Jump to content

Metal Bunny

Member
  • Content Count

    1,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Kyphis the Bard in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    Well, I am training for the european debating championships, so your here here (it's supposed to be hear hear), is greatly appreciated

    *cough* end of spam
  2. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Kyphis the Bard in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  3. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Granos in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  4. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Udgard in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  5. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Amoran Kalamanira Kol in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  6. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Jubaris in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  7. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  8. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Chewett in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  9. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Curiose in Controversy, and the Way of the Dodo   
    The problem with the whole point of 'setting' a limit, is that ultimately someone, or more likely, a group of people, set a limit which, by its very nature, goes against your very nature (if your tastes are the ones being limited).

    The point being that if a majority may decide against an individual's will and force it to abide by its rules. This is actually a good thing in many cases, as theft, murder, rape, pedophilia and other such measures, have been 'tyranically imposed by the greater majority on the fringe minority, according to the concept of implicit social contract'. But there is a reason why this is so undisputed; there is clear, active 3rd party harm (someone gets robbed, killed, raped, against their will naturally).

    In the case of something that is taste however, jurisprudence /suggests/ that the 3rd party is far less and that the harm is done inactively, not actively, nor even always with the intent of harm (also important).

    In comparison; hearing about 2 girls and 1 cup from your friends, not punishable by law. The harm is very subjective (I thought it was funny to gross out my friends, kind of like a very disturbing version of 'pull my finger') and the victim can always walk away or protest (my friends didn't), thereby removing their implicit consent.

    Having your movement restricted or the harm forced upon you however, is punishable by law. No one is allowed to tape your eyes to the disturbing movie that crawls its way around the net, nor is anyone allowed to turn up the volume on a radio show of which the content is disturbing (disturbance of public area).

    So.. yeah.. uh.. the other things you are talking about concern private institutes and companies, who are allowed to discriminate on non-arbitrary and business necessary traits and attributes.
    Your story only reflects a social change, in the sense that Disney thinks that they can profit more and capitalize on the scandal, whereas in the past, the entire social norm was different (more like you I presume) and as such, they were unable to capitalize and had to cut their losses.

    However, your story only reflects a change in social norm. It does not however, legitimize or justify a change in law or setting a new arbitrary limit.
    Strangely enough, the only outlet you do have, is to fight for it, and protest this social norm, until the majority re-converges on a limit that would suspend such activities as mentioned in your story.

    I, myself, hope you fail, seeing as how I truly believe that 'hurt feelings' don't deserve their own amendment in any constitution, especially not when you yourself are in a position to walk away, do the same thing to them (gross them out via a tea-party in front of their house?), or especially when the current social norm still dictates that they will not EVER reach high positions. (politicians and business people, will ruthlessly devour you if you had such a past as would any moderate voter).

    So.. your problem is that 'celebs' go further to create shock and generate publicity. I ignore them, and am quite happy with it
  10. Upvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to Pothos in Request for punishment for sasha lilias   
    I'll be frank. I think this is only a minor thing being blown out of preportion. She did wrong but not in a massive way. Change the title, toss her in jail for a few days, and move on. If she does it again, then go nuts over it.

    I do however think it odd that she didn't read the rule about that. Her deffence isn't great, but it is realistic.
  11. Upvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to Chewett in Request for punishment for sasha lilias   
    and with that concluding fair statement, this shall be closed, Assuming that MD council do something within two weeks i can be contacted to open or do whatever with this topic. if they dont act, then we can continue to discuss it.
  12. Upvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to dst in Request for punishment for sasha lilias   
    I want sasha lilias to be banned for at least 1 month and also her WPs to be removed. Also, what she has done needs to be un-done.

