Giants in Time

Yourmom - Lost City

Shaye - Lost City wrote: »

You're cockier than Pandora, for ****'s sake. THAT ISN'T EASY.

Don't worry, Shaye 's COCKiness b:kiss

Shaye - Lost City

You got me there. b:surrender

dekciw

Shaye - Lost City wrote: »

You're cockier than Pandora, for ****'s sake. THAT ISN'T EASY.

dare talk **** la?

Rundora - Lost City_1243871147

@ Specgoesemo: Where are you guys nowdays anyway? I can't find you on my main!

I can has no pk? b:sad

@Allnighte: No! We should kill lowbies more! What better way to let them know you have a really big package? One-shotting 3x is an awesome thing to do, we should do more of that and take screenshots to post here too so everyone can see how awesome we are. Maybe if we do that, then one day we'll be half as awesome as Deity.

@Shaye: n0ob's identity was a more annoying mystery till "someone" (not me fyi) figured it out. At least I'm nice and make it obvious what faction my main is in. b:kiss

But I am interested in the outside view of CQ now. Come to think of it, there are a few who would fit that view you mentioned. The problem is that they expect the high levels to drop everything and zerg rush their area just because Cancer and co dropped by to "say hi" and now they've got to lose a horrifying 5 mins from their miji for the time it takes to move to a new spot. Then of course, when that help never arrives, they go emo.

But most of the guild is above that emo ****. b:laugh

t0yo

[

---

Tieulan - Lost City

Rundora - Lost City wrote: »

b:kiss

Its what's for dinner.

t0yo wrote:

Come on star how many countless times did I come help you and Yukiko to fend off AxeGang in the Swamp way back then because most people in RQ didn't like you two?
I don't know where you got this whole Idea that I used to log off the second I got pked, unless you mixed me up with DeadBone or yourself because it had happened countless times were in PvP you'd never get on vent so you'd yell at on party chat since you weren't following the team or if in an fb someone messed up and we died. However bitching to people in vent because they don't do what you want them to do, selfish or irrational as it is, is actually defined as QQing.

Ironic, Starang Ragequit from RQ because RQ partied with CQ, he tried to crash that party... got owned by both RQ and CQ, so QQ'ed, no one bothered to help him as he was an idiot and so he /wristed himself now he is emo.

*spoiler* t0yo i love you =3

dekciw

lol Toyo way to quote stuff without their respective context. First you don't even play this game anymore so I'm not quite sure how you can even judge of the situation. Most of the posts you quoted as you can read, were to cut off the illogical statements and BS that your little buddy Tokyo was spreading. If you still really believe the Propaganda of clean pkers that your ex-guildies are trying to show you really need a reality check. This isn't L2, This isn't Rohan, This is PW. RageQuit isn't what it was before.

Chaotiic - Lost City

t0yo wrote: »

Ok so you're complaining about these supposed RQ people qqing at you. Now look at your post, what are you doing now? You're QQing about people QQing. So at the end of the day no one is the better or the worse ;p So instead of trying to demonize us because we've pked and still pk low lvls out of boredom sometimes, understand that you are doing the completely same thing




Are you sure what you're trying to say is stop QQing? As far as I know the ones that started and are continuing this whole pking lower lvls issue was conq . Nothing personal, but why pin us for something you're doing as well? Pking lower lvls is done by either guild so trying to brand us as a dishonest evil raptor jesus worshipping guild for something that you yourself do is completely illogical

Most Cq dont qq about ur pking lowbies, ur a random pk guild its to be expected. I for one have never tried to demonize rq for their lowbie pk. If u re-read my post u will find im not saying rq are so evil but asking why many of ur members continue to bring up this "cq 9x pk our 6x" argument and constantly complain about the unfairness of a 9x dropping in and 1-2 shotting them.

On the fact of lowbie pk however last time i checked fb29 was NOT along the world mission route so please stop saying "head over to fb 29 while on world mission" because it is not on the route it is in fact out of the way. I understand fully rq are a random pk guild so will and do pk any and everyone however the problem many have with rq is u could find people rather easily in swamps or any other place u frequent so why do we consistently find rq in fb29? It is not along any route a 6x+ will travel and u really have no other reason for being there besides pking lowbies. Yes u pk everyone i would assume that means everyone u see? Why then go out of ur way to go to a known lowbie area? Confusing... Want to pk fresh 3x dont hide behind excuses like "its on world mission" or "we were just passing thru" because its jus plain not true.

I have no problem with ur lowbie pk and u wont find me qqing if u run around one shotting "innocent" 3x i jus find it hypocritical when someone who pks lowbies gets angry at me for pking them. That was the point i was trying to make toy0 i was not in anyway trying to demonize rq. RQ random pk people need to just accept it.

