[quote=Magic Magnum]
Most of that post is largely the same argument I'll have the same response to, so I'm not going to make four different quotes simply reply with the same thing four times.So in regards to what I'm not quoting, I'm not making the assumption everyone is troublesome by default. I am simply acknowledging such players exists. Big difference.You can't act like every time there's a player conflict the GM is fully within their power/capability to resolve it peacefully and favorably. It doesn't always work that way. It's a nice sentiment, but you are doing no one any favor's by giving advice the assumes any failed attempt to make players get along is instantly the GM's fault. It's just flat out ignoring a type of player exist.I am not suggesting walking in and treating everyone like those kinds of players like you seem to be claiming I am. But simple acknowledgement that some battles a GM can't fix is rather important to notice and accept, especially when you're giving advice to GM's in need, so you need make them feel shitty about themselves when in fact they have no reason to be. TLDR: Admitting something exists is not the same as treating everyone like that something.Admitting something exists is not the same as being a Pessimist.It's happened on the Guild also, and even if it hasn't it's not a foreign concept. You can have an Interest Check, and OOC and an IC just like any other RP. It's just that authority and power is not majority being handed over to one person. It's a shared/equal effort, and nothing in the Guild forces you to have a GM, it's just commonly accepted culture.
[/quote]

Exploring options before making a decision isn't shitty advice. Destructive behaviour isn't a simple disagreement, but a threat to the roleplay itself and should be treated as such (again; read harder). Commonly accepted culture = relevance to topic. Brovo made me read this, but I'm bored with this now. So yeah.