First time I've ever de-guilded someone

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>
> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncvnilh.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>
> > I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that assumption
> > to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had no
> > inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it
> > could
> > be avoided.
>
> I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
> assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?

So you forgave him?

That may be the most bizarre response my posts in this thread have gotten
yet. It's *obvious* you didn't forgive him, otherwise your original story
would have had a different ending.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncvo500.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...

>> I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
>> assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?
>
> So you forgave him?
>
> That may be the most bizarre response my posts in this thread have gotten
> yet. It's *obvious* you didn't forgive him, otherwise your original story
> would have had a different ending.

The question I've posed doesn't hinge on whether I did or did not forgive
him, it asks where you got the idea that I was incapable of forgiving, based
on what I related. In effect, you're stating that because I did not forgive
him, I was therefore incapable of forgiving him. Doesn't compute.

And BTW, this wasn't a case of just "forgiving" him, it was a larger issue
of this guy's likely ongoing behavior. I considered all factors including
the act itself, the lie about his character alt, the pathetic tells, and the
fact that he was a level 42 healer without a guild and it all added up in my
mind to "This guy doesn't have a future in this guild." I related all of
this in my original message. Reducing the totality of these experiences to a
simple "forgiveness" over one incident misses the bigger picture that I'm
charged with managing.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncvo4c9.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...

> I can agree with that. All I have to go on is what you posted here. =)

I posted all relevant details concerning the decision, there's nothing more
to know about it than you already know.

> I will never fault someone for playing by
> the rules, even if I don't like the results).

I don't have much respect for someone who follows the letter of the law and
then acts like an ass when presented with evidence that there are other
social conventions that apply out of common courtesy. Given your comment
about your unwavering moral standards, I'm suprised at your ability to
confuse morality with legality. Or are you saying that morality is defined
by law?

> So if you find that there was a valid complaint with the system that
> required an exception, why do you assume it would never happen again?

Why would you assume that I would assume that?

> If it
> would *never* happen again, it's favoritism.

An exception based on a judgment call is just that, a judgment call. If this
is how you define "favoritism", fine. I "favor" the ability to use
discretion and judgment, thank you.

> I wouldn't want to be a part of any company or guild that would make an
> exception without investigating whether such an exception indicated a
> policy
> change was needed.

Me, either. And on that happy note of agreement, we can conclude our
conversation. Thanks.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:19:24 +0000, Palindrome wrote:

>Yes, I agree - the wordless invite, oft-repeated in spite of no LFG
>tag really bugs me.
>
>Strange, I thought I'd be a loner with that gripe, and that others
>would think I was weird 😀

Well, I do think you're all weird, actually ;-)

It's an invitation, for crying out loud. Where's the insult in that?

This may be different for other classes, but my guardian will on average get
such an invitation maybe once every 10 hours of play, so I doubt it's the
constant disturbance that bothers you. As a matter of fact, declining a
/tell takes a much greater effort and can be more disturbing if you're
sneaking around amongst straying red agros or having the fight of your life.

I always /tell first myself (mainly because I want people to join for the
right reasons), but if somebody is trying to form a group and think they
could use my abilities, I really take no offense if he/she sends me an
invite I didn't ask for. I may even follow up the negative response with a
"/tell NN Thanks, though".

Other times I will follow an impulse and accept such an invitation. Then,
I'll ask a few questions on the group channel, and the answers are usually
enough to tell if it's a moron group, in which case I'll just excuse myself
and disband again. This method has the added benefit that all group members
can follow the communication. I find that /invite is just many people's way
of establishing the contact. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're rude
or can't articulate themselves.

These impulsive group sessions are generally no less rewarding than the ones
I deliberately look for. If I don't want to join, one click is all it takes
to decline.