Fiery - Lost City

If you pk everyone, then you're welcome to pk my 8k HP bar.

tr0oll

Thread necro, Batman.

angellicdeity

Thank you for necro'ing it, it's given me a chance to respond to children, again:

Sorbik - Lost City wrote: »

Cultural relativism is a fact; what may be ethical in one culture may be considered unethical in another. For example, in an imaginary place, it is considered ethical, by society, to kill those who reach the age of sixty. In our society, it is unethical. But who are we to impose on other cultures and claim that our views are correct; is it not the same as convincing other religions that Christianity is truth?

The problem here is that you are an ethical absolutist; you believe that there are universal laws to which morals are subject to. It is a respectable opinion, but only respectable when accompanied with logical reason. I'm afraid "if you don't agree you should go back to school" doesn't qualify as logical reasoning, but rather as naivety.

Yes I do, for the reason below.

t0yo wrote: »

I couldn't help but feel the need to post in this thread. Sorbenik I'm sad to say I never got to meet you in game or chat with you in the forums back when I used to be an active poster and I have to say its amazing to see someone put so much thought into a post and trying to logically reason ideas out in the manner you did.

There isn't much I can say which you haven't said already and while some people categorized us and an evil rp group while that holds some truth is that the our initial intent was to make sure the big arrogant guilds never forget that they're nothing more. Of course we might be viewed as being hypocritical and arrogant by doing so but we're not here to change people's opinions on the way we do things we're here to subjectively do as we've done in games.

To be honest I haven't played perfect world for a while even though I happened to play for quite a while on a character with a different name then the one I use on the forums. However I still keep in touch with some of the new rq joining etc and usually the acclaim is positive, even though I don't agree with these reports of killings in hidden temple everyone gets bored in a while and I myself have randomly killed people spewing several comments of stupidity whilst going to help someone do their fb 29 or doing my world quest.

Too cut the babbling aside thank your Sorbik. Not as a member of rq but as a person who enjoys logically analysing people beyond face value




If your desire is to follow the textbook defenition of morality and ethics and if you really studied this you'd know there is a conservative side and a liberal side (politics aside) Abortion, stem cell research, toture of prisoners.

If you actually bothered to listen in school you'd understand that it is indeed relative. Chinese still do stem cell research even if its technically banned in America. I could give you countless of other ideas but all you'd need to do is look around and read up on some general knowledge.

Also the example of hitler you brought up is a very poor example. It doesn't imply any question of right or wrong it implies the fact that it was very stupid to try and separate humans on their beliefs. Just like its stupid for atheists to believe that without Religion there wouldn't be war.

Again, you and Sorbik are advocating that moral relativism is acceptable.

It is NOT.

You are indirectly advocating that the genocide performed by Hitler in WWII is justified because relatively - it was a moral thing to do. If you dont see that, then I cannot help you. It is a point that you people dismiss using a paper-tiger technique. Its not stupid in any way. It just shows that to believe morals are relative is stupid in the first place.


It is not acceptable in any way or fashion. Again, the same example as stated before.

I went through, possibly, more education than you have. The whole purpose of a University Education is the instill a strong set of moral fundamentals - perhaps you did not see the point?

Dont confuse leeway for relativism. You have a bit of freedom when it comes to morals and ethics, but the definition of good and bad is in no way relative. A quote from a colleague of mine - "It means I can do anything abstractly equivalent to swinging my arms wildly - but ensuring I never hit you."


It's hard to get kids to understand this because the elementary/secondary school systems today mislead the students by promoting acceptance of diversity as relativity. Judging by your response - you obviously grew up in such a school system.

Cyanea - Lost City

Since this thread was exhumed, I should perhaps respond. But I do not have enough patience to read every page, so I could be responding redundantly and probably my response will soon be buried and lost. Still...

Sorbik - Lost City wrote: »

Like I have said before, the immediate usefulness of an action, in this case PKing randoms, holds no merit in determining whether prestige should be endowed.

While this might be true in a pure sense, I pking randoms is a relatively cheap way to push up your pk count (and get yourself onto your server's top 50 list). So in a not completely pure sense, I would think PKing randoms does hold (or steal?) some of this merit.

wraithxxx

angellicdeity wrote: »

Thank you for necro'ing it, it's given me a chance to respond to children, again:




Yes I do, for the reason below.




Again, you and Sorbik are advocating that moral relativism is acceptable.

It is NOT.

You are indirectly advocating that the genocide performed by Hitler in WWII is justified because relatively - it was a moral thing to do. If you dont see that, then I cannot help you. It is a point that you people dismiss using a paper-tiger technique. Its not stupid in any way. It just shows that to believe morals are relative is stupid in the first place.


