Debauchery...

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.

---

Bishop doesn't play in a kingdom that competes for either warwin, honor or land/nw.

this is why the ww crown currently is stupid. Bishop, when we getting thread on new ww chart formula since age is going to be longer to code for it

Yesterday Brilliant.

link please. i cant find it.

edit: like i mean the actual one you have chosen to go with for next age. not the thousand suggestions

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.

---

KDs who Debauchery got a WW from also have a loss still on their KD page, so I guess it's a conspiracy against all of them as well because they didn't have it rolled back?

Have you ever considered that it might just be a limitation of the coding that to remove WWs you need to remove all wars, since Psychosis had none to lose then they didn't have losses removed as they weren't touched, that doesn't mean Debauchery were treated more harshly but rather to apply the same actions a different route was taken (pretty sure going from 0/3 to 0/0 isn't a punishment either...)

Think having a quick read through this thread you'll find that Bishop and Devs obviously agree with their decision but not only that most of the people posting here also agree with it, also the player base isn't really getting smaller it's fairly stable & if you believe a text based maths game should still have 100k players (considering ~20% of those were probably scripts/multis at that time) based on the rules it imposes then you're crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrystal Palace

Now if Paintrain can rob some honor off of BoB all will be right in the world.

---

Keep dreaming...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brilliant

BoB is a fine kingdom with a few dickheads.

---

Its because your kd is pathetic.

Knock it off.

I don't agree with what the kd did. I can see how they'd think since they didn't fix the outcome of the war that they'd consider it an arranged war and not a fake war. This is the kind of things the rules would benefit from differentiating, without having to define every little action therein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverfox

Have you ever considered that it might just be a limitation of the coding that to remove WWs you need to remove all wars, since Psychosis had none to lose then they didn't have losses removed as they weren't touched, that doesn't mean Debauchery were treated more harshly but rather to apply the same actions a different route was taken (pretty sure going from 0/3 to 0/0 isn't a punishment either...)

---

That doesn't even make sense. They've overwritten war wins in the past. Unless they just changed the coding to this, which would be a huge oversight on the coder's part and they should inform us this is the case and they messed up. Have they? No.

And it shouldn't matter if going from 0/3 to 0/0 "is not punishment." You don't know the kds goals. Maybe they wanted to lose the most wars and this was setting them right up for it. Who cares. Punishing one kd in this more than the others shows personal interest in inflicting more punishment. That is a textbook example of partiality/bias/favoritism, no matter how you want to spin it otherwise.

Either punish all parties the same, or get someone else who knows how to to run the game. And if you are going to take away all the war wins, then take them away from all the kds and delete those monarchs too since they've been implicated and accused of fake wars. Overly punishing one kd, (in my opinin) more fairly punishing another kd, and not even touching all the other kds that are involved in suspected fake wars is not fair punishment. What happened is ridiculous. The admins should be ashamed of themselves.

I would like to state I am in agreement with, and support, the decisions made with regards to punishment.

Since you are in Debauchery then perhaps you can assist me, what other wars that you had were fake?

Amazing to me how many people still don't understand the difference between an arranged war and an arranged win/acre trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thatoneperson

Either punish all parties the same, or get someone else who knows how to to run the game. And if you are going to take away all the war wins, then take them away from all the kds and delete those monarchs too since they've been implicated and accused of fake wars. Overly punishing one kd, (in my opinin) more fairly punishing another kd, and not even touching all the other kds that are involved in suspected fake wars is not fair punishment. What happened is ridiculous. The admins should be ashamed of themselves.

---

So both Monarch's getting deleted wasn't punishing them the same? Having zero war wins, is having zero war wins... Though, I think you're right... maybe Strippers should have had 0/8 instead of 0/0. IMO, they're both lucky the entire kingdoms didn't get deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thatoneperson

That doesn't even make sense. They've overwritten war wins in the past. Unless they just changed the coding to this, which would be a huge oversight on the coder's part and they should inform us this is the case and they messed up. Have they? No.

---

It doesn't make sense. But no, they don't need to inform you. And they did not mess up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thatoneperson

And it shouldn't matter if going from 0/3 to 0/0 "is not punishment." You don't know the kds goals. Maybe they wanted to lose the most wars and this was setting them right up for it. Who cares. Punishing one kd in this more than the others shows personal interest in inflicting more punishment. That is a textbook example of partiality/bias/favoritism, no matter how you want to spin it otherwise.

---

Goals are only relevant to a certain extent. There was no favoritism here. Judges decide sentences based on the individual severity of the crime. A rule break in a game can similarly have varying consequences based on the information perceived by support. Keep in mind, the punishment was decided and agreed upon by not only the support team, but also by a developer (who does not play).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thatoneperson

Either punish all parties the same, or get someone else who knows how to to run the game. And if you are going to take away all the war wins, then take them away from all the kds and delete those monarchs too since they've been implicated and accused of fake wars. Overly punishing one kd, (in my opinin) more fairly punishing another kd, and not even touching all the other kds that are involved in suspected fake wars is not fair punishment. What happened is ridiculous. The admins should be ashamed of themselves.

---

'Suspected' is not relevant here. 'Accused' is not relevant here. Confirmed is. All other kingdoms are not relevant here. The two involved are. Each got a punishment. You actually have less knowledge of how to run a game or make a 'fair' judgement than any current or former game admin. And considering the original owner would've just deleted both kds in whole, I'd say this punishment was rather mild. The Monarch of Strippers is quite well aware of his actions and his decision. He only would complain about the punishment because he's unhappy he got caught. Not for any other reason. Any player involved in the two kingdoms is free to think there was something unjust here, to them. But keep in mind, all involved players form both kingdoms have done something unjust, and therefore their opinion matters quite a bit less.

Consolation: at least they get to keep those sci books

Debauchery approached Psyhcosis first for the "mutually beneficial arrangement", so they get the shorter end of the stick..? Whats so unfair about that?