| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
   |
Posted - 2014.01.27 11:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
You seem to be basing the rationale behind your idea on the fact the Missioner owns the space and anyone who enters is trespassing and therefore should be suspect.
This is wrong.
The space you run the mission in is always there. That mission you are just about to accept? The space it takes place in is already there. The owner of that space is the NPC who owns the system.
What is spawned for the player are the mission structures, acceleration gates and npc rats. So if you wish to claim ownership that is what you 'own'.
Now before you claim 'ownership' of the acceleration gates and say anyone who uses it without my permission (being in fleet with me) should go suspect for using 'my' acceleration gate, please be aware that the acceleration gates for hisec annoms are only spawned the first time someone warps to them. So if you own the mission acceleration gates, then I own all annom acceleration gates I was the first to warp to.
Anyone one who warps there afterward would go suspect for using 'my' acceleration gate.
I also believe wormholes don't spawn until someone firsts warps to them? If that is true then all users of wormhole should also go suspect if they aren't the owners.
See how silly it would get. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 11:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:You seem to be basing the rationale behind your idea on the fact the Missioner owns the space and anyone who enters is trespassing and therefore should be suspect.
This is wrong.
The space you run the mission in is always there. That mission you are just about to accept? The space it takes place in is already there. The owner of that space is the NPC who owns the system.
Read the original post all the proofs are there.
I have and you are wrong.
The mission space is not created. The mission items are. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 11:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
That would be the first time anyone has explained it to you like that. So only you disagree with me.
When you make a bookmark whilst running a mission and then finish the mission you can return to the space and see that all the mission structures have despawned. Yet the space the mission took place in is still there.
Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 11:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Here's one proof: Abdul 'aleem wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:
if anything makes a mission belong to the mission acceptor its the fact that no matter who kills the NPC's the wrecks belong to the mission acceptor and his fleet. THAT god awful mechanic is the strongest argument that mission space is owned.
Thanks for helping prove my point that the missioner owns the mission pocket. Thanks again Daichi Yamato (known ganker/griefer/"pirate" and/or thief)!
Yes, NPC's are owned and if someone steals from a wreck they go suspect.
Whats that got to do with the space the mission is run in. It exists before the rat was spawned for you and it exists after the rat has died and been salvaged and looted.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 11:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed.
Yeah, thanks for your opinion. But, you're wrong as Diachi Yamato helps to prove. This has already been discussed and proven. If you have any new counters to the proofs listed in the original post, feel free to post them.
If you read the whole post, you'll see I've just disproved it.
You are wrong. Sorry you don't like that.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Your whole presumption of 'ownership' is flawed.
Yeah, thanks for your opinion. But, you're wrong as Diachi Yamato helps to prove. This has already been discussed and proven. If you have any new counters to the proofs listed in the original post, feel free to post them. If you read the whole post, you'll see I've just disproved it. You are wrong. Sorry you don't like that. Yeah you really have not.
Yes I have.
The mission pocket is always there, only mission items and structures are spawned for the player when the mission is warped to.
I wonder if its possible to have a mission spawn on top of a bookmark some one has already made?
You want people to go suspect for warping to an area of space because you own it and they are trespassing. That space was there long before you accepted the mission. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Yes, I have read the whole thread.
You're wrong.
I have pointed out why you are wrong. Using your 'proofs' you can only claim ownership of the mission structures and items, yet you want to claim ownership of the space.
That space is always there, some of my best safe spots were originally missions. That space still exists even though the mission does not.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
*sigh*
Here we go again folks.... sorry for feeding the trolls/ thread crappers.
There are four proofs, did you read them all?
I thought you wanted a discussion?
I have come here with a sensible counter to your argument and you start name calling.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
I am suggesting that CCP treat the mission pocket space assigned to and created for the missioner, especially COSMOS and other unique mission pockets, as belonging to the missioner. The following game mechanics support the claim that the mission pocket does in fact belong to the missioner and validate the suggestion that they be treated as such:
1) The mission pocket space is created as a result of private and individual interaction between the player and their mission agent for the purpose of that player completing an assigned task
That is wrong the space is always there, its the mission items/structures that are created for the player.
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
2) it is impossible for any player to access a mission pocket owned by another player without action from the owner (the player can exercise his ownership rights to deny access to his mission site by simply staying docked, among other things)
Yes they can, a player can access any area of the solar system which a mission can spawn in. Its the mission items/structures they can't access.
