View Full Version : New Rules....
Don Corleone
10-12-2005, 18:08
I am quite familiar with the following:
This is The Guild, the discussion forum for the Shogun: Total War and Medieval: Total War fan site www.totalwar.org. Considering the real-time nature of this bulletin board, it is impossible for us to review messages or confirm the validity of information posted. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the contents of posted messages and are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of The Guild or any entity associated with The Guild. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact the administrator of the pertinent forum (displayed at the top of the message thread list) immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove particular messages immediately. The staff has also the ability to edit all messages by all users, but we rarely use it in order to avoid misunderstandings as to the identity of the originator of any given text. If a post's content is essentially objectionable, it will be deleted instead. Examples of objectionable messages include, but are not limited to:
Posts containing addresses of warez sites or anything piracy-related; note that this includes "hacks" designed to enable Shogun: Total War or Medieval: Total War to run without a CD. The administration is aware of the fact that some use a "no-CD hack" for the perfectly legal purpose of enchancing their system performance, but we feel that the possible illegal benefits from these hacks outweight the legal ones. Anything pertaining to software piracy is in general highly discouraged.
Posts containing information on and/or requests for the Shogun: Total War or Medieval: Total War CD key codes; if someone has actually lost his CD key, he should ask about the matter from Electronic Arts Customer Support. Anyone asking for someone else's here is assumed to be a pirate trying to deny the game's developers their rightful compensation for this work.
Posts containing references or solicitations for, or technical specifications of, multiplayer cheating. Cheating in the single-player game is each user's private matter, but cheating in the multiplayer game detracts from everyone's enjoyment and from the gaming community as a whole.
Posts containing names of people suspected of cheating in the multiplayer game. This clause has been much debated; its purpose is to avoid fruitless controversy. No conclusive proof on anyone cheating in the multiplayer game can be obtained or presented. Therefore, the staff and the majority of the patrons (approximately 70% voted in favor) feel that it is for the best to avoid making accusations; even if truthful, their inconclusiveness will probably lead to "flame wars" which are inconvenient to the forum and its every patron. Keeping of private "cheater blacklists" is allowed, indeed encouraged, but The Guild does not wish to be the medium for such. (Note that in the case of "name posting", the staff will often make an exception and edit out the name rather than deleting the entire message.)
Posts containing "spam", such as advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations. Recommending a game you in your opinion like is not wrong, as long as you are not trying to sell it. User accounts created exclusively for the purpose of posting inconsequential advertisements will be unceremoniously banned.
Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.
Several separate forums exists for the purpose of grouping the messages by their primary topic. Care should be taken to post messages only in the forum meant for that type of content. The staff makes every attempt to keep topics in their correct forums. Topics posted in an inappropriate forum will usually be closed shortly, with a final message explaining the transfer to another forum and a link to that forum, where the discussion can continue. Please note that the supposed inactivity of some forums compared to others is not an excuse to post messages in the wrong place. Although The Guild does not and cannot review the messages posted and is not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we at The Guild reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Guild, Jarvis, Inc. (the makers of the bulletin board software), and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). We at The Guild also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you
However, there are apparently some new clauses of which I am unaware, such as:
if there's a third clinton thread then that will be postwhoring, which is punishable. please use this thread to get it out of your system.
and
Great to see people helping destroy fun.
To ensure that I do not violate the forum rules in the future, might I respectfully request the official forum rules be updated to include the new provisions that have been recently established? Offending any one would most certainly be the last thing I would ever care to do, especially the moderators. :bow:
Don Corleone
10-12-2005, 18:12
As I cannot edit my posts currently, I believe it only fair to include the entire text of the 2nd quote...
______ starts a topic about a video with some fools in it (scene or real) and you start ranting about Nazi Germany?
Great to see people helping destroy fun.
Tisk, Tisk - I will wait on seeing what developes from the thread entitled Banstick before wanting to see new rules posted in the .Org.
By the way what is post whoring - that is a new term to me?
