Forums » Role Playing
Lebermac :
[IA] Has your back, [VPR].....(and I will stab this knife into their backs when they are not looking. MUAHAHAHAHHAA)
[IA] Has your back, [VPR].....(and I will stab this knife into their backs when they are not looking. MUAHAHAHAHHAA)
Call it propaganda, call it what you will. But having standards that people occasionally don't meet (And are generally reprimanded for) is different from not having standards at all.
Maso, you and I have talked at length about standards, and let me post that here:
Your buddy Maso logged on.
[10:26 2005] *Shape*: so can we get some names? cuz I'd like to deal with these problems if they're there
[10:46 2005] *Maso*: i mentioned amarus already, for example
[10:54 2005] *Shape*: ha, well, amarus never plays
[11:02 2005] *Maso*: well he did
[11:19 2005] *Maso*: well tramshed has nice double standards to be honest
[11:20 2005] *Shape*: he joined a day before he left on his honeymoon, and has been back 1 day since
[11:25 2005] *Maso*: but shape, i don't fucking care
[11:30 2005] *Maso*: if someone wants to run
[11:32 2005] *Maso*: let him
[11:43 2005] *Shape*: tram is no longer a member because he didn't want to adhere to those standards
[11:56 2005] *Shape*: nah, cuz that's not what we want to be as a guild
[12:00 2005] *Maso*: i myself won't give a free kill when i play over modem
[12:21 2005] *Maso*: pirates with standards are somewhat odd
[12:50 2005] *Shape*: we're the little Pai Mei's on the hill :) vicious perhaps, but with a goal in mind
[13:23 2005] *Maso*: ppl playing from north america have a tremendous advantage in close combat already
[13:33 2005] *Maso*: btw
[13:38 2005] *Shape*: yeah?
[13:51 2005] *Maso*: i can understand that some1 breaks off a fight to avoid losing the ship
[14:04 2005] *Shape*: I can't, not if they start the fight
[14:07 2005] *Maso*: if the consequence of dying is a 15 minutes travel
[14:18 2005] *Maso*: well if you plan to play for 30 mins
[14:21 2005] *Shape*: if they agree to fight to 20%, fine
[14:32 2005] *Maso*: you don't wanna spend half the time traveling
[15:01 2005] *Shape*: instead, they're going to spend that time repairing, jumping back in, and harassing the people that won the fight
[15:28 2005] *Shape*: you owe them that time, constantly jumping back in like that is akin to constantly killing one person
[15:36 2005] *Shape*: its griefing of a different form
[15:55 2005] *Maso*: you just feel betrayed because you don't get the kill
[16:05 2005] *Shape*: nah, I've got lots of kills, and lots of deaths
[16:15 2005] *Shape*: I don't really need one more, and I WILL let people go
[16:32 2005] *Shape*: but I get people jumping in and out, and that tires me, I just can't WIN a fight
[17:14 2005] *Maso*: well, if the odds are to hard i tell VPRs to backoff and wait for reinforcements
[17:20 2005] *Shape*: I'm not obsessed with pk's, but I think its only fair to show the same respect that another player shows you
[17:24 2005] *Shape*: that's fine
[17:25 2005] *Maso*: that's a strategic decision you have to accept
[17:36 2005] *Shape*: but you don't back out of a fight you start, if you know the odds
[17:43 2005] *Shape*: if the odds change... ok then
[17:58 2005] *Shape*: but if you attack a player, you stick it out
[18:40 2005] *Maso*: ok, i agree with you as long as it concerns real duels
[19:09 2005] *Shape*: well, I think anything that's 1v1 where both players choose to engage a duel
[19:18 2005] *Shape*: *is a duel
[19:32 2005] *Maso*: not necessarily
[19:48 2005] *Maso*: there are a lot of other reasons for engaging someone
[19:51 2005] *Shape*: if a trader is running away and firing pot shots, that's not engaging
[20:08 2005] *Shape*: I'm talking about killer intent
[20:25 2005] *Shape*: if you're after the kill, then you better offer the kill
[21:03 2005] *Maso*: distracting someone is another reason for engaging
[21:25 2005] *Maso*: lots of arguments put in these discussions are way too general
[21:58 2005] *Maso*: as usual
[22:05 2005] *Shape*: sorry, got in a fight, distracting someone?
[22:17 2005] *Maso*: ppl use half-true, half-wrong arguments
[22:39 2005] *Shape*: I don't think its too general, you start a fight via shooting on someone, you then take responsibility for that
[24:12 2005] *Maso*: well distracting ppl is another reason for engaging
[24:32 2005] *Shape*: how do you mean?
