Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves

Eaku

whirran & other members of bamathis's order have been shrine dusting (omei, haern, ethne, damariel) for weeks post-ceasefire, raising shrines in the ithmias and other parts of duiran's sphere where it is explicitly clear that they aren't welcome & whirran specifically has been shouting about killing people who criticize his god pretty consistently (not to mention actually killing some of them), + now we're coming across a bunch of murdered albedi worshippers set up as warnings and one literally put up outside a citizen's house as a threat, and i'll give you one guess about who the obvious assumed culprit is IC

and i'm hesitant to believe whirran isn't enjoying himself with the conflict, or else why would he keep doing it?

all of these are valid ic actions, to be clear. do it. but...

it's a little weird to push the narrative of wanting people to embrace rp consequences (for vortex pk rofl) but then argue about consequences for much more concrete rp actions. if bama's order (or certain members of it) doesn't want conflict, stop pushing it? there are valid approaches to playing an agent of strife that don't involve antagonizing literally everyone you can at the same time. If they do want conflict, but want something more organized and set between themselves and one other order specifically, battlefields exist (please use battlefields, they're a spectacular system with in-built ways to handle numerical advantages). if they just want open conflict then i don't really see the reason for complaint. if other members want less conflict, they should be, IC, pressuring the members of their order antagonizing people IC to chill out, because whirran for example has not made a secret of it.

all that said, i don't disagree that things should be more clear to someone why they're dying when they die and this is where doing things like emoting comes into play. but you really have to know your audience with this because half the game's playerbase is just going to run away and pat themselves on the back (and who can blame them when for literal years we've had people ganking wordlessly? this is not a one person problem) or they're just going to walk past you on accident because we're all busy people.

re: Iesid's character, I literally watched him call Bamathis an oathbreaker to His face and get brain splattered like a month before Farsai because the characters have a long history of dislike for each other after Iesid allowed Bama worship in Duiran during his stint as Voice. Recent IG happenings have only made this divide more clear.

as far as ganking vortex, i don't bother unless it's someone who actively ganks places like fracture or vortex, b/c you've clearly shown yourself to be willing to participate. but they're Open PK areas for a reason, and taking cause out of them to kill people who ganked you is such an obvious no (literally read help vortex specifics all the way through) that i don't really see why that has to be addressed any further. it's a plain and clear rule break, you know what you're doing, i know what you're doing, it's not subtle, don't double down on it lmao.

Elene

Iesid said:

Roleplay-based deaths
---------------------
While a roleplayed motive can be a reason to attack another player, it is not carte blanche to kill
whomever you want with impunity. EVERYONE is presumed to be playing a role in Aetolia, and those who
violently inflict their roleplaying on others are subjected to a much higher standard.

Your role defines your motives, not the other way around. If it's not clear to others that you are
immersed in a role, then you effectively aren't. The burden is on you to demonstrate that your
aggression is in-character, not only at the time of a fight, but constantly through your character's
everyday behavior, habits and speech. See HELP ROLEPLAYING for more information.

Hurt feelings only go so far as an excuse for player killing. Failure to apologize is not a good
reason to continue killing someone repeatedly.

I don't know, man. However you slice it, it does sound like a free pass for Iesid and whoever else who was accompanying him to kill whoever they want *in Bamathis' order for doing anything simply because their character now absolutely hates the God after the Farsai betrayal. I think if you want to go down this route, you should make it clear so that people who might have missed the event (read: Evelyn, Mjoll who hasn't logged in for nearly a month now and somehow got enemied for, and others I probably missed) that this is what they're going to expect in the unforeseeable future. If anything, I think it is evidently not IGly clear why - to return to the example - Iesid deigns to go after people simply for hosting one of Bama's sermons, and instead they think you're just doing it because you can, or are griefing. You're having to explain your motivations on the forums. And like the file says, if it's not clear the others that you are immersed in a role, then you effectively aren't. Reverse this for anyone in Ivoln's Order, who you can argue should now bear an effective hatred for those of Haern's Order for sullying the purity of the Earth and almost putting into jeopardy the realm by ignorantly working to weaken the prison of the Sorcerer-Kings with the monolith. They also have got to make it obvious - exceptionally, exceptionally obvious - why they are going after Haern everything or they'll also end up looking like bullies looking for any reason to violently inflict their roleplayingon another.

