I Am Green and I choose for you.

[PolarLoLs 984]

Just now, lemonke said:

You still complained more tree lords were being made under my CA and strangely you were there doing this. Not counting how many times you complained about the soul trees of Illivira because "they were behind walls". Gulps... another coindence... surely it's just FATE putting your character on this path

 

Read the post, as the complain was moreso on a date of their death never to be officialize stated.

 

 

Idk big dog, still that 29 days is a stretch and you cant keep reaching for it

[Rig 17580]

10 minutes ago, lemonke said:

30 days is generous I guess. It means I would have survived as Adele got my sapling in the 29 if we avoid the one week OOC freeze. 

Also, it makes me incredible for me to believe there was no preplanning since the same person who commented a hateful remark on my CA also said this.

 

 

The OOC freezing, which was terrible timing for everybody and stuck us in a limbo, and now this. That's what feels OOC for me. It could go deeper with this as for me the whole situation was damn fishy, but in all of this conflict I was merely a bystander who got hit in the crossfire. So, I may just be having a biased opinion.

 

Once again... I had no rp out of this situation. It was OOC after OOC and eventually losing my character in an outside rp situation. Listen, ok, the saplings perhaps would have been dead, idk, I followed the elder druids on the CA because they never had this issue(I am a pretty newish druid over all). But can we know when had they died? Because again, fault on me if I didnt get to it if I knew the CD when the sapling would have gone poof.

 

Idk how much a magic sapling lasts but this was sudden, and was not aware it was on a countdown since the lore explains nothing. We based ourselves on a theory, conjecture and chose to pk several people.

How strange... the guy who wants a clean up of tree lords ooc is also involved into the rp. Gulps... my bad to think it's on my pov.

 

The freeze more or less had to do with the fact that I sat there and let Illivira rally so that they'd have numbers to fight us. Otherwise, we would have initiated the freeze way sooner (this was so that the players themselves who played the Soul Trees could log on to interact with us). This is the same instance of role-play, within the same timeline of events. So, it does not make sense to me how we would not have a freeze while waiting for those players to log on? I also don't really understand how Tav factors into this at all. There were around 20 of us there and 20 Illivirans/Paladins/Norlanders there. Am I supposed to begin picking through people on the other side I might disagree with and insinuating that they were there solely to kill my Zar'akal because they don't like the direction that the Naztherak community has taken since I began disconnecting people from the magic?
 

Again, nobody is faulting you for being upset at the loss of your character, or your friends characters. However, to insinuate in anyway that it is some convoluted scheme on the part of Tav who wasn't a member of our leadership at the time of the raid is just baseless conjecture. The raid was spearheaded by characters played by myself, VolcanicGoat, Lenny, and RaiderBlue, Ken and TomFunks (who doubled up with Goat). RaiderBlue refused to run DCs on the other Soul Trees as far as I know so that we could avoid further PKs. When we were there for the other RP, I was told nobody else (from the player perspective) would be PKing. 

[lemonke 6014]

Just now, Werew0lf said:

 

I will only address this part of the issue as it concerns me.

 

I was not present for the original roleplay. I was in a voice-chat playing Hunt Showdown and then logged on. I am usually not one to make decisions on lore (though I can), but when there were no other ST online who were: not apart of the roleplay, did not know the druid lore, nor had the balls to make a decision they believed to be something that required manager-level, I opted to liaise with moderation.

I read the druid lore. I spoke to DragonofTaters in DMs -- we came to the conclusion that the tree-lord lore is bad. We decided to reference the only emote-counts we had which was the same as the necromancy sapping, which was [4] emotes. I told DragonofTaters I have little care for the roleplay, but I feel as though she was having the tree die from malflame to avoid the unattunement because it was a one-emote gap. She stated she understands this perspective and agrees, and understands how it can look like she is trying to avoid consequences.

I told her that if the lore stated clearly that the tree would burn to malflame in [3] emotes, I would have backed this verdict and told RaiderBlue and others to shove off. This was not the verdict.

 

I understand you are upset, but being accusatory is not the way to go. I have no reason or cause to purposely screw over DragonofTaters, we do not know each other barring the fact she comes to my events.

 

You should take a little chill pill, okay? Good communications. 

Well, you still were there making the verdicts and you wrote the druid lore but never got into it? I am not saying you were extremely biased but you still partook it and had a say, no? I am not sure why you are so on the defensive. I just don't think you should have gotten involved at all, I know you have nothing against taters but you still have most connection with the people who raided. Thouguh, ultimately, not your fault but once more of the LORE being vague.

 

Of course there were no st online xd. 90%(overxagerated number) of them was raiding Illivira. 

 

 

 

[Karina 1881]

Just now, lemonke said:

Well, you still were there making the verdicts and you wrote the druid lore but never got into it? I am not saying you were extremely biased but you still partook it and had a say, no? I am not sure why you are so on the defensive. I just don't think you should have gotten involved at all, I know you have nothing against taters but you still have most connection with the people who raided. Thouguh, ultimately, not your fault but once more of the LORE being vague.

