Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Rants and Flames

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:09 PM
Glenzig Glenzig is offline
Planar Protector

Glenzig's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,557
Default

So being in a guild in this game is pretty much exactly like being in high school. That's pretty much what I'm getting from this garbage. A lot of people arguing about who did/said what to their best friends cousin, and giving each other internet swirlies. Way to look mature guys.
  #92  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:27 PM
Byrjun Byrjun is offline
Planar Protector

Byrjun's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
That's the thing IB expected us to just accept being absorbed and accept unreasonable terms.
The same exact unreasonable terms that TMO gave you, which suddenly became reasonable. 'Cause 70 man zerg raids and loot and shit, hell yea.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
__________________
Blue: Byrjun Thorsson
Green: Wizurg
  #93  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:32 PM
Cyrano Cyrano is offline
The Protector of Sunder


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrjun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Laughable that you preface that with "let's be honest." Where is FE's co-leader within TMO? Oh that's right, you didn't get one.

So be honest yourself. This was 100% about loot, not integrity, or disrespect, or any of that bullshit. You picked TMO over IB for one reason: loot, and then tried to spin the decision on the forums. It's pretty hard to be dishonest about this when I've spoken to multiple people who said that FE decided to merge with TMO because they'd have more numbers and a better chance to kill Velious mobs.
Realistically they did it out of spite because we wouldn't accept a FE co-leader or name change. When IB and FE were raiding we got the majority of the raid mobs.
  #94  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:38 PM
Byrjun Byrjun is offline
Planar Protector

Byrjun's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,132
Default

Yea, and we're still waiting on The Mystical Entry with co-leader Unbrella.

Gonna be waiting awhile, I think.
__________________
Blue: Byrjun Thorsson
Green: Wizurg
  #95  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:44 PM
Cyrano Cyrano is offline
The Protector of Sunder


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
BS Unbrella said to Getsome in Vent chat he could choose the co-leader from our officer core. That is all I will add to this to finish. IB while you have great players were in no position to force FE to do anything. We knew that. Getsome didn't. We asked for terms to make it equal and were told raiding together was finished. We sought out another option. Best of luck to IB I hold no grudges with you guys. Just telling the truth here.
No one in FE was a strong enough leader to be considered as a co-leader. I don't understand how this is confusing. That was the deal breaker, it was made clear that Getsome would be the sole leader if a merger were to occur yet you guys pushed under some "fairness" clause you made up. You guys say he was rude but how many times can he say "No we will not change guild names and no we will not accept a co-leader" before it becomes beating a dead horse?

You have some fanciful idea of how this merger went down. Final terms were offered, you guys wanted to negotiate for non-negotiable terms. He wasn't being stubborn, he wasn't being a dick. You guys didn't accept the terms so he walked away from the deal.

There was no forcing FE to do anything, stop acting like big, bad IB was pushing the innocent FE membership around. There was a bottom line and it was not acceptable to you guys which is totally fine. What is questionable is the way FE quickly joined TMO under the EXACT same merger stipulations while vilifying IB. Your guild identity became that of victims. First is TMO being horrible cheaters, and blah blah blah. Now it's IB.

At the end of the day stop making this about some issue of morals or us "forcing" you guys into a situation, this was all about spiting IB because you collectively felt wronged by our terms for the merger. You felt so scorned that you were willing to join your greatest competitor - the guild FE was supposedly created to topple - and sell out in the process.
  #96  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:48 PM
Cyrano Cyrano is offline
The Protector of Sunder


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No in the terms Getsome was trying to set and being unreasonable and leaving the talks.. He made the next option a no brainer. If we are basically getting absorbed to build the strongest guild. One that has been respectful and stronger overall is the clear choice.
You guys had years of TMO being disrespectful to FE. Why not grow a pair and stand on your own two feet instead of riding the coat tails of others?
  #97  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:51 PM
Cyrano Cyrano is offline
The Protector of Sunder


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitpoint [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is true. But it's too simplistic to say we joined TMO for loot. We would have had the same advantaged with IB. We all wanted the merger with IB to happen, but was taken off the table.

I don't follow the logic of some of you. We lost our raid leader. And a week later you think it's okay to take complete advantage of your raiding allies at the negotiating table? What about the months before that? I'm not going to go through and quote people, but I've seen it stated that both guilds were on even footing until Sloan left. You think that makes it fair to try to force uneven terms?
Sloan would have been an acceptable co-leader and I think Getsome and the rest of IB would have accepted those terms so long as we merged under the IB tag. There's a difference between attempting to take advantage of you guys and realizing that partnering with a guild led by Unbrella & Co was a bad situation.
  #98  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:51 PM
Cyrano Cyrano is offline
The Protector of Sunder


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitpoint [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Because TMO had more to offer. Period.

We expected even terms from IB because we were on even footing. There wasn't that expectation when negotiating with tmo. And we were fine with it.
At least you admit you sold out unlike Tasslehoff and Lazie.
  #99  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:53 PM
Tasslehofp99 Tasslehofp99 is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,314
Default

triple posts!

why are you so concerned Cyrano?
__________________
-Aftermath-
Tasslehof - 60 Druid
Barlow - 60 monk
Blueberrii - 60 Mage
Gigglepurr - 60 Shaman
Kids - 60 Rogue
Fornfamnad - 60 Cleric
  #100  
Old 04-01-2014, 09:58 PM
doraf doraf is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Santa Barbara, CA.
Posts: 193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Can anyone explain why the merger offer from IB was disrespect and the same merger offer from TMO is ok?
I could go on and on, but the main reason we went to TMO was that about 1/3 of our members absolutely refused to join IB even before Getsome came into vent and told everyone that the only reason he is talking to us is because his member would not let up. Basically, TMO offered a friendly raid atmosphere where people actually play the game to have fun.

Pixels were never a concern. Maintaining the core and having a home for all of our members including ones with limited play time was.
__________________
Doraf - 60 Cleric
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:08 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.