trimm Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350412690' post='3041898'] My own point is that our own actions are regularly construed using the absolute strongest language possible and we again here dangerously tread toward that failure. I do not recall pursuing an IC reward. I remember a couple of people going "man we'd like to hit them", referring to their nations, which shouldn't have happened. I remember the leadership of Ragnarok, without any real prodding, tossing them to the wolves. I remember how the controversial decision by Ragnarok's government caused the alliance to implode. I remember Kait & Hoo returning momentarily only to conclude that they did not wish to wade through it all and so left, which was their choice and probably a wise one. Since I'm now being accused of getting an IC reward out of that !@#$show, I'd very much like to know what it was. Because as far as I'm concerned it was a horrible situation that turned into another horrible situation that turned into yet another horrible situation that has brought zero benefit to anybody, ever. [/quote] You're right, it was horrible. It was bad from an Bob perspective and downright abominable from an outside Bob perspective. But, since we both acknowledge that to be true, I fail to see why you act as though said actions are unworthy of the strongest possible language. No one is saying that the actions here are equivalent to doing a person actual physical harm. But the malice inherent? I don't think we need to start splitting hairs on that front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350412690' post='3041898'] My own point is that our own actions are regularly construed using the absolute strongest language possible and we again here dangerously tread toward that failure. I do not recall pursuing an IC reward. I remember a couple of people going "man we'd like to hit them", referring to their nations, which shouldn't have happened. I remember the leadership of Ragnarok, without any real prodding, tossing them to the wolves. I remember how the controversial decision by Ragnarok's government caused the alliance to implode. I remember Kait & Hoo returning momentarily only to conclude that they did not wish to wade through it all and so left, which was their choice and probably a wise one. Since I'm now being accused of getting an IC reward out of that !@#$show, I'd very much like to know what it was. Because as far as I'm concerned it was a horrible situation that turned into another horrible situation that turned into yet another horrible situation that has brought zero benefit to anybody, ever. [/quote] [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1350413046' post='3041901'] You're right, it was horrible. It was bad from an Bob perspective and downright abominable from an outside Bob perspective. But, since we both acknowledge that to be true, I fail to see why you act as though said actions are unworthy of the strongest possible language. No one is saying that the actions here are equivalent to doing a person actual physical harm. But the malice inherent? I don't think we need to start splitting hairs on that front. [/quote] This guy sums it up very well. Also I never said "you" as in yourself pursued IC gains from this Ardus. I was actually extremely careful not to. So please go back and re-read my post. However, other people did seek to gain from it (as you said) and that needs to be condemned and not defended. Edited October 16, 2012 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1350413046' post='3041901'] You're right, it was horrible. It was bad from an Bob perspective and downright abominable from an outside Bob perspective. But, since we both acknowledge that to be true, I fail to see why you act as though said actions are unworthy of the strongest possible language. No one is saying that the actions here are equivalent to doing a person actual physical harm. But the malice inherent? I don't think we need to start splitting hairs on that front. [/quote] Because the strongest possible language are reserved to things like rape and racism and acts of similarly utmost malicious intent. You cannot in one breath backpedal and say "no it's not as bad as those things" and then say "but it was intended to be just as mean." That's ridiculous. There are things that people shouldn't do, things that are bad, things that are unacceptable, and things that are plainly evil. This thread, and the lot of you, have circlejerked right into calling us "evil". We are not. We're now being accused of deriving IC benefit from the incident. I see no such benefit and you have offered none to answer my question. The error, as I see it, was taking as gospel the word of a biased source and, driven by it, unleashing all manner of condemnation on folks who may not have done the wrongs believed to have been done. That is bad and should not be done. But you cannot in sound mind claim that such a wrong is malicious on par with hate crimes. Doing so belittles the thing to which you're comparing our error and makes it more difficult for us to have any sort of serious conversation about what happened and what must be prevented in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350413622' post='3041904'] Because the strongest possible language are reserved to things like rape and racism and acts of similarly utmost malicious intent. You cannot in one breath backpedal and say "no it's not as bad as those things" and