Guy not giving us camp

[Zal22]

J eremy bitch tits is correct

[Nirgon]

Originally Posted by Wallicker [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Surprised pamila hander son can even solo highpass orcs at lvl 50

Good ole Palmela Handerson

[Tilien]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would not consider a 2014 post from Derubael on this subject to be binding. The Project 1999 Play Nice Policy (PNP) - Server Rules and Expectations, written in May of last year, makes no mention of this supposed rule. Are we to believe every inconsistent and once-off forum post made by former staff represents a standing rule on the server? I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with such a notion.

From your link:
"Players are subject to these supplementary rules while playing on Project 1999. While by no means an all-inclusive list of the do's and dont's on Project 1999"



Sorry your supplementary, non-all-inclusive rules were supplementary and non-all-inclusive.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would not consider a 2014 post from Derubael on this subject to be binding. The Project 1999 Play Nice Policy (PNP) - Server Rules and Expectations, written in May of last year, makes no mention of this supposed rule. Are we to believe every inconsistent and once-off forum post made by former staff represents a standing rule on the server? I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with such a notion.

You can disagree with whatever amount of passion you want. You can discount Derubael's explicit statement that the rules are "Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time" because it's 6 years-old, but in jurisprudence laws and precedent continue to apply without an expiration date. You can also discount his statement because of his "former" status, but personally I would take the advice of a long-time retired jurist over that of someone just appointed to the bench. Your implication that he no longer knows what he's talking about or that the rules suddenly and radically changed after his departure departs from reasonable expectations and places the onus on you to produce facts in evidence as to why his word no longer matters.

Perhaps you should test your theory in practice by claiming a camp and refusing to name the next camper.

[drdrakes]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can disagree with whatever amount of passion you want. You can discount Derubael's explicit statement that the rules are "Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time" because it's 6 years-old, but in jurisprudence laws and precedent continue to apply without an expiration date. You can also discount his statement because of his "former" status, but personally I would take the advice of a long-time retired jurist over that of someone just appointed to the bench. Your implication that he no longer knows what he's talking about or that the rules suddenly and radically changed after his departure departs from reasonable expectations and places the onus on you to produce facts in evidence as to why his word no longer matters.

Perhaps you should test your theory in practice by claiming a camp and refusing to name the next camper.

Oh my.

[Bardp1999]

HAND SOLO *wack wack*

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can disagree with whatever amount of passion you want. You can discount Derubael's explicit statement that the rules are "Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time" because it's 6 years-old, but in jurisprudence laws and precedent continue to apply without an expiration date. You can also discount his statement because of his "former" status, but personally I would take the advice of a long-time retired jurist over that of someone just appointed to the bench. Your implication that he no longer knows what he's talking about or that the rules suddenly and radically changed after his departure departs from reasonable expectations and places the onus on you to produce facts in evidence as to why his word no longer matters.

Perhaps you should test your theory in practice by claiming a camp and refusing to name the next camper.

you're really virtue signalling here [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[quido]

I'd like to hear about even a single example of a GM/Guide saying that is how we operate at any time in the last few years. I certainly won't abide by it unless some server staff explicitly tells me I must. At best I think we could consider such a mandate an optional player-agreed-upon guideline.

Is every trash rule from 2009-2014 under which we used to operate also still valid because some former flunkie made a post about it? I wonder what we could dig up from that period on the forums. Or are previous rules at some point superseded by a new framework of rules, such as we have in May of 2019? Perhaps not all-inclusive, but if the "name next" nonsense was a real rule, I'm pretty sure it would have made it into this document.

[Tilien]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd like to hear about even a single example of a GM/Guide saying that is how we operate at any time in the last few years. I certainly won't abide by it unless some server staff explicitly tells me I must. At best I think we could consider such a mandate an optional player-agreed-upon guideline.

Is every trash rule from 2009-2014 under which we used to operate also still valid because some former flunkie made a post about it? I wonder what we could dig up from that period on the forums. Or are previous rules at some point superseded by a new framework of rules, such as we have in May of 2019? Perhaps not all-inclusive, but if the "name next" nonsense was a real rule, I'm pretty sure it would have made it into this document.

Oh, you have the actual, fully inclusive rules as per May of 2019? Can you please link, you accidentally linked the "supplemental, non inclusive" set of rules before. Misunderstanding.

[Rions Shaman]

Originally Posted by Tethler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In that tiny snip of a screenshot we didn't see if any list was mentioned, and rule lawyers might argue that OP didn't explicitly ask to be added to list, just "tell me when you finish." Any rational person would understand the implied meaning there, but rational people and p99....you know.

Hey, thanks for your reply.

By no means am I a veteran at this game, and this is my first problem wanting to get a camp. So, I thought I would try to get some advice.

I'm glad they you would have been able to understand,, and would have been a decent person and allowed us to have the camp. I didn"t understand that I would have to ask the camp holder like a God damn quest NPC for the rights to the camp or they wouldn't understand.

I also haven't had any experience with a GM, how would they have handled the situation?

In my opinion, I think as Pamela tried to sell the camp. That was
the camp holder saying that they were all done, and we should have been able to take the camp from him at the point on.