[24:45 2005] *Maso*: if i want you to stop firing at my buddy for example
[24:49 2005] *Maso*: or at any1
[25:00 2005] *Maso*: i open fire to draw your fire on me
[25:09 2005] *Shape*: fine, then you joined the fight
[25:16 2005] *Maso*: no
[25:19 2005] *Shape*: if the player stays and fights you both
[25:22 2005] *Maso*: not necessarily
[25:25 2005] *Shape*: he deserves BOTH kills
[25:34 2005] *Maso*: you always assume the intent to kill
[25:47 2005] *Maso*: some people have just the intent to get away
[25:53 2005] *Shape*: wait so you think that taking pot shots into a fight is honorable
[26:13 2005] *Maso*: what is honourable
[26:25 2005] *Shape*: if they want to get away, fine, but if you're both staying and fighting
[26:36 2005] *Shape*: and then wait till you're at 10% to get away
[26:42 2005] *Shape*: you're clearly running because you lost
[26:52 2005] *Shape*: NOT because you wanted to get away in the first place
[28:29 2005] *Maso*: honourable behaviour really lies in the eye of the beholder shape
[28:38 2005] *Maso*: you have to accept that
[28:47 2005] *Maso*: there are no gold standards
[29:08 2005] *Shape*: you're not answering my point, you answering the filler
[29:13 2005] *Shape*: *you're
[35:21 2005] *Shape*: I mean, we've fought when the odds were completely against us, and stayed and died. And clearly you don't find this anything but stupid... and that
[35:23 2005] *Shape*: bugs me
[36:24 2005] *Maso*: sry botting
[36:29 2005] *Shape*: its ok
[38:47 2005] *Maso*: i don't thing you are stupid
[39:00 2005] *Shape*: no, I mean the actions
[39:52 2005] *Maso*: well, it's rather clear from the start that you won't have a chance and 3-1 or worse
[40:07 2005] *Maso*: if your opponents aren't total idiots
[40:30 2005] *Maso*: and fly half-decent ships
[40:36 2005] *Shape*: that's not true at all, I've fought multiple decent opponents
[41:09 2005] *Maso*: ok, i doubt that you have a chance in a rev c against mb, duncan and me
[41:36 2005] *Shape*: Well, that's because Duncan will fly a prom, and I can't beat an AGT with 2 decent light fighters
[41:47 2005] *Shape*: but if all 3 of you go light fighters, I think I have a chance
[42:12 2005] *Maso*: well, maybe because duncan sucks in light fighters, hehe
[42:27 2005] *Shape*: its not that I have to be much better than my opponents, I just have to time my attacks right
[43:05 2005] *Shape*: in any case, there's a way to go about doing it
[43:19 2005] *Shape*: as Eld and Niki will attest
[43:30 2005] *Shape*: ditto with Ic
[43:54 2005] *Maso*: i wouldn't have a chance against borb, you and say sebastian
[44:02 2005] *Maso*: even though sebastian is weak
[44:15 2005] *Shape*: if you don't believe in some sort of honor, fine, but most of the people in this game do
[44:16 2005] *Maso*: unless i manage to fight you one after the other
[44:28 2005] *Shape*: actually Seb is much better, you should try fighting him now
[44:55 2005] *Maso*: shape, my views of honour aren't the point
[45:13 2005] *Maso*: you just won't change ppl's behaviour by shouting around
[45:15 2005] *Maso*: that's all
[45:27 2005] *Shape*: yes they are, you've been extrapolating them into all the conversations
[45:48 2005] *Shape*: well, that's not true either, IA has been changing because of that
[45:59 2005] *Maso*: no, i just gave reasons for not following your rules
[46:14 2005] *Maso*: you don't know if i played advocatus diaboli or not
[46:15 2005] *Shape*: right, and I gave reasons why that was a cop-out
[47:40 2005] *Shape*: I'm assuming you're not playing devils advocate, since you're so hell bent on keeping your Modus Operandi, but other people are watching
[47:47 2005] *Shape*: and some people seem to care
[47:52 2005] *Maso*: lol shape
[47:53 2005] *Shape*: if its not an issue for you
[48:07 2005] *Maso*: i am just sure that i won't change that behaviour
[48:14 2005] *Shape*: then why are you worried about people that would be bothered anyway
[48:49 2005] *Shape*: if its not going to do anything, why argue with me about it?
[49:00 2005] *Maso*: you started the arguing
[49:06 2005] *Maso*: actually
[49:13 2005] *Maso*: scroll up and you will see
[49:13 2005] *Shape*: nope, you posted to my thread
[49:43 2005] *Maso*: i just mentioned that there are / were BLAK that are not conform with your postulates
[49:58 2005] *Maso*: no arguing involved
[50:10 2005] *Shape*: Which was fair, and I asked whom? and you started an argument about how it was unreasonable in the first place
[52:13 2005] *Shape*: am I wrong?
