Calling for specific examples, no matter how legit and factual, just brings it to 'personal attacks'...and as the admin have explicitly stated over and over, not acceptable forum behavior for the sake of these threads. Let's try to keep things on topic if we would. I will say, however, that OOC should have zero impact. People who have wronged me in the past enough to anger me towards them OOCily I still treat fairly as a Guild Leader. Part of stepping up TO lead means you sacrifice that part of yourself, IC or OOC, entirely in order to do the job. IF someone who is currently an enemy of a given org...though I can obviously only speak for Magnagora at this time despite this being the ideal all should ahere to...wishes to join, then there will be the hurdle of overcoming just why they were enemied in the first place. Some get enemied as a premptive to ensure guards and totems/statues do their job for safety reasons, others do things to deserve that status before or while having it.
To expect a free ride, would be absurd obviously, ESPECIALLY from an IC standpoint. However, in the hypothetical situation that this thread proposes of orgs being deleted, the surviving orgs would logically be making exceptions towards leniency, with only select individuals having to earn their way more than others. How one behaves as an enemy would impact greatly....there is a place for honor and respect even on opposite ends of a battlefield after all. Those that act on behalf of their org, and thus enemied due to their duty in taking the fight to what would be seen as their foes...would be likely given a slap on the wrist and minimal fine at most, opposed to someone who'd go out of their way to murder collegium mobs, kill novices, ruining city epic quest lines even if not of the opposing org, etc. But I see their home org just...absolutely decimated? I think ICily that alone covers a huge portion of any fines needed to earn an unenemying status right on its own. So most would be welcomed regardless, due to such.
OOC should have NO impact on your ability to move to ANY organisation. Sure, if YOU, the PLAYER have made choices that your character has conducted, your CHARACTER will be judged on those choices and, woe, you'll have to roleplay the consequences.
Consequences aren't some mechanical hurdle to be avoided though. They're trials in a story, and in Lusternia, your character is going through their epic Basin legend and trials are one of, if not one of the better highways to roleplay.
There is a reality that OOC is going to have some impact on some people.
Like, if OOCly you've got reason to believe (or just outright know) that someone is only joining your org because they plan to tear it apart, you still have a right to deny entry because you have a responsibility to the players of your org to stop that from happening.
Same thing if you know that letting someone in is going to cause issues for other people in your org because of their experiences with them. Because at that point you're making a choice that might mean those other players need to leave your org and you can't just ignore that.
So you admit. It will be on an OOC level! Okie dokie then! Now that someone is being honest. We can see where the problem is. Thanks!
Edit: Also I don't know about anyone claiming they will destroy anything. I think it was mentioned by a player or two that they would migrate their Org to another and recreate the beautiful encouraging joyful community feel they have. Which is hardly destroying anything worth keeping if you ask anyone! Who wouldn't want more of that? Our newbies certainly agree. and it is lovely to have such long lasting members. Why wouldn't another organisation want the same?
Some people who have opposed org deletion mention very shamelessly that if their "larger population community" goes to a new org, that they'll take it over and change it according to their image instead of graciously integrating.
It's like they forgot about admin, and how they're there to preserve RP integrity.
4
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
There are only very few circumstances I would consider OOC motives when considering whether to let someone join an org or guild. The list of people is less than five.
Why would I ever deny someone entry for OOC reasons? If I knew that behind the character was a player that had been repeatedly shrubbed for egregious OOC behavior; someone who, no matter who their character was, was consistently a bully on an OOC level; someone who, because of OOC actions, drove many a player from the game.
As I said, the number of players I know who fall into this category is extremely limited. Extremely.
But if my choice is to approach it from a purely IC perspective and let the character in, which will inevitably lead to OOC problems that cause deep conflict among the other players on account of this one person; or to approach it from an OOC perspective and recognize that the player is toxic and it would be better for everyone and the game not to have them around; then, I'm going to make the OOC-motivated choice.
There is a point where, no matter what IC justifications may be, being an OOC asshole and nightmare will come back and bite you.
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.
If you believe players in other orgs are harassing and making players leave because they want to say something OOCly that the players disagree with, that needs to be issued.
We need to stop casting accusations around without proof. If you have proof, issue it. Enough said.
This is for all of those who know me and the ones I have met so far for the most part, I like you all and I would prefer to keep all of you in the same place we make good synergy. I love being a part of Glomdoring I respect all those who I have come in contact with.
