head
The Philosopher Primus wrote in message <36AE2FF5...@Fight.SPAM>...
>You got yours, and look what you did with it. You are the one who
>disappointed me most. I actually considered you a friend. That's what is
so
>horrible about backstabbing, it doesn't just hurt, it takes away your
friends,
>because they are the ones who do it. You, of all people, I would have
thought
>incapable of such a thing.
>
>Ok, I'm not the judge of character I thought I was.
If you respect him so much, why doesn't it even occur to you that he might
be right? Personally, when a good friend does something I don't like, I
listen to their reasons, and give MORE than very serious consideration to
them being right, and me being wrong.
The fact that you are assuming him a traitor instead of considering that he
may have a very good reason for what he did seems to show a lack of respect
and trust on YOUR part.
Engot Klone
SBR
Richard Cortese
> because they don't really matter. What does matter is that afterwards
> Jaq told the truth, took responsibility for his behavior, learned a
> lesson (I think most of us learned a lesson that night), remains a good
> friend and ally of the rangers, and he earned my respect. In other
> words he acted like a man.
>
> rend
> gil'lomion LS
Right, did MORE then told the truth if you think back on it! Literally
offered to do in game suicide with no coming back. Very impressive act
of contrition. Offer was in my mind, a 10 fold payback for a infraction
that at best warrented a:
"Sorry, lost my head. Here, let me give you this durable accurate war
fork of ruin to make up for it."
at most.
Some of us do not think killing people is that big a deal if it is done
under appropriate conditions. For example, I kill anyone who snoops me
and I know bizbee pretty much does the same.
I have had in game friends say they are snooping me for practice, then
try to steal, so I killed them. Just a matter of where you draw the
line.
Phil's there now too, he is just having a few relaspes every other post.
You can only go so many days with out sleep, & I think he is hitting the
wall now.
He did appologize in advance, sort of. He just wasn't able to change at
this stage.
IIRC: He appologized for for his initial rounds of flaming posts to the
web boards saying something along the lines of ~I don't know what
happened, I look back as I read those posts and can't believe I am the
same person that wrote them.
It is agravating for SBR to have him doing it, but it is not because he
is mean spirited or doing it out of spite. It isn't calculated, it is a
knee jerk reaction that he is trying to deal with<on occasion>, just
takes him longer to come around.
Does not seem to be part of his personality to admit defeat either, ergo
even though he knows he has a problem with it, he will keep trying to do
the spokesman thing as the alternative would be: Admit he can't do
everything he puts his mind too.
Me, I know as soon as I got that spurt of growth in High School, I would
never be a jockey. Phil on the other would just think, "Hey! Diet down a
bit, maybe have some extra body parts removed, I can do it!".
The Philosopher Primus
> Please don't let Q destroy the rangers.
Oh no. I cannot do that. Only Rangers can do that.
The Philosopher Primus
> If you respect him so much, why doesn't it even occur to you that he might
> be right? Personally, when a good friend does something I don't like, I
> listen to their reasons, and give MORE than very serious consideration to
> them being right, and me being wrong.
>
> The fact that you are assuming him a traitor instead of considering that he
> may have a very good reason for what he did seems to show a lack of respect
> and trust on YOUR part.
I did trust him. That's what made it hurt so much.
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
Please, tell me I wronged him. Tell me that I lied. Tell me that he
wasn't the one pushing the issue of his removal for instance.
The other councilors have started to understand what its like to be on
the receiving end of Q's ridiculous posts.
Everyone wants everyone else to just settle down and shutup ... but
why not try seeing it from my side?
He called me a liar and then contradicted himself in the same post,
and you expect me to say nothing?
Corwin
---------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:24:48 -0500, "Ingot Head" <cle...@iglou.com>
wrote:
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>beginning to irritate me. Mir, I would rather have both Corwin and Quaestor
>busted to recruits than to lose you. I read that council transcript, and
>thought you did an excellent job.
I could care less about being busted to recruit. I think that's were
Mir is at too. i.e. It's always easier to just *quit* then to see
something thru when there are problems.
Well I coulda quit after the first week.
I didn't.
I've come close to quitting almost every damn week.
But, I haven't.
I am a councilor. I represent the view of a number of the Rangers. I
know who they are because they tell me, and my intention is to see
this through.
