Mischief Managed

[Celt]

First of all, this is the smack talk forum. You probably shouldn't judge a server by the sub forum meant for people to get loose and bust on each other. Secondly, it isn't exactly unsolicited. A lot of what she is spewing is probably in response to being called a shitlord and being accused of making shitposts or some other "shit/x" comment. Not to mention what she probably dealt with in tells. Your guild has quite the reputation for some pretty vile hate tells.

As for you being griefed by association...well, that's the way this game has always worked that way. Hence the mechanics for /cityban, guild wars etc. Your PA has always been attached to who you "are". We have the same problem, our tag carries some baggage. It's all part of the game.

[StepoKedur]

It's my understanding that the Shit/X was actually the Mk I x-wing fighter.

Brown in colour (default) and the foils kept falling off. Plus it only had an 8-track player and AM radio.

[StepoKedur]

I may be missing something here...


Someone puts a base up with turrets.

Someone else, opposite faction of course, takes the turrets down.

Repeatedly.

Turret killer dies, base/turret owners complain for some reason.


What am I missing in the reason for the complaint here?

[Maldred]

In reality I think this has nothing to do with bases or turrets or griefing a city. The real issue here as far as I can tell is Sevvy is so in love with himself that when Merrie started showing his guildees and city attention by taking out the turrets it immediatly became not about him. So in a fit of jealous adolescent rage his hormones went crazy and he started this post in an effort to bring things full circle. Internet love is never easy. Stay strong Sevvy and know we still love you.

[Sevvy]

Not to mention what she probably dealt with in tells. Your guild has quite the reputation for some pretty vile hate tells.

Lol what? One example, please.

This is the exact kind of nonsense that Armilus is talking about.

[neutrineaux]

For those just joining, allow me to summarize:


Once exalted community member (whose adherents are hereafter “party A” or “A”), caught blowing up attackable structures, is punished in a humiliating way by the recipients of her deeds (side hereafter “party B” or “B”). Party A resorts to embarrassing tactics (logging out to escape death). Party B asserts mental illness on the part of party A (first strike).

Party B revels in their victory.

Other community members (“party C” or “C”), point out that party B has died similarly humiliating deaths using the same and other embarrassing tactics.

Party B claims everyone does it (first strike).

Party C assesses that no one really cares if party A vandalizes attackable structures. Party B acquiesces to this point.

Party A points out that party B's victory is without merit, as it took too long to implement. Party A further asserts “tattle tale” (first strike).

B re-asserts that A is mentally ill, and that the attackable structures being destroyed are less important than other assets of party B, and thus it is a victory for party B either way.

Party B resorts to vulgarity (first strike).

Party A impunes the integrity of B's parental dress code (first strike).

Party C reiterates concerns that B is not abiding by their own standards.

Party A suggests (seemingly facetiously) that B use less expensive attackable structures to lessen their expenses. Further, A suggests that B need merely have made right prior wrongs to avoid attacks on their structures.

Party B claims “can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen” (first strike). Further, B justifies their use of the tactics formerly disdained.

Party A suggests that mental illness may be present more on side B than on side A. Further, A imputes childishness to B (first strike). A reiterates that less expensive structures may be helpful for B.

B acquiesces on the issue of cost.

A imputes concerns regarding small ePeen to B (first strike) in their failure to use smaller attackable structures. Further, A counter-assesses hot-kitchen argument against B.

Party B asserts that they are not unhappy with the situation, merely delighted with having remedied it.

Party A asserts that party B is indeed unhappy with the situation.

Party B asserts that it is party A is “doing it wrong” (first strike).

Party A suggests that the situation will escalate, and that B deserves it. Further, party A claims “neener-neener” (first strike).

Party B asserts that they actually do not care (bonus for expletives in a “do not care post”). Additionally, B claims “yawn” (first strike).

A goads B, suggesting mental anguish (first strike).

B claims mental illness on part of A.

C imputes cowardice to B.

A goads B.

B reflects on former glory (first strike).

A suggests that A>B glory.

B denies mental anguish.

B launches expletive-laden ad hominem diatribe. B claims their actions are righteous and “for your own good” (first strike). B claims it is A who is evil, not B. B claims actions are purely civic minded. B impunes A's civic motives. B denies mental anguish. B asserts that intervention from the authorities has been sought (first strike).

A impunes B's civic motives, as well as their tactics.

B defends their tactics. B taunts A additionally. B asserts intervention by the authorities. B asserts mental illness on part of A.

A asserts it is B's tactics that are flawed.

B launches second diatribe. Ad hominem attacks (increased, subjective score) and expletives (increased) persist. Righteousness of B re-asserted.

A asserts their righteousness, demeans the righteousness and civic-mindedness of B.

