in fact...

in fact...:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Graham on December 23, 1999 at 04:54:26:

In Reply to: democratic rules enforcement and a short rant on immortal character mixing posted by SphereMaker(IMM) on December 22, 1999 at 11:11:13:

>when you knew if you found them on your own >you'd be accused of cheating so you sat on >your ass waiting to find other mortals who >were willing to lead you to them

was arolin led to the liche item?

> Despite the fact that I enjoy your outspoken oh-for-fook's-sake commentary on things from time to time, I think in this case you need to remember that rules enforcement is left to the immortals. It's not up for discussion, it's not up for a vote

Umm yes it is up for discussion? What do you think we are doing here? discussing international monetary policy?

> > Should we ban scarabaeus from hell?
> That's a good question. Should I be allowed to play a necromancer...........

a somewhat exaggerated question by myself based on the fact that arolin was banned on the basis that , his character had a liche item in that area, he should not go near that area with any other character ...ever...until his necro liches or dies.

> If you think immortals are in a cakewalk when they play mortals, you're full of shit.

oh hell no, i've played with enough immortals in mortal forms and i've seen enough to know that nothing is different for them.
However making that comment i view as merely an attempt to obfuscate the matter at hand. You may as well cry racism when given a parking ticket.

>Guess how fun it is putting up with shit >like hearing for 400 hours that "you didn't >even know how to get your own lichquest >items" when you knew if you found them on >your own you'd be accused of cheating so >you sat on your ass waiting to find other >mortals who were willing to lead you to >them.

situations such as the barrier wands and stuff i'll agree with, it's kind of hard to fake looking for something and you would be open to comments as to your integrity.
But again, these statements are UTTERLY irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Arolin was banned for visiting an area in the game.

> Guess how fun it is hiding who your >mortal character is from the immortal >leaders of that character's cabal

i wouldn't imagine it to be hard unless they look at your site address.

>Guess how fun it is playing a mortal >character knowing that if another immortal >knows who you are you'll never be quested >for anything special because even if it was >a nearly impossible quest, no one will >believe that you finished it on your own.

hrm i think your wrong, i've certainly known of imms that have done such despite knowing who it was. Obviously the task was made harder...(Andaren and Gareths thief for one)

>So, please, spare me the "should immortal X >be allowed to do whatever" questioning; we >sacrifice a >hell of a lot for the sake of >cleanliness.

and as much i believe you to be an intelligent man, yet again you are one who has missed the entire point of my comment.

I stated that Arolin was deleted for entering an area that another character had interest in, does this then mean that all of the immortals should be banned from their areas because another character (the imm) has an interest there?

IT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION FOR GODS SAKE MAN!
the answer is NO!

Should arolin be banned for doing the same as he usually did? Grouping with masters and going around with them? and at that they weren't even same siters. Which would be stranger rp? To suddenly say no i don't want to group i'd rather sit with my thumb up my ass or to go with a group and adventure?

oh and believe me,i don't think Arolin is the patron saint of good mudders but as i said no other evidence was laid out so i believe Arolin (for once) was hard done by.

Accuse me of suddenly becoming a rabid imm hater with all manner of prejudices if you will, but a) that would be incorrect and b) utterly irrelevant to what i am saying.

Follow Ups:

Please read... Webster 05:18:18 12/23/99 (1)
- The point is , he obviously didn't know the answer despite it being utterly apparent, i wasn't leaving room for error Graham 07:05:11 12/24/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> >when you knew if you found them on your own >you'd be accused of cheating so you sat on >your ass waiting to find other mortals who >were willing to lead you to them > was arolin led to the liche item? > > > Despite the fact that I enjoy your outspoken oh-for-fook's-sake commentary on things from time to time, I think in this case you need to remember that rules enforcement is left to the immortals. It's not up for discussion, it's not up for a vote > Umm yes it is up for discussion? What do you think we are doing here? discussing international monetary policy? > > > Should we ban scarabaeus from hell? > > That's a good question. Should I be allowed to play a necromancer........... > a somewhat exaggerated question by myself based on the fact that arolin was banned on the basis that , his character had a liche item in that area, he should not go near that area with any other character ...ever...until his necro liches or dies. > > > If you think immortals are in a cakewalk when they play mortals, you're full of shit. > oh hell no, i've played with enough immortals in mortal forms and i've seen enough to know that nothing is different for them. > However making that comment i view as merely an attempt to obfuscate the matter at hand. You may as well cry racism when given a parking ticket. > > >Guess how fun it is putting up with shit >like hearing for 400 hours that "you didn't >even know how to get your own lichquest >items" when you knew if you found them on >your own you'd be accused of cheating so >you sat on your ass waiting to find other >mortals who were willing to lead you to >them. > situations such as the barrier wands and stuff i'll agree with, it's kind of hard to fake looking for something and you would be open to comments as to your integrity. > But again, these statements are UTTERLY irrelevant to the matter at hand. > Arolin was banned for visiting an area in the game. > > > Guess how fun it is hiding who your >mortal character is from the immortal >leaders of that character's cabal > i wouldn't imagine it to be hard unless they look at your site address. > >Guess how fun it is playing a mortal >character knowing that if another immortal >knows who you are you'll never be quested >for anything special because even if it was >a nearly impossible quest, no one will >believe that you finished it on your own. > hrm i think your wrong, i've certainly known of imms that have done such despite knowing who it was. Obviously the task was made harder...(Andaren and Gareths thief for one) > >So, please, spare me the "should immortal X >be allowed to do whatever" questioning; we >sacrifice a >hell of a lot for the sake of >cleanliness. > and as much i believe you to be an intelligent man, yet again you are one who has missed the entire point of my comment. > I stated that Arolin was deleted for entering an area that another character had interest in, does this then mean that all of the immortals should be banned from their areas because another character (the imm) has an interest there? > IT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION FOR GODS SAKE MAN! > the answer is NO! > Should arolin be banned for doing the same as he usually did? Grouping with masters and going around with them? and at that they weren't even same siters. Which would be stranger rp? To suddenly say no i don't want to group i'd rather sit with my thumb up my ass or to go with a group and adventure? > oh and believe me,i don't think Arolin is the patron saint of good mudders but as i said no other evidence was laid out so i believe Arolin (for once) was hard done by. > > Accuse me of suddenly becoming a rabid imm hater with all manner of prejudices if you will, but a) that would be incorrect and b) utterly irrelevant to what i am saying.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]