I think your entire post is just an exercise in moving goalposts. So now, it's OK to have RP cause, but I have to prove that RP cause? I'm sorry, but you're asking me to convince people who are going to willingly take a dissonant position to make sure I don't get to Do The Thing. It's not my responsibility to remedy your unwillingness to accept my character's roleplay in good faith. The only people I have to convince of the sincerity of my roleplay is the admin who will look over a filed issue. I don't have to tell you why my character is motivated to stand against Bamathis. I will gladly share that information IC if someone engages me, but the level of engagement I've got from this has been: * Whirran saying 'good fight' after he and my character went 1-1. * Evelyn sending me OOC tells trying to police my cause and my roleplay without making any attempt at roleplaying with me herself. Not a very good look. If you want clarity, seek it - don't just sit here and claim I don't have cause when you aren't willing to do the work to prove I don't. Just FYI: before any of this complaining started (and that's what it is - complaining), my character's god gave him the full approval to carry on opposing Bamathis. If that isn't roleplay cause, absolutely nothing in this game is.

I don't think it's an exercise of shifting goalposts, but clarifying what gives someone the right to claim unlimited PK aggro against members for doing stuff for their org. It's skirting the line between what makes the game fun for people who just want to do org things and what isn't fun - being signed into a perpetual expectation of aggression, simply for being part of an org. I do agree, of course, that RP actions should have consequences, and that some aggressive stance and hostilities should be expected.

I think what I'm trying to stand for is that there is a very thin line of balance between what becomes fun for players and what isn't. If you can successfully navigate the pitfalls and make it work, good for you. If you can't, then you're going to end up with very bad sentiments and pessimism.

So, to me, I believe what the scroll reads across as, is that if you're going to be consistently and claiming rights to freely PK a person/org for the unforeseeable future with the reasoning that you have, you should make it explicitly clear what they're going to expect: PK everytime they try to do anything related to their God.

This is regardless of whether your character has full approval in-game from the God/Goddess to carry on doing what he is doing. In my opinion, there are other ways to continue opposing a god than just outright murder, though I think both sides are responsible for the experience they get out of it and could use with a little more effort to transform that interpretation into more than just PK.



Note: This is coming from someone who has no real dog in the conflict, and whose character still personally holds hate for Bamathis for specific issues. 

Ioai

Iesid said:

Ioai said:

Xavin said:

Ioai said:

Playing in Iron Man, then getting chased around vortex until I have to qq. Thanks Iesid.

Edit: nice rp.

Be careful about that, the admin typically take qqing to avoid pk seriously.

Cool. I play this game to bash and fish, and since I can't do that right now, might as well ban me @Ictinus /or whoever admin it is who'll respond to the Iesid's issue.

I'll be back next week. Cheers.

Edit: Also Iron Man sucks. If I competed in my normal rank, I would still be at top 5 with much more XP than I got. There's no incentive to it, and it only provides a really easy target for you to get ganked given you have half health, 2 celerity, and no artist.

You could have just sat and let fought. Or you could have gone and bashed another zone.

You had options that didn't involve literally QQing out of combat, my guy.

I tried to leave thrice via the portal, and you attacked me while on the way out canceling the portal.

I normally don't mind dying. I intentionally goaded Spirit during the war to see how much I can run around people trying to kill me.

But while in a Great Hunt, in Iron Man mode, at 4k health, without my artis, trapped in portal? Yeah no. Basically derailed my plan for this entire weekend.

All cool, this is my last post about this, because this is stupid in the context of real life. It's a text game. I wanted a good experience bashing this entire weekend. I had a bad experience instead. Plans change, I'll just look for entertainment elsewhere for now.

