You want annoying Emeradan?

[BriarFox]

There's been an ongoing "Conflicts" thread in the Roleplaying folder on the officials for a long time now (lately, people are arguing that CvC policy is stupid because you have to vocally initiate conflict, and you can't attack someone who jumps out of the shadows and kills your wife), and Andraste just responded to some player complaints with "This amuses me ... etc." David (who is occasionally a douche but was right in this case) responded with a post that Andraste was being extremely condescending and rude, and then I agreed with him, saying it was par for the course. I'm not sure if there were more posts after that. Emeradan, of course, protecting the other GMs, yanked them all and closed the thread, which was overkill.

I sent him an email to complain, and wrote feedback: Whole thing:

Dear Feedback,

The current state of the forums is oppressive and one-sided, largely because Emeradan seems to moderate threads in order to protect fellow GMs from warranted criticism. A thread in which Andraste was being exceptionally condescending in Roleplaying>Conflict was just closed by him this morning and posts were removed. No specific reason was given other than that it was "against policy" (stated reason in email, without specifying which type of policy) and was "uncivil" (reason given in closed thread post). The forums would benefit from a more open dialogue, one that can handle constructive criticism. Someone pointing out that a GM is condescending and thus damaging the player-GM, player-Simu relationship is certainly warranted! I've included a copy of my email response to Emeradan below.

On this note, I'd also like to suggest a review of the CvC policy to broaden the phrase "interaction is required" before initiating CvC. GMs are very strictly interpreting this phrase (Andraste foremost among them, which led to the current debate) as "verbal" interaction and refusing to allow leeway for instances when someone may jump out of hiding and kill your friend/wife/husband/etc. According to them, you'd then have to create a dialogue with this person before attacking them back, which goes against all rules of logic, reason, and emotion. Please review the policy, or ask the GMs to keep a more open mind for what "interaction" can mean.

~Ryan

---

Emeradan,

Unless there were other posts in that thread less civil than David's and mine, you're once again jumping the gun in order to protect other GMs from warranted criticism. I'm not sure you're aware of just how infuriating most people find Andraste for her heavy-handedness and condescension. David pointed it out directly, but civilly, and I agreed with him. Civil does *not* mean "sugar-coated;" it means that it's been phrased without malicious and abusive language. I'm very disappointed that the official forums have become, largely under your monitoring, so oppressive.

~Ryan

[Faent]

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk200/dhampirosa/NAZIFUCK.jpg

[BriarFox]

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk200/dhampirosa/NAZIFUCK.jpg

:rofl:

[Timjirdos]

:rofl: That counts as a win.


Look, He pulled a post about me whining about some asshole leaving open voids around the town exterior. claiming it was off-topic.

where was it posted? the ugly section. Which i figured was the fucking point.

Must have been his sorcerer. :rofl:

They look out for their own. it's been like that for years.

And people cancel their subscriptions because of this. Go figure.

[Cap'nDrak]

I'm waiting to hear the response to this. That was well thought out and well penned statement of facts. I'm not usually one to comment on things of this nature, however I hope this actually does bring some kinda of "knot jerking" round about in the PTB. Very interesting.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I have my opinion on E, and I do think he's heavy handed. That said though, I don't think it's fair at all to say he covers all negative posts, or posts against GMs. He's actually a very nice guy in person and it's easy to vilify him here on the boards (I know I've done it). There is a metric ton of stuff that happens that 95% of the time never see's the light of day where he's doing a good job, where people really are out of bounds.

You have to realize it's always the vocal minority that makes all the noise. Most of the time, we would probably just nod our heads and go "Yeah, that makes sense". Because we cannot see everything, it puts the GMs in a bad spot. They won't ever give you the "official" story because we are paying customers and deserve that discretion if it were us in the story.

I wish they were allowed to post here, the Con I went to we discussed being able to post just to the NON-GS topics, but that got shitcanned. I wish it had happened, because I think you'd (general you) all see that the GMs really aren't out to get you and are normal, everyday people like us.

God knows when I was a GM I wanted to give Rocksand 100 warnings and get her banned, but 1) that's not what I was there for, 2) I'd rather spend 99% of my time doing fun things with the other players and 3) even if I was out to get her, she's savvy enough to just walk the line and instigates others to break TOS. Frankly, I think staff does a great job of not persecuting or showing favoritism to any one person or group of people (always good, but I just wish they'd persecute 1 or 2...).

On topic with the original comment here, I think if you present your argument in a level headed fashion that exempts name calling (I don't know what was said, and I don't consider "rude" name calling), it should stay. Be interesting to see what feedback says.

[Timjirdos]

I'm waiting to hear the response to this. That was well thought out and well penned statement of facts. I'm not usually one to comment on things of this nature, however I hope this actually does bring some kinda of "knot jerking" round about in the PTB. Very interesting.

Hey, I've withheld comment for most of the staff stuff since i joined up on the PC a couple years ago. I wished i saved a copy of my post and that email, though. i really think it was out of line. And it sure as shit wasn't off topic.


I'm going to add this to my previous statement. The problem i had witnessed, from 1997-2003 and 2006 to the present is that there always seemed to be no standard to follow when it came to administrative action. sure, there's policy and that. but every customer service GM and Board Moderator seemed to have their own style. Some were heavy-handed as hell, others really didn't give a shit. This is where you run into problems, IMO. It either has to be done one way or the other. not both.


They look out for their own. it's been like that for years.
Do i still feel like that? You betcha. Do i think it's right or wrong? Don't know. gonna have to ponder that. Depends on your personal feelings. But that is a subject for another time, This is already in the TLDR zone. =0

Just as a followup: My total count of interactions with any staff members, since i came back in late 2005 were about a half a dozen. mostly developer GMs wanting more info on some bugs i shot over to them, but about 3 issues. and really, except for emerdan, they were all fairly postiive, even me getting yelled at by andraste(She really had a point, i was a little out of control) Before that, probably about a dozen. same story.




Now, out of those of you here who don't play....I really have two questions. Granted most of you cancelled, probably due to the gemstone 3/4 switch not living up to your expectations. but how many of you cancelled because of staff issues? Just curious. and too lazy to reread four years worth of shit.

[That Jay]

He's actually a very nice guy in person and it's easy to vilify him here on the boards (I know I've done it).

I don't give a rat's ass how "nice" any staff member is in person. Its the performance of their job that I subsidize with my monthly subscription fee that I care about. The benefit that Simu receives from recruiting from the player base and encouraging socializing beyond the game's boundaries is insidious. By humanizing staff, the player base is far more likely to cut them tremendous amounts of slack when they err or are lax in the performance of their duties. The cry of "but they are volunteers" is quickly raised to excuse behavior that is inexcusable in any other customer service industry.

Screw how nice he is in person. He's an arrogant overreaching jackass in his job.


I wish they were allowed to post here, the Con I went to we discussed being able to post just to the NON-GS topics, but that got shitcanned. I wish it had happened, because I think you'd (general you) all see that the GMs really aren't out to get you and are normal, everyday people like us.

Unless of course its Andraste.

[Fallen]

Emeradan purposefully antagonizes posters with his tone and the nature of his responses. He is in a role where any amount of subjectiveness should be avoided at all costs, yet he pours it on whenever he has the chance. He is sarcastic, acerbic, and downright snide in nearly every one of his posts. This type of behavior only serves to imflame tensions on the boards, rather than accomplishing his job, which is to difuse them. If I could use one word to describe Emeradan it would be unprofessional.

[Timjirdos]

Emeradan purposefully antagonizes posters with his tone and the nature of his responses. He is in a role where any amount of subjectiveness should be avoided at all costs, yet he pours it on whenever he has the chance. He is sarcastic, acerbic, and downright snide in nearly every one of his posts. This type of behavior only serves to imflame tensions on the boards, rather than accomplishing his job, which is to difuse them. If I could use one word to describe Emeradan it would be unprofessional.

