An interesting perspective.

[crazyhorse]

The author of this amazing work is Haddion.

I got to side with Rigwarl on this one. Imms should really stop pretending like they're doing some sort of favor by letting us play, because that's honestly what it's come to. They need to remember they owe us at the least decent service for playing their game. They are not without their due credit but they need us MORE then we need them.

Even *sounding* like you're a reasonable person can make the difference at times. Accusing someone of something and then telling them that's what they were planning to do all along when they tell you otherwise is pretty crappy service.


For those of you who dont read invokation, this was taken from there, from a discussion of whether the imms were right for slaying RIgwarl or not.

I think this whole post is disgusting. And should be brought to everyones eyes for viewing.

These Imms are not making a profit you dumb fuck. They arent trying to sell something. They want to keep a game going that you and I and them all enjoy.

[Davairus]

Haddion's valued criticism will be given all the attention it deserves.

[Burzuk]

Rigwarl shouldn't have logged on to begin with if he didn't have the time to defend his cabal when it got attacked. RL comes first, sure, but bailing out with a caballed char has rather predictable consequences as well, and he set himself up for it by misjudging his login vs his RL availability. That's a mistake on his part, not the Imms', and there no point blaming the Imms for simply enforcing the rules here. (And believe me, everyone that gets punished for quitting out of cabal defense claims that it was absolutely necessary for them IRL to leave that very instant, and yet you guys have always screamed for us to bring you the offenders' heads on a platter anyway, with all your complaints about people quitting out when their cabal is attacked. Which is it going to be?)

There's also a funny relationship between a) those who complain the loudest about Imms for enforcing the rules against players that they sympathize with, and b) those who complain the loudest when they want the Imms to bust other players for the slightest perceived injustice against them (for example, if their enemy quits out of cabal defense). Do you want us to enforce the rules or not? If you do, it's a two-way street.

As for Rigwarl's case, he can write a note to me if he believes the rules were improperly enforced here, and demonstrate to me where the Imm strayed from enforcing it properly. Otherwise, discussion about his specific case belongs on Invokation along with the thread he started, although discussion about the general cabal defense policy and cabal conduct rules can take place in a new thread on this forum for those who may disagree with the obligation to defend one's cabal when attacked.

This thread is closed.