It is not acceptable in any way or fashion. Again, the same example as stated before.

I went through, possibly, more education than you have. The whole purpose of a University Education is the instill a strong set of moral fundamentals - perhaps you did not see the point?

Dont confuse leeway for relativism. You have a bit of freedom when it comes to morals and ethics, but the definition of good and bad is in no way relative. A quote from a colleague of mine - "It means I can do anything abstractly equivalent to swinging my arms wildly - but ensuring I never hit you."


It's hard to get kids to understand this because the elementary/secondary school systems today mislead the students by promoting acceptance of diversity as relativity. Judging by your response - you obviously grew up in such a school system.

If you say moral relativism isn't true, I wouldn't be bragging about being educated. It is pretty much a contradiction.

In certain tribes in Africa, cannibalism is acceptable. In fact, it is a standard in the culture. Other cultures look down upon it as if it is wrong. Well to them, it's not wrong. Morals are culturally based and the fact that you deny that shows you probably shouldn't be bragging about your education...

wraithxxx

Cyanea - Lost City wrote: »

Since this thread was exhumed, I should perhaps respond. But I do not have enough patience to read every page, so I could be responding redundantly and probably my response will soon be buried and lost. Still...



While this might be true in a pure sense, I pking randoms is a relatively cheap way to push up your pk count (and get yourself onto your server's top 50 list). So in a not completely pure sense, I would think PKing randoms does hold (or steal?) some of this merit.

Not necessarily. The "PvP top list" is simply names matched with numbers. They offer no rewards other than your name being higher up on a page. To be honest, most people could care less about it. I can't vouch for everyone, but CQ/RQ for the most part don't pk for the ranking, they pk for the sake of pk'ing. It's one of the biggest aspects of this game. I really don't think pk'ing randoms of any level holds/steals any merit simply because the motives of the people doing it aren't do boost their numbers.

sillyfoo

Errrr u can get on that pk list in less then two weeks if u want. Just camp low lvl areas like Image did b4 he left or like xmx. Doesnt really mean spit eitherway. Only one i can say that i seen did most of the pking on just kos lists is Elayne from CQ.

edit - btw im not a cq flamer or supporter

Amour - Lost City

It's very apparent who PKs lowbies all day and who doesn't.

ch2h5oh

When you say "RageQuit" in a chat session, there will be at the least 1/1000 people (who read the chat message) who would recognize it as Mystic's guild RageQuit Inc. and will remember the horrors and golden moments of their PVP and PK.

Sadly, I cannot say this for any other guild other there. You are not the Giants in time. You are just a half breed. You can all yourself the best PK/PVP guild in this game but It's not going to work. You know why? Because this is fun. You think of something to make RageQuit miserable, RageQuit thinks of something to make you miserable, it's a game. And RageQuit going to win.

Because they've got a head start.


{Copypasta from House}
^inb4someonewisecracks

Taraleth - Lost City

I love debates concerning moral relativism and absolutism!

There is certainly good evidence presented on both sides (although angelicdeity might be a lil' condescending), I, however, want to add my two cents.

The advocates of moral relativism have, up 'til now, been touting the various contradictory ethical claims that exist among societies as proof that ethics is relative to that culture, time, and place. So far they have noted specific examples of differing customs (such as cannibalism). Now supposing that there are different interpretations of what constitute "right" and "wrong", there still seems to be a pervasive anthropological imperative to posit these terms in the first place. That is, even if cultures differ in specifics, they all suppose that there are certain things that are right and and certain things that are wrong.

Well this entails a certain type of moral absolutism. One cannot simply say that "all is relative to the culture" because we have identified what is precisely common across all cultures: some type of ethical worldview.

Now, the claims for moral relativism assuming differing cultural prerogatives concerning the nature of obligatory relations cannot extend this claim to say that this proves that there is no universal law. In fact, one might say that the common adoption of an ethical worldview by the human species is proof of a universal law, we simply do not know what this law is, or, at least, we cannot articulate it. There is obviously a universal moral law that drives one to posit ethics in the first place, even if this law is takes different specific forms.

This means that we are in a certain position with respect to ethics. We must acknowledge that ethics exists, and that it is always (in some sense) tied to obligatory relation to other human beings. What this implies is that the other person obligates me in some way, although it is vague what it obligates me to.

As to the specifics of this universal law, it probably can never be made specific. One cannot say do this and that and one will fulfill one's obligations to another. The very vagueness of this law encourages one to constantly go beyond any type of "letter of the law." One might put it this way, we are responsible for our neighbor, but what this responsibility entails is never made explicit. Thus one can never say, "I have done enough."

