Announcement 3170

[Lania]

I get it. Just wanted to point out that after the whole Eon thing started, I was one of the "I'm not going to participate anymore" ones. :3

[DARK DEMON]

Most told me before I could even ask them. IIRC Amber was the only participant who went back to the Labyrinth.

 

I still don't understand what "point" I had to prove. Yes, you did exactly as I predicted, but I only kept that to myself.

 

I had no "point" because I seriously have no time to make a quest to show people are against me and they must be stopped or whatever. My issue is with anyone disrupting anyone's quests, and this is the last time I'm saying this.

 

 

And you kind of posted the proof yourself that I did want to continue the quest. People were complaining from much earlier, but I only stopped it after the teleports to GG were replaced with the sendtodeathwhisper, because I found it unfair that Amber could pass through the East and reach back to the Laby easily. I knew nobody at that time who I could ask to send to GoE.

Edited November 3, 2014 by DARK DEMON

[Aeoshattr]

I knew nobody at that time who I could ask to send to GoE.

 

I can confirm DD did ask around for people that can teleport to GoE.

[dst]

What was your win?

 

As I said in my previous post:

 

Quest smooth = white ball for Labby citizenship

Quest bad = whine to council

 

You COULD have secured this quest a LOT better but you didn't bother. You knew you had only to win from this.

 

And stopping the quest after Eon's first tele would have been incredibly stupid even for you. Besides you now can say that "you wanted to continue the quest". Basically you did everything to plan a "perfect murder" and secure yourself a nice little alibi.

 

@Aeo: there are other spells that can teleport including his sendtotrialofagony. There are solutions! He simply didn't care enough to find them. Or if he did he didn't want to apply them.

[DARK DEMON]

Typical you who just thinks everyone does it for a "win".  And not like send to ToA would make it any fairer, nor would the participants like it.
 

Basically you did everything to plan a "perfect murder" and secure yourself a nice little alibi.

 
PS.The above sentence made me laugh for 20 seconds and made my day :))

Edited November 3, 2014 by DARK DEMON

[dst]

Then I am ashamed. I made you laugh only 20 seconds while you make us laugh the whole year long! :D

[No one]

 
The hypocrisy part wasn't directed at you, dst, moreso to the community and the general "You're not active enough" excuse  - bad phrasing, for which I take the blame.
 
I am curious what you blacked out in the third row there, however.

 
you should blame me her inactivity as i drag her around.

 

Also, it means we (the participants) have been used by DD.

  
yes

Would that be valid if someone else other than you (or someone holding a function similar to yours in MD) had done it?

yes, quite a few
but dd and you :p
---------
darn, now i even respond in rhimes

[Ivorak]

If social issues cannot be resolved by social means (and that doesn't just mean asking nicely, blacklists and player inflicted punishments are just as welcome in my book), there's another option if you don't want your quest tampered with: design your quest so that it can't be tampered with. Quite simple, though this rules out most races and such. Oh well.

 

If using teleport spells on someone involved in a quest is outlawed, I'm done here. I say this as someone who doesn't have any teleport spells. Interactions are at the heart of MD and I don't think they need to be consensual if they are intentionally enabled by code. "Intentionally" because bug abuses are another matter and "enabled by code" because RP Reality Requirements and more importantly the rules against obscene language are necessarily governed by laws instead of mechanics. But we allow for emergence, because that's more or less the point of unscripted interaction.

 

To clarify, some examples:

I. Got a knife? Feel free to stab someone in the back. The only consequences you have to worry about are what other players do in return. Upset about being dead? Find a way to get revived. And better yet, get revenge. Or maybe you just want justice? Get your land leader to pass laws regarding killings and use land funds to secure means to enforce these laws.  Seek treaties with other lands and groups to strengthen these deterrents. 

 

II. Want to prevent resource depletion. Post an armed guard. 

 

III. Afraid someone's gonna mess with your quest? Silvertongue them repeatedly for the duration. Or pay someone else to distract them. Or hold a signup for your event in advance, so you can message the participants the start time privately and hold the event in secret. Or plan the event for when they're usually offline.

 

If you start to bifurcate the realm based upon the idea that interference is bad, then we might as well all have an instance of MD to ourselves. And that would be lame. A singleplayer PvP, wat?

