#2 province grande mucca deleted

I do believe i have an answer to this. A change was made this age to police fw. AFAIK no actions have been taken until know. Conveniently its almost the age end and someone got made an example out of pretty much saying "hey we were be serious about policing fw" This was the "best" opportunity the devs had and used it. We all know there was a legit fw this age and nothing ever came of it. How many provinces in trollfags were breakable by the other kd? That number was really close to 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

I'd still like to know what would happen if these 2 provs were roommates or married or whatever and thus could not hit each other. Can 2 good players living together both run ghetto cows and drive their KD's into each other, reaping the spoils? Or are whitlelisty (or whatever it's called now) people not allowed to war at all, since they are unable to hit each other, triggering FW status? Not a common issue, just curious. I almost landed in a war vs. my roommate after Sleepy broke up and we had to find new homes... would we have been deleted?

---

Are u seriously asking this pointless question? They wouldnt be deleted obviously because there would be no need to communicate with each other about naps, etc. Why r u ppl complicating this issue so damn much? Use ur goddamn common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlamingKnights

I do believe i have an answer to this. A change was made this age to police fw. AFAIK no actions have been taken until know. Conveniently its almost the age end and someone got made an example out of pretty much saying "hey we were be serious about policing fw" This was the "best" opportunity the devs had and used it. We all know there was a legit fw this age and nothing ever came of it. How many provinces in trollfags were breakable by the other kd? That number was really close to 0.

---

I finally understand why common sense is a true indicator of intelligence. Did any of the "trollfag" players form naps with other players in that war? Did the "trollfag" kd get into a war with the other kd by agreeing to farm acres, or farm honor, or to just idle around and pump. No and no, they got into the war probably with no real communication done or no war terms, then how is that cheating? Your eoa example theory is absurd btw. I really want to flame you right here in this line but ill control myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

I finally understand why common sense is a true indicator of intelligence. Did any of the "trollfag" players form naps with other players in that war? Did the "trollfag" kd get into a war with the other kd by agreeing to farm acres, or farm honor, or to just idle around and pump. No and no, they got into the war probably with communication done or war terms, then how is that cheating? Your eoa example theory is absurd btw. I really want to flame you right here in this line but ill control myself.

---

odd ... why so cereal ...

The nap would be automatic, so there would be no need to communicate. Is it okay if it's automatic? If Ryan would have been at this guys house for the weekend and thus was restricted from hitting him, all would be well? And I don't give you a hard time about pointless muscles, play nice :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkz Azn

odd ... why so cereal ...

---

Stupidity is a serious issue, Mr. Irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

Stupidity is a serious issue, Mr. Irony.

---

take a chill pill, kill bill ... odd =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

The nap would be automatic, so there would be no need to communicate. Is it okay if it's automatic? If Ryan would have been at this guys house for the weekend and thus was restricted from hitting him, all would be well? And I don't give you a hard time about pointless muscles, play nice :P

---

Firstly, since you're talking about my muscles, they're not pointless, they have a purpose. The purpose is their use in Jiu Jitsu, where they're very effective, trust me.

And yes, all would be well, you move on, and nobody would get deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkz Azn

take a chill pill, kill bill ... odd =)

---

If only you knew how chill I really was in person. :p

Im with DHaran on this one, I think its ridiculous. Id be pissed too getting deleted over an iffy rule at best. Im still not sure what constitutes a fake war. I feel like big brother is watching me now, if they dont like what I say, poof, im gone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I stand by the stance that in the exact same scenario, without the agreement to not trade hits, you would see this as legal. If what they are PHYSICALLY doing ingame is not a fake war, how can a few non-binding words change that definition?

---

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change to because he was in a fake war or because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that's it a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

---

Well they're really only in danger if someone else wants to be the #1 province and reports them.

Fake war isn't a defined term. Bishop didn't define it, the devs didn't define it, the players did over time and it even appears to have a different meaning to different players. It doesn't mean the same thing to every person, but the devs and Bishop's meaning certainly doesn't coincide with the meaning the majority of utopians had for it, therefore perhaps a suspension was in order, but a deletion is a clear overreaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

---

Well that's the point, nobody can get deleted without good evidence/proof. The proof here was that Ryan sent an in game msg confirming a NAP with another player in a war. The terms offered/accepted was a clear indication of a fake war between two players imo.

