Domonic Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Honetsly, i think LIfeline should keep his accounts. i mean, things of sentimental value can cause mental greif and great distress. He should, at LEAST keep the one with the premium creatures, cause thats a waste of money, to lose all those creatures. I'd be bummed out too if Mur deleted my accounts. As like the others who posted before me, i state that lifeline IS the kind of person who won't break rules intentionaly. Fenrir Greycloth, Sharpwind, Watcher and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Greycloth Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I voted no. those creatures have no real purpose to them besides their age value. Did you keep any of the other first creatures? How about your first aramor? Or your first tree? Lady Renata, Sparrhawk, Tarquinus and 6 others 2 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juntaozhu15 Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Fenrir Greycloth' date='14 September 2009 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1252883298' post='41703'] I voted no. those creatures have no real purpose to them besides their age value. Did you keep any of the other first creatures? How about your first aramor? Or your first tree? [/quote] [quote name='Lifeline' date='10 September 2009 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1252622453' post='41463'] i kept my age old aramor, barren soul and all those crits because i love them i cant replace them anymore... if i loose them then i will loose the only crits i am willing to fight with. before teh CTC i used to always have a full profile because i kept at least the first crit of each type i ever trained and played with. i never sacced them even when they had 1000wins i send them to an alt because i love them. they have a place in my hearth and cant be replaced buy new crits i recruit ...sorry for the spamming i am just a sentimental fool who cant get over his lost babies [/quote] Fenrir, please read the whole post before making assumptions... Edited September 14, 2009 by juntaozhu15 Jester, Sparrhawk, Lady Renata and 6 others 6 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Greycloth Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Well now that I have read that, I am still against it. The whole point you put them on alts is to make room for other critters? Right? Leave them where they are. They are still there, you can still look at them and know that they exist right? Chewett, Jester, unbelievable power and 6 others 2 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbelievable power Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 [quote name='Fenrir Greycloth' date='13 September 2009 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1252894343' post='41710'] Well now that I have read that, I am still against it. The whole point you put them on alts is to make room for other critters? Right? Leave them where they are. They are still there, you can still look at them and know that they exist right? [/quote] So I am wrong for keeping useless(to me) creatures on my alts? Things that I've had since my earliest days, premium creatures I bought, etc?? I'm here to kill and train up my creatures, stats, and principles. Cleaning house on your army to put creatures you'll never use on alts is not bad. Why didn't we just kill them for xp and stats?? Useless as they may be in the whole training process, they must mean something, right? They mean enough to us that we feel they should be kept. Why would we need to age things that already have (and have had) the required age to be maxed? Why did we pass on the stats and xp?? C'mon man get real. Watcher, Sharpwind, Raven and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Greycloth Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 I never said it was a bad thing, I feel sentimental to my first bloodpact archer. The one I got as a present during Christmas. I don't feel the need to put it on an alt though. It can't mean THAT much if you put it on an alt to be forgotten about. Sparrhawk, Jester, dst and 5 others 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dst Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 I just love when Fenrir acts so...morally . He's more catholic then the Pope after he was caught and punished for stealing . I keep some of my first crits on an alt also. And I don't have premium crits in there. Just grasans, elemetals and few others. Sentimental value. Raven, Sparrhawk, Lady Renata and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifeline Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 lol fenrir sometimes i really wonder if u only post to get more neg rep. but who knows maybe ur goal is to have the lowest rep of all. first of all the profiles are public so u can see very well that there is at least 1 of every crit available on those 2 accounts. (expect drachorns because those are teh only creatures i still have) now tell me why would i CTC a blood away and not sac it? it needs tons of wins to max and if i would have sacced it i could have gotten 3k principles for the blood alone. why did i CTC it away? because it was teh very first blood i ever had and it means something to me like the aramor and barren soul or knator. and now please dont tell me that i would ever keep those for anything else but sentimental value. we all know that almost no mp5 will ever use those crits. if u dont believe me just think about it why would i have my crit profile full with "useless" crits over half a year until the CTC was implemented? and why would i wine about "useless" crits here if they dont mean anything to me? just check CarrierC profile. u will see that it doesnt hold a single crit that is worth more than a few silver coins u know what? seeing u always picturing everything as bad, cheating or abuse tells a lot about urself. people who interpret everything as negativ and abusive very likely only think and act in those terms as well. Lady Renata and Watcher 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Bell Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 i say definitely let him have the account with premium creatures.. and if mur feels good give the other two also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipstickz Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 On Pipstickz, I have a couple really old grasans, back from sometime close to when I started...I keep them mostly for an age reference...and to brag xD Anyways, I think that Lifeline should get the three accounts back, but with some kind of penalty or something...not taking away the creatures, because that defeats the purpose of getting the accounts back...I'd say something like no CTC on those three accounts, but then someone would probably say that it's hard to code or something xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ledah Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Ban the accounts, keep them banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guybrush Threepwood Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Aging crits on alts, or storing massive amounts of crits for trade on alts, is a clear offense (assuming the ones aging are going to be traded, clearly aramors and barren souls have no purpose to be aged). What you did with the TSs and Angiens was wrong, and if a few other accounts were caught in the mix then, too bad is what I say, it's the risk you took. HOWEVER If you read the thread by Fenrir, the removal of acceptance of alts, people pretty much all agreed that you can either be strong, or be moral. So it would seem that everyone else is doing it, and support it. Mur stated that it was a thin line, not illegal, but I do think it's a pretty clear spot on the wrong side of the line. However, since Mur has said nothing since... Well, I guess with all the very OBVIOUS abuse from others (Granos mentioned RPCs, and I think a lot of people are aware of who...) and the lack of any further input it COULD be misunderstood that it was not a direct offense. My biggest issue in all of this is that it just seems hypocritical. I feel that there are more obvious abusers out there, that there are people who practically brag about their abuse that aren't being punished. I see no reason why Lifeline should be punished while others are still clearly abusing. Unless of course for some reason these others are allowed to abuse. Edited September 16, 2009 by Guybrush Threepwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowseeker Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 Close due to inactivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts