Debauchery...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

Bishop doesn't play in ED.

One could also say that this definition of a fake war verifies the actions on top of the talk.

---

If he plays in the #2 or #3 war win kd then I think that would say something. Bugs shouldn't be abused by players and rules shouldn't be abused by Bishop especially one where there is no clear definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tr3ndy

I find it funny that in this warring game you can steal and you can kill but negotiating war terms where you are still killing and stealing is bannable.

I remember when top kds would 'fake war' and escape enemies by jumping into a war with an ally with no attacks/ops and that was considered a fake war. Some one pointed out the last kd to receive this kind of punishment had a player defect from their kd and the defected player would continuously attack his former kd to insinuate wars... again that sounds like a good definition of a fake war. These are good definitions of a fake war because it is based on actions not talk. Sweet talking an enemy into war is impossible to moniter fully because it can happen behind closed doors. From the way the war went it seemed to Debauchery inflicted alot of pain on Psychosis-- Out Max gaining them for 24 hours to secure the win then switching to learn attacks all while ops were being exchanged. From the honor charts Psychosis even took quite a bit of honor of Debauchery. From my eyes it looks like a legit war.. Debauchery being punished for being nice to Psychosis is a little silly isnt it. If I were a newbie to this game (like many think;p) and saw in the rules 'Fake Wars' are not allowed I doubt I would consider the Debauchery vs Psychosis a 'fake war'.

I did notice in the ED thread Bishop seemed like he had a personal dislike for Debauchery. Did this influence is decision? Not sure.. what I do think is fair is that the utopian community should be able to see which province Bishop is playing so we know he isn't being biased.

---

It's a war game, which has rewards for winning wars in the form of sci/credits/land/honour/number on KD page, it's also player vs. player in the sense that there is competition between other people.

You are allowed to message term to other KDs, you're just not allowed to set stupid terms where one KD gets to end with "more land" or only certain provs get hit, I mean how the hell can you even consider that a war? The whole point of waring is 2 KDs fighting 1v1 to see who wins, not a little picnic where you make sure both sides don't end-up too damaged and everyone gains.

In the past KDs used to FW to pump/escape, they would almost always end in a MP and we're talking about times where you didn't get given all the extra bonuses that war wins now give so you're comparing apples with oranges.

It is impossible to totally police the game, however in this case both KDs were stupid enough to send blatantly obvious terms through ingame messages. While on the topic of both KDs, why are you trying to insinuate Bishop has a dislike of Debauchery which influenced the decision? You seem to be forgetting that the other KD lost their monarch as well, just because they had no WW to lose doesn't mean they weren't treat exactly the same way.

oh well. its a game
powertrippers will powertrip


atleast we smashed ED and they got Pie on their face. That war was arranged too, so definitely take away that WW.

The other KD is 0/3 while Debauchery is 0/0.. That isnt fair justice. Debauchery lost all their war win, it is impossible to judge if Psychosis would have lost all their war wins if they had had any. Taking away 7 other war wins that would have possibly won the war crowns that were legit (until proven otherwise) is completely over the top. Deleting the player (their biggest) and taking away the last war win would seem fair to me as it would also be time lost and the age is only 3 months. Anyways I looked through the first 1/3 of the ED thread to find a couple quotes that lead me earlier to think Bishop already had a dislike for Debauchery. The player base is diminishing and I don't think these actions were in the best interest of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

ED are schooling a kingdom that ignores war status, land drops and asks friends to raze their war opponents. Many kds are offering assistance to ED.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

We aren't interested in players who think its ok to land drop and op into eowcf with no consequences. We are 100% in favour of players who uphold ethical values.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverfox

You seem to be forgetting that the other KD lost their monarch as well, just because they had no WW to lose doesn't mean they weren't treat exactly the same way.

---

Then why is Debauchery down to 0/0 while the other is still 0/3?

Maybe because debauchery is in the war for the sole purpose of WW..? While psycho is in war to... be in war to avoid getting farmed by bigger KDs? and maybe because debauchery was the first to approach psycho and offer that "mutually beneficial" arrangement..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tr3ndy

If he plays in the #2 or #3 war win kd then I think that would say something. Bugs shouldn't be abused by players and rules shouldn't be abused by Bishop especially one where there is no clear definition.

---

We could be #2 or #3 if Bishop gave us their war wins instead. He doesn't seem interested in that idea though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tr3ndy

The other KD is 0/3 while Debauchery is 0/0.. That isnt fair justice. Debauchery lost all their war win, it is impossible to judge if Psychosis would have lost all their war wins if they had had any. Taking away 7 other war wins that would have possibly won the war crowns that were legit (until proven otherwise) is completely over the top. Deleting the player (their biggest) and taking away the last war win would seem fair to me as it would also be time lost and the age is only 3 months. Anyways I looked through the first 1/3 of the ED thread to find a couple quotes that lead me earlier to think Bishop already had a dislike for Debauchery. The player base is diminishing and I don't think these actions were in the best interest of the game.

---

So, arranging fake wars is not ruining the game for other players? I am lucky I am not in your kingdom.

I support what Bishop has done judging from what I have read. I usually troll Bishop but I will always applaud a job well done.

Everything points to a FW unfortunatly. BTW Bishop IS Utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutlol

So much a hassle when it comes to this while lame ass KDs like BoB go around double teaming into KDs to force them into war, or simply just keep bashing on a smaller KD.
Fake wars are being punished, but what they are doing is all fine? Fair and honest warring, there well always be some sad people pushing things to extremes to a border line of getting away with it or not.

Either way, as some people said already, the whole definition of a fake war not being clearly stated is a huge shortcoming and imo failure of the people running this game, being consistent about creating clear rules of play. If things are simply left up to a personal opinion of an admin to allow or disallow, I find they should be a lot more thorough in other attempts to abuse the shortcoming rules and mechanics this game is running on. And really, if you go as far as to convict them as guilty, just deleting a monarch and clearing war wins is silly. Be thorough and just reset the whole KD, honor, science, make it so it's really not condoned. These halfassed random decisions is what causing the huge grey area around the rules in the first place.

In short, arranging fake wars or mid war cfs are lame and should be punished, KDs abusing rules/mechanics by forcing wars or actively hitting into other wars should be punished just as much. Last but not least, management of this game needs to wake up and for a start put some effort into making clearer rules rather than leave everything up to a random interpretation, such a huge shortcoming.

Just something easy which would solve a lot of problems, rather than just wave a KD first, send a message of declaration about time, conditions etcs. KDs can simply agree/disagree much like with sending/accepting a cf. Wasn't it in the past as well a KD could just offer war without wave? At the same time it would mean even KDs running lots of mystics/rogues/warriors whatever with fancy war boosts, to get some war offers, rather than never getting waved in fears of getting opped for over a week because the whole UF/Hostile system is just a screwed up as the definitions of things mentioned int he rules like what fake wars are or not.

Stupid overzealous reactions over this incident when it's happening all over the place, just now some people left some trace of their intentions. Quite hilarious our vague rules can only be enforced if there is send an igm.

---

No link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

Why? Debauchery was caught in a fake war. The monarchs of both kingdoms were deleted. Debauchery obviously orchestrated this fake war with the goal of winning the War Win crown in mind. There is no telling which wars of their were or were not rigged, and thus the fairest course of action is to remove all their wins.

Although I completely disagree with this bull**** policy, and Korp is a flake for siding with Bishop.

---

I don't think they need a eighth win to get the crown. I am not siding them. Motive and intentions are important as well in determine one's action

Consider the Olympics. If you're caught cheating, you lose your medal or are disqualified from competing.
Same principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lestat

With your Prov numbers and record I think you could have got plenty of other KDs to war that you had a chance to beat.

---

Second to that. Stoner, Roughkneck and FS all in range. Unless they refuse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tr3ndy

If he plays in the #2 or #3 war win kd then I think that would say something. Bugs shouldn't be abused by players and rules shouldn't be abused by Bishop especially one where there is no clear definition.

---

Here's an idea. Why don't you try and define the rule. While you're at it, give me every possible province name that could be against the rules too so I know what I cannot name my province. Also, please give me explicit instructions on how to define 'Spirit of the rules' and 'in a manner not intended'

Heck, Why don't you do something realistic, like come up with a suggestion on how to alter the way things are currently. I know.. that's probably a bit of a stretch for you since you can't fathom what was wrong here. But I support you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrystal Palace

Thanks for cheating. It's kind of nice to see the top so close. Now if Paintrain can rob some honor off of BoB all will be right in the world.

---

Now now..the war has ended between paintrain and BoB

but the way you put it makes it sound like BoB cheated to get their honor...