It would be nice if this was quiet, and polite, and gentile ... but
it's not ... ok?
I mean do you see the alternative? Some councilors under the assault
of Q's flames (even though we have "won") have been hurt. They don't
play the stinkin game to be hurt or to hurt. They'd rather quit. Many
Rangers have already quit, rather than put up with him.
When someone takes a swing at me, I don't swing back ... I try to
dismember them ("with debate and logic"). That's how I deal with it.
I just hope, Mir comes back.
Corwin
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>code has not to do with the fact that we give little loot to the pks,
>but the fact that you don't have to put 80 hours into building a pvp
>character plus 4 hours of fundraising between pvp rounds to replace
>lost equipment. Lootlessness's highest virtue is that it maximizes
>active time in the field.
And you know what?
I agree.
But not everyone does.
So the main thing I do when these debates come up is to make sure that
we are consistent. I don't like exceptions for particular people,
unless those exceptions *really* make sense.
But it is true, that it really irritates the PKs when they kill 5 of
us and get a pile of crap. Heck when 3 of 'em killed me the other
day, and started scrounging thru my lil piles of 3 reagents here and
there ... they turned around and took 3 more murder counts killing
Grey because they were sure he got the good stuff off my corpse.
It's the little things like that which turn our losses in to
victories.
Corwin
Ingot Head
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL) wrote in message
<36b0efae....@news.mnsinc.com>...
[snip]
>He called me a liar and then contradicted himself in the same post,
>and you expect me to say nothing?
>
>Corwin
Absolutely.
It's done like this.
"Your reasoning doesn't hold water, and I'm offended by the slurs you have
made. I will not respond to posts like this any longer, nor will I continue
this thread"
And for the same reason I want you to stop, I am going to stop too. I won't
continue this thread.
Engot Klone
Ranger, SBR
LS
Ingot Head
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL) wrote in message
[snip]
>I mean do you see the alternative? Some councilors under the assault
>of Q's flames (even though we have "won") have been hurt. They don't
>play the stinkin game to be hurt or to hurt. They'd rather quit. Many
>Rangers have already quit, rather than put up with him.
So you are their self-appointed guardian, even when they have agreed with me
that you and Q should both Shut UP?
Lets get this straight. I like you. I like Q. But the hubris here is
matched only by the U.S. Congress.
>When someone takes a swing at me, I don't swing back ... I try to
>dismember them ("with debate and logic"). That's how I deal with it.
I've seen your strategy. I held it once myself, but I was 17 years old
then. Ever read any of the works of ML King, or Ghandi? You can accomplish
more being an illuminating victim than you can being a pit bull. It's a
very effective strategy against debaters like you and Q.
>I just hope, Mir comes back.
So do I. If not, the Rangers are the victims of two pit bulls.
*sigh*
Engot Klone
Ranger Grunt
LS
Silverlock
Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
That's one reason I'm so dead set on lootlessness. Actually one of
two.
The first is that I want them to never gain much off my corpse of the
corpse of any Ranger so they can't crow about phat regs or anything.
The second is that it makes it easy to die. Some of us are better at
pvp then others and some of us may want to loot up, but what happens
when that person dies? All of a sudden the priority shifts from taking
loot from the jerks to merely protecting and retrieving our own loot.
And when we fail eventually to retrieve some ones loot, there's the
chance that someone will feel bad about losing it. One really bad loot
losing experience can make a person say "fuck it what's the point".
Plus it adds to both the group image and camaraderie when a bunch of
swarming lightly armed people take down that tank, imho.
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
And if he continues to repeat his lies over and over in different
forms thoughout different threads, what should I do?
Ignore it? Nope. Sorry. I would rather refute his words, and watch
him come up lame when he has nothing to answer back.
At least some people have started to notice, that Q would much rather
evade or flame a question rather than answer it.
Corwin
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:58:42 -0500, "Ingot Head" <cle...@iglou.com>
wrote:
>
>Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL) wrote in message
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>So you are their self-appointed guardian, even when they have agreed with me
>that you and Q should both Shut UP?
Nope. But last I knew the usenet was a free-speech area. If you don't
like what you read here ... don't read it.