I see Cheer Season 2 is out, and so is Attack on Titan last season. New Pokemon is also out. I'll just watch/play those instead.

Vharen

I'm so tired of this PvE bias. Why do we not get a Great PK Hunt with two days of open PK?

Tetchta

Ioai said:

Playing in Iron Man, then getting chased around vortex until I have to qq. Thanks Iesid.

Don't bash in open pk zones if you don't want PK'd.

Ioai said:

Edit: Also Iron Man sucks. If I competed in my normal rank, I would still be at top 5 with much more XP than I got. There's no incentive to it, and it only provides a really easy target for you to get ganked given you have half health, 2 celerity, and no artist.

There's definitely an incentive--had I not hoarded chocolates and other buffs in advance for the GH, I totally would've done Iron Man. The incentive is that it's a smaller pool of people bashing, your chance is a lot higher to place, and you are going to see skill and strategy shine a lot more given that there's no buffs or arties allowed.

Iesid

Elene said:

I don't think it's an exercise of shifting goalposts, but clarifying what gives someone the right to claim unlimited PK aggro against members for doing stuff for their org.

I think your description of what is going on and what is actually going on are not in sync. I'm not trying to call you a liar, but I don't think you have all the facts.

It's not 'unlimited PK aggro'. It's not like we're hust walking around, cutting people down, etc. When Whirran dies, he opens his mouth again and gives everyone else fresh cause. He has options besides that. I personally don't bother chasing for shouting like that - I know he'll give my character better cause a few hours later anyways.

Elene said:

It's skirting the line between what makes the game fun for people who just want to do org things and what isn't fun - being signed into a perpetual expectation of aggression, simply for being part of an org. I do agree, of course, that RP actions should have consequences, and that some aggressive stance and hostilities should be expected.

If it's not fun for them, maybe they should find different avenues of org RP to chase. There's more to order RP than raising shrines and holding public sermons in places your enemies can reach. Go do those things. Sid's not going to go kill people in Esterport for RPing quietly. He's going to stop shrines from being raised, stop shrines from being defiled, and stop sermons from being held. If anybody took the time to interact with him, they'd know that and they'd know why. I think it's very strange that everybody is trying to champion 'fair and convincing roleplay', but they're unwilling to accept 'using roleplay' when it results in something they dislike. Not everything in this game is going to go your way, as shown by how the war went. You don't get to police everyone else's roleplay and cause, only your own.

People will say 'well your character isn't a joy to interact with' - but that's not an excuse in this scenario. He's written as an absolute bastard. It's right there on the label! You cannot have your cake and also eat it too. If you won't even try to ask Iesid why he's opposed to you because he's mean, you're forfeiting your right to complain about how he has no cause - how could you ever know if you never choose to speak to him?

Elene said:

I think what I'm trying to stand for is that there is a very thin line of balance between what becomes fun for players and what isn't. If you can successfully navigate the pitfalls and make it work, good for you. If you can't, then you're going to end up with very bad sentiments and pessimism.

I think I absolutely can navigate those pitfalls. It isn't my responsibility to curtail my own play experience for the sake of someone's sensibilities - outside of the realm of reason, anyways. There's something to be said for being considerate towards players, absolutely, and I am generally very mindful. However, I'm not going to let someone use that as a bludgeon to beat me into a position where it is now me that is not having fun. I think I've made more than an acceptable compromise by only going after people when they're in the act. You can hold sermons places my character can't reach. You can put shrines up while he's not looking. If you don't agree, sorry - but the ISSUE command is right there, after you've tried other avenues of resolution. If you do not try other avenues, best believe I'll be mentioning that in my REPLYISSUE.

Elene said:

So, to me, I believe what the scroll reads across as, is that if you're going to be consistently and claiming rights to freely PK a person/org for the unforeseeable future with the reasoning that you have, you should make it explicitly clear what they're going to expect: PK everytime they try to do anything related to their God.

