Tarquinus

I posted the IC video to Facebook, yanked it down after reading Chewy's link, and now I'm thinking of putting it up again. The comments below a similar article are [url="http://www.wrongingrights.com/2009/03/worst-idea-ever.html/"]interesting and instructive[/url]. It boils down to this: are IC oversimplifying the situation in central Africa? Yes. Is the enemy of your enemy always your friend? No. But what these kids at IC have done seems to me, on balance, to be a highly positive thing. Chewy is absolutely right when he encourages us to look more closely, but I have to ponder the fact that this collegiate initiative called my attention to something I didn't know about. I'm reminded of the time I tutored a lad who was being made to read [url="http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0312243359"][i]We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families[/i][/url], so I bought a copy and read it. I was absolutely appalled... but since I read it, I've paid a lot more attention to things going on in Africa than I ever had before. That seems like a good thing. ,

Happy birthday, m'dear.

Happy birthday!

The suit of armor holds Knator Commander hostage. It is untrustworthy. It seems we have little choice but to deal with it, but to do so blindly is foolish.

Thanks, Chewett!

According to their description, Grasans come from the Hollow Den. Do they count as Lorerootian creatures, too?

4 sc for both remains.

Happy birthday, man.

That sounds kind of cool.

[quote name='Liberty4life' timestamp='1328816876' post='103907'] oke so we know he was told by pip to enter coe and then to hand it over, thats fact #1 which furthermore leads to conclusion that his pledging of fealty to coe never was true for him, ie he didnt mean wut he was sayin, so thats fact #2 which also means he cant be betrayer of somethin he never put his true loyalties in, ie he cant be betrayer of coe[/quote] You're splitting hairs, Lib. Okay: so if your logic holds, he's not a traitor, he's a liar. The point stands that people in the CoE have a right to describe him in negative terms - traitor, liar, take your pick. It's instructive to me that he wrote in his own PL, "sometimes you have to break a promise to keep another." It's clear that the word we use to describe it doesn't really matter. [quote]now we have assumption, that inviting neno was just a setup planned to fail in order to show back some good will towards loreroot, if that is true then he aint betrayer to pip, meanin he aint betrayer to anyone, he is just a spy that did well on his mission, but if this assumption aint true then he is only betrayer to pip and only an hostile agent to coe [/quote] I think this explanation is highly probable. But assuming it's true, he is doubly a liar who played us for fools (which we clearly were) twice. Why should we let anyone forget that? Why should we let someone say we are being judgmental and vindictive for pointing out what is plainly true?

[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1328808926' post='103899'] If the hierarchy of Loreroot decide it should go to war with Necrovion, you would not? You would go against the decision of the land, in essence rebelling from it? Would you then aid Necrovion, or just "ignore" the warring?[/quote] By the terms of the Pact, we would not join the war. This is a dire hypothetical and we would do our utmost to prevent its coming to pass. If open war were declared between Loreroot and Necrovion, the Eclipse would remain neutral. There are further hypotheticals, such as Necrovion invading Loreroot, and that is something that we clearly, as defenders of Loreroot, cannot allow. The previous terms of the Pact were legalistic and very specific. It is my opinion that we should trust each other to act in good faith and work out the nitty-gritty details as they arise. The Pact I have posted above is a much simplified version that presupposes good faith and cooperative spirit. I do take your point about conflicts of interest, but my opinion is, oh, what the hell. It's just a game, and the worst thing that can happen is that something interesting and unpredicted will happen. I could be wrong. But I'm willing to take the chance, in the name of fun and good relations in the game.

I follow your logic, duxie. I'll have to think about it. My reasoning is this: CotS invited Neno without Lord Pip's permission, and Lord Pip kicked him for it. This seems to indicate to me that Lord Pip didn't expect CotS's action. Moreover, I don't know that one must have pledged loyalty to someone in order to betray him. Joining an alliance implicitly (in my mind, at least) declares one's allegiance to that alliance. Working against that alliance is therefore treachery to my way of thinking. CotS seemed to know that what he was doing was treacherous, and Lord Pip certainly seemed to realize that CotS was a liability if he stayed in the CoE. The two of them remain on good terms in-game, and I applaud them for that (really!). But that doesn't mean CotS didn't betray his former "master". It just means the betrayal wasn't all that hurtful. But that comes back to my point - we can call CotS a traitor without necessarily being spiteful. We all have our reputations in the game, and most of us have earned them.

Well, actually, I'm not. Tarq is, because CotS betrayed his trust. But Tarq is just a character. As nearly as I can tell, and Tarq's flak at him notwithstanding, CotS seems like a pretty nice guy. I've told CotS OOC as much twice: once during his giveaway, and once at his joining the Treasure Keepers. Tarq may be judgmental and grudge bearing as all hell, but let me emphasize - [i]I am not Tarquinus,[/i] and Tarq is not I. Now, I confess I'm annoyed that CotS's attempt to help the CoE didn't succeed, but as the leader (now in exile) of the CoE, I have to bear responsibility for that failure. I do know how to take an alliance and I know what went wrong, but the blame for the failure of internal communication among my group has to lie with me. There's one other thing - it's been said that the (now exiled) CoE's comments in CotS's PL have been vicious and judgmental, e.g., "[i]Traitor - not to be trusted.[/i]" I'm sorry if that comment offends, but it happens to be true. CotS seems like nice guy, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but he [u]is[/u] a traitor, twice over (he betrayed Lord Pip by inviting Neno). It does also annoy me to be condemned, along with my crew, for stating obvious truths. We can all be courteous OOC and have a good time in MD, and there's no good reason not to. I don't see anyone having the moral high ground here.

