Empire: What once was lost OOC

Forums
Role Playing
OOC Discussion
Empire: What once was lost OOC

Posts: 7745

As a side note...

Dak

(OOC: FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCKING VBOARD JUST LOGGED ME OUT AND DELETED MY ENTIRE POST AS I SENT IT. FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS.

I'm not bothering to retype it.)

I never get logged out, but both you and Drayson have had it happen in the battlegrounds...

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

Lupercus, when you learn to grow up, I'll be waiting. In the meantime, I don't want to hear you whine about something that doesn't concern you.

Lupercus

All i can say is 'technically my nutsack'. You've taken a 2000m ship out of action in a single post. If you follow the rules and be realistic with the damages, you'd have spread it out amongst the fleet, assuming your damages are realistic as well. So technically nay, really, stop being a tool.

Yeah. First off, I suggest you do your homework, lest you look like an idiot. It's a 1500 meter ship. It was damaged over two posts - my ships began firing in my last post, and have not stopped doing so. Not to mention the heavy guns and missiles carried by my fleet, which contributed greatly to the damages. Clearly, if I had lacked either the missile volley OR the heavy guns, the enemy command ship would not be crippled. But as it was attacked by both those things, plus the combined weapons of a 2400 meter ship, it took a lot of damage.

Since an enemy response was lacking, my post takes into account that my ships would also have been firing during their round. Kas may say that a lack of response doesn't mean ships did nothing - I happen to disagree. And there's some precedence (albiet an arguable one) to back it up.

IF a world is attacked and the defender does not make a reply, and the attacker uses the 72 hour rule to his advantadge, then the situation is a lack of response on the defender's part. The precedence I speak of is this: in the aforementioned situation, a defending fleet now has to be brought in under the 2 post reinforcement rule.

The point of the 72 hour is so that people don't ignore threads, yes. Therefor, it stands to reason that if no reply is made, it's assumed that the enemy has done nothing. If they don't bother to reply and their opponest enforces the 72 hour rule, why should they be allowed to go back in time and respond to their missed round?

Notice, I never said the defending ships did nothing - they obviously continued to fire. I simply assumed they did not manouver. This is, I think, my right and my responsibiltiy, because no one posted to say what their ships WERE doing. And if I had done that, someone would be bitching at me for playing an opponent's ships. I have no right to assume to move an enemy's ships for him. They mantain position, and keep firing. Anything more, and I'm RPing their side.

Well, i guess its not bullshit, but what you are describing is called curteousy, something you and i both know you very rarely extend to anyone your fleet RP against. And the only reason that is done is because of the public lynching you would receive if you pressed the 72hr rule against someone who requested it to not be. So its more through fear than anything else that you do this.

Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. You can assume whatever you like - I don't care. But it does make you an immature liar. So, might I suggest you grow up? kthxbye.

Your generousity is duly noted, and disregarded, since you've just taken out the only things that could realistically stop you from winning the battle. Thats not nice, thats fucking sly.

Again, lest you look like an idiot, I suggest you do your homework. The ship that's been crippled is one of three identical ships in the OOC manifest. So your comment is either misinformed, or just plain stupid. In the end, one way or another, TNO is going to take Bespin. The Union cannot win a prolonged battle against TNO, plain and simple.

That hardly means that this battle should be unfairly tilted (and I disagree that it is). But lets let them decide that, eh? Maybe, just maybe, they want to lose now than fight another battle over Bespin.

Still, i have no right to argue for Brutus, but i've just had it at the crap you get away with here Drayson. At times its just disgusting.

You're right. You don't. As for "getting away with stuff"... grow up. Just because you disagree, it doesn't make you right by any means. And let's not get into the kinds of things you've done with Hapes...

Lupercus

Posts: 939

Demosthenes X

Lupercus, when you learn to grow up, I'll be waiting. In the meantime, I don't want to hear you whine about something that doesn't concern you.

Drayson, you silly little putz. As a staff member, this does concern. This, of course, being your flagrant lack of respect for both your fellow members of TRF and for TRF's rules.

