Plain and simple fact there are toxic players, we all know they exist and we all do not want them in our Orgs. It does not matter if there is an Org Reduction, nobody should be forced to take in a player that has a history of being downright toxic.
You can't fix people not joining some orgs by dynamic alliances either, people don't join those orgs for various reasons and dynamic alliances only makes it that you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with and alliance shifts do lose players no matter what you think. However static alliances (which would just be the new city level org) or 3 new orgs lets us consolidate people and make the orgs not seem so empty, and that last is a big issue for player retention and especially so for novice retention.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but this: "you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with" is a disturbing perspective. Nothing is preventing anyone from interacting with those of opposing orgs, save by their own choice. I would think this less of a problem if there wasn't the obvious hatred between players of one side and players of the other. No, you can't fight with them or go bashing, but roleplay is a thing that used to exist.
With that in mind, (in addition to the class and population imbalance) static alliances wouldn't fix the problems that we have currently, it would only fix the population spread over six orgs. As it is now? This game is rarely fun to play, because of all the problems, and removing the orgs ALONE won't fix that.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Nothing is preventing anyone from interacting with those of opposing orgs, save by their own choice.
Upon reading this, I do have to emphasize that my non-conflict interactions with "enemy org" members have pretty much always been enjoyable. Sometimes even in the raw conflict interactions themselves. I appreciate how very chill this game's been for me.
Agreed, combat is one thing, but the only thing stopping people from reaching across the aisle and shaking hands is personal choice. I know I personally will reach out and chat up 'the opposition' when conflict isn't happening at that moment.
I mean, it doesn't even have to be chat up. Just the other day Shango gave me the corpse of a glom who died on prime so I could rez her when I came looking. Maybe not the best rp moment, but man it sucks to die on prime as a titan.
1
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
Plain and simple fact there are toxic players, we all know they exist and we all do not want them in our Orgs. It does not matter if there is an Org Reduction, nobody should be forced to take in a player that has a history of being downright toxic.
On the contrary, if a toxic player is a good enough combatant, the history of the game shows that they can get away with almost -anything- because, well, if we get mad at them and try to curb their toxic behavior they will just hop to the other side and beat on us!
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
Plain and simple fact there are toxic players, we all know they exist and we all do not want them in our Orgs. It does not matter if there is an Org Reduction, nobody should be forced to take in a player that has a history of being downright toxic.
Yeah just going to echo this, players in orgs that survive (should deletion be chosen) do have a right to make choices about who they let in.
I expect Seren would probably accept a decent amount of Glom refugees, for example.
But if someone joining is going to cause problems for the community they’re picking then that character should pick a different one.
I’d expect the admin would really only get involved in the cases where someone is refused entry to all of the remaining orgs
Cool! I have a great idea then. Make rogue an actual class, give rogues an org aetherwave. Then these so called toxic players can still contribute to the game financially and they don't have to be in any org!
I would hope that majority votes would rule on allowing players into organisations though. And given that all the people I love playing with would be going to one org it would definitely be majority. So I'm all gee! And my wife! Would be super cool to see who ended up rogue though. Given how may of you quit and alt or abandon cities every time you don't get VA or some political leadership position.
Rogues more than likely won't exist as a class or any kind of organization, even if the resources and time existed to create those. As for citizenship, most places will probably keep to their same laws and methods they've had for years, which usually follow along the lines of, "If people voice their dissent and give a valid reason, citizen can be denied."
From what I've been told, assuming that then-former org mates would help those who have been denied entry to their new org could be a stretch. This sort of discussion has also lead to some people doing an informal census and the population differences may actually just be perception rather than reality.
You know what'd be a more surefire way to get into any org you wanted to if yours blew up? Make them want you to join rather than threatening to find a way to force yourself in.
They could use one of the skillsets reskinned as rogue. EDIT: delete monks make rogues ninja! Easy fix. I guess rogues could just buy a clan and use that as their org aether so the admin don't have to deal with that. It isn't as hard as we think it is. Time consuming sure, but if they want to go ahead and destroy orgs they need to do it properly and look at all aspects of the fallout of this decision and make serious attempts at catching any who may end up leaving due to gaps in the plan. Also, rogue may draw some people back. I know a few who like the idea of it!
But as for org inductions processes, I have seen people who are liked being denied or have been left waiting IRL weeks/months to get into orgs. I don't believe, as a community in general, we have the ability whether mechanically or socially, to handle these events appropriately. I remember when someone was denied entrance to Serenwilde for about a month I think it was, and from what I can remember without any real good reason. I have seen others left waiting to join Glomdoring because of absent divine orders and other silly reason which we have no control over mechanically to alter but people won't let go because of 'RP' or strenuous tasks that are just not viable to complete within a few days.