>Lets get this straight. I like you. I like Q. But the hubris here is
>matched only by the U.S. Congress.
really? I always found C-span pretty boring ... well except in that
infomerical --- sucks you in sorta way.
>>When someone takes a swing at me, I don't swing back ... I try to
>>dismember them ("with debate and logic"). That's how I deal with it.
>I've seen your strategy. I held it once myself, but I was 17 years old
>then. Ever read any of the works of ML King, or Ghandi? You can accomplish
>more being an illuminating victim than you can being a pit bull. It's a
>very effective strategy against debaters like you and Q.
Oh, I noticed the week that Q stopped responding to my posts and hence
I stopped responding to him was the week everyone else got pissed off
at him. But so what? I don't debate like a pit bull. I don't pull
debate tricks. I state facts and reasons as I know them.
Why don't you do the same. If you think I've been unfair in someway,
quote it back to me. Make me see, where I may have gone too far.
Otherwise you're trying to persuade me without facts ... and I if you
are so sure you know how my mind works then you would know that you
cannot change my mind on something without a damn good reason.
>>I just hope, Mir comes back.
>
>
>So do I. If not, the Rangers are the victims of two pit bulls.
>
>*sigh*
Two pit bulls? Puhleeeeze. Do you know why Mir resigned? I'm still
trying to find out, exactly ... but don't go around making up reasons
for him.
Corwin
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>two.
>The first is that I want them to never gain much off my corpse of the
>corpse of any Ranger so they can't crow about phat regs or anything.
>The second is that it makes it easy to die. Some of us are better at
>pvp then others and some of us may want to loot up, but what happens
>when that person dies? All of a sudden the priority shifts from taking
>loot from the jerks to merely protecting and retrieving our own loot.
>And when we fail eventually to retrieve some ones loot, there's the
>chance that someone will feel bad about losing it. One really bad loot
>losing experience can make a person say "fuck it what's the point".
>Plus it adds to both the group image and camaraderie when a bunch of
>swarming lightly armed people take down that tank, imho.
Dunno. I tend to loot up a bit over time ... and when I die ... I
generally loot down for a while. Eventually, anti's and pk's grow up
in the game and stop whinning about loot.
I know people don't want to feel forced to start carrying alot of
equipment or become tankus-magi or whatever ... but does that mean we
have to keep everyone to the lowest common denominator?
We measure our success by how much stuff we take from our enemies .vs.
how much they get from us, and who holds the field in the end. Our
enemies just look at frag counts. It's interesting that both sides
think they have won after some of our battles.
Seems to me someone who carries more loot but doesn't die much, and is
more effective in battle with the loot then without, increases our
viability. Jack Benny is a great example of a pure warrior with better
survivability than even most mages.
Anyway, I will repeat my main goal ... and that's consistency.
Corwin
sl...@netplexgroup.com
> why not try seeing it from my side?
> and you expect me to say nothing?
That's what we're asking him to do, and he's trying pretty hard to do it. If
you can't hush and/or move to the ranger message board, I'm going to move
that you be removed as well. Just as in Quaestor's case, how many ranger
have to ask you to hush and tell you that ignoring those pleas is hurting us
before you realize that they're right?
Sunlight Fade, SBR
...hoping this thread is already dead *sigh*
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Silverlock
Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
>>That's one reason I'm so dead set on lootlessness. Actually one of
>>two.
>>The first is that I want them to never gain much off my corpse of the
>>corpse of any Ranger so they can't crow about phat regs or anything.
>>The second is that it makes it easy to die. Some of us are better at
>>pvp then others and some of us may want to loot up, but what happens
>>when that person dies? All of a sudden the priority shifts from taking
>>loot from the jerks to merely protecting and retrieving our own loot.
>>And when we fail eventually to retrieve some ones loot, there's the
>>chance that someone will feel bad about losing it. One really bad loot
>>losing experience can make a person say "fuck it what's the point".
>>Plus it adds to both the group image and camaraderie when a bunch of
>>swarming lightly armed people take down that tank, imho.
>
>Dunno. I tend to loot up a bit over time ... and when I die ... I
>generally loot down for a while. Eventually, anti's and pk's grow up
>in the game and stop whinning about loot.
>
Some do you mean. It's far more important to me not to lose or waste
my time re-equipping then it is to "win" by killing them. If they run
I win.
