As I understand it, anyone can wear the TG tag as long as they play by the codec which includes playing fair and being civil (written in official statements).

Furthermore, paying members only have the right to be let into the game; nothing more and certainly nothing above a non-TG non-paying member (written in official satements).

Many, long term and fledging players are not TG, nor paying members, but try hard to play under the rules, respecting TG codec, and are simply by nature very pleasant (reality).

Furthermore, these players would become the next generation TG tag wearers, or, may - when they feel they can afford it, with no pressure unto them to do so, pay for membership (written officially and reality).

Alot of players that are the next generation TGers, or even clans, or individuals that walk alongside TG, supporting it, enjoy Password night, aswell as public nights, for the very same reason TGers do (reality).

Absolutely, I know that many of these players are much more in a credence to a community attitude and that of TG than a person simply wearing a TG tag is meant to. A TG tag signifies nothing if it only means that to wear it somehow defaults you above other players - especially to non-TG or non paying players: as that person who does so, would have utterly missed the point of civility and a TG code. It is such that some TG can come across as rude, or wave their TG tag infront of someone else - thinking it means they are above another person, and be rude about it at the same time. Where as the non TG player (or indeed) and TGers that have also found themsleves placed in a hierarchy, looks upon that person with a view to allow the folly slip by because it is not they that needs to learn, nor they that has to try to teach: life does that.

This realm of elitism -of some players - does impose itself on many TGers, paying supporting members and non-paying supporting members, who co-exist. All of those who meet it either remark (and sometimes complain) of it between themselves, or in a channel, or most commonly, let the person get on with realising their own faults (as per above paragraph).

However, this 'egoist' attitude is less visible in a social context than the outright flagrance of the game and players by using the character to destroy the 'run of play' in a game (e.g a teamkiller is more obvious to deal with than a long term haughty perspective of the self over another individual).

To continue on a division between an obvious flout of a game rule (or, unsportman like conduct) and a reaction (learned inately) - against (compared to) the negative attitude of some people (less obvious, less chance of not being remarked, especially because those that will, will be called a mudslinger, thus creating a paradox where the 'victim' becomes the 'acccused'), let me highlight a point, and a difference: A knee jerk reaction to bunny hop, is not a bad thing (a learned inate responce without aforethought). A player may do it once, realise what they are doing, and cease. What is bad is to consistantly do it with aforethought (think 'right I'm going to do that'). Just as it is to make a mind to be blaiming others for your own fault is really an egotistical aforethought aswell (enter paradoxes here), on the reliance of people either, putting up with it, or if they do not, relying on the haughty attitude to get through it, or others' alliegence (or forum rules, or their position).

Those that disrupt the game, I agree, should be ejected until such time as they do, or do not (so's a ban), get the message. But in a balanced way (by balanced I mean giving people a chance; allowing a holistic perspective of social constructs and doing the 'right thing' as opposed to the 'common one' - because mob psychology rules, and the self or the mob, if allowed will seek to put their 'judgement'; the Thomas Hobbesian 'life is brutish and short' without governence, to give a real life example of these matters <look up poltical, social and moral philosophy>).

To lay into the public that do good to the server, serves no purpose but to enforce the elitist attitude of some, for the wrong reasons. Better would be to perhaps view attitudes of individuals by how they Communicate. Communicate, as you see, is with a capital 'C'. As it (the academic field) includes the persective of the self, the way the communicate, and the medium (i.e. by what method they use to transmit concepts) used. These, of course include the 'reciever' and their own perspective (paradox makers may withdraw). It is therefore that a balance is called for, for the judging of people, who do well, or not so well at the game - not only by the standard of 'actions' (negative actions can be viewed as what is commonly known as 'pubbing') but also 'interactions' (flamers begin) of individuals communicating in game (paradox makers and flamers you may decease).

Of the games mentioned by Jeepo (and to state emphatically here, this is by no means a negative critism of Jeepo's views, nor admins, as I do not understand why they should be negatively critised, as they explain in other posts the reality of the situation.) Within the games, as I was in both the Bridge and the Desert maps; I did witness a spawn rape with no attempt to destroy the kitbag (Ghost Train). And so shouted to Jeepo he had predicted well (he shouted this would happen and faulted it tio the password (but also, and I disagree here: to non-TG players). On my team, my squad tried to protect Temple, whilst another group was wandering down south of the bridge, and the others trying to retake North Bridge, for ages. Our squad was very happy. Although we did see some problems in teamwork (not squadwork), my SL didn't say anything to verify that the Commander was bad, or good (or I can't rememeber) and the team in general seemed to be pulling together. We simply got outplayed. And this was by more organised squads and cohesion. But we had fun.