InsaneApache
10-12-2005, 19:12
By the way what is post whoring - that is a new term to me?
Me too...perhaps an exchange of money is involved .....:book:
Gawain of Orkeny
10-12-2005, 19:42
Me too...perhaps an exchange of money is involved
Well I never recieved any.~D
Mouzafphaerre
10-12-2005, 20:08
.
So you're doing it for amusement? ~:joker:
.
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2005, 21:43
New rules are nothing compared to threatening bans. Thats what i am worried about. I didnt know mods could ban automatically like that. But it is good to get all this stuff straightened out before any more warnings or threats are made to members. ~:eek:
caesar44
10-12-2005, 22:20
"...we at The Guild reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever..."
For no reason , but why will you do that for ???:dizzy2: :dizzy2: ~:confused: ~:confused:
I must admit that I too was puzzled/confused by the "postwhoring" comment.
Goofball
10-12-2005, 22:38
I must admit that I too was puzzled/confused by the "postwhoring" comment.
Me three.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-12-2005, 22:45
So you're doing it for amusement?
I was accused of it. It could be taken as a personal attack as could your comment smiley and all.~;)
solypsist
10-12-2005, 23:10
postwhoring is another word for spamming, but involves starting multiple threads over a short period of time with the intention of disrupting the forum.
nutshell: aggressive spamming by creating unnecessary threads.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-12-2005, 23:13
Well thanks for thew definition
I still think whoring was taking it a bit too far. Besides that I only made two threads on clinton and Ive never been a spammer nor have I ever up until now been accused of being one. Now thereseem to be a glut of Bushwbashingwhoring going on constantly.~D
solypsist
10-12-2005, 23:15
thus you are safe from the banstick! :balloon2:
I still think whoring was taking it a bit too far. Besides that I only made two threads on clinton and Ive never been a spammer nor have I ever up until now been accused of being one. Now thereseem to be a glut of Bushwbashingwhoring going on constantly.~D
Gawain of Orkeny
10-12-2005, 23:17
thus you are safe from the banstick!
Well I feel, much better now ~D
Kaiser of Arabia
10-12-2005, 23:55
Obviously the new mods are like, well, the Gestapo. They have no limits, or so it seems.
Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.
These also do not seem to have any effect on certain groups of people, by the way. So they should be edited out, or at least made to say "These do not affect Liberals, Moderators, Liberal Moderators, Moderator Liberals, Anti-Christians, Athiests, or any combination of the above."
Obviously the new mods are like, well, the Gestapo. They have no limits, or so it seems.
Don't be so hasty with the labelling - some things are going on that we just might not know about yet. Has Solypsist other then the one occassion with Prol actually been unfair or shown favoritism toward another with his moderation.
I was one of the first to point out my dis-satifaction with another moderator because of his statements and moderation methods. Solypsist has not gone to that extreme - nor is his moderation style anywhere close to Gestapo tactics, and Ser Clegane has been a fair moderator.
Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.
These also do not seem to have any effect on certain groups of people, by the way. So they should be edited out, or at least made to say "These do not affect Liberals, Moderators, Liberal Moderators, Moderator Liberals, Anti-Christians, Athiests, or any combination of the above."
Again I just don't see any such unfair abuse - I noticed a few spefic occasions of what could be considered unfair moderation - but a whole thread has been turned over to that discussion - let it run its course. If I for a second believed that the moderators has a whole were being terrible - I would go revive this thread here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=32232 and point out where they have fallen into the same course - And that has not happen as of yet.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-13-2005, 01:05
I was one of the first to point out my dis-satifaction with another moderator because of his statements and moderation methods. Solypsist has not gone to that extreme - nor is his moderation style anywhere close to Gestapo tactics, and Ser Clegane has been a fair moderator.
Hyperbole, you get the point.
Papewaio
10-13-2005, 01:17
Obviously the new mods are like, well, the Gestapo. They have no limits, or so it seems.