Some people who have opposed org deletion mention very shamelessly that if their "larger population community" goes to a new org, that they'll take it over and change it according to their image instead of graciously integrating.
It's like they forgot about admin, and how they're there to preserve RP integrity.
I was one of the people who mentioned this, but I feel there is a misunderstanding. It's not a deliberate move, and it's not (necessarily) a RP move. I mean, this is all guesswork at the moment, but my thinking is that:
a: People who have played together for a long time, including chatting OOC, have formed some level of bond and share a certain number of ideas. Basically, friends share some aspects of personality. b: These people, when they are forced to migrate, will migrate together. Maybe not every single person and not necessarily a conscious group decision, but for example, I can see myself more drawn to where Yendor moves because I enjoy playing with him. c: Because you have a collection of voting power entering an organization, and because that collection shares some ideals, they will end up changing the overall feel or ideals of the org if they outnumber the voting power already present.
It's not a conscious 'Ok, we're going to make Seren into Glomdoring now.' It's more, 'Ok, a bunch of Gloomies are in Serenwilde, have more voting power than the native population, and shares at least some ideals on how to act/RP.' Less hostile takeover, more... when immigration happens, ideals change.
It wasn't just your posting of it though, it has been stated numerous times, in which it was met with the fact that admins probably wouldn't let things get too out of hand like that. Migrating is one thing, starting to call votes and changing things is not migration, that's an invasion. Then again, most migrations are from a small populace going into a larger populace so they just mesh in with that society's rules. Just needs to be a way to maintain what that surviving org is. Blending some of migrants ideals in is fine, but changing it into something else isn't.
Some people who have opposed org deletion mention very shamelessly that if their "larger population community" goes to a new org, that they'll take it over and change it according to their image instead of graciously integrating.
It's like they forgot about admin, and how they're there to preserve RP integrity.
I was one of the people who mentioned this, but I feel there is a misunderstanding. It's not a deliberate move, and it's not (necessarily) a RP move. I mean, this is all guesswork at the moment, but my thinking is that:
a: People who have played together for a long time, including chatting OOC, have formed some level of bond and share a certain number of ideas. Basically, friends share some aspects of personality. b: These people, when they are forced to migrate, will migrate together. Maybe not every single person and not necessarily a conscious group decision, but for example, I can see myself more drawn to where Yendor moves because I enjoy playing with him. c: Because you have a collection of voting power entering an organization, and because that collection shares some ideals, they will end up changing the overall feel or ideals of the org if they outnumber the voting power already present.
It's not a conscious 'Ok, we're going to make Seren into Glomdoring now.' It's more, 'Ok, a bunch of Gloomies are in Serenwilde, have more voting power than the native population, and shares at least some ideals on how to act/RP.' Less hostile takeover, more... when immigration happens, ideals change.
Until those who were directly posting about engaging in actions that would literally tear apart cornerstones of the targeted orgs RP start changing their tune, no amount of other people trying to reinterpret their words is really going to change the minds of people who are now concerned about letting prominent Gloms(should this all actually happen).
That said, C is still pretty vague as is the later mention about "how to rp" and the change of ideals. Changing Serenwildes RP ideology to suit form-Gloms RP ideology is, as Maligorn noted, changing the org to suit you rather than integrating with it.
Some people who have opposed org deletion mention very shamelessly that if their "larger population community" goes to a new org, that they'll take it over and change it according to their image instead of graciously integrating.
It's like they forgot about admin, and how they're there to preserve RP integrity.
I was one of the people who mentioned this, but I feel there is a misunderstanding. It's not a deliberate move, and it's not (necessarily) a RP move. I mean, this is all guesswork at the moment, but my thinking is that:
a: People who have played together for a long time, including chatting OOC, have formed some level of bond and share a certain number of ideas. Basically, friends share some aspects of personality. b: These people, when they are forced to migrate, will migrate together. Maybe not every single person and not necessarily a conscious group decision, but for example, I can see myself more drawn to where Yendor moves because I enjoy playing with him. c: Because you have a collection of voting power entering an organization, and because that collection shares some ideals, they will end up changing the overall feel or ideals of the org if they outnumber the voting power already present.
