Term Interpretation Consultancy

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-05-2017, 21:05
Madchess

non compete sure seems complicated and stuff but why battle on words? I can say with 100% certanity that if I was in charge of making a cf deal and the people I had the cf with was working behind the scenes to harm me or backstab in any way I would considder the agreement breached and count the cf for nothing and if I deemed I could take them on directly I would do so immidiately without asking anyone in this forum no matter what terms was agreed or if the deal was signed in the blood of my ancestors or something.

If I could not take them on I would never make a deal with those people again and make a point of moving against them whenever possible or convenient.

But it has been a while since I last lead a kingdom and I've never done any deals like this.
09-05-2017, 21:40
Shai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta

Im fine with both our provs being deleted. But thats up to the admins.

I'm also fine with Barts two top provinces being deleted for chart manipulation.

Seems we agree for once!
09-05-2017, 21:44
Elldallan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillz

Bart has stated he is not plotting to dethrone ASF. Bart has, as of yet, not won the Age 71 province land crown.

Whether he has or hasn't is irrelevant, he can break the deal as posted without actually crowning. Yes he has said he doesn't intend to dethrone ASF, but the thing is that Bart has a, shall we say sketchy record, so I wouldn't necessarily take his word for it if his actions seems to indicate something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillz

And again, I would contend, echoing back to a previous post of mine, that to compete would require an concerted in-game effort by 8:9. No such effort is being undertaken (Bart is not farming acres from other banks, nor is he knocking down farm wars). The actions of 3rd parties can't be said to factor into the agreement, and no verifiable proof can be (or has been thus far) presented to suggest Bart is in fact conspiring against 8:13. It's Bart's word against unsubstantiated hearsay.

As stated by the dictionary you told Palem to go look up you can unconsciously compete with somebody, therefore it naturally follows that no concentrated ingame effort wouldn't and indeed couldn't be a requirement. Indirect action or unconscious action is sufficient if orchestrated by a party to the deal. If Bart is for example scheming with other kingdoms to try and have Kingdom C take #1 from ASF and then take #1 from Kingdom C then he is actively in competition for #1 regardless of whether he himself takes any action until ASF has already been dethroned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillz

And again, Bart is not barred from competing. Just with ASF and thus only for so long as ASF has the opportunity to crown. If ASF's opportunity passes, Bart is in the clear.

Not if Bart was actively trying to make ASF's opportunity pass because then he was in fact "actively striving to establish his dominance over ASF", ie compete with ASF and thus he would be in breach of the deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillz

And again, I do not believe that precedent set in previous situations allows for any conspiratorial activity by Bart to be considered a DB. Bart is free to take any effort he pleases to stop ASF from crowning as long as those efforts occur outside of the sphere of his in-game actions. If he were to benefit from any such conspiracy by virtue of no longer being beholden to clause #3 of his deal with ASF, that would merely be a happy bonus.

Sure there might be no precedent on this issue yet. But the usage of the word compete clearly sets a standard, which is that if Bart is by any means consciously or unconsciously trying to gain dominance over ASF then he is competing with ASF which is forbidden under the terms of the deal. On the other hand he is free to take any action that cannot be viewed as competing or trying to assert dominance, for example he can try to ruin ASF by indirect means as long as he doesn't gain from it, but if at any point in time he gains from it then he is competing and thus he is in breach of terms.

The dictionaries are pretty clear as to what sort of actions constitutes competing, and as such anything that can be considered as competing is banned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Various Dictionaries

:to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (such as position, profit, or a prize) : be in a state of rivalry
:to try to get or win something (such as a prize or reward) that someone else is also trying to win : to try to be better or more successful than someone or something else.
:Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.
09-05-2017, 21:56
Onlyzinc

Spirit of the Rules
Players attempting to manipulate rules and quirks of the game in ways obviously not intended may be subject to deletion. Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game.
Fair & Honorable Play
The operators of the game aim to maintain the highest standards of ethics within the game. Any instance of inappropriate language, manipulation of bugs, or acts of deception/fraud can result in immediate removal from the game. We rely on our users to help us enforce these rules and provide an enjoyable gaming environment for users of all ages and backgrounds.