Given the thread so far, I'll probably be seen as totally weird, now 🙂
--
Henrik Dissing
Vork - Dwarf Guardian and Weaponsmith on Highkeep
Member of Knights of Knowledge
(e-mail: hendis AT post DOT tele DOT dk)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Henrik Dissing" <sorry@drowned.in.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fvanv01s4iblbfciq59kkdjst8he5qqm2q@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:19:24 +0000, Palindrome wrote:
>
> >Yes, I agree - the wordless invite, oft-repeated in spite of no LFG
> >tag really bugs me.
> >
> >Strange, I thought I'd be a loner with that gripe, and that others
> >would think I was weird 😀
>
> Well, I do think you're all weird, actually ;-)
>
> It's an invitation, for crying out loud. Where's the insult in that?
>
> This may be different for other classes, but my guardian will on average get
> such an invitation maybe once every 10 hours of play, so I doubt it's the
> constant disturbance that bothers you. As a matter of fact, declining a
> /tell takes a much greater effort and can be more disturbing if you're
> sneaking around amongst straying red agros or having the fight of your life.
>
> I always /tell first myself (mainly because I want people to join for the
> right reasons), but if somebody is trying to form a group and think they
> could use my abilities, I really take no offense if he/she sends me an
> invite I didn't ask for. I may even follow up the negative response with a
> "/tell NN Thanks, though".
>
> Other times I will follow an impulse and accept such an invitation. Then,
> I'll ask a few questions on the group channel, and the answers are usually
> enough to tell if it's a moron group, in which case I'll just excuse myself
> and disband again. This method has the added benefit that all group members
> can follow the communication. I find that /invite is just many people's way
> of establishing the contact. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're rude
> or can't articulate themselves.
>
> These impulsive group sessions are generally no less rewarding than the ones
> I deliberately look for. If I don't want to join, one click is all it takes
> to decline.
>
> Given the thread so far, I'll probably be seen as totally weird, now 🙂

Quite.

First, the main complaint is not wordless invites are rude. The complaint is
that spam invites are rude. If you invite me without a word, and I take the
time to click "reject group"... inviting me 6 more times in rapid succession
*is* rude. I clicked on no because I didn't want to group with you. Period.
Asking again 5 more times isn't going to do anything except piss me off.

That wordless invites are rude is a secondary and much lesser point. If you
want to play that way, feel free, but I would never join a group such as that.
Anyone whos inviting people by clicking randomly and hitting /invite, theres a
99.9% chance that the group will not work. Even if by some miracle they do
have a proper composition, in my experience the players who would accept such
invitations generally don't have a clue how to play. Considering also that
of the people who do send a tell after I click "no", 99% of the time the tell
is just "join plz".... I think the assumption they are unable to articulate
themselves beyond clicking a button is a fair one.


--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncvo500.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> >
> > "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrncvnilh.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> >
> > > I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that
assumption
> > > to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had
no
> > > inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it
> > > could
> > > be avoided.
> >
> > I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
> > assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?
>
> So you forgave him?
>
> That may be the most bizarre response my posts in this thread have gotten
> yet. It's *obvious* you didn't forgive him, otherwise your original story
> would have had a different ending.

Get ye to a dictionary and don't come back until you learn the difference
between "Did not" and "Could not".


--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncvo4q8.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:

>> He lied on more than one occasion. First was a lie through omission.
>> Second was a blatant, bald-faced lie.
>
> Quote from the original post to support your contention that he "only got
> into the guild based on that lie". Here's the relevant portion so you
> don't
> even have to look it up:

>> The Monk who wanted to sponsor him
>> said "He doesn't want to post, he just wants to talk to someone".
>>
>> Me: "Um, there's a reason for the process we have in place, a post is a
>> good
>> way for people in the guild who haven't grouped with him to get to know
>> something about him"
>> Sponsor: "He's not big on words"

There's your lie of omission.

> But I see that you already realized your error and now claim simply a "lie
> through omission." I won't start down that slippery slope, but I'll
> gladly
> follow along dropping boulders the entire time should you decide to lead
> the
> way. =)

Just have to point out that you completely ignored the fact that he
blatantly lied to Bob later, which was the bigger deal and certainly
sufficient on its own to deguild him. Why did you omit that? Cat ran off
with your balls in its mouth? =)

C

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>
> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncvo4c9.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>
> > I can agree with that. All I have to go on is what you posted here. =)
>
> I posted all relevant details concerning the decision, there's nothing more
> to know about it than you already know.
>
> > I will never fault someone for playing by
> > the rules, even if I don't like the results).
>
> I don't have much respect for someone who follows the letter of the law and
> then acts like an ass when presented with evidence that there are other
> social conventions that apply out of common courtesy. Given your comment
> about your unwavering moral standards, I'm suprised at your ability to
> confuse morality with legality. Or are you saying that morality is defined
> by law?