    Why?
    Cause of this:

    [attachment=3098:sasha_idiot.png]


    This is what the wish says:
    [b]Change location subtitle[/b]
    Allows you to change a subtitle on a given location. The new title will remain forever untill someone else changes it and for at least 4 days. With this you can mark locations to support your role, such as pubs, markets, themed gathering places, mark historic locations to remember an important event for all future players, organise group activities, support role play situations, etc.[color=#FF0000][b] You are not allow to write playernames in this subtitle[/b][/color]. Abusing this by writing ofences, advertising or similar will be penalised.


    I will also send an e-mail to the council and Mur and complain about this.





    This is not the first time she breaks the rules. She is not a noob. She knows exactly what she's doing but choose to ignore all the rules. I will NOT accept such things!

    MD is NOT your personal playground!
  13. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Sharazhad in Citizenship and kings   
    I knew that when I was about to go to bed, that I should've continued the line of thought that started with 'but I haven't heard from Jester about this yet', but hey, this is the internet, so go ahead pip .

    Besides that, you are doing the exact same thing on your last part; assuming that the link between the Tribunal and Necrovion, simply because Mur said so, somehow validates him leaving as a citizen and becoming one of another land. Seeing as how this is the internet, I will ignore your 'something to ponder' and 'even if my memory is wrong'.
    I will ignore it, because that is how internet arguments go.

    Seriously, Granos said it before, why would I have to repeat it again pip?
    Does every post have to end with, 'Let's hear from Jester first', just so that we can all be certain that no one overlooked this fundamentally important thing?
    C'mon, I don't want to go offtopic and I usually only want to write /new/ things on a topic. Well, I say usually, but annoying you is funny too.

    So let me please use this opportunity to end with the words; 'But let's hear from Jester first.'

    *Cough*
  14. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Esmaralda in Citizenship and kings   
    I knew that when I was about to go to bed, that I should've continued the line of thought that started with 'but I haven't heard from Jester about this yet', but hey, this is the internet, so go ahead pip .

    Besides that, you are doing the exact same thing on your last part; assuming that the link between the Tribunal and Necrovion, simply because Mur said so, somehow validates him leaving as a citizen and becoming one of another land. Seeing as how this is the internet, I will ignore your 'something to ponder' and 'even if my memory is wrong'.
    I will ignore it, because that is how internet arguments go.

    Seriously, Granos said it before, why would I have to repeat it again pip?
    Does every post have to end with, 'Let's hear from Jester first', just so that we can all be certain that no one overlooked this fundamentally important thing?
    C'mon, I don't want to go offtopic and I usually only want to write /new/ things on a topic. Well, I say usually, but annoying you is funny too.

    So let me please use this opportunity to end with the words; 'But let's hear from Jester first.'

    *Cough*
  15. Downvote
    Metal Bunny reacted to Pipstickz in Citizenship and kings   
    [quote name='Metal Bunny' timestamp='1310774224' post='88025']
    What Jester is doing however, by becoming a citizen of another country first, he is showing the 'wrong' kind of priority or preference, as to what 'should be expected' of a monarch.
    As Firs stated earlier, in this scenario it becomes quite likely that conflicts of interest can show up quite quickly; is Jester a vassal, since he must obey the laws of another land, making all other Necrovions vassals as well?
    [/quote]
    First off, saying he "shows the wrong priority" is assuming his priority, is that really fair? I can say Firs shows priority on drawing attention away from Loreroot's screw-ups, rather than trying to fix them, by making this topic, but that's unfair to him, because I don't KNOW his priorities, and he hasn't openly stated them (not saying there are screw-ups, just making an example).

    Secondly, do YOU see some Tribunal laws that I don't? Because I AM a citizen, I think you should direct me to them as soon as possible.

    Thirdly, the Tribunal may have a "king" of sorts, who also happens to be the only one who could literally force Jester to leave the alliance (other than myself, I suppose, because I am loyalty leader), so do you not think he would have shown some interest in this issue? This is, of course, assuming he's noticed it.