Im pretty sure that making an agreement to not compete is not in the spirit of the rules and that line 3 is the implantation of manipulation of the land chat
"3. 8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13 (we will stay #2 so long as 8:13 has a prov on #1. Also if we are #1 and 8:13 is #2, we will make sure to drop to #2 allowing 8:13 to be #1)."

This is could also be an ethic issue. is it ethical to make a deal to aid another Kd in being #1?
Could this be an act of deception or fraud being that both KD are ensuring the others #1 status ?

Being that you need more judges and less lawyers I'll be the judge and say
YES

This is not within the spirit of the rules and would be considered and ethics violation and Game chat manipulation

Would we even be talking about this if it was for war wins no they would both be deleted the intent is the same
09-05-2017, 22:12
AquaSeaFoam

OnlyZinc, I really don't see how that part of the code in any way applies to a cf deal like this. If you want to argue that complicated cf deals are bad for the game, you might have a point, but I can't see how this deal would in any way be against the rules.
09-05-2017, 22:13
Pillz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

Yet, here I am arguing for keeping your word and the spirit of agreements and I bet no one can give any examples of when I didn't do this.

You tried to DB RoO by coordinating a GB on them before your CF expired, while they were preparing to fight you.

I understand, nothing you do is ever wrong, I get it, you've lied for so long that reality doesn't register any longer.
09-05-2017, 22:17
AquaSeaFoam

And how do you know what I tried to do? I'm pretty sure if I tried to do what you said, it would have happened. RoO and us worked our misunderstandings out already.

Try and consider what it is you are arguing for rather than just who you think you are arguing against.
09-05-2017, 22:32
Pillz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Whether he has or hasn't is irrelevant, he can break the deal as posted without actually crowning. Yes he has said he doesn't intend to dethrone ASF, but the thing is that Bart has a, shall we say sketchy record, so I wouldn't necessarily take his word for it if his actions seems to indicate something else.

As stated by the dictionary you told Palem to go look up you can unconsciously compete with somebody, therefore it naturally follows that no concentrated ingame effort wouldn't and indeed couldn't be a requirement. Indirect action or unconscious action is sufficient if orchestrated by a party to the deal. If Bart is for example scheming with other kingdoms to try and have Kingdom C take #1 from ASF and then take #1 from Kingdom C then he is actively in competition for #1 regardless of whether he himself takes any action until ASF has already been dethroned.

Not if Bart was actively trying to make ASF's opportunity pass because then he was in fact "actively striving to establish his dominance over ASF", ie compete with ASF and thus he would be in breach of the deal.

Sure there might be no precedent on this issue yet. But the usage of the word compete clearly sets a standard, which is that if Bart is by any means consciously or unconsciously trying to gain dominance over ASF then he is competing with ASF which is forbidden under the terms of the deal. On the other hand he is free to take any action that cannot be viewed as competing or trying to assert dominance, for example he can try to ruin ASF by indirect means as long as he doesn't gain from it, but if at any point in time he gains from it then he is competing and thus he is in breach of terms.

The dictionaries are pretty clear as to what sort of actions constitutes competing, and as such anything that can be considered as competing is banned.

If ASF can't crown, for whatever reason, Bart can.

You can't conflate Barts alleged machinations outside of the game to his competition (or lack thereof) with ASF in side of the game.

If you do, or more to the point, if ASF does, he is admitting that he violated his NAP with RoO by trying to orchestrate a GB on them. It is very simple.

Even now, ASF has admitted that this is just 'in case' Bart 'deal breaks' because no such action has yet occurred to 'violate' the deal.

Proving that Bart is behind any actions to stop ASF from crowning is on ASF if and when his position is threatened directly. This includes a prov defecting from 8:9.

As The deal is worded, Bart isn't violating anything and I will continue to hold the position that CF deals like that one only cover Ingame actions between the two kingdoms and not plans, schemes, or conversations conducted in concert with unaffiliated parties, which do not constitute violations of an agreement unless such a clause is stipulated.

