PSA: ATTN - If you are bound in raid zones, read this

[mostbitter]

I'm just glad nihilum is finally getting their turn on the receiving end of silly unwritten rules. Kind of strange that a bunch of people who aren't bound in permafrost are so vehemently arguing for it to not be changed or for people to receive special treatment just because they have gotten away with being bound there for so long.

[heartbrand]

I'm only arguing about it because I personally witnessed amelinda say it was ok, saw people use these binds for months and months subsequently to trivialize the fear break in, saw a log of Ephi confirming its ok, and now suddenly it's a bannable exploit. This server needs written rules and a clear and consistent application of rulings. I got banned here once for two days because mellow yellow accused me of running an RMT ring. Do you understand how retarded that is? You tunak got banned for something that had no rule, you of all people should understand.

I think what's most frustrating though here is I was part of the thread arguing for changes to red in which one of them was disabling binds. Not once in that 20 page thread did anyone mention retroactively removing binds and in fact many people changed their bind to these zones because of a possible change. The players asked for the change not the devs and they never asked about retro removing binds and the staff / devs never commented either until they gave their ok to it (Ephi and amelinda).

Countless changes are made to this game and in 95% of them retro nerfs aren't applied. Gear is removed from the game, TD bind change etc., but only in the most game breaking circumstances are retro nerfs applied. All of precedent is against retro nerfs and this is the case in life as well hence the term being grandfathered in.

What pisses me off more here despite all that is that even though this was 100% a player requested feature there's no willingness now to revisit the matter, it's being treated as though this were a rule made by the staff for the server that they're now going to tighten up on to get us into line which couldn't be further from the truth. To me, it just illustrates the vast disconnect between some of the staff and the player base when it comes to this server, it has nothing to do with guild tags or players to me.

Nothing else possible for me to even say on this matter, everyone should change their binds because that's the rule now and that's how it works when you play someone else's game, but lets not punish people for wanting to have civil discourse about the rule or its implications going forward.

[Tomato King6]

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

I'm only arguing about it because I personally witnessed amelinda say it was ok, saw people use these binds for months and months subsequently to trivialize the fear break in, saw a log of Ephi confirming its ok, and now suddenly it's a bannable exploit. This server needs written rules and a clear and consistent application of rulings. I got banned here once for two days because mellow yellow accused me of running an RMT ring. Do you understand how retarded that is? You tunak got banned for something that had no rule, you of all people should understand.

I think what's most frustrating though here is I was part of the thread arguing for changes to red in which one of them was disabling binds. Not once in that 20 page thread did anyone mention retroactively removing binds and in fact many people changed their bind to these zones because of a possible change. The players asked for the change not the devs and they never asked about retro removing binds and the staff / devs never commented either until they gave their ok to it (Ephi and amelinda).

Countless changes are made to this game and in 95% of them retro nerfs aren't applied. Gear is removed from the game, TD bind change etc., but only in the most game breaking circumstances are retro nerfs applied. All of precedent is against retro nerfs and this is the case in life as well hence the term being grandfathered in.

What pisses me off more here despite all that is that even though this was 100% a player requested feature there's no willingness now to revisit the matter, it's being treated as though this were a rule made by the staff for the server that they're now going to tighten up on to get us into line which couldn't be further from the truth. To me, it just illustrates the vast disconnect between some of the staff and the player base when it comes to this server, it has nothing to do with guild tags or players to me.

Nothing else possible for me to even say on this matter, everyone should change their binds because that's the rule now and that's how it works when you play someone else's game, but lets not punish people for wanting to have civil discourse about the rule or its implications going forward.

to sum it up

server not fair

don't play here

THE END

[Sickpuppy]

^^^ holy fucking moly

[big league chew]

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

^^^ holy fucking moly

[heartbrand]

Blue ribbon school from Connecticut education bro

[big league chew]

yeh i can identify about 15 of the 51 states

lets go whalers

[GrobbGangsta]

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

Blue ribbon school from Connecticut education bro

Then why did you got to Maryland law, a reject school for pseudo-intellectuals where not a single grad gets a 160 job? Sorry bro, UMD fucking sucks and no matter how many verbose paragraphs you throw around you are still a pretender

[p-niner]

Nobody reads your essays bro.

I like how you claim ' witnessed Amelinda say it was ok"

Law school, is that a valid argument?

[heartbrand]

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

Nobody reads your essays bro.

I like how you claim ' witnessed Amelinda say it was ok"

Law school, is that a valid argument?

I like how you claim no one reads and then you quote it. All an argument needs is a premise and a conclusion to be valid, so yes it's a valid argument. Sounds like you're questioning the validity of my premise.