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
3) the game assigns ownership of all wrecks in the mission space to the missioner and his fleet regardless of who kills them
Yes. Any player stealing form the mission runner should and does go suspect.
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
4) the player owning the mission site can exercise their right of ownership to destroy the site by simply choosing the "fail" option available exclusively to them
They can despawn all the mission items/structures by failing or finishing the mission. Unless of course someone is on grid with them. Edit- by them I mean the structures/items.
Which don't you understand?[/quote]
[/quote]
You seem to be confusing space with mission items/structures. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
So you are not interested in a discussion about your idea?
Fine. You should look at yourself before calling other people trolls. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
I have read the whole thread.
For the record I actually agree the risk/reward balance is a little skewed in favour of the thief.
Yes, there are counters you can use to mitigate the risks as a mission runner but it is still far to easy for someone to steal the mission item.
Its just your solution wouldn't work and is based on a pants on head assumption.
They way I would work it is:
Stop everyone form warping directly out of missions sites. You entered by acceleration gate so you have to leave by an acceleration gate.
Have the mission item/rat spawn 100km~ away from the exit gate. The missioner would have time to shoot the thief and also to balance it a little the missioner can't warp out (without the gate) if their tank fails. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Alright... I will put in some things for clarity.  1) the space that a POS is put up in there before it is onlined, but after it is onlined we all know who owns that space.....
What have POS's got to do with anything? Who owns the space the POS is in is in the system info top left of screen. Or are you saying if you warp on grid with a POS you should go suspect?
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
2) tell me how to get to a mission pocket of a missioner who draws a mission and never undocks?
The same way you get to any point in space. Its the mission structures/items you can't get to until the missioner undocks and warps to the location.
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
3) the fact that the game recognizes ownership of the wrecks no matter hwo kills them is a proof that the game treats the mission pocket AND what's in it as "owned" by the missioner.
NO its not. Its proof that the game recognizes that the wrecks are owned by the missioner, but not the salvage.
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
4) who else has the ability to exercise the right of ownership to destroy the missioner's mission site?
Its the structures/items that are despawned(destroyed). The location remains.
You are getting the location in space confused with the items that are in that space. Which is why having people go suspect just for entering a location is a bad idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
I think you'll find I have responded to all your points.
Its not my fault your presumption of ownership is wrong.
The other reasons why your idea is a bad one have already been mention. ie; salvaging, the power creep as in, if you 'own' the mission site then I 'own' the annom I'm in. As that doesn't spawn until someone warps to it, just like a mission. You would also have to extend 'ownership' to wormholes as they don't spawn until someone warps to them.
You do not own the mission space. Using your own 'proofs' means you only 'own' the mission structures/items that are spawned for you.
I'm happy to discuss your idea with you, its not my fault its a bad idea and based on a silly assumption. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
Now who doesn't want to discuss? Answer the questions and offer some proof to back up your opinions.
1) The proof is top left of the screeen.
2) The proof is I have safespots in location where missions occurred and the mission is no longer there but the safespot is.
3) The proof is shown on the wrecks and on the overview.
4) The proof is if a missioner despawns the items/structures with another pilot on the grid. The Structures/items do not despawn and any bookmarks still work.
Stop confusing to different things.
Mission items/structures are not the same thing as a location in space. Its an important distinction when you want people to go suspect when the warp to a location. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lets not forget sov. nulsec. Now there is space that is owned by players. Are you suggesting anyone trespassing in sov. nulsec should have a suspect timer?
Not much of an issue when entering, but if everytime you leave a sov. system to empire space (Hisec systems especially) you have to sit out a 15min suspect timer for trespassing. You'll end up with camps both sides of an hisec entry system.
It would be very silly.
Having people go suspect for trespassing is not a very good idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.
Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly.
I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
TLDR
Game balance is off. Add a suspect flag for trespassing that is triggered when the act of mission item theft is initiated (when the illegal warp into the mission owner's site begins) not only after the item is looted.
There is no reason that a mission thief should have Concord protection after they invade another player's mission space and while they are waiting to loot the mission item.
Ok.
So you are asking for special mechanics to be added that only apply to hisec mission runners.
Its still a bad idea. That's based on a flawed idea of ownership. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 13:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Once again your confusing mission items/structures with the location. That is a very important distinction to make when proposing giving players a suspect flag for warping to a location.
Even putting aside your flawed idea of ownership. Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly.
I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea. You really don't understand the idea or are deliberately thread crapping. Another Princess Achaja alt?
