Phillygirl

Oh Hush you

I saved it (originally posted by PumBumbler)

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if you will, a city of knights and knaves. Now you couldn't tell the knights from the knaves, but the knights built the city for the peasants. Some knights were found to be knaves, and others left the city to establish other cities where they felt other peasants could be found.

The peasants swore fealty to the knights in exchange for the peasants to live in the city. Now the town hall was where they all gathered to discuss the events of the day. Much discourse happened, and the knights proclaimed that all should be civil to one another. And for the most part, they were.

Now the city was growing, and many peasants came to live in the city. Some of the dwellings and structures in the city wore thin, and the knights and knaves worked mightily to accommodate them. Some peasants demanded that they be allowed to duel, and the knights accommodated them. Other peasants wished not to hear the sounds of fighting from the duelers and strife fell upon the land.

Lo, the town hall was filled with much discussion, some unctuous and full of dread. So the knights proclaimed that dueling was to be fought with different rules in order for more of the city to appreciate such combat, and yet they were rebuffed.

So the knights built a hall for soothsayers, who could tell tales and entertain the peasants who wished not to duel. Now some of the soothsayers told such tall tales that the knights were angered. Although they held their tongue due to some ancient rite known as a 'publishing blackout', when the time passed the knights let their anger be known.

The knights razed parts of the hall for soothsayers and proclaimed that no more could 'evil' tales be told. When soothsayer and peasant alike asked the knight what tales were 'evil', the Chief Knight replied that only his privy counsel of knights would be the arbiter of which tales were considered taboo, and thus spake no more.

Indeed, the Knight said that only the worst of soothsayers and their followers would be punished for their transgressions, and that even they would be examined carefully before being judged. Many peasants thought the Chief Knight to be magnanimous in his glory and wisdom, while others thought him to be a knave in disguise.

The town hall was abuzz with the Chief Knight's proclamation. Many peasants had heard many of the soothsayers tales, and some were afraid that they had heard tales that would see them punished. Some mewed in fear while others claimed the noble knights would not let so many peasants be punished, for the Chief Knight himself had said that only the most egregious of violators should be drawn and quartered.

Some peasants were emboldened by the knights and said that anyone who had even heard a whisper of an evil tale should be banished, setting the town hall abuzz even more.

So it was a cold evening indeed when the knights carted away many of the peasants, many without warning. Some of the peasants were innocent of any crime and yet they were taken away. Others were brought to the stockade while others were banished, never to be seen again.

Other peasants felt that the knights were too harsh, and went to the town hall to plead to the knights to spare the innocent. Their words fell on deaf ears. Indeed, some of the peasants who dared speak up against such injustice were summarily dismissed. The guards for the knights blocked the peasants from speaking to one another about such outrageous punishment. Did they fear that the peasants would revolt? No one knew for sure.

Many peasants were oblivious to such persecution, and they toiled as they were wont to do, since they did not go to the town hall. Others sided with the knights and said they could do no wrong. A few attempted to declare the Chief Knight a knave, and were struck down. A final proclamation was struck in the town hall to silence all discussion of changes to the hall of soothsayers.

So disheartened were they that many peasants started to leave the shining city. Others discussed which other cities they could journey to, and banded together to make the journey together. Some elected to stay. Some worked with others in secret to protest such ill treatment. The knights, realizing that they had made an error, began to rescind the banishment of the innocent, but the damage was done. Although those peasants received some compensation for their unjust punishment, many of the peasants who fought for them were disheartened, as the Chief Knight did not make any public proclamation that he made a mistake. Indeed, much of the population remained living in fear.

Should the Chief Knight have apologized to the populace to reassure them? Should the Chief Knight admit that many of the banished were not subject to a fair trial but summarily banished? Should the peasants continue to live in fear of hearing a wrong tale at the hall of soothsayers and then be summarily banished, or worse? Are peasants who supported the innocent and protested their case in the town hall wrong for helping their fellows?

[/ QUOTE ]

No i am somewhat plastered....

I practiced tonight! I am sooo ready for next week.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*points to the "No Girlz" sign on the Justice Boy's Treehouse*

And you're going to get all huffy that the girls are getting together to have a little fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

*points to the "No Bugz" sign on the Justice Boys Treehouse*

I can't win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well see if you would finally say you were a lady bug you could join us

No Smoke But if Ele could come now that would rock!!

Women use blush now anyway.....

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I was addressing the first quote (having to do with arcs), and I mean no offense nor am I really trying to argue. I have read many of your postings on the subject; and while I may disagree with your 'take' on the matter, I do believe it is a valid one. So, what I am saying is that 'case by case basis' is not a mistranslation of any of Posi's statements, but rather it is a valid interpretation of his statements both concerning Mission Arcs and subscribers/accounts which specifically transgressed the spirit and letter of the EULA in using known exploitable content for ingame gain. I am not making a judgement on the situation only on the terminology used.

