Incorrect. I stated this:lathan wrote: Secondly there was a hypocrisy running throughout the original post that I found hard to ignore. Riveit stated his demand that the guild currrently occupying the outpost share their xp crystals that they were mining, and any mats which they got as well with the whole of Tryker. Then he stated that if they were to take over the outpost, they would share these things only with VVV who would back them in the attack, as sharing them with everyone would be a logistical nightmare?
Veni Vidi Vici has joined Aedan Artisans in sponsoring this attack. We hope to gift significant and continuing amounts of crystals to other Tryker and Karavaneer guilds and individuals without outposts. Please join us in taking control of this very important Lakeland outpost for the greater benefit of Trykers and Karavaneers. We are a small guild and will ensure that much of the crystals are spread outside of our guild to reward our allies and allow them to train more quickly.
The logistical nightmare was in another post referring to my earlier plan of creating an company which would conquer an outpost and deliver crystals to shareholders. Shares would have been awarded by fighting for the outpost (graded by combat level). This Tryker company plan was the one nixed as unworkable.
The plan that we were using going into the attack, was joint and equal ownership between AA, VVV and Wanderlust. However, Wanderlust did not deliver a final answer to me in time. If AA held an outpost alone I had urged delegating 90% of crystals to distribution to Trykers and Karavaneers without an outpost. If we had two or three co-owning guilds, 90% would clearly be too high, and would likely be lowered to 50% or less. We had not worked out the exact details. I would have asked Out of Cavern to join us also but you make your anti-PvP attitude very clear. But anyway, who else has called for sharing crystals with the outpostless? Where is my hypocrisy? I had every intention of giving away those crystals and if Aedan Artisans and allies failed to do so to my satisfaction, I would have quit and joined another guild to attack the outpost and tear it down. I do have honor, despite my many recent detractors.
Why would I come up with such a plan? Because the lucky Tryker guilds that got outposts were giving nothing to the unlucky ones as far as I could tell. I have asked several owners, but not all, to donate crystals to the outpostless. They told me all the proceeds go to my guildies first, and then if we have extra we give to close allies. The best pledge I could get was donations would be made sometime in the distant future. Did they plan to give up those outposts in the future? No. They assert a permanent ownership right. Some even asserted that all the lucky outposts owners across Atys are to be defended and no attack on any of them is valid. Hence, they have created a permanent aristocracy for themselves. One or more guilds are even using false rp attack declarations to make their outposts unattackable. From now on they will roleplay the aristocrat while you roleplay a begging peasant or a rabid dog Tryker who dares to challenge his rightful masters. You call me a hypocrite? I see a far greater hypocrisy in such incredible arrogance and selfishness.
Yes, my statement was poorly worded. BotH was behaving no more selfishly than any other outpost owner and much less than some, for example the reportedly one homin who owns an outpost in Zorai. It was actually the defense of this one-homin outpost by BotH that tipped the balance for me to declare an attack on BotH. The hypocrisy that I perceived of claiming to be above the fray while simultaneously defending this injustice irritated me. In retrospect, I was too hasty - perhaps they didnt know the situation or my facts were not correct.lathan wrote: I think in general one of the things that got a lot of people upset was the tone of the original post which made it sound like AA believed that everyone should help them remove BoH from this outpost because they were behaving selfishly with it. I don't believe it was Riveit's intention to come off sounding the way that he did, I think it was just a mis-judged piece of RP that had some OOC connotations people didn't like.
My plan would stretch outpost ownership from half a dozen homins to perhaps thirty or forty homins and guarantee crystals to many more. I object to the permanent ownership mentality. Unless the devs create enough outposts for all of us, I consider it be immoral. The PvP attackers exchanging outposts have a better moral case than these sudden lucky new aristocrats.
You may not have been following events closely Lathan. Aedan Artisans joined the Karavan side months ago and has essentially trampled on the HOPE charter since. Since then, the rest of the HOPE members would have been well within their rights to boot AA from HOPE. Pero correctly foresaw that the neutral HOPE stance would be unable to deal with EP2 and EP3. He was correct in this (thats one reason that I call him a Prophetlathan wrote:My personal comment on morality was mainly based on two points.
Firstly, AA is a signatory to the HOPE charter, and as such has a moral obligation to behave as set down in that charter, while they are still a representative of the alliance. An attack such as was planned could not be perpetrated by a guild following this charter, and so to go through with it would be, imo, a failure to fulfill a moral obligation to some of the other members of HOPE.
), the devs have forced HOPE members, even you, to choose a factional side. In addition, non-members of HOPE are using our Charter which was written to deal with ganking in PR, to exclude us from ever owning an outpost, to the disgust of some members of HOPE. If you held the values of HOPE seriously and diligently, you should have called for AAs expulsion long ago. You also have chosen the Karavan and are nowtechnically in violation of the Charter also. As you may know, I have been asked to write a new Charter. If I do write one in my present mood, it will require a new name and may take a distinctly militant tone.
.
