(08-06-2016, 11:39 PM)Flash™ Wrote: Please keep your members under control. I hate seeing PMs fly towards my members implying GRN are just "pvpwhores" and don't RP. We take offense to that as a faction. You don't see us PMing CR| members and saying complete nonsense like that, do you?
Thank you, hoping to see less "//<insert hate>" being PMed to my members in the future. <3
[8:10:23 AM] S H A G G Y: DO NOT ANSWER THE FEEDBACK
[7:57:12 AM] S H A G G Y: It is all the GRN| lot and and all the [RHA] pvp scum (I like to see this from Official Leader)
[7:56:51 AM] S H A G G Y: -={IMPORTANT ANNOUNCE}=-
FROM THIS MOMENT ON WE DO NOTHING FOR |AOI WE DO NOT INTERACT WITH THEM WE DO NOT PVP THEM. FROM THIS MOMENT ON IF THEY LOG IN WE LOG OFF (+1)
Good to know you don't care about how your members act in game ooRPly towards others. (:
Edit: GRN and RHA pvp scum. Good to see how you really feel. Although not sure why RHA are now part of GRN or how they are connected in any way. Moving on....
I did apologize to you when you posted in the GRN feedback thread; whining about GRN not giving a fair fight, despite video evidence showing otherwise. I then made sure every fight with CR was fair and equal numbered, sometimes even giving CR a upper hand in numbers when taking skill of each individual into account. But really? You had to drop this low? I'm disappointed. I'll continue to give CR| a fair fight, but at least don't talk shi* behind my back. If you want to say something about GRN, PM it to me, post in GRN feedback; not rant about it in your faction chat, turning your members against myself as a leader and GRN. That's just low man.
I also understand that you don't need to answer to feedback if you don't want to, which is completely fine with me. But I took offense because of what one of your members said, and now that I see you say that in your faction chat; I see where they get it from. I am really disappointed.
2 things unrelated to what really happened, because it is actually pretty minor, happens all the time and is not worth too much attention.
However this makes sense:
> one should never take too seriously what is written in spammy faction chats when emotions run high. It's almost never correct, nor does it aim to be worded acceptably. It is also almost never enforced like it is written.
> one should never copy&paste stuff from faction channels. Faction channels are there for ranting, venting, making huge plans that are forgetten the next day.
Keep it civilized in here folks. We do not post skype-convos with the sole intention of starting fires. Unless you have CONSTRUCTIVE criticism simply do not post at all. - The Moderation Team
Will @Johnathan Nox Carter be returning any time soon, or should I prepare myself for a new era of uncooperativeness, spitefulness, and downright despicable conduct coming from CR| leadership in the coming weeks and months?
Since @Tabris has quite rightly called for any further comments left to be constructive, I'll do my best to give you some sincere advice: if you're so intent on cutting off any attempt at working with 'the other side', as it were, and retreating back into Skype channels to rant and rave about yours truly and any faction I'm even halfway connected with, then I don't see how you expect to resolve the outlying issues at all. You are the ones inflaming the tensions, not me. My door is always open for legitimate feedback concerning any of the factions that I help lead - but if that's the case, I expect the same courtesy when I come returning the favour.
I don't have to try and fix things with CR| - that's the point half of you seem to be almost willfully missing. If I actually didn't give a damn about how CR| felt, I wouldn't have wasted my time talking to people on Skype, and I wouldn't be wasting my time posting here. It is you who are trying to cut off the communication, and it is you who are trying to sever all ties. That isn't going to help anything - you are feeding the problem, not solving it.
This will be the last post I make on this issue, but the ball is firmly in your court. If you are intent on writing off everything I say before I've even said it, then I won't waste my breath, and you can continue to fan the flames as much as you like. @Shaggy is not welcome to contact me as I've found him to be outright insulting and unhelpful, but any member of CR| HC with a view towards actually resolving things can consider themselves free to hit me up on Skype. I would assume the same goes for Flash, too, but I don't speak for him.