But Kaiser both you and PJ have declared a prefernce for a facist state, so be careful what you wish for.
Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.
These also do not seem to have any effect on certain groups of people, by the way. So they should be edited out, or at least made to say "These do not affect Liberals, Moderators, Liberal Moderators, Moderator Liberals, Anti-Christians, Athiests, or any combination of the above."
The irony is that the rule enforcement has been cranked up in response to Dev Dav (rightly) complaining about attacks on Christians, the increase in trolls and the decrease in general forum kindness.
therother
10-13-2005, 01:22
I was one of the first to point out my dis-satifaction with another moderator because of his statements and moderation methods. Solypsist has not gone to that extreme - nor is his moderation style anywhere close to Gestapo tactics, and Ser Clegane has been a fair moderator.
Hyperbole, you get the point.
Yes, indeed. But I also recall that TosaInu took a very dim view of patron suggesting that the Moderators over at the .Com used "Nazi tactics". I therefore respectfully suggest you withdraw the Gestapo comment, hyperbole though it may be. Unless you know of some reason why he would not afford the same respect to his own Moderators?
Kaiser of Arabia
10-13-2005, 02:01
Heh, in this forum one cannot edit one's posts. Therefore, one such as myself cound not remove one comment from one posts as one such as yourself states. Though I do admit it was a bit over the top, and I aplogize for it.
The irony is that the rule enforcement has been cranked up in response to Dev Dav (rightly) complaining about attacks on Christians, the increase in trolls and the decrease in general forum kindness.
Strange, I never noticed, and I'm a backroom regular ~:)
Kindness in the backroom, ptsch, I got in a flamewar with my FIRST BACKROOM POST. EVER. Gawain probably remembers. ~;)
Oh and with the fascist state view, THAT ONLY APPLIES WHEN I'M IN CHARGE! Gah!
Don Corleone
10-13-2005, 02:29
thus you are safe from the banstick! :balloon2:
It's all a big joke to you, isn't it? Master Soly makes the rules up as he goes, and we all get warnings when we can't keep up. Well sir, all I'm asking for is notice of your 'on the fly' rules when you invent them. Tosa defined spam as
such as advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations.. You've decided to define it as 'any post or thread that you don't like and seems to occur too frequently for your tastes'. Before you go get Tosa to do your dirty work and warn us all for posting in affront to your 'new rules', why don't you try telling us what they are? Or does that ruin the fun of your game?
Don Corleone
10-13-2005, 02:30
Oh yeah, I forgot, this :balloon2: and this ~D are required. There, that makes everything I said okay...
solypsist
10-13-2005, 03:33
As I haven't issued any Warnings to anyone over the matter of "spam", and the person I intended it for gets the context and doesn't have an issue with it, I don't understand why you're complaining.
"Thread I don't like," ? Please show me where I ever said that - and you even quoted me on it, so I'm curious to know. If you can't, you may be guilty of posting knowingly false and/or defamatory material. For someone who has referenced the rules so often, I'm disappointed you have trouble following them as scrupulously as you accuse others of not doing so.
. Well sir, all I'm asking for is notice of your 'on the fly' rules when you invent them. Tosa defined spam as . You've decided to define it as 'any post or thread that you don't like and seems to occur too frequently for your tastes'.
Mouzafphaerre
10-13-2005, 03:43
I was accused of it. It could be taken as a personal attack as could your comment smiley and all.~;)
.
It's just a joke you walked upon. I'll remove it if you're serious though.
.
Don Corleone
10-13-2005, 03:44
Well, you wouldn't warn me anyway, you'd get Tosa to do it for you. And as a matter of fact, maybe Gawain isn't as hunky dory with you shushing him as you seem to think.
You told Gawain you'd had enough Clinton threads and if he posted one more, it'd be a punishable offense. Nowhere in Tosa's rules does it say that. As I said, if you're making up new rules as you go, perhaps you better let the rest of us in on them.
