Shattered Kingdoms

I assume you are taking issue with my use of the word bias. If you don’t like that you can replace it with bent or tendency. I’ve been strait forward about where I stand and why. I will gladly discuss it and the fact that I have a bent toward one side of the issues doesn’t validate or invalidate the points I make. In fact, in a discussion opinions aren’t needed, with or without bias. What is needed is the reasoning behind the opinions and that reasoning will expose the validity of that opinion no matter what the bent of the opinion maker is.

I called out Grakus because it really bothers me when one attempts to misrepresent themselves in a discussion. It is an attempt to cloud the issues and the discussion itself. I’m not saying Grakus’ infraction was horrendous, just that it happened and that it should be avoided. It is by no means a comment on his stance, I just don’t want him or anyone to be less then honest with their stance, points, arguments, etc. I don’t think asking for people to be up front and honest is wrong.

For those that missed it. – My comments were not an inditement of Grakus’ points, just they way in which he choose to present them- I would have left my comment at basically, “come on we know you have a bent” but he decided to defend his misrepresentation.

Lei Kung

Wait. I'm somehow misrepresenting something?

Careful about kettle calling the pot black syndrome.

I simply stated that the points being brought up by people were dragging it into a "this may be a bad idea for the fact alone the player base may be too immature to handle it." Not because anyone thinks it is a good or bad idea.

I fail to see how that is 'misrepresenting' anything. I'm not the only person who've also mentioned as being biased when it comes to this issue. I can fondly recall the dual membership thread.

Obviously I don't want this in the game, but by stating that this is just is starting to sound like players may not be able to handle this rp tool responsibly is hardly misrepresenting anything. And I actually do resent you trying to straw-man me out of this.

I simply brought up yet another issue with this whole deal, a completely different facet than why I feel it is not a good idea. I'm not bashing your thread nor am I saying you're an idiot for suggesting this.

I simply do not think this is a good idea for the ideas I've listed (as is my responsibility as a player if I wish to care about the game and its direction). The fact that the player base being too immature to handle it is another, separate topic and only brought about from reading other posts by other players.

It is another thing D will have to consider as he crafts the robes/cloaks/hoods (if he chooses to). If it leads to a lot of abuse, then it will obviously be removed, but at the same time, I'm more than willing to bet that any competent admin isn't just going to blindly trust the playerbase to not abuse something if they are able to exploit it.

Grakus, I have a bent, a tendency, a bias towards Dual Membership, I have no problem admitting it. There is nothing wrong with this or having the same bent but against it. I took exception to "I’m almost down to suggesting this is a bad idea not because…” as you are implying that you see this as a good idea except for immaturity. You go out of your way to state "almost down to suggesting" rather then something like "this is a bad idea because" or "whatever is another reason this is a bad idea".

I'm not saying anything about your actual points, I just don't like the idea of misrepresentation. If you did such by mistake or what not, no problem. If it was done intentionally, then that is flat out dishonest. No matter what your points will stand on their own merits and to beat a dead horse, I'm not commenting on what you say but how you present yourself.

Actually, my stance on the robe concealment for everyone is rather blah. Cabal robes, in my mind, were only included to give cabals a way to insure secrecy. But when you take cabal secrecy out of the equation, I find some of your concerns worth noting. It might be interesting for RP or it could hardly used, this is assuming there is no advantage to using it in battle or sitting around in one all day.


**I didn't mean to offend you. I would just prefer if you wouldn't make word choices that imply you might be something other then you are.
Lei Kung

I guess I don't really know what's meant about the playerbase "abusing" it.

Are we talking about hooded assassin PK? That's a legitimate concern, which is why we're talking about such heavy tactical penalties for hoods. If we stack enough on, hoods will be useless for PK, as they should be. Tactical advantage is part of the bonus attached to disguise and polymorph.

Are we talking about secrecy within cabals? Surely no sensible leader is going to be silly enough to maintain secrecy internally, except as an extreme character quirk. Talk about counter-productive.

IMO, the point of robes is to help protect secrecy outside of cabals, and thus encourage cabals to do more things. For example, the Fist could make a public statement without revealing one of the members. More public appearances and actions would be better for the game.

That's redundant, that's repetitive, and you repeated yourself.

LK, the wording is that way because it does not imply that I am suggesting it is a good idea EXCEPT for this.

But that regardless of any valid points for or against, this concern is becoming the primary factor in why the idea is bad.

At least, that's how I meant it.



One cabal currently does this. And is crippled by it, and this is without robes.



And if you posted your cabal members list on the astral boards, how does that stop you from achieving anything? I fail to understand this notion of secrecy as being legitimate when it comes to multi-group, interactive RP.

It wouldn't for most groups. I'm not suggesting secrecy as a virtue in itself. Rather, I'm hoping to keep group desires for secrecy from stopping communication so much.

Ooh, you make a very valid suggestion there in that hope.

Grakus, I'm sorry. For some reason I was missing what you were saying in that one sentence and until my drive home from work, it didn't dawn on me. I thought you were trying to convey something about your position you weren't. Unless I got it wrong again, you were trying to say "Player immaturity, in itself, is almost enough reason to call this a bad idea". Again, I'm sorry I totally misread what you were trying to write. It still looks a bit funky to me, but I can see the meaning now. Sorry

Lei Kung

It would be absolute -chaos- if there was, say, a 4v4 battle with four hooded people. It's bad enough as is, with the common adjectives. Also, I think this will lead to much more accidental killings, either due to similarity, but also because of someone with the adrenaline of ze peekay running through their veins and jumping the gun too quickly.

If it must be introduced, I agree that the start should only include cloaks, but even then, some pieces of armor should be revealed (hands/fingers etc), to avoid a lvl 6 slender human being accidently killed instead of the gm slender human you're looking for.