Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:00:42 GMT -5
PS: the user Reasonable is a staff member. More specifically, Cav. Most likely. He also seems to be scared to make any sort of retort to the onslaught of his misinformed/misinforming post. I like the way he's clearly here as some self-conceived "voice of reason" type, he thinks. The lone sane man talking sense to the crazies. It's so conceited, and so hilariously transparent. |
|
|
|
Post by sirra on Jun 25, 2015 20:01:14 GMT -5
Doesn't matter what he is. If he's a player, it's okay to disagree with the majority, whatever your opinion. The logs speak for themselves. If he's a staffer (which I actually doubt), then at least he's reading the board and exposing himself to a dissenting opinion now and then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:05:23 GMT -5
No, it's because he's clearly here in a 'defend the staff' capacity. If it was genuine disagreement with what people say leading to opinions that happen to coincide with staff, as has been the case with people like Malken, that'd be fine. Everything Reasonable has ever posted was an act of supporting the staff, often by lying wholesale about something in order to be able to present the opposing argument. In other words, he's full of shit 100% of the time and is not here to take part in the discussions but rather to lobby in favor of the staff (of which he is a member).
|
|
|
|
Post by reasonable on Jun 25, 2015 20:05:32 GMT -5
More specifically, Cav. Most likely. He also seems to be scared to make any sort of retort to the onslaught of his misinformed/misinforming post. I like the way he's clearly here as some self-conceived "voice of reason" type, he thinks. The lone sane man talking sense to the crazies. It's so conceited, and so hilariously transparent. If you're going to argue with me, at least argue the facts. Time and time again players post their BS stories here with a little piece of the puzzle left out when it makes them look bad. If I want to point out a lie, I will. |
|
my2sids
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 341 
|
Post by my2sids on Jun 25, 2015 20:07:13 GMT -5
Didn't seem like Asan was lying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:09:53 GMT -5
Didn't seem like Asan was lying. He wasn't, but his story is unfavorable towards the staff so reasonable has no choice but to mount a counter-attack. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:12:07 GMT -5
I think one little detail is missing from all this. Let's say they agreed to honor the requeset, and gave the three PCs a rez.
Now let's say they expect the rest of the scene to progress however it would've progressed, if the 3 PC deaths hadn't happened yet.
The result: those PCs still would've ended up dead during that scene.
For this reason alone, I don't understand why Asan challenged the first decision, when the result was inevitable anyway. Sucks to be the dead PC players, but they didn't have a chance in hell anyway.
What did you expect the staff to do? The "proper" response - would be to rez, then allow the scene to play out. Except the scene was already played out, and they'd have to have re-created the scene from scratch just to make it end how you think it should've ended.
Here's how it might've looked if they rezzed immediately:
The body of PC 1 is here.
The body of PC 2 is here.
The body of PC 3 is here.
*boom schliff shazaam*
PC 1 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier.
PC 2 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier.
PC 3 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier.
The half-giant soldier does unspeakable damage to PC 1.
Some other soldier on the opposition's side comes to the half-giant soldier's aid, and starts wailing on PC 3.
The half-giant soldier does unspeakable damage to PC 2.
The other soldier on the opposition's side does unspeakable damage to PC 3.
The body of PC 1 is here.
The body of PC 2 is here.
The body of PC 3 is here.
I really don't see why this deserved so much attention. You knew it wasn't going to end well, no matter which code did what to whom.
|
|
|
|
Post by reasonable on Jun 25, 2015 20:15:56 GMT -5
@ghaati: Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirra on Jun 25, 2015 20:20:27 GMT -5
No, it's because he's clearly here in a 'defend the staff' capacity. If it was genuine disagreement with what people say leading to opinions that happen to coincide with staff, as has been the case with people like Malken, that'd be fine. Everything Reasonable has ever posted was an act of supporting the staff, often by lying wholesale about something in order to be able to present the opposing argument. In other words, he's full of shit 100% of the time and is not here to take part in the discussions but rather to lobby in favor of the staff (of which he is a member). It's simply an unnecessary distraction to worry about such things. If someone wants to defend staff, let them. There's enough logs and evidence for any truly interested third party to form their own opinion. I personally think it was a clusterfuck, where newbies suffered at the expense of a staffer's laziness in animating. I think the logs provided support this interpretation. I know where you're coming from, though. I just don't think it's something we need to worry about, here. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime Minister Sinister on Jun 25, 2015 20:23:50 GMT -5
I think one little detail is missing from all this. Let's say they agreed to honor the requeset, and gave the three PCs a rez. Now let's say they expect the rest of the scene to progress however it would've progressed, if the 3 PC deaths hadn't happened yet. The result: those PCs still would've ended up dead during that scene. For this reason alone, I don't understand why Asan challenged the first decision, when the result was inevitable anyway. Sucks to be the dead PC players, but they didn't have a chance in hell anyway. What did you expect the staff to do? The "proper" response - would be to rez, then allow the scene to play out. Except the scene was already played out, and they'd have to have re-created the scene from scratch just to make it end how you think it should've ended. Here's how it might've looked if they rezzed immediately: The body of PC 1 is here. The body of PC 2 is here. The body of PC 3 is here. *boom schliff shazaam* PC 1 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier. PC 2 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier. PC 3 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier. The half-giant soldier does unspeakable damage to PC 1. Some other soldier on the opposition's side comes to the half-giant soldier's aid, and starts wailing on PC 3. The half-giant soldier does unspeakable damage to PC 2. The other soldier on the opposition's side does unspeakable damage to PC 3. The body of PC 1 is here. The body of PC 2 is here. The body of PC 3 is here. I really don't see why this deserved so much attention. You knew it wasn't going to end well, no matter which code did what to whom. I'm no expert on the matter, but three PCs against one HG soldier would have probably fared -far- better than that.