then say "but it was intended to be just as mean." That's ridiculous. There are things that people shouldn't do, things that are bad, things that are unacceptable, and things that are plainly evil. This thread, and the lot of you, have circlejerked right into calling us "evil". We are not. We're now being accused of deriving IC benefit from the incident. I see no such benefit and you have offered none to answer my question. The error, as I see it, was taking as gospel the word of a biased source and, driven by it, unleashing all manner of condemnation on folks who may not have done the wrongs believed to have been done. That is bad and should not be done. But you cannot in sound mind claim that such a wrong is malicious on par with hate crimes. Doing so belittles the thing to which you're comparing our error and makes it more difficult for us to have any sort of serious conversation about what happened and what must be prevented in the future. [/quote] And again you're fighting an enemy that does not exist. No one said "you're as bad as rapist" which we pointed out. No one said "Ardus orchestrated the event in order to profit from it". Which I again pointed out. I'm unsure as to why you want to throw around these baseless hyperboles, but it will not rewrite what happened. You just sound as paranoid and mindless as Roquentin or Rushsykes. Edited October 16, 2012 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1350413525' post='3041903'] This guy sums it up very well. Also I never said "you" as in yourself pursued IC gains from this Ardus. I was actually extremely careful not to. So please go back and re-read my post. However, other people did seek to gain from it (as you said) and that needs to be condemned and not defended. [/quote] In this particular instance I would be speaking in my capacity as Enclave of the Kingdom and I can see no benefit that the Kingdom derived from any of this. Or any of our allies. You may recall that this happened while I was trying to build relations with Mjolnir, of which Ragnarok was a part, so seeing a corner of the bloc collapse on itself was not desired. You seem to suggest that the "IC gain" was that some guy (can't remember who) got to hit Kait's nation. I don't really consider that gainful, nor do I believe that there was a helluva lot of intent (I can't recall the context in which booting was suggested, only that we were all surprised that it happened) though I am bound by moral sense and prior policy to condemn the use of OOC material to cause IC events Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1350413822' post='3041905'] And again you're fighting an enemy that does not exist. No one said "you're as bad as rapist" which we pointed out. No one said "Ardus orchestrated the event in order to profit from it". Which I again pointed out. I'm unsure as to why you want to throw around these baseless hyperboles, but it will not rewrite what happened. You just sound as paranoid and mindless as Roquentin or Rushsykes. [/quote][quote name='trimm' timestamp='1350413046' post='3041901'] No one is saying that the actions here are equivalent to doing a person actual physical harm. [b]But the malice inherent?[/b] [/quote] There are no "but"s about this and I won't be settled until that particular opening is closed. A substantial portion of this thread is condemnation of Kingdom government for not doing enough to squelch the incident and how we're guilty by association. Though I appreciate your differentiation of the various actors involved in the matter (because Lord knows there were a lot of moving parts), it is apparent enough that the lot of us are being drug through the mud for specific actions by specific few. Coupling Rush with Roq is new to me. I can't wait to see his reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350413958' post='3041906'] In this particular instance I would be speaking in my capacity as Enclave of the Kingdom and I can see no benefit that the Kingdom derived from any of this. Or any of our allies. You may recall that this happened while I was trying to build relations with Mjolnir, of which Ragnarok was a part, so seeing a corner of the bloc collapse on itself was not desired.[/quote] That is incorrect. You yourself had said post-war you would be looking to marginalize Mjolnir's power. However this is largely irrelevant to the conversation, so I'm not sure why you placed it in your rebuttal unless you feel the need to give some sort of red herring to take our eyes off of what happened. [quote]You seem to suggest that the "IC gain" was that some guy (can't remember who) got to hit Kait's nation. I don't really consider that gainful, nor do I believe that there was a helluva lot of intent (I can't recall the context in which booting was suggested, only that we were all surprised that it happened) though I am bound by moral sense and prior policy to condemn the use of OOC material to cause IC events [/quote] I believe there were two people who hit Kait's nation. However, I am unsure of who all gained from the event, because in certain cases the moves backfired on their makers. However, RoK has been decimated as an alliance. Hoo and Kait has been run out of the game, and evidence would suggest certain indivuals profitted from these things. Not to forget the amount of "lulz" derived from the entire thing. I am glad you condemn the event. However, it seems strange to me you would take the time to try and attack the arguments against