This is regardless of whether your character has full approval in-game from the God/Goddess to carry on doing what he is doing. In my opinion, there are other ways to continue opposing a god than just outright murder, though I think both sides are responsible for the experience they get out of it and could use with a little more effort to transform that interpretation into more than just PK.

I think the repeated usage of violence is enough clarity on stance. Taking it as anything else is just begging for more of those heartaches we discussed a couple pages back now.

Tetchta

I'm starting to think this ought to be its own thread, it's kinda exploding beyond the purview of the Pet Peeves topic tbh

edit: and I think it's worth pointing out that what triggered this conversation was someone making an anonymous trash discord account to send someone nasty messages OOC, and that's probably going to have some form of impact on how the people who were the recipients of those messages frame this convo, and can't be ignored when we talk about it.

Sheryni

To be clear, I would not mind being attacked in the Vortex alone (like Whirran did to others) at all. That is fun. I was calling the team ganking shitty, not attacking people alone. I do not think there is a valid reason to team gank one person pretty much ever - it's not a fun way to play the game, and I commented before that it was sad the war devolved into that, as well. Being allowed to do it under the rules does not mean you have to do it. I would prefer we all be better than that, but alas. You do you.

Tetchta

Iazamat

People need to follow the rules as written rather than trying to tack on community interpretations that get twisted as time goes on and cause confusion amongst new players/players who don't often come up against the rules. It causes way more headaches and issues than just following the rules as they're intended.

Tetchta

Ganking is fine, gank away. It's an established rule that you get PK on anybody in a gank squad (save for Open PK zones) and people team up because they wanna win (aformentioned valid reason). It's fine. Keep ganking idgaf.

Sheryni

Tetchta said:

Don't think you read my post. That's like saying "don't go to war if you don't want pk." I love pk. I just think people should keep it fun! You are free to disagree, I suppose, but you're acting like I said "don't pk me at all," which is not what I even want. Open pk zones can be very fun when people keep it reasonable.

Xavin

The issue is that fun is subjective, not objective. What is fun for you is not necessarily fun for everyone else. That is why we generally need to rely on rules as written and if there is uncertainty, issuing yourself to ask isn't a terrible option.

Edited to revise my utter derpyness.

Iesid

Sheryni said:

To be clear, I would not mind being attacked in the Vortex alone (like Whirran did to others) at all. That is fun. I was calling the team ganking shitty, not attacking people alone. I do not think there is a valid reason to team gank one person pretty much ever - it's not a fun way to play the game, and I commented before that it was sad the war devolved into that, as well. Being allowed to do it under the rules does not mean you have to do it. I would prefer we all be better than that, but alas. You do you.

This post clarifies a lot for me and now I can see why you call it shitty behavior. It does feel bad to get team ganked Xv1 and it isn't fun, especially when you know the result would be different 1v1.

Tbh, I saw Nipsy get target called and assumed a team fight was up there in Vortex. Probably not the best assumption.

Sryaen

Sheryni said:

Tetchta said:

Don't think you read my post. That's like saying "don't go to war if you don't want pk." I love pk. I just think people should keep it fun! You are free to disagree, I suppose, but you're acting like I said "don't pk me at all," which is not what I even want. Open pk zones can be very fun when people keep it reasonable.

But that's not what the rules explicitly state. HELP VORTEX SPECIFICS doesn't say 'No Vortex conflict is allowed to be carried outside the zone unless you get teamed, then you're free to hunt people at your leisure'. You want fun on your terms, based on your interpretation of the clearly defined rules, which so far you've decided to completely ignore.

Sheryni

I don't even care if the result would be different 1v1. Benedicto has owned me a few times 1v1 lately in Hunting Grounds and I had fun!

But it is what it is. I am over it. I was just clarifying my prior post.

I do strongly disagree with the proposition that people need to do whatever is allowed, no matter what and should never have any other considerations. I think this makes making rules and systems very difficult for the admin because there is always some way to cause it to devolve into something far worse than intended.