That also could describe about 75 percent of the moderators that were on staff on the players' corner when i joined up. so it's not just simu, folks. =0

I also wonder how many people go out of their way to seek a confrontation with him, though. on reflection, going back through the previous posts. it always seemed to me like it was the same 4 or 5 people that were complaining about the same 3 or 4 GMs. Valid complaints? probably. but still.....

Sorry, gotta call it the way i see it. :sorry:

[DCSL]

I don't think there's enough key lime pie in the entire world to make me think Andraste's just a regular ol' nice person. And key lime pie is my favorite, too. When she posted here, it didn't make me think any differently.

[Fallen]

That also could describe about 75 percent of the moderators that were on staff on the players' corner when i joined up. so it's not just simu, folks. =0

...

Someone post a FAIL picture for me.

[Rathain]

Now, out of those of you here who don't play....I really have two questions. Granted most of you cancelled, probably due to the gemstone 3/4 switch not living up to your expectations. but how many of you cancelled because of staff issues? Just curious. and too lazy to reread four years worth of shit.

I had two GM encounters - one for a mistyped OOC whisper while in a crowded room about soccer, and second when one of my cleric's was warned for raising the victim of a CvC bout (which I didn't know was a CvC death). They chastised my cleric for not asking first how the character died, and as such, my cleric was deducted exp and given a warning.

My account is canceled indefinitely not because of GM interaction, but because of the lack of interesting game updates. $40 dollars is not a lot of money, but even $15 is too much for what the game offers and develops.

[CrystalTears]

That also could describe about 75 percent of the moderators that were on staff on the players' corner when i joined up. so it's not just simu, folks. =0Given that people are paying Simu not the PC, they are the ones required to have some semblance of customer support for their subscribers.

People come here for the raw honesty because it cannot be done on the officials.

[Ignot]

My account is canceled indefinitely not because of GM interaction, but because of the lack of interesting game updates. $40 dollars is not a lot of money, but even $15 is too much for what the game offers and develops.

I agree. I felt like simu expected the players to make the game good by RPing. RP is fine but it's more fun when there are things going on. There should be constant storylines, invasions, etc. What's there to talk about with people when there is nothing going on in the whole world? If this was going on then I must have missed it.

[DCSL]

Now, out of those of you here who don't play....I really have two questions. Granted most of you cancelled, probably due to the gemstone 3/4 switch not living up to your expectations. but how many of you cancelled because of staff issues? Just curious. and too lazy to reread four years worth of shit.

It wasn't solely because of staff issues, but that was one of the reasons, yes. Out of maybe five factors in my account cancellation, one was staff. One staff member in particular so mishandled several situations I was in over a period of a couple of months, it was getting ridiculous.

Heh, my last positive staff experience came from Paul/Khaladon just before I shut everything down.

[Xiandrena]

I read about Andraste and her big opinions about conflict and I have to laugh. She pulled me from the game a while ago to discuss a certain conflict that another player and I had. He admitted that he killed a girl (that had nothing to do with our argument) without her consent and Andraste simply tells him. Well gosh don't do that and pokes him in the ribs.

Then she proceeds to tell Xolean who my alts are. Now *that* is customer service.

[StrayRogue]

That also could describe about 75 percent of the moderators that were on staff on the players' corner when i joined up. so it's not just simu, folks. =0

I also wonder how many people go out of their way to seek a confrontation with him, though. on reflection, going back through the previous posts. it always seemed to me like it was the same 4 or 5 people that were complaining about the same 3 or 4 GMs. Valid complaints? probably. but still.....

Sorry, gotta call it the way i see it. :sorry:

Are you retarded? People don't pay Caels/Kranar to post here. People offered to moderate here and while some weren't the paragons of virtue that they should have been, they at least tried. Some of course should never have been given the role.

Simu is a buisness. GS is a product. Emertardan is supposed to be a professional. His attitude lacks this however. Comparing him to a free message boards contributors or mods is plain dumb. Klaive ran his own boards for fucks sake.

And yes, before you ask, I did leave due to staff related issues.

[Timjirdos]

...

Someone post a FAIL picture for me.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/40/Babyfail.jpg

[Fallen]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/40/Babyfail.jpg

That'll do, pig. That'll do.

[Winter's Kiss]

I have had very limited successful interaction with the staff at SIMU, even so far back as when I started. I can count on two hands how many times they have helped and I can remember each GM that did, neither of the ones that went out of their way have ever been brought into question due to their contributions to the game and player-base. But when even one of my posts gets pulled for criticism about the Onarian storyline last year this month (mind you it was criticism against Andraste for running a shitty fucking storyline that ended with more problems than it started with).. And most that know me.. Know I don't usually have much to say in the negative, even if I do I keep my mouth shut because most of the time it's not even worth telling them how much they failed at something because they never listen anyway.

:shrug: - L

.. Besides, deciding what new hair color to go with this month is far more appealing and interesting than trying to tell a GM what you think should have happened or would have been better, just to have them go.. "No, it was perfect the way it was."

[ViridianAsp]

Then she proceeds to tell Xolean who my alts are. Now *that* is customer service.

Wait, wait...They aren't allowed to do that are they? Isn't that against some kind of rule? I seriously hope you wrote feedback, that sounds like a serious violation.

[Timjirdos]

Are you retarded? People don't pay Caels/Kranar to post here. People offered to moderate here and while some weren't the paragons of virtue that they should have been, they at least tried. Some of course should never have been given the role.

Simu is a buisness. GS is a product. Emertardan is supposed to be a professional. His attitude lacks this however. Comparing him to a free message boards contributors or mods is plain dumb. Klaive ran his own boards for fucks sake.

And yes, before you ask, I did leave due to staff related issues.


Retarded? no. Punch-Drunk. slightly. You are correct in all other respects, sir.

I wasn't consciously trying to compare what they do in simu-land to what goes on over here....but it seems that i did. Oops. Heh. I do agree with you, 100 percent, wholeheartedly. Sorry if you got all bent out of shape, Brother.

Believe me, i've lost jobs because of shit like this, and honestly, i just had to let a guy go for the same thing. Do i think the man needs to be terminated? Based on what i've witnessed, read on the officials, and experienced? Yeah. abso-fucking-lutely, Based on the people who claim that he is the reason they're cancelling.

Do i think it's going to happen? Probably not. Not for a while. all though the way things are going, i'm saying that he's probably going to Khaladon someone and they'll have no choice but to terminate.(That's right, i made it a verb)


Ah well. At least this is the most civil conversation i've been involved in on the Players' corner.

TLDR, my apologies.

[Timjirdos]

That'll do, pig. That'll do.


Negative rep is welcome. I need to get some of that anti-pyramid scheme shit going.

[StrayRogue]

Do i think it's going to happen? Probably not. Not for a while. all though the way things are going, i'm saying that he's probably going to Khaladon someone and they'll have no choice but to terminate.(That's right, i made it a verb)
.

Agreed. From as much as I know, the GMs are all one big happy family.

[Fallen]

I didn't neg rep you. Just pos repped you.

[Timjirdos]

I didn't neg rep you. Just pos repped you.


I know. It worked.

[Fallen]

I know. It worked.

Meh. People will often leave rep posing as someone else.

[BriarFox]

No response so far, btw, except for this noncommital email from Emeradan:

Since you've already written to Feedback regarding the matter, I'll let them respond to both your email to them as well as this email to me.

Regards,
GM Emeradan

[CrystalTears]

No response so far, btw, except for this noncommital email from Emeradan:

Since you've already written to Feedback regarding the matter, I'll let them respond to both your email to them as well as this email to me.