OOC attacks, and then at the very end tack on "oh yea I don't like OOC attacks". It's not totally convincing. Edited October 16, 2012 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350414272' post='3041907'] Coupling Rush with Roq is new to me. I can't wait to see his reaction. [/quote] Ever since his posting became super terrible we've called him RoquentinSykes. I love Rush though At least he's fun to engage in debate (sometimes). Edited October 16, 2012 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350413622' post='3041904'] Because the strongest possible language are reserved to things like rape and racism and acts of similarly utmost malicious intent. You cannot in one breath backpedal and say "no it's not as bad as those things" and then say "but it was intended to be just as mean." That's ridiculous. There are things that people shouldn't do, things that are bad, things that are unacceptable, and things that are plainly evil. This thread, and the lot of you, have circlejerked right into calling us "evil". We are not. We're now being accused of deriving IC benefit from the incident. I see no such benefit and you have offered none to answer my question. The error, as I see it, was taking as gospel the word of a biased source and, driven by it, unleashing all manner of condemnation on folks who may not have done the wrongs believed to have been done. That is bad and should not be done. But you cannot in sound mind claim that such a wrong is malicious on par with hate crimes. Doing so belittles the thing to which you're comparing our error and makes it more difficult for us to have any sort of serious conversation about what happened and what must be prevented in the future. [/quote] Members of your alliance purposefully acted to cause harm to people caught at a low and difficult time in their lives using information and tactics that were deplorable in their nature and employment. You better goddamn well believe that those were evil acts carried out with malice. It is insane that you would come here and even try to minimize that. Is your whole alliance evil? No. Does your alliance continue to deserve scorn for that incident? You better frakking belive it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1350414331' post='3041908'] That is incorrect. You yourself had said post-war you would be looking to marginalize Mjolnir's power. However this is largely irrelevant to the conversation, so I'm not sure why you placed it in your rebuttal unless you feel the need to give some sort of red herring to take our eyes off of what happened.[/quote] I disagree, but since you're of the opinion that it is irrelevant I will not belabor the matter. [quote]I believe there were two people who hit Kait's nation. However, I am unsure of who all gained from the event, because in certain cases the moves backfired on their makers. However, RoK has been decimated as an alliance. Hoo and Kait has been run out of the game, and evidence would suggest certain indivuals profitted from these things.[/quote] I see no such evidence, on an alliance (as you noted above was irrelevant) or on an individual level. [quote]Not to forget the amount of "lulz" derived from the entire thing.[/quote] And here lies what appears to be a vital and core misunderstanding. Though the initial glorification of the biased source was certainly with humorous intent, what was learned as to Kait & Hoo, and the subsequent outcry against them, was not drive by a desire for comedy and entertainment. It was driven by absolute indignation and fury. [quote]I am glad you condemn the event. However, it seems strange to me you would take the time to try and attack the arguments against OOC attacks, and then at the very end tack on "oh yea I don't like OOC attacks". It's not totally convincing.[/quote] I'm walking an extremely narrow line and specifically contesting the degree of wrong we're all up in arms about. There is a wide range of wrongs in the world and I merely wish to contest to a limited extent the degree of opprobrium. I'm also trying to pin down the precise wrong of which some have argued the government of the Kingdom is vicariously guilty. The issue of "IC gain" suggests a wrong different from what I'd previously interpreted, so I'd like to know what I am defending and condemning, because apparently we may have been talking about different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1350414875' post='3041912'] Members of your alliance purposefully acted to cause harm to people caught at a low and difficult time in their lives using information and tactics that were deplorable in their nature and employment. You better goddamn well believe that those were evil acts carried out with malice.