This topic is locked
But you haven't offered any challenge back to us either. Clearly both sides believe they have the right to retaliate as they see fit. And both believe they are in the right. And I don't particularly care if you would be challenged for ss, it's still against the rules.
WK and FKQ (3rd try...last 2 showed blank on my screen)
Started by Jharryl2, Jul 19 2009 14:03
79 replies to this topic
#22
fs_swords79
fs_swords79
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 00:21
just go to war. finish the battle and go on with your FS lives.
#23
Posted 20 July 2009 - 00:34
Kenny Rogers once said something that might apply here..
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.
nuff said.
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.
nuff said.
#24
fs_hatern
fs_hatern
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 01:25
BLAH BLAH BLAH...talk with yer friken swords ...either fight or surrender to demands we set ....
#26
fs_mags
fs_mags
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 01:40
I ask a question here ---> Whilst the mere fact that the original attacker phaled, does it make it okay for them to attack someone in the first place without consequence? The amount of stam doesn't really matter as the intent was for the attacker to take something from the attackee irrespective of whether the outcome was achieved or phaled.
precisely what i was wondering while reading the thread.
an unprovoked attack is still an unprovoked attack, is it not? how would the consequences be different if the attack had been successful?
i also agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on situations and can have very different views... i'm just not sure if there is a right or wrong to be found when there are such a variety of views.
edit - i kind of wish i didn't know who was involved... it is an interesting topic on its own (not that it is uninteresting knowing who is involved but from a theoretical point of view, the concept will be interesting to see what happens)
#28
fs_skramble
fs_skramble
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 02:31
Geez, what do you think will happen Mags?
OOOOO ooooo, I know!
We will all go skipping happily through the tulips (and no I am not gay)
Hopefully someone apologizes to an ally left hanging. Many levels lost, as a guild sits watching. Ouch, that is harsh. However, the tough talk continues???
#29
Posted 20 July 2009 - 05:11
an unprovoked attack is still an unprovoked attack, is it not? how would the consequences be different if the attack had been successful?
My opinion is that if somebody holds gold she provokes attacks. It's not an unprovoked attack. I was in a situation when attackers lost while I was holding 100-200 millions in hands, I did expect attacks and constantly switched setups, I provoked all those attacks and I didn't even bounty anyone because they probably felt bad for the rest of that day because of failed attacks.
#30
fs_mrwright
fs_mrwright
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:13
Hell, my opinion is that being in this game is provocation enough to warrant an attack.
#31
fs_gravely
fs_gravely
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:16
Hunting is sort of a bit different. I would (and have) bountied more harshly on peeps who hit me while hunting as opposed to me being an idiot and holding gold just to hold it.
And as a side note, I'm sorry to see you retire, ava. I was hoping to get to your level so we could have those other types of "conversations" you spoke of. :? See you around, mate.
And as a side note, I'm sorry to see you retire, ava. I was hoping to get to your level so we could have those other types of "conversations" you spoke of. :? See you around, mate.
#32
Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:24
sorry to post my opinion, but this war shows which guild is unite and which s not, which guild is stronger, with players acting as a team and which guild is slowly falling apart because lack of team support.
about the attack, was it a deflect or the attacker had a wrong math and lost the battle? because i don't know if a deflected attack can be bountyed.
about the attack, was it a deflect or the attacker had a wrong math and lost the battle? because i don't know if a deflected attack can be bountyed.
#33
Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:56
thanks stang or the answer. so the deflected attacks can be bountied, in this case, i don't know why a deleveling party was needed. for a deflected attack or even for a normal pvp attack, i would never bounty back, why? because is a god damn pvp game, strike back, and if the first attacker is bountying you, then a deleveling party is needed.
to quote stang again, he is right, the guild members should defend them selfs, and from what i see, WK is doing that perfectly. so, if i have to choose a winner, WK will it, not because they strike back with retaliation, but for the team work
to quote stang again, he is right, the guild members should defend them selfs, and from what i see, WK is doing that perfectly. so, if i have to choose a winner, WK will it, not because they strike back with retaliation, but for the team work
#34
Posted 20 July 2009 - 07:38
StangValle just told me about this thread, I was unaware of it up until now. I feel that as a member of the guild's High Council, I need to make a few comments.