Anything more than an IRL week to join an organisation I believe is too long a process for the game to continue being enjoyable for someone looking to move their character. It took me about five minutes to join Serenwilde from Glom as a noob, an hour to join Mag after a year being enemied to Mag from Serenwilde, less than that from Mag to Gaudi, and then maybe 2 weeks from Gaudi to Glom and that was earnt because I had raided and acted against Glom my whole time playing Ena since leaving Glom as a noob, and the expiration on my wait was clearly given and tasks were achievable and reasonable. There are so many reasons people have been denied membership or have given up trying after waiting IRL weeks/months. I just don't believe giving players absolute control over this is going to be in the best interests of the game, if this does go ahead.
And I think it might do some of you good to remember, that just because you do not like playing with someone, that does not make them toxic. Nor does it mean others do not enjoy them. This rhetoric that someone is toxic because you did not get along with them is probably contributing to the horrible dynamics of this game. You can not like someone and just leave it at that. You don't have to constantly act against them or make silly childish attempts at having them removed from the game or our org. And when other players do enjoy interacting with them, it really looks sillier on the behalf of the person raging about how toxic someone is.
It is troubling to me to see this attitude of 'well if you're toxic, we aren't going to let you in'. It is troubling because it points to an attitude of wanting to see the game survive and prosper only as I see fit. If we're shutting down orgs, it's because we're looking for desperate measures to concentrate resources/population and help the game feel more like a single community. The attitude, if this is to happen to and to succeed, across all people and all orgs, needs to really shift to more of a 'this game should survive', not 'this game should survive in the vision I perceive'.
What is toxic to you may not be toxic to another. Toxic is a fairly relative term, in this setting and in this collection of people.
Do what you want, at the end of the day. Just my opinion.
It is troubling to me to see this attitude of 'well if you're toxic, we aren't going to let you in'. It is troubling because it points to an attitude of wanting to see the game survive and prosper only as I see fit. If we're shutting down orgs, it's because we're looking for desperate measures to concentrate resources/population and help the game feel more like a single community. The attitude, if this is to happen to and to succeed, across all people and all orgs, needs to really shift to more of a 'this game should survive', not 'this game should survive in the vision I perceive'.
What is toxic to you may not be toxic to another. Toxic is a fairly relative term, in this setting and in this collection of people.
Do what you want, at the end of the day. Just my opinion.
Are you suggesting that there is never a reason that people may decide that one or two people are bad for the rest of the community? Players have been banned, even permanently, from IRE games. You may disagree that a particular person is 'toxic', but that doesn't mean those who think otherwise don't have good reason. It could be that you're not as well-informed.
What it points to is that some people have had different negative experiences than you have. If you want tolerance and understanding, you need to ask all sides why they feel the way they do.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
It is troubling to me to see this attitude of 'well if you're toxic, we aren't going to let you in'. It is troubling because it points to an attitude of wanting to see the game survive and prosper only as I see fit. If we're shutting down orgs, it's because we're looking for desperate measures to concentrate resources/population and help the game feel more like a single community. The attitude, if this is to happen to and to succeed, across all people and all orgs, needs to really shift to more of a 'this game should survive', not 'this game should survive in the vision I perceive'.
What is toxic to you may not be toxic to another. Toxic is a fairly relative term, in this setting and in this collection of people.
Do what you want, at the end of the day. Just my opinion.
Are you suggesting that there is never a reason that people may decide that one or two people are bad for the rest of the community? Players have been banned, even permanently, from IRE games. You may disagree that a particular person is 'toxic', but that doesn't mean those who think otherwise don't have good reason. It could be that you're not as well-informed.
What it points to is that some people have had different negative experiences than you have. If you want tolerance and understanding, you need to ask all sides why they feel the way they do.
You are correct on all counts.
Try to understand why people act the way they do instead of judging them. When things are as bad as they are in this community, that's the only way to move forward. But also, I'm pretty strongly a hippie, so you know, ymmv.
It is troubling to me to see this attitude of 'well if you're toxic, we aren't going to let you in'. It is troubling because it points to an attitude of wanting to see the game survive and prosper only as I see fit. If we're shutting down orgs, it's because we're looking for desperate measures to concentrate resources/population and help the game feel more like a single community. The attitude, if this is to happen to and to succeed, across all people and all orgs, needs to really shift to more of a 'this game should survive', not 'this game should survive in the vision I perceive'.