[/quote] Members of my alliance, along with half of this game, aggressively condemned those they believed to have performed reprehensible acts beyond the confines of this game based on incomplete and insufficient evidence. That is not evil; it was stupid jumping to conclusions that hurt people, an error an a scale which I can condemn without eternally disassociating from those who succumbed to the error. And therein lies the difference between our respective positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Ardus, look at all that tech and all those treaties we got from it. And let's not forget that nifty little bonnet Brehon knitted for you. How can you forget all those IC gains, you evil mastermind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350415233' post='3041916'] Members of my alliance, along with half of this game, aggressively condemned those they believed to have performed reprehensible acts beyond the confines of this game based on incomplete and insufficient evidence. That is not evil; it was stupid jumping to conclusions that hurt people, an error an a scale which I can condemn without eternally disassociating from those who succumbed to the error. And therein lies the difference between our respective positions. [/quote] To call that, and all the ill that sprang from it, an "error" is disingenuous in the extereme. Your membership took advantage of those circumstances, manipulated them for maximum effect, and proudly and publicly reveled in it. That is a damn sight worse than an error. And you are right, that will always be the difference between us over it. Edited October 16, 2012 by trimm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350414972' post='3041913'] I see no such evidence, on an alliance (as you noted above was irrelevant) or on an individual level. And here lies what appears to be a vital and core misunderstanding. Though the initial glorification of the biased source was certainly with humorous intent, what was learned as to Kait & Hoo, and the subsequent outcry against them, was not drive by a desire for comedy and entertainment. It was driven by absolute indignation and fury. [/quote] I didn't say the alliance was irrelevant. I said your point was. If you believe RoK hasn't been hurt from the event then you are in an ivory tower. Although I'm sure this is how you will try and spin it I disagree. The people I talked to (with a single exception of a TIO member who later reversed his position) were in this for the fun. I'll provide screenshots if nessicary, but you can easily see this by all the stuff that went along with the incident. The baiting of Hime Themis, the memes Jacapo came up with, the topic by Joe Stupid that I derailed with Slurpee pictures, and other things I'm sure I forgot. These things weren't focused on getting justice on Kait for some sort of misinformation. These things were propogated for entertainment and gain IC. [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350415233' post='3041916'] Members of my alliance, along with half of this game, aggressively condemned those they believed to have performed reprehensible acts beyond the confines of this game based on incomplete and insufficient evidence. That is not evil; it was stupid jumping to conclusions that hurt people, an error an a scale which I can condemn without eternally disassociating from those who succumbed to the error. And therein lies the difference between our respective positions. [/quote] Again I believe everyone recognizes this thing isn't "MK's fault only". Several people took part and we need to as a community condemn such things so it never again takes place. Edited October 16, 2012 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1350415598' post='3041920'] To call that, and all the ill that sprang from it, an "error" is disingenuous in the extereme. Your membership took advantage of those circumstances, manipulated them for maximum effect, and proudly and publicly reveled in it. That is a damn sight worse than an error. And you are right, that will always be the difference between us over it. [/quote] My membership and the interalliance community in general, including those with whom you regularly associate, was pissed and worried for the well-being of a child and attacked those they believed were not acting in the best interests of such. I will not condemn them for being concerned and angered by the conclusions they did reach, only for reaching those conclusions with evidence that did not pass muster and hurting the feelings of those who potentially did no wrong as a result. [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1350415783' post='3041921'] Although I'm sure this is how you will try and spin it I disagree. The people I talked to (with a single exception of a TIO member who later reversed his position) were in this for the fun. I'll provide screenshots if nessicary, but you can easily see this by all the stuff that went along with the incident. The baiting of Hime Themis, the memes Jacapo came up with, the topic by Joe Stupid that I derailed with Slurpee pictures, and other things I'm sure I forgot. These things weren't focused on getting justice on Kait for some sort of misinformation. These things were propogated for entertainment and gain IC.[/quote] Spin implies I don't believe what I'm saying and I assure you, I'm not spinning. If you want to talk to Jacapo or Joe Stupid be my guest, but in the perspective I had from ground zero, the issue evolved from silly glorification, to shock, disgust, and outrage. That was the course of the thread and the motivation of the great majority. You continue to insist on IC gain and I still fail to perceive any. Apparently my lack of perception of IC gain is irrelevant? I'm still not sure. In any event, I am unconvinced. [quote]Again I believe everyone recognizes this thing isn't "MK's fault only". Several people took part and we need to as a community condemn such things so it never again takes place.[/quote] Unless I'm mistaken, we're the only ones who are suggested need to take "accountability" for it. And we've come full circle. I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350416569' post='3041923'] You continue to insist on IC gain and I still fail to perceive any. Apparently my lack of perception of IC gain is irrelevant? I'm still not sure. In any event, I am unconvinced.