    Also sort of side-note, I do believe Mur has mentioned a connection between the Tribunal and Necrovion, has he not? Something to ponder for those who care, even if my memory's wrong.
  16. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from dst in Citizenship and kings   
    I don't see the problem here on the side of Firs' side, simply because joining an alliance is possible, without formally joining the alliance.
    Indyra for instance, holds a noteworthy position inside the GG alliance, even though she is the head of the guild.
    In this sense, being the head of a guild, and not being in the GG alliance and then delegating tasks to the other guild members, shows her priorities, but also her preferences, both of which are highly compatible.
    She is guild leader first, then a warrior part of the GG alliance. Only when a conflict of interest would arise, would she choose for the guild, but since this will most likely not happen in the short and mid term future, it delivers us no headaches.

    Now, there is always the possibility that Jester or the alliance never contemplated that people could still be part of an alliance, while formally not being so.
    But since the bonus from the alliance in stats, alliance chat and alliance leader jump and alliance invite, are things that are not at all that very important, it should be a simple possibility.
    The more important things, such as access to alliance forum and thus inclusion to, oh I don't know, everything the alliance is about, are not dependent upon actually being part of the alliance in the first place.

    Another example, I help protect bob and have access to the forum section for bob, but I don't want to join Bob's alliance, simply because I wish to show that my priority and preference lies with GG first and then with bob. However, it is a wonderful combination and I see no conflict of interest arising.

    What Jester is doing however, by becoming a citizen of another country first, he is showing the 'wrong' kind of priority or preference, as to what 'should be expected' of a monarch.
    As Firs stated earlier, in this scenario it becomes quite likely that conflicts of interest can show up quite quickly; is Jester a vassal, since he must obey the laws of another land, making all other Necrovions vassals as well?

    Then again, I haven't heard from Jester yet, so maybe he didn't realize that you can be part of an alliance, while formally not actually joining them.
  17. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Pipstickz in Citizenship and kings   
    I don't see the problem here on the side of Firs' side, simply because joining an alliance is possible, without formally joining the alliance.
    Indyra for instance, holds a noteworthy position inside the GG alliance, even though she is the head of the guild.
    In this sense, being the head of a guild, and not being in the GG alliance and then delegating tasks to the other guild members, shows her priorities, but also her preferences, both of which are highly compatible.
    She is guild leader first, then a warrior part of the GG alliance. Only when a conflict of interest would arise, would she choose for the guild, but since this will most likely not happen in the short and mid term future, it delivers us no headaches.

    Now, there is always the possibility that Jester or the alliance never contemplated that people could still be part of an alliance, while formally not being so.
    But since the bonus from the alliance in stats, alliance chat and alliance leader jump and alliance invite, are things that are not at all that very important, it should be a simple possibility.
    The more important things, such as access to alliance forum and thus inclusion to, oh I don't know, everything the alliance is about, are not dependent upon actually being part of the alliance in the first place.

    Another example, I help protect bob and have access to the forum section for bob, but I don't want to join Bob's alliance, simply because I wish to show that my priority and preference lies with GG first and then with bob. However, it is a wonderful combination and I see no conflict of interest arising.

    What Jester is doing however, by becoming a citizen of another country first, he is showing the 'wrong' kind of priority or preference, as to what 'should be expected' of a monarch.
    As Firs stated earlier, in this scenario it becomes quite likely that conflicts of interest can show up quite quickly; is Jester a vassal, since he must obey the laws of another land, making all other Necrovions vassals as well?

    Then again, I haven't heard from Jester yet, so maybe he didn't realize that you can be part of an alliance, while formally not actually joining them.
  18. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Citizenship and kings   
    I don't see the problem here on the side of Firs' side, simply because joining an alliance is possible, without formally joining the alliance.
    Indyra for instance, holds a noteworthy position inside the GG alliance, even though she is the head of the guild.
    In this sense, being the head of a guild, and not being in the GG alliance and then delegating tasks to the other guild members, shows her priorities, but also her preferences, both of which are highly compatible.
    She is guild leader first, then a warrior part of the GG alliance. Only when a conflict of interest would arise, would she choose for the guild, but since this will most likely not happen in the short and mid term future, it delivers us no headaches.