It's not a conscious 'Ok, we're going to make Seren into Glomdoring now.' It's more, 'Ok, a bunch of Gloomies are in Serenwilde, have more voting power than the native population, and shares at least some ideals on how to act/RP.' Less hostile takeover, more... when immigration happens, ideals change.
Until those who were directly posting about engaging in actions that would literally tear apart cornerstones of the targeted orgs RP start changing their tune, no amount of other people trying to reinterpret their words is really going to change the minds of people who are now concerned about letting prominent Gloms(should this all actually happen).
That said, C is still pretty vague as is the later mention about "how to rp" and the change of ideals. Changing Serenwildes RP ideology to suit form-Gloms RP ideology is, as Maligorn noted, changing the org to suit you rather than integrating with it.
What is the actual threat here? I mean a few people have said "What if we do this...?" Or two people? I don't know I skimmed the thread at best. And you have decided that all of Glom have this ulterior motive to 'destroy' Serenwilde if Glomdoring is deleted?
So what, never allow anyone from Glomdoring entrance just in case eventually those you let in form the majority and let others in and this happens? I mean essentially the majority of these posts are "We think they are going to do bad things so they can't join, and we will allude to these bad things but not actually supple any evidence nor any actual idea of what those bad things are and just hope public opinion supports our gibberish." are ya'll politicians? Or just expect people to be stupid enough to buy the nonsense?
I mean, okay, so Xenthos said some words that you did not like. So that is reason enough to become hostile instead of saying, "Hey I know the threat of having your org deleted sucks and you wanna keep everything you have, but let's see if we can't make some really cool RP and make them gel?" and this is all what if. I mean for all we know all forests are deleted and we are stuck with Celest Mag Halli. Who the hell knows? And why is it okay that an entire Org gets deleted but a few aspects of an org can't be altered to help accommodate refugees form those orgs? Like seriously, selfish much?
The thing is if you do it on admin desires and not player numbers, if the numbers in closing orgs>the numbers in remaining orgs, then they will always form a majority.
Orgs that don't get deleted are going to get changed by the influx and trying to stop that will be like Canute trying to hold back the sea.
Just accept it with good grace and work together to make something everyone gets along with. Don't be a Canute.
The thing is if you do it on admin desires and not player numbers, if the numbers in closing orgs>the numbers in remaining orgs, then they will always form a majority.
Orgs that don't get deleted are going to get changed by the influx and trying to stop that will be like Canute trying to hold back the sea.
Just accept it with good grace and work together to make something everyone gets along with. Don't be a Canute.
In both threads, discussions are being held on how best to let people join and not just stiff-arm them. While a majority might form, I highly expect the admin assigned to each of the orgs to be on watch to make sure things are fair for all parties involved. I doubt that they will allow the whole org to change into something else entirely, or get completely replaced. Instead, I think they'll let things happen until it starts to lead to one of those, which is fine by me. If Seren takes a bunch of Gloms and they work together to make an org solely dedicated to Nature and the fae, dropping the purity or wyrd, then that sounds like a win-win. Either way, it will work out, and is not something we need to make a big deal out of, as I'm confident that the new gods for the org will make it enjoyable.
I don't think there exists 'an internal overthrow with new migrants', merely a lack of cooperation to work out how to integrate and appreciate the elements of your character's growing development.
Your character isn't stuck with being in Glomdoring (insert org X/Y/Z here) and having those traits, they can grow, and that growth can be very fulfilling, maybe even cathartic. If you like elements of that roleplay, I am sure you will find ways to pursue them in other organisations.
Hive mind drone RP? That's not exactly unanalogous to how Collectivism is founded. Dark sacrifice, high ritual, secret society lore RP? Sounds like Magnagora's shtick too right? NMBG? I personally find this to be a tired trope, there's really no reason this couldn't be replaced with 'For the Light', or 'For the Collective', or 'For the Dark Lords'. Don't like the ring of it? Get creative.
Regardless of which org(s) theoretically are deleted, if you made a list of all the aspects of roleplay you enjoyed and focused on the ones you like the most, I am certain you can find your niche in any of the organisations. It's also an opportunity to redesign your character. I wouldn't, in any way, consider the deletion of 'my' org an attack, merely an opportunity to play, or be, something new.
The thing is if you do it on admin desires and not player numbers, if the numbers in closing orgs>the numbers in remaining orgs, then they will always form a majority.