Regards,
GM Emeradan
Did you send him what you were going to send to feedback?

[BriarFox]

Did you send him what you were going to send to feedback?

No, interestingly. I decided to write to feedback after I'd written to him. They notified him somehow.

[CrystalTears]

No, interestingly. I decided to write to feedback after I'd written to him. They notified him somehow.
Either that or the motherfucker read the post here, which is what I was speculating.

YES EMERADAN, YOU'RE A MOTHERFUCKER AND WE ALL KNOW IT!

Ah, I feel better already! :D

[Methais]

Everyone should just spam goatse to gs4-emeradan@play.net everytime a thread like this is created.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Everyone should just spam goatse to gs4-emeradan@play.net everytime a thread like this is created.

That's your answer to everything!

[Methais]

It's effective!

[BigWorm]

It's effective!

You would know.

[Hulkein]

I don't think there's enough key lime pie in the entire world to make me think Andraste's just a regular ol' nice person. And key lime pie is my favorite, too. When she posted here, it didn't make me think any differently.

Who did she post here as? What was her handle?

[Celephais]

Who did she post here as? What was her handle?
Caramia (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=480) ... the one with the ridiculous avatar, considering.
http://tinyurl.com/d38rtc

[Hulkein]

I remember that avatar.

[Methais]

You would know.

And so would you.

http://www.bestpicever.com/pics/pic_486774001183151804.jpg


Caramia (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=480) ... the one with the ridiculous avatar, considering.
http://tinyurl.com/d38rtc

Didn't she used to claim that was her in that avatar too?

[BriarFox]

Having read the entire thread in question, a few policy clarifications need to be dealt with before we move on to the issue of what happened on the boards.

First, what is the difference between PvP and CvC? The best answer to that comes from Andraste's post (7220), paraphrasing, if a conflict is unwarranted and unconsented it has definitely moved from CvC to PvP. If it is warranted, but non-consensual (someone steals something from you as an example) it is CvC. They can't do something like that and expect to hide behind policy. If it is unwarranted, but consensual (sparring, an agreed fight) it is also CvC. Following is the relevant text of Policy 4.

Some events (such as the Gladiatorial Games), encourage player vs. player combat in a structured setting. Also, some players will choose to role-play a competitive situation between themselves, and will combat each other, which is acceptable. What is not acceptable is to initiate combat against unsuspecting victims, especially to prey upon weaker players for the singular enjoyment of the attacker. As a rule of thumb, Character vs. Character (role-playing -CvC) combat is acceptable, while Player vs. Player (OOC or disruptive - PvP) is not.

There are many gray areas in terms of defining what is acceptable competition, and what is abusive behavior. For example, a pickpocket stealing items or silvers. This *can* be considered an open invitation for CvC, but losing 25 silvers isn't exactly cause for death. Losing large amounts might be though. Another example, the classic duel (Character 1: You have insulted my honor and I must defend that to the death! Character 2: Have at thee Knave!) is on the surface acceptable, but on the other hand saying dueling (Player 1: Wanna duel? Player 2: Yeah) isn't as it can be considered OOC.

The last example noted (wanna duel?) should be handled as part of OOC issues, not in general PvP, and that level of distinction I would be happy to go over if this were a situation where you were warned for such an incident. That is not the case here however, what was being discussed on the boards was the rule in general.

What is the rationale for the rule? Again, Andraste is completely correct, when referring to staff, she states in the same post:
"To whose benefit is it to step in, when a situation is clearly PvP? The game's environment and community, if it's making sure a griefer knows his disruptive behavior won't be tolerated, long before he's become a nuisance for an entire town, and we start fielding a lot of ASSISTS and REPORTS." There are not now, nor will there ever be, direct player tools for dealing with a situation like this. The same tools that could be used to deal with such a situation become easily used by people for the exact opposite purpose. That idea fails at concept.

Now, if you think the PvP rules should be changed, and it appears you do, I would be perfectly happy to hear what you think they should be changed to, and keep in mind, you have to figure out how to do it so problem cases can be caught, but legitimate ones can be bypassed, and that has to be IN THE RULE. I can tell you right now, the case you kept pointing to "my buddy just got killed by this guy!" fails. Just for the sake of argument, let's say you and your buddy are the problem people, and your buddy starts a fight, gets demolished, and you now jump in because your buddy just got killed. If you can't see how ripe for disaster that concept is, you haven't been playing.

For an additional view on this, while the GemStone IV policy is short and to the point, the DragonRealms policy on this topic fills a small book. Here's the note from their policy on this very topic:
- Cases involving multiple characters often will be resolved under the "Third-Man-In" rule. For those unfamiliar with this, if two people are involved in a fight and a third party jumps in to help, they would be considered a third man in. What this means is that expansion of PvP incidents is not tolerated, and unless there was a previous consent issue, the third man will be treated more strictly than the original participants.
Their clarification to the rule is specifically to prevent problems that may be CvC to start from escalating to become PvP, and a concept you may be familiar with if you watch hockey. Put simply, your above idea has been tested, and in practice it was such a failure that the staff on the other side of the fence put in a specific note barring exactly the situation you describe because it caused even more problems.

This covers the issues of policy.

That brings us back to the issues on the message boards. Following is a quote from you (7226):
"What Star4 is very politely saying is that this situation is coming off as a power struggle between arbitrary GMs and independent players.

"I have more opinions on that issue, but I'm politely refraining from them."
I'm quite sure that response is neither polite nor a refrain. It was a direct attack on one of the staff members, the one who was doing a fairly decent job of explaining the rule, the reason for it, and how the staff is to respond to such cases. This post is insulting and did nothing to advance the topic. If you wanted to add something to the discussion, the topic was, "Should the PvP rules be changed, and if so, how?" Your contributions were either insulting or false, and frequently both (Don't forget where you have to ask permission to untie the apron-strings. 7194) at virtually every turn.

Concerning the thread in general, you are entirely correct, the discussion was oppressive, one sided, and uncivil, and as demonstrated in the two posts quoted above, you were one of the perpetrators of that approach. Flaming the staff, especially the staff actively involved in the discussion, for something that they are demonstrating in repeated posts is blatantly untrue, is the sort of thing that gets the ability to post removed. The fact that the thread actually went FAR beyond where it should have, probably 100+ posts too far, indicates the staff did anything but cut this off early. Your "test case" to show a repressive board monitor also fails.

What comes next is up to you, but your posts did not benefit any discussion of the rule, nor did the staff go too far.

Sincerely,

GameMaster Samcras
Senior Feedback

[BriarFox]

My response to Samcras. I'm pretty much done with this discussion. I don't think it's going anywhere:

Samcras,

Thank you for the response. You are, however, responding more to the discussion in the closed thread than you are to me, and the two are not entirely the same. I requested that GMs keep a more open mind when it comes to interpreting PvP vs. CvC actions, with a specific example of one's friend or companion being attacked. You spent five paragraphs restating policy and then one stating that my example didn't work because it could be phrased poorly, which is a simple issue to fix. Just phrase the policy like this: "Self-defense is always allowed, as is defense of characters you have an IG reason to protect (husband, child, friend, etc), as long as you are not provoking your aggressor and then attempting to claim self-defense." That sort of response is just an illustration of the policy section you quoted: "If it is warranted, but non-consensual (someone steals something from you as an example) it is CvC. They can't do something like that and expect to hide behind policy."

As for my comments in the thread as "frequently insulting, false ... a direct attack on staff ... [and] flaming the staff" you are so badly overstating the situation that I almost didn't bother to respond to your e-mail. You've also utterly ignored the idea of arbitrary decisions in PvP/CvC situations by GMs and the failure to state reasons for post removals. I respect that you're going to bat for your staff members; I'm just sorry that it's misplaced and misdirected.