What is toxic to you may not be toxic to another. Toxic is a fairly relative term, in this setting and in this collection of people.
Do what you want, at the end of the day. Just my opinion.
Are you suggesting that there is never a reason that people may decide that one or two people are bad for the rest of the community? Players have been banned, even permanently, from IRE games. You may disagree that a particular person is 'toxic', but that doesn't mean those who think otherwise don't have good reason. It could be that you're not as well-informed.
What it points to is that some people have had different negative experiences than you have. If you want tolerance and understanding, you need to ask all sides why they feel the way they do.
A negative experience with someone does not constitute as someone being 'toxic' or bad for the community. It means that you had a bad experience with them and can now make an informed decision not to engage with them using mechanics set in place to assist you in that.
Also, people have been banned for a multitude of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with their player interactions but rather breaking various IRE rules.
If you are going to ask all sides how they feel about someone that will certainly be taking in the perspective of those that do enjoy that player. And I am certain that it is true of most players here that their friends will attest to how enjoyable they are to play with. I am certain Glomdoring doesn't have a great population because they all just really love spiders! I think who they play with has a lot to do with it. I certainly enjoy my family and my communemates.
A negative experience with someone does not constitute as someone being 'toxic' or bad for the community. It means that you had a bad experience with them and can now make an informed decision not to engage with them using mechanics set in place to assist you in that.
By that logic, it sounds like most people being referred to as ''toxic" are incorrectly being labelled as such, because I highly doubt many of said people induce negative experiences with every single player they interact with. Perhaps we should stop throwing that term around.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops And endless starless night Singing how the wind was lost Before an earthly flight
You can't fix people not joining some orgs by dynamic alliances either, people don't join those orgs for various reasons and dynamic alliances only makes it that you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with and alliance shifts do lose players no matter what you think. However static alliances (which would just be the new city level org) or 3 new orgs lets us consolidate people and make the orgs not seem so empty, and that last is a big issue for player retention and especially so for novice retention.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but this: "you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with" is a disturbing perspective. Nothing is preventing anyone from interacting with those of opposing orgs, save by their own choice. I would think this less of a problem if there wasn't the obvious hatred between players of one side and players of the other. No, you can't fight with them or go bashing, but roleplay is a thing that used to exist.
With that in mind, (in addition to the class and population imbalance) static alliances wouldn't fix the problems that we have currently, it would only fix the population spread over six orgs. As it is now? This game is rarely fun to play, because of all the problems, and removing the orgs ALONE won't fix that.
I am fairly sure people leaving Lusternia makes you unable to interact with them. In the history of alliance changes people have left cause of it, Gaudiguch ran empty just considering an alliance change and not just with people going to Celest/glom.
Roleplay still exists, but it will not change the fact people who put a lot of effort in building their alliance community will grow fed up having to start over cause some people want to pvp. Dynamic alliances also offer zero promises of equal battles, unless you are going to change alliance every rl hour population inbalance in alliances will always remain. The solution there lies in the conflict mechanics not the orgs themselves.
In fact dynamic alliances don’t fix anything at all as you still do not get to build a decent size community. They only allow mechanical restrictions for conflict but all other options also allow for this.
Being friends with a person doesn't miraculously make them a good person. Doesn't mean you have to dislike a person, but you can certainly recognise your friend's behaviour as being crappy.
Anyway this is all hypothetical - we don't even know if there will be a policy instituted IC or out about migrants to orgs should such a thing happen. For all we know, the divinities in the orgs would mandate open doors and clean slates in the time of chaos rendering everyone's opinions moot.
A negative experience with someone does not constitute as someone being 'toxic' or bad for the community. It means that you had a bad experience with them and can now make an informed decision not to engage with them using mechanics set in place to assist you in that.
By that logic, it sounds like most people being referred to as ''toxic" are incorrectly being labelled as such, because I highly doubt many of said people induce negative experiences with every single player they interact with. Perhaps we should stop throwing that term around.
