Member Questions

Benry and Jaylen are now the minority in your example, and you are siding with the minority here in your hypothetical. Also, a good amount of members have stated that they just don't want to voice themselves anymore due to the fact that they feel ignored or unheard. In my points, all i want is for WF to be treated as regular members, and my hypotheticals were to counter yours being put onto us. If those hypotheticals are a problem, then why not make it that it's not possible through more realistic means without restricting players? Thus, apex predators are unlikely to bond and be companions to wolves, or partake in wars - so it wouldn't happen often enough for it to even be a problem. But would they befriend a certain wolf in particular and aid them whenever they are around? It should be allowed since taming is not the same as bonding. It's like having a dog as a companion vs a wolf, a wolf is too wild to be truly a pet irl but they can be friendly enough to not shred you to bits if they know you or are familiarized since they were young. This way its not just some random friendly bear that a pack can use during war and then disappear when they aren't useful anymore, but obtained as a player played character and familiarized through RP. 

And if that's too much work, it is! Thus very few ppl would do it and its not a big issue should it actually work out for one or two instances. 

And again the instance of metagaming where things just "work out" ic because of ooc influence of the idea of a war happening and a group of bears associate themselves with wolves to help just isn't as plausible as one single bear who might help out. PLUS not to mention that bear is a double-edged sword and possibly a danger to their allies due to their large body and claws/swings being less accurate and hurting allies. So would wolves really benefit from it in the end? This is all stuff that should be discussed on a case by case scenario and if someone thinks it's unfair, then it should be looked into as "is it metagaming or was it fairly done through RP without any ooc influence for war purposes?" I really don't see how this cannot be the solution. 

I'm not staff, but have you considered that maybe staff make the decisions they do because staff are the ones implementing and enforcing rules? It's fine to want things a certain way, but sometimes the will of the players will clash with what is feasible for a staff that is working on a volunteer basis to handle.

Staff should also realize that the site is as successful as it is because of its member base and not listening to them or upsetting them by not listening or whatnot, can be a downfall or ruin the "casual fun" in which the site stands for. If staff want to make a site for themselves, then I don't understand why they don't just close it off to the public and just RP among themselves. But when they ask for members to voice themselves out and then squash any concerns they have with constant rebuttals, then why ask them and make it feel like a slap in the face when they do whatever they planned on doing in the end?

A point was brought up that they pay for the site and so they maybe feel entitled to swaying things in their favour bc its "paid by them" but my retort to that is why would I donate to a site that doesn't even make me feel like I'm welcomed or heard by the staff? Why would I donate to a site where I may leave due to frustration or stress caused by the site, which I have already done twice this year.

EDIT: to be clear, I only ever returned both those times due to the certain small group of players and wanted to finish our plots before completely leaving entirely. If it weren't for these players, I would have never returned back in January. I'm not still here because of the game, but because of a handful of players that I do enjoy who have remained.