The true Eclipse - that is as distinguished from the "official" Eclipse who took our badges - has renewed its Pact with the leaders of Necrovion, Peace and Azull. [size=5][b]Pact of the Sands[/b][/size] These are the terms of the pact between the forces of Necrovion and the Children of the Eclipse, one people, one purpose. I. War: The forces of Necrovion and the Children of the Eclipse shall not make war against each other. In situations where other alliances (as in that between the Eclipse and the Guardians of the Root) might force the two parties into conflict, both parties hereby agree to refuse to engage each other in warfare. II. Peace: The forces of Necrovion and the Children of the Eclipse may engage each other in duels. Individual members of each party may, however, request not to be attacked by the other, and the leaders of both parties agree to ensure that such requests are honored.­­­ III. Information: The forces of Necrovion and the Children of the Eclipse agree to share information on an ethical basis. Knowledge of advanced game mechanics and “spoilers” shall only be shared in case of emergency, but otherwise members of both parties shall be encouraged to share theories and discoveries pertaining to the nature of the realm of MagicDuel. This Pact was re-confirmed by Tarquinus, Amoran, Peace, and Azull. The "official" CoE has no bearing on this Pact and is not subject to its terms, just as it is not subject to our oaths or ceremonies. We cannot be held responsible for that group's actions.

Happy anniversary, man.

The Eclipse has long been interested in liberating KC, long before our badges were stolen. We might have only just now gone public with the matter, but that doesn't mean we've only become interested now. This topic is about liberating Knator Commander and how that might be achieved. Our motives - and who is the "official" Eclipse - are irrelevant questions. Please stay on topic, or I'll ask a moderator to relocate the sniping and side-discussion to another thread.

I'm in. And yes, I have missed you.

Congratulations. I think you'll do well.

Because of the purging of the alliance by Lord Pip, CoE members have, for the time being, lost their in-game status as citizens of Loreroot. While that is regrettable, I wish to state that we of the Eclipse still very much consider ourselves citizens of Loreroot, and respectfully ask to be treated as such. I have also updated the roster.

To the Children of the Eclipse: Some of you already know this, but I wish to announce it here: Lord Pip, an alt of Pipstickz, managed to gain entry to the CoE, take control of it through judicious sacrifice of creatures to boost his loyalty score, and expel all the members. He has since been joined by MRWander, formerly of the dastardly MR Fraternity. I am not sure exactly how I plan to get our badges back, but I am sure what I will [u]not[/u] do. This ought to go without saying, but just to be clear: I will not be approaching Mur or the Council about this matter, and I will not be attempting to prosecute Pip in the MD Court or any other body. I have no reason to think Pip used a bug or exploit to get into the CoE, but if he did, I leave such matters in the hands of those whose position it is to regulate them. Until I am given reason to think otherwise, I will assume Pip achieved this act of sabotage through honorable, game-mechanical means. [b]The Eclipse is not disbanded.[/b] Those who now wear its badge are not the "new" Children of the Eclipse; they are merely brigands. As for those who wore its badge until now, it remains to be seen what we are. Are we knights and priests, warriors, teachers, and questers, or are we merely talk? This turn of events forces us to demonstrate what we are made of, both in and out of character. I intend to carry on with the Eclipse - when we regain our badges, it will be because we have earned them, nothing less. Those of you who have sworn oaths to defend Loreroot and serve the Sibyl (Amoran) are not discharged from these oaths. This is [u]particularly[/u] true for our knighthood: if you think yourself a knight, now is the time to prove it. I asked Lord Pip (in character, as Tarq) politely to return our badges. He politely declined. While I intend to use all available in-game means of restoring them to our membership, I wish to be clear that I will use in-game means [u]only[/u]. Pip is honorable if mischievous, and I expect our knights and priestesses to treat him courteously even while we work to undo his schemes. I have often said that the worst thing that can happen in MD is also the best thing: that something interesting will happen. If the loss of our badges does not interest you, perhaps you have no place in the Eclipse. In the meantime, I call upon all of you to join me in fighting to restore what is rightfully ours: and I must observe that if we cannot regain our in-game alliance and keep it, then perhaps we do not deserve to have it. Let us speak through our actions from this point forward.

Lyrics and such are among my strong points, but I know a bit about the realm, its lore, and its history. I also have a lot of experience writing for RPGs (and writing in general), and am available as an editor, sounding board, or factotum for quest writers of all levels of ability.

[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1322500020' post='96773'] It's kinda wrong to enter in the "corruption" possibility seas and to stop on the first checkpoint. There will never, or rarely, be true "winners" of these categories, and if you try to limit it to force out some kind of "proper result" it will only turn bad. Make it fair, and let the mass pick whom ever it wants to pick. [/quote] I couldn't agree more. The revelation that weight was given to certain voters in a previous election or elections was very unsettling to me - it seemed to me that a ruling clique of veterans wished to dictate the course of the awards. I don't know how realistic this is to suggest, but ideally I think we should have one vote per player ([u]not[/u] per character/account) and no more. A restriction on minimum active days makes sense to me, but apart from that, I say formulaic determinations of vote counts should be avoided.

Happy birthday.