Moral standards mean that I take the good with the bad. That's why they're
"standards". If I choose to ignore all laws, that is also a "standard". If
I choose to pick and choose which laws apply to me, well, that's hardly an
indication of high moral standards. =)

Totally tangential, but I will disagree with myself on that last point, as
applies to the real world. With a game, I accept it in totality, parts I
don't like included, or I don't play. In real life, things aren't so black
and white, and not playing isn't an option, and there are laws that I will
refuse to follow (ironically, I feel *this* is a sign of high moral
standards, but that has more to do with the "morality" of the lawmakers and
my decision to adhere to a self-defined set of standards =).


> > So if you find that there was a valid complaint with the system that
> > required an exception, why do you assume it would never happen again?
>
> Why would you assume that I would assume that?

Because you made an exception, and no policy change was mentioned. Now,
it's quite possible that you decide that exception was made in error, in
which case accept it for what it was, favoritism (regardless of how you
felt/feel about the guy).

> > If it
> > would *never* happen again, it's favoritism.
>
> An exception based on a judgment call is just that, a judgment call. If this
> is how you define "favoritism", fine. I "favor" the ability to use
> discretion and judgment, thank you.

Ahh, ok, I understand the philosophy now. The classic "family guild".
Wouldn't touch one, and that's one of the big reasons. Ambiguity is not an
appealing trait in a guild for me, but some people aren't as... "focused",
for lack of a better word. For one, it leads to situations like the one at
issue, among many other reasons.

> > I wouldn't want to be a part of any company or guild that would make an
> > exception without investigating whether such an exception indicated a
> > policy
> > change was needed.
>
> Me, either. And on that happy note of agreement, we can conclude our
> conversation. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncvo4q8.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> > <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >> He lied on more than one occasion. First was a lie through omission.
> >> Second was a blatant, bald-faced lie.
> >
> > Quote from the original post to support your contention that he "only got
> > into the guild based on that lie". Here's the relevant portion so you
> > don't
> > even have to look it up:
>
> >> The Monk who wanted to sponsor him
> >> said "He doesn't want to post, he just wants to talk to someone".
> >>
> >> Me: "Um, there's a reason for the process we have in place, a post is a
> >> good
> >> way for people in the guild who haven't grouped with him to get to know
> >> something about him"
> >> Sponsor: "He's not big on words"
>
> There's your lie of omission.

Oh, so the sponsor got kicked out... =P

> > But I see that you already realized your error and now claim simply a "lie
> > through omission." I won't start down that slippery slope, but I'll
> > gladly
> > follow along dropping boulders the entire time should you decide to lead
> > the
> > way. =)
>
> Just have to point out that you completely ignored the fact that he
> blatantly lied to Bob later

Ignored? Another person drops in to exhibit a lack of reading
comprehension. "Only got into the guild based on that lie".

There is "before".

And there is "after".

And it astounds me that people can't actually grasp that...

> which was the bigger deal and certainly
> sufficient on its own to deguild him. Why did you omit that? Cat ran off
> with your balls in its mouth? =)

In a world filled with illiterates, the inane arguments that someone with an
actual grasp of the intricacies of the english language must deal with are
numerous. I realize the concept that "got into the guild based on that lie"
*must* apply to a lie *before* he got into the guild may be hard to grasp,
but perhaps you can look up those two words and understand the point. =P

And cat tongues are rough. Ask your girl.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>
> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncvo500.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> > <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> > > news:slrncvnilh.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> > >
> > > > I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that
> assumption
> > > > to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had
> no
> > > > inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it
> > > > could
> > > > be avoided.
> > >
> > > I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
> > > assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?
> >
> > So you forgave him?
> >
> > That may be the most bizarre response my posts in this thread have gotten
> > yet. It's *obvious* you didn't forgive him, otherwise your original story
> > would have had a different ending.
>
> Get ye to a dictionary and don't come back until you learn the difference
> between "Did not" and "Could not".

So Bob had a gun to his head, so he "could not" forgive the guy?

Oh wow, I *do* know the difference... and meant what I said.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>
> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncvo500.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>
> >> I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
> >> assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?
> >
> > So you forgave him?
> >
> > That may be the most bizarre response my posts in this thread have gotten
> > yet. It's *obvious* you didn't forgive him, otherwise your original story
> > would have had a different ending.
>
> The question I've posed doesn't hinge on whether I did or did not forgive
> him, it asks where you got the idea that I was incapable of forgiving, based
> on what I related. In effect, you're stating that because I did not forgive
> him, I was therefore incapable of forgiving him. Doesn't compute.

