• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Profile Song

Community Reputation

248 Regular

About Cid

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3235 profile views
  • Brutus

  • TheForgotten

  • Nilin

  • Lucius

  • Samaritan

  1. I have this weird feeling that a bunch of people really like Paul Blart.

    1. Elmo


      Just one hero actually...

  2. You're not wrong. Sadly, I can't help what he says. When I originally posted no one in the staff team had called it an aggravated verdict. It's why I said what I said, otherwise I wouldn't have risked making myself look silly and wrong. If anything, what Caesar said is more accurate to what it should be. Nothing has been aggravated, we are simply punishing for multiple rule breaks. Whether it becomes a term or not we will get clarity on the situation. If I end up being wrong now, then I'll simply admit that I'm wrong and carry on.
  3. I called it not an aggravation because at no point have we ever called it an aggravation until Rolle just called it an aggravation in this thread. If that is what Rolle wants to call it then verdicts in the future simply need to be updated properly. With whatever Rolle decides to call it, aggravation has worked the way that I explained it for the longest of times; a verdict alone has never been aggravated, just individual punishments in the verdict.
  4. Aggravating a punishment is more fore a sole punishment. So if someone had KoS'd multiple people, they could be liable to get an aggravated punishment of Invalid Kill. If there is no need for an aggravation of a certain rulebreak, it looks sloppy if the staff team were to just tack on an aggravation as an excuse to issue either more points or a longer in-game ban. As Oliv mentioned above, those verdicting the reports have the ability to stray from the standard punishments. The staff team is not "double dipping" as people have been saying. Double dipping would mean that if someone combat logged and KoS'd, they would get 10 days and 20 warning points. That is simply not the case in any of the verdicts that the community has seen lately.
  5. Good luck to all of the Loremaster applicants!  Can't wait to see the results of it.  I'm ready to get this new chapter rolling.

    1. Lucius


      im a headlock master, does that count?

  6. 2/10. Some recent well worded posts that have been completely overshadowed by the overabundance of emoji's and pointless status updates.
  7. I don't think that we should simply ignore multiple rulebreaks. I understand not wanting to just throw a bunch of points on someone, but at the very least they should feel the effect on in-game punishment. If they break multiple rules they should get punished as if they broke multiple rules.
  8. *bows gracefully* <3
  9. Does this mean you can have a good bigger avatar now?

    1. Lucius
    2. Cid


      Man you given me some nostalgia trips boi

  10. I'd genuinely like to look into it. Although there may not be much that can be done now about the thread in question, there is always room for more discussion and working on staying more and more consistent. Like you said, it's an ongoing battle.
  11. I'd love to address my thoughts on this as well, but I'm not sure if I was around for when this other incident you speak of happened, nor the thread itself. If you'd like, go ahead and PM me the juicy deets and we can progress in PM's from there. I understand that inconsistency is a problem. I'd love to smash said problem. One step at a time. Mistakes will be made and we just have to do our best to make up for them.
  12. I'll go ahead and lay my two cents on here, seeing as I was the one who closed the thread. Perhaps it will open you up more onto why the decision was made. The thread was simply closed because it was entirely off-topic, as Rolle has already stated in the thread. My thought process behind not warning pretty much everyone in that thread was behind the fact the thread was getting closed. The thread wasn't closed so much for the fact that it was entirely off-topic, but for the fact that after Rolle had posted the limits to how far people could go, we really didn't see much life to the thread. Looking back at it now, I understand where the inconsistency lies, as those that had posted off-topic to the thread probably should have gotten warned, but warning everyone in the thread while at the same time locking it down seemed a little excessive at the time. If the thread was going to stay open, I feel like our thought process on it would have changed. Like I said though, I do understand where your concerns lie within saying that is inconsistent with previous warnings. For the staff team, it is something that we simply need to look over and recognize for future situations. This post was mainly just to clarify some things and hopefully get you to understand where we were coming from when going over the thread.