Unbrella

[Daldolma]

y'all are so fucked.

big rog ain't blind, he's in year 3 of kunark with the raid scene completely shut down and he's still got server pop of 900 at 4PM PST on a thursday.

your leverage doesn't exist. tmo means far less to this server than y'all seem to think you do

[Pan]

We'd all do well to remember that we're guests here. We're entitled to nothing.

[Prismaticshop]

OP obviously got their jimmies rustled by Brella

GG brella

[Thulack]

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

OP obviously got their jimmies rustled by Brella

GG brella

Just wanted people to know where their actual place was not where they think they belong.

[Pan]

The only clear bargaining chip that any of us have here is withdrawing our consent - i.e. not logging in.

It's clear from the numbers that the lack of / loss of high-end guilds will not affect the server population in any meaningful way...and that's part of the equation that many of those in the negotiations are blind to.

Should all of the top tier / population-heavy guilds unanimously withdraw their consent and refuse to log on, guess what might happen? The population would be remarkably similar (not accounting for those who might join up / come back for/to a healthier raid scene) and dragons would still die regularly.

I don't think you negotiators understand that. I/you/we don't have a lot of chips at this table - if any.

All he's asked is for you all to get together and figure out how to distribute the resources in, by his definition, a more sane way. Yet you still talk of "giving mobs away" like you own them.

What's wrong with you that you cannot understand the construct under which you are operating?

[Daldolma]

Here's the problem with your conception of varied stake. Legal realism as exemplified by maritime law is applied on the basis of access to water. Nobody could seriously argue that a landlocked country with no major maritime trade has as significant a stake in international maritime law as a country that is surrounded on all sides by water and has integral aspects of its economy wrapped up in maritime trade. Varied stake is a product of undeniable and largely inescapable geographic limitations.

This isn't a comparable situation. Whether or not a given guild has a significant stake in the end game is directly related to the rules that dictate the end game. Whether international maritime law settles on a set of regulations regarding piracy or not, South Sudan is not going to be terribly invested. But if variance is eliminated and rotations put into place, essentially every player on the server could be expected to have a stake in the raid scene. The rules, not the nature of the player, dictate the level of involvement for the vast majority of players. The level 5 alt-a-holic nostalgia fiend is the minority amongst the guilds being represented. Most players do reach raiding level and would participate, given the right set of rules.

[Lune]

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

Here's the problem with your conception of varied stake. Legal realism as exemplified by maritime law is applied on the basis of access to water. Nobody could seriously argue that a landlocked country with no major maritime trade has as significant a stake in international maritime law as a country that is surrounded on all sides by water and has integral aspects of its economy wrapped up in maritime trade. Varied stake is a product of undeniable and largely inescapable geographic limitations.

This isn't a comparable situation. Whether or not a given guild has a significant stake in the end game is directly related to the rules that dictate the end game. Whether international maritime law settles on a set of regulations regarding piracy or not, South Sudan is not going to be terribly invested. But if variance is eliminated and rotations put into place, essentially every player on the server could be expected to have a stake in the raid scene. The rules, not the nature of the player, dictate the level of involvement for the vast majority of players. The level 5 alt-a-holic nostalgia fiend is the minority amongst the guilds being represented. Most players do reach raiding level and would participate, given the right set of rules.

As much as your other views piss me off, this is an exceptional argument/metaphor. Gave me a boner

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Here's the problem with your conception of varied stake. Legal realism as exemplified by maritime law is applied on the basis of access to water. Nobody could seriously argue that a landlocked country with no major maritime trade has as significant a stake in international maritime law as a country that is surrounded on all sides by water and has integral aspects of its economy wrapped up in maritime trade. Varied stake is a product of undeniable and largely inescapable geographic limitations.

This isn't a comparable situation. Whether or not a given guild has a significant stake in the end game is directly related to the rules that dictate the end game. Whether international maritime law settles on a set of regulations regarding piracy or not, South Sudan is not going to be terribly invested. But if variance is eliminated and rotations put into place, essentially every player on the server could be expected to have a stake in the raid scene. The rules, not the nature of the player, dictate the level of involvement for the vast majority of players. The level 5 alt-a-holic nostalgia fiend is the minority amongst the guilds being represented. Most players do reach raiding level and would participate, given the right set of rules.

It's taken me the better part of a day to figure out if I even had a rebuttal, much less a good one.

After mulling it over, I think you're right.

I'm looking at it too narrowly. For the record, I still think the concept is sound in theory that standing and situation have parts to play in determining stake, but you're right that the crucial difference here is that the geography, so to speak, is not immutable. The rules that define each individual's situation on P99 are capable of going anywhere which gives a much larger potential stake to almost every party. This makes a lot the "varied stake" far more marginal than how I presented it.

I painted myself into a corner by using the maritime analogy. In retrospect, I should have used a different analogy of international custom where each party's starting position was roughly the same and that standing depth of influence was defined by each party's affirmative actions. But, the point is largely irrelevant in light of your excellent rebuttal. Also, if I kept going it'd be too much of a one-man circle jerk even for myself (which says a lot given how much I love to talk without actually saying anything).

Point taken and well-received.

[Arteker]

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

It's taken me the better part of a day to figure out if I even had a rebuttal, much less a good one.

After mulling it over, I think you're right.

I'm looking at it too narrowly. For the record, I still think the concept is sound in theory that standing and situation have parts to play in determining stake, but you're right that the crucial difference here is that the geography, so to speak, is not immutable. The rules that define each individual's situation on P99 are capable of going anywhere which gives a much larger potential stake to almost every party. This makes a lot the "varied stake" far more marginal than how I presented it.

I painted myself into a corner by using the maritime analogy. In retrospect, I should have used a different analogy of international custom where each party's starting position was roughly the same and that standing depth of influence was defined by each party's affirmative actions. But, the point is largely irrelevant in light of your excellent rebuttal. Also, if I kept going it'd be too much of a one-man circle jerk even for myself (which says a lot given how much I love to talk without actually saying anything).

Point taken and well-received.

jesus with lawyers i got enough with my wife[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Fazlazen]

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

jesus with lawyers i got enough with my wife[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

me wife*