[QUOTE}Yeah. First off, I suggest you do your homework, lest you look like an idiot. It's a 1500 meter ship. [/quote]

Meh, i asked Estro how big the ship was, he told me 2000m. Excuse me for putting my faith in the fact the guy should know his own R&Ds.

It was damaged over two posts - my ships began firing in my last post, and have not stopped doing so. Not to mention the heavy guns and missiles carried by my fleet, which contributed greatly to the damages. Clearly, if I had lacked either the missile volley OR the heavy guns, the enemy command ship would not be crippled. But as it was attacked by both those things, plus the combined weapons of a 2400 meter ship, it took a lot of damage.

Since an enemy response was lacking, my post takes into account that my ships would also have been firing during their round. Kas may say that a lack of response doesn't mean ships did nothing - I happen to disagree. And there's some precedence (albiet an arguable one) to back it up.

Who sets precedence? The staff set precedence. Not 2 days ago a benchmark was set by Kas, as Brutus was right to point out, and as you were so careful to simply ignore (both the precedent and Brutus' statement).

IF a world is attacked and the defender does not make a reply, and the attacker uses the 72 hour rule to his advantadge, then the situation is a lack of response on the defender's part. The precedence I speak of is this: in the aforementioned situation, a defending fleet now has to be brought in under the 2 post reinforcement rule.

That is a moot example. Mainly because it only fits the situation in the way you are trying to apply it. The situation (i.e, NOT an example) is based on him not being able to reply within 72 hrs after the thread is already 4 or five pairs of posts into it. Please do not try to manipulate the situation anymore.

Although you will, because invariably its the only way you can get things to work for you.

The point of the 72 hour is so that people don't ignore threads, yes. Therefor, it stands to reason that if no reply is made, it's assumed that the enemy has done nothing. If they don't bother to reply and their opponest enforces the 72 hour rule, why should they be allowed to go back in time and respond to their missed round?

The basis of the 72 hour rule was that someone couldn't simply say 'that fucker chadd is a cheater, i'm not RPing with him' and then act as if the thread never happened. It was a failsafe regarding immature acts by fleet penis measuring wankers. Now in this case only half of that sentance applies to you.

Notice, I never said the defending ships did nothing - they obviously continued to fire. I simply assumed they did not manouver. This is, I think, my right and my responsibiltiy, because no one posted to say what their ships WERE doing. And if I had done that, someone would be bitching at me for playing an opponent's ships. I have no right to assume to move an enemy's ships for him. They mantain position, and keep firing. Anything more, and I'm RPing their side.

Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. You can assume whatever you like - I don't care. But it does make you an immature liar. So, might I suggest you grow up? kthxbye.

Again, lest you look like an idiot, I suggest you do your homework. The ship that's been crippled is one of three identical ships in the OOC manifest. So your comment is either misinformed, or just plain stupid. In the end, one way or another, TNO is going to take Bespin. The Union cannot win a prolonged battle against TNO, plain and simple.

That hardly means that this battle should be unfairly tilted (and I disagree that it is). But lets let them decide that, eh? Maybe, just maybe, they want to lose now than fight another battle over Bespin.

You're right. You don't. As for "getting away with stuff"... grow up. Just because you disagree, it doesn't make you right by any means. And let's not get into the kinds of things you've done with Hapes...

I've gotta run, i'll trawl through the rest of this bullshit later.

Ahnk Rashanagok

Posts: 5387

I've been asked to come in and mediate issues.

The first issue: Did Brutus' ships simply sit there and soak up fire?

Yes.

The rule states that missing the 72 hour deadline costs you a round of battle. It used to say the battle, before fleeting became so anal and people kept an hourglass at the computer. In any case, you forfeit a round of battle. This means that you cannot state what your forces did and it is assumed that they did nothing or continued to do what they were doing beforehand in a methodology so ineffective that no progress was made and they stand in morotorium with little momentum.

So yes. They took fire. They didn't twist around, dodging fire, and nothing besides automated defenses and shields lower the damages, assuming both are engaged. No they did not counter. Your round is forfeit.

Which brings us to the second issue... is it forfeit, or is it underhanded for Drayson to call 72 hours?

This one needs a bit of debate.