>I know people don't want to feel forced to start carrying alot of
>equipment or become tankus-magi or whatever ... but does that mean we
>have to keep everyone to the lowest common denominator?
>
>We measure our success by how much stuff we take from our enemies .vs.
>how much they get from us, and who holds the field in the end. Our
>enemies just look at frag counts. It's interesting that both sides
>think they have won after some of our battles.
that's an acceptable yardstick imho with one small change. To me I
measure it the same but with the assumption that they already have
hoardes of loot sitting around. That means to win at all we have to
lose next to nothing.
>Seems to me someone who carries more loot but doesn't die much, and is
>more effective in battle with the loot then without, increases our
>viability. Jack Benny is a great example of a pure warrior with better
>survivability than even most mages.
>
But then again those people, Jaq and you probably like Pvp, I don't
really. Call it a personality flaw but I'm the guy who runs around
picking up peoples loot in Hyth under the wings of Demons etc taking
bigger risks then I usually do. I'm almost maniacal about it. If a
person dies and doesn't get THEIR loot back it makes me feel bad, like
I failed them. I can't change that aspect of me. I recover 95% of my
friends stuff and I'll still feel bad about the other 5%. If others
want to loot up fine, but I still remember Xandor telling me he lost
5k in stuff because he forgot or didn't have time to go to the bank in
a battle. I felt awful for him even as I bitched him out for not
making the time. Course then again I just 3 days ago broke the 60k
limit per money pile for the first time (and nearly lost 2k as it
dropped to my feet over and over)
so losing even 2k worth of stuff is the equivalent of 5% of my net
worth. Looked at in those terms it pisses me off.
who knows maybe I'm just cheap :)
>Anyway, I will repeat my main goal ... and that's consistency.
>
>Corwin
--
The Philosopher Primus
> Ingot Head,
>
> And if he continues to repeat his lies
I thought Sun had gotten to you on this sort of thing. Obviously not.
Corwin Of Amber (WindElders, ATL)
>really. Call it a personality flaw but I'm the guy who runs around
>picking up peoples loot in Hyth under the wings of Demons etc taking
>bigger risks then I usually do. I'm almost maniacal about it. If a
>person dies and doesn't get THEIR loot back it makes me feel bad, like
>I failed them. I can't change that aspect of me. I recover 95% of my
>friends stuff and I'll still feel bad about the other 5%.
I don't really think you should change. I know I haven't.
Recovering someones loot is one of the acts of heroism you can perform
in the game. Killing a PK and recovering a victim's loot is even
better.
We don't have "damsels in distress" so we gotta take what we can ;)
I always try to make sure Ranger gear gets recovered. Even if it is a
few pieces of studded and a weapon. It's not my highest priority, but
it's still a priority. I've let squaddies who have disobeyed standard
orders and gone grey on their own in a nest of NPK's just die ... I
then try to get in position to collect all their stuff and rez'em.
I've often had to stop what I was doing to help hold the loot of a
friend (non-SBR) in battle. Dealing with other people stuff has hardly
gone away.
The most important thing is that Rangers come ready to fight ... and
that we find ways to best use all Rangers in a battle.
Corwin
Corwin Of Amber (WindElders, ATL)
Sunny,
>> Everyone wants everyone else to just settle down and shutup ... but
>> why not try seeing it from my side?
>> He called me a liar and then contradicted himself in the same post,
>> and you expect me to say nothing?
>
>That's what we're asking him to do, and he's trying pretty hard to do it. If
>you can't hush and/or move to the ranger message board, I'm going to move
>that you be removed as well. Just as in Quaestor's case, how many ranger
>have to ask you to hush and tell you that ignoring those pleas is hurting us
>before you realize that they're right?
Yeah, but he's the one who went over the deep-end ;P
Oh, and just a guestimate here ... but I'd say there are now about 3
people who have asked me to shoosh, and about 6 who have supported and
defended me.
As I said in another post ... if you can point out somewhere that I
have flamed for the sake of flaming, where I have been unfair,
misleading, baiting, untruthfull, petty, mean ... anything ... I will
concider changing my posting style.
But let me make this clear.
SBR was founded on this forum. This is a FREE SPEECH forum.
This is a forum for talking about things which go on in UO.
