Quote: Stay4 on 04/18/2012, 02:10 AM - view

I can speak for myself and possibly the other members that have spoken out against GM. We were reamed. Several posts went out on our inner forums and this is been taken very seriously. In light of this recent drama, we've edited our recruitment posts and are in no way affiliating ourselves with GM, which is where the drama spread from.

I personally apologize for the damage I've done to this alliance, and would wish for people not to take my views as the view of VO as a whole. We are working hard to get past it.

Controlling drama between every guild is impossible like I have said before, would be nice but its not going to happen, i have seen this posted before by others as well, Making it something that would get a guild kicked from the alliance is simply too harsh.

Like I said I'm no advocate for drama, we will not tolerate it in our guild, but its quite simply too much to enforce it in every guild, I think that there needs to be an actual meeting with a vote on keeping that in, its a nice goal but it will eventually break the alliance apart imo. Inter-guild relations need to be a separate issue from these tournaments at the very least.



-Zach GM of Avenged
http://avengedtera.enjin.com/

Eh, just like the other thread I support and believe many other guilds are with Xessos where we agree with a community site for people to post, but disagree with the tournament vanarch idea. We just see to many problems with it and while ideally it would be nice, it cant be controlled.

And while VO and GM will poke at each other for drama, does anyone not expected this to happen? Were talking about a guild who left because they disagreed with the guild leader and another guild who is angry that people left. With the game not out both sides cant do much to let out their frustrations so trollin and what not will occur. Im just hoping when the game launches, both guilds will go kill the other in massive GvG enjoyment and let the forums take a break.

Quote: Aooi on 04/17/2012, 08:31 PM - view

This doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. There can be a difference between maturity and [filtered] talk. I mean, my pops is the sweetest most laid back guy you'll ever meet but in Saturday afternoon pickup football games he will demoralize your very soul on the field until you're curled up in the fetal position. That's almost half the fun. I wouldn't get half as hyped about some burly, painful sport I'm horrible at if it wasn't for him egging me on like that. It adds spice.

That also being said it's not impossible to team up with the guild that annoys you the most for the fun of the fight and having a blast while doing it. And even going back to hating each other vocally the next morning. Seeing as how there already seems to be drama of some sort why not embrace it and over time and experience temper it with a bit of mutual respect instead of forcing something that can't be forced especially before the game is even launched.

I'm cool with some organization. Communication now is laying a foundation for a tight knit server. But acting as if you can lay down guidelines and expect everyone to fall in line may be a bit unrealistic. You can ask it of people sure, but in my experience, a classroom of 4 yr olds will fall in line with much more natural skill than most adults I know, not even counting pvper's in an mmo.

@Xessos
The notion of having Vanarches as tournament prizes is being debated. I personally am not for the notion but it's up to the guilds to decide. As of now, most guilds are in favor of having gold or chronoscrolls (if possible) for prizes. I understand in a different thread, Vanarches are noted as a prize. This thread is different, and all subjects can and will be put up for debate between guilds.

Vincit Omnia only creates the base line of this alliance. In the end, whether or not it's successful, and whether or not we can successfully host tournaments, is up to the guilds participating.

@Stay4
As I said before, the members who have regarded GM in any negative aspect whatsoever have been pulled aside and spoken to. Our drama with GM isn't something easily remedied as some players have been a part of GM for more than a year. However, it's something that is quickly being resolved. We made this alliance partially because we want our relationship with GM to be mature and understanding, and so far SocietyX (leader of GM) is in agreement with this alliance.

As a guild leader yourself I am sure you understand the difficulty of preventing all your members from behaving rashly and immaturely. Our guilds are mature; we are quickly resolving the issue, and all persons involved in the drama you saw on our recruitment threads were disciplined. You have to understand that the drama within the GM thread was made one day after the guild split, and the drama within the VO thread was unjust and uncalled for, and none of the members will act as such in the future.

But I must disagree with you: Our requirement is essentially for the guild officers: to control your members as much as possible. That's exactly what we're trying to do, and if anything, we are an example of what can happen when guild drama does emerge. The guild drama between GM and VO can be much worse if we didn't care about our public image to the rest of the server. Some guilds that split this way have been known to scream and shout at each other whenever a single forum post is made. Some would advertise how bad the other guild is, some would exploit members of the guild, etc. We had a rough start, but our behavior is smoothing out. We don't expect drama to be fixed within an hour, and that will never happen.

We understand that drama cannot be fully stopped, but the mere notion of attempting to stop drama can reduce drama by a significant amount. If we did not pull aside our members and discipline them for what they did, they would do it again. If we did not tell our own members to shut up every time we spoke of another guild in a negative manner, then we'd continue that bad-mouthing, and it would seep out to the public, which will cause guild drama.

This being said, I do understand the problems that the rules can cause. I will discuss with my guild and the guilds participating to see if we can make the rules more lenient.

