sorry for the double post, I am responding to several posts at once, so its a bit long
Quote:
|
Dustari and Zormite are as good as one. We could just cut out the middle man. The only reason this wont happen is one of these little queens will have to give up their throne.
|
Again, in nappa's opinion he sees Dustari and Zormite 'as good as one' but there is sure no evidence to back that up, and I already pointed out the obvious differences. The rest is a weak insult at the leaders, there is clearly nothing of substance in this post.
Quote:
|
The only thing different about Dustari and Zormite is the name. They both go together with every decision. The kingdom leaders are of the same royal family. You and I both know that the only differences are the names.
|
Getting closer to a post of substance, makes a case even. However, the strength of the alliance of the two nations and the crossing of bloodlines is not a reason to merge to distinct cultures. He fails to take into account the roleplaying differences of the two nations. Dustari is a medieval fantasy knight style of kingdom, Zormite is a Republic. Some call it a monarchy because they are uneducated in the definition of Republic (a topic very heavily documented and covered in the forums, no one should be ignorant on it at this point) or because of the GUI limits, but in that regard it is impossible not to have a monarchy then. The game mechanics are the same for all kingdoms. They do however have a rich roleplaying system of government that makes them rather distinct. In the end, this post of his has nothing substantial either.
Quote:
Their not completely different, at all. They are both monarchy's, but one just puts the name "republic" after it's name.
Oh and by the way, I am in Forest, fool.
|
This again, fails to address any of the topics presented to date. It is repetition. It ignores the major differences in the histories and roleplaying styles of the two kingdoms. Another mindless post.
Quote:
That is where your reasoning is flawed - I never quit Zormite. Zormite was removed forcefully from the server I played on and was changed instantly before my eyes. It's not like "oh they evolved 3 minutes later when it was thrown onto 2k2". I have been pushing fish heads SINCE ZORMITE WAS MOVED. (Oh and look at that, Moved, not CREATED)
...Not really, since I never quit. I am one of the only true Zormite members to the end.
|
First, Nappa says my reasoning is flawed because he never 'quit' Zormite and considers himself to be the only member. His desire to be a member is meaningless however, we have to deal in facts and the facts are, he has not been a member of Zormite in ages. Zormite has had a huge history that he has not been apart of. Everyone also knows, he has been pushing the fish head issue (much to everyone's dismay). No one in GK, no staff, no leaders, pretty much no players save maybe a small handful, would see that comment as anything other than lunacy. He is bickering over what changed when GK was first started years ago, and Zormite has changed a lot since then. Hardly a 'true' member of Zormite, he can't even recognize what it is anymore.
Quote:
|
When do you represent the players ? Did you somehow become the leader of all the united players of this game ? No.. Changing Zormite not only ruins it for the members of Zormite but it removes roleplaying aspect from the game in general, thus hurting MY gameplay. So I as a PLAYER of the game, should have a say, no ?
|
I do not represent 'the players' nor did I claim to, I am just saying that just anyone who comes running around wanting their way can't just get it and change everything. Note his own words
"No.. Changing Zormite not only ruins it for the members of Zormite but it removes roleplaying aspect from the game in general, thus hurting MY gameplay. " where he pretty much
sums up my exact argument of why I don't want him to CHANGE zormite. His problem though, is he is failing to account for time and is living in the past, and changing zormite now and making them fish, would hurt everyone's gameplay and remove a roleplaying aspect from the game in general. However, if Zormite did choose to do that, I would not have a problem with it - I would adapt. That is the nature of roleplaying and um, having a community.
To this point has he made a single effective argument? Not once, its a combination, as at the top, totally nonsensical posts with flaming diatribes with no substance.
Quote:
|
..I don't need to become a baker to tell you you can't make a cake, and that you should give it more sugar. I don't have to lead your nation to tell you your doing something wrong. As Zurkiba has been SAYING IN EVERY POST HE HAS MADE he has been trying to work with the kingdom leaders.
|
An almost effective argument, but it breaks down: he can and should be allowed to suggest adding sugar, but to make a mission out of it and speak down to everyone harshly and abusively who prefers to go light on the sugar and demand he gets his way....when he is not even eating the cake..is completely disfunctional. It is also irrelevant that Zurk has said that he has been trying to work with Kingdom leaders, he has also been trying to gut one of the finer kingdoms and has made no bones about it. That is not called working with the leaders.
Quote:
|
..We have come up with solutions, but all you have done is argue against them and not come up with your own.
|
The closest thing that has been 'come up with' solution wise is to combine zormite and dustari (disasterous idea) or add fish heads to zormite (also disasterous). Some comments about changing game mechanics - which I generally support, but its not like those are solutions until they are possible, and they need people like stefan to say they are approved and can be done, before that can be considered a solution.
I have also proposed tons of roleplaying ideas and concepts and solutions, and I clearly have come up with my own. So, that statement is an outright lie.
Quote:
|
Wow.. Great defence against my statements.. "I don't care what nappa says". Yipee!
|
As I made sure it was known, I do not 'not care' about what he says, I find most of his comments nonsensical, and I in this post, documented that quite clearly.
Quote:
|
Funny that you'll argue to others about it ? The fact is, I don't care if the Zormite kingdom stays on 2k2. Just change the name from Zormite to something else. This is no longer zormite, Zormite ended after 2k1. Change the name to "HighPowerLevelPlayersRuleMe Republic" for all I care. But this isn't Zormite. And to think that it is is a damn fallacy. Change to fish, or change your name. Simple as that.
|
He is in no position to make that demand. He has nothing to do with zormite and has not been a zormite for a very long time. He can call himself a zormite but facts show he is not, other than in his own mind. The best evidence of that is the fact he has no idea of what zormite even is like to day nor is he in any way in synch with even one of its current members.
Quote:
|
Oh and don't try to tell me that Zormite and humans integrated, because Me and Lance were the last emperors before Zormite was moved. And I made sure as hell all my members hated humans. We would NEVER allow a human to join us. I got so many pms asking if people could join as humans, but I never allowed one, just as noone before me did. To think that 5 minutes later after 2k1 zormite story ended somehow the entire world of Zormite changed is stupid. Zormite was the greatest empire to the end. This little republic is not Zormite.
|
Again, this is all many years old and not even relevant today. I am not just saying "he is stating opinion" but this last two sentances are obviously only that. They have no substance, no basis. I can agree that the republic is not what zormite was, but it sure is what zormite is today. He cannot change that Zormite has had a long history to date, much of which without him. His desire for that to simply 'not count' amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking.
Quote:
I have the right to smack you in the freakin face. Everytime you someone says something you can't respond to, you say "in your opinion".
It's getting pretty annoying.
|
That last part was cute, but still meaningless. I can and did respond to everything, and now, even the stuff that wasn't worth responding to. As for his "in your opinion" comments, I am sorry but an opinion is just that. If I say "the ferrys take way too long and need to be changed" that is opinion. If I say "the ferrys take way too long and need to be changed because you can sail back and forth in a ship 8 times before catching a ferry" then there is a fact attached, though in this case, a false one since the ferries are fine. My point is, there is a such thing as an opinion, and if he doesn't want to hear that "his opinion" is not a mandate, then he shouldn't have everything rest on his opinions.