How about you all relax?
Your factions were named in a Skype rant in a closed faction channel after pvp went bad for one side.
And you really take that seriously?
All who play the "I am really angry now!" card should admit that this has happened a few hundred times before, and that it is only a thing because @GuapMan broke the unwritten rule of copy&pasting the best parts onto forums to create havoc. He did it after being kicked from CR because he was trolling by copy&pasting the comments of anger to other channels, which is a absolute no-go. So he decided to fuel the fire by publishing it on forums.
A cooler approach to something that is rather common and really not a big thing would be a lot more sensible, especially seeing that the responding parties are veterans.
The only person at fault here is @GuapMan.
Closed faction Skype channels are there to rage, vent, and ultimately feel better afterwards. If you do not know that, you are likely not in factions that often need this function for their members to feel better after disappointing events. Perhaps you should be there to understand the mentality and that it is by no means personal - and it is normally gone after 1 good night's rest.
Wait, do you really use faction chats for raging like a mad kid then, Jack?
I mean some amount of expressed frustration is okay from anyone, but going as far as to suggest borderline metagamish OORP interaction denial apparently fueled by OORP emotions is something I would likely not tolerate in our own chat. Let's not even mention how ironic (hypocrite) it is to blame Guap for sharing those lines amidst all the threads crying for more and more transparency in Staff conduct.
Wait, do you really use faction chats for raging like a mad kid then, Jack?
I mean some amount of expressed frustration is okay from anyone, but going as far as to suggest borderline metagamish OORP interaction denial apparently fueled by OORP emotions is something I would likely not tolerate in our own chat. Let's not even mention how ironic (hypocrite) it is to blame Guap for sharing those lines amidst all the threads crying for more and more transparency in Staff conduct.
(08-07-2016, 11:18 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: [align=justify][color=#FFFFFF]Wait, do you really use faction chats for raging like a mad kid then, Jack?
Yes, at time they are used to vent the anger. In which form, and how correct and how poltically correct and how nice the wording is depends much on what happened. The leaked passages are rather harmless in nature, to be honest. Real rants look a lot different. (by the way, the capital writing is not "yelling", it is just a way of making an announcement that sticks out).
I can only reiterate: That's what faction only channels are for: to give a room to these negative emotions that is not public, in order to cope with the negative effects of events, in order to get rid of the energy. That's something positive and that's why that private space needs to be protected.
Quote: OORP interaction denial apparently fueled by OORP emotions
This is an avenue that has been proposed hundreds and executed dozens of times in the last 5 years by all factions that are routinely busted in pvp. It's the last way to fight back for those who are pounded by overwhelming opposition: by starving out the attackers until they move on to some other target. Read on, though: I am not saying it was called for in this instance (I was not even there), so I cannot judge it.
Plus: announcements made (like in the quote) do not have to reflect real future policies. They sometimes just are means of frustration coping: you act, you have a plan to remedy a situation (no matter how bad the plan is) => you feel better as a group => you move on. Basic psychology.
And this is actually in the best interest of everybody. Guess what: the day after the announcement was made, CR interacted with the named groups again, on multiple occastions.
Quote:Let's not even mention how ironic (hypocrite) it is to blame Guap for sharing those lines amidst all the threads crying for more and more transparency in Staff conduct.
As if leaking of channel interna had anything to do with demands for staff transparency. You compare apples and pears.
Faction channels with a clear "no c&p policy" would in rl be confidential backdoor political/economic disputes - guess what: Those are meant to be confidential. Leaking from such secret meetings is considered criminal or is at least heavily frowned on. Companies fire you for it and sue you. In reality, once a decision has been reached in back room talk, a real well-thought through statement with correct wording can be published (and likely will not because the anger has vanished the next day, and no one cares any more, see earlier paragraph).