"Had no inclination to forgive" doesn't insinuate being incapable. If I had
know that was how you would read it, I would have phrased it differently.

> And BTW, this wasn't a case of just "forgiving" him, it was a larger issue
> of this guy's likely ongoing behavior. I considered all factors including
> the act itself, the lie about his character alt, the pathetic tells, and the
> fact that he was a level 42 healer without a guild and it all added up in my
> mind to "This guy doesn't have a future in this guild." I related all of
> this in my original message. Reducing the totality of these experiences to a
> simple "forgiveness" over one incident misses the bigger picture that I'm
> charged with managing.

It may all come back around to simply following policies. In which case, I
personally still wouldn't agree with your actions. He got past your
screening. You then kicked him out with no provocation. If your screening
were better, perhaps he wouldn't have gotten to that point. As it is, he
did.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:40:27 -0600 in
<slrncvku6j.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net>, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> graced
the world with this thought:

><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>>
>> I told the guy I would discuss with the officer team and get back to him.
>> Not much to discuss, but we did, and the next day I de-guilded the guy.
>
>Congratulations on de-guilding someone who broke no rules and then actually
>apologized in spite of not having broken any rules. =P

Ya know, I don't think anyone here would expect a comment any less
stupid than this from you.

So, are you thinking that someone is somehow <entitled> to be in a
privately operated club, regardless of what kind of mindless prick
they are?

Oh yeah, and I bet that apology was meant with the deepest sincerity.
He's not sorry about what he did, he's sorry he got bit on the ass
because of it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:43:25 -0600 in
<slrncvlce6.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net>, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> graced
the world with this thought:

><foxeye@EEKSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Faned wrote:
>>
>> > <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I told the guy I would discuss with the officer team and get back to him.
>> > > Not much to discuss, but we did, and the next day I de-guilded the guy.
>> >
>> > Congratulations on de-guilding someone who broke no rules and then actually
>> > apologized in spite of not having broken any rules. =P
>>
>> OMG, yes, because apologies are SO hard to make. Typing out words you
>> might never mean or stand behind is a hard task, and that guy should be
>> given a lot of respect for this.
>>
>> /sarcasm off
>>
>> Given the guy lied several times, how in the world could anyone accept his
>> apologies? The whole idea behind an apology is that someone BELIEVES that
>> you are actually ashamed/regretful.
>
>You've shown me the error in my ways. I can't imagine why anyone would ever
>BELIEVE any apology. It's just words. =)

Sorry I beat and raped your mother.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<tuberoo@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:43:25 -0600 in
> <slrncvlce6.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net>, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> graced
> the world with this thought:
>
> ><foxeye@EEKSPAM.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Faned wrote:
> >>
> >> > <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I told the guy I would discuss with the officer team and get back to him.
> >> > > Not much to discuss, but we did, and the next day I de-guilded the guy.
> >> >
> >> > Congratulations on de-guilding someone who broke no rules and then actually
> >> > apologized in spite of not having broken any rules. =P
> >>
> >> OMG, yes, because apologies are SO hard to make. Typing out words you
> >> might never mean or stand behind is a hard task, and that guy should be
> >> given a lot of respect for this.
> >>
> >> /sarcasm off
> >>
> >> Given the guy lied several times, how in the world could anyone accept his
> >> apologies? The whole idea behind an apology is that someone BELIEVES that
> >> you are actually ashamed/regretful.
> >
> >You've shown me the error in my ways. I can't imagine why anyone would ever
> >BELIEVE any apology. It's just words. =)
>
> Sorry I beat and raped your mother.

Man... I know what my mother looks like. I BELIEVE that you are sorry...

I also question your taste...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:02:12 -0600, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:

>> Sorry I beat and raped your mother.
>
>Man... I know what my mother looks like. I BELIEVE that you are sorry...
>
>I also question your taste...

Wow, you were an obnoxious ass before...but who ran off with what was
left of your brain while I was away?