[53:33 2005] *Maso*: i said i am botting
[59:54 2005] 28b4f0[100]<Maso> bye every1
[59:59 2005] 28b4f0[100]Maso has to log
Maso, you and I have talked at length about standards, and let me post that here:
Your buddy Maso logged on.
[10:26 2005] *Shape*: so can we get some names? cuz I'd like to deal with these problems if they're there
[10:46 2005] *Maso*: i mentioned amarus already, for example
[10:54 2005] *Shape*: ha, well, amarus never plays
[11:02 2005] *Maso*: well he did
[11:19 2005] *Maso*: well tramshed has nice double standards to be honest
[11:20 2005] *Shape*: he joined a day before he left on his honeymoon, and has been back 1 day since
[11:25 2005] *Maso*: but shape, i don't fucking care
[11:30 2005] *Maso*: if someone wants to run
[11:32 2005] *Maso*: let him
[11:43 2005] *Shape*: tram is no longer a member because he didn't want to adhere to those standards
[11:56 2005] *Shape*: nah, cuz that's not what we want to be as a guild
[12:00 2005] *Maso*: i myself won't give a free kill when i play over modem
[12:21 2005] *Maso*: pirates with standards are somewhat odd
[12:50 2005] *Shape*: we're the little Pai Mei's on the hill :) vicious perhaps, but with a goal in mind
[13:23 2005] *Maso*: ppl playing from north america have a tremendous advantage in close combat already
[13:33 2005] *Maso*: btw
[13:38 2005] *Shape*: yeah?
[13:51 2005] *Maso*: i can understand that some1 breaks off a fight to avoid losing the ship
[14:04 2005] *Shape*: I can't, not if they start the fight
[14:07 2005] *Maso*: if the consequence of dying is a 15 minutes travel
[14:18 2005] *Maso*: well if you plan to play for 30 mins
[14:21 2005] *Shape*: if they agree to fight to 20%, fine
[14:32 2005] *Maso*: you don't wanna spend half the time traveling
[15:01 2005] *Shape*: instead, they're going to spend that time repairing, jumping back in, and harassing the people that won the fight
[15:28 2005] *Shape*: you owe them that time, constantly jumping back in like that is akin to constantly killing one person
[15:36 2005] *Shape*: its griefing of a different form
[15:55 2005] *Maso*: you just feel betrayed because you don't get the kill
[16:05 2005] *Shape*: nah, I've got lots of kills, and lots of deaths
[16:15 2005] *Shape*: I don't really need one more, and I WILL let people go
[16:32 2005] *Shape*: but I get people jumping in and out, and that tires me, I just can't WIN a fight
[17:14 2005] *Maso*: well, if the odds are to hard i tell VPRs to backoff and wait for reinforcements
[17:20 2005] *Shape*: I'm not obsessed with pk's, but I think its only fair to show the same respect that another player shows you
[17:24 2005] *Shape*: that's fine
[17:25 2005] *Maso*: that's a strategic decision you have to accept
[17:36 2005] *Shape*: but you don't back out of a fight you start, if you know the odds
[17:43 2005] *Shape*: if the odds change... ok then
[17:58 2005] *Shape*: but if you attack a player, you stick it out
[18:40 2005] *Maso*: ok, i agree with you as long as it concerns real duels
[19:09 2005] *Shape*: well, I think anything that's 1v1 where both players choose to engage a duel
[19:18 2005] *Shape*: *is a duel
[19:32 2005] *Maso*: not necessarily
[19:48 2005] *Maso*: there are a lot of other reasons for engaging someone
[19:51 2005] *Shape*: if a trader is running away and firing pot shots, that's not engaging
[20:08 2005] *Shape*: I'm talking about killer intent
[20:25 2005] *Shape*: if you're after the kill, then you better offer the kill
[21:03 2005] *Maso*: distracting someone is another reason for engaging
[21:25 2005] *Maso*: lots of arguments put in these discussions are way too general
[21:58 2005] *Maso*: as usual
[22:05 2005] *Shape*: sorry, got in a fight, distracting someone?
[22:17 2005] *Maso*: ppl use half-true, half-wrong arguments
[22:39 2005] *Shape*: I don't think its too general, you start a fight via shooting on someone, you then take responsibility for that
[24:12 2005] *Maso*: well distracting ppl is another reason for engaging
[24:32 2005] *Shape*: how do you mean?