Addendums:
 

I. I'm afraid my examples aren't too great, but you've got me riled.
II. I think the divide here might be differences of thought about roleplaying. I consider myself a roleplayer, but I rely upon ideas and mechanics, rather than make believe. You should too. It would make me happy.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Ivorak

[powle]

i got a nice story for you all.
A Young boyscout decides he wants to get a "helps people in need" badge. He decides to bake some cookies and deliver them to starving kids. After spending quite a few hours of time making the cookies he sets out to the orphanage on the other side of the town. But then when he reaches the orphanage he notices a misterious (and a little creepy) figure standing nearby. He shrugs hoping nothing will happen and pushes the door open. Just as he is about to hand out the cookies that misterious figure grabs the cookies and runs away with them. The boyscout runs after the thief for some time but eventually gives up. He apologises to the starving kids for not giving them the cookies and goes to the police to report the crime. But the police says that they refuse to act because he was doiing it for the sake of his comunity and so it should be the comunity that resolves the issue.

members of this comunity than say:
-that the only person hurt was the boyscout and that the starving children that were denied the cookies are irrelevant
-that it was a win-win situation for the boyscout because either he gets a badge or he gets a reason to make a police report (both apparently equally winning result and again the fact that the children are still hungry is still irrelevant)
-that it is the boyscout's own foult for having the cookies stolen - it is afterall the most natural thing to bring a SWAT team with you to proect you from harm every time you go deliver cookies to an orphanage or anything simmilar
-more very interesting things that i can't immediately think of.
And the only thing the thief has to say is: I didn't steal the cookies because it was Boyscout that was delievering them - i would (and will) steall cookies from any person at any given time whenever it is possible. And many (or at least a few) members of the comunity think that if this is the case then it's all OK.


now for those of you that think that everything in this story makes sense, that there is nothing wrong with it... well i'm sorry to say so but perhaps there's something wrong with you.

[No one]

if only the boyscout would have delivered his own cookies ; if only the boyscout would have not expected payment for the delivery / play ... but hey, who am i to ask about boyscout's motivation?

you have the story, you have the facts


the untold question everybody is avoiding is: would you grant kingship of labby to dd for a lame quest and a few similar topics?

in short: those that understood the question before me being blunt, i guess would say no for different reasons; those that didn't understood the question before ... what is your answer?

--------
grrr, this will get ugly for me. i bet on smth about -6

[Ackshan Bemunah]

if only the boyscout would have delivered his own cookies ; if only the boyscout would have not expected payment for the delivery / play ... but hey, who am i to ask about boyscout's motivation?
you have the story, you have the facts
the untold question everybody is avoiding is: would you grant kingship of labby to dd for a lame quest and a few similar topics?
in short: those that understood the question before me being blunt, i guess would say no for different reasons; those that didn't understood the question before ... what is your answer?
--------
grrr, this will get ugly for me. i bet on smth about -6

I Don't understand at all. How is this question even implied? DD Didn't think he was high enough class to get kingship or citizenship, just high enough class to run a quest. Is even that level of false sense of entitlement enough to disqualify a person from MD? Edited November 4, 2014 by Ackshan Bemunah

[Kyphis the Bard]

To get back onto topic a little....

I agree completely with Ivorak and Chewett, as well as council.

It is no secret I am on reasonably friendly terms with dst and Eon, but I say this irrelevant of all those involved - I also have no reason to dislike Dark Demon, nor suspect he bears me any ill will.
 

There are most definetly social solutions to this problem. Chewet has demonstrated that, in the past, Eon has chosen not to interfere in events he is fully capable of ruining simply because he was asked. And while yes, it could be argued that he only did it because it was Chewet asking, I would disagree with this. I've known Eon to not mess with quests even when asked by someone he disliked, for the simple reason that asking shows at least a modicum of politeness and respect.

 

To suggest another solution to this problem beyond what Ivorak suggested - if you suspect so strongly that someone will interfere in a quest to the point that you can say you "know" they will... why not ask them to? Why not encourage them to turn this destructive tendancy into a constructive element of the quest? Instead of having Eon randomly teleport, trap, or kill your contestants with no reason, why not encourage him to do it in a constructive way? If you can agree to a framework, then you could even have rules the participants can follow to avoid this happening - for example if Eon posts a [.] in their scene they get 30 seconds to RP fight him off before he murders them.

