Should Guilds be amalgamating now?

[grimjim]

I do hope such a system implimented has consequences for inconsistency or atleast reward for loyalty, otherwise neutrals will get the best of both worlds with least effort in regard to fame aquisition.

If you allow people to pick sides freely, but impose fame rewards/negatives for doing so that should help.

Provided fame becomes a little more meaningful.

[alyssah]

Ah well. Another thread hijacked. I'll make one attempt to return it to the path.

What it was intended for was to find out how many other Guilds were in a similar position to mine ie few active members. It would also be useful to know the alignment. I thought it would be interesting to find out what thoughts these smaller guilds were having with regards to future amalgams.

It was not intended to air internal politics of factions or as a base for people to express their opinions of how small guilds should determine when to disband and the principles of selecting a new Guild. However, thanks for your guidance.

Lastly, thanks to Spriteh who, when asked a question, answered the part he knew with references and the part he didn't, admitted to. I think there is a lesson there for us all, me included.

[borg9]

.....I'd imagine Neutral guilds and individuals would look at each event/case in turn and pick a side (or stay uninvolved) depending.

I have always viewed Neutral as about "Preserving Balance".

Neutral does not mean no action or non involvement.

Example:

I am a Neutral (Trytonist).

Jena brings her invading army to Atys and starts to drive the Kami out of the lands.

This would break the equilibrium. In an effort to ensure Neutrality the Kami would require assistance, not to conquer the Karavan but to restore balance!

Personally I have no grievance with Karavan or Kami and while they are equal in power they pose no threat to Hominkind, should this change then actions will be required.

[sprite]

Finally, if you're neutral, how come your members fight for the Karavan? How come we killed TNE members because they were fighting for the Karavan during the 'Spy' event? Doesn't sound very neutral to ME mate.

I'm assuming you were on the kami side. I'm also assuming you didn't notice me standing beside you kicking some karavan *utt. I'm also gonna go ahead and assume that your definition of "neutral" is effectively "pacifist" and that someone who is neutral shouldn't possibly be allowed to take part in any events.

Even if I'm wrong on the last point, I think the first two sum things up pretty well. In that event, when the TNE members who happened to be fighting on the karavan side met the Kami warriors who were on my team / allied with TNE, I seem to remember neither side ended up face down in the dirt

[hugedan]

I here by declare war on sprite. so thats me + everyone vs sprite ul

[philu]

I'm assuming you were on the kami side. I'm also assuming you didn't notice me standing beside you kicking some karavan *utt. I'm also gonna go ahead and assume that your definition of "neutral" is effectively "pacifist" and that someone who is neutral shouldn't possibly be allowed to take part in any events.

Yes I was. I also seem to remember you led the way, and that you weren't a member of TNE then!

Now that would be just silly wouldn't it. I think Neun has good ideas on how Neutral should work. What I'm saying is no guild should be allowed to claim neutrality when the majority of it's members work for one of the factions.

In that event, when the TNE members who happened to be fighting on the karavan side met the Kami warriors who were on my team / allied with TNE, I seem to remember neither side ended up face down in the dirt

That's where you're wrong mate. The team I was on contained Alliance members and we killed the TNE members. Just view what it says here on your own forum if you don't believe me.

[sprite]

That's where you're wrong mate. The team I was on contained Alliance members and we killed the TNE members. Just view what it says here on your own forum if you don't believe me.

That would be Doc. Who is ex-TNE (left because he didn't believe in the neutral stance) and has probably has a grudge

[philu]

left because he didn't believe in the neutral stance

I think you'll find that isn't accurate. If I could find his leaving post on your forum I'd point out the real facts.

and has probably has a grudge

Doesn't change the fact that TNE members were there and fighting (and dying) for the Karavan.

[hugedan]

so you were fighting against dcp as i know they were fighting for the kami a bit against the ga i would say? something to discuss at the next ga meeting i would imagine.

[philu]

so you were fighting against dcp as i know they were fighting for the kami a bit against the ga i would say? something to discuss at the next ga meeting i would imagine.

Well I wouldn't use the word "you" because Spriteh was on our side but he wasn't TNE then IIRC.

But yes TNE did fight against DCP and DoA (Doc is DoA). Mind you, I'm sure they'd argue that DCP and DoA fought against THEM! particularly since they were the ones doing the dying!

It's true, that IS against GA. However, much as I'm loath to defend TNE, I don't think they were in GA at the time. Didn't they join in June? That event was end of May.