[Cerrik]

I'm glad you're civil about your opinion on the matter, but I feel it's necessary to reiterate the disregard I covered about 3-4 times in my previous posts... which is one of the largest issues with the replies. Civil or uncivil, claiming incorrect statements needs to be addressed and I will do so.

With this said, I will admit that I'm somewhat disappointed in how the people who were against the petition were have reacted throughout the thread and that you don't seem to grasp the true concept behind why it was made. Bria helped make the petition in hopes of bringing light to people and showing that there is a fair amount of ill-temperament in regards to instances. The only reason I refrain from giving examples is that I'm trying to prevent my head from being bitten off, since quite frankly I know someone will disagree with what I have to say and feel obligated to barge in. As previously stated, all I wish to do is state my wholehearted opinion.

In your reply, you say that we're fine with Egil's metagaming but shun Sarah for her usage of it, which isn't the case whatsoever. From what I've gathered from speaking with a myriad of people in regards to the matter, we simply believe that to say Sarah hasn't used OOC intentions to aid in the matter when there is valid proof that she's admitted to doing this for Fern, to keep Romek from potentially killing Delphia, whom we all know Fern cherishes greatly. It's noble in her mind and a compelling story to tell if it were a fairytale, although this is not the case. I don't feel as though pointing any fingers at the people who organized and signed the contract and virtually telling them that they're in the wrong will honestly do anything. I'm a firm believer in that in order for conflict to arise, both sides must have done something wrong.

I'll start by saying that I can't speak for many people but Bria and I had quite a lengthy discussion and kept it quite civil, yet to quote you as you said exactly: I will admit that I'm somewhat disappointed in how the people who were against the petition were have reacted throughout the thread. I've been quite against the petition and not once did I slander anyone...

The second paragraph highlights the petition's supporters* disregard, or as you say, regard for Egil's metagaming. However, the petition doesn't state anything about punishing Egil but it pays particular homage to Sarah. Bria has said plenty of times that the petition was rushed, which is okay! The problem is that the perception, and reality in many unfavorable people's cases, are disregarding it and the petition only speaks about Sarah metagaming, not Egil. However, much more importantly... and I covered this about 3 times already, and to not misrepresent you I will quote you: we simply believe that to say Sarah hasn't used OOC intentions to aid in the matter when there is valid proof that she's admitted to doing this for Fern. Please go to Regarding Romek thread and read Sarah's response. She has admitted only to wanting Romek dead but she vehemently opposes the notion that it affected her character's actions. I've broken down the logs that have been incorrectly used as 'proof of Sarah's metagaming', which I would suggest you go back and read those posts. I'm not claiming that you've used those logs as 'proof', but when you claim that you believe Sarah's OOC intentions affected her character's actions, you are accusing her of metagaming and I will disagree by pointing you to the previously mentioned posts and topics.

I haven't quoted the rest of your post because it's quite fair from this point onward: You have concerns and you're voicing them, and I'd never advocate to take that away from anyone! However, when you state something incorrect someone also retains the right to correct you. Especially in the first quoted paragraphs case which paints myself, who is in opposition, in a negative light.

(Edit: Messed up the quote, HTML pls.
Edit 2: Changed petition to petition's supporters)