Both Eon and dst have proven themselves to be highly reasonable individual over the several years I have known them. They may have a tendancy to be complete and utter [whatever swear you think fits] a lot of the time - but that doesn't preclude them from being people, being reasonable, or treating others with politeness and respect.

[DARK DEMON]

the untold question everybody is avoiding is: would you grant kingship of labby to dd for a lame quest and a few similar topics?
in short: those that understood the question before me being blunt, i guess would say no for different reasons

Most of the stuff I've done is not shared with people :)

[Rophs]

I've seen dst and repeatedly state that DD created the quest hoping it would be sabotaged so he can make a complaint. Do you have any real proof of these intentions are you just making it up?

[Curiose]

On phone, will elaborate later.  

 

Eon, if you swallow your pride, and respectfully speak to him, is awesome.  He's one if my best friends in MD, and back when he wasn't a power house, he was actually really, really helpful with a lot of things.  He even gave me birds and was patient to help me train way back when.  

 

What pissed him off the most is when people don't treat him with respect, or even regard the fact that...  Hey, if you don't want something tampered with (I think he even helped me get back at the folks who put me in stat damage, and helped me get out), ask.  If you want help, ask.  

 

I don't know dst as well as Eon, but I can only assume that she works on the same modem.  We have had our spats, but it's never gone as far as the dd, dst thing. 

[Menhir]

In my opinion this realm  is not a computer game ... I don´t know if it was ever planned to be a social experiment but since I joined my strongest feeling always was that it is one.

 

So I´m asking:

 

How do you deal with uncomfortably situations in real life?

 

From my point of view the following is happening since laws were invented (used/misused).

 

Most human beings are always trying to stay in their comfort zone (scientific fact) so they choose the "good side" to be safe ... "Its always good to know that we are on the correct side of events, isn`t it?"

 

Which creates the opportunity to shape the "correct" side in a way that those who are the ones in power of shaping are constantly favoured. This leds to a situation were most "followers" don´t act with full awareness (means breaking through the illusion they think is reality) ... no they just repetately react to events which were put in front of them by full intend. From my point of view that is the circle most people are in all the time. 

 

I´m not in favour with any party which has something to do with this "event", I´m just trying to see behind our own behaviour to find the needed clue to evolve. Most people are programmed in a way they cannot even accept thinking about, not to mention the act of truely changing themselfs. Most are too afraid to leave their comfort zone.    

 

If the idea of comming together in a realm to interact with others is a main part of this whole experience, then we should always try to find different ways of interacting (communication is one way). If we would like to have the perfect virtual world to be pleased and conforted all the time, then there are thousands of "games" out there which exactly are designed to do that 100% of the time.

 

From my point of view the starting point of interacting with others which we think oppose us is to start always at our own self. The point here is honesty, which is the biggest stumbling block right in the beginning. We tend to point our fingers instead of bending it towards ourselfs and start with "What has this to do with me?".

 

For me this is the hardest part especially in those cases when I´m 100% sure that I´m correct and had only the best intentions. To communicate honestly with each other without involving the manipulating ego is a hard stone to swallow. I see no other way to solve real issues, because I believe (it´s knowledge when I´m talking about my own experiences in life) it all starts there.

 

Some might do this already. As far as I can say about myself ... I know the "facts" but from time to time I still fall into the trap my own ego is laying out. It´s a constant remembering, hard work and often unpleasant especially in those moments you try to find some peace and comfort.

 

I wish all of you the best and please take none of those things I wrote in any way personal.      

Edited November 4, 2014 by Menhir

[Ungod]

Oh, now I see your game.

This is what I think happened: DD made a quest in an attempt to get closer to the citizenship he wants (nothing wrong with that). Seeing it was disrupted, he made minimum efforts to get it running, but then decided its way easier to report an ”abuse”. Evil DD (using us)? No, both protagonists won - they got to ”prove” the accusations they made all along: dst, that DD is a whiner who shouldnt get a role he will not sweat for, DD, that dst is evil and abuses her powers/role. Nice play, guys, but next time I will not be a spectator.