Regards,
~Ryan

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

When were the last Gladiator games? Like 1999 or something?

[BriarFox]

When were the last Gladiator games? Like 1999 or something?

Dame Wanton Memorial Tournament was sorta a mini-games, I think. I didn't attend though, so I'm not sure.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I would say you and Feedback are both wrong. Feedback's examples and justification is pretty ridiculous (but within POLICY). To say that the discussion went too far is assinine, since a GM's arbitrary definition of policy is impossible for any player to interpret. Any clarification, even when they lead to disagreements and arguments, can't do anything but help players, even if they don't agree with it.

Your solution (let's assume everyone is an expert Roleplayer and allow friends to solve friend's conflicts--paraphrased to make your point of view more ridiculous) isn't any good either.

[BriarFox]

Your solution (let's assume everyone is an expert Roleplayer and allow friends to solve friend's conflicts--paraphrased to make your point of view more ridiculous) isn't any good either.

You totally lost me.

[Tea & Strumpets]

You totally lost me.

I was referring to your response to feedback, mostly your last sentence in the part I quoted.


Thank you for the response. You are, however, responding more to the discussion in the closed thread than you are to me, and the two are not entirely the same. I requested that GMs keep a more open mind when it comes to interpreting PvP vs. CvC actions, with a specific example of one's friend or companion being attacked. You spent five paragraphs restating policy and then one stating that my example didn't work because it could be phrased poorly, which is a simple issue to fix. Just phrase the policy like this: "Self-defense is always allowed, as is defense of characters you have an IG reason to protect (husband, child, friend, etc), as long as you are not provoking your aggressor and then attempting to claim self-defense."

[BriarFox]

Yes ... I got that.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Yes ... I got that.

Could you either explain what part of my opinion confuses you, OR be more vague? I demand one or the other.

[BriarFox]

Could you either explain what part of my opinion confuses you, OR be more vague? I demand one or the other.

The fact that you haven't pointed out what the problem is. Self-defense and defense of another character you have an IG reason to protect seems reasonable, especially if it's limited to actions that take place in front of you.

[Tea & Strumpets]

The fact that you haven't pointed out what the problem is. Self-defense and defense of another character you have an IG reason to protect seems reasonable, especially if it's limited to actions that take place in front of you.

I'm sure you can imagine how an addition to policy where they gave everyone a blank check to "protect their friends" is something that would be easily abused, and I won't insult you by explaining it.

[Fallen]

The discussion was centered around people being able to directly respond to a person should they kill a friend or love on IMMEDIATELY in front of them. As in, the same room. Staff says that someone killing your wife in front of you is not grounds for CvC, and you cannot attack them without first seeking permission to engage them in conflict.

I disagree with that policy.

[Tea & Strumpets]

The discussion was centered around people being able to directly respond to a person should they kill a friend or love on IMMEDIATELY in front of them. As in, the same room. Staff says that someone killing your wife in front of you is not grounds for CvC, and you cannot attack them without first seeking permission to engage them in conflict.

I disagree with that policy.

Staff sometimes uses or responds to bad examples to illustrate their point. Like the whole wife/son/daughter/second cousin thing.

They can't really say "yeah, if someone kills your wife you can kill them within policy" because there are also situations where some guy or girls wife/husband/sister/second cousin is instigating other people because he/she/it knows if someone attacks them, that their relative or acquaintance will kick the shit out of them.

I very rarely agree with Andraste regarding anything to do with CvC or PvP, but what do you expect her to say? "You can kill anyone who kills your wife in front of you. When you are pulled into the consultation lounge, reference post 3720 in the Roleplaying Conflicts folder and you are in the clear."

[Fallen]

>>It is what it is. Play the way you feel is the right way and prepare to accept the consequences. ALL of the consequences.

~Andy, player of:>>

That's basically the long and short of it. Everyone that has posted in this thread against the policy wouldn't hestitate for a moment to attack the assailent should their friend/loved-one be assaulted in front of them. It is just frustrating to know that we are in the "Wrong" for doing so because of a few lines of poorly written policy. Policy that is being zealously defended to the letter by GMs. They will repeatedly respond to the issue to tell us how wrong we are, but not who to talk to about changing it.

There are a lot of vague aspects of policy, there is no reason why this one has to be so cut and dry. See responding with violence against a thief. It is allowed, but it is up to the player to use reasonable restraint in these situations. The same stipulation should be added to CvC and outside attackers. "Players should take care not to engage in open CvC in front of others lest they too become involved. While not appropriate for a complete stranger to attack one or more combatants in the room, affiliated parties are well within their rights to defend their allies, and even avenge the murder that has just immediately taken place in their presence."

Done.

[SolitareConfinement]

they just need to give us a fallen server and let let us who want to pvp/cvc without being bothered run wild damn it

[Methais]

Simu should really lighten up on PvP/CvC. If they just let people run wild, the ones that are going around killing people just to be a douchebag will find themselves being lynched by an angry mob soon enough.

Let the playerbase police itself and things will be fine. If anything, add some sort of internal cooldown that prevents you from killing the same person more than once over X period of time, unless they attack you or try to steal from you again, which would instantly reset that cooldown to 0.

And change healing and raising to where the spell (or corpse or injured person) is coded to not give exp for healing/raising a CvC corpse or whatever, instead of dumping the burden of "Hi, before I raise you I have to know if you were killed by a monster or a person." on the cleric/empath. That there is just ridiculous.

[Tea & Strumpets]

[I]"Players should take care not to engage in open CvC in front of others lest they too become involved. While not appropriate for a complete stranger to attack one or more combatants in the room, affiliated parties are well within their rights to defend their allies, and even avenge the murder that has just immediately taken place in their presence."

Done.

You mentioned in another thread (no idea which one) that you've only reported during one CvC conflict. Was it because you were involved with a conflict with a multi-accounter who was treating all his characters as "brothers" so to speak?

[Fallen]

You mentioned in another thread (no idea which one) that you've only reported during one CvC conflict. Was it because you were involved with a conflict with a multi-accounter who was treating all his characters as "brothers" so to speak?

I mentioned in another thread that I've used WARN in one conflict. I've never REPORTED in a conflict. The issue was resolved without the intervention of the GMs. The situation I was in would still have been in conflict with policy even with my suggested change as you cannot repeatedly KoS for one offense. One death for one death. I don't think anyone is asking for that to be changed.

[Ignot]

If they don't want PvP then why do we even have the option of killing other characters? Can't they just make it so both parties agree to combat instead of having it where you can just attack people at anytime? Seems kind of stupid.

[DCSL]

Wow, that feedback GM is.. well.. nowhere near the level of Antavian, who was well nigh a god of customer service. Even if Antavian disagreed with you, he still did it politely and rationally. That last paragraph of the email would never have been something he'd send out to a customer.

[That Jay]

Wow, that feedback GM is.. well.. nowhere near the level of Antavian, who was well nigh a god of customer service. Even if Antavian disagreed with you, he still did it politely and rationally. That last paragraph of the email would never have been something he'd send out to a customer.

I have to agree. That was a very unprofessional feedback response. I am surprised Samcras didn't include a "fail" picture in the letter.

[Drew]

I read about Andraste and her big opinions about conflict and I have to laugh. She pulled me from the game a while ago to discuss a certain conflict that another player and I had. He admitted that he killed a girl (that had nothing to do with our argument) without her consent and Andraste simply tells him. Well gosh don't do that and pokes him in the ribs.

Then she proceeds to tell Xolean who my alts are. Now *that* is customer service.



