#61
|
||||
|
Quote:
That said, as insufferable as Kevin was to have around the office, he is still a valued employee because he is good at his job and is intelligent enough to understand an analogy doesn't need to perfectly mirror a situation to highlight the point being made. | |||
|
#62
|
|||
|
Any guild that wanted to provide input on the rules was more than welcome to join us in timeout for 3 weeks. In the end what we got was a bunch of guilds pushing for rotations, which was at least partially successful. Rotations and competitive raid rules are mutually exclusive. I’m not dogging you for this, it’s what you guys felt was best for you.
In the end you got far more out of that suspension both during and after than we did so I would hardly be complaining if I were in your shoes.
__________________
Wulfgur <Vanquish>
| ||
|
#63
|
|||
|
Lol trying to have a rational conversation like adults with these people you would get further talking to your cat
__________________
Hey CSR When Will PNP Rule 14 Be Enforced?
| ||
|
#64
|
||||
|
Quote:
In any event, you'll note that no one is complaining about the rule itself, but rather the manner in which it was adopted and the poor way it was communicated afterwards. In fact, the rule is quite good. Presently, the only place that rule is actually memorialized is in a pinned document in a sub-channel of the blue UN. Start by putting those rules in a place where a reasonable person might think to look, and/or the same place as all the other rules, and we're moving in the right direction. Certainly I would not expect "I didn't know about the rule," to be a valid defense to violating it, in your eyes? If not, then at least publicize it in a reasonably clear way. | |||
|
#65
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#66
|
|||
|
"Guys our guild is never going to attempt a target in ToV unless no one is there, we aren't going to contest a single thing, but give us a seat at the table which discusses the rules for a competitive environment."
Look if you were a competitive guild you would have known all the rules no matter where they were "stickied". And on top of that you'd have say in future rules, it's really that simple. | ||
|
#67
|
|||
|
Jutebox <KWSM>11/08/2020
Our proposal's limited draft with package deals would continue to be a good model for a quarterly draft. It's already been endorsed by KWSM, TSS, AEGIS, DB, LH. It helps speak to issues around blocker mobs, which is the more challenging aspect of a limited draft. At least someone was aware of it. My take on it is, it's a rule that every guild in TOV at the time could've agreed to ignore unless the GMs specifically said to follow the rule. And, yes, the rules should be clearly posted somewhere. Thus far it's been left to server staff to maintain a permanent impartial and uneditable link to the rules. Makes the most sense to add it there. https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=189856 | ||
|
#68
|
||||
|
Quote:
Probably would make sense to update that forum post with current rule changes that were agreed to coming out of the collective ban in Oct/Nov, though. Thanks for the reasonable reply. Sorry to you folks that were super triggered by having this pointed out lol. | |||
|
#69
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#70
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|