Orgs that don't get deleted are going to get changed by the influx and trying to stop that will be like Canute trying to hold back the sea.
Just accept it with good grace and work together to make something everyone gets along with. Don't be a Canute.
So if the admin were to actually decide a group of three orgs, you have to expect that they believe that those three orgs will provide a stronger draw for new people joining the game and the like.
If, for example, Ackleberry was kept while Jojobo was killed off, the admin have shown they feel Ackleberry is the safer bet moving forward. Jojobo going in and trying to override Ackleberry's rp with Jojobo's rp damages Ackleberry. Jojobo succeeding in making such changes to Ackleberry's identity then it's likely not what the admin intended to keep around. Worse, the in-fighting among the org would ultimately result in even more players lost as people nope out.
If you think that a majority will on changing an orgs identity can change it significantly, again, I direct you to the winter court which practically had consensus within Serenwilde players (from memory) and we were still told no.
IF orgs are deleted I think there will be some significant changes to the orgs left over. It is kinda like when you move into your partner's house. It's their house, sure, but also you live there now. So your teddy bear goes on the bed and you always park your car on the right hand side of the drive. Things change. There are ways to adapt. When you approach situations like this with hostility it will only ever end in tears. So let them have the damned bear and right hand side parking spot. And just be happy things changed the way you wanted. They are in your house instead of you being in their's.
Reasons why someone would be objected to / refused / made to jump through hoops in joining an org (please note that I'm not naming names, which orgs and anything of that sort. It's a general @ everyone who ever thinks of moving!)
- Raiding territories connected to that Org (I.e ethereal plane of org/elemental plane of org/ cosmic plane of org) - Slaying of loyal denizens to the Org wherever they may be (other planes, claimed territories, divine pantheon realms, villages etc). - Slaying of commune or city members. - Previous or current enemying to the org / guilds of org / divine pantheon of org. - Previous citizenship of org. - In addition to previous citizenship, dependant on circumstances of leaving (I.e good terms, bad terms etc.) - Previous citizenship of org that is currently "at war" or "at odds", or "contentious relationship" with org you want to join (regardless if none of the above apply). - Objections raised enough by the org to warrant a longer wait time or refusal of citizenship. - Any, or combination or all of above.
I might have missed a reason or two, but these are grounds that are taken into consideration-now- if you want to join an org, let alone if ever orgs are deleted or not.
So, think back personally for your character and then you'll see why you may or may not be well received into an org or refused.
EDIT: This is all based on IN CHARACTER actions and does not reflect OOC.
The evidence you seek is in the thread you skimmed, hence why it was even brought up at all. No one has stated 'all of Glom' either. In fact, the only reason why Serenwilde and Glom are even being spoken of in this manner, is because they were used in the examples you passed over. Because a few members of the Glomdoring put the idea forth of the possibility, is exactly why it is even a topic.
I mean, the skimming doesn't show that. Let me re-quote what I said:
I have a question. What happens if you
delete Glomdoring (note: I do not expect this to happen, because
deleting one of the more populous orgs is just a bad idea, but for the
sake of conversation)?
Some will quit. The bulk of the rest will probably move en masse to Serenwilde.
There
will likely be an immediate election; after all, if we wanted to play
in Serenwilde as it currently exists, we would be there already.
The Sacred Leaves would likely be burned up shortly thereafter in favour of rules that the new majority find more appealing.
More
would likely happen past that, but I really can't see the current
Serenwilde playerbase enjoying / sticking around when their org is taken
out from under their feet and overhauled despite their wishes.
I
don't think that's a particularly appealing outcome from anyone's
standpoint, either, above and beyond the "population" issue. Players
are going to want to make the organization something they enjoy playing
in in order to have enjoyment playing the game (this has been true of
every org in Lusternia's history). Glomdoring players and Serenwilde
players have differing ideas of what is an enjoyable playing experience,
and I am rather skeptical that it will merge well.
None of this is against any rules or would require "Divine Intervention". Laws and rules are player-made / player-driven. If the majority of an org decides that they want to stamp down on the concept of Snugglewilde, doing so would require the Leaves be modified (the Leaves have been historically a pretty big part of Seren's internal back and forths in a couple ways).
The rest of it is basically what other people have said more recently. The only specific example I supplied was an overhaul of the laws, and that's not gonna trigger admin intervention. Now if we were to, say, kill Stag and refuse to re-raise him, that would be more likely to trigger something, but the only people who were talking about things like that were not Gloms.