I understand the idea. Its just a very bad one as I've explained.
Your presumption of ownership is wrong.
Having suspect flags based on where you are warping to is a very bad idea, for the reasons that have been mentioned.
And you are back to the baseless accusations.... |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Enough with the name calling.
You are still making presumptions about ownership.
You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.
When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.
Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.
Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
...
Having people go suspect for warping to a location is a bad idea.
Salvaging is a profession CCP designed so you did not get any flags for doing. Your idea would effect them greatly.
I'm hunting a war target, I see them undock and warp to a safe. After scanning them down I warp my fleet to them only to find they were the other Vargur and the whole fleet goes suspect.
Having suspect flags based on warping to a location is a bad idea.
Add some more facts and support and there will be something to discuss.
NEW!
CCP Dropbear: GÇ£One problematic thing about GÇ£genericGÇ¥ missions is how they effectively isolate the mission-runner from other players and provide few avenues for social interaction. If youGÇÖre wondering why sometimes epics send players to nullsec, lowsec, exploration sitesGǪwell, this is a big part of the reason why.GÇ¥
Kahega Amelden: GÇ£DonGÇÖt worry, CCP. We here at Suddenly NinjasGäó are working hard to add social interaction to generic missions.GÇ¥
CCP Dropbear: GÇ£And we love you (and others like you) for it! In some weird and wonderful way, groups like yours operate as flag bearers for the full EVE experience, and we wouldnGÇÖt want to change, or get in the way of that.
GÇ£Also, lol.GÇ¥
CCP Mitnal: GǣOur policy on this is extremely clearGǪSalvaging is a mini-profession within EVE and does not constitute stealingGǥ From here
GM Faolchu: GÇ£This is an intended game mechanic and is in no way an exploitGÇ¥
Senior GM Ytterbium: GǣPlayers are still completely free to salvage other pilot wrecks at willGǪand doing so is not considered as an exploitGǥ
CCP Prism X: GÇ£Before the salvage enters those containers [your cargo-hold/hanger] it is not considered your stuff by the server code. Hence itGÇÖs not stealing.GÇ¥
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Wow go to work come home and the same argument from a new toon.
Requesting a change to allow for the 'Intent to do harm' as a suspect flag is a reasonable change IMO considering the evolution or changes in the game that have adversely effected mission runners and their relative high-sec safety.
As we play (As a community) we get better at everything, this falls to both sides of the board, and a better criminal requires better controls, just like better ISK earners required a nerf to bounties to maintain balance.
This suggestion is simply an overdue balance.
Do you honestly believe warping to a location should give you a suspect flag?
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Enough with the name calling.
You are still making presumptions about ownership.
You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.
When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.
Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.
Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location. You should really read the thread or at least the original post.
I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea.
Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:23:00 -
[23] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:The presumption of ownership is based on all the given facts, if CCP intended something other than ownership of the site then wrecks would all be blue, and rats would be available on D-scan as soon as the mission is accepted (For missions with prespawned rats). So based on that the change in Rules of Engagement are simple and justified.
If your scanning down a War target and not using a scout to verify.. well just NO.
Your wrong, the location in space is always there. Its the rats/items/structures that are spawned for you.
So a scout has to go suspect? Same thing.
As I said before, I do think the whole mission thief gameplay needs balancing. This is not the way.
Giving people suspect flags for warping to a location is a very bad idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:24:00 -
[24] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Enough with the name calling.
You are still making presumptions about ownership.
You are suggesting making people suspect just for warping to a location. That is a very bad idea.
When I first started I used to salvage mission wrecks. I would scan down a likely ship, warp to the site to find out who was in there and ask them if I could salvage. Under you idea that would give me a suspect flag. That is a bad idea.
Someone scanning for a war target they, they know the guy is in a Maelstrom (insert ship of choice) I find 3 on scan. I pick the wrong one and I go suspect.
Its a very bad idea to have people suspect flagged just for warping to a location. You should really read the thread or at least the original post. I have. Just so you understand The other 2 Maelstroms that are missioning are not war targets. So if I warp to them I will become a suspect under your idea. Try reading your idea yourself you seem confused about what you are suggesting. No you are spreading false information deliberately to thread crap.
Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Yet you won't acknowledge the very real problem with your idea.
