Celtic Heroes

Disagreement is fine as long as we keep it civil. You state your position, I will state mine. It is also fine to challenge the others position but personal attacks are unacceptable.

I have to say from only what I've seen theres is no civil discussions its all turns into a fight of some sort. also from what ive seen its normally a player that does play on lugh or a player that sits on forums to troll that starts. While I agree that all civil discussions on everything should be made I cannot see a way to make these discussions with people who look to start fights would be productive is what my concern is.

I am against anything that limits free and open discussion.

Disagreement is fine as long as we keep it civil. You state your position, I will state mine. It is also fine to challenge the others position but personal attacks are unacceptable.

I think one of the main issues that cause drama is a rush to vote on a given topic before it is discussed by the community. I suggest we go back to having a discussion period prior to calling a vote. We may discover that an open discussion was sufficient and a vote is unnecessary.

I agree that casting votes for other should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances such as the recent forum outages.

I dont like the fact when we call a vote i see 15 people who havent logged on in months suddenly decide that they have the same say as everyone who currently plays the game, also players from other servers are welcome to discuss but i see their votes get counted too...

Also level requirement of certain content should be placed on votes. That way we dont have level 150s voting on edl drops, or level 20s voting on aggy drops...

Again i welcome discussion from other clans but i hate when i see their votes be counted.

I am not sure who the 15 people are who haven't logged in months but vote on policy. In game activity is very difficult to monitor so I don't see this as a viable way to limit input.

Given how fast some people level, level requirements are also difficult to implement. But I understand your point.

I am glad you welcome discussion from other clans but I am not sure why you don't want their votes counted on serverwide issues. You can set your clan policies as you see fit, but all clans should have input on policies that affect them.

As far as explaining situation on the forums - It can be done while following the forum guidelines of no naming and shaming. Just explain the situation without using names/abusive language. It never ceases to amaze me that in every situation someone always says "you were not there and don't know the whole story" ...
Through a good healthy discussion of all points - true conflict resolution and change can occur. But that is a bit of work. and some would rather cast stones of negative comments than participate in the real work.
I am confident that Lugh will work things out in a positive manner and become a stronger place for the effort.

I think you're both right, and I'd like to focus on the original post.

In any normal democratic country, anyone may raise their voice and express their opinion. Voting in national matters, however, is usually restricted to living citizens. So by analogy, I'd say Lukovs initial point makes total sense.

That said, I cannot resist the oportunity to derail on the democratic issue. We just had a ban vote based on one person speaking out loud against other persons on occasions, and from my experience, other people speaking out against her. I have not been part of all episodes that created the conflict, but understand that the escalating conflict has root partially in perceived unfair conduct by those spoken against. I have also registered that the latter have taken joy in winding up and taunting the attempted bannee.

We have also experienced some one-sided rule-changes by one group of players, changes that were not announced until after a player was denied what by the existing rules would be her right.

Now, how would these things be described if they took place in a democratic country?

This is a video game, not real life. And in real life it is called Darwinism, survival of the strongest.

We have also experienced some one-sided rule-changes by one group of players, changes that were not announced until after a player was denied what by the existing rules would be her right

^^^^^^^^That is Correct^^^^^^^^^^

This Posted picture was taken an hour ago.
Yep, this is what you ('er they) call Darwinism.

We have also experienced some one-sided rule-changes by one group of players, changes that were not announced until after a player was denied what by the existing rules would be her right

^^^^^^^^That is Correct^^^^^^^^^^

This Posted picture was taken an hour ago.

He has a haste ring and refuses to use it because of lag. As shown in the picture he is running full graphics. If he wants to reduce lage he should lower his graphics not severely lower his dps. It's a useless argument and as stated in our rules the dm is allowed to at their sole discretion determine if a player has contributed enough to roll. Read your own damn rules you created before talking nonsense.

We have also experienced some one-sided rule-changes by one group of players, changes that were not announced until after a player was denied what by the existing rules would be her right

^^^^^^^^That is Correct^^^^^^^^^^

This Posted picture was taken an hour ago.
Yep, this is what you call Darwinism.

The days of free loaders are over. Good luck to ya.

...only because you are the lock group,
controlling every fight, controlling drops,
controlling who gets to roll, controlling
eligible players denying them of their fair wins,
controlling DM.

You Are...
For Now.

Read your own damn rules you created before talking nonsense.

Do I hear a tough guy over here ?