The evidence you seek is in the thread you skimmed, hence why it was even brought up at all. No one has stated 'all of Glom' either. In fact, the only reason why Serenwilde and Glom are even being spoken of in this manner, is because they were used in the examples you passed over. Because a few members of the Glomdoring put the idea forth of the possibility, is exactly why it is even a topic.
I mean, the skimming doesn't show that. Let me re-quote what I said:
I have a question. What happens if you
delete Glomdoring (note: I do not expect this to happen, because
deleting one of the more populous orgs is just a bad idea, but for the
sake of conversation)?
Some will quit. The bulk of the rest will probably move en masse to Serenwilde.
There
will likely be an immediate election; after all, if we wanted to play
in Serenwilde as it currently exists, we would be there already.
The Sacred Leaves would likely be burned up shortly thereafter in favour of rules that the new majority find more appealing.
More
would likely happen past that, but I really can't see the current
Serenwilde playerbase enjoying / sticking around when their org is taken
out from under their feet and overhauled despite their wishes.
I
don't think that's a particularly appealing outcome from anyone's
standpoint, either, above and beyond the "population" issue. Players
are going to want to make the organization something they enjoy playing
in in order to have enjoyment playing the game (this has been true of
every org in Lusternia's history). Glomdoring players and Serenwilde
players have differing ideas of what is an enjoyable playing experience,
and I am rather skeptical that it will merge well.
None of this is against any rules or would require "Divine Intervention". Laws and rules are player-made / player-driven. If the majority of an org decides that they want to stamp down on the concept of Snugglewilde, doing so would require the Leaves be modified (the Leaves have been historically a pretty big part of Seren's internal back and forths in a couple ways).
The rest of it is basically what other people have said more recently. The only specific example I supplied was an overhaul of the laws, and that's not gonna trigger admin intervention. Now if we were to, say, kill Stag and refuse to re-raise him, that would be more likely to trigger something, but the only people who were talking about things like that were not Gloms.
The Sacred Leaves are part of Serens identity, they're a physical object that exists in the forest, the reason we have them is because per the words of our pantheon in the early days of the game which ultimately comes down to a separation between commune and city identity (Which likely means they pre-date the Glomdoring commune.).
You're wording further indicates an expectation that Glomdoring members would start making the Serenwilde into a place that Serens wouldn't want to play in. Serens laws are mostly based in it's lore and identity, if you are just changing those so significantly that you expect actual Serens to bail on the forest then you're changing things to be out of alignment with the identity of the org which then comes down to admin intervention.
Of course, if you'd like to continue digging a hole on behalf of Glomdoring that will make other orgs hesitant to let to many of them in should your org be deleted, go ahead I guess?
Glomdoring and Seren are just examples. Basically, the argument/concern at its core, is that if you shut down the larger orgs, the migration could result in a change in RP in other orgs. Someone was saying recently, I think in the other thread about closing down orgs, that Serenwilde actually has a quite decent sized population. If you shut down that org, and you get, for example, the snuggle population migrating to Magnagora or Glomdoring, how would that change things in those orgs?
As Keegan said though, this doesn't need to be seen as a negative - it could be seen as a growth/RP opportunity.
Physical object really does not mean much. Write that you consider them to be a historical monument of the past, from a weaker / frailer time. It is still history after all. If nobody chooses to enforce them any more, they are no longer the law, merely an interesting bit of lore. It is quite possible to have an anti-city stance without them, though.
Organization identity will change if you throw lots of already established people into it. Hoping that the admin will be able to stem the tide is... a bit optimistic. How many guild requests have been completed in the last half year, for example? They don't seem to have the time for that stuff already, trying to babysit orgs probably isn't going to happen to the extent you are thinking. As long as people aren't going "let's kill our great spirits, long live Crow!" or something similar they will probably just end up letting it shake out (as Lycidas wrote a few posts back).
As a semi-recent example, we had something like this in Glomdoring a few years back. Someone came from Magnagora, and due to a few things going on at the time managed to get elected as CL. He tried to reorient / rework Glom to his own vision. Turns out that there were a lot of people resistant to that so he failed, but the only admin input on that were a few cheeky comments pointing out some of the more absurd bits. The bulk of it was left for the players to work out, and I would expect the same again.