Wow, did you write feedback about this? I would be very upset if a GM did this, it seems very unprofessional.

[Xiandrena]

Wow, did you write feedback about this? I would be very upset if a GM did this, it seems very unprofessional.


I basically was told that because she did not name the character in question by name that they did not feel any action needed to be taken.

She responded in a way that left no question to him that the character was mine but since she didn't come right out and say her name, it was okay.

[Stanley Burrell]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? You made this beautiful young woman cry:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2685/veryserious.png

[DaCapn]

I don't ever really get into any of this kind of nonsense but I kind of wish that the policy was that non-consensual CvC is against policy (as it is now) but they ignore it unless there is a complaint, at which point, they take it a little more seriously than they currently do.

[That Jay]

Well, in Platinum recently (which I know never counts) a certain GM whose name starts with "K" and rhymes with "Hey Lala!!" not only provided a player who had been poisoned with the Erithian hazy potions a cure even while one was being brewed for her by another character (after folks had scoured the lands for ingredients) but this same GM informed the poisoned character's player that the person who was brewing the cure had failed twice already to brew it and the person brewing the potion had told NO ONE about the times she had blown up the cure.

Oh, and the person got poisoned because they drank from an altered potion that was on the ground in the small park without knowing what it was and then got upset about it enough to threaten to quit for a time (which she did).

So much for letting folks deal with the consequences of their actions in-game.

[BriarFox]

There's a rampant culture of player-infantilization among the GMs, perhaps stemming out of the old idea of GS as a "family game," which I don't think it ever was. What makes it worse is that some use the excuse that they're protecting players to power-trip and ego-stroke.

As for a "blank check to protect their friends," that's an overstatement of what I suggested. If you're standing next to your friend and someone kills him or her, then you should obviously be allowed to respond. Otherwise, why don't I walk into the Obsidian Tower's next meeting, spike thorn the ta'lo'mai or whomever, and claim that I don't want contact with the other people there?

[Stanley Burrell]

There's a rampant culture of player-infantilization among the GMs, perhaps stemming out of the old idea of GS as a "family game," which I don't think it ever was.

Listen, I done told the constable:

I make sure that family-coven of Erithian witch sisters is at least 19 years old before I go upstairs in Frith's Inn.

[Warriorbird]

Andraste hates PVP... unless her friends are doing it.

[That Jay]

Next time a GM is running a merchant come in and kill one of the other characters in front of the NPC (pre-arranged with the victim beforehand) and then when the NPC attacks or bolts the attacker from the heavens, REPORT the NPC for third party PvP and then refer to Andraste's posts.

[BriarFox]

Next time a GM is running a merchant come in and kill one of the other characters in front of the NPC (pre-arranged with the victim beforehand) and then when the NPC attacks or bolts the attacker from the heavens, REPORT the NPC for third party PvP and then refer to Andraste's posts.

Hahaha.

[Stanley Burrell]

Next time a GM is running a merchant come in and kill one of the other characters in front of the NPC (pre-arranged with the victim beforehand) and then when the NPC attacks or bolts the attacker from the heavens, REPORT the NPC for third party PvP and then refer to Andraste's posts.

That.



Or don't be gay.

[CrystalTears]

Next time a GM is running a merchant come in and kill one of the other characters in front of the NPC (pre-arranged with the victim beforehand) and then when the NPC attacks or bolts the attacker from the heavens, REPORT the NPC for third party PvP and then refer to Andraste's posts.
:rofl:

[BriarFox]

And whatever tool is posting terrible sarcasm on the official boards as "Skullcrusher," drawing from this thread here - STOP IT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE). I don't know what you think you're gaining by taking PC stuff and posting on the officials.

[Fallen]

Sounds like a valid plan to me.

[Warriorbird]

And whatever tool is posting terrible sarcasm on the official boards as "Skullcrusher," drawing from this thread here - STOP IT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE). I don't know what you think you're gaining by taking PC stuff and posting on the officials.

We're the enemy, man, duh. Time to incite a moral panic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

We fear the things we can't control. We're not obligated to play by the 'never say anything bad about Simu ever' rules.

[Stanley Burrell]

I still think not being gay is the better option because in the time it took you to be gay you could have done things like:

A) Seen a movie.

B) Gone for a walk in the park.

C) Had other men's penises inserted in your buttocks.

I guess if you're really good at multitasking, then I'd say go for it.

[Methais]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? You made this beautiful young woman cry:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2685/veryserious.png

Those old Youtube frames look archaic already.


Andraste hates PVP... unless her friends are doing it.

You gesture at Andraste.
You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at Andraste!
AS: +368 vs DS: +153 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +31 = +285
... and hit for 177 points of damage!
Hideously bright electrical bolt sends left leg into another universe. Happy traveling.
Andraste screams and falls to the ground grasping her mangled left leg!
She is stunned!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.


>You gesture at Andraste.
You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at Andraste!
AS: +368 vs DS: +103 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +98 = +402
... and hit for 286 points of damage!
Massive electrical bolt burns a hole through the back and kidneys.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
**** Methais just finished off Andraste with a spell! ****
>
The brilliant luminescence fades from around Andraste.

* Andraste has fallen unconscious!

Some assistants scurry over, and drag Andraste's limp form into the Infirmary.

You belt out, "PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111"

[BriarFox]

We're the enemy, man, duh. Time to incite a moral panic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

We fear the things we can't control. We're not obligated to play by the 'never say anything bad about Simu ever' rules.

Thank God.

[Allereli]

And whatever tool is posting terrible sarcasm on the official boards as "Skullcrusher," drawing from this thread here - STOP IT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE). I don't know what you think you're gaining by taking PC stuff and posting on the officials.

since it'll get pulled eventually, here's the text:


I have had a problem where Emeradan killed my pet dingo and I am being forced to call local law enforcement officials to help me place Andraste under arrest because I got my post pulled and had to take a massive five hour dump while my forging script was running and was caught AFK. Which is also why I am using the REPORT command every five seconds as my God-given right.

As such, I am telling all of the people next to my cubicle what horrible people they are and am making sure my office buddies also quit playing GemStone because it endorses the Nazi agenda. And kidnaps babies, which is not listed in the STEAL documents I have read over, like this forum's TOS, ten million times (so I know that I am right.) Also, I am a scholar and a ninja.

Very concerned,

<< - R.

[Warriorbird]

Can't make fun of the GMs... make fun of anybody who has a complaint and get away with it... that's how it works.

[Methais]

:rofl: that guy fails.

[That Jay]

GM Emeradan, the emoticon-less one

Hmmm...I wonder if he has been told to lay off the smileys or he's just trying (and failing) to be cute.

[BriarFox]

Hmmm...I wonder if he has been told to lay off the smileys or he's just trying (and failing) to be cute.

He mentioned earlier that he's heard they're "not popular." I think CT is right that he's been reading the posts about him here.

[Fallen]

He mentioned earlier that he's heard they're "not popular." I think CT is right that he's been reading the posts about him here.

Good. Anything to get him acting less like an ass and more like a Mod.

[Some Rogue]

Well, I did see a former poster here who is now a gm log into the boards yesterday....

[Wesley]

I am a GM too.

[BriarFox]

I am a GM too.

Fuck. Here come invasions of gigantic lizards.

[Alfster]

Well, I did see a former poster here who is now a gm log into the boards yesterday....

who?

[Wesley]

Fuck. Here come invasions of gigantic lizards.

I do other stuff too!

[BriarFox]

I do other stuff too!

[Here]
You see a large lizard-shaped tent.
Obvious exits: West

>go tent

[Inside tent]
A large lizard-shaped table stands before you. An opening that resembles the gaping jaws of a lizard provides an exit.
Obvious exits: None

>look on table

On the table, you see: A small fluffy lizard, a large bug-eyed lizard with a small man riding it, a luscious pink lizard with a coiled tongue.