As far as I know, I haven't accused anyone of not following the rules. I've asked you to illuminate the rest of us on what your magnificence has decided as the rule of the day for the given day.
solypsist
10-13-2005, 03:50
Nowhere in Tosa's rules does it say that. As I said, if you're making up new rules as you go, perhaps you better let the rest of us in on them.
"Examples of objectionable messages include, but are not limited to..." pretty much covers it.
Please show me where I said, "Threads I don't like." I'm still waiting.
Don Corleone
10-13-2005, 03:54
My apologies Soly (boy, I had better get used to saying that...) when i put the quote marks up I was paraphrasing. When I used the actual HTML quote tags, I was quoting you. You are right, I naturally, was wrong, and engaged in an unfounded and unfair attack. Can you ever forgive me?
Look, I know that Gawain, Panzer, Capo, Prole, Crazed Rabbit, DDave and myself are on your short list to be banned. You're the boss, so you get to make that decision. But you know, when you know you're gonna die anyway, it's quite liberating. I get to choose the when, why and how. Until then, I yet again shamelessly grovel at your feet...:bow:
Kaiser of Arabia
10-13-2005, 04:08
I'm at the top of the list!
Papewaio
10-13-2005, 04:28
:stop: :help: ~:grouphug:
Okay lets focus have a time out and help each other. Be nice.
Stare at the babe thread or something else.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-13-2005, 04:47
Look, I know that Gawain, Panzer, Capo, Prole, Crazed Rabbit, DDave and myself are on your short list to be banned
I thought he just said
Originally Posted by solypsist
thus you are safe from the banstick!
Imust in Soly and the other mods defense say that Ive only recieved one very minor warming and havent gotten so much as a single point in almost two years. And lord knows Ive done my share of posting here. I admit ive come close in my own opinion to deserving one. Would you believe I even heard a rumor a few months ago I was being considered for Senior Membership? I remember Redleg got that right after he had a big dispute with the mods right here.
Papewaio
10-13-2005, 04:51
Yes the rumour is true but I ate all the viagra so we thought it would be unfair to give you the title without the recourse to medicate. ~:cool:
The Mods at .com recently decided food was too boring a topic to talk about and a forum regular from 3 years ago was banned for making a thread on crepes, so if you honestly have a prob with Solys actions you're nutcases.
Geoffrey S
10-13-2005, 09:39
Need some chill pills around here, man.
Franconicus
10-13-2005, 09:46
Did I mention Prol and Don being my favorite posters here. I act as a guarantor for them and their integrity. I would not be amused to see something bad happening to them.:bow:
Kagemusha
10-13-2005, 10:17
Im thinking this is getting out of hand here.I also think Don and Prole are good posters and i like them a lot but i think this continuos attacking against Solypsist is getting out of hand.You guys cant really seriosly think that there is somekind of co-ordinated attack going on against the conservative patrons of the Org."The left" in the Org is so disorganiced that they couldnt even mount an attack like that.~;) We all have to remember that this is a gaming forum not a US Kongress or some other political Forum.Solypsist have been away for a while of his Moderating business,so he might be little trigger happy.So give him a break now will you guys.Thats my five cents anyway.:bow:
Ser Clegane
10-13-2005, 11:03
One thing I do not quite understand - what do people think the motivation of us "liberals" would be to ban "conservatives" from the Backroom?
Obviously people come to the Backroom to discuss political topics and exchange views and opinions. How much fun would that excactly be when you start to ban people who disagree with you?
Do you think our target is to create some kind of pacified and sterile Backroom were "us liberals" agree on all issues and pat ourselves on the back for owning the truth and having the correct view on things?
I can do that for myself at home - I dont need to visit a discussion board for that.
I am really puzzled here...
It's all a big joke to you, isn't it?