I, personally, feel (and felt at the time it was being discussed) that taking 5 levels for a failed attack was excessive. We would definitely do it for a successful one, and with no apologies. It's LEGAL, but is it RIGHT? I would say no; that it was a serious error in judgement. I also happen to know that several other members of my guild feel the same way (although clearly not all of them...) For my part, I would like to offer an apology to the Warrior Kings and to the player involved for this. It points to a need for us to clarify what our standards are for bounties, especially ones that involve deleveling.
In a related issue, I've seen some PMs sent during this war - from both sides - that are, simply put, not acceptable. Rudeness, insults, and aspersions on the individual player or the guild as a whole do more to inflame matters than to resolve them. More to the point, they are not necessary. Particularly in a guild such as mine which prides itself on acting like adults! I would like to apologize to the Warrior Kings for any such insulting PMs that they received from our players, and hope that they will join us in that same spirit once I have the opportunity to collect and provide samples of our incoming messages to them.
I, personally, feel (and felt at the time it was being discussed) that taking 5 levels for a failed attack was excessive. We would definitely do it for a successful one, and with no apologies. It's LEGAL, but is it RIGHT? I would say no; that it was a serious error in judgement. I also happen to know that several other members of my guild feel the same way (although clearly not all of them...) For my part, I would like to offer an apology to the Warrior Kings and to the player involved for this. It points to a need for us to clarify what our standards are for bounties, especially ones that involve deleveling.
In a related issue, I've seen some PMs sent during this war - from both sides - that are, simply put, not acceptable. Rudeness, insults, and aspersions on the individual player or the guild as a whole do more to inflame matters than to resolve them. More to the point, they are not necessary. Particularly in a guild such as mine which prides itself on acting like adults! I would like to apologize to the Warrior Kings for any such insulting PMs that they received from our players, and hope that they will join us in that same spirit once I have the opportunity to collect and provide samples of our incoming messages to them.
#35
Posted 20 July 2009 - 07:58
(and felt at the time it was being discussed)
Thanks for clarifying that. At first we were told it wasnt a guild planned hit and was only a few members responding. Since you as a guild did discuss this we hold your guild accountable. We offered to only delevel the initial attackers. Now we know its not just the two who hit, but the whole guild who "discussed and decided" that our member should be deleveled.
#36
fs_sarge2155
fs_sarge2155
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 10:35
And please bring mercs. They are tasty!
LOL@ Stangville
#37
fs_hookie
fs_hookie
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 17:40
I, personally, feel (and felt at the time it was being discussed) that taking 5 levels for a failed attack was excessive. We would definitely do it for a successful one, and with no apologies. It's LEGAL, but is it RIGHT? I would say no; that it was a serious error in judgement. I also happen to know that several other members of my guild feel the same way (although clearly not all of them...) For my part, I would like to offer an apology to the Warrior Kings and to the player involved for this. It points to a need for us to clarify what our standards are for bounties, especially ones that involve deleveling.
Your point intregues me here, why are you of the opinion that a phaled attack warrants less of a punishment than a successful one? Why is it common perceptive that the outcome is much more important than the intent/motive behind the action?
I shall now go and look for a rock to hide under before someone tells me to crawl under one! :wink:
#38
Posted 20 July 2009 - 17:56
Hookie, wasn't there a movie about this? The ethical dilemma we face when seeking to punish intent?
Minority Report I think it was called. :wink:
Whenever I think of ethics, I ask myself, "what would Tom Cruise do?" LOL
Minority Report I think it was called. :wink:
Whenever I think of ethics, I ask myself, "what would Tom Cruise do?" LOL
#39
fs_hookie
fs_hookie
-
- Guests
Posted 20 July 2009 - 18:07
I've never seen the film (not sure if that's a good or a bad thing!) but that's a good way to think... since you think of Tom Cruise and ethics I'll have to pick someone different... perhaps Borat or Bruno would be better suited for me!
#40
Posted 20 July 2009 - 18:53
scientology= worse scam than scavenging . please don´t mention their followers in same sentence as "ethics" . :evil:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users