I believe so, I only use that word as that seems to be the one people comprehend and utilise most on these forums. I don't believe until playing Lusternia I had ever heard people being referred to in this manner. It seems to me that this word is used as a way of labeling one another as persons they dislike in an attempt to have the community agree with them. Because the community tends to follow trends or narratives from one perspective rather than look at accusations with their own eyes and ask questions of a situation. It would be nice if instead of just throwing around a common label people actually listed what aspects of a person they disliked and shared their opinions on why that person for those attributes was declared undesirable by the community as a whole/majority. But when I have asked what it is exactly I have done all I have received is the circular argument that Glom is a bad organisation or a cult or that someone else in the organisation is horrible and that my allowing them to speak for Glomdoring or not standing up for them on forums is why I am toxic. It is a little silly really.
Edit: Perhaps it is that people realise that their dislike of someone is rather personal to them and really the community is not too perturbed by a personal conflict and would rather just allow the individuals to continue playing without engaging the whole community in a campaign against one or two people. But it appears some players here would rather have their friends comply to their point of view rather than allowing them free will to determine if they like a person or not based on a varied perspective of the situation which caused the conflict in the first place.
Edit 2: Which is WHY I don't believe this community is capable of ensuring people are given refuge in the orgs left remaining in a healthy manner which would benefit the game in any way. It will essentially, as I said in my very first post here, kill the game. Because people are spiteful and determined to cause drama rather than move on from the initial conflict.
You can't fix people not joining some orgs by dynamic alliances either, people don't join those orgs for various reasons and dynamic alliances only makes it that you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with and alliance shifts do lose players no matter what you think. However static alliances (which would just be the new city level org) or 3 new orgs lets us consolidate people and make the orgs not seem so empty, and that last is a big issue for player retention and especially so for novice retention.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but this: "you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with" is a disturbing perspective. Nothing is preventing anyone from interacting with those of opposing orgs, save by their own choice. I would think this less of a problem if there wasn't the obvious hatred between players of one side and players of the other. No, you can't fight with them or go bashing, but roleplay is a thing that used to exist.
With that in mind, (in addition to the class and population imbalance) static alliances wouldn't fix the problems that we have currently, it would only fix the population spread over six orgs. As it is now? This game is rarely fun to play, because of all the problems, and removing the orgs ALONE won't fix that.
I am fairly sure people leaving Lusternia makes you unable to interact with them. In the history of alliance changes people have left cause of it, Gaudiguch ran empty just considering an alliance change and not just with people going to Celest/glom.
Roleplay still exists, but it will not change the fact people who put a lot of effort in building their alliance community will grow fed up having to start over cause some people want to pvp. Dynamic alliances also offer zero promises of equal battles, unless you are going to change alliance every rl hour population inbalance in alliances will always remain. The solution there lies in the conflict mechanics not the orgs themselves.
In fact dynamic alliances don’t fix anything at all as you still do not get to build a decent size community. They only allow mechanical restrictions for conflict but all other options also allow for this.
To the first, you were talking about alliance changes, and that's what I was referring to. Someone switching sides does not prevent you from interacting with them.
No, dynamic alliances don't, that's why imbedded in that were ideas about how to incentivize smaller and more evenly split organizations, via mechanics. And yes, combat mechanics would go a long way toward fixing that problem, but it also doesn't have to be the only solution.
That last point doesn't follow, as the suggestion was far more complex than dynamic alliances.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Try to understand why people act the way they do instead of judging them. When things are as bad as they are in this community, that's the only way to move forward. But also, I'm pretty strongly a hippie, so you know, ymmv.
Indeed. Take your own advice.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Try to understand why people act the way they do instead of judging them. When things are as bad as they are in this community, that's the only way to move forward. But also, I'm pretty strongly a hippie, so you know, ymmv.
Indeed. Take your own advice.
I mean, I don't hate anyone in this game, so it's hard for me to do with this specific community. I also have the benefit of not being mired in 'recent' (the last... 10 years?) of history, of course. I have literally no friends in this game except for Lyora heh, and she's off Starmourning.
In the immortal words of Royce da 5'9", "holding a grudge is like letting somebody just live inside of your head rent free."
I've deleted a couple posts that were veering off topic and developing into personal jabs and insults.
I've tried to leave relevant comments, but some more personal ones may have slipped through.
Please keep it to the discussion about the topic at hand.
There is certainly a concern that players will not be allowed in certain orgs due to player experience, founded or unfounded, but why those people are considered that way isn't really the topic of this discussion.
Try to understand why people act the way they do instead of judging them. When things are as bad as they are in this community, that's the only way to move forward. But also, I'm pretty strongly a hippie, so you know, ymmv.
Indeed. Take your own advice.
I mean, I don't hate anyone in this game, so it's hard for me to do with this specific community. I also have the benefit of not being mired in 'recent' (the last... 10 years?) of history, of course. I have literally no friends in this game except for Lyora heh, and she's off Starmourning.