I have a question. What happens if you
delete Glomdoring (note: I do not expect this to happen, because
deleting one of the more populous orgs is just a bad idea, but for the
sake of conversation)?
Some will quit. The bulk of the rest will probably move en masse to Serenwilde.
There
will likely be an immediate election; after all, if we wanted to play
in Serenwilde as it currently exists, we would be there already.
The Sacred Leaves would likely be burned up shortly thereafter in favour of rules that the new majority find more appealing.
More
would likely happen past that, but I really can't see the current
Serenwilde playerbase enjoying / sticking around when their org is taken
out from under their feet and overhauled despite their wishes.
I
don't think that's a particularly appealing outcome from anyone's
standpoint, either, above and beyond the "population" issue. Players
are going to want to make the organization something they enjoy playing
in in order to have enjoyment playing the game (this has been true of
every org in Lusternia's history). Glomdoring players and Serenwilde
players have differing ideas of what is an enjoyable playing experience,
and I am rather skeptical that it will merge well.
Xenthos: We would move in to Serenwilde and recreate Glomdoring 2.0
I quoted what I wrote. Nowhere does it say "Glomdoring 2.0". It does, however, state that the org will change and that I would imagine current Serenwilde players would not like said change.
And a few of you are proving my point for me, quite well in fact.
I removed some posts. If you feel like yours didn't deserve it, feel free to message me, but let's not clutter up this thread about it. See Orael's previous posts. They were pretty clear on what we should avoid!
Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
Physical object really does not mean much. Write that you consider them to be a historical monument of the past, from a weaker / frailer time. It is still history after all. If nobody chooses to enforce them any more, they are no longer the law, merely an interesting bit of lore. It is quite possible to have an anti-city stance without them, though.
Organization identity will change if you throw lots of already established people into it. Hoping that the admin will be able to stem the tide is... a bit optimistic. How many guild requests have been completed in the last half year, for example? They don't seem to have the time for that stuff already, trying to babysit orgs probably isn't going to happen to the extent you are thinking. As long as people aren't going "let's kill our great spirits, long live Crow!" or something similar they will probably just end up letting it shake out (as Lycidas wrote a few posts back).
As a semi-recent example, we had something like this in Glomdoring a few years back. Someone came from Magnagora, and due to a few things going on at the time managed to get elected as CL. He tried to reorient / rework Glom to his own vision. Turns out that there were a lot of people resistant to that so he failed, but the only admin input on that were a few cheeky comments pointing out some of the more absurd bits. The bulk of it was left for the players to work out, and I would expect the same again.
What part of Seren's, effectively, consensus on shift of it's identity (The Winter Court) that the admin said no to are you missing? We had established players, some who'd become leaders even, whose RP was based around the Winter Court shift because it was already so prevalent in the org by the time the no was said.
By the point you're talking about this, the admin would have already deleted three orgs. They need the three that are left to work, assuming there won't be a babysitting period is rather silly especially when there are players stomping around in forum threads threatening to literally cause problems to the point they expect it will ruin the game for other players. Cause, at the end of the day, they can either stop the problem from happening or they can deal with the flow of issues.
But again, continue representing Glomdoring to the rest of the game, keep telling the other orgs of the game that the net result of allowing Glom refugees in is the destruction of your org for your players. Just tells all the other orgs that they should deny entry to any Gloms. When those Gloms complain, everyone can say "Welp, you can take it up with Xenthos". When they issue and take it to the admin, the issued can just point to the receipts from your posts as the cause for their concerns.
At which point the admin will let the players in; if you are denying people entry to an org based on forum posts you will be roledocked at the least. I can't imagine why you would admit to it.
If they are closing orgs, the players need to go somewhere; the point is to stabilize and grow the game, after all. The game is built around org membership. There is a huge difference between "player got booted from their org for bad behaviour and nobody else wanted them" and "Many players got booted because the admin closed it and they all need a new home so they can stay in the game."
Here's the thing, though: I have no desire to make Serenwilde change. I would much rather stay right where I am. The whole conversation is premised on something that I strongly believe will never happen. They are not going to close one of their largest orgs. However, on a purely theoretical level, it is worth considering what doing such a thing would mean, and your opposition to the outcomes just cements even further what a bad idea it would be.