Don, like Franconius I greatly respect you as a contributor to the Org but please consider some friendly advice, not given in any official capacity. Here I think you are making exactly the same mistake as in the thread that caused all this trouble. My reading is that Soly's "you are safe" post was made as a friendly guesture expressed in a light hearted way, not as a provocation. I think he was trying to tell aggrieved parties to relax and take it easy, not saying he thinks it is all a joke. Your response is to turn this peace offering into a further source of grievance, pushing him further and ultimately this is only going to lead him to push back. I think this kind of misunderstanding would not happen in real life where people could see each others' body language, hear their voice intonation etc.
With respect, Don, I understand people's concerns here but think you need to step back a little and take a deep breath. Some of your posts in this matter have seemed symptomatic of the kind of heated polarised stance we've talked about before. Sometimes mods may give warnings you disagree with, make posts you disike, fail to spell out rules as explicitly as you want etc. But if you give us a chance, I am sure you will find that the Org will continue to be the benign place it has always been. However, if you blow this row up into something bigger than it is, I fear we are going to see more regrettable things like Prole leaving the backroom.
That's by no means a threat - just a fearful prediction. I've been watching this whole affair with detached dismay - it reminds me of train wreck, slowly ploughing a path of destruction. You or I, or indeed anyone person, cannot fix everything and make it right. (I want to quote the Serenity Prayer.) But may be it is time to walk away from this particular episode and get back to business as usual. ~:grouphug:
Shambles
10-13-2005, 11:19
One thing I do not quite understand - what do people think the motivation of us "liberals" would be to ban "conservatives" from the Backroom?
Obviously people come to the Backroom to discuss political topics and exchange views and opinions. How much fun would that excactly be when you start to ban people who disagree with you?
Do you think our target is to create some kind of pacified and sterile Backroom were "us liberals" agree on all issues and pat ourselves on the back for owning the truth and having the correct view on things?
I can do that for myself at home - I dont need to visit a discussion board for that.
I am really puzzled here...
Now I cant say i come in here that often But
As far as i can tell.
The forum is being systematically changed in to a 100% christian.
With people opposed to christianity geting Warnings and maby even a ban.
Now if that is not opressing oppinions i dont know what is.
if you decide to stop people bashing christianity or any other religion Then obviously you should also Stop people Praizing There religion or even discussing it,
If you begin to favour any 1 that makes you bias,
And that is not right..
ShambleS
Ser Clegane
10-13-2005, 11:39
Now I cant say i come in here that often But
As far as i can tell.
The forum is being systematically changed in to a 100% christian.
With people opposed to christianity geting Warnings and maby even a ban.
Now if that is not opressing oppinions i dont know what is.
if you decide to stop people bashing christianity or any other religion Then obviously you should also Stop people Praizing There religion or even discussing it,
If you begin to favour any 1 that makes you bias,
And that is not right..
ShambleS
Now that's a very interesting observation - as, according to some other views, the moderators are actively biased against Christianity and allow Christian-bashing without consequences ... go figure.
IMHO it should be no problem to discuss a topic, including religion, without having to insult, bash, belittle (or whatever) any people who do not share your view on the issue.
EDIT to add: Regarding warnings, there seems to be one point, that seems to need some clarification (at least considering some PM exchanges I had) - apart from the person who receives a warning, other patrons are rarely aware that warnings, alerts, etc. have been issued at all.
Geberally, warnings are neither announced publicly nor is the warning level of the individual patrons visible to other patrons (at least up to a certain level, in the last version of this board, warning levels were visible after they passed a certain point).
So any statements along the lines that certain people get warnings for violating forum rules while others get a free pass are usually mere assumptions.
Shambles
10-13-2005, 11:51
Now that's a very interesting observation - as, according to some other views, the moderators are actively biased against Christianity and allow Christian-bashing without consequences ... go figure.
IMHO it should be no problem to discuss a topic, including religion, without having to insult, bash, belittle (or whatever) any people who do not share your view on the issue.
I too have seen religion's being attacked with no conciquences.
However as previously stated,
new rules are being implimented BECOUS of complaints about christian's being attacked.