 

Of course there were no st online xd. 90%(overxagerated number) of them was raiding Illivira. 

 

 

 

i really hate to tell you this dude but there's no big st agenda in this one 

[Werew0lf 24179]

4 minutes ago, lemonke said:

Well, you still were there making the verdicts and you wrote the druid lore but never got into it? I am not saying you were extremely biased but you still partook it and had a say, no? I am not sure why you are so on the defensive. I just don't think you should have gotten involved at all, I know you have nothing against taters but you still have most connection with the people who raided. Thouguh, ultimately, not your fault but once more of the LORE being vague.

 

Of course there were no st online xd. 90%(overxagerated number) of them was raiding Illivira. 

 

 

 

 

You are a little bit of a crashout, man. I am not being defensive, you raised a point and I responded. Why are you getting so defensive young individual?

 

I wrote the druid lore, the treelord lore is still the same. I have to reference the lore being used, which in this situation is treelord. I am unsure how this is a minute point. The people who raided have little connection to me barring Lenny. I will let you know now that I would kill Lenny in a heartbeat because he trolls all my games. (only joking).

 

As per your own words, there were no ST online. I chose to be the ST who was online. You've stated you do not think I had anything against Taters, so I do not see how me making a verdict would be an issue. DragonofTaters is a known player on this server and is connected to many ST. I cannot not do anything. 

 

When the issue was brought to me, I told everyone from the raiding party to stop DMing me because I did not want to be influenced by bias. I specifically even told them if they kept badgering me, I would rule against them for trying to make me change my opinion.

 

I consulted the lore and then consulted moderation and came to the verdict I did. That is all.

 

If you do not want people to respond to your points, do not mention me in your point good fellow roleplayer! I am going to respond if you put my username down and elude to it differently!

[lemonke 6014]

3 minutes ago, PolarLoLs said:

 

 

Idk big dog, still that 29 days is a stretch and you cant keep reaching for it

Then tell me what is the exact date. Because I am not aware of it as the lore doesnt define it.

4 minutes ago, Rig said:

 

The freeze more or less had to do with the fact that I sat there and let Illivira rally so that they'd have numbers to fight us. Otherwise, we would have initiated the freeze way sooner (this was so that the players themselves who played the Soul Trees could log on to interact with us). This is the same instance of role-play, within the same timeline of events. So, it does not make sense to me how we would not have a freeze while waiting for those players to log on? I also don't really understand how Tav factors into this at all. There were around 20 of us there and 20 Illivirans/Paladins/Norlanders there. Am I supposed to begin picking through people on the other side I might disagree with and insinuating that they were there solely to kill my Zar'akal because they don't like the direction that the Naztherak community has taken since I began disconnecting people from the magic?
 

Again, nobody is faulting you for being upset at the loss of your character, or your friends characters. However, to insinuate in anyway that it is some convoluted scheme on the part of Tav who wasn't a member of our leadership at the time of the raid is just baseless conjecture. The raid was spearheaded by characters played by myself, VolcanicGoat, Lenny, and RaiderBlue, Ken and TomFunks (who doubled up with Goat). RaiderBlue refused to run DCs on the other Soul Trees as far as I know so that we could avoid further PKs. When we were there for the other RP, I was told nobody else (from the player perspective) would be PKing. 

 

No, the lore forces a freeze regardless to schedule. What came from your fight was just the crp lock. The lore forces that kind of thing. It remains a bad thing, which was OOC no matter what. Not saying YOUR raid but the freeze imposed by the lore.

 

I don't have much else to say about your other stuff. I think I expressed well enough were my concerns lays, and I have my opinion over the naz stuff/but it isn't my business there.

 

Again, the problem isn't the pk itself, but how.

 

1 minute ago, Werew0lf said:

 

You are a little bit of a crashout, man. I am not being defensive, you raised a point and I responded. Why are you getting so defensive young individual?

 

I wrote the druid lore, the treelord lore is still the same. I have to reference the lore being used, which in this situation is treelord. I am unsure how this is a minute point. The people who raided have little connection to me barring Lenny. I will let you know now that I would kill Lenny in a heartbeat because he trolls all my games. (only joking).

 

As per your own words, there were no ST online. I chose to be the ST who was online. You've stated you do not think I had anything against Taters, so I do not see how me making a verdict would be an issue. DragonofTaters is a known player on this server and is connected to many ST. I cannot not do anything. 

 

When the issue was brought to me, I told everyone from the raiding party to stop DMing me because I did not want to be influenced by bias. I specifically even told them if they kept badgering me, I would rule against them for trying to make me change my opinion.

 

I consulted the lore and then consulted moderation and came to the verdict I did. That is all.

 

If you do not want people to respond to your points, do not mention me in your point good fellow roleplayer! I am going to respond if you put my username down and elude to it differently!