--
Dark Tyger

Sympathy for the retailer:
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
"Door's to your left" -Gord
(I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:02:12 -0600, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
> >> Sorry I beat and raped your mother.
> >
> >Man... I know what my mother looks like. I BELIEVE that you are sorry...
> >
> >I also question your taste...
>
> Wow, you were an obnoxious ass before...but who ran off with what was
> left of your brain while I was away?

For being honest?

I'm sorry, you're right, I should claim that my mom is a supermodel in
response to such a flame.

Idiot. =P

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:50:38 -0800 in
<10vnth863oaan88@news.supernews.com>, "Bob Perez"
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> graced the world with this
thought:

>
>"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
>news:slrncvnilh.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>
>> I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that assumption
>> to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had no
>> inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it
>> could
>> be avoided.
>
>I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
>assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?

Making it up as he goes along because he's getting his dumb ass
pounded into the floor here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:15:08 -0600 in
<o47lv0pt343q1pi1ncurs6hvnno7hko2jk@4ax.com>, D.J.
<jolly73@boingcableone.net> graced the world with this thought:

>
>Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>] My second big hate (a VERY close second) are those players who fail to
>] realise that if I have clicked "no" to an invitation group once
>] already, asking 5 more times in rapid succession is not going to
>] change my mind. Ever.
>
>I agree.
>
>Or the player, doofus, who sent me a tell, then /ooc, demanding to
>know if I had accidently hit 'n' all those 15 times or I just didn't
>like him. Got added to my ignore list.
>
>JimP.

You should have told him you didn't like him.
When I first started playing, I created a character that started in
Freeport, popped near Boomba the Big. Got an invite within three
seconds of popping. Click no. Again. Click no. Again. Click no and run
for the next zone.
I'm not exactly sure who the guy was or exactly what the hell he was
thinking about a naked level one character joining his group. Thinking
back on it, I should've taken him up on it.
Of course, then there was the guy that was bumming money off my lev 4
enchanter, or the one that asked my level 14 cleric to PL him... like,
to what, level five?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:13:20 GMT, bizbee <tuberoo@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:50:38 -0800 in
><10vnth863oaan88@news.supernews.com>, "Bob Perez"
><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> graced the world with this
>thought:
>
>>
>>"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
>>news:slrncvnilh.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>>
>>> I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that assumption
>>> to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had no
>>> inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it
>>> could
>>> be avoided.
>>
>>I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
>>assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?
>
>Making it up as he goes along because he's getting his dumb ass
>pounded into the floor here.

Yup, he's had all of... NO people agree with him.



Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:13:20 GMT, bizbee <tuberoo@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:50:38 -0800 in
> ><10vnth863oaan88@news.supernews.com>, "Bob Perez"
> ><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> graced the world with this
> >thought:
> >
> >>
> >>"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> >>news:slrncvnilh.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> >>
> >>> I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that assumption
> >>> to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had no
> >>> inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it
> >>> could
> >>> be avoided.
> >>
> >>I don't think the facts as I've related them give any basis for an
> >>assumption that I could not forgive lol, where do you get that?
> >
> >Making it up as he goes along because he's getting his dumb ass
> >pounded into the floor here.
>
> Yup, he's had all of... NO people agree with him.
>
>
>
> Palindrome

Nobody but you. =P

>>I assume, and the facts of the situation certainly suggest that assumption
>>to be valid, that he knew there would be issues, and knew that Bob had no
>>inclination to forgive, and would rather not bring it up at all if it could
>>be avoided.
>
>Yeah, I bet he knew, and I also bet he didn't want the subject to crop
>up, either. Pity for him it did 😀
>
>
>Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:37:50 -0600, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:

><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>>
>> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrncvlcvj.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>>
>> > No, he owned up to it after trying to avoid doing so (obviously with good
>> > reason). If he had seriously wanted to lie about it, he would still be
>> > lying about it and in the guild. Gives new meaning to "the truth with set
>> > you free" and definitely convinced "Wiggo" to not bother telling the truth
>> > next time, because he knows how that turns out. =P
>>
>> Anyone who comes to that conclusion has learned the wrong lesson, but I
>> don't doubt it's what he'll take away from this.
>
>The "wrong lesson" can still be the "right lesson". Believe me, I was
>implying that it was the wrong lesson, but in dealing with you it is
>apparently still the "right lesson" because owning up to and apologizing for
>something is obviously *not* the "right" thing to do.