Staff decisions - in contrast - can be compared to the parliamentary / justice system. Of course this one has to work transparently. It makes laws, interprets and enforces them. It is a session in parliament, compared to a invite-only circle gathering in a back room.
Jack
P.S: Getting a +1 from Guap should also be something to think about.
(08-08-2016, 09:11 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Yes, at time they are used to vent the anger. In which form, and how correct and how poltically correct and how nice the wording is depends much on what happened. The leaked passages are rather harmless in nature, to be honest. Real rants look a lot different. (by the way, the capital writing is not "yelling", it is just a way of making an announcement that sticks out).
I can only reiterate: That's what faction only channels are for: to give a room to these negative emotions that is not public, in order to cope with the negative effects of events, in order to get rid of the energy. That's something positive and that's why that private space needs to be protected.
The leaked passages are, as you yourself pointed out as well, announcements made by the faction leader. If they are to be discarded as rant, it undermines the authority of the faction leader, if they are considered as is, they lead to interaction denial, it is detrimental towards other players. Either way it's harmful.
Let's just agree we use our faction channels differently. Mine is not for ragefests.
(08-08-2016, 09:11 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: This is an avenue that has been proposed hundreds and executed dozens of times in the last 5 years by all factions that are routinely busted in pvp. It's the last way to fight back for those who are pounded by overwhelming opposition: by starving out the attackers until they move on to some other target. Read on, though: I am not saying it was called for in this instance (I was not even there), so I cannot judge it.
Interestingly I cannot recall ever advocating the excercise of such policies, perhaps Council is just not part of "all factions that are routinely busted in pvp". Perhaps we are full of aces, I just didn't notice yet. What I'm saying is that I am not keen to accept any excuse to justify such emotional outburst and such directive for the faction no matter how much we were rekt in-game.
It's interesting to see how you defend Shaggy's words though, after all those debates between us where you preferred any interaction no matter the quality, while I argued that quality shall not be forgotten no matter how much less activity we have today compared to previous years. Did we happen to switch sides?
(08-08-2016, 09:11 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Plus: announcements made (like in the quote) do not have to reflect real future policies. They sometimes just are means of frustration coping: you act, you have a plan to remedy a situation (no matter how bad the plan is) => you feel better as a group => you move on. Basic psychology.
It's an announcement from the actual faction leader. As I said if it's not meant to be taken seriously, then in the future who tells which order should and which shouldn't be followed? It just undermines the credibility, the authority of the leader. There are a lot of ways to vent one's anger without causing such.
(08-08-2016, 09:11 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: As if leaking of channel interna had anything to do with demands for staff transparency. You compare apples and pears.
Faction channels with a clear "no c&p policy" would in rl be confidential backdoor political/economic disputes - guess what: Those are meant to be confidential. Leaking from such secret meetings is considered criminal or is at least heavily frowned on. Companies fire you for it and sue you. In reality, once a decision has been reached in back room talk, a real well-thought through statement with correct wording can be published (and likely will not because the anger has vanished the next day, and no one cares any more, see earlier paragraph).
Staff decisions - in contrast - can be compared to the parliamentary / justice system. Of course this one has to work transparently. It makes laws, interprets and enforces them. It is a session in parliament, compared to a invite-only circle gathering in a back room.
I compare transparency and transparency. There is nothing special about it. Both faction-level stuff and staff-level stuff has an effect on their surroundings, the latter a bit wider and more than the former, but still.
I also find your corporate parallel a bit forced, it's not like top secret faction plans or information were leaked or something, against which I could see such a policy justified, just an outburst of the leader, the attitude and temper of whom may as well concern those the faction interacts with. Should there been a leak of, for example, the rename password, which is indeed confidental information, I could agree with you, but not in this case.
(08-08-2016, 09:11 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: P.S: Getting a +1 from Guap should also be something to think about.
Care to elaborate? You won't discredit my points simply because someone else agreed with them too, will you?