In achaea, for example, we have something called sanctioned raids where you need a certain number of defenders to die in order to start a raid. The intent was that it would stop people from raiding when there is no one to defend, since defenders have to defend in order to start a sanctioned raid. But when cities went to war, the ultimate result was people avoiding defending whenever they didn't have a major advantage so the opposing city could never raid.

It is very hard to craft rules that don't allow things to devolve into something very unfun no matter what. Sportsmanship and player attitude tend to be the major influencing factor no matter what the rules are. I know fun is subjective and there can be some disagreement, but I do also think there are some types of behavior that everyone could agree are not fun. Usually this becomes obvious when everyone, for example, stops going to the Vortex period because they don't want to be ganked - why have it then? There should be a middle ground where you can go somewhere for pk without that meaning "I want to be 10v1ed." Just my two cents, though.

Tetchta

Any pk in an open PK zone is reasonable. When you enter one, you're cosigning any and all methods of player-driven death you could experience in there.

I mean, for what it's worth, I think Open PK bashing zones are absolutely stupid. I can't think of two aspects of the game that least need to be married than Bashing and Open PK rules. Regardless, those are things that exist, and nothing forces you to go into those zones. So unless those areas are deleted, acting like any manner of death you experience in there is shitty when you signed your own life away is silly. If you find getting ganked in the Vortex or Fracture unfun, there's a really ez fix: don't go there.

Procyon

Ioai said:

But while in a Great Hunt, in Iron Man mode, at 4k health, without my artis, trapped in portal? Yeah no. Basically derailed my plan for this entire weekend.

I'm confused about the part where you went "I have 4k health, no artis, and just want to bash for the Great Hunt" and then thought it was logical to go to an open PK area. I don't go into those areas to bash on my arti'd character in normal circumstances because I know I'm inevitably gonna get killed. It's "open PK", not "open PK unless you're just bashing, then you're good".

Ehtias

Who bashes in the vortex, what is wrong with all of you. The intended usage for the vortex is to oil yourself up after removing your armor. Then you emote at Iesid with your glistening body.

Oba

I mean.. I don't pk, but when I go to the Hunting grounds for milestones, I fully expect someone to come kill me. However, I do know there's nothing I can do to fight back, other than regular bashing attacks, so I simply turn my firstaid off and sit down, so the person can kill me faster. I usually get what I came from and the person killing me gets a kill. Might not be fun for them, since I am not fighting back, but fighting isn't fun for me and I play for me.

As for pet peeves, I have been so excited about so many events being Euro friendly this year 500 celebration... and I have little to no energy to participate. I keep forgetting there's things going on, even with the whole event list readily available at all times. I love seeing everyone else enjoying themselves though!

Nipsy

Iesid said:

Sheryni said:

To be clear, I would not mind being attacked in the Vortex alone (like Whirran did to others) at all. That is fun. I was calling the team ganking shitty, not attacking people alone. I do not think there is a valid reason to team gank one person pretty much ever - it's not a fun way to play the game, and I commented before that it was sad the war devolved into that, as well. Being allowed to do it under the rules does not mean you have to do it. I would prefer we all be better than that, but alas. You do you.

This post clarifies a lot for me and now I can see why you call it shitty behavior. It does feel bad to get team ganked Xv1 and it isn't fun, especially when you know the result would be different 1v1.

Tbh, I saw Nipsy get target called and assumed a team fight was up there in Vortex. Probably not the best assumption.

Go in the Vortex during the great hunt.... That's an OPEN PK ZONE. (BLASPHEMY) ((Unless there is an opportunity for Nipsy to rustle some Jimmies, but I was also hunting so not this time))

Nah, I kept getting sneezes while I was running around a couple areas where Sryaen or Valorie were hunting, so I think I was being auto targetted on alertness maybe?
(Also confirmed Valorie is a trap spider in Luzith's lair and is setting traps to grief me.)
Or maybe I was just hitting alertness and it was being construed as a target? Or I am just making situational assumptions, WHO KNOWS.

