Tranfer of loyalties clue

Stunner

Stunner

Rear Admiral
Yeah i just finished up playing the behemoth missions again in Wc3 and in a cutscene with tolwyn he says to blair "ahh yes a fine quality, your transfer of loyalties" Or something close to this. Could it be possible that that was a kind of hint that in Wc4 that transfering loyalties would become a huge part of the game? Interested to hear everyones thoughts!!
 
Why? Did you ever see it???:)
Always these stereotypes...*LOL*
Now I could say 'proove it'.... but I really let it.
 
It is just a coincidence, Tolwyn was a jerk no more no less,
he was at the helm of the project since his start, so he is upset.
 
Well if your looking for things to that seemingly hint wcIV check out newsbrief #11. As for this whole sig/**** ratio it's the age old concept of overcompensation, applied in a new way, I really doubt it has much truth to it. Although if it did what do you think my [non-existant]sig would mean :confused: ?

[Edited by Dekkar on 04-20-2001 at 16:02]
 
Not quite the responces i was looking forward to! All well. Serves me right. But in anycase I think you have it wrong it's the bigger the signature the bigger the ****! No offence! But i was just bringing something up againg to everyones attention that seemed unique to the Wc universe. Who knew it could lead to these responces?
 
Originally posted by Stunner
But i was just bringing something up againg to everyones attention that seemed unique to the Wc universe. Who knew it could lead to these responces?
Click to expand...

Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with these boards, for starters.

And as for the sig, while I don't think it's too long, I do think the people making noise about it are being morons. If any of the CZ admins or moderators think something isn't right, we will let the responsible party know. It's not other posters' job to play "board nannies".
 
To: Death- yeah i see your point now, but i really havent been on here as of late so i've missed alot and when i was on not that many people were like that in posting. Or at least not in the topics i went to anyway.

To: Quarto- ah yes opps i'm sorry i must have been skipping around reading that. So sorry i just shortened it again so i hope it's short enough now to fit into the rules.
 
What are you apologising about? :) Neither Death nor I said anything about your sig being too long (though it was a bit pointless to quote so much...). We were referring to the people who told you to shorten your sig - there's a rule about ordinary posters telling other ordinary posters about rules :).
 
Many of us have their experience with that both rules. It is always a point of wantage of the 'board nannies' (isn't my thing, but it isn't a very nice word even if it is said by an Admin.. it sounds so devaluing, but it was't meant or?) if the poster may or if they say something against it. I also had things and also a confrontation about a thing which all moderators/ admins ignored but one really was agry about. There I asked myself whether they'll always find an equal line which all follow. But so they just say something if it goes very much against the rules or if they have something against the poster.
 
Originally posted by Manjana
Many of us have their experience with that both rules. It is always a point of wantage of the 'board nannies' (isn't my thing, but it isn't a very nice word even if it is said by an Admin.. it sounds so devaluing, but it was't meant or?) if the poster may or if they say something against it.
Click to expand...
Far be it from me to put words in Death's mouth, but had I used that term, I would certainly have meant it to be devaluating. It's one thing to complain to Admin/Moderators about something being wrong, and it's entirely another to take the law into your own hands.
(*extreme analogy time*)
Similarly, if you kill somebody because you saw him kill someone, you are a murderer, and you deserve to be punished the same way he would have been.

I also had things and also a confrontation about a thing which all moderators/ admins ignored but one really was agry about. There I asked myself whether they'll always find an equal line which all follow. But so they just say something if it goes very much against the rules or if they have something against the poster.
Click to expand...
We always try to do what is right. Often, this means that we will ignore minor "crimes" even though they're against the rules, simply because we know from experience that they're not likely to explode into something bigger. At other times, we can see that what seems relatively minor can explode into something much bigger.
So please explain to me, what are we supposed to do? When we enforce the rules to the letter, people accuse us of being too strict. But when we don't, people accuse us of being biased. Be fair - you can't have it both ways.

And just so you know, I really hate it when people suggest that I did or didn't do something because I "have something against the poster". It's insulting.
 
You don't have to put everything what I say back on yourself. I didn't talk from you....but the one I did will konw.:) And you're right...it's difficult to find an equal line...but if you see the others don't have anything against the thing the poster did. Would you intervenate???
Even if all others ignore? That's the equal line I was talking from... One says nothing, the second also, but the third does...it's interesting. There I 've to say. because with that one it didn't happen the first time, that he has something against me. That was my thinking at the end. It isn't you at all. Okay?
 
Originally posted by Manjana
You don't have to put everything what I say back on yourself. I didn't talk from you....but the one I did will konw.
Click to expand...
Well, you seemed to be implying all of us. But either way, I do not believe that there's anybody here who acts that way.

And you're right...it's difficult to find an equal line...but if you see the others don't have anything against the thing the poster did. Would you intervenate???
Even if all others ignore?
Click to expand...
Of course - it's my job, isn't it?

That's the equal line I was talking from... One says nothing, the second also, but the third does...it's interesting. There I 've to say.
Click to expand...
We're not robots, so you can hardly expect us to all act the same way :).
 
Am I the board nanny everyone's ragging on. Don't you people feel your comments toward me are getting just a little harsh , considering this is all I said.

Originally posted by Dekkar
Umm stunner don't you think your signature is a bit long?
Click to expand...

It's not like I said his sig was violating some rule, and that he should change it immediately. I just thought it was strange to have a sig attached to a post that was longer then the post. I certianly didn't start the whole extreme analogy thing.

Originally posted by Dekkar
As for this whole sig/**** ratio it's the age old concept of overcompensation, applied in a new way, I really doubt it has much truth to it.
Click to expand...
although clearly I forgot to add "if any" .
 
Originally posted by Stunner
"Ahh yes. A fine quality, your transfer of loyalties"
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought about this once before. It did seem to be a bit of a coincidence. Especially when Blair sides with the people he trusts both times. Plus the fact that Tolwyn still seemed against Blair in WC3, despite seemingly making up by SO2, and seemed uncharacteristically chummy at the start of WC4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top