 

Btw, the announcement made by the Council was pretty smart.

[Myth]

Everyone's right in their own mind, that should be obvious.

 

DD makes a quest, people gather to participate. Was this for the good of the community? Himself? Both? The reasoning is completely irrelevant. Even if he only did it for a white ball on his image, who cares? On the side, there was some implemented activity by him, at that particular time. Ok, others (Eon, dst, and whoever else) gave the community months of activity... that doesn't mean that stopping others from attempting to do the same, even if at a lower standard, is in order, whatever their reasoning. I'm fairly certain that this one quest would NOT have given DD kingship over the Labyrinth - it's a minor step, and I'm quite sure Council would know that.

 

Eon decides to have some fun. That's alright. I was fine after the 3 GoE teleports, but a limit would have been in order. Amber and Legna are old in MD, so it's easy for them to return. Younger players don't have this privilege. I could have asked for help to getting back, but not everyone has that luxury. Some people are simply socially impeded, because that's how they are - they get hurt by this type of action.

 

I read above that Eon was asked politely to not interfere. Apparently, the social solution had no effect. Actually, DD can't prove he sent the message (because he cancelled it) in the same manner as dst can't prove her claims of DD's motives - which, once again, are irrelevant to the participants - because they're purely speculative.

 

If you're expecting people to get ready for everything that can be thrown their way, you'll probably be surprised to find out that this is impossible. Sure, there are ways of countering foul play, but ways around are always found. Example: silvertongue Eon; solution: Eon asks someone else to proceed in his stead = we're back to this thread. Now, the teleport to the East could have indeed been countered with a teleport to GoE, but did anyone have the courtesy of checking whether or not anyone was available and able to help out in that way? Would Eon have done it? Again, one can only speculate.

 

I guess my point is, if you're gonna mess with someone's work, have a limit.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Myth

[dst]

that dst is evil and abuses her powers/role.

 

 

 

What did I abuse?

[Jubaris]

Chewy mentioned he, Mur, the council, etc. can't find a solution?

Why?

Because everything that made this situation was systematically made possible. There were series and series of wrong decisions by Mur _{(and perhaps to lesser extent by others after him, but that's less impacting, situation got more 'fair' and law-ish but not completely)}, that I'm certain he knew they were wrong, but used them as a sacrifice to achieve something else. That 'something else' tends to fail at points, and we get a double lose situation.

I remember a lot of events, with kingships for example, how they started - everything about them was an improvisation and a sacrifice for the 'greater' cause, which seems not to be accomplished by the way. I remember wish points were gave out for ridiculous reasons to friends and loyal servants, not in any objective way, Dst tracked down some of them and made a forum topic about it. Did something happen to those wish points or the one who was giving them? No, it was a willing sacrifice, who cares about corruption if that makes us closer to autonomous parts of MD which makes it easier to run it. It was probably signalized to Dst, so she backed down of pushing the matter, stating how she is satisfied it will not happen again because she noticed it the first time... Gazillion of such instances.

 

And something you all know about, the 'common sense' rule. I'm not sure when did the teleport to GoE spell origin, but I know it was used for regulating Heads contest for those hiding in restricted locations. So when someone was a good person to mod it, the player was given a spell, which was also a blessing because the player could use it elsewhere but "with common sense". I don't know if that's how it worked in that particular case, but I know that it is indeed how things are done here.

'Common sense' was backed up by presence of Mur that could arbitrary decide what's good and what's bad.

What happens when we don't have a Mur? (and things weren't shining when he was here, I tell you)

 

A number of people with a lot of OP abilities that are only backed down by 'common sense'. 

 

I respect the fact that people will do something I don't find proper as characters, but if certain abilities were given with accent on responsibility and they are 'misused' then that's a problem, and I don't see it as Dst (since controversy always follows her) to blame when she does something I don't agree with, I blame the system for allowing and encouraging the breach of common sense (no apostrophes this time) for a good game. 

 

This particular case showed us how overpowering simple teleport spells are, limited casts into consideration. Dst/Eon had their reasons to do something about the event, and it just happens they can do a lot more than Dark Demon can. Find a way to balance the system, yet don't mettle with "social issues" as the council puts it.

