It's the responsibility of those involved to inform all members of a roleplay if he or she has a problem, and that staff intervention is desired.
Yes, the blame falls on Griff. Why? Because he failed to inform me that the roleplay was on hold. I am not omnipotent, and it is not the staff's responsibility to run around telling everyone which roleplays are being held and which are not.
If both parties were to agree to the necessity of staff intervention, I doubt there would be a "necessity" to begin with. Griff could have chosen to approach you first, sure, but considering the success of this in the past, he in fact did himself and you favor.
Otherwise, are you taking these demands from the rules or your ass (I'd mistake the two also)? When in doubt, Drayson, leave it to the Staff. He is not obligated to inform you of staff intervention at all.
In declaring a thread suspended, the Staff in turn enforces this very suspension. To act from a further "misunderstanding," without first asking clarification, is the fault of the confused roleplayer. But a suspension was never declared in spite of Griff's complaint; there was nothing to tell. My point: had a suspension been properly announced, Griff wouldn't have needed to pass the memo on to you (even if it were his responsibility).
I didn't realize that there was a question as to whether the thread was officially suspended.
Ever since Omnae requested - after your posting - that the second attack be removed, the issue has been that the thread was not suspended but should've been, with no fault to Griff.
Standard procedure on TRF is that, when a player brings OOC issues with a thread forth, the thread is placed on hold until said issues are resolved.
However, it is the responsibilty of the roleplayer to bring said issues forth to all other players, and inform them that the thread is under debate.
Therefor, the responsibilty falls to Griff and not to the staff to inform me that the staff are looking into the issue, and the thread is therefor on hold until further notice.
The point is that Griff never brought these OOC issues to me, nor did he make me aware that the staff are looking into it, and that therefor I was not aware of any hold on the thread.
As such, I stand by my opinion that my last post stand (though it may also stand for editing, depending on the staff's decision regarding the first post).
That being said; the situations that led to the posted damage tally follow:
The Bakura Class Destroyers were both targetted by an Imperial Torpedo Sphere. Under the rules of loading and firing in two posts (which was done), and of the minimum three post/two post rule in relation to damage, the damages do not extend beyond the boundries of the rules.
Because the Torpedo Sphere is 1900 meters - twice the size of the 850 meter Destroyer - it can under the rules destroy the enemy vessel in two posts. I fully understand that this is the bare minimum, but I would also bring forth the fact that the damage is quite realistic.
The Torpedo Sphere carries 500 forward-firing Proton Torpedo launchers, all of which targetted the enemy ships. Even assuming that a huge 50% were intercpted, 250 warheads would still have impacted the enemy ship. Shields cannot take that sort of pounding, and a large number of shots would therefor impact the hull. Take into consideration too the relitively weak shields of the Destroyers.
Also note that the Destroyers are not "Destroyed", but "Rendered Inoperable" - they could be repaired, if the battle were to end at this moment.
The same arguments apply to the destroyed Majestic cruisers. Both were targetted by two VSDs each, both of which utilized their full missile compliment.
The final VSD targetted a third Majestic. The second damaged Majestic was a typo, I only intended one to be damaged, and will edit that if the staff see fit. I am also willing to change the destroyed Majestics to "Crippled" if the staff so desire.
The "responsibilities" you speak of are no more than acts of courtesy; similar to the waiving of the 72-hour rule. You cannot hold what you claim to be able against Griff because he's not nice. Unless, that is, you can reference the rules to support otherwise.
It is the duty of the Staff to deal-out thread suspensions, correct? Since when has the Staff begun to secretly suspend threads, unbeknownst to all parties? If the Staff temporarily closes a thread, also required of it is to inform all parties, because there is nothing obligating the one in Griff's current shoes to do so.
Granted it may be requested of Griff to do whatever he can, alone, prior to involving the staff, this does not translate into "informing [you] that the staff is looking into the issue." He has no "responsibility" to tell you when he's decided his efforts to be in vain, much less at what point the Staff has intervened.
"As such," you're, uh, full of bullshit. Griff did all that was needed of him when he brought his complaint to the attention of the Staff. From then on he left the moderation up to, guess what, the moderation.
You're running in circles. Either a) the thread was suspended but no one was informed, meaning a compromise must be worked out, or b) the thread was not suspended and my last post stands.
No. You've been running in circles, trying to make it look like you know what you're talking about. And to many people, I'm sure it looks that way.
You say that it is not Griff's responsibility to inform anyone that the roleplay is on hold. Yet you also say that I should not be have been able to post, because the RP was on hold.
I was never informed as such. Certainly, it was Griff's responsibility. As the person bringing forward an OOC issue, he should inform all parties that the roleplay is on hold.
As it is, I had no idea that the roleplay was on hold, and yet you try and draw blame for that away from Griff.
Then you said that the roleplay was not on hold. And, I notice, that you never answered the question. Either the thread was on hold, and I wasn't informed, or it wasn't on hold.