B launches third diatribe denying prior diatribe was, in fact, a diatribe. Further, B denies any un-civic behavior.

A asserts “the smeller is the feller” (first strike).

B launches fourth diatribe further denying un-civic behavior. Expletives are absent. B claims A's argument is false, prima facie.

B announces war on A (first strike).

A claims war on B is silly.

A claims “potty mouth” (first strike). Further, A claims victory in war with B. A imputes mental illness to B.

B reflects on former glory. B re-asserts righteousness in passive tense, suggests assault on its assets is unjustified.

B claims A's claims of victory are bogus.

B posts video (first strike).

(The author is certain that B re-asserted “yawn” past the ¾ mark, near this point, but cannot find it presently.)

A places fingers in ears, asserts “I can't hear you” defense (first strike).

C asserts that A's tactics are acceptable, and that B has had unusual fair warning in this situation.

A acquiesces, asserting no duress, claiming the dispute is without merit.

A resumes aggression, claiming B is bad, but asserts there will be no retaliation.

B launches diatribe five (new author, fewer expletives, largely ad hominem). B claims victimization. B impunes A's individual value as a community member, and as a human being. B claims vandalism is inconsequential. B asserts that the vandalism will potentially adversely effect the community. B questions A's motives. B asserts that it's actions are purely civic minded and righteous. B pleads with A to acquiesce for their own good and save themselves (first strike). (There is some confusion: the particular poster claims never to have interacted with the particular vandal in question, and further claims the vandal has been malicious to the poster.)

C asserts that A's indignation is in part warranted due to the aforementioned ad hominem and expletive-laden attacks on the part of B. C further asserts that similar attacks are frequently attributed to B outside of this exchange, and might merit further indignation by A and others. C asserts that guilt by association is the nature of this medium.

C injects off-color (sic) humor.

C questions the nature of the complaint, as A was engaging in utilizing the aforementioned attackable structures in the intended fashion, and B's administration of justice upon discovering A perpetrating the mischief was likewise operating in the intended fashion. (Quod erat demonstrandum?)

C asserts narcissism on the part of B.

B denies narcissism, refers to diatribe five (above).

[StepoKedur]

Excellent summary

Is it like a little boy pulling on the ponytail of the little girl he likes?

[Sevvy]

In reality I think this has nothing to do with bases or turrets or griefing a city. The real issue here as far as I can tell is Sevvy is so in love with himself that when Merrie started showing his guildees and city attention by taking out the turrets it immediatly became not about him. So in a fit of jealous adolescent rage his hormones went crazy and he started this post in an effort to bring things full circle. Internet love is never easy. Stay strong Sevvy and know we still love you.

Hey, this is the exact same thing that my therapist said! The term "narcissistic rage" was also used. Basically, this is all my parents' fault. THANKS, DAD!

[Celt]

Not to mention what she probably dealt with in tells. Your guild has quite the reputation for some pretty vile hate tells.

Lol what? One example, please.

This is the exact kind of nonsense that Armilus is talking about.

Not sure what makes it nonsense? I made a statement but didn't back it up with a timestamped screenshot. Is that what made it non-sensical? I am confused. As for an example, I hesitate to post simply because without a screenshot I fully expect whatever I post to receive "nuh uh, didn't happen" in return.

It's a reputation, given your guild's short time on the server, it is pretty recent.

[Sevvy]

Not to mention what she probably dealt with in tells. Your guild has quite the reputation for some pretty vile hate tells.

Lol what? One example, please.

This is the exact kind of nonsense that Armilus is talking about.

Not sure what makes it nonsense? I made a statement but didn't back it up with a timestamped screenshot. Is that what made it non-sensical? I am confused. As for an example, I hesitate to post simply because without a screenshot I fully expect whatever I post to receive "nuh uh, didn't happen" in return.

It's a reputation, given your guild's short time on the server, it is pretty recent.

It's nonsense because it's not true. I can tell you right now, that no one in Kanjiklub has ever sent anyone "vile hate tells".

Yes, we banter. But vile hate tells is something that Idah used to send me when we'd dump on him and his friends, or when we'd outdamage him in PvE. None of us have ever done anything like that. And I don't want people thinking that's who we are, and then using that as justification to grief us. Especially, because that's what is happening to us already.

[armilus]

Not to mention what she probably dealt with in tells. Your guild has quite the reputation for some pretty vile hate tells.

This is exactly what I am talking about. That reputation was built entirely by lies and you are obviously one of the people perpetuating it.

I could care less what Merrie attempts to do in game. The only reason I am posting on the forum is to call out all the hypocrisy and lies.