I've got your number, Wesley!

[Beguiler]

lolz@BriarFox

:heart: Wesley's lizards..

[Stanley Burrell]

Shit. Now that I know Wesley is a GM I need to negrep him every three seconds (with a raging hard-on each time I do.)

Sorry Wes' :(

And definitely no active GMs have accounts here or actually post here infrequently. Nope. I mean, it is pretty obvious that they wouldn't have green rectangles next to their userhandles if they did.

Not ever. No way. What is this garbage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0

[Tea & Strumpets]

Wow, that feedback GM is.. well.. nowhere near the level of Antavian, who was well nigh a god of customer service. Even if Antavian disagreed with you, he still did it politely and rationally. That last paragraph of the email would never have been something he'd send out to a customer.

I didn't read it that closely until you mentioned it, but that last paragraph in the e-mail from Feedback was pretty funny.

[Faent]

Add Samcras to the list of idiots.

[BriarFox]

This man has verbal diarrhea, but this is a slightly better response:

----

Having read the thread, the only way I could get it to make sense was to go into both the issue discussed, and the posts in the thread.

The rule is, in the terms given here, self defense is always allowed, defense of other characters is never allowed without prior communication. The reason for the second clause is that it is far too easy to take it in a completely wrong direction, and causes individual incidents to escalate into clan warfare. DragonRealms tried what you are talking about, we have seen the results, and they are a complete disaster. Not only will the rule not change in that direction, there is absolutely no chance of it being considered. The phrase is "been there, done that, got shot over the t-shirt." Now, there have been some minor things done to allow that in part in DragonRealms (married couples, the proposed "champion" system), but those types of systems are not in place in GemStone to make them function as addendums to the base rule, and in the case of the "champion" system, there is not a combat barred guild in GemStone as there is in DragonRealms.


That brings us back to the issues on the boards. Before I go into the details of the posts, Feedback's position is twofold. On the one hand, part of my job is to back up the staff, on the other hand, I am also player advocate to the staff, and if the staff does something wrong, to correct it. In this case, the thread was closed because of direct attacks on staff, and a response that could be considered excessive. Fair enough, two wrongs don't make a right. The thread however, should have stopped around post 7200. GM Naionna was dead on when she said:

I'm not in a position to change policy, and so, I follow what it dictates as I am required to as a GM. Discussion on changing policy is fine, but I hope that people understand also that we as staff are required to follow it as it is currently listed. Currently, that requires either you be attacked, or receive verbal consent in some form of interaction or RP before involving yourself in a conflict that didn't directly involve you to begin with.
The posts following that did not help in discussing why the rule should be changed, and amazingly, no one considered what the ramifications of such a change would be. From that point forward, the entire thread did basically nothing except further rile people about the rule as it exist, not what should be done to change it, what that would entail, and why it would be a good idea. Fair enough, that's another place where the staff could have done better.

That does not mean the route you chose was correct, which brings us to your posts on the matter, all of which are included below with comments.
7184
>Always had a problem with this one, and hence, so does Lucos. If Lucos happens to be wandering around with a friend (and he doesn't have many real friends) and someone walks up and kills said friend, that person is going to die. Right that instant. Also a possibility everything in that room plus all adjacent rooms will suffer casualties as well. There will be no warning and no OOC whispers asking for permission. ~Lucos

Absolutely agreed. Killing my friend in front of me, even if I've just walked into the room, is a perfect IC reason for you to die. It demands a CvC response. I'm not going to go, "Oh, Bob. Sorry you're dead. I have to go check with a GM to make sure it's okay to defend you."

Now, there are shades of gray, and I won't go kill someone just because a friend of mine asked me to (that's happened on several occasions), but I will certainly defend someone with no questions asked in the situation described.
This post is okay, but off in one regard. It's not the GM you need to check with, you need interaction with whoever killed Bob, not the staff. That said, I'll discuss some examples of the rule change you describe here and why the policy won't be changed as you advocate.

The situation is a hypothetical, so to discuss them, we'll use the names Bob (who will represent you), Dave and Tom who represent others.
1) Dave is your buddy and you're walking along with him. Tom shows up and one shot kills Dave. One of a couple of things is going on. If Dave ripped Tom off, Tom has a green light to go after him, and if Bob goes after Dave in response, Bob is aiding Dave's theft.
2) Let's try Dave and Tom as friends, but Dave stole from Bob and Bob is looking for payback. Bob sees Dave, starts to attack, and Tom kills Bob. Again, oops.
3) Dave and Tom are losers, Dave starts a fight with Bob and then gets Tom to show up and finish the deal. This one was very popular with the problem players.
4) Dave is your buddy, and Tom attacks out of nowhere. Tom is on a kill spree, but we don't know that because you and Dave decide to handle it on your own. Tom kills 2 more before we get the first REPORT, which Bob and/or Dave should have sent in.

All of these cases were seen on a regular basis in DragonRealms, and frequently escalated into PvP warfare. That ruins the game for a majority of players, and when you throw in mistaken identity and people who have not been logged in for the last 24 hours to stay up to date on the latest events (so much for that cease fire...), ruins it for pretty much everyone.

7189
>you must have interaction to attack another in Gemstone and still be within policy ~Naionna

In the instance of someone running in and attacking your friend, those actions are the interaction. It follows all rules of in-game logic for that to be the case. In other instances, the required interaction will, of course, be different.
Naionna is correct. You may want that to be the policy, but it is not and won't be for the reasons noted above.

7192
>Policy, and the statements of the GM's who have posted so far in this thread, is pretty clear on that. If A attacks B, and C (you) witness it, you need more interaction than just witnessing it to obtain consent for your involvement.

If the policy (it doesn't deserve a capital letter or the status of an abstract noun) is nonsensical, then it needs to change. That's patently the case in this instance.
So far, the posts disagree with the rule but haven't crossed any lines.

7194
>So someone could murder my spouse/sister/father infront of me, and I would need to first say, "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father. Prepare to die." before taking a swing at them?

Don't forget where you have to ask permission to untie the apron-strings.
Now we're starting to have problems. Interaction does NOT mean with the staff, this is heading into flaming territory.

7197
>No, before someone asks, it doesn't ahve to be "Sure, you can kill me." but something that indicates conflict is welcome/accepted/understood must occur. ~Naionna

For all that you're saying that consent can be non-verbal, you don't seem to see an act of aggression on a companion to be non-verbal consent - we're clearly interpreting "P"olicy differently. Part of the problem seems to be that certain people are viewing their interpretation of "P"olicy as the single, sole, correct view of it, without allowing room for debate over what it actually involves. The rest of the problem is that the issue goes beyond interpretation of "P"olicy to the belief that its some sort of universal constant. The thing can and should be changed if it's incapable of allowing for certain situations. Even the hallowed U.S. Constitution has amendments.
An act of aggression on a companion is NOT non-verbal consent. If you're interpreting it differently from every staff member, then yes, you have a problem. Does policy change? Yes, it does, but it won't in the direction you are talking about, for reasons noted above.

.7203
>Seriously. This policy is wrong. Call a meeting or fire off some emails. I know you have common sense. This is a common sense policy change. ~Lucos

This. And chalk up another RPer for the ban-wagon if this policy doesn't change.
7206
>What we're debating is how a singular particular aspect of one possible interaction would be reviewed and applied per the policy. Don't throw the baby out!