"If you want to participate in the tournaments, at least make the effort to prevent your guild from being too much of a drama center. If your guild continuously creates drama and is a major disturbance to the other guilds on the server, we will speak to you personally. If the drama continues in such a degrading fashion, we will be forced to omit your guild's participation in future tournaments until your guild can minimize its drama."

How does that sound?

I have changed the post to be more clarifying and lenient. Please re-read the post if you initially disagreed with the notion.

Personally, I could do without all the rediculous and nasty sarcastic remarks made by people who seem to believe they've never made a mistake or had anything drama related ever happen to them.

Somtimes I guess folks need to trash others intentions to make them feel better about themselves. Conflict and disruption can make us stronger if we learn and grown ... so grow up already.

Personally, I give many props to the OP and to VO for at least admitting that things could have handled differently and for trying to bring a server together to create a healthy atmosphere, perhaps out of a higher learning from their own experiences.

And then get trashed for it. Shame.

I support a healthy alliance. I have respect for GM and for VO and for a great many other guilds that we'll have the pleasure to share JC with. I look forward to great battles and epic times.

I will support your Alliance and your intentions.

I will, however, let you know that your model for voting will be somewhat difficult to pull off unless major overhauls are made from the KTera voting system and what they will release for NA. Currently, you are only able to cast one vote per election, not one vote per territory per election. So having the server back a first and a second place candidate would be impossible.

As it stands now, you are able to receive only one bottle of serum from the magistrate per election. You can use that serum to cast one vote in any territory. Once you use the serum to cast one vote, you are not able to get another bottle until the next election.

Just food for thought. If anyone knows of any major changes to this point, please post them, as I have looked all over the web for information that would indicate a NA change from what is currently in place.

Peace JC

The new changes are worse than before that would give VO complete discretion on who to kick! no even if the drama clause is still in it certainly won't be up to ONE guild to decide when enough is enough. I do respect you spearheading this alliance but I doubt anyone is agreeing to you being in charge of it. I somehow suspect that it wasn't your attention with this change but this gives one guild too much power. I feel as if the terms of this alliance need to be decided as a group.



-Zach GM of Avenged
http://avengedtera.enjin.com/

Quote: Aooi on 04/18/2012, 07:31 AM

Strongly disagree to the last couple conditions.

I know how annoying the different chats get with spam flooding, but players should be able to develop negative relationships with eachother without making themselves ineligible. If you actually plan on getting any support from EnMasse, you probably shouldn't be asking the company to disqualify guilds from events based on popularity.

If there is going to be tournaments based on PvP SKILL and it gets enough attention, drama nor a ban based on popularity should have anything to do with it. As long as they're not attempting to cheat in the actual event, none of it should matter.

OP says he doesn't plan on governing griefing, but then says the smack talk needs to be kept to a minimum. This isn't WoW and players were given the ability to talk to opposing factions for a reason.

Most of my fondest moments in FFApvp games were due to our relationship with enemies. It provides additional incentive and entertainment from PvP.


EDIT: If this is meant to be a tournament that's meant to be for members of a political alliance, then you could make all the requirements you wanted. Although the thought of forming alliances between clans that aren't even made yet somewhat confuses me.
I think tournaments, especially in the absence of BGs on launch would be a great idea, and would gather a lot of attention. However the 'alliance' should have a political affiliation or be nonexclusive.

[EDIT]-------
asdasdfasdfasdfas! TL;DR: Also not in support of a mandate that punishes a guild for the actions of a few of its members. I do support a strong emphasis about being as diplomatic as possible though.

Also I suggested a meeting between all guild leaders invovled to vote on these issues either today (the 18th) or by the 28th.
---------------

To start, I am speaking solely for myself, so please to not hold any of my guild mates accountable for my opinion as I don't currently know where all of them stand.

I do think that both VO and GM need a bit of a break. At the very least it is nice to see that VO is motioning for a bit of peace, but again to parrot everyone else. People will say things. It is inevitable.

An alliance is defined as a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities. Not trying to go back to first grade here, but it think it is automatically assumed that all guilds involved will make their best efforts to be as diplomatic as possible, even in tough situations.

Virtually all guilds are a collection of numerous personalities that vary greatly, so to expect that everyone will keep their temper all the time is, in my opinion, unreasonable. If anything I would change the clause to be something more like, "All alliance members are strongly encouraged to maintain a sportsman like attitude in all matters."

People WILL say things, and while it is not justified, a whole guild should not be held entirely responsible for one person's slip up. People are ultimately not dogs a leash. A harsh visualization, but I think it illustrates my point well enough.

I do think that steps should be taken if there is one guild is constantly bad mouthing another. I don't think that would last very long, but there needs to be something concrete about removal from the alliance (which hopefully I didn't miss anything, but maybe I did). I suggest simply a majority vote.

Lastly I would STRONGLY suggest contacting all guild leaders who are supposed to be in the alliance and having a vote on these issues before tomorrow, or at the very least by the 28th.