There is a group of players on this server that can't fight us and win so they resort to griefing and slandering our reputation. This is nothing new to us, we've been playing games together for a long time and have seen the same thing on other servers and in other games. In the long run the griefers have never won, they finally realize that not only are they unable to beat us, they also can't even grief us effectively. Then they go too far and get banned from the server or everyone realizes that most of what they are saying about us is lies and abandons them. Who knows, maybe it will be different here.

I was hoping to see something more intelligent than the old hat response of "lol your mad QQ lolol" but sadly it's not going to happen.

[Royan]

Something you may want to consider is that if you're going to a bunch of different games and everyone always thinks you're assholes in each one of them... you may be more of an asshole than you think

[armilus]

Something you may want to consider is that if you're going to a bunch of different games and everyone always thinks you're assholes in each one of them... you may be more of an asshole than you think

It's always a small group of people and it's usually the ones we displace from their position of "top guild" or players that we won't allow into our guild because we are quite selective.

Talk to anyone that has actually played with us, I'm quite certain they've all had a great time.

[Celt]

Like I said, I figured without a screenshot it would simply be a case of deny, deny, deny.

I know for a fact as I have seen it in spatial and tells) that some profanity laced tirades "get fucked" or "eat a dick shitlord" seem to be pretty common when situations get heated. Of course, when things are calmer you guys are pretty decent as Sevvy has approached me in TS, Ellarria has sent PMs smoothing things over.

Now I assume the next counter will be "those arent vile hate tells lol just playin" so I will cite the example that one of your guys told one of my guys he "wasn't sure he you haven't gotten cancer yet". That's pretty vile. Given I have only had a half dozen or so run-ins with you guys and I have already seen that much, I think it's safe to extrapolate that kind of behavior is business as usual. I highly doubt <BH> are the only people who have been on the bad end of those tirades.

It really is starting to seem like anyone who doesn't post in support of you is accused of attacking you and character-assassination. Seems a bit overdramatic. Especially in a thread where you made several posts calling people shitlords and bad people. Almost feels angsty and paranoid. I dunno. It's kinda weird.

In all reality, this is what drives pvp. Conflict and enemies. I enjoy having someone with some nuts on the other side of the fence.

[Celt]

It's always a small group of people and it's usually the ones we displace from their position of "top guild" or players that we won't allow into our guild because we are quite selective.

If that's "always" the case, then why isn't that the case this time. No offense to Merrie, but I wouldn't exactly call BEAST the top guild on this server. I highly doubt she is an upset applicant who was denied membership in <Kk>.

Soooo...

[Royan]

Something you may want to consider is that if you're going to a bunch of different games and everyone always thinks you're assholes in each one of them... you may be more of an asshole than you think

It's always a small group of people and it's usually the ones we displace from their position of "top guild" or players that we won't allow into our guild because we are quite selective.

Talk to anyone that has actually played with us, I'm quite certain they've all had a great time.

I can only judge you based on my own interactions and those of people I know. Your guild seems to get on the shit list of a staggering high amount of people I know - people I would describe as being very nice, respectful, etc. I've personally been rather inactive for the entirety of your guild's existence on the server but even in my limited interactions I've tended to be put off by you bunch. Just food for thought though, in the end I don't especially care about how your guild conducts itself. Just seems like you're in a bit of denial about something in the whole matter

[tnick]

Not to mention what she probably dealt with in tells. Your guild has quite the reputation for some pretty vile hate tells.

Lol what? One example, please.

This is the exact kind of nonsense that Armilus is talking about.

Woke up and saw a new list of crimes we have committed. We do not send hate tells to anyone. Most of the time we do not even respond to the angry/hate tells we receive. Sure, we like to poke the bear to stir up some pvp. Sure we like to swear, I know I swear a lot. I am ex-military and swearing becomes part of your fucking vocabulary.

I can't believe people are getting so damn butt hurt over trash talking on an internet forum. What is this, 2003?

[tnick]

It's always a small group of people and it's usually the ones we displace from their position of "top guild" or players that we won't allow into our guild because we are quite selective.

If that's "always" the case, then why isn't that the case this time. No offense to Merrie, but I wouldn't exactly call BEAST the top guild on this server. I highly doubt she is an upset applicant who was denied membership in <Kk>.

Soooo...

She teamed up with SITH when they attacked our bases and ever since we repelled that attack, she hasn't left our city alone.

[Celt]

I can't believe people are getting so damn butt hurt over trash talking on an internet forum. What is this, 2003?

Wait, what? Sarcasm?

[T3hAdmiral]

For those just joining, allow me to summarize:


Once exalted community member (whose adherents are hereafter “party A” or “A”), caught blowing up attackable structures, is punished in a humiliating way by the recipients of her deeds (side hereafter “party B” or “B”). Party A resorts to embarrassing tactics (logging out to escape death). Party B asserts mental illness on the part of party A (first strike).

Party B revels in their victory.