    Now, there is always the possibility that Jester or the alliance never contemplated that people could still be part of an alliance, while formally not being so.
    But since the bonus from the alliance in stats, alliance chat and alliance leader jump and alliance invite, are things that are not at all that very important, it should be a simple possibility.
    The more important things, such as access to alliance forum and thus inclusion to, oh I don't know, everything the alliance is about, are not dependent upon actually being part of the alliance in the first place.

    Another example, I help protect bob and have access to the forum section for bob, but I don't want to join Bob's alliance, simply because I wish to show that my priority and preference lies with GG first and then with bob. However, it is a wonderful combination and I see no conflict of interest arising.

    What Jester is doing however, by becoming a citizen of another country first, he is showing the 'wrong' kind of priority or preference, as to what 'should be expected' of a monarch.
    As Firs stated earlier, in this scenario it becomes quite likely that conflicts of interest can show up quite quickly; is Jester a vassal, since he must obey the laws of another land, making all other Necrovions vassals as well?

    Then again, I haven't heard from Jester yet, so maybe he didn't realize that you can be part of an alliance, while formally not actually joining them.
  19. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Phantom Orchid in Citizenship and kings   
    I don't see the problem here on the side of Firs' side, simply because joining an alliance is possible, without formally joining the alliance.
    Indyra for instance, holds a noteworthy position inside the GG alliance, even though she is the head of the guild.
    In this sense, being the head of a guild, and not being in the GG alliance and then delegating tasks to the other guild members, shows her priorities, but also her preferences, both of which are highly compatible.
    She is guild leader first, then a warrior part of the GG alliance. Only when a conflict of interest would arise, would she choose for the guild, but since this will most likely not happen in the short and mid term future, it delivers us no headaches.

    Now, there is always the possibility that Jester or the alliance never contemplated that people could still be part of an alliance, while formally not being so.
    But since the bonus from the alliance in stats, alliance chat and alliance leader jump and alliance invite, are things that are not at all that very important, it should be a simple possibility.
    The more important things, such as access to alliance forum and thus inclusion to, oh I don't know, everything the alliance is about, are not dependent upon actually being part of the alliance in the first place.

    Another example, I help protect bob and have access to the forum section for bob, but I don't want to join Bob's alliance, simply because I wish to show that my priority and preference lies with GG first and then with bob. However, it is a wonderful combination and I see no conflict of interest arising.

    What Jester is doing however, by becoming a citizen of another country first, he is showing the 'wrong' kind of priority or preference, as to what 'should be expected' of a monarch.
    As Firs stated earlier, in this scenario it becomes quite likely that conflicts of interest can show up quite quickly; is Jester a vassal, since he must obey the laws of another land, making all other Necrovions vassals as well?

    Then again, I haven't heard from Jester yet, so maybe he didn't realize that you can be part of an alliance, while formally not actually joining them.
  20. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Festival of War and Remembrance 29th of June to 4th of July   
    Mmmh, you are right in those cases, so I'll try my best to explain a bit.
    For one, achieving Monarchy is not enough, I realize that, however, the difference is that Handy Pockets was elected. An election requires far more effort, than simply being born into a dynasty. Feel free to dispute this.

    As for Indyra, Windy and Sagewoman, I have seen that, besides what they have done, is that they helped newbies. While one may argue that W&S didn't do much, they were also influential in the way Loreroot's government behaved, as well as being old in comparison to the others up there. Now, I don't count age as a real argument, however, their age, unlike Vilinec, has been put, consistently to good use, through the help of newbies (throughout all of their days, which is a lot.)

    Now, Indyra is almost constantly in the paper cabin, so I have added that to her alliance achievements. Besides that, I also took into account that her guild is the first of its kind, which, while not necessarily as special as the 'first alliance', it still counts for something. Lastly, if Indyra had not been selected as the leader of the guild, she would have been chosen for a higher postion in the GG alliance, which would force us to change the name of the 'triumvirate'.. what's it called when it's 4? Regardless, unlike some other governments or guilds, she is clearly visible and does influence the realm.