Unless of course ASF and the rest of the people responsible for this cluster **** of anti-competitive CF system (all Cfs, not just non competes) can agree to some amount of consistency with regards to policing = db if a cf exists and that orchestrating a GB on a kd you have a cf with = db
09-05-2017, 22:33
Goodwitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

First of all, chart manipulation isn't against the utopian code, it's against player based ethics. Secondly, I'm not clear on how giving a weaker kingdom a free cf with the condition that they don't compete for #1 against them is anything unusual. Most of the top kingdoms all have similar deals with others.

The only unusual chart manipulation was Bart transferring land from his kingdom to another kingdom and then taking that land back on his top two provinces.

and this is exactly the problem, you don't think chart shaping is against the rules.

and to deflate the other points of your statement:
if they were weaker why would you even need to tell them not to compete?
just because Mr X murdered Mr Y and didn't get caught and convicted doesn't mean you can go kill Mr Z and expect to get away with it.
Pointing fault at someone else does not make you innocent.

non compete clauses have the same goal and the same effect as fake wars, to give you an unfair advantage in the game
09-05-2017, 22:34
Pillz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

And how do you know what I tried to do? I'm pretty sure if I tried to do what you said, it would have happened. RoO and us worked our misunderstandings out already.

Try and consider what it is you are arguing for rather than just who you think you are arguing against.

I've got testimonials from people that do admit you tried to have them DB RoO to police for you. That you bribed mike because he's a spineless coward is besides the point. And this thread is concerned with the possibility of Barts 'db', I think the parallels to the RoO gb situation are enough to make the situations relatively analogous.
09-05-2017, 22:37
Onlyzinc

Its not black and white because the rules are vague. However any manipulation via agreement is unethical and violation of the spirit of the rules.

It says it right here " Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game." not only did they not avoid it they made it public.

This is the non sense that makes newer players not want to stick around.

If you truly believe that this is acceptable. Explain how this is any different that an agreement to keep one KD with the war win crown.

because if this is allowed to continue I will be making agreements to have my KD hold the WW crown next age being that this is acceptable behavior
09-05-2017, 22:59
Elldallan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillz

If you do, or more to the point, if ASF does, he is admitting that he violated his NAP with RoO by trying to orchestrate a GB on them. It is very simple.

That depends entirely on what's stated in that deal, the case here is only because of the words used in the deal Bart posted, namely the word compete. And it seems crystal clear by the way that dictionaries phrase it that included in competition is any actions(even going as far as to include unconscious acts) which aim "to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others". Thus because of the definition of the words used it cannot be solely limited to direct ingame acts by Bart.

If the cf agreement with RoO was a standard you cannot attack us before X date and any notice has to be sent atleast Y hours before attacks can be made then scheming to gb a kingdom does not violate those terms.
If the wording was less specific and instead only says something that no hostile acts may be taken against us before X date, notice before Y time yada yada yada etc. Then I would agree that scheming to arrange a gb is definitely something that should be considered a hostile act or causus belli and therefore the scheming party is in breach of the agreement.
09-05-2017, 23:12
Sweetiepie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onlyzinc

Its not black and white because the rules are vague. However any manipulation via agreement is unethical and violation of the spirit of the rules.

It says it right here " Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game." not only did they not avoid it they made it public.

This is the non sense that makes newer players not want to stick around.

If you truly believe that this is acceptable. Explain how this is any different that an agreement to keep one KD with the war win crown.

because if this is allowed to continue I will be making agreements to have my KD hold the WW crown next age being that this is acceptable behavior

This.