I believe that I remember Brutus saying "Listen, I am going to miss the deadline, is that okay?" and recieving no objections. If Drayson missed the thread, that's one thing, but it was adressed to him I believe and Drayson said that Brutus raising complaints with the thread meant he should have been able to reply. No. A blind kid complains about the bumpy ride to school, that doesn't mean he could take the wheel and drive. Just because someone has issues with a post does not mean that they have time to reply, that arguement is rediculous. If anything, that he has issues with the thread confirms:

1) That he intended to reply.

2) That he had read your reply.

3) That he was not dodging or forgetting the thread.

So if anything, that he posted issues not only does not confirm he has time to reply, but also does confirm that he has the intention to reply and regrets that he cannot reply. So it was obvious to you, and everyone around you, that that arguement was a self-serving completely fabricated line of shit to somehow give you the moral right on the issue.

Because what you did was underhanded.

But not illegal.

As unfair as it may seem, the staff enforces the 72 hour rule even if the person invoking it is a selfish jerk who lies out of his teeth to look good. Unless Brutus had extrenuating circumstances worth considering and unless he conveyed those or at least mentioned the existence of those, we cannot allow leeway on the letter of the law. As far as I can tell, he didn't reply because he was busy and couldn't get something up. Which is fine. But it cost him a round of battle.

I really don't see much debate on that, unless Brutus knows something I don't.

The third issue... are Isstal's damages excessive?

Possibly...

But his explainations also make a lot of sense. He's got Brutus outgunned and it is his option to flex that muscle. I'm not going to legally give them the nod, as I need to give them a third look, but while they seem excessive, there is no point of having charge and fire weaponry if you can't get all the bang for your buck when you fire them. If there is an issue with that principle, then it's an issue for the R&D staff...

As a sidenote, Kas' quote that Brutus and Lup used was made in a thread he himself was involved in and is not a staff arguement but a roleplayers arguement. So please don't be selective because you're taking it out of context.

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

If I recall, Brutus' post was posted AFTER my post, asking that I remove it to allow him to post. It's certainly a reasonable request, but alas, after the fact. Though I could be wrong, or perhaps did miss another post before that one saying he would miss the "deadline".

In which case, I'll gladly allow him to have his round.

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

After checking the dates, my IC post was up before Brutus' OOC post. Meaning that, unless there IS another post floating around that I missed, I had no idea he was requesting an extension.

Also, to clarify for myself... Brutus and Rico ARE the same person OOC, correct? I didn't even think of that until I noticed just now that Brutus had started this thread...

Brutus Nogoth

Posts: 383

Yes, I play Rico as well.

And no, I didn't post before you made your IC reply.

The basic fact was I hadn't even peered at the board untill the day I made that OOC reply. (i may have checked it a day prior at school, but did little more than skim the main forums and saw no actions concearning me)

As I have stated several times, I agree that Drayson was within the rules. My orginal arugment was asking for him to consider allowing me the courtesy of my round of battle. Thats his choice to refuse.

Which leaves us to the point of the damages- I would like an offical ruling on them before I reply, so I know what I have to work with.

Ahnk Rashanagok

Posts: 5387

I don't see damages in Isstal's original post, despite orders to fire and reload... so if you count the charge and fire nature of his weaponry and the fact that he is posting damages for two consequtive posts between which was your forfeit round, his damages are not as excessive as they seem. But, it is a lot, so drop the ship from disabled completely to 80%, and then I believe you've got the one Immolator at 80% and two at 60% odd, and then smaller support under that... that's reasonable, with your numbers advantage.

But, Isstal, it is your option to let Brutus take that round. Take it or leave it; it's your call, since Brutus still hasn't given me anything more then just a lack of time for why he couldn't post. I don't see any danger in letting him have that call, since he is in all likelihood going to end up on the losing side anyway.

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

80% fighting capacity, or 80% disabeled, Ahnk? Just because I normally go by their remaining fight, so would I read that as 20% operational for one, 40% for the other two?

Ahnk Rashanagok

Posts: 5387

80% disabled. The difference from 100% disabled and 20% disabled is a big jump, and I'm talking a small downgrade.