    As I said in my previous post, I was in pure doubt about Innocence, Mya and Fyrd.
    The way you put it, I have begun re-doubting the already shaky positions of Mya and Fyrd. I believe I had underestimated Mya's position, because her position in the government of Loreroot, as well as when helping newbies, should put her in the same position as Indyra.
    I do believe I have a bit of bias towards Loreroot, though I have no real reason as to why.
    So, yay, I think I'll put Mya on the legends list. (I did say it was a coinflip before.)

    The same goes for Fyrd, he also has been helping newbies, I just haven't seen it a lot of times, giving me a bias to correct for.
    So yay too?

    As for Innocence, (I'm not certain if you read what I wrote correctly, because the way you end makes it sound as if I had put Innocence in the legendary category), I must argue against your reasoning, because while she (he?) may have done valuable things, her (his?) isolation impedes him severely in the sense that all his other achievements are lessened as a result as well.
    In this sense, the only bias I do have is against his isolation, but I believe that this bias is justified and as such he is still in the toss-up=not legendary (yet) category.

    In contrast, all others do freely and willingly mingle and influence the realm on a nigh daily basis, as far as I know, Innocence has consistently done the opposite to his detriment.
    Again, isolation can be a good thing, you just have to do it properly, and so far I have not seen a really good example of how isolation can lead to a legend. (with perhaps the exception of Z, but one can argue that the PoL is a busy crossroad and as such, isn't really isolation.)
  21. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Watcher in Festival of War and Remembrance 29th of June to 4th of July   
    Of course the way I judge them is flawed, as it is an entirely subjective judgment, which is why I ask people to argue with me.
    However, simply saying that it is flawed doesn't really help a lot, now when you say that she does help newbies a lot, then I would normally argue against that, as I have seen him be quite offstandish and isolationist and I concluded that such behaviour impedes realm-influencing acts.
    But it does seem that (not just you), others say that she has been helping people out.

    And, yes, it may seem that I put up a higher emphasis on helping out newbs, however, it is not actually the case.
    I argue that simply because we were having a discussion about it, that it seemed to you that it were the case, if I truly did put a higher emphasis on it, then surely, I would've put that in with the 2 previous, more general arguments.
    Besides that, I believe that helping out newbs is integral to the 'influencing the realm' part and that while the latter may not include the earlier, the opposite is certainly true.

    Lastly, the cases we were talking about, were right on the 'I'm doubting so much, it may as well be a coinflip' middle, as such, helping newbies becomes marginally more important.
  22. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Granos in Festival of War and Remembrance 29th of June to 4th of July   
    Of course the way I judge them is flawed, as it is an entirely subjective judgment, which is why I ask people to argue with me.
    However, simply saying that it is flawed doesn't really help a lot, now when you say that she does help newbies a lot, then I would normally argue against that, as I have seen him be quite offstandish and isolationist and I concluded that such behaviour impedes realm-influencing acts.
    But it does seem that (not just you), others say that she has been helping people out.

    And, yes, it may seem that I put up a higher emphasis on helping out newbs, however, it is not actually the case.
    I argue that simply because we were having a discussion about it, that it seemed to you that it were the case, if I truly did put a higher emphasis on it, then surely, I would've put that in with the 2 previous, more general arguments.
    Besides that, I believe that helping out newbs is integral to the 'influencing the realm' part and that while the latter may not include the earlier, the opposite is certainly true.

    Lastly, the cases we were talking about, were right on the 'I'm doubting so much, it may as well be a coinflip' middle, as such, helping newbies becomes marginally more important.
  23. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Granos in Festival of War and Remembrance 29th of June to 4th of July   
    Mmmh, you are right in those cases, so I'll try my best to explain a bit.
    For one, achieving Monarchy is not enough, I realize that, however, the difference is that Handy Pockets was elected. An election requires far more effort, than simply being born into a dynasty. Feel free to dispute this.