Further examples of blame and communication would be that I was in Roots' team on EJOD, and wondered if the Commander had made rash decisions to make us go to tactically silly places. If not, the disappointment must lay at our SL's feet and not other people's. And no this is not an retort on being berated for opening fire on an enemy in the game, because I didn't know the military definition of 'hold' militarily (it is an eye to Communication and the perspective of 'Sender' and 'Reciever', via a 'Medium', with prejudices and concepts of the self attatched, known as 'Noise', which of course includes Society). We were told to 'hold': apparently it means 'don't shoot unless shot upon'. I chose the English definiton of hold, which amongst other things is: to 'keep something safe', to 'protect', to 'stand ground'). The point being the emphasis is on yourself to criticise negatively first before blaiming others. Root could, for example, have said 'by hold I mean don't shoot unless fired upon', for non-military or foriegn players as he first said it, becease we can't read a mind as to what it expects the world to know. Therefore, it could be construed, with this example, that a way to be inclusive is the real focus on what is really needed in the game (seeing people bunnyhopping all around the place is much more simpler to detect as someone, abusing the rules/social rules). Of course, by using the word 'abuse' in a sentance in a paragraph, does not mean I attatch it to him. Though I do demonstarte by this one example, the need for insight on the self and other people (flamers begin <ironic statement if you guys haven't worked it out> 'what do you know' or 'what you should know' or 'what do you think you are'... <I don't mind 'what's' if they are thought out>). This is espeially when communicating or playing tactically, with a heated environment, of such a game as PR. To offset by using Root as an example: Infact Root did come up with a brilliant way to hold West City via smoke, against tanks (we were infantry) so credit where it is due (and he credited us) but also an eye to what is really to be gleaned. Communication.

The point of this is to show, where criticism can fall, and where it does alot. And where many people just shrug and stay silent, as they are trying to uphold a codec of being polite (which the assailant is not). And what is most especially, where the balance of what really counts, and what really matters, to where people should focus the attention of changing aspects of TG and password night (as the reality is: people 'are', wherever they go); and that many non (prospective or truely affiliation support) members uphold the moral human codec of civility and friendship.

You can not exclude these by sweeping judgements because they do not simply wear what is two letters to their name: because many represent the TG code and do not wear it - than many who think the tag, or their name, means something bigger than these people or the community (the Self at large). These last people will utterly miss the point of TG in one fell swoop.

To use a quote from: 'How to Not let the Server Stink...', (just because ther are many posts doesn't mean, it's boring, or the weekly/monthly a persons' attempt to pick on someone thus ignoring their own 'Self' <paradoxes fade>) currently in the PR forum about attitudes of those that wear TG tags and those that believe 'supporting membership' gleans some kind of hierachical position: the proper or improper attitude of some people. After mentioning a good example of a proper attitude from someone who wears the TG tag and the exemplary conduct of an individual to another, the basis is underlined for those who do not learn this ( or wish or want to) - to learn it:

Originally Posted by theObfuscator

The Status of being a Supporting Member DOES entitle you to priority inclusion in a round.

The Status of being a Supporting Member DOES give you immunity from being kicked from the server in favor of another TG Supporting Member.

The status of being a Supporting Member DOES NOT entail you the right to cast lesser roles to members of the TG community that aren't priviledged enough to afford the title "Supporting".

For those of us who can't, they try to find other ways to help support and improve the game experience for the whole community.

It is such that though the orignal post provides information of TG tag wearers that understand their non-hierarchical position when playing with other people because it is about community and not the self or a name: I will outline it - this goes for those that wear TG too.

On the other hand though, those people who do try to do flunk the game play by flaunting the game itself, can be reported to an admin: and Jeepo has rightly said that a focus in minds to do so is good, but also the admins have said why it is hard to do. The emphasis is that there must be a change in the publics' view to feel safe in calling an admin 'to query' a players' actions and it is then up to the admins to apply balanced judgement, which they do (check out the thread mentioned for a clear outline of admin realities and balance). Changing the method password nights would be good but don't leave out the mainstay for those who support TG and not simply view a tag or cash as everything, or it will go against all that has been said before officially, or indeed, what TG is all about.

However, the mood is for community and community 'spirit' (from the word spirituality), is it not? And so, more importantly, than the 'bunnyhoppers' (to use a broad term for those kinds of game flouters), is the way we communicate with eachother. This is less detectable, as I have discussed (and reasons why) but it is far more the most important spine of the community. Keep the focus on the real reason: 'yourself' and others.

(flamers don't miss the point and if you do... well..).

<edited because, rightly, my late night post was wooly and confusing - I hope this rectifies it>