Unfortunately I see that ASF is an admin and it does not bode well for the game. Frankly it looks even dirtier from the outside if an admin/mod is involved. I think the new owners are sadly so embroiled in their own historical and ancient 'playstyle' that they have zero idea how to bring life back to this game and absolutely no idea what is wrong with it. Frankly how can they even believe that dumping a load of land onto a war winner is going to 'bring new blood' to the top end of the game and encourage more wars. No reasonable or decent person wants to participate in the circle jerk that is ' top kd non compete, lawyered up CFs, tactical friendships' and other crap that is required to be part of the circle jerk.
Bart has shone a light on a lot of dark places, possibly because he genuinely thinks they are not only crap, but that a clever person can 'out crap' their crap and show it up for the hollow mess that it is, rather than because he is one of the bigger circle jerks.

It looks like the new owners will be possibly the worst thing for the game, not the best thing, because they have no insight whatsoever. Sad times.

If I was a new player and read the crap in this thread I would be out of here and never return. Who on earth would want to join a 'fixed game'?
09-05-2017, 23:18
Elldallan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onlyzinc

Its not black and white because the rules are vague. However any manipulation via agreement is unethical and violation of the spirit of the rules.

It says it right here " Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game." not only did they not avoid it they made it public.

This is the non sense that makes newer players not want to stick around.

If you truly believe that this is acceptable. Explain how this is any different that an agreement to keep one KD with the war win crown.

because if this is allowed to continue I will be making agreements to have my KD hold the WW crown next age being that this is acceptable behavior

Thus far the 'Spirit of the Rules' section has only been used to action provinces or kingdoms that abuse bugs or quirks in the game, or things like that(like fakewars, or deals specifically intended to game the system like WW in exchange for acres, or the abuse of aid and the reset function etc).
Never(at least to my knowledge) has it been used to action ingame behaviour or kingdom interaction just because some people may consider it wrong. It's up to the community to police the ethics and morals of the game, it's not something that the admins should get involved with. CF deals have always existed for at least one and a half decade and it's a horrible idea to start messing with that now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetiepie

This.

Unfortunately I see that ASF is an admin and it does not bode well for the game. Frankly it looks even dirtier from the outside if an admin/mod is involved. I think the new owners are sadly so embroiled in their own historical and ancient 'playstyle' that they have zero idea how to bring life back to this game and absolutely no idea what is wrong with it. Frankly how can they even believe that dumping a load of land onto a war winner is going to 'bring new blood' to the top end of the game and encourage more wars. No reasonable or decent person wants to participate in the circle jerk that is ' top kd non compete, lawyered up CFs, tactical friendships' and other crap that is required to be part of the circle jerk.
Bart has shone a light on a lot of dark places, possibly because he genuinely thinks they are not only crap, but that a clever person can 'out crap' their crap and show it up for the hollow mess that it is, rather than because he is one of the bigger circle jerks.

It looks like the new owners will be possibly the worst thing for the game, not the best thing, because they have no insight whatsoever. Sad times.

If I was a new player and read the crap in this thread I would be out of here and never return. Who on earth would want to join a 'fixed game'?

One problem is that you can never really enforce a ban on CF deals and such because interkd interactions can happen on mediums which the admins have no access to and therefore it's impossible for them to be aware of any such deals.
09-05-2017, 23:39
Onlyzinc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Thus far the 'Spirit of the Rules' section has only been used to action provinces or kingdoms that abuse bugs or quirks in the game, or things like that(like fakewars, or deals specifically intended to game the system like WW in exchange for acres, or the abuse of aid and the reset function etc).

So the rules only apply to the war win charts? that's what your saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Never(at least to my knowledge) has it been used to action ingame behaviour or kingdom interaction just because some people may consider it wrong.

So just because something hasn't been done before means we can never do it.

In Game behavior like fake war or foul Language, there is a whole section on "Language & Attitude" which clearly applies to in game behavior

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elldallan

One problem is that you can never really enforce a ban on CF deals and such because interkd interactions can happen on mediums which the admins have no access to and therefore it's impossible for them to be aware of any such deals.

I agree. however when one is placed infront of you for the admin to weigh in on you should really take some sort of action

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elldallan

It's up to the community to police the ethics and morals of the game,

Am I not part of the community? This wreaks of ethical violations. The Mods clearly see this as he made it public and are commenting on it. We are policing by telling the admins the community sees this as a ToS violation

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page