Feel free to respond, I don't care. You are free to say whetever, emperor Hadrian of Mankimd werewolf, fellow roleplayer. You still were there though.

[Lunan_EXE 223]

I'm not saying that the treelords here were without fault, as from what I hear the way the trees were stored was less than genius, but being able to permanently kill several characters in one interaction sounds like an insanely effective way to destroy roleplay groups and should be considered anti-RP. At least in warclaims if a group's tile is taken they can monk revive and disperse, but this exterminates a population.

[Gladuos 869]

Average ST L

[Unwillingly 18096]

I don't have a super strong opinion on this but I do agree with the sentiment of being forced to PK because you didn't do some self RP with a sapling or something, and I generally dislike lore authoritarianism, but this conversation would benefit far more from addressing a flaw in the system or attacking something more fundamental than writing a multi-paragraphed anecdote. this post is really reactionary and accusing everyone involved of ooc plotting and bias is really weak and so tired

however saying "you signed up for it" is just rlly deflective. when you see a leaky faucet do you say "well I bought the faucet so I signed up for this" or do you try to fix the faucet? conversely this is something that, if it's so awful, should have been amended a while ago and it would have been like 2-3 sentences and a lore submission to fix. idk anything about tree lords so I might just be talking out of my ass and it's a nuanced situation but oh well

[Tav 4336]

2 minutes ago, Gladuos said:

Average ST L

pack it up bro

[Phersades 1710]

I truly do think it is in bad faith to paint this as anyone else's fault but that of your own. By reading the redline, it can be inferred that the seed needs constant energy for it to be viable, placing a lifeline in a chest to be untouched for x amount of ooc days behind a locked door is nobody's fault but one's own. I think it is disingenuous as someone who has been a villain role-player to come in here and make a post complaining about the fact that your character got pk'd because you didn't take precautions that are outlined in the CA you willingly took up. It is very apparently through discord chats and even posts like these that you're not angry over the roleplay happening, you're angry that you got caught and are deflecting blame. This isn't unfair, you just feel that it is unfair because you did not get your way, and I sympathize with you. 

It's not fun to lose a character, especially in a way like that. It was intended by the other party that only one druid was meant to be unattuned, and since the others were in close proximity that they would be attacked to, but not forcefully unattuned. To paint roleplay of circumstance as an ooc attack makes it clear that the druid community can't deal with villainy, they are absolutely incapable as made apparent the absolute storm of blame and finger pointing that has come out of roleplay. It was in good faith, because you were given a way to survive had you abided by the redlines. If you are unsure about the redlines, there are green tags who are there to discuss the lore with you prior. 

You can't paint the opposite party as evil, and then also try and use screenshots of someone engaging in conversation regarding a magic they partake in. I guess I better be careful when giving my opinions now that I am a druid, as apparently that means that I am an evil manipulative scheming dictator like Tavalicious and co should anything go wrong. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but posts like this are just nasty on top of posting a perfectly normal conversation between you and Squakhawk. Are we supposed to mob against him? or the people who spent the months building this roleplay up? You don't want the lore changed, you don't want to make a stance, you just want validation and to point out who you believe the bad guy is. 

[MysticalWeasel 910]

2 minutes ago, Lunan_EXE said:

I'm not saying that the treelords here were without fault, as from what I hear the way the trees were stored was less than genius, but being able to permanently kill several characters in one interaction sounds like an insanely effective way to destroy roleplay groups and should be considered anti-RP. At least in warclaims if a group's tile is taken they can monk revive and disperse, but this exterminates a population.

Okay I’ll not meme comment but this needs to be addressed. 

 

Anti rp, would be intentionally targeting a group of players for no rp reason. Or oocly plotting to prevent certain players from not getting magics, or into groups on the server. 

 

The Druids deciding to put all their eggs in one basket, bringing a nearly 20 man rally to defense, to then fail. Is not anti rp, it is the exact opposite. That is rp, that is what is known as failing. And failing is valid in rp. Now was this a harsh outcome? Yes, yes it was. Did any of us who raided that day expect to result in 4-5 Treelords getting pkd, no. 

 

Rp is not simply winning or being always around, it is also failing. Your character finds its limits and either tries to go beyond or fails. 

[Hiccup392 724]

i love taters and respect her and the other druids i knew that were affected by this event.
however. stop putting your lifelines in your backyard, kitchens, and closets. 

[Werew0lf 24179]

8 minutes ago, lemonke said:

Feel free to respond, I don't care. You are free to say whetever, emperor Hadrian of Mankimd werewolf, fellow roleplayer. You still were there though.

 

Wait... I was there?

 

No way, I didn't... realise. I am sorry, fooldude. Please forgive me for being there. 

 

I should've done my ST verdict whilst sitting in cloud temple instead.

[PolarLoLs 984]

Quote

Then tell me what is the exact date. Because I am not aware of it as the lore doesnt define it.

You're being asked to do the bare minimum of self-rping a sapling and couldn't hold it up atleast twice a month gang idk