Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 09:52 PM |
http://forum.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=157043515
If TSG cannot (or will not) be given to another leader to breathe life into it, why should Fleetcom?
It is stated in Seviro's very own thread that him and Prag, the "founders" did not want anybody else receiving or leading TSG. It was passed to different leaders a couple times with very poor results, tarnishing its reputation.
Thankfully Castlemore made the decision to ***SHUT TSG DOWN AND GIVE IT BACK TO ONE OF THE FOUNDERS***, and he's been put under appreciative light by Seviro for that.
Sounds like a mirror image of the Fleetcom situation to me. If TSG will not be given more life due to the decision of the founders, why should Fleetcom be given life against the will of ITS founders?
I'm sorry Seviro but I had to point out the hypocrisy here because you can either shut Fleetcom down as per Biood and Fleet's requests, or have TSG revived by one of many aspiring leaders. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Toxenz
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4389 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 09:54 PM |
| Sev's like a little kid strangling a kitten and saying he's helping it cuz it's scared. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 09:55 PM |
| sev should give me TSG and Fleetcom |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 09:55 PM |
| I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see any clan live on, especially Fleetcom since it's one of my favorites, but if the founders don't will it then Seviro should follow his own example. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Toxenz
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4389 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 09:58 PM |
| Even after I've essentially quit clans for probably over two years I've still enjoyed hanging out with the Fleetcom's community. But when Fleet says he doesn't want to lead it it'd be total hypocrisy to pretend like I'm any more dedicated to clans. At a point it gets tiring. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 09:58 PM |
This situation is completely different considering TSG was already shutdown by its founders and then sold off due to cash.
We had the chance to keep it shut down, but we didn't; and that's our loss. However, after we realized the multiple leaders who tried to lead it got it nowhere, we decided to put it to a rest and that's what we did.
Fleetcom was given to Dreygonthus because r_y wanted to find an appropriate leader, NOT because he wanted Dreygonthus to shut it down. This opinion changed the very next day.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Inductive
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2012 |
| Total Posts: 6480 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:00 PM |
Please, Sev, it's basically exactly the same thing. TSG could theoretically have been revived, it probably had a better chance of it than Fleetcom does. It wasn't because the founders didn't want it to be revived.
What would be really nice here is some consistency. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:01 PM |
Except TSG had more than 4 different owners, all of whom did extremely poorly.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:01 PM |
Seviro you realize Fleetcom too was shutdown by the founders and given to campy after he and I did some serious negotiating to revive it.
After several leaders and progressively worse performance, it's just like TSG.
Much like you and Prag realized TSG should've been put to rest and not given away (for free or for money, really doesn't make a difference), Fleetcom is making that very same decision right now and you are barring him from that for some reason.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:02 PM |
So you're saying it's better to immediately shutdown Fleetcom because its founder is having a crisis regarding its status over the years, and calls for it to be shutdown now of all times?
I think it's much better to give some people a chance at leadership and to see how it works instead of denying many people something they actually want because one person is angry.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Inductive
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2012 |
| Total Posts: 6480 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:04 PM |
Seviro, it's basically exactly the same thing, like Gorb said.
It was lead badly by several leaders, would probably never get better, and the founders wanted it shut down. What group am I talking about? Can't tell? That's because the situation of both groups is basically identical.
The only difference is that you're stubbornly holding onto Fleetcom for your own purposes, so it's not personally inconvenient to you. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:04 PM |
Yes indeed I can profit so much off of holding Fleetcom nice job keeping with an already-disproved argument Inductive!
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:04 PM |
Seviro I don't see how the timing of Fleetcom's decision makes a difference; he is the founder, and he wants it shut down.
The only reason TSG isn't being led still and passed from person to person is because Castlemore chose to put it to rest since the founders asked, do you really believe there weren't a whole multitude of people who'd like to lead it, or even more who just want to experience TSG again?
Castlemore could've just as easily said;
"I think it's much better to give some people a chance at leadership and see how if it works out this time instead of denying many people something they actually want because two people are tired of it." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:06 PM |
So if stealthmatt came back right now and said RAT should be shutdown, Poly should do it?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Inductive
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2012 |
| Total Posts: 6480 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:07 PM |
| No, Seviro, it's not because you're profiting off of it, but because you have no personal attachment to it. Imagine that Castlemore or whoever decided to continue leading it, or pass it on to someone else who continued to leave TSG against your will. How would that make you feel? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Inductive
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2012 |
| Total Posts: 6480 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:07 PM |
| RAT isn't basically dead with almost no chances of survival, Seviro. It has reasons to live for. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:08 PM |
Sometimes it's better to disregard "personal attachment" in the name of progression that >other people< want. That's why FoA at least has some justification for carrying on.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:08 PM |
Seviro by the very logic you put into text within the thread I linked, apparently yes, Poly should give it to the founder and shut it down.
(However actually no, since RAT hasn't been becoming progressively worse and is in fact doing better than it has in a very long time.) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:09 PM |
| Seviro please name one reason other than "personal attachment" for you and Prag to want TSG shutdown. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:09 PM |
Okay, but the point here is that Fleetcom should shutdown because Fleetcom wants it whereas others want the group to have another chance of survival. The status of the group has been irrelevant.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Seviro
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46758 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:09 PM |
@gorb
TSG was already transferred to A-SOV therefore the group has no reason to be its own entity
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Gorblud
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2016 |
| Total Posts: 864 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:10 PM |
"Okay, but the point here is that Fleetcom should shutdown because Fleetcom wants it whereas others want the group to have another chance of survival. The status of the group has been irrelevant."
In that case you and Prag were both wrong to push for a TSG shutdown just because you wanted to put it down easy, much like Fleetcom. (Exactly like Fleetcom, actually.)
The status of the group isn't irrelevant since you've stated in your own thread that one of the reasons you wanted TSG back was to preserve any sort of reputation it had before the awful leaders that followed Prag. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Inductive
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2012 |
| Total Posts: 6480 |
|
|
| 08 Mar 2016 10:10 PM |
| Seviro, I don't recall that being listed in the thread you made. As you said, it's easier to reboot a group that already exists than it is to make your own, so it'd be more logical to hand it off to someone else. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|