Edit: To clarify a potential point of confusion. I do see admin stepping in during the transition phase to make sure people at least try to play nicely relating to org membership. I don't see them spending their time policing every little thing about internal org workings, but only stepping in if something egregiously wrong starts going on.
Wasn't that legit what happened with Gaudi? Glom diaspora moved en masse, took over, didn't leave Glom orders and eventually we got (among other things) order affinity as the gods put their foot down?
You know, "if you do this thing I don't like, ill hurt you, so it's a bad idea" is a bad look.
Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
And that's why I wrote the list of things people would be considered against when joining an org as an example of this! But it kinda got glossed over.
Wasn't that legit what happened with Gaudi? Glom diaspora moved en masse, took over, didn't leave Glom orders and eventually we got (among other things) order affinity as the gods put their foot down?
You know, "if you do this thing I don't like, ill hurt you, so it's a bad idea" is a bad look.
Maybe you are remembering better than me, but I don't think so? Glom never really took over Gaudy. A number of people retired over to there over time, but I don't remember them taking over all the leadership positions.
I mostly remember affinity going in as a "Hey guys this didn't work out when it happened with Fain's order in Glom, we want to make sure it does not happen again".
That said, affinity is broken. Different discussion, though.
Comments
To expect a free ride, would be absurd obviously, ESPECIALLY from an IC standpoint. However, in the hypothetical situation that this thread proposes of orgs being deleted, the surviving orgs would logically be making exceptions towards leniency, with only select individuals having to earn their way more than others. How one behaves as an enemy would impact greatly....there is a place for honor and respect even on opposite ends of a battlefield after all. Those that act on behalf of their org, and thus enemied due to their duty in taking the fight to what would be seen as their foes...would be likely given a slap on the wrist and minimal fine at most, opposed to someone who'd go out of their way to murder collegium mobs, kill novices, ruining city epic quest lines even if not of the opposing org, etc. But I see their home org just...absolutely decimated? I think ICily that alone covers a huge portion of any fines needed to earn an unenemying status right on its own. So most would be welcomed regardless, due to such.
We need to stop casting accusations around without proof. If you have proof, issue it. Enough said.
a: People who have played together for a long time, including chatting OOC, have formed some level of bond and share a certain number of ideas. Basically, friends share some aspects of personality.
b: These people, when they are forced to migrate, will migrate together. Maybe not every single person and not necessarily a conscious group decision, but for example, I can see myself more drawn to where Yendor moves because I enjoy playing with him.
c: Because you have a collection of voting power entering an organization, and because that collection shares some ideals, they will end up changing the overall feel or ideals of the org if they outnumber the voting power already present.
It's not a conscious 'Ok, we're going to make Seren into Glomdoring now.' It's more, 'Ok, a bunch of Gloomies are in Serenwilde, have more voting power than the native population, and shares at least some ideals on how to act/RP.' Less hostile takeover, more... when immigration happens, ideals change.
Until those who were directly posting about engaging in actions that would literally tear apart cornerstones of the targeted orgs RP start changing their tune, no amount of other people trying to reinterpret their words is really going to change the minds of people who are now concerned about letting prominent Gloms(should this all actually happen).
That said, C is still pretty vague as is the later mention about "how to rp" and the change of ideals. Changing Serenwildes RP ideology to suit form-Gloms RP ideology is, as Maligorn noted, changing the org to suit you rather than integrating with it.
So what, never allow anyone from Glomdoring entrance just in case eventually those you let in form the majority and let others in and this happens? I mean essentially the majority of these posts are "We think they are going to do bad things so they can't join, and we will allude to these bad things but not actually supple any evidence nor any actual idea of what those bad things are and just hope public opinion supports our gibberish." are ya'll politicians? Or just expect people to be stupid enough to buy the nonsense?
I mean, okay, so Xenthos said some words that you did not like. So that is reason enough to become hostile instead of saying, "Hey I know the threat of having your org deleted sucks and you wanna keep everything you have, but let's see if we can't make some really cool RP and make them gel?" and this is all what if. I mean for all we know all forests are deleted and we are stuck with Celest Mag Halli. Who the hell knows? And why is it okay that an entire Org gets deleted but a few aspects of an org can't be altered to help accommodate refugees form those orgs? Like seriously, selfish much?
Orgs that don't get deleted are going to get changed by the influx and trying to stop that will be like Canute trying to hold back the sea.