He did not own up out of his own accord. His little rat brain was
cudgeling itself for a way out, and he realised he'd backed himself
into a corner. Then came his pathetic attempt at an excuse/apology.
In gaming, as in real life, sometimes an apology is too little, too
late and too reluctant.


Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:37:50 -0600, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
> ><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> >> news:slrncvlcvj.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> >>
> >> > No, he owned up to it after trying to avoid doing so (obviously with good
> >> > reason). If he had seriously wanted to lie about it, he would still be
> >> > lying about it and in the guild. Gives new meaning to "the truth with set
> >> > you free" and definitely convinced "Wiggo" to not bother telling the truth
> >> > next time, because he knows how that turns out. =P
> >>
> >> Anyone who comes to that conclusion has learned the wrong lesson, but I
> >> don't doubt it's what he'll take away from this.
> >
> >The "wrong lesson" can still be the "right lesson". Believe me, I was
> >implying that it was the wrong lesson, but in dealing with you it is
> >apparently still the "right lesson" because owning up to and apologizing for
> >something is obviously *not* the "right" thing to do.
>
> He did not own up out of his own accord. His little rat brain was
> cudgeling itself for a way out, and he realised he'd backed himself
> into a corner.

Excuse me while I choose not to believe your claims of psychic powers. =P

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:26:10 -0800, Dark Tyger
<darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:39:21 -0600, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
>><darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:52:43 -0600, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >No, he owned up to it after trying to avoid doing so
>>>
>>> Only after he was called on it. He lied and, actually, only got into
>>> the guild based on that lie. Thus, he gets the boot up the ass and out
>>> the door.
>>
>>Go go reading comprehension. Come back and comment again after you
>>understand basic english and have something to say based on reality rather
>>than the DT version of events. =P
>
>Hmm. Vague attacks without bothering to point out where I was off
>base. Can't admit that you're wrong?
>
>He lied on more than one occasion. First was a lie through omission.
>Second was a blatant, bald-faced lie.

I agree, Dark Tyger - Faned is just pretending he's Ghandi, Jesus or
something. That guy was so stupid, he backed himself into a corner,
tried to weasel his way out of it, and got his just desserts. Cry me
a river...


Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:08:18 GMT, bizbee <tuberoo@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:40:27 -0600 in
><slrncvku6j.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net>, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> graced
>the world with this thought:
>
>><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>>>
>>> I told the guy I would discuss with the officer team and get back to him.
>>> Not much to discuss, but we did, and the next day I de-guilded the guy.
>>
>>Congratulations on de-guilding someone who broke no rules and then actually
>>apologized in spite of not having broken any rules. =P
>
>Ya know, I don't think anyone here would expect a comment any less
>stupid than this from you.
>
>So, are you thinking that someone is somehow <entitled> to be in a
>privately operated club, regardless of what kind of mindless prick
>they are?
>
>Oh yeah, and I bet that apology was meant with the deepest sincerity.
>He's not sorry about what he did, he's sorry he got bit on the ass
>because of it.

I bet you could cut the sincerity with a knife 😉 I used to think
Faned had sense...


Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:08:18 GMT, bizbee <tuberoo@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:40:27 -0600 in
> ><slrncvku6j.8ne.faned@wyld.qx.net>, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> graced
> >the world with this thought:
> >
> >><myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I told the guy I would discuss with the officer team and get back to him.
> >>> Not much to discuss, but we did, and the next day I de-guilded the guy.
> >>
> >>Congratulations on de-guilding someone who broke no rules and then actually
> >>apologized in spite of not having broken any rules. =P
> >
> >Ya know, I don't think anyone here would expect a comment any less
> >stupid than this from you.
> >
> >So, are you thinking that someone is somehow <entitled> to be in a
> >privately operated club, regardless of what kind of mindless prick
> >they are?
> >
> >Oh yeah, and I bet that apology was meant with the deepest sincerity.
> >He's not sorry about what he did, he's sorry he got bit on the ass
> >because of it.
>
> I bet you could cut the sincerity with a knife 😉 I used to think
> Faned had sense...
>
>
> Palindrome

I have unwavering morals and ethics, even when they may be unpopular. I
personally consider it a virtue. =)

I'm not buying bizbee's claims of psychic powers either. The guy's motives
and sincerity are entirely in his own head, and always will be. There was
an option of giving him a chance to prove his sincerity, and then there was
the option taken.