As to the phenomenological aspect of this responsibility, it appears as the impossibility of human beings existing in sovereign autonomy (everyone at least has parents, and even the examples of "feral" humans retain certain social properties). The implication of being a social being is that it requires others. Thus, if one requires others (and not dialectically, nor, as in some Eastern philosophies, in a totality) one becomes implicated with them in a relationship (we might call it at this point "social") that gives rise to two separated beings able to speak for themselves. Anyhoo, for more on this part of the analysis one can read Totality and Infinity if anyone is interested.

Ethics, then, is the drive to posit values concerning one's relation to others, now these values are always going to be articulated, concrete, and specific, which means that they are never they same as the command "be responsible." This occurs because the very nature of laws are objective, and objective imperatives will always reduce the specific subjectivity of the other to a faceless principle (thus I do not murder because there is a law that extends to all citizens, not because there is a unique, specific subjectivity which can say to me, "do not kill me," that is, I obey the law the same for everyone, and do not approach each person with the uniqueness they deserve). So as I posit laws and values (society's ethics would fall under this category) by which I operate in the world, I am constantly impoverishing the specificity of the other's subjectivity because these laws are always universal operating procedures and not specific to the person. One person may need a loaf of bread, but another may need a hug, I must treat these as unique examples of responsibility. It is that I am responsible to each other, and not just one or two others.

One may point to these varying instantiations of ethics (the contradicting social constructs) as proof that ethics is confined to that culture, but that is to take a much too narrow view. Ethics is exactly what is universal, and cultural interpretations are attempts to articulate this universal law. Now, I think your primary disagreement is whether one can condemn the actions of another, whether one can point to someone and say "you are not being responsible." I do not really think you can ultimately, who are you to judge? So yes, this even entails not condemning Hitler, for we must take an agnostic view of the law. But, one can say to oneself, "I am responsible," and this responsibility is qualitatively infinite (maybe quantitative too, but that is another argument). One cannot ever be the conscience for another, but one does have one's own conscience.

Now there are a lot of implications that can be drawn from this in order to make it into a straw man, such as the inability to educate moral values (one still makes objective laws, the laws of state and society, in an attempt to articulate the universal law, otherwise the universal law is meaningless), and the utter passivity that it seems to entail when intervention may be called for (there are sometimes conflicting responsibilities, and one must judge between them to help one person over another or defend one person against another). What this all means is that there is an immense weight of responsibility resting upon the 'I' to judge, to legislate responsible laws, and to mediate discourse among others.

"I am responsible for all, before all men, and I most of all."
-Dostoevsky, Brother's Karamazov

Bonus points if you can tell me the philosopher who I drew most of this from!

-Your Local Philosopher

Iffy - Harshlands

omg at these QQ novels

Column - Lost City

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

ch2h5oh

wow Column, you just stole the thread.

Alaniss - Lost City

LOL at RQ ppl they whine alot for being a PK (random) guildmembers.
when I pk them the say "if you want war you got it", "what did I did to you", "**** you *****" and more stuff like that. Sometimes I think they feel like the only ones with the right to Pk in the server, if not why being such a whinersb:chuckle

Whiners whiners chicken.. whiners whiners....

anyway I just love them, they give much fun to my dayb:kiss

ch2h5oh

Alaniss - Lost City wrote: »

LOL at RQ ppl they whine alot for being a PK (random) guildmembers.
when I pk them the say "if you want war you got it", "what did I did to you", "**** you *****" and more stuff like that. Sometimes I think they feel like the only ones with the right to Pk in the server, if not why being such a whinersb:chuckle

Whiners whiners chicken.. whiners whiners....

anyway I just love them, they give much fun to my dayb:kiss

Anyone who gets pk'd by a level 2 character will whine. Its clear that you are using hacks. A blue named character going around pking people? "omgwtfhax"

p.s. if you say this is your alt account it means you got owned by RQ and can't post from your real. Gotta love you butt hurt kids

Arodnur - Lost City

ch2h5oh wrote: »

Anyone who gets pk'd by a level 2 character will whine. Its clear that you are using hacks. A blue named character going around pking people? "omgwtfhax"

p.s. if you say this is your alt account it means you got owned by RQ and can't post from your real. Gotta love you butt hurt kids

P.P.S. if you quote this post or refer to it in any way you instantly agree to send me 1,000,000 coins.

ch2h5oh

My IGN is on my signature...

Yourmom - Lost City

ch2h5oh wrote: »

My IGN is on my signature...

hmmm Sulphur...?

sillyfoo

Sulphur isnt that the stuff that smells like ****. o.o

ch2h5oh

Yourmom - Lost City wrote: »

hmmm Sulphur...?

That's right.

sillyfoo wrote: »

Sulphur isnt that the stuff that smells like ****. o.o

I'm fat, I play with my PC all day and yes... I smell.