>Perhaps suggesting a more lenient course than a demanded change, and an understanding that the reason that policy existed itself no longer exists -- and we may have the beginnings of a possible solution. ~Doug

Simply a clearer stipulation about instances like this one would be fine. Or a general edict to open-minded (not utterly literal) GMs to use their own best judgment, subject to review.
Now we've moved into flaming territory. The problem is not the staff, it's people who decide to take things in their own hands when others break the rules. We can't deal with problems we never hear about. Things like bug abuse, we'll see things that look out of whack and try to figure out what happened. In the case of PvP vs CvC, we'll see things from cases where people ASSIST or REPORT, once in a while, we'll pick up the newbie killer without one (which is also why the staff can get involved without an ASSIST or REPORT, there are people who don't know those tools exist). Either the FIRST incident is within policy, or it is not. A third person jumping in will 9 times out of 10 not be.

7222
>I could be just naive and not conditioned to years of witnessing how Gemstone operates, but if it were me I would politely ask who IS in charge of this specific piece of policy. Then I would send a thoughtful and constructive email to that person explaining why it should be changed, and give examples of how to change it. If that doesn't provoke dialogue then draft a petition and get as many players as you can to sign it.

You make an excellent point. So, who is in charge of handling "P"olicy updates?
A good place to have sent this would have been here, where I could have explained to you why the policy won't be changed. It's because doing so opens up far more problems than it solves. This post is fine, aside from the "P" which is working the flaming buttons.

7224
>Star4

What Star4 is very politely saying is that this situation is coming off as a power struggle between arbitrary GMs and independent players.

I have more opinions on that issue, but I'm politely refraining from them.
Flaming. Has no business on the boards.

7258
Par for the course, David.

~Nuadjha, the Briar Fox
Flaming, part of a pulled sequence, removed correctly.

Those are all of your posts in this thread. Here's a good rule of thumb to avoid it being a question of flaming. Never use an adjective in front of the noun "GM." That will avoid one area you ran into here. Fundamentally, this thread became a refusal to listen to what the staff was saying on the boards, never looking at the results such a rule change would bring, and finally, insulting staff for positions they did not take and the staff responding somewhat in kind. That last part was not done by you, but is what pushed this thread over the brink.

Overall, there are a few errors from all directions, but the primary one you wrote in about, the board supervisor squelching discussion, is not the case here at all.

Respectfully,

GameMaster Samcras
Senior Feedback

[BriarFox]

Samcras,

Once again, thanks for the reply. I appreciate the difficulty of formulating a policy that will cover all situations; a more adequate course would be to simply state the basic parts of policy, that "interaction is required" and "self-defense is allowed" and then judge problematic cases on an individual basis. That's the only way to really work through the nuances anyway. We can agree here.

Where we can't agree is over your excessive definition of flaming, which is an entirely different issue and one that does, indeed, argue for overly restrictive forums. According to you, my comments that portrayed GMs as over-protective parents ("apron strings"), stated my general experience ("par for the course"), and indicated that I had strong opinions I wasn't going to present ("refraining") are all flaming. You even go so far as to claim "any adjective in front of 'GM'" is a flame. You're making molehills into mountains and only supporting the notion that the only thing GMs want to see is praise.

Regards,
~Ryan

[SpamMyAss]

who?

Probably Jolena/Naoinnia. Though why she'd need to read when Stunseed posts here all the time and can just tell her shit is beyond me.

[CrystalTears]

Way to out her though. Good job. Nice way to introduce yourself to the boards... so to speak.

[diethx]

:yeahthat:

[thefarmer]

Way to out her though. Good job. Nice way to introduce yourself to the boards... so to speak.

Better than how she was outted to me.

Guy I was talking to bought something from her last auction, and it was the wrong thing. He IMs her and lets her know, she tells him to hold the item in his hand, she'll look at it. She Ims him back and says, "yep, that's the wrong thing'.

[BriarFox]

Better than how she was outted to me.

Guy I was talking to bought something from her last auction, and it was the wrong thing. He IMs her and lets her know, she tells him to hold the item in his hand, she'll look at it. She Ims him back and says, "yep, that's the wrong thing'.

That's incredibly stupid. Maybe she was just ridiculously giddy over her new "powers".

[Warriorbird]

Eh.

This particular Simu policy is retardedly easy to get around.

Doesn't mean it isn't stupid though.

[Some Rogue]

No, that's not who it was either but I am not saying.

[Faent]

Well, at least he tried that time. Still, I haven't seen any flaming. Only a delusional wimp with a two-inch penis could call "arbitrary GM's" a flame. Now that was flaming.

[Methais]

Way to out her though. Good job. Nice way to introduce yourself to the boards... so to speak.

This thread needs more GM outing.

[Warriorbird]

Is it a bad sign that I'm not sure people care who a lot of the GMs are?

These days it seems to be more issues with folks we've known about for a while.

[Methais]

I don't much give a shit either, I just like knowing out of curiosity, and occasionally to see if their character starts acting all high and mighty because they have a GM alt.

[Drew]

I don't much give a shit either, I just like knowing out of curiosity, and occasionally to see if their character starts acting all high and mighty because they have a GM alt.



Think of people who have mysteriously stopped posting but have not ever said they quit or anything. I'll give you a hint, pick a random name that posted in the outfit thread and chances are high.

[Widgets]

Fuck. Here come invasions of gigantic lizards.

Thanks, I know have a picture of "Lizzy the Lizard" stuck in my head.

For all you old school NES freaks, yes, I'm talking about Lizzy The Lizard from the game RAMPAGE!!!1!1

[Mabus]

If they don't want PvP then why do we even have the option of killing other characters? Can't they just make it so both parties agree to combat instead of having it where you can just attack people at anytime? Seems kind of stupid.
It would be trivial to code out character combat. A simple "if(Player()) return false;else;(combat code)" type thing.

It would be trivial to code level checks so that CvC had to be within a set limit (+/-10?).

It would be a little less trivial to code a boolean CvC flag that players could choose at creation (or single shot after implementation), and to make choosing stealing set the flag as true. Easy enough, but could be a pain depending on how the player data is stored and modified.

Two things:
1) GS is not balanced as a CvC game, even within possible level limits.
2) Allowing optional CvC flags allows idiots to roam with no chance of attacking them for being idiots.

Just rambling.

And on topic...
..Emeradan was one of the major reasons I left GS. Not the only one, but one.

[CrystalTears]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif You want annoying... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=897440#post897440) 02-25-2009 11:46 PM Be woman enough to sign your neg rep. Shit's pretty fucking obvious.

I didn't neg rep anyone in this thread about anything. Besides, I sign my rep.

[Fallen]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif You want annoying... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=897440#post897440) 02-25-2009 11:46 PM Be woman enough to sign your neg rep. Shit's pretty fucking obvious.

I didn't neg rep anyone in this thread about anything. Besides, I sign my rep.

Hahahaha. The idiot not only retaliates against the wrong person, but he accuses someone of not being "woman" enough to sign their neg rep while not signing theirs. That's class right there.

[Alfster]

Yah, no shit.

[CrystalTears]

Hahahaha. The idiot not only retaliates against the wrong person, but he accuses someone of not being "woman" enough to sign their neg rep while not signing theirs. That's class right there.
Actually it's because my rep is obvious is why I sign. There's no point in hiding.

But yeah, neg repping me because I supposedly didn't sign the comment, while they didn't sign either, is rather retarded.

[Fallen]

Actually it's because my rep is obvious is why I sign. There's no point in hiding.

But yeah, neg repping me because I supposedly didn't sign the comment, while they didn't sign either, is rather retarded.

You should just make a post saying you're going to neg rep someone when you plan to do so. So many people Neg rep in your name that you need to start using Certificates of Authentic Negativity.

