Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Rants and Flames

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:06 PM
Lazie Lazie is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No one in FE was a strong enough leader to be considered as a co-leader. I don't understand how this is confusing. That was the deal breaker, it was made clear that Getsome would be the sole leader if a merger were to occur yet you guys pushed under some "fairness" clause you made up. You guys say he was rude but how many times can he say "No we will not change guild names and no we will not accept a co-leader" before it becomes beating a dead horse?

You have some fanciful idea of how this merger went down. Final terms were offered, you guys wanted to negotiate for non-negotiable terms. He wasn't being stubborn, he wasn't being a dick. You guys didn't accept the terms so he walked away from the deal.

There was no forcing FE to do anything, stop acting like big, bad IB was pushing the innocent FE membership around. There was a bottom line and it was not acceptable to you guys which is totally fine. What is questionable is the way FE quickly joined TMO under the EXACT same merger stipulations while vilifying IB. Your guild identity became that of victims. First is TMO being horrible cheaters, and blah blah blah. Now it's IB.

At the end of the day stop making this about some issue of morals or us "forcing" you guys into a situation, this was all about spiting IB because you collectively felt wronged by our terms for the merger. You felt so scorned that you were willing to join your greatest competitor - the guild FE was supposedly created to topple - and sell out in the process.
Telling lies then believing them yourself is just sad. No one mentioned morals. We mentioned options and what carried more weight. Getsome overvalued himself and IB thinking he could force people into just accepting terms. Much like your attitude "you guys wanted to negotiate for non-negotiable terms" after saying you had the power to set the final terms (Which you guys never had a strong enough standing to do) is what killed the merger. There was absolutely no willingness to make the terms agreeable. So to us it seemed "Be absorbed or else". For that there was a stronger option out there.
  #102  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:08 PM
Hitpoint Hitpoint is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Sloan would have been an acceptable co-leader and I think Getsome and the rest of IB would have accepted those terms so long as we merged under the IB tag. There's a difference between attempting to take advantage of you guys and realizing that partnering with a guild led by Unbrella & Co was a bad situation.
Way back then, I remember talking to an IB person and asking if it would be acceptable if Getsome could be sole leader with the stipulation that if/when Sloan ever came back he could have Co-leader. I was told that was out of the question. This was when negotiations were just starting to deteriorate, but before TMO was being talked to seriously. I thought that was a reasonable compromise. Unbrella didn't even want co-guild leader for himself. We just wanted the leadership to be shared in some way.

There were three things that were even up for negotiation. Loot system, guild name, and guild leadership. You guys wouldn't budge on the first two. We just wanted you to meet us halfway on something. If our leaders were unacceptable. Why couldn't we compromise on a guild name?
  #103  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:18 PM
Splorf22 Splorf22 is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,237
Default

So why did Sloan leave FE?
__________________
Raev | Loraen | Sakuragi <The A-Team> | Solo Artist Challenge | Farmer's Market
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arteker
in words of anal fingers, just a filthy spaniard
  #104  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:21 PM
Hitpoint Hitpoint is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
So why did Sloan leave FE?
He's still in FE.
  #105  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:22 PM
Funkutron5000 Funkutron5000 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 473
Default

Sloan moved halfway across the country for a job and as such has been online for about 15 mins total since the beginning of February or so.
__________________
Corova Moloko, Crusader and Guild Leader of The Mystical Order
  #106  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:33 PM
getsome getsome is offline
Fire Giant

getsome's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 729
Default

sloan was on all day yesterday.
  #107  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:36 PM
sulpher01 sulpher01 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 392
Default

How can anyone talk shit after merging with dolj?
  #108  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:40 PM
Ella`Ella Ella`Ella is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No one in FE was a strong enough leader to be considered as a co-leader. I don't understand how this is confusing. That was the deal breaker, it was made clear that Getsome would be the sole leader if a merger were to occur yet you guys pushed under some "fairness" clause you made up. You guys say he was rude but how many times can he say "No we will not change guild names and no we will not accept a co-leader" before it becomes beating a dead horse?

You have some fanciful idea of how this merger went down. Final terms were offered, you guys wanted to negotiate for non-negotiable terms. He wasn't being stubborn, he wasn't being a dick. You guys didn't accept the terms so he walked away from the deal.

There was no forcing FE to do anything, stop acting like big, bad IB was pushing the innocent FE membership around. There was a bottom line and it was not acceptable to you guys which is totally fine. What is questionable is the way FE quickly joined TMO under the EXACT same merger stipulations while vilifying IB. Your guild identity became that of victims. First is TMO being horrible cheaters, and blah blah blah. Now it's IB.

At the end of the day stop making this about some issue of morals or us "forcing" you guys into a situation, this was all about spiting IB because you collectively felt wronged by our terms for the merger. You felt so scorned that you were willing to join your greatest competitor - the guild FE was supposedly created to topple - and sell out in the process.

Couple clarifications for the delusional...

FE did consider going on our own. Structural leadership was never a problem, raid leadership was once Sloan left (He moved across the country and took a full-time job, Splorf).

Actually, Getsome was willing to compromise on co-leader during our last negotiation, but by that time I had little interest in merging with IB, so I made the last clause of changing the name a non-negotiable deal breaker and I walked from the deal, not the other way around.

Getsome and I get along fine, we just don't see eye to eye on certain issues like guild mergers or training juggs over water.

I think an example of poor leadership would have been to accept any deal without knowing what all your options are. I would have been remiss to have not sought TMO as an option.

You ask why I'm not co-leader, or any other FE officer for that matter in TMO - I didn't ask. I didn't think it was necessary. In fact, TMO didn't make any terms. I told them exactly what I wanted for our members and they agreed with no amendments.

Originally, I thought that our members would be happiest with IB, however there was a lot more discontent than I thought when that merger was on the horizon. TMO had an overwhelming amount of support over IB, which guided our decision.

Yes, it is about pixels because that's why most of our members play. Pixels don't really interest me personally.

I didn't train my own guild to make them think it was TMO, derp. I trained TMO and FE happened to be down there as well. All in all, I died either way and we still got the VS - I'd call it a win/win. Also, Goodies down-leveled in the ordeal which was early restitution for her later stealing a Hand of the Maestro from FE and refusing to return it. Apparently, she did the exact same thing when she was leader of Acryd. IB - be wary letting her hold onto no-drops, she has a reputation as a repeat offender at this point.
  #109  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:46 PM
getsome getsome is offline
Fire Giant

getsome's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 729
Default

The terms offered to FE by IB never changed. They were posted in writing to their guild, what you see in http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=145720 were my words and never changed.

I put forth the best terms IB was willing to offer. I viewed the leadership of FE as dysfunctional at times and the feedback from all the ex FE who were in IB supported this sentiment. You call my unwillingness to negotiate a lack of respect, I feel I was looking out for the best interests of everyone involved. Unbrella has been involved in the RMT side of P99 for quite some time and I felt making him a co leader of any entity I was involved in would be a bad decision. If the folks from TMO want a to keep a clean whistle you may want to look more closely at who you just made an officer in your guild.
  #110  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:48 PM
Rellapse40 Rellapse40 is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
Default

obv Tmo does not care about their whistle look at the ban wave a couple times ago. LULZ

IB kept their integrity

FE never had any
Tmo still wipes with 70 people to 32k hp mobs
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.