[/quote] All I can do is present the evidence. If you deny logic, then there is no way I can convince you. [quote] And we've come full circle. I'm out. [/quote] Cyah Edited October 16, 2012 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1350415280' post='3041917'] Ardus, look at all that tech and all those treaties we got from it. And let's not forget that nifty little bonnet Brehon knitted for you. How can you forget all those IC gains, you evil mastermind? [/quote] You know, you really should learn when to not contribute to your sides posting. Here is Ardus performing a good job of damage control and trying to bring a better perspective to how other see MK's reaction to the events and create an understanding. Then boom, you drop in a lulz statement and pretty much destroy anything remotely accomplished to this point. It's this sort of incompetence that makes dealing with MK so frustrating. You have very talented individuals like Ardus whom are respectful and can speak without acting like a 2 year old with a new crayon and then you have people like you who just can't seem to understand that if the adults are talking you should wait until they are done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350410041' post='3041886'] Which part of our crime was equivalent to rape and racism? [/quote] I used an extreme example of Goldie's logic to illustrate how wrong that mindset could be. Both examples were of placing blame on the victim to deflect away from the crime, which is exactly what Goldie did. Maybe he didn't mean to do that, but you are smart enough to recognize his logic and the similarities to my examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350413622' post='3041904'] Because the strongest possible language are reserved to things like rape and racism and acts of similarly utmost malicious intent. You cannot in one breath backpedal and say "no it's not as bad as those things" and then say "but it was intended to be just as mean." That's ridiculous. [b]There are things that people shouldn't do, things that are bad, things that are unacceptable, and things that are plainly evil. This thread, and the lot of you, have circlejerked right into calling us "evil". We are not.[/b] We're now being accused of deriving IC benefit from the incident. I see no such benefit and you have offered none to answer my question. The error, as I see it, was taking as gospel the word of a biased source and, driven by it, unleashing all manner of condemnation on folks who may not have done the wrongs believed to have been done. That is bad and should not be done. But you cannot in sound mind claim that such a wrong is malicious on par with hate crimes. Doing so belittles the thing to which you're comparing our error and makes it more difficult for us to have any sort of serious conversation about what happened and what must be prevented in the future. [/quote] You say that the detractors of MK always take it to the extreme; but I don't think that's true. In fact, I believe it is the opposite. I believe you are trying to take the loudest voices and imply that they represent the majority in order to get pity. I see the 'damage control' you are trying to do here, and its disgraceful. Half the idiots take your indignation seriously and retort with even more egregious similes, such as the rape bit above, which plays perfectly into your plans to make it seem as though everyone is trying to vilify MK. The actions of MK in this incident (or many others) fall under 'unacceptable' on that scale you created above (bolded) imho. There are people in CN who think the actions you took are unacceptable which is why it is regularly brought up, just like EZI was during the NPO era. It has nothing to do with the person/alliance committing the act, the problem is with the act itself. Stop trying to make it so every time someone calls MK out on it's !@#$, its just the regularly detractors stirring it up as usual. It's not. There are legitimate concerns with what your alliance members did. Now if you actually disagree with what they did, why don't you drive them out of the game just like you did with hoo/kait when you disagreed with how they raised their daughter? And don't give me the standard !@#$%^&* answer that 'oh she didn't have a cell phone or internet or whatever' ... we were/are all teenagers. Who didn't hate their parents/guardian (person who was in charge of making all those rules) at that age? Edited October 16, 2012 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1350416569' post='3041923'] My membership and the interalliance community in general, including those with whom you regularly associate, was pissed and worried for the well-being of a child and attacked those they believed were not acting in the best interests of such. I will not condemn them for being concerned and angered by the conclusions they did reach, only for reaching those conclusions with evidence that did not pass muster and hurting the feelings of those who potentially did no wrong as a result. [/quote] You changed the name of your forum. YOU CHANGED THE NAME OF YOUR FORUM. Don't come out here trying to portray your alliance as anything other than culpable in an awful act. Your members sought out information that was both inaccurate [b]and[/b] none of their damn