Just accept it with good grace and work together to make something everyone gets along with. Don't be a Canute.
Your character isn't stuck with being in Glomdoring (insert org X/Y/Z here) and having those traits, they can grow, and that growth can be very fulfilling, maybe even cathartic. If you like elements of that roleplay, I am sure you will find ways to pursue them in other organisations.
Hive mind drone RP? That's not exactly unanalogous to how Collectivism is founded.
Dark sacrifice, high ritual, secret society lore RP? Sounds like Magnagora's shtick too right?
NMBG? I personally find this to be a tired trope, there's really no reason this couldn't be replaced with 'For the Light', or 'For the Collective', or 'For the Dark Lords'. Don't like the ring of it? Get creative.
Regardless of which org(s) theoretically are deleted, if you made a list of all the aspects of roleplay you enjoyed and focused on the ones you like the most, I am certain you can find your niche in any of the organisations. It's also an opportunity to redesign your character. I wouldn't, in any way, consider the deletion of 'my' org an attack, merely an opportunity to play, or be, something new.
If, for example, Ackleberry was kept while Jojobo was killed off, the admin have shown they feel Ackleberry is the safer bet moving forward.
Jojobo going in and trying to override Ackleberry's rp with Jojobo's rp damages Ackleberry.
Jojobo succeeding in making such changes to Ackleberry's identity then it's likely not what the admin intended to keep around.
Worse, the in-fighting among the org would ultimately result in even more players lost as people nope out.
If you think that a majority will on changing an orgs identity can change it significantly, again, I direct you to the winter court which practically had consensus within Serenwilde players (from memory) and we were still told no.
- Raiding territories connected to that Org (I.e ethereal plane of org/elemental plane of org/ cosmic plane of org)
- Slaying of loyal denizens to the Org wherever they may be (other planes, claimed territories, divine pantheon realms, villages etc).
- Slaying of commune or city members.
- Previous or current enemying to the org / guilds of org / divine pantheon of org.
- Previous citizenship of org.
- In addition to previous citizenship, dependant on circumstances of leaving (I.e good terms, bad terms etc.)
- Previous citizenship of org that is currently "at war" or "at odds", or "contentious relationship" with org you want to join (regardless if none of the above apply).
- Objections raised enough by the org to warrant a longer wait time or refusal of citizenship.
- Any, or combination or all of above.
I might have missed a reason or two, but these are grounds that are taken into consideration-now- if you want to join an org, let alone if ever orgs are deleted or not.
So, think back personally for your character and then you'll see why you may or may not be well received into an org or refused.
EDIT: This is all based on IN CHARACTER actions and does not reflect OOC.
You're wording further indicates an expectation that Glomdoring members would start making the Serenwilde into a place that Serens wouldn't want to play in.
Serens laws are mostly based in it's lore and identity, if you are just changing those so significantly that you expect actual Serens to bail on the forest then you're changing things to be out of alignment with the identity of the org which then comes down to admin intervention.
Of course, if you'd like to continue digging a hole on behalf of Glomdoring that will make other orgs hesitant to let to many of them in should your org be deleted, go ahead I guess?
As Keegan said though, this doesn't need to be seen as a negative - it could be seen as a growth/RP opportunity.
Xenthos: We would move in to Serenwilde and recreate Glomdoring 2.0
Also Xenthos: I never said that.
Stop gaslighting.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
We had established players, some who'd become leaders even, whose RP was based around the Winter Court shift because it was already so prevalent in the org by the time the no was said.
By the point you're talking about this, the admin would have already deleted three orgs.
They need the three that are left to work, assuming there won't be a babysitting period is rather silly especially when there are players stomping around in forum threads threatening to literally cause problems to the point they expect it will ruin the game for other players. Cause, at the end of the day, they can either stop the problem from happening or they can deal with the flow of issues.
But again, continue representing Glomdoring to the rest of the game, keep telling the other orgs of the game that the net result of allowing Glom refugees in is the destruction of your org for your players.
Just tells all the other orgs that they should deny entry to any Gloms. When those Gloms complain, everyone can say "Welp, you can take it up with Xenthos". When they issue and take it to the admin, the issued can just point to the receipts from your posts as the cause for their concerns.
You know, "if you do this thing I don't like, ill hurt you, so it's a bad idea" is a bad look.