That's not what happened here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingKnights
Printable View
That's not what happened here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingKnights
This seems oddly familiar. Although for some reason you ended up WD even though we never quite got you in conquest range ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hint
In a round about way thats exactly what happened. He made a NAP with 1 province in the kd he was warring. There are x others free to op and do whatever they please to that province. Its their choice if they actually do those ops. He did not make a NAP with the entire kd. Actually im going to stop their... Why dont you give a well written post of what was done wrong here, when you let trollfags war a basically dead kd for weeks upon weeks for practically free growth. Simians stepped in a took their resources in their oh so real war... +1 for simians. Other cows/banks were free to hit into this war as well.
In a round about way it is not what happened here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingKnights
Its cute when people think they know all the things but really dont know anything and then make fools out of themselves.
Let me simplify this Bishop. If no NAP was in the forum or in the terms, and the 2 cows were not hitting each but actively participating in the war, what would your course of action had been? Told them to stop FWing? How is that not YOU deciding for THEM who they can and cannot hit? There is no place for that kind of dev interference in Utopia.
Korp you've made pretty terrible arguments in this thread, so not sure what you think is "cute".
I already did, thank you, and the reason he was deleted was because you randomly decided that already defined rules of "fake war" should include a single province that is growing. Noting that a fake war is between kingdoms and that this single province was punished for being in "not a real war" yet the rest of his kingdom and the other kingdom IS in a "real war." I read what was written, trollfag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Nobody knows exactly what happend but several has already claimed how it went exactly. Dont you think that strikes as funny? But I guess you talked to Bishop and he explained your reasoning right? Or wait probably not since then you wouldnt be here aruging.Quote:
Korp you've made pretty terrible arguments in this thread, so not sure what you think is "cute".
hahahah, yeah, you're such a fool <3Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Everyone knows exactly what happened that cares to read. Not sure what piece of the story you are missing.
Calling me a troll fag again will result in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuriho
A fake war is designated as a war that is fake. There is no specification that all provinces in a kingdom need to be involved, nor were uninvolved provinces actioned.
If we received a report about such a war being fake, with the details you provided, we would contact the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
There is nothing fake about hitting an enemy kingdom you are at war with. The choice of targets is not yours to make Bishop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Lets agree to disagree ;-)
lol why you hating so hard? Would you feel better if I omitted "exactly"? My point was that your ridiculous examples are irrelevant because we know the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
What happened: Two cows were napped for a war, got deleted.
What didn't happen: 24 provs napped.
Everyone just razing people
ect.
Discuss what happened, not stupid extreme examples.
It it hits me in the eye, yes it will prolly hurt.Quote:
If a 5 year old kid throws some small stones at you do you get hurt for reals?
So now every war with UBs staring at each other, it should get reported and force them to start trading hits? Otherwise it's a fake war right? Fail. What an outrageous statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
still waiting for this post. Your definition of fake war you just gave is very lol'able.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingKnights
Indeed there is not. Agreeing to have a fake war with someone though is what we call fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
You said you'd take action without the proof of agreement, you can't use that as an excuse anymore. Also there was no agreement to have a fake war, they were both in war and actively participating. You have no justification whatsoever for deleting them.
According to Bishops logic NAP = fake war now.
Thats what im getting out of this anyways.
No. NAP'ing in a war = fake war.
How do we know Ryan wasn't planning on backstabbing the other guy, and he gets deleted before he could make his move and nail him? There is no in-war CF mechanic. They interfered in diplomacy when no rules were being broken. They decided these provs should have been trading hits, and deleted them for not doing so. How ANYONE can not see a problem with this amazes me.
Palem the NAP was made prewar. Think of it as war terms. My kd even had a news report done where one of the terms was no dragons.
Edit: Even though my mentioning of dragons really has no relevance its the idea of war terms that im trying to get across which looks like exactly what happened here. It was agreed upon pre-war.