    As for Indyra, Windy and Sagewoman, I have seen that, besides what they have done, is that they helped newbies. While one may argue that W&S didn't do much, they were also influential in the way Loreroot's government behaved, as well as being old in comparison to the others up there. Now, I don't count age as a real argument, however, their age, unlike Vilinec, has been put, consistently to good use, through the help of newbies (throughout all of their days, which is a lot.)

    Now, Indyra is almost constantly in the paper cabin, so I have added that to her alliance achievements. Besides that, I also took into account that her guild is the first of its kind, which, while not necessarily as special as the 'first alliance', it still counts for something. Lastly, if Indyra had not been selected as the leader of the guild, she would have been chosen for a higher postion in the GG alliance, which would force us to change the name of the 'triumvirate'.. what's it called when it's 4? Regardless, unlike some other governments or guilds, she is clearly visible and does influence the realm.


    As I said in my previous post, I was in pure doubt about Innocence, Mya and Fyrd.
    The way you put it, I have begun re-doubting the already shaky positions of Mya and Fyrd. I believe I had underestimated Mya's position, because her position in the government of Loreroot, as well as when helping newbies, should put her in the same position as Indyra.
    I do believe I have a bit of bias towards Loreroot, though I have no real reason as to why.
    So, yay, I think I'll put Mya on the legends list. (I did say it was a coinflip before.)

    The same goes for Fyrd, he also has been helping newbies, I just haven't seen it a lot of times, giving me a bias to correct for.
    So yay too?

    As for Innocence, (I'm not certain if you read what I wrote correctly, because the way you end makes it sound as if I had put Innocence in the legendary category), I must argue against your reasoning, because while she (he?) may have done valuable things, her (his?) isolation impedes him severely in the sense that all his other achievements are lessened as a result as well.
    In this sense, the only bias I do have is against his isolation, but I believe that this bias is justified and as such he is still in the toss-up=not legendary (yet) category.

    In contrast, all others do freely and willingly mingle and influence the realm on a nigh daily basis, as far as I know, Innocence has consistently done the opposite to his detriment.
    Again, isolation can be a good thing, you just have to do it properly, and so far I have not seen a really good example of how isolation can lead to a legend. (with perhaps the exception of Z, but one can argue that the PoL is a busy crossroad and as such, isn't really isolation.)
  24. Downvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from Jubaris in Festival of War and Remembrance 29th of June to 4th of July   
    Mmmh, you are right in those cases, so I'll try my best to explain a bit.
    For one, achieving Monarchy is not enough, I realize that, however, the difference is that Handy Pockets was elected. An election requires far more effort, than simply being born into a dynasty. Feel free to dispute this.

    As for Indyra, Windy and Sagewoman, I have seen that, besides what they have done, is that they helped newbies. While one may argue that W&S didn't do much, they were also influential in the way Loreroot's government behaved, as well as being old in comparison to the others up there. Now, I don't count age as a real argument, however, their age, unlike Vilinec, has been put, consistently to good use, through the help of newbies (throughout all of their days, which is a lot.)

    Now, Indyra is almost constantly in the paper cabin, so I have added that to her alliance achievements. Besides that, I also took into account that her guild is the first of its kind, which, while not necessarily as special as the 'first alliance', it still counts for something. Lastly, if Indyra had not been selected as the leader of the guild, she would have been chosen for a higher postion in the GG alliance, which would force us to change the name of the 'triumvirate'.. what's it called when it's 4? Regardless, unlike some other governments or guilds, she is clearly visible and does influence the realm.


