Lols TMO

[greenblze420]

honestly i fucking love tmo but hes your member and he trained so raid suspend tmo and if tmo wants to cry about it then tell your members to shape up or ship out... im sure things like this would happen alot less if people were accountable for their actions

[Lazie]

Just a quick question for my BDA friends...How many trackers did Taken and BDA have at Naggy's spawn when the worked together to kill it yesterday ? 2 each ? Because if you assist on a mob you must have only 2 representatives at the spawn combined.


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[greenblze420]

Originally Posted by eqmaze [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was trained by a BDA Iky monk in KC other night. I sent him a tell asking "WTF" he said Im TMO and I should be used to trains. So by BDA standards they should be raid suspended? Keep in mind this was before VS spawned!

BDA members are just making Chest's job even harder lol

this dude should get a fucking lifetime ban for fucking accusing me of being BDA thats fucking worse then training people

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by SCB [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I liked you better when you pretended you stood for something good. I knew you never did, but at least you pretended.

lawl

[Olidaen_Delacroix]

Q: What is considered a "raid" on Project 1999?
A: A raid is any group of players looking to engage a raid target OR any force consisting of more than one group united in a common goal. This means that three people can be considered a raid if they intend to kill Dracoliche, or 20 people clearing fear trash.

Play Nice Policy

Intentional training will be severely disciplined.
Guilds are encouraged to work out disputes among themselves before involving the staff.
All raid mobs provide an "FTE Shout" that show what guild has engaged. Kill stealing will be severely disciplined.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Millburn]

I don't have anything to contribute, I just really like this gif.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Arteker]

Originally Posted by Ella`Ella [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why should Caesar just get to stomp around like a giant while the rest of us try not to get smushed under his big feet? Brutus is just as cute as Caesar, right? Brutus is just as smart as Caesar, people totally like Brutus just as much as they like Caesar, and when did it become okay for one person to be the boss of everybody because that's not what Rome is about! We should totally just STAB CAESAR!

Syc semper tyrannis

[cams]

An issue that seems to be lost on by some people in this thread is the proportionality of the punishment vs. the crime when negotiating between guilds. TMO believes that because they trained a raid, that offering to pull a raid for that guild and removing a member is a proportional response. However, when dealing with other guilds TMO hasn't always had that stance. For example, there was a time when IB trained Nexona over TMO. The train did not even result in TMO losing the mob (they still got Nexona), but because of the train they felt they should be compensated for something IB agreed to give them the next Nexona. This was deemed by them to be insufficient to make up for the train and they requested 3 separate mobs in VP uncontested.

So when TMO gets trained but still kills the mobs, they feel entitled to 3 completely unrelated mobs, however, when they train someone and wipe their raid they feel that guild is only entitled to what they potentially lost. With that sort of mindset, it is difficult to reach an agreement on punishment between guilds. While Chest's request for 2 months is equally ridiculous, if TMO isn't willing to lose more than their train caused, I don't see how anyone can expect BDA to accept any of their offers or to even offer something less that what they have already. BDA is the offended party here, they should not be required to accept the offer TMO is making, and the onus to avoid GM intervention should be on them, not BDA.

[Fael]

That nexona train agreement was totally isolated as your describe, and not connected to numerous prior disputes and demands by Getsome and company.

Are you really suggesting that iB has been more willing to make consessions in raid disputes these past few months ?

Dolic.

[Lazie]

Originally Posted by cams [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An issue that seems to be lost on by some people in this thread is the proportionality of the punishment vs. the crime when negotiating between guilds. TMO believes that because they trained a raid, that offering to pull a raid for that guild and removing a member is a proportional response. However, when dealing with other guilds TMO hasn't always had that stance. For example, there was a time when IB trained Nexona over TMO. The train did not even result in TMO losing the mob (they still got Nexona), but because of the train they felt they should be compensated for something IB agreed to give them the next Nexona. This was deemed by them to be insufficient to make up for the train and they requested 3 separate mobs in VP uncontested.

So when TMO gets trained but still kills the mobs, they feel entitled to 3 completely unrelated mobs, however, when they train someone and wipe their raid they feel that guild is only entitled to what they potentially lost. With that sort of mindset, it is difficult to reach an agreement on punishment between guilds. While Chest's request for 2 months is equally ridiculous, if TMO isn't willing to lose more than their train caused, I don't see how anyone can expect BDA to accept any of their offers or to even offer something less that what they have already. BDA is the offended party here, they should not be required to accept the offer TMO is making, and the onus to avoid GM intervention should be on them, not BDA.

Someone lied to you about that Nexona situation. I imagine it was leadership again.