I found it quite astounding in your collage of quotes, what you chose to include and whiat you cleverly omitted. A) to suit your narrative B) to come of as the shining white knight C) to further your own agenda and discredit your opponents.

 

Calling the Rules of Conduct a straw man argument is a first for me... And If you don't agree with me on that, it's not up to YOU. The Guildleadership has the right to impose his/her criteria, who is welcome in their guild. Some use it to avoid needless drama, others because I don't know they don't like the shape of squares.

 

You're very much welcome to show what you feel I have omitted. That would make your reply an actual argument instead of a desire to discredit my opinion through insinuation.

 

As for the second part, I didn't call the ToS a straw man argument. I called this statement a straw man argument:

 

If it's against the rules of conduct, then surely troll rights don't matter?

 

Here's are a few quotes as to why it's a straw man:

 

"The basic structure of the argument consists of Person A making a claim, Person B creating a distorted version of the claim (the "straw man"), and then Person B attacking this distorted version in order to refute Person A's original assertion."

 

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/straw-man-fallacy-examples.html

 

"Strawman

 

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

 

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending."

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Ok bub, I'm officially done. You've won the big shiny participation trophy in this discussion arguing definitions, semantics, argument strategies and better yet totally not grasping my point.

 

I see your standpoint, this tool is used as an abuse of power and is at the whims of GMs. But please pay attention now:

 

IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU. Plenty of guilds out there. Banned by one for this behaviour, lauded for it in another...

 

Unless it is totally game breaking, which I highly doubt, it's just enlarging a number from 185. And given the population size and how big guilds are this is rather small...

I don't see the harm in having a bigger ban list, as long as it doesn't create game breaking problems (can't imagine why it would, but these things do happen). It does surprise me that guilds have reached the limit so fast, but there are lots of toxic people in the game. At the end of the day, the OP wants an increase, it's up to the devs it can be done. Any arguing over anything else is a waste of time. (especially for 11+ pages)

Ok bub, I'm officially done. You've won the big shiny participation trophy in this discussion arguing definitions, semantics, argument strategies and better yet totally not grasping my point.

 

I understood your point a long time ago, as I pointed out three pages back.

 

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Or you with me.

 

It is nice to show other posters respect, however. It's too bad you decided not to.

I don't see the harm in having a bigger ban list, as long as it doesn't create game breaking problems (can't imagine why it would, but these things do happen). It does surprise me that guilds have reached the limit so fast, but there are lots of toxic people in the game. At the end of the day, the OP wants an increase, it's up to the devs it can be done. Any arguing over anything else is a waste of time. (especially for 11+ pages)

 

It's really not a waste of time to present arguments for or against something that potentially affects a lot of people.

 

The same thing happens any time a thread pops up requesting any other game feature, from a larger ignore list to the nerfing of conquest points a Karagga's Palace. As long as discussions are respectful, there's nothing inherently negative about talking about the options.

 

There really aren't as many "toxic" people in the game as some people like to present, at least not from my personal experience. Most of the groups I have been in have been pretty nice, honestly. I think my friends list is much larger than my ignore list (aside from credit spammers and referral link spammers). Of course, I tend to stay off of discord, so maybe you're talking about stuff that goes on in voice chat.

I don't see the harm in having a bigger ban list, as long as it doesn't create game breaking problems (can't imagine why it would, but these things do happen). It does surprise me that guilds have reached the limit so fast, but there are lots of toxic people in the game. At the end of the day, the OP wants an increase, it's up to the devs it can be done. Any arguing over anything else is a waste of time. (especially for 11+ pages)

 

Yes, 11 pages long and counting. The toxicity in the game is stifling at times. It is therefore, a good thing that guilds can be havens for like minded individuals. I know quite a few turn of gen chat off to keep that to a minimum. I do wonder what could help preserve that equilibrium... A special feature perhaps?

Funny how the two most frequent posters in this thread are defending trolls saying everyone should have a chance to join all guilds despite misbehaving, stealing from guild banks or intentionally ruining the game for other players. Kinda illustrative of their own ingame behaviour I guess

Funny how the two most frequent posters in this thread are defending trolls saying everyone should have a chance to join all guilds despite misbehaving, stealing from guild banks or intentionally ruining the game for other players. Kinda illustrative of their own ingame behaviour I guess

 

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but if so, please show me where I said anything like that.

 

This would be you repeating the same straw man argument as the other poster.

 

Making an accusation against me (if you're talking about me) without any basis would be an especially nice touch, since it kind of illustrates exactly what I've been saying all along.

Funny how the two most frequent posters in this thread are defending trolls saying everyone should have a chance to join all guilds despite misbehaving, stealing from guild banks or intentionally ruining the game for other players. Kinda illustrative of their own ingame behaviour I guess

 

Well, I dont want to be handing out any smart ideas but maybe, just maybe when you inv someone to your guild you should give him lovest rank which restricts any withdrawing from the guild bank. Only after a longer period of time should you give him rights to actually take something.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

This way you prevent theft. By watching people in your guild in chat you can also notice when they are being trolls or misbehave and you can remove them. I can confirm you have good ways of keeping people out, even without using the legacy ban function.

 

Problems solved.

Im happy im banned from the guild UlaVii, despite never being in Your guild or ever wanting to enter.( i can see it by opening the guild window and having a blank page) I fully agree with the people here who think that this is a childish attempt to use some powerful tools for the insignificant few. It screams laziness and paranoia, which can be entertaining whatever the changes might be in the end.