Why fortunately?

So... why not just deforest the guildhall? I'm pretty sure other guilds do that too.

Because it's a Treehouse. (A temporary workaround's been found by Raeri.)

That's pretty much what we're going to do, in the form of tearing it down and building a new one that's indoor/urban.

That sucks, I like the old guildhall.

The Blacktalon guildhall is also trees location. Flowing into their guildhall is so easy it's almost a requirement. It's the same with the Hartstone grove, I think.

Somewhere in the world, Nienla is taking drawing great strength and pleasure from the anger of the e-Serens.

Hi, pot, isn't it? Meet kettle.

How long is this argument going to last? Not just between Serenwilde and Glomdoring, but everyone.

People A: "You did something not nice, I'm going to take back what I said!"
People B: "That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People A:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"
People B:"That's because you did something not nice, so we had to!"

It gets tedious after about the third time.

Just @#!!$%^ stop already!

I did want to post something like "why don't you be the first person to stop, instead of waiting for the others to do it." but then I remember that it'll probably be ignored or somehow tried to be justified for what's being done so I figured it'd be a waste to post.

Wrong. I don't raid when none of you have defenders around. I actually enjoy it when you have defenders around. That's entire reason why I raid: To illicit a response.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Because this would be assuming the second party cares if you stop or not, and aren't actually just trying to pick a fight in the first place/trying to find the smallest reason not to cooperate.

I'm not talking about the particulars of raiding-- I'm talking about how each side justifies what they do. You justify going back on the raiding agreement because of Serenwilde's AM raids. Serenwilde justifies the AM raids because Glomdoring beheads lowbies browsing shops and picks off lowbies influencing in Faethorn. Which Glomdoring justifies because of X, which Serenwilde justifies because of Y, which goes on and on and on.

You don't have the moral high ground. I don't have the moral high ground. We're all caught up in the same illogical argument.

Tyrnae. Die. In. A. Fire.

The four of you couldn't stop her in time and your reaction tells a lot, too.

It doesn't actually matter what excuse is used to go back on what unsolicited promise to not do something jerkish. Even if it is adhered to, tomorrow someone else will take over doing it.

The deeper issue, to me, is that forestals have to consider forest and outdoor locations a liability. We have to trueground our own territory, denying ourselves the use of various of our skills, and spread monoliths everywhere, cutting off more of our own skills, and even that doesn't even come close to helping. What we end up having to do is tear down a guildhall that is much loved and represents tons of history and work, and then pay the "how much does it cost for a guildhall update? well, what's in the bankaccount right now? that much" fee, and waste time and energy we can't afford on writing a new one, and what will we get for it? Something that is intrinsicly antiforestal. Because if you are a forestal, the last place you want to defend is a treehouse. So once more we have to sacrifice another slice of who we are because of a stupid, poorly-thought-out game mechanic, because we can't get it fixed.

(Fixing Flow and Track to not work into guildhalls would not be hard. In fact, I bet it could be coded that any teleport-like skill can't go into a guildhall not your own, very easily. There is a flag on rooms for what guildhall they belong to: I know because the deconstruct command knows who's allowed to deconstruct furniture in it. Of course that wouldn't address the many other ways that forestals are weakened by their own terrain, but it'd be a start. But heck, why do that when we can tear down a beautiful guildhall full of history and ideal to the guild, and replace it with a goddamned bunker?)

And this is where my comment was more or less directed to. It takes a better person to step up and not retaliate. Of course, I understand your comment and accept its truthfulness.

However, it is unfortunately highly unlikely that anything like this would happen.

Incidentally, it would sure be nice, really really nice, if the Glomdoring epic quest didn't have to involve aggressive creatures killing Seren level-21s every time they try to turn in weevils or collect pixies. That would sure ease a lot of this stuff. Heck, just making the spawn a bit more selective about who they attack would be a lovely wonderful thing.

Can't they just use the tree bridges?