Return of Reckoning

StormX2 wrote:I think as long as there are no Guards to abuse/exploit then were all good to go. I personally have no issue with being punt-able into a death or teleport zone.

I can understand that guards are annoying for you, yet there are reasons for them to be there.
In a 6on6 scenario kiter grps should be a thing. Kiting in a straight line away from your opponent is the only way to not get caught sooner or later. Kiting in a circle will get you caught though.
Since we are talking about 6on6 scenarios there is limited space, usually a kiter grp would just kite on and on but with limited space they are in need of a safe-zone.
Melee setups though are not designed to kite when facing equal numbers, therefore they think it is the most annoying thing in the world to kite into guards.

magicthighs wrote:
Second, it doesn't (edit: create a conflict with his function I mean), because the balance forums aren't functional yet.
Third, the server rules state "The unpaid staff members in our community are responsible for bringing this project to you, at no cost, for your enjoyment. Therefore, when interacting with our staff you will treat them with the utmost respect". I suggest you keep that in mind from now on.

Can you show me where I treated him respectless?
Arguing with someone isn't treating them without respect.

Anyway, I believe I read that the balance moderators have no additional "privileges" outside of the balance forums.
So outside of those they're like every other user.

And finally yes it creates a conflict with his function.
He literally said

Penril wrote: I forced nothing upon myself, for the fact that i dont give a flying **** about anything you or your guild says.

If he's going to ignore the opinion of our guild, which has proven knowledgable (e.g. viability of sm/bo, viability of we etc.)
it is conflicting his function.

And yes, he corrected it statement afterwards, so it's not longer conflicting and everything was fine.

It's great that you're white knighting him, but the argument is already set.

It doesn't conflict with my functions at all. Even if i disagree with someone or don't care about what he says, i can''t do anything about it as long as he follows the Balance Discussion Forums rules. AFAIK, my only function will be enforcing those rules and ONLY in those forums (http://www.returnofreckoning.com/forum/ ... 05#p113599). In other words, even if the person i hate the most in this world posts there and follows the rules, i won't (and can't) do anything about it.

I don't need anyone "white knighting" for me because, honestly, nothing anyone posts in this forum can affect me in any way.

We still need to get to T4 to see viability of BO/SM. Yeah, the init debuff was crazy in T2 (and still great in T3). But it really falls back in T4. Maybe when groups that run those classes stop asking for a wall in EC we will be able to say that all tanks are balanced. As for WE, did anyone really doubt its viability?

Don't get me wrong; you guys know your stuff. I really wish you could discuss things in a friendly way and prove people wrong without having to resort to "l2p, scrub, 6v6 brah, etc.". It would certainly help many players who could really use your advice. But if that is how you want to post, fine. I really can't do anything about it here except putting you on ignore (for now at least). Cheers tomato.

tomato wrote: Can you show me where I treated him respectless?

tomato wrote:

Penril wrote:If someone asks us for a 6v6, we are never going to do it anyway. (like everyone did in T4, duels in Chaos Wastes, 6v6 in Shining Way, Q only for Caledor Woods, etc.).

FTFY.

This looks a bit dis-respectful. I think.


There was also this:

tomato wrote:

Penril wrote: However, we only do friendly 6v6s.

Meh you promised us one anyway. But I guess always an excuse ready.

Penril wrote: I forced nothing upon myself, for the fact that i dont give a flying **** about anything you or your guild says.

It's still more respectful than that.

And if you find those quotes of me offending, well, I don't know.
I think they're pretty harmless.

tomato wrote:

Penril wrote: I forced nothing upon myself, for the fact that i dont give a flying **** about anything you or your guild says.

It's still more respectful than that.

And if you find those quotes of me offending, well, I don't know.
I think they're pretty harmless.

I thought they were harmless yet provoking. Anyway, i want to ask you a favor: let's drop this or take it to pms to avoid derailing the thread. Can you do that, please?

Ofc I was done with this anyway, until magicthings picked it up again.

tomato wrote:Anyway, I believe I read that the balance moderators have no additional "privileges" outside of the balance forums.

So outside of those they're like every other user.

You're wrong. In my book they're still members of the staff, and I won't tolerate you or anyone else disrespecting them, especially not since you are disrespecting him for the precise reason that he is a balance moderator.

It's great that you're white knighting him, but the argument is already set.

I'm not white knighting anyone, I'm telling you to abide by the ToS you accept by playing on this server and posting on these forums.

magicthighs wrote:

tomato wrote:Anyway, I believe I read that the balance moderators have no additional "privileges" outside of the balance forums.

So outside of those they're like every other user.

You're wrong. In my book they're still members of the staff, and I won't tolerate you or anyone else disrespecting them, especially not since you are disrespecting him for the precise reason that he is a balance moderator.

It's great that you're white knighting him, but the argument is already set.

I'm not white knighting anyone, I'm telling you to abide by the ToS you accept by playing on this server and posting on these forums.

@magicthings
I won't argue with you after this anymore.

But if you think this

penril wrote:I forced nothing upon myself, for the fact that i dont give a flying **** about anything you or your guild says.

is respectful,

while my stuff which penril himself called "harmless yet provoking" is disrespectful, then I really don't understand.

Respect works in both directions.

And as Penril and I both are fine with what and with the way the other one said things, I can't see TOS violations here.