buisness and then plastered in all over Bob in an attempt to do people they didn't like harm. Worried for the well being of a child my foot. There were MK members all over the OWF with the <Redacted> Kingdom in their sigs, avatars, and whatnot. Don't try and sell people a damned bill of goods about how those people were so concerned about doing the right thing and ended up just making an error in judgement. Because that is not what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Multiple things happened and there were multiple parts that took on a life of their own. The "biodad kingom" thing really took on a life of its own separate from Hoo and Kate. It was silly, but not in and of itself damaging to anyone. I agree with Ardus that a lot of people unjustly rushed to judgement on what was happening with Hoo/Kate and their daughter. People took it a lot further than they should have. As far as I know nothing was done to them outside of the confines of criticizing them on these forums or the in-game attacks so to say we "brought harm" to them in an OOC sense is a major exaggeration. It's also worth noting that their were some IC motives dating back to the pre-noCB era for attacking them in-game. I wouldn't have done it given how it would have been seen as connected to the OOC stuff going on. Edited October 19, 2012 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1350616436' post='3042763'] Multiple things happened and there were multiple parts that took on a life of their own. The "biodad kingom" thing really took on a life of its own separate from Hoo and Kate. It was silly, but not in and of itself damaging to anyone. I agree with Ardus that a lot of people unjustly rushed to judgement on what was happening with Hoo/Kate and their daughter. People took it a lot further than they should have. As far as I know nothing was done to them outside of the confines of criticizing them on these forums or the in-game attacks so to say we "brought harm" to them in an OOC sense is a major exaggeration. It's also worth noting that their were some IC motives dating back to the pre-noCB era for attacking them in-game. I wouldn't have done it given how it would have been seen as connected to the OOC stuff going on. [/quote] Dragging damaging and inflammatory (not to mention biased and innaccurate) details of their personal lives onto the OWF to be fodder for the lower inclined people around here wasn't doing them OOC harm? Details that your members had little to no buisness digging up in the first place? Come off it man. The sooner that you all just accept that your members did something flat terrible and stop trying to spin it and/or minimize it the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1350616436' post='3042763'] Multiple things happened and there were multiple parts that took on a life of their own. The "biodad kingom" thing really took on a life of its own separate from Hoo and Kate. It was silly, but not in and of itself damaging to anyone. I agree with Ardus that a lot of people unjustly rushed to judgement on what was happening with Hoo/Kate and their daughter. People took it a lot further than they should have. As far as I know nothing was done to them outside of the confines of criticizing them on these forums or the in-game attacks so to say we "brought harm" to them in an OOC sense is a major exaggeration. It's also worth noting that their were some IC motives dating back to the pre-noCB era for attacking them in-game. I wouldn't have done it given how it would have been seen as connected to the OOC stuff going on. [/quote] You do know that nobody is buying this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1350616436' post='3042763'] As far as I know nothing was done to them outside of the confines of criticizing them on these forums or the in-game attacks [/quote] It's worth noting that Alyster spammed the meme pictures on our forums, so yea, it went outside of your forum and this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1350617502' post='3042765'] Dragging damaging and inflammatory (not to mention biased and innaccurate) details of their personal lives onto the OWF to be fodder for the lower inclined people around here wasn't doing them OOC harm? Details that your members had little to no buisness digging up in the first place? Come off it man. The sooner that you all just accept that your members did something flat terrible and stop trying to spin it and/or minimize it the better.[/quote] I must confess I'm struggling to see the connection between posts on this forum, and OOC harm being caused. It may have damaged their IC credibility, but unless you're saying that posts here are going to be read and change the opinions of those they know OOC or something I'm at a loss to see how it would have affected them OOC. No one knew who Hoo and Kait were OOC until the story was plastered on these forums. I would hazard a guess and say that MK members are involved in this discussion simply to put some of the hyperbole to rest, since you and your ilk are going out of your way to blow it out of all proportion with your likening it to rape and racism. [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1350650350' post='3042911'] You do know that nobody is buying this right? [/quote] That is their prerogative, just as it is the prerogative of the Kingdom to set the record straight. Can't make the horse drink and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.