| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thk
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 8
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: To Burzuk |
|
|
To Burzuk:
I'm making this thread, because you decided to lock the other one, then afterwards post again after you had locked it to slam me further, thus leaving me no way to respond or defend myself in that thread.
<quote> By the way, I doubled checked the logs. You picked up over 13 equipped items from your corpse (including one rare item, a golden scarab ring), and that's excluding all the items in your own backpack that you got back as well as miscellaneous other sundry items (such as potions). Losing some of your shiny rares vs. being full looted are two very different things, and frankly I'm thoroughly unimpressed by your lying about the facts in public. </quote>
I don't usually like to nitpick or beat a dead horse, but the words "thoroughly unimpressed by your lying" really got me. When I said "more like I got back 4 items," notice that I said "more like." By this phrase, I am not saying I got back 4 items. I am saying that it's closer to the fact that I got back 4 items than 4 items were taken. Again, I don't like to nitpick, but since you already have, I think I will have to as well, if only to defend myself. I recall having the following rares: spiked light-steel gauntlets, titanium armplates, effigy of timid shadows, bone bracelets, scarab rings. Out of all those rares, I got back one scarab ring, which was on the floor. Furthermore, some of my nonrare equipment was looted or sacrificed as well, and all but one of my non-good rares were sacrificed. My sack was probably left because it was too heavy to be looted. Anyways, this is hardly just 4 items taken. And that is the point I'm making when I said "more like I got back 4 items." Sorry if I misled you.
On a side note, I would also like to point out a difference in how different Imms handle issues. In the past, I've seen that some Imms, such as yourself, like to deal in technicalties, following the rules to the letter. Others (e.g. Davairus) prefer to exercise more pragatism and also concentrate on appearances. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just simply that I did not know what kind of response I would receive in respect to my complaint.
Thanks. Now that I'm done, you can lock this one too after reading it, as this thread is otherwise useless. I don't feel like pressing the issue any further, I just felt obligated to respond your harsh accusation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
divsky
Emissary
 
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
Posts: 1054
Location: Iowa City, IA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd say you have a 30.33 .. repeating, of course, percent chance of winning this argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 823
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rolf is saying " i got more like 4 items' not to say he got 4 items but to say he was left with not much compared to what he had
zuk is saying 'you got 13 items , the facts are the facts why are you trying to gain sympathy by lying'
anyhow rolf you need to go back to the big issue if you have something to say and be mindful that the small details need to be accurate so that we know exactly what we are talking about |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Burzuk
Implementor
Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DivSky wrote: |
| I'd say you have a 30.33 .. repeating, of course, percent chance of winning this argument. |
What argument? He's disputing neither my facts nor my decision, only offering a less-contentious version of his own original statement instead.
And as an FYI, I stated clearly that I locked the thread because the escalating exchange between _Clifton_ and thk had no place on this forum. I have no problems with hearing dissenting opinions in and of themselves so long as their presentation is unobjectionable.
As for you, thk, let me remind you that I had said at least 13 items, because that was just a quick count of the "flagged" items that scrolled across my multinet log notification, which only include a very small percentage of the possible items on the mud -- the actual game log is much more detailed than my personal multinet log and I am certain you received back more items than just the 13 multi-flagged items. In fact, I happened to take a look at you after you reclaimed your items and estimated that roughly 2/3 of your equipment slots were filled immediately after you reclaimed your corpse, so your statements of "nearly full looted" and "more like 4 items left" sounded to me like outright lies to me in the context of what I'd witnessed first-hand. Now, did they take your best stuff? Yep. But I think you'd probably be missing more items than that if your PKer had been me back in my mort-playing days, where I'd sac my own stuff if it meant being able to sac more of my enemy's. (Hey, if I wasn't the one who died, then that leaves me in a better position than the dead guy to re-eq as necessary.) Based on my past playing experiences, I have a very different interpretation of "nearly full looted" than you do -- a much more literal one.
I will also note that nowhere was the claim made that only four items were missing from your corpse, only that he had taken four items, leaving the other missing items unaccounted for via sacs, other looters, etc. When his claim is factually accurate and yours is "exaggerated" or "not meant literally" (especially if you claim to be using the word 'like' in a figurative sense rather than in a descriptive or intensifying sense), it's pretty easy to guess which side I'm going to land on.
Having said that, if you want to put forth that it was not your intention to deliberately misrepresent the facts, then I am perfectly willing to write the incident off as a simple miscommunication with no malice intended. If you were in my position though and had been lied to by players as many times as I have before, you'd understand why I tend to interpret factual inconsistencies as deliberate lies: because they most often are.
As far as the observation you've offered, you may think I'm missing the forest for the trees with my decisions (though you did not say this outright), but I'm not particularly interested in making "popular" or "well-appearing" decisions -- I'm interested in making consistent and defensible ones. I've presided over a number of appeals of decisions from Davairus, as well as ones from Eldorian, Resatimm, etc., but since appeals stop with me, I must judge strictly by evidence whether I'm hearing an appeal or making my own pronouncements. As you may know, after the departure of me and Stryth from AR, we had a string of interim Imms/Imps whom some claim had a history of "playing favorites". Since returning to take over as Head Imp, I've worked hard to correct that trend by being harsh and cold-blooded, yes, but ultimately fair. It's not just pointless nit-picking -- nobody gets a free ride under my watch if I can help it. When I arbitrate a case, may God help whichever side has more holes.
Now that I've taken the time to expound a bit about the how things work from my perspective, maybe you'll find some of what I've said useful in the future.
Merry Strythmas, and have a dreary Kwanzuk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_Clifton_
Emissary
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1405
Location: your and you're are not the same. they're, there, and their are not the same. learn to english.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And as an FYI, I stated clearly that I locked the thread because the escalating exchange between _Clifton_ and thk had no place on this forum. I have no problems with hearing dissenting opinions in and of themselves so long as their presentation is unobjectionable. |
Sorry Burzuk, I hadn't intended to fuel an escalating flamewar, but merely wanted to defend myself from being slandered injustly. Most of my post had been directed at theoneandonly in an attempt to clarify that it was not OOC and that I had misinterpreted his IC statements. Sorry again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
divsky
Emissary
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
Posts: 1054
Location: Iowa City, IA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have no idea what these two threads have been about. But I have the feeling it's been a bunch of crap that isn't worth reading anyways.
So, I decided, something needs to be done to save this thread! When life hands you lemons, make lemonade!
Something creative, worthwhile, meaningful. and colourful! I hope you enjoy.
My addition to this thread:
Edited: Image turned into link, don't spam our screen with huge images. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamus
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 577
Location: Valour
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
That image is of the devil.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 823
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flying Hampster of Doom
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 423
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Something is really wrong here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sebryn
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 1185
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jamus wrote: |
| That image is of the devil. |
You know the funniest part about that? I looked at the site address (http://lifegroups.newmex.net/2000/RPM/RECOVERY.jpg) and went to the RPM page (http://lifegroups.newmex.net/2000/RPM). Here's the message they have written there:
"RPM Explained
This is a site for the youth ministry of Calvary Baptist Church in Las Cruces New Mexico. We are under construction right now. It will be awile because I don't know what content to put here."
Image of the devil = posted by a Baptist youth ministry group.
Coincidence? I think not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in 