You might be overthinking it, By design the mission location is given to the mission owner, so that location can be access only by him/her, till he/she arrives it is invisible to the entire world of EVE. So it is not that difficult to call it temporarily assigned space to xxx, and only 'fleet invited' entry will not net you a Suspect flag. I can se this adding content, especially for things like duels, you can finally have a place to fight and the neutral RR's are suspect immediately rather than only after you get the cowardly fracker to 10% armour.
You too seem to be confusing mission location with mission items/structures. The location in space is always there, its the structures/items/rats and acceleration gates that are spawned. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:54:00 -
[26] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied.
Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war.
Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Your basing you defence of salvagers going suspect on a false assumption of ownership.
CCP own words state salvagers are doing nothing wrong and you want to flag them suspect. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:59:00 -
[28] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the issue of war targets hiding in mission sites. They use an alt to start a mission, fleet up the at war main and stay in the mission. Anyone who tries to find them ends up going suspect because the alt 'owns' the site.
Nope. They would get the warning also before any suspect flag was applied. Yes, they would have to go suspect to warp to the war target. Or chose not to warp to the war target which means he is safe and avoiding the war. Giving suspect flags to people just from warping to a location is a very bad idea. This is covered in the original post. And, I agree* giving suspect flags to people for mission invasion is a very bad idea. (if you are a ganker/griefer/"pirate" or thief*)
No its not. The alt is not at war and the main, who is at war is hiding in the alts mission. Under your idea they would have to go suspect in order to catch the war target.
Unless you are suggesting being involved in any war overrides the suspect flag. That would make the idea even sillier.
Or is it, when you initiate warp the server checks for war targets at the mission site? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:
read the thread
I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:
read the thread
I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea. I'll help you a bit: the idea only treats the mission pocket as similar to other risky space for salvagers. The salvage is legal but the location is risky. Your WT situation would be on par with choosing to chase a WT into any other risky space.
On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space.
See how daft that would be.
Edit- and back to insults. seriously?? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
391
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 15:14:00 -
[31] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
I have I suggest you do too. You seem confused by your own idea.
I'll help you a bit: the idea only treats the mission pocket as similar to other risky space for salvagers. The salvage is legal but the location is risky. Your WT situation would be on par with choosing to chase a WT into any other risky space. On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space. See how daft that would be. Edit- and back to insults. seriously??
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:On that basis we should make all mission runners go suspect as soon as they undock. After all its just the same as mission running in other risky space.
See how daft that would be.
Edit- and back to insults. seriously?? Yeah anyone who thinks that that is the suggestion is indeed daft. I totally agree.
and now quoting out of context.
If you are not interested in discussing the pros and cons of your idea just say so. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
420
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 17:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
Edit-To op.
I think its you who hasn't understood the thread. Your proofs are nonsense.
The idea of giving someone a suspect flag for warping into a location is a bad one. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
425
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 18:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
I think Jonas Porter is trying to say:
Pirates and thieves will warp to the mission and become suspect. Vigilantes and other concerned citizens will warp to the mission and become suspect.
Those 2 groups will start fighting and mess up the mission runner's spawns.
Jonas if this isn't what you meant I'll edit the post. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
425
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 18:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Jonas Porter wrote:As i understand it you want theifs and pirates to be suspected when they come into a mission but then you went on to say about mercs and vigilants who can come in and start fighting each other in my mission. I do not want this becsuse there are triggers and aggro to manage and this fighting will mess it up.
I hope this is understandable concern.
I would like to know how the suggestion will stop this.
my questions in missioner forum have gots likes from other missioners so others would like to know too. Slow down man, Slow down. You are obviously afraid and I want to go step by step here. So, what are the proofs as you understand them and in your own words.
Stop being condescending to the guy. His post was understandable.
Its not his fault your 'proofs' are nonsense. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
425
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 18:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
Abdul 'aleem wrote:Mag's wrote:Abdul 'aleem wrote:No guys, we need to first know if there is any misunderstanding of the main points.
Please, this is important. So now what? No one will be flagged? It's not hard to see the out come of your idea. That those you do not like, WILL be flagged. Therefore people will most likely use your mission as a fighting ground. Chances are this will also lead to far more missions runners losing ships, as well as mission items. Guys, patience, you obviously care about Jonas and he needs time to form his words.... Give him that.
Stop being obnoxious to the guy. He has clearly asked 3 times. I have asked once on his behalf. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
428
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 18:43:00 -
[36] - Quote
Really??
He means he agreed with you, up until someone raised the issue of lots of people using his mission for a pvp brawl. |
| |
|