(00:28:43) 02(&Ryan) to find where i offered to war that kd with the terms i wouldnt hit their monarch
(00:28:51) 02(&Ryan) (i cant even break their monarch)
(00:29:12) 02(&Ryan) it's comparable to me sending out war requests and saying i wont send or slay dragons (when the other kd is never in dragon range)
(00:31:38) 11(~Proteus) howd u give/get button
(00:31:50) 02(&Ryan) my kd waved his
(00:31:57) 02(&Ryan) his kd retalled and declared
Redo and make it right! Reinstate Grande Mucca.
Im sry but i really think this was a bit to much. I cant even explain how wrong this is.
Devs need to understand they are wrong. Game suffers badly by this.
Allowing trollfags war and then deleting grande mucca is just pure examples of how things will be future ages.
Not sure i want to be a part of that. Devs totaly lost their minds now?
It would probably favour them to reinstate grande mucca now because i can feel how much player support there is for this.
Not the smartest move to just walk right over the server...
I voiced my oppinion, nothing more can be done.
They agreed to have a real war. "We" call a real war fake though because "We" are trollfag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
And btw, Bi Shoopdawhoop, your name autofilters into trollfag when i type it. probably a condition of the truth =(
Hi, I'm Golden Maw from the kingdom warring against late grande mucca. Our king Astrael got deleted too. I just wanna let it be known that this war wasn't a fake war. It's still going, thought it seems that we are getting our butts handed to us :D I kinda guessed they had an agreement because they didn't attack each other, but never we got any instructions about it, so it clearly was between those 2 (and i can't find it surprising, no way our king would have taken on that war otherwise).
We all were previously discussing how damned hard it was to find a war. So we lost our biggest member/king because he made a deal that finally allowed us small guys have a decent war. Honestly, I don't care THAT much (I only joined the game few weeks back myself) But Astrael was kinda the driving force that kept our kingdom slightly alive (he helped every newcomer in kingdom chat and had designated forum thread Q&A for newbies). Now that he's gone our ghetto will probably die for good.
Edit:
Don't know if it matters, but both Kings were participating in war fully; they both chained biggest normal sized targets with rest of the kingdom.. I should know, I was mucca's first target :D
Edit2: Actually I lied, we just got a new king voted (finally) and did withdraw from the war.
I'm with DHaran on this one and dorje a few pages back.
1) It wasn't a fake war
2) Even if you disagree with #1 you don't delete someone with 2 weeks left to go in the age after spending 3 months playing his province
3) Even if you disagree with #1 you talk to the player first. Ryan is online 24/7 and its fairly easy to get ahold of him and say "I don't like this, stop it or I'm deleting" or you suspend.
Deleting someone without any sort of precedence after spending as much time as he did on the game is just flat out wrong.
To clear it a lil more. Just dont do the diplo with ingame msg`s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
While I do not disagree with the deletion (I feel the spirit of the game was definitely being violated) I disagree with the assertion made by Bishop and co that this deletion was for 'fake warring'.
An arranged war with a nap is not a fake war, its a war between 2 ghettos. Simple. Now, if two ghetto's with all sub 1k acre provinces and 1 big prov each (say 2-3k acres) does this exact same thing, there would never be a deletion over it. Double standards due to size is wrong.
In my opinion this incident does a lot to show what is wrong with utopia. The people in charge simply do not think things through in my opinion, or if they do, they do so with very little understanding.
This is quite outrageous. I've been reading through this whole thread, and I really can't understand how the Devs can believe in the strangest of mindsets that this will gain the server. I'm frankly quite disgusted by the obvious misuse of dev powers, and my will to play this game has really taken a hit today.
And reading through this thread, I'm clearly not the only one.. GG on this one.
Sry about Astrael also. We did hit him a few times this age. No one should get deleted like him and grande mucca. They did nothing wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaine
I hope your ghetto makes it without him. He seemed like a decent player. More like him is needed in the ghettos for the best of this game.