Getting Templar Jim is a blessing and a curse, at least I know when to gtfo, but also its super spammy.

I don't have much to add that I haven't said. I think everyone is being kinda dumb.

Just fight. Don't be a douche. Take your lumps. Take your wins.
It's not rocket science.

Akrios

Nipsy said:

Nah, I kept getting sneezes while I was running around a couple areas where Sryaen or Valorie were hunting, so I think I was being auto targetted on alertness maybe?

It was alertness callouts, and Sryaen thinking you were following him briefly.

Also I don't think Sheryni is saying "you shouldn't Xv1 people in open pk zone" but instead saying it'd probably be more fun to be even fight, and may or may not be a shared sentiment between others. Which I mean ---

Xavin said:

The issue is that fun is objective, not subjective. What is fun for you is not necessarily fun for everyone else. That is why we generally need to rely on rules as written and if there is uncertainty, issuing yourself to ask isn't a terrible option.

"What's fun for you might not be fun for someone else" is the very definition of subjective, Xavin. Not objective.

Xavin

Got my definitions mixed up like a derp.

Naos

I believe in hard lines drawn in the sand regarding PvP and think those lines shouldn’t be allowed to be smudged. I know some think that those lines aren’t being smudged, but I do.

This might be unpopular, but justifying behaviour that negatively impacts players beyond the in-character consequences around, “it’s my roleplay” or “my God told me to” doesn’t make you anymore a competent role player - it makes you a dick.

In that same exact vein, shouting inanely and ganking random noncoms/lower-tiers that shout back doesn’t make you a villain, it makes you a dick. Being a villain is about enriching the story of others, not about seeing how much you can get away with and then excusing everything with the, ‘but I play a villain’ card.

Honesty if I have to have read another forum-lawyer post that essentially reads out, ‘sorry, but I realise a few people might actually dislike this avenue or may not be having fun but in the way I read the rules, I’m completely within my rights and as a RoLePlAyEr’. Just calm down a minute, Mr. Aetolia. I don’t think I can offer anything else here beyond I disagree with how far you’ve taken this and I disagree harder with how hard you are going to justify it.

Tetchta

Naos said:

This might be unpopular, but justifying behaviour that negatively impacts players beyond the in-character consequences around, “it’s my roleplay” or “my God told me to” doesn’t make you anymore a competent role player - it makes you a dick.

That said, I've seen just as many people proclaim that roleplay is griefing/bullying/whathaveyou in order to smear the reputations of people, just because it handed their character a minor L (or no L at all and just made them mad).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what makes "a dick" is fairly subjective, and bound to the whims of the perceiver--and bound to people acting in bad faith. So, yes, there's definitely a spectrum here, and there are things on the far end that definitely could be dickish. I would, however, caution against broad prescriptions about this sort of thing, because I've just as often seen this "remember there's a person behind the screen" mantra be used to prop up and shield people from in-game consequences or as a way for them to drum out people they don't like.

I guess what I'm trying so say is, nothing is prescriptive and absolute here, and try to exercise some judgement, not just in yourself when you're experiencing something, not just in yourself when you're the one doling things out--all the time. When someone tells you so-and-so is x,y,z, don't always take that at face value, especially without receipts or a visible pattern of behavior, or at least trying to assess whether what is said actually matches up with itself.

edited: for grammar

Lim

Yeah, having read a few more posts, I think it's getting pretty clear to me-
Iesid definitely has cause and all via the Bama stuff, but I reckon it's starting to be perceived as PK farming because that cause is getting a bit old. Yes, Whirran does generate new cause depending on his response, but if it's no more than just shouting snarky stuff, then after once or twice of using that as justification to kill him again, it does get a little bit old too. Now, if he's dusting more shrines or killing new people (i.e. not retaliating) though, then I'd say go right ahead.