In the immortal words of Royce da 5'9", "holding a grudge is like letting somebody just live inside of your head rent free."
Sorry that you feel you don't have friends, there are still great people who are in this community. Tell Lyora to come back sometimes, I miss her
Holding grudges: I don't really know what you mean here. If I don't interact with someone anymore, they're not bothering me. There's also the advice about not letting abusers continue to harass you, and I think that one needs to be followed first before you worry about being angry with them.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Sorry that you feel you don't have friends, there are still great people who are in this community. Tell Lyora to come back sometimes, I miss her
Holding grudges: I don't really know what you mean here. If I don't interact with someone anymore, they're not bothering me. There's also the advice about not letting abusers continue to harass you, and I think that one needs to be followed first before you worry about being angry with them.
That's more of a personal thing, heh. I don't consider anyone I don't spend time with in real life to be a friend. :P People I game with are just that - people I happen to game with.
Anyways, the concern of people not being allowed into orgs is valid. If you shut down say the three largest orgs, that's a lot of people being displaced. And for one reason or another, that could result in at least some people not feeling like they have a place to go. Not really sure how you approach that larger concern of 'Where do I go?'.
If something drastic like a merger, org consolidation, or alternate-timeline-inspired reset is going to happen, it would probably be best to set aside differences as best as possible if the game is going to have a chance to move upwards. It will be difficult, yes, but as has been pointed out, by Orael himself even in his Moving Forward post, things have gotten out of hand. No sense in perpetuating an unfriendly atmosphere when we've reached this point.
My two pennies.
Edited to add a link.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops And endless starless night Singing how the wind was lost Before an earthly flight
EDIT: the post this was aimed at was removed, but I'll leave this here for elaboration anyway.
--
Yes, that is what I'm referring to. We can choose to continue perpetuating this division (the us vs. them, as it were) for whatever reason we have for doing so, or we can choose to move on, as difficult as it might be.
My opinion is not meant to invalidate why anyone feels the way that they do. It's meant to merely point out that holding on to those feelings is not going to help this game recover.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops And endless starless night Singing how the wind was lost Before an earthly flight
Comments
I don't entirely disagree with you, but this: "you risk losing people you enjoy interacting with" is a disturbing perspective. Nothing is preventing anyone from interacting with those of opposing orgs, save by their own choice. I would think this less of a problem if there wasn't the obvious hatred between players of one side and players of the other. No, you can't fight with them or go bashing, but roleplay is a thing that used to exist. With that in mind, (in addition to the class and population imbalance) static alliances wouldn't fix the problems that we have currently, it would only fix the population spread over six orgs. As it is now? This game is rarely fun to play, because of all the problems, and removing the orgs ALONE won't fix that.
I expect Seren would probably accept a decent amount of Glom refugees, for example.
But if someone joining is going to cause problems for the community they’re picking then that character should pick a different one.
I’d expect the admin would really only get involved in the cases where someone is refused entry to all of the remaining orgs
I would hope that majority votes would rule on allowing players into organisations though. And given that all the people I love playing with would be going to one org it would definitely be majority. So I'm all gee! And my wife! Would be super cool to see who ended up rogue though. Given how may of you quit and alt or abandon cities every time you don't get VA or some political leadership position.
This sort of discussion has also lead to some people doing an informal census and the population differences may actually just be perception rather than reality.
You know what'd be a more surefire way to get into any org you wanted to if yours blew up?
Make them want you to join rather than threatening to find a way to force yourself in.
But as for org inductions processes, I have seen people who are liked being denied or have been left waiting IRL weeks/months to get into orgs. I don't believe, as a community in general, we have the ability whether mechanically or socially, to handle these events appropriately. I remember when someone was denied entrance to Serenwilde for about a month I think it was, and from what I can remember without any real good reason. I have seen others left waiting to join Glomdoring because of absent divine orders and other silly reason which we have no control over mechanically to alter but people won't let go because of 'RP' or strenuous tasks that are just not viable to complete within a few days.
Anything more than an IRL week to join an organisation I believe is too long a process for the game to continue being enjoyable for someone looking to move their character. It took me about five minutes to join Serenwilde from Glom as a noob, an hour to join Mag after a year being enemied to Mag from Serenwilde, less than that from Mag to Gaudi, and then maybe 2 weeks from Gaudi to Glom and that was earnt because I had raided and acted against Glom my whole time playing Ena since leaving Glom as a noob, and the expiration on my wait was clearly given and tasks were achievable and reasonable. There are so many reasons people have been denied membership or have given up trying after waiting IRL weeks/months. I just don't believe giving players absolute control over this is going to be in the best interests of the game, if this does go ahead.