The worst thing the admins can do is to do nothing, which I have a hunch they will do just that. A reaction, even a bad one, would be better than nothing.

 

A lot of people left our game mad - not a social issue, a system issue.

I never heard of someone leaving Minecraft angry at the 'injustice' inflicted upon the player. :P

[lashtal]

A lot has been said already and there's not much I would add to what Ivorak and others pointed out.

 

To those who organize quests and events: get prepared, there will be trolls! 

Get prepared means either:

A - protect your quests, don't run all the stuff by yourself;

B - deal with the superior intellect who's urinating on your doormat (it was dirty already and it's not because it's yours... Plus, if you ask respectfully he/she may stop!  :)))

 

To the trolls: keep on trolling! 

It's easier than running your own events and even funnier! 

You can play the badass and in the end get candies because you helped people figure out there are trolls to deal with. 

Seriously, who could ask for more?

[DARK DEMON]

Oh, now I see your game.

This is what I think happened: DD made a quest in an attempt to get closer to the citizenship he wants (nothing wrong with that). Seeing it was disrupted, he made minimum efforts to get it running, but then decided its way easier to report an ”abuse”. Evil DD (using us)? No, both protagonists won - they got to ”prove” the accusations they made all along: dst, that DD is a whiner who shouldnt get a role he will not sweat for, DD, that dst is evil and abuses her powers/role. Nice play, guys, but next time I will not be a spectator.

 

Btw, the announcement made by the Council was pretty smart.

 

It took much convincing to make the announcement, The Rich Merchant. And you've got it wrong BOTH sides. It is definitely not a play; it was a serious thing at least for me for me all along. I'm highly disappointed to hear you say this, because I had looked at the situation and thought: "I should stop the quest now because its no use; people will not participate whether you spent 2 minutes trying to keep it going or 10 hours".

 

I didn't report or whine about anything, The Rich Merchant, because I'd already asked Council to safeguard my quest before it started, because I knew that there was no way "some people" could let me do it easily (aka my prediction). After it happened, the announcement obviously had to be put because she'd done just that.

 

What I'm gonna report is NOW, of this continuous nonsense slander and these false accusations dst is making. Highly unprofessional and unreasonable. Zero evidence, just rambling on and on about something she doesn't know about, and then saying that I'm the one blinded.

 

 

 

A lot has been said already and there's not much I would add to what Ivorak and others pointed out.

 

To those who organize quests and events: get prepared, there will be trolls! 

Get prepared means either:

A - protect your quests, don't run all the stuff by yourself;

B - deal with the superior intellect who's urinating on your doormat (it was dirty already and it's not because it's yours... Plus, if you ask respectfully he/she may stop!  :)))

 

To the trolls: keep on trolling! 

It's easier than running your own events and even funnier! 

You can play the badass and in the end get candies because you helped people figure out there are trolls to deal with. 

Seriously, who could ask for more?

 

 

Yes absolutely lash, this is a lot of motivation for those who are trying to make quests.

___________________________________________

 

To end, I just wanna say that Myth hit the jackpot and said exactly what I was speaking of to Council: where to draw the line. Yes, people have social freedom, but they should not be allowed to go overboard.

[Ungod]

@DD and dst: I didnt say YOU were a whiner, DD, nor did I say YOU abused anything, dst. I pointed out those were YOUR  accusations to eachother.

 

Btw, DD, this is unclear: you are saying that the council put up the ann w/o you sending them an email or smtg? Because you also say It took much convincing to make the announcement, The Rich Merchant.

[Chewett]

The problem:

 

Mur says people can use their spells how they want and we (council and I) shouldnt punish people for doing so, or take away things they have earned.

 

Mur said something degreed by one of us can never be changed. <this is stupid>

 

Mur is away.

 

This is stupid, and Mur is wrong. But what do I know? I would do something, but I cant, becuase this is stupid. Im pissed off as anyone else.

[Ungod]

People have the right to use their spells the way they want period, but only if it doesnt go as far as harassment. (Werent there anns that said something like that?) So, determine whether its harassment or nor - if not, there is no further need to talk.