[24:45 2005] *Maso*: if i want you to stop firing at my buddy for example
[24:49 2005] *Maso*: or at any1
[25:00 2005] *Maso*: i open fire to draw your fire on me
[25:09 2005] *Shape*: fine, then you joined the fight
[25:16 2005] *Maso*: no
[25:19 2005] *Shape*: if the player stays and fights you both
[25:22 2005] *Maso*: not necessarily
[25:25 2005] *Shape*: he deserves BOTH kills
[25:34 2005] *Maso*: you always assume the intent to kill
[25:47 2005] *Maso*: some people have just the intent to get away
[25:53 2005] *Shape*: wait so you think that taking pot shots into a fight is honorable
[26:13 2005] *Maso*: what is honourable
[26:25 2005] *Shape*: if they want to get away, fine, but if you're both staying and fighting
[26:36 2005] *Shape*: and then wait till you're at 10% to get away
[26:42 2005] *Shape*: you're clearly running because you lost
[26:52 2005] *Shape*: NOT because you wanted to get away in the first place
[28:29 2005] *Maso*: honourable behaviour really lies in the eye of the beholder shape
[28:38 2005] *Maso*: you have to accept that
[28:47 2005] *Maso*: there are no gold standards
[29:08 2005] *Shape*: you're not answering my point, you answering the filler
[29:13 2005] *Shape*: *you're
[35:21 2005] *Shape*: I mean, we've fought when the odds were completely against us, and stayed and died. And clearly you don't find this anything but stupid... and that
[35:23 2005] *Shape*: bugs me
[36:24 2005] *Maso*: sry botting
[36:29 2005] *Shape*: its ok
[38:47 2005] *Maso*: i don't thing you are stupid
[39:00 2005] *Shape*: no, I mean the actions
[39:52 2005] *Maso*: well, it's rather clear from the start that you won't have a chance and 3-1 or worse
[40:07 2005] *Maso*: if your opponents aren't total idiots
[40:30 2005] *Maso*: and fly half-decent ships
[40:36 2005] *Shape*: that's not true at all, I've fought multiple decent opponents
[41:09 2005] *Maso*: ok, i doubt that you have a chance in a rev c against mb, duncan and me
[41:36 2005] *Shape*: Well, that's because Duncan will fly a prom, and I can't beat an AGT with 2 decent light fighters
[41:47 2005] *Shape*: but if all 3 of you go light fighters, I think I have a chance
[42:12 2005] *Maso*: well, maybe because duncan sucks in light fighters, hehe
[42:27 2005] *Shape*: its not that I have to be much better than my opponents, I just have to time my attacks right
[43:05 2005] *Shape*: in any case, there's a way to go about doing it
[43:19 2005] *Shape*: as Eld and Niki will attest
[43:30 2005] *Shape*: ditto with Ic
[43:54 2005] *Maso*: i wouldn't have a chance against borb, you and say sebastian
[44:02 2005] *Maso*: even though sebastian is weak
[44:15 2005] *Shape*: if you don't believe in some sort of honor, fine, but most of the people in this game do
[44:16 2005] *Maso*: unless i manage to fight you one after the other
[44:28 2005] *Shape*: actually Seb is much better, you should try fighting him now
[44:55 2005] *Maso*: shape, my views of honour aren't the point
[45:13 2005] *Maso*: you just won't change ppl's behaviour by shouting around
[45:15 2005] *Maso*: that's all
[45:27 2005] *Shape*: yes they are, you've been extrapolating them into all the conversations
[45:48 2005] *Shape*: well, that's not true either, IA has been changing because of that
[45:59 2005] *Maso*: no, i just gave reasons for not following your rules
[46:14 2005] *Maso*: you don't know if i played advocatus diaboli or not
[46:15 2005] *Shape*: right, and I gave reasons why that was a cop-out
[47:40 2005] *Shape*: I'm assuming you're not playing devils advocate, since you're so hell bent on keeping your Modus Operandi, but other people are watching
[47:47 2005] *Shape*: and some people seem to care
[47:52 2005] *Maso*: lol shape
[47:53 2005] *Shape*: if its not an issue for you
[48:07 2005] *Maso*: i am just sure that i won't change that behaviour
[48:14 2005] *Shape*: then why are you worried about people that would be bothered anyway
[48:49 2005] *Shape*: if its not going to do anything, why argue with me about it?
[49:00 2005] *Maso*: you started the arguing
[49:06 2005] *Maso*: actually
[49:13 2005] *Maso*: scroll up and you will see
[49:13 2005] *Shape*: nope, you posted to my thread
[49:43 2005] *Maso*: i just mentioned that there are / were BLAK that are not conform with your postulates
[49:58 2005] *Maso*: no arguing involved
[50:10 2005] *Shape*: Which was fair, and I asked whom? and you started an argument about how it was unreasonable in the first place
[52:13 2005] *Shape*: am I wrong?
[53:33 2005] *Maso*: i said i am botting
[59:54 2005] 28b4f0[100]<Maso> bye every1
[59:59 2005] 28b4f0[100]Maso has to log
Someone should defeat Maso and then post THAT chatlog.
-:sigma.SB
-:sigma.SB
Hahaha we can do that too. That ones funny.
This thread belongs on another website. Do not post such things here. Please go and re-read the "Be Nice" screen. Thanks.
[locked]
[locked]