Obviously its not right to attack Any 1 becous of there beleifs,
But if they start Telling you how right they are When all they have Is faith,
Then your bound to get A heated attack/debate.
Personaly i dont think that targeting the people who Reply in anger To threads of this sort is the answer,
as I always Feel Baited in to Expressing my oppinions aboutany religious thread.
Which in turn Could lead me to be warned, Under the "new rules"
Where as in my oppinion Any 1 trying to Entrap Anti religios people with Posts about religion should Atleast Also be warned,
However I do not know all that much about the warning system,
And prehaps this already happens,
Although from past posts I have seen and read, this is not the case,
But as i said,
I dont know all that much about the warning system,
ShambleS
Myrddraal
10-13-2005, 23:46
as I always Feel Baited in to Expressing my oppinions aboutany religious thread.
I noticed:
But if they start Telling you how right they are When all they have Is faith,
Then your bound to get A heated attack/debate.
Don't start a discussion like that in here, take it to the backroom...
It seems to me that some of the people on this forum think the mods are biased one way, some more think their biased the other way... Make up your minds.
The truth of the matter is, the mods aren't evil bastards out to get you. We're all human on this forum (or at least I hope so :wink:), talking to a mod is not like talking to the cops, were all patrons of the forum, we all want to enjoy our time spent here.
It quite surprised me coming over here and seeing this discussion. I must say the Modding forums seem to escape the attentions of those who want to disturb the peace.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-14-2005, 01:00
One thing I do not quite understand - what do people think the motivation of us "liberals" would be to ban "conservatives" from the Backroom?
Obviously people come to the Backroom to discuss political topics and exchange views and opinions. How much fun would that excactly be when you start to ban people who disagree with you?
Do you think our target is to create some kind of pacified and sterile Backroom were "us liberals" agree on all issues and pat ourselves on the back for owning the truth and having the correct view on things?
I can do that for myself at home - I dont need to visit a discussion board for that.
I am really puzzled here...
Well, you see, the thing is Liberals want a Utopia ruled by them where they can freely kill Conservatives and exploit the genetic resources of developed nations to help Leichtenstein become a world power....or make Leichtenstein THE world power.
Mao was a liberal... :book: ~:)
Of course, I'm joking with you.
Simetrical
10-14-2005, 05:13
One thing I do not quite understand - what do people think the motivation of us "liberals" would be to ban "conservatives" from the Backroom?
Obviously people come to the Backroom to discuss political topics and exchange views and opinions. How much fun would that excactly be when you start to ban people who disagree with you?
Do you think our target is to create some kind of pacified and sterile Backroom were "us liberals" agree on all issues and pat ourselves on the back for owning the truth and having the correct view on things?
I can do that for myself at home - I dont need to visit a discussion board for that.
I am really puzzled here...Obviously, you want to use the Backroom to discuss the relative merits of Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.
Papewaio
10-14-2005, 11:21
IThe truth of the matter is, the mods aren't evil bastards out to get you.
Doh! I must be too subtle. ~;)
Shambles
10-14-2005, 12:09
I noticed:
Don't start a discussion like that in here, take it to the backroom...
T^HIS IS THE BACKROOM.....
Shambles
10-14-2005, 12:10
T^HIS IS THE BACKROOM.....
No edit feature,
so i quote,
We are...
The Guild > Miscellaneous > Watchtower > Backroom > New Rules....
Reply to Thread
We are in the Watchtower section of the Forums, in the Sub-sub-sub forum Backroom.
The Backroom he was talking about is another one, I'm tempted to think..
Shambles
10-14-2005, 16:19
We are in the Watchtower section of the Forums, in the Sub-sub-sub forum Backroom.
The Backroom he was talking about is another one, I'm tempted to think..
Well if your not a member you cant View this Sub forum ,
So its the same as the back room,
Simetrical
10-14-2005, 21:56
Fallacy of the undistributed middle term alert!
Myrddraal
10-15-2005, 03:29
To clarify, I was of course refering to the tavern backroom:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=19
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.