    As I said in my previous post, I was in pure doubt about Innocence, Mya and Fyrd.
    The way you put it, I have begun re-doubting the already shaky positions of Mya and Fyrd. I believe I had underestimated Mya's position, because her position in the government of Loreroot, as well as when helping newbies, should put her in the same position as Indyra.
    I do believe I have a bit of bias towards Loreroot, though I have no real reason as to why.
    So, yay, I think I'll put Mya on the legends list. (I did say it was a coinflip before.)

    The same goes for Fyrd, he also has been helping newbies, I just haven't seen it a lot of times, giving me a bias to correct for.
    So yay too?

    As for Innocence, (I'm not certain if you read what I wrote correctly, because the way you end makes it sound as if I had put Innocence in the legendary category), I must argue against your reasoning, because while she (he?) may have done valuable things, her (his?) isolation impedes him severely in the sense that all his other achievements are lessened as a result as well.
    In this sense, the only bias I do have is against his isolation, but I believe that this bias is justified and as such he is still in the toss-up=not legendary (yet) category.

    In contrast, all others do freely and willingly mingle and influence the realm on a nigh daily basis, as far as I know, Innocence has consistently done the opposite to his detriment.
    Again, isolation can be a good thing, you just have to do it properly, and so far I have not seen a really good example of how isolation can lead to a legend. (with perhaps the exception of Z, but one can argue that the PoL is a busy crossroad and as such, isn't really isolation.)
  25. Upvote
    Metal Bunny got a reaction from dst in Festival of War and Remembrance 29th of June to 4th of July   
    Mmmh, you are right in those cases, so I'll try my best to explain a bit.
    For one, achieving Monarchy is not enough, I realize that, however, the difference is that Handy Pockets was elected. An election requires far more effort, than simply being born into a dynasty. Feel free to dispute this.

    As for Indyra, Windy and Sagewoman, I have seen that, besides what they have done, is that they helped newbies. While one may argue that W&S didn't do much, they were also influential in the way Loreroot's government behaved, as well as being old in comparison to the others up there. Now, I don't count age as a real argument, however, their age, unlike Vilinec, has been put, consistently to good use, through the help of newbies (throughout all of their days, which is a lot.)

    Now, Indyra is almost constantly in the paper cabin, so I have added that to her alliance achievements. Besides that, I also took into account that her guild is the first of its kind, which, while not necessarily as special as the 'first alliance', it still counts for something. Lastly, if Indyra had not been selected as the leader of the guild, she would have been chosen for a higher postion in the GG alliance, which would force us to change the name of the 'triumvirate'.. what's it called when it's 4? Regardless, unlike some other governments or guilds, she is clearly visible and does influence the realm.


    As I said in my previous post, I was in pure doubt about Innocence, Mya and Fyrd.
    The way you put it, I have begun re-doubting the already shaky positions of Mya and Fyrd. I believe I had underestimated Mya's position, because her position in the government of Loreroot, as well as when helping newbies, should put her in the same position as Indyra.
    I do believe I have a bit of bias towards Loreroot, though I have no real reason as to why.
    So, yay, I think I'll put Mya on the legends list. (I did say it was a coinflip before.)

    The same goes for Fyrd, he also has been helping newbies, I just haven't seen it a lot of times, giving me a bias to correct for.
    So yay too?

    As for Innocence, (I'm not certain if you read what I wrote correctly, because the way you end makes it sound as if I had put Innocence in the legendary category), I must argue against your reasoning, because while she (he?) may have done valuable things, her (his?) isolation impedes him severely in the sense that all his other achievements are lessened as a result as well.
    In this sense, the only bias I do have is against his isolation, but I believe that this bias is justified and as such he is still in the toss-up=not legendary (yet) category.

    In contrast, all others do freely and willingly mingle and influence the realm on a nigh daily basis, as far as I know, Innocence has consistently done the opposite to his detriment.
    Again, isolation can be a good thing, you just have to do it properly, and so far I have not seen a really good example of how isolation can lead to a legend. (with perhaps the exception of Z, but one can argue that the PoL is a busy crossroad and as such, isn't really isolation.)
×
×
  • Create New...