Again, not the RP police and not saying what should be - this is just the sense I'm getting as to why the disagreement exists. (It's actually very similar to what happened in the war where it dragged on and nobody was happy.) So if anyone's interested in resolving this disagreement, suggestion would be to move the RP to the next development - dunno if you guys want to think about how to resolve it and move it along.

Separately, also agree that hanging around in Vortex is reason to be killed. Starting to see people get a little entitled as to their right to bash in the Vortex just because it's the GH, which really shouldn't be the case.

Lim

Oh yeah, and as a general comment on RP and playing the game well together -
When roleplaying villains/aggressors, and the conflict comes to a deadlock, it's probably a good idea for the aggressor to be find a way to resolve the conflict in the victim's favour. That's just the decent human being thing to do, and it's something I've noticed being the constant in all the 'good villains' that we like.

Whirran

Ok. My second post was intended as my last post here, but I feel like people keep misrepresenting me. I'm going to tell everyone first and foremost, if I do a thing, I'll own up to it. IE yep, I have defile aura a lot. However, and this is something that CZ brought to my attention recently with his post and later admitted to me himself, people seem to be putting a lot of things on me that I HAVE NEVER SAID OR DONE. I put that in all caps for emphasis. Cz literally admitted to me in tells when I approached him, and in his last post here as well, that his view was coloured. In tells he said "I placed what other shadow players have done before on you." I'm going to be very clear. I play Whirran, and that's it. This seems to be prevalent, because the last two pages and more have various instances of people claiming that I did x or y or that I don't want x or y. If you're going to post about me or at me, don't misrepresent me. Here's how things are.

1: I have never said, nor will I ever say, that I don't want conflict. If the way I play my character hasn't told you how much I enjoy conflict, I don't know what will. That being said, I can piss multiple people off and still not try fighting 1v6. It's not like, oh I made this person mad, I better not make anyone else mad today! There are a lot of claims of me wanting conflict but then not wanting conflict. There is a stark difference between wanting conflict and letting folks gank me 6 deep at will. I'm not going to sit there and accept being ganked just because I made you mad, I'm still going to try and get away. If you take that as me "not wanting" conflict, that's on you. Also next time I jump you please sit down and let me bbt if you "don't want" conflict as well.

2: I have never taken pk that happened in the Vortex or the Fracture outside of either area. Sryaen, you never asked me or had any interaction with me, you just ran to the forums and posted. Potentially, from the time of that post, while we were actually still fighting. Pk in the vortex and the fracture does not auto nullify any and all cause you had on you previously. You've helped gank me at a Bama sermon. You've helped gank me while I'm defiling Haern shrines, Omei shrines, and while I'm raising Bama shrines. You were looking to play the victim and use the fact that we did fight in Fracture as a crutch to get there. Here's the full picture, for folks who care.

3: Saltz, I was going to respond to you by simply posting the link to our fight where you died to standing axekick in less than two minutes, but I don't have access to it anymore, evidently. A shame, that. I'm not scared of you or of anyone, much as you'd like to inflate your own ego. I fight and lose plenty. I'm not going to fight you and your friends simultaneously just to prove to you that I'm fearless. That's absurd. Also if you want to claim I have "no cause" maybe don't call me a coward in tells and talk a whole bunch of other shit and then go afk fish. Just my two cents, you might die less that way. And be less salty.

4: Eaku, I have defiled a lot of shrines. I've never defiled Ethne though! Nothing big to say here, just a quick clarification. Isn't her vessel an ogre? Ogre represent.

Saltz

Our "fight", you mean when you killed me when i was afk. Which i deserved but calling it our "fight". That explains a lot to me. Thanks. And I don't really feel like correcting you on the forums, but I'll just say you are misremembering the order of my tells and your actions. You do you though, we'll see each other in game. 

Nipsy

Oooh, I get to quote something....


15.2 AFK

It is generally considered in your best interest to be active at your keyboard while you are playing in Aetolia, as you leave yourself open to theft, death, starvation, and various other nasty side-effects.