Other community members (“party C” or “C”), point out that party B has died similarly humiliating deaths using the same and other embarrassing tactics.

Party B claims everyone does it (first strike).

Party C assesses that no one really cares if party A vandalizes attackable structures. Party B acquiesces to this point.

Party A points out that party B's victory is without merit, as it took too long to implement. Party A further asserts “tattle tale” (first strike).

B re-asserts that A is mentally ill, and that the attackable structures being destroyed are less important than other assets of party B, and thus it is a victory for party B either way.

Party B resorts to vulgarity (first strike).

Party A impunes the integrity of B's parental dress code (first strike).

Party C reiterates concerns that B is not abiding by their own standards.

Party A suggests (seemingly facetiously) that B use less expensive attackable structures to lessen their expenses. Further, A suggests that B need merely have made right prior wrongs to avoid attacks on their structures.

Party B claims “can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen” (first strike). Further, B justifies their use of the tactics formerly disdained.

Party A suggests that mental illness may be present more on side B than on side A. Further, A imputes childishness to B (first strike). A reiterates that less expensive structures may be helpful for B.

B acquiesces on the issue of cost.

A imputes concerns regarding small ePeen to B (first strike) in their failure to use smaller attackable structures. Further, A counter-assesses hot-kitchen argument against B.

Party B asserts that they are not unhappy with the situation, merely delighted with having remedied it.

Party A asserts that party B is indeed unhappy with the situation.

Party B asserts that it is party A is “doing it wrong” (first strike).

Party A suggests that the situation will escalate, and that B deserves it. Further, party A claims “neener-neener” (first strike).

Party B asserts that they actually do not care (bonus for expletives in a “do not care post”). Additionally, B claims “yawn” (first strike).

A goads B, suggesting mental anguish (first strike).

B claims mental illness on part of A.

C imputes cowardice to B.

A goads B.

B reflects on former glory (first strike).

A suggests that A>B glory.

B denies mental anguish.

B launches expletive-laden ad hominem diatribe. B claims their actions are righteous and “for your own good” (first strike). B claims it is A who is evil, not B. B claims actions are purely civic minded. B impunes A's civic motives. B denies mental anguish. B asserts that intervention from the authorities has been sought (first strike).

A impunes B's civic motives, as well as their tactics.

B defends their tactics. B taunts A additionally. B asserts intervention by the authorities. B asserts mental illness on part of A.

A asserts it is B's tactics that are flawed.

B launches second diatribe. Ad hominem attacks (increased, subjective score) and expletives (increased) persist. Righteousness of B re-asserted.

A asserts their righteousness, demeans the righteousness and civic-mindedness of B.

B launches third diatribe denying prior diatribe was, in fact, a diatribe. Further, B denies any un-civic behavior.

A asserts “the smeller is the feller” (first strike).

B launches fourth diatribe further denying un-civic behavior. Expletives are absent. B claims A's argument is false, prima facie.

B announces war on A (first strike).

A claims war on B is silly.

A claims “potty mouth” (first strike). Further, A claims victory in war with B. A imputes mental illness to B.

B reflects on former glory. B re-asserts righteousness in passive tense, suggests assault on its assets is unjustified.

B claims A's claims of victory are bogus.

B posts video (first strike).

(The author is certain that B re-asserted “yawn” past the ¾ mark, near this point, but cannot find it presently.)

A places fingers in ears, asserts “I can't hear you” defense (first strike).

C asserts that A's tactics are acceptable, and that B has had unusual fair warning in this situation.

A acquiesces, asserting no duress, claiming the dispute is without merit.

A resumes aggression, claiming B is bad, but asserts there will be no retaliation.

B launches diatribe five (new author, fewer expletives, largely ad hominem). B claims victimization. B impunes A's individual value as a community member, and as a human being. B claims vandalism is inconsequential. B asserts that the vandalism will potentially adversely effect the community. B questions A's motives. B asserts that it's actions are purely civic minded and righteous. B pleads with A to acquiesce for their own good and save themselves (first strike). (There is some confusion: the particular poster claims never to have interacted with the particular vandal in question, and further claims the vandal has been malicious to the poster.)

C asserts that A's indignation is in part warranted due to the aforementioned ad hominem and expletive-laden attacks on the part of B. C further asserts that similar attacks are frequently attributed to B outside of this exchange, and might merit further indignation by A and others. C asserts that guilt by association is the nature of this medium.

C injects off-color (sic) humor.

C questions the nature of the complaint, as A was engaging in utilizing the aforementioned attackable structures in the intended fashion, and B's administration of justice upon discovering A perpetrating the mischief was likewise operating in the intended fashion. (Quod erat demonstrandum?)

C asserts narcissism on the part of B.

B denies narcissism, refers to diatribe five (above).

Is there a cliffs notes version of this some where?