Three weeks of Ring Wars

[Thaak]

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

Specifically what part(s)?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...siCfWln3_b-A0/

Day 1 they were arguing part 6 of that document.

[xdrcfrx]

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

Eh, there really should be some consequence of failing if nothing else to prevent risky turn ins at bad hours of the day. We called off our BP this morning for RW because we weren't comfortable with the numbers that showed up for it. It's not like a normal mob where you can fail and then someone else gets a shot.

I do think 3 weeks is pretty rough but that is what Arcler wanted in negotiations.

that's a fair point w/r/t failure denying anyone else the encounter, but a fully FFA environment to me means you're fundamentally just willing to accept that the chips are going to fall however they may. I'd at least want something a little less reflexive than a strict failure = 9 conceded ring wars policy. Good faith attempt with a reasonable number of people shouldn't be treated the same as 15 people turning in to LOL at the giants murdering the poor citizens of Thurgadin.

I thought there had been some discussion following that document's original posting about whether what was meant was "3 weeks" or "3 ringwars" (was it 6 weeks v. 6 ringwars? been a long time at this point), but the self_improvement_workshop channel appears to have been nuked, and I can't go back to see.

[karadin]

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

Day 1 they were arguing part 6 of that document.

Part 6 gives a list of things meant to address hostility. "No arguing" is not in that list.

[Thaak]

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

Part 6 gives a list of things meant to address hostility. "No arguing" is not in that list.

I currently count 4 speakers online for Vanquish, which violates the agreed upon document. Do we get to pick and choose which parts of the document we want to follow? Cause if that's the case, the whole thing can be thrown out in my opinion.

[karadin]

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

I currently count 4 speakers online for Vanquish, which violates the agreed upon document. Do we get to pick and choose which parts of the document we want to follow? Cause if that's the case, the whole thing can be thrown out in my opinion.

It was a good attempt, but I don't think that is going to pay off for you.

[Bardp1999]

You have had 300 weeks of Ring War - maybe move on

[Erati]

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

Good faith attempt with a reasonable number of people shouldn't be treated the same as 15 people turning in to LOL at the giants murdering the poor citizens of Thurgadin.

The failure was on the final wave right before Narandi...so I agree this punishment as a server standard doesnt fit the crime.
My napkin math suggestion is:
Fail Waves 0-1= Skip 3
Fail Waves 2= Skip 2
Fail Wave 3/Narandi= Skip 1

Makes a hell of alot more sense when guilds are going to be failing on legit attempts making internal progress each time. Not saying Riot should deserve a lesser sentence for this, but should be a wakeup call for policy makers to get the penalty more in line w the actions that cause it.

[xdrcfrx]

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

The failure was on the final wave right before Narandi...so I agree this punishment as a server standard doesnt fit the crime.
My napkin math suggestion is:
Fail Waves 0-1= Skip 3
Fail Waves 2= Skip 2
Fail Wave 3/Narandi= Skip 1

Makes a hell of alot more sense when guilds are going to be failing on legit attempts making internal progress each time. Not saying Riot should deserve a lesser sentence for this, but should be a wakeup call for policy makers to get the penalty more in line w the actions that cause it.

yeah, that kind of a sliding scale makes a lot more sense to me as well. Certainly conceding 7 ring wars or whatever seems excessive.

[Yinein]

Tldr, failed ring war and now want less concedes then the agreed upon ruling? Seems legit

[Detoxx]

This is a punishment your leader, specifically, wanted. When you have to eat that punishment, its quite hypocritical to start saying "Oh we shouldnt have to because [whatever reason]".

Maybe once you all realize that Arcler negotiates with his pseudo "im better than everyone" attitude in mind rather than the best interest of his guild youll elect different leadership to represent you. Until then, you're at his whim.