[CrystalTears]

You should just make a post saying you're going to neg rep someone when you plan to do so. So many people Neg rep in your name that you need to start using Certificates of Authentic Negativity.
I suppose I should. :lol:

[DaCapn]

Well, I did see a former poster here who is now a gm log into the boards yesterday....

They're just not allowed to make posts on unofficial forums (which may lead people to think that they're making some official statement as a GM that staff doesn't have control over). Simply logging in likely means nothing. It doesn't sound like they'd be violating that policy if they're using it as a tool to PM (auctions, keep in contact, etc).

[Methais]

They're just not allowed to make posts on unofficial forums (which may lead people to think that they're making some official statement as a GM that staff doesn't have control over). Simply logging in likely means nothing. It doesn't sound like they'd be violating that policy if they're using it as a tool to PM (auctions, keep in contact, etc).

NO THE PC IS THE DEVIL AND IT'S RUINING GEMSTONE!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[Warriorbird]

GMs can post on unofficial forums once they reach a certain point. The Simu group think is strong though.

[Belnia]

This thread needs more GM outing.

I hear David Whatley is GameMaster Bardon!

[Mabus]

I hear David Whatley is GameMaster Bardon!
I am Spartacus!

[Methais]

I hear David Whatley is GameMaster Bardon!

http://aliasfrequencies.org/son/images/oh%20noes%202.jpg

[Fallen]

From what I have been reading recently he has toned his personality down and is trying to be more helpful. About damn time. Seems if enough people bitch to feedback good things DO happen.

[BriarFox]

From what I have been reading recently he has toned his personality down and is trying to be more helpful. About damn time. Seems if enough people bitch to feedback good things DO happen.

I actually noticed that, too. I wasn't sure if I were imagining it.

[Lilabell]

Add Samcras to the list of idiots.

Is Samcras really a GM or just a twist of words?

Sarcasm

[BriarFox]

Is Samcras really a GM or just a twist of words?

Sarcasm

That is his actual GM name, and I think the anagram is just a sign of his ego. He's a huge blowhard. I had another email exchange with him, but it wouldn't really add much new to this thread.

[Tolwynn]

If you're playing with letters, you could rearrange that to ass cram as well. Make of it what you will.

[TheRoseLady]

They're just not allowed to make posts on unofficial forums (which may lead people to think that they're making some official statement as a GM that staff doesn't have control over). Simply logging in likely means nothing. It doesn't sound like they'd be violating that policy if they're using it as a tool to PM (auctions, keep in contact, etc).

I know of two females, one I seriously miss her posts. She was so sarcastic at times. Man, I sometimes miss the Teeoncy threads.

They both log in and read. It would be difficult not to be able to post, at least in a form that folks recognize.

[TheRoseLady]

While we're at it, I want to pull a CT..

BRAUDEN, IF YOU ARE READING THIS...YOU'RE SUCH AN ASSHOLE!

*Ah that feels much better.

[Warriorbird]

Brauden...ugh.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Brauden...ugh.

Hehe. His posts were by far the most insulting. He didn't even bother trying to be vague about it. Here is my interpretation of his response to some imaginary post:


It's too bad you aren't in charge.

GS3-Brauden

P.S. -- Fuck you.

[Warriorbird]

Something we can agree on.

[Senglent]

The sad thing is they let asshats with attitudes like that be GM's (or rather mod's, or PR people, all though the play on letters is about how he acts) in the first place.

Sounds like sound judgement get a punch of people with bad attitudes to deal with your customers.....and they wonder why people quit playing.

As an aside I know 6 people who quit from Jan to Feb and all of them stated Eme's crap attitude had something to do with it, maybe they sat him down and told him to stop being such a prick to customers....who knows but it's a nice thought if he is finally toning it down. Sadly I guess that will mean no more Em bashing posts in the future.

[That Jay]

Probably Jolena/Naoinnia. Though why she'd need to read when Stunseed posts here all the time and can just tell her shit is beyond me.

Didn't catch this the first time through. Jolena eh? Thanks. That illuminates some bias in a few of her posts here.

[Rocktar]

Sadly I guess that will mean no more Em bashing posts in the future.

Aww HELL NO.

</Samuel L. Jackson Voice>

Once a :tool: always a :tool: so I would not be worried about a lack of material.

[Methais]

Aww HELL NO.

</Samuel L. Jackson Voice>

Once a :tool: always a :tool: so I would not be worried about a lack of material.

……...|;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\
……...|;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;_„„-„__„-„„_„~“”~-,_;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;|
………|;;;;;;;;;;;;,-“::::::::::::::::::::::::::::¯””””~~---~--„_;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;|
………|;;;;;,-~””::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::¯””~”|;;;;;;;;;;;;|
………|;;;;/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::|;;;;;;;;;;;|
………|;;;/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::\;;;;;;;;;;|
………|;;/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::\;;;;;;;;|
………|;/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::\;;;;;;|
………|/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::\;;;;|
…,-~-,.|:::::,--~~~---„„_:::::::::::::::::::::::::_„„„---~~””””~~-,:::::::::::\,-~””-,
../::\::::\::::::::¯”””~---„„„„\::::::::::::::::::::,-“_„„„„„--~””””~~~”:::::::::::/::,-“:-,\
./:::/:\::|:::::::::_„„„„„„„„_::-,:::::::::::::::::::,-:::_„„„„„„__::::::::::\:::::::|:::/:::::\:\
|::/::::\|:::::::-“,-~„”””~„-,”-,:,:::::::::::::::”:::-“-~„”¯””„-~-,:::::::::,:::::|”,/:::::::,:|
.\::\:::::|:::::::::¯”~”~”~~-“::,”,::::::::::::|:::”””~~-”~“”¯¯,::::::::::::::::|:\:::::::,:|
..\::”-,:-|:::::::::::::~~””¯::::::,/::::::::::::,:::::::::::::::””¯:::::::::::::::::|:/-~-,::::/
…\,:-“::|::::::::::::::::::::::::::/::::::::::::::,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |::::::::”-/
…..”-,::|::::::::::::::::::::::,-“:::::::::::::::::~”\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::|::::::,-“
……..””|:::::::::::::::::::::(::::::::::::::::::::: :::):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|.¯””¯
………..\:::::::::::::::::::::¯””~-,_::::,-~”””¯:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
…………\::::::::::,”::::::::::::::::::¯:::::::::::::: :::”,::::::::::::::::::::::/
………….\::::::::,::::::::,-~””¯¯”””~~””””¯¯””~-,::::”,:::::::::::::::::/
…………...\:::::::,::::::”\\¯ \¯.\¯¯”|”¯¯|¯|¯.|„-“/::::::,:::::::::::::,/
…………….\,::::::,::::::\..”-,¯””~~”~~””¯¯„~“/::::::::::::::::::,/
………………’\::::::,:::::”-,…¯””~--~~””¯…,/:::::::,”::::::::,-“
………………..”-,::::::::::::”~-„„„____„„„„-~”::::::::::::::::,-“AW HELL NAW
………………….”-,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-“.
…………………….\,::::::::,:::::~:::::~::::,::::::::::,-"
………….…………...\,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-“
…………...……………”-,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-~”
….....………….…………”-,:::::::::::::::::::::::,-~

[Lord Orbstar]

The response Samcrass gave you on page 5 (or so) of this thread was pretty rationally given, as was Andraste's response to you that he was quoting. It sounds like the GMs were right and you just cannot accept their logical position on PvP.

I am all for murdering snerts and have done it alot. the "third man in" rule has merit particularly in the way they presented it. mechanics to deal with disruptive people have been abused (like THUMP, dragging someone till they go Demonic, etc). GS4 is a mature (poorly marketed, slow to improve, under-resourced, text) game and GMs have had to deal with the gamut of human personalities and quirks. This has led to the ruleset we (labor under) use now.