I try to be fair in my posts ... but I will defend myself when I am
attacked in this forum. PERIOD. If you want to toss me from the
council for doing so ... propose away.
Corwin
Brian Pemberton
: On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:54:10 GMT, cor...@wind.atlantic.com (Corwin of
: Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)) wrote:
: >> I've held since day 1 that the important part of the lootlessness
: >>code has not to do with the fact that we give little loot to the pks,
: >>but the fact that you don't have to put 80 hours into building a pvp
: >>character plus 4 hours of fundraising between pvp rounds to replace
: >>lost equipment. Lootlessness's highest virtue is that it maximizes
: >>active time in the field.
: >
: >And you know what?
: >
: >I agree.
: >
: >But not everyone does.
: >
: >So the main thing I do when these debates come up is to make sure that
: >we are consistent. I don't like exceptions for particular people,
: >unless those exceptions *really* make sense.
: >
: >But it is true, that it really irritates the PKs when they kill 5 of
: >us and get a pile of crap. Heck when 3 of 'em killed me the other
: >day, and started scrounging thru my lil piles of 3 reagents here and
: >there ... they turned around and took 3 more murder counts killing
: >Grey because they were sure he got the good stuff off my corpse.
: >
: >It's the little things like that which turn our losses in to
: >victories.
: >
: >Corwin
: That's one reason I'm so dead set on lootlessness. Actually one of
: two.
: The first is that I want them to never gain much off my corpse of the
: corpse of any Ranger so they can't crow about phat regs or anything.
: The second is that it makes it easy to die. Some of us are better at
: pvp then others and some of us may want to loot up, but what happens
: when that person dies? All of a sudden the priority shifts from taking
: loot from the jerks to merely protecting and retrieving our own loot.
: And when we fail eventually to retrieve some ones loot, there's the
: chance that someone will feel bad about losing it. One really bad loot
: losing experience can make a person say "fuck it what's the point".
: Plus it adds to both the group image and camaraderie when a bunch of
: swarming lightly armed people take down that tank, imho.
I am not !SURE! that loosening the lootless policy would be
a good idea, and thus I have no intention of ever suggesting changing
it. It would either work wonderfully or botch the whole guild, and
I'm leaning towards the botch part.
Barbados Mann
The Philosopher Primus
> I try to be fair in my posts ... but I will defend myself when I am
> attacked in this forum. PERIOD. If you want to toss me from the
> council for doing so ... propose away.
Your problem is, you defend yourself when you are Not attacked. (Yeah, remember
accusing me of that?) And calling me a liar is your worst lie. Then you demand
details for everything I say, but of course you won't provide any. When I
discussed with you stopping your attacks, you said "I won't stop."
Sooner or later, even the ones who agree with you just because they have a habbit
of disagreeing with me are going to tire of this.
Corwin Of Amber (WindElders, ATL)
<He...@Fight.SPAM> wrote:
>"Corwin Of Amber (WindElders, ATL)" wrote:
>
>> I try to be fair in my posts ... but I will defend myself when I am
>> attacked in this forum. PERIOD. If you want to toss me from the
>> council for doing so ... propose away.
>
>Your problem is, you defend yourself when you are Not attacked. (Yeah, remember
>accusing me of that?)
Like when? You like to sneak my name in to any number of your posts
here and there. Who were we supposed to think the "politician" was in
all your posts?
> And calling me a liar is your worst lie.
Hardly. I do not lie. I DO concider you lieing when you say false
things in public without any evidence, proof, or anyone even agreeing
with you. You're whole line of accusing me of being behind your
deposition and the council being my puppets is one example. You're
accusations over my maintenance of the KoS list are another.
>Then you demand
>details for everything I say, but of course you won't provide any. When I
>discussed with you stopping your attacks, you said "I won't stop."
You never ask for details. You never ask for examples. You never ask
for explanations. But most importantly you never give them. I do
provide examples ... all the time. Look in the previous paragraph.
What are those? hmm, examples? I think so.
You always respond with some little snipe like "Why don't you go back
to Atlantic".
>Sooner or later, even the ones who agree with you just because they have a habbit
>of disagreeing with me are going to tire of this.
Oh, I think any number of people are tired of this - but most of them
know how to *PLONK*.
Corwin