I know it is not the job of Landrei games nore of admins and developers or jeffpersonally to make us happy as hell all day long blah blah blah its an entertainment group no ? based out of western california if i am correct,.. correct me if im not.

my suggestion is .. developers and admins.. satrt responding to us. yer killing us me personally. ive made dozens of suggestions and all i get is spam ass holes and critics' how about a devloper say its a nice idea or say we cant do it rather thebn us getting playr boy calling me a faggot or something ? we need attention too ya know..

i am not saying you dont have things to do stacked to yer cielings metaphoricly. or a lot of headaches to render... but .. every now and then i see things on these suggestion pages just dissapear.. go off like a faded light. peoples inspiration and ideas going to waste... a horrible waste..

I wouldn't say all of your ideas are bad, but it'd be nice to be able to read them. Punctuation, spelling, and grammar in general were invented for a reason.

heres what i see olympus gets a new item probly weekly Ok yea t21 is the new thing uve ignored UZ ok u added reconditioned ai to the layers thast nice a start why did u lock the ef layer from building why not open it ? let people build there dont allow pvp bvb peacefull huge layer controlled by earthforce wyhy not add some new stuff to the nexus u took away the fighter bays andadded what >? some shineys ? u gave the f2p a higher limit that was nice as hell of you.


when a person has a wild idea liek my titan idea sure i knerw it couldnt happen but to show people gave a shit would be nice. that hurt when no one liked it. i tried. hard.

and yet i will see soem one who is well known in the game and liked.. there idea useless wahtsioever or not needing a change will be installed next day wiothout question.

admins get to play sorry aurora i have to bring u in this. admins/defv's get to play godwith anythign they desire. whatsoever.
and dont give a seconeds head note to a player who is frustrated by the change me. being killed by a rosfire in a travel ship by 1 missile..

i just feel. either i or many other are neglected and no pen pays us attention and only a select few get to make opinions htat are noted. or even given a light of a chance at a suggestion being noticed.

thats why i posted the J.F.K. illuminati speach thing.

because i feel like im being held back by soem fucking all powerfull force in this game from getting anywhere or making any changes or even getting a word out.

=

Lillith-

a) I just scrolled down. your last suggestion (lore ships) received a response from Aurora.

b) I looked to the next suggestion. I must admit, you can work on your wording - remember how much the developers have to read through on these forums asides from their normal duties. It is time consuming to try to figure out what you think someone is trying to say.

c) also with the tracking device suggestion - it has very limited application. I'm not sure how it would enhance gameplay - you need to be more specific in outlining exactly how and why the game would be improved by your idea. With the homing device, any player you shoot with it will simply dock at the next ai base they see. If they're too dumb to do so, it will be to easy to drive said dumbass to quit by perpetually killing him and/or preventing him from getting to an AI base. Maybe you see applications I don't, but spell it out more carefully.

d) I'm not sure how it is now, but remember that almost the entire staff of star sonata was on a volunteer basis as I remember it. They are helping because they like to help, but, while it would be nice if they had the time to respond, I don't really see how they're obligated to respond to posts that don't directly pertain to the ability to play the game (ie. major bugs).

e) Now, I love the hell out of the fact that the developers actually pay attention to our suggestions sometimes. I'll point out that in 90% of games released, the players have little to no input into the content and mechanics of the game. Appreciate the fact that it is an awesome aspect of SS that the developers actually work WITH the players instead of simply saying "this is the game we're making, deal with it" in every case.

Clam, you dont talk much. But when you do, its always perfect.

Including your suggestions. Everyone of them got implemented, yes?

+Clam

Another suggestion is, and this is super dead serious, work on your spelling/grammar. You don't need to be perfect but when the only medium for communication is text it highly limits the mental picture someone can make of you and your thoughts when it looks like a 10 year old spelled it all out =/

Also, frankly, some of the stuff you say is just weird. Chill out, spell correctly and don't be so asymmetric to society. We have a norm for a reason, going against it simply results in the treatment you receive. How many folks actually talk like you?

JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27, 1961 SPEECH
President John F. Kennedy and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, April 27, 1961
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces


"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

there is that clear enough trolls ? plain text written out directly from the site.

That won't work either Lexx. Again, just be normal, don't post a 5 page speech.

you just dont get it do you... im trying to point out that there is a class system forming in this game where there doesnt need to be one. in fact shouldnt be one and its both making it bad for buisness and its bad for players comming in when they reach level 500 or so and figure out the fucking sociol system behind the game hasnt progressed past highschool..

Not sure what you mean. This game is actually super mature compared to most MMOs that I know of. Could you make a specific example. Also, just the fact that you continue to spout things about conspiracy and class system in a >game< makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously.

Again, please please please just be normal. Some folks might think it very mean of me to ask someone to not be "weird" but there is no other way to say it. The things you are typing out are just silly, have no point and are mostly not even cognitive thoughts.

Read what we are saying, understand why folks respond the way they do. Go read all of my topics, do I get flamed like this? No one does, besides maybe Deathreus and Basta but even they have improved! You have a chance, just learn from mistakes.

You are making it incredibly difficult to give proper feedback. So far you have simply ignored every suggestion, all of which boil down to quit being so odd.

You just compared us telling you to stop spamming to killing you in real life. I mean....really?

im making a reference to this. them spamming me is in a similarity to some one sniping jfk who stood up to speak against something wrong.


you would probly need to see this from my pov.. a stuck poor teamless muted in all and trade chat permanantly person with no decent team to back her up and after the worst enemy in the game.

no hope ... but you wont see it from my pov .... empathy is my job.... that's how i got where i am.