May even have been able to flee from the fight after breaking the soldier's grip on their Templar.
But that's not what we're arguing about here. It's not about whether or not all of them would have survived.
It's about a code clusterfuck that resulted in actions that make absolutely zero sense from an in-character standpoint, and the staff refusing to take a shred of responsibility for it.
Like... If I step into my apartment in-game, where there were ten maxed dwarven assassins with "backstab prime" already typed into their command prompt, and by some strange bug I die because "lock e" got massively fucked up and resulted in instant death, I would still demand a resurrection and would be quite miffed about it should I not get one.
|
|
|
|
Post by gloryhound on Jun 25, 2015 20:31:27 GMT -5
I think one little detail is missing from all this. Let's say they agreed to honor the requeset, and gave the three PCs a rez. Now let's say they expect the rest of the scene to progress however it would've progressed, if the 3 PC deaths hadn't happened yet. The result: those PCs still would've ended up dead during that scene. For this reason alone, I don't understand why Asan challenged the first decision, when the result was inevitable anyway. Sucks to be the dead PC players, but they didn't have a chance in hell anyway. What did you expect the staff to do? The "proper" response - would be to rez, then allow the scene to play out. Except the scene was already played out, and they'd have to have re-created the scene from scratch just to make it end how you think it should've ended. Here's how it might've looked if they rezzed immediately: The body of PC 1 is here. The body of PC 2 is here. The body of PC 3 is here. *boom schliff shazaam* PC 1 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier. PC 2 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier. PC 3 is standing here, beating on a half-giant soldier. The half-giant soldier does unspeakable damage to PC 1. Some other soldier on the opposition's side comes to the half-giant soldier's aid, and starts wailing on PC 3. The half-giant soldier does unspeakable damage to PC 2. The other soldier on the opposition's side does unspeakable damage to PC 3. The body of PC 1 is here. The body of PC 2 is here. The body of PC 3 is here. I really don't see why this deserved so much attention. You knew it wasn't going to end well, no matter which code did what to whom. You're forgetting that the half-giant soldier had laid hands on a templar, instantly making himself a traitor. From the emotes, it was a clear display of aggression even, not confusion. But that doesn't even matter. The templar ordered "kill him!". It makes no sense at all that other soldiers with the templar would (1) defend that soldier, and (2) attack those trying to obey the templar's order. They should have been joining in on the recruits' side instead. It was purely a product of the inadequate crim code. The scene was already broken and needed to be adjusted OOCly. For example, by slaying the half-giant before resurrecting the recruits. |
|
|
|
Post by sirra on Jun 25, 2015 20:31:28 GMT -5
I really don't see why this deserved so much attention. You knew it wasn't going to end well, no matter which code did what to whom. He was a PC sergeant defending his PC templar against an NPC templar during the midst of a civil war. He was a newbie, and his recruits were newbies, without the world-weary veteran's knowledge to anticipate the crime code fucking him. He acted from the heart. He got fucked. If you were playing a tabletop game, and one of your fellow players was a templar, and the DM-controlled NPC templar came to arrest him, you would probably also fight the NPC. Staff then had to decide between closing ranks around their own pride and ego, (helped perhaps by the sergeant's new found insolence in the wake of being fucked), or give some newbies the benefit of the doubt and help them out a little. This being Armageddon, staff pride and NPC omnipotence rates about a 10, and random newbies rate about a 1. Not the best player retention strategy. If I were staff, I would consider the alienation of a great, active player in Asan, who was recruiting people and training them, an extremely sorry trade-off. Dude gave us a multimedia presentation here about the event in question. He was probably a very capable and organized leader. I would consider that my fellow staff had fucked up. And you know what? Staff do have a higher burden of responsibility than newbie players when it comes to knowing shit about crime code. Obviously, any veteran player on this board, in that situation, would have stood back with a blank expression and let it all go by. I would not piss on a PC templar if they were on fire, let alone lay down my life for one. Because I'm a vet and know better. But guess what? Armageddon can't be sustained on the backs of cynical vets. It needs newbies too. Let's not fuck them too hard. Especially for the sake of pride. Personally? I probably wouldn't have resurrected the three recruits (I'd never rezz anyone. Fuck you guys). But I also would have slapped the staffer animating the HG in the dick. I probably would have sent the players a kindly note as well (wishing them better luck in the future), and agreed with the Sergeant it was fucked up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:42:21 GMT -5
Regardless, it wasn't Asan's place to insist on a rezz for three people, none of whom were himself. We don't have knowledge of whether or not the players of those three PCs asked for one on their own behalf. For all any of us know, those three players might have not wanted to get a rezz. Maybe one had a special app waiting for his recruit's death and was glad that it happened sooner rather than later. Maybe another just had a baby in real life and knew she wouldn't be able to devote much time to the game anyway, and didn't really care that her PC was now dead. Maybe the third was so confused by the whole scene, that he didn't even consider the possibility of asking for a rezz, and was just relieved that the whole thing was over.
We don't know. We know only what Asan is showing us arguing with the staff after the staff made it very clear that they had no intention of changing their decision. He was basically beating his head against a brick wall, and expecting the wall to apologize for being hard. Pro-tip: It ain't gonna happen.
|
|
splugh
staff puppet account
Posts: 21 
|
Post by splugh on Jun 25, 2015 20:43:29 GMT -5
Ghaati, or Nyr, or whatever you go by these days. Shut up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:44:05 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing. You said it better than I would've though. Shit I hate this quote code on this forum. Sirra said the above quote, not me. |
|