And I think it might do some of you good to remember, that just because you do not like playing with someone, that does not make them toxic. Nor does it mean others do not enjoy them.
What is toxic to you may not be toxic to another. Toxic is a fairly relative term, in this setting and in this collection of people.
Do what you want, at the end of the day. Just my opinion.
What it points to is that some people have had different negative experiences than you have. If you want tolerance and understanding, you need to ask all sides why they feel the way they do.
Try to understand why people act the way they do instead of judging them. When things are as bad as they are in this community, that's the only way to move forward. But also, I'm pretty strongly a hippie, so you know, ymmv.
Also, people have been banned for a multitude of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with their player interactions but rather breaking various IRE rules.
If you are going to ask all sides how they feel about someone that will certainly be taking in the perspective of those that do enjoy that player. And I am certain that it is true of most players here that their friends will attest to how enjoyable they are to play with. I am certain Glomdoring doesn't have a great population because they all just really love spiders! I think who they play with has a lot to do with it.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops
And endless starless night
Singing how the wind was lost
Before an earthly flight
Roleplay still exists, but it will not change the fact people who put a lot of effort in building their alliance community will grow fed up having to start over cause some people want to pvp. Dynamic alliances also offer zero promises of equal battles, unless you are going to change alliance every rl hour population inbalance in alliances will always remain. The solution there lies in the conflict mechanics not the orgs themselves.
In fact dynamic alliances don’t fix anything at all as you still do not get to build a decent size community. They only allow mechanical restrictions for conflict but all other options also allow for this.
Anyway this is all hypothetical - we don't even know if there will be a policy instituted IC or out about migrants to orgs should such a thing happen. For all we know, the divinities in the orgs would mandate open doors and clean slates in the time of chaos rendering everyone's opinions moot.
Edit: Perhaps it is that people realise that their dislike of someone is rather personal to them and really the community is not too perturbed by a personal conflict and would rather just allow the individuals to continue playing without engaging the whole community in a campaign against one or two people. But it appears some players here would rather have their friends comply to their point of view rather than allowing them free will to determine if they like a person or not based on a varied perspective of the situation which caused the conflict in the first place.
Edit 2: Which is WHY I don't believe this community is capable of ensuring people are given refuge in the orgs left remaining in a healthy manner which would benefit the game in any way. It will essentially, as I said in my very first post here, kill the game. Because people are spiteful and determined to cause drama rather than move on from the initial conflict.
No, dynamic alliances don't, that's why imbedded in that were ideas about how to incentivize smaller and more evenly split organizations, via mechanics. And yes, combat mechanics would go a long way toward fixing that problem, but it also doesn't have to be the only solution.
That last point doesn't follow, as the suggestion was far more complex than dynamic alliances.
In the immortal words of Royce da 5'9", "holding a grudge is like letting somebody just live inside of your head rent free."
I've tried to leave relevant comments, but some more personal ones may have slipped through.
Please keep it to the discussion about the topic at hand.
There is certainly a concern that players will not be allowed in certain orgs due to player experience, founded or unfounded, but why those people are considered that way isn't really the topic of this discussion.
Sorry that you feel you don't have friends, there are still great people who are in this community. Tell Lyora to come back sometimes, I miss her
Holding grudges: I don't really know what you mean here. If I don't interact with someone anymore, they're not bothering me. There's also the advice about not letting abusers continue to harass you, and I think that one needs to be followed first before you worry about being angry with them.
Anyways, the concern of people not being allowed into orgs is valid. If you shut down say the three largest orgs, that's a lot of people being displaced. And for one reason or another, that could result in at least some people not feeling like they have a place to go. Not really sure how you approach that larger concern of 'Where do I go?'.
My two pennies.
Edited to add a link.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops
And endless starless night
Singing how the wind was lost
Before an earthly flight
--
Yes, that is what I'm referring to. We can choose to continue perpetuating this division (the us vs. them, as it were) for whatever reason we have for doing so, or we can choose to move on, as difficult as it might be.
My opinion is not meant to invalidate why anyone feels the way that they do. It's meant to merely point out that holding on to those feelings is not going to help this game recover.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops
And endless starless night
Singing how the wind was lost
Before an earthly flight
Won't somebody think about the alts!