-
Posts
1612 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Personas
Wiki
Rules
War
Systems
Safety
Player Conduct
Roleplay Leadership Guidelines
- Roleplay Leadership Guidelines
- Roleplay Leadership Guidelines Comments
- Roleplay Leadership Guidelines Reviews
Forums
Everything posted by 1_Language_1
-
I love your profile picture. I have watched almost all the videos.
-
I keep getting timed out from the server this morning-

My wifi adapter lied to me- you were supposed to give me fast wifi.
-
I might not be as active for the next couple days. This is for a couple of reasons, 1. I need to get back to my sleeping schedule for school
2. I'm making two, maybe three, cool texture packs.
I recently have been taking an interest in those who are colorblind. Since I could not find any texture packs that fell within reasonable standards- I'm making my own.
-
Back in the days (irl), you weren't supposed to shoot someone who was unarmed. (Y'know, cowboy codes.)
There should be a rp law (not a server rule) that basically says "You can't attack someone who isn't armed."
armedärmd/adjective-
1.equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons."the security forces are armed with automatic rifles"
weap·onˈwepən/noun-
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Now, unless I'm gonna use a wooden hoe to defend myself- I'm not really armed. A hoe isn't a thing designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage unless I give it that purpose. (IE: Bashing your head in with a hoe would make the hoe a weapon... but if I'm carrying a sword that is stone, iron, or any material except wood..- now the sword is a weapon because it was designed specifically to inflict damage.)
Now I'm not saying that it should be enforced to the point of calling for a gm. I'm saying it should be one of those code of conduct laws.
Like how a knight should follow chivalry, or a king should follow comitatus, or how a proper lady shouldn't be showing shoulders- That kind of stuff. Another example would be shooting someone in the back.
+1 if you think I should expand on this.
-
-
-
Someone +1'd me, so I'll expand.
People that would be exempt from this code of conduct would basically be like, orcs, or highway robbers, or villains. Of course, villains and robbers-- upon capture-- have a higher chance of receiving a harsher punishment.
Weapons: A sword that's made out of anything but wood, pikes, or lances.
Ranged weapons count if it's like a snipe attempt, but like- they can't do much damage rply when it's like a upclose. That's like trying to knock someone out with a punch from an inch away.
-
-
Can we have a dislike button that just doesn't do anything.
I know there's some posts I'd like to 'dislike'

- Show previous comments 2 more
-
Well I'm thinking like this.. Dislike button, doesn't affect reputation, and you must give a reason for why you've disliked it. And if your reason is complete bullcrap- it won't be listed as a dislike :>
There is always a chance that someone is ganging up on one person, no matter what we do- there will always be an attacking.
You don't even NEED a dislike button to attack someone's post, you can put/say a -1 in your post. Yet, that would be more visible than an anonymous down button.
I didn't say we have to have one, I just thought it was cool.
-
-