To bad Bishop and the devs dont see it the same way as the players...
The new rules kinda give the kingdom not prepared no real choice in the matter, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
lol, sometimes you enter war unprepared to get acres and get time-frame to pump in eowcf. Because we dont like backing down. I rather wd.Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
A bit out of topic. But Bishop does not make sense at all..
You aren't interested in seeing how the active playerbase views this situation? Your stated goal was to improve and grow the game. If the playerbase views diplomacy as an important component of the game, you seem to be setting up a situation where you can decide on a whim to delete someone and back it up with vague assertions which are lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
The bottom line is that I don't trust you Bishop to decide what is or isn't legitimate when it comes to diplomacy. Many would argue that diplomacy is the heart of the game, and along with that deception. You abuse power and throw your weight around all the time, and you are the last person I would trust to decide what is legit or not.
The fact that you shut down a poll asking the community if they agreed or disagreed with your action speaks louder than anything you've said in this thread. The way you talk about things has a very Orwellian tone to it. How did Orwell put it? Truespeak?
According to the next quote, both provs which were deleted were active in the war. There was nothing "fake" about it for them. They were participating in the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Quite frankly, in situations where there is a "cow" prov, kingdoms frequently use diplomacy to mitigate the imbalance it causes. Who are you to decide that a certain prov must hit a certain other prov? Was Grande Mucca participating in the war? According to the enemy kd, yes. Was the other deleted prov participating in the war? According to people involved in said war, yes.
Both provs were participating. They simply agreed ahead of time that in order to make the war a fair fight, the cow prov wouldn't just rape the smaller kd's largest prov repeatedly. That seems like a nice gesture and nothing more.
Good to hear from an actual participant in the war to confirm that both provs were actively participating in the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaine
Bishop: You messed up. What Ryan did was a gesture to make a war between two ghetto's be as fair a fight as possible. It was a kind gesture by a skilled player who was in a ghetto and (apparently) helping teach new players how to play.
You outlawed fake wars to stop allied kd's from going to war with each other to get -75% gains protection from outsiders while they did no hits or ops against each other and pumped in order to be better prepared to fight their enemies.
You didn't outlaw fakewars so you could abuse vague wording to punish a guy who was doing good for his kd, did something nice for another kd to help both kd's have a more fair fight (which is more enjoyable for all participants, which only leads to player retention and growth).
The bottom line is, for as long as I've known you and watched what you say and how you behave Bishop, I've observed one unchanging fact: You never ever, not even for a moment, consider that your viewpoint might be incorrect. And you never ever admit to having been wrong.
In this case, the community clearly and nearly unanimously agrees that what you did was not in the spirit of the "fw's are now being actioned" notice you gave before the age.
Honestly, it simply looks like you're playing favorites for someone or abusing your power for some other motive.
But what I know is true is that you will never admit that you are wrong (even though you clearly are) and this will never be reversed. Until Sean and Brian get rid of you as the main "face" for this game, it will continue to stagnate and die. You have too frequently abused your power, been rude to people, refused to talk to people like a rational adult, and you are never open to any viewpoint but your own.
Those are all terrible qualities for a Community Manager, which is essentially the role you play here.
Just a bit of the way one nub sees it.
Well spoken!Quote:
Originally Posted by UtopiaNub
+100
+200Quote:
Originally Posted by UtopiaNub
+300Quote:
Originally Posted by UtopiaNub
UtopiaNub ....... +10000.
Holding Bishop's and the dev's view on this matter as a judgement on his abilities as a game admin and as a community manager is a bit dramatic. While I absolutely agree the wrong thing was done in THIS case, Bishop has been pretty awesome in my opinion in his management. I think this was a misstep by the devs, I won't use that to condemn someone who has done a whole lot more for the game than most of us have.
Ryan can still win this age
absolutely true DHaran.... taking this opportunity to condemn bishop is a bit strong.