Posi's words are valid, the interpretation that CS will look into the whole 'event' and make judgements/take action on a case by case (or individual) basis is valid in the way he worded the statement. Only time will tell if the actions are implemented in a just and equitable manner. I would hope so, but I don't know anyone who particularly abused any exploitable content; so I will only know anecdotally. All I can say from past actions by CS is that they appear to be fair although some consider them heavyhanded. That is an individual judgement call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no, no offense taken matter of fact I posted the first part in answer to you to see if that interpretation still applyed. My thanks to you for that explination and taking the time to give your input

No this was in refrence to players though not arcs.

From this statement:

Q) “If I powerlevelled a character, am I going to lose them?”
A) Probably not. Only the worst of the worst, exploitive, powerlevelled characters will be removed from the game. We don’t take retroactive punishments lightly, but some offenses are so egregious that no one would question their intent and those ill-gotten gains should be dealt with. I just want to emphasize that no one is looking to ‘punish’ anyone here, but rather remove the rewards of exploitive behavior.

So you think it's just the whole bandwagon paraphrase thing? Thinking back to how many times I saw it quoted it's kinda funny.

Thanks Aett That's what i thought but it has to have been mistranslated along the way and everyone just sort of picked that up or i read it somewhere else.

Wasn't there a bug with set bonuses after zoning? Maybe you are just seeing a buged attribute.

Why not try using mid's hero designer

http://www.cohplanner.com/

This came up on a SG forum and damn if it's not bothering me cause I thought i read it too. People have been quoting posi saying the bans would be looked at on a "case by case basis". I DON'T WANT TO BRING UP ANY ARGUMENTS. I was just wondering where that was taken from? Originally I thought it was in the Dev digest posts but i don't see it there. A good friend suggested it was a "bandwagon" thing where someone paraphrased and then everyone just used it. I remember there being a Q&A I read (not the dev digest) but now i can't find that (too many sites visited to remember where i read it) and I was wondering if it was in that.

So honestly i am just wondering where the heck that came from and quit honestly i figure most of the people here would know. I would appreciate any input just on this thank you.

if I can use the bunny's account and i am free i can help with the raids both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Manoa, and I already added you to Facebook

[/ QUOTE ]
Where's my add you brat?

[/ QUOTE ]


Um you know I am on Ele's myspace so um i.......
Anyway all fxt i added you

Thanks Manoa, and I already added you to Facebook

Not sure what to say Manoa. You were the one that made me feel welcome on the boards and you didn't have to say a word to me. When ever i read your posts I always thought wow she is so sweet. So I guess even those that don't post who only read, like me when i first started playing, you are noticed and liked. You are a part of Justice's heart and it will loose a bit of that love and compassion you carry when you leave. *Hug* All my best to you in your current situation and for your future.

My Carebear Stare

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i really would like a serious explanation: why the perma 46 if the devs dont like farms? why castle in PI? why PI aint a lvl 40+ restricted area? why atlas is not a minus lvl 20 forbidden one?



[/ QUOTE ]

I know the answer to the XP off and the perma 46. The XP off option really is for the ability to not skip content, and i know people who like to do this. They had a plan once they figured out people were making lvl 46 perma bridges but i think there is some issues putting it into place. If I remember correct the fix to the perma bridge was going to be that if your XP was off then anyone you sk'd would also not recieve XP. Again not sure why it was never enacted.

The other questions I can't answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess they didn't enact no exp for the SK is because it is not inconceivable that someone might turn it off and SK a friend to get them caught up. A manual leveling pact of sorts. So to fix a perma 46 scenario they would need special coding beyond just an exp block for an SK to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking it went along those lines but i know nothing about programing so left it vague. That makes the most sense though.

[ QUOTE ]


i really would like a serious explanation: why the perma 46 if the devs dont like farms? why castle in PI? why PI aint a lvl 40+ restricted area? why atlas is not a minus lvl 20 forbidden one?



[/ QUOTE ]

I know the answer to the XP off and the perma 46. The XP off option really is for the ability to not skip content, and i know people who like to do this. They had a plan once they figured out people were making lvl 46 perma bridges but i think there is some issues putting it into place. If I remember correct the fix to the perma bridge was going to be that if your XP was off then anyone you sk'd would also not recieve XP. Again not sure why it was never enacted.

The other questions I can't answer.

So just the two teams so far? If anyone doesn't mind loosing i would like to get some PvP in before i am out.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know i sure appreciate all yall's kind words

praise me more. i like that lol jk

[/ QUOTE ]
hah, you're not kidding

[/ QUOTE ]

caught me




and zomg philly judging costumes!!! Yall better get yalls stuff in order

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so everyone knows my favorite color is blue