Come on now, "All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning"? Do you honestly think it's this bad? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

Well they're really only in danger if someone else wants to be the #1 province and reports them.

Fake war isn't a defined term. Bishop didn't define it, the devs didn't define it, the players did over time. It doesn't mean the same thing to every person, but the devs and Bishop's meaning certainly doesn't coincide with the meaning the majority of utopians had for it, therefore perhaps a suspension was in order, but a deletion is a clear overreaction.

---

This isn't the NBA or the NFL. This is Utopia; your province isn't your life. Suspension/Warnings are meaningless.

The only thing a report does is have the devs check the evidence and the problem, it doesn't necessarily mean somebody's going to get deleted lol. I for one am happy that the devs are checking the reports on cheaters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

Well that's the point, nobody can get deleted without good evidence/proof. The proof here was that Ryan sent an in game msg confirming a NAP with another player in a war. The terms offered/accepted was a clear indication of a fake war between two players imo.
Come on now, "All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning"? Do you honestly think it's this bad? :P

---

I fought a war once in which I could not hit the enemy's cow, and vice versa. All other 24 players hit on both sides within an hour of their armies being home, had players called in the middle of the night, and I didn't sleep for 48 hours. We lost 1/3rd of our land. I can see no way that this can be defined as a fake war. There was nothing fake about it.

A common fakewar involved both sides stocking resources and barely logging on since they were at no risk of being hit. We were losing resources and being hit constantly.

This may be something the devs don't like, which is fine, but it sure as heck ain't a "fakewar" by the definition the utopian community has used for ages. If its a deletable offense, it should be stated so seperately, as it doesn't fit under the criteria given for punishment, which was "we will action fakewars." It's fairly ridiculous to state you'll action a noun but use a different definition of the noun than a majority of the people's understanding of the definition of the noun as a reason for punishment.

Calling what Ryan did a "fakewar" makes Bishop's argument weak, IMO. If they simply called it "farming" people wouldn't be in disagreement. And I think a vast amount of people would agree that farming is bad.

I don't think cow provinces competing for top spot would agree suspensions are meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

I fought a war once in which I could not hit the enemy's cow, and vice versa. All other 24 players hit on both sides within an hour of their armies being home, had players called in the middle of the night, and I didn't sleep for 48 hours. We lost 1/3rd of our land. I can see no way that this can be defined as a fake war. There was nothing fake about it.

---

It would have been a completely different story if the two players simply didn't hit eachother. That wasn't the case, they communicated with each other first in game and sent NAPs. Do you see the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

I don't think cow provinces competing for top spot would agree suspensions are meaningless.

---

It would be meaningless for 9/10ths of the players playing this game. So do players competing for top spot get suspensions while everybody else get deleted?

The suspension would take them out of the war, thus putting an end to any 'abuse', and deletion would be applied if there was a further infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

---

Maybe a real world example of something similar occurring with and without an agreement.
In business, if 2 companies decide to independently arrive at the same price to set their competing goods at for sale, then there is nothing illegal about that action, correct? Even if they stay at that same price forever, it's still legal because they're not working together to keep it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.[Emphasis added]

---

You see, if the first part of the example occurs (they independently decide on the same price (or there about)) it is completely legal, however a simple e-mail, letter, meeting, or phone call between the 2 companies in which they agree on a price for their competing products makes the same thing illegal.

Now, back to Utopia. If the 2 provinces hadn't intended to hit as part of their war strategy or hadn't been able to hit one another (I believe that it was said that neither could break the other, but I may have misread that) and had simply gone to war without sharing and agreeing that they would not do so, then their war would have been ruled a legitimate war. However, that's not what happened, if what I gathered from the few posts that I read is indeed correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

The suspension would take them out of the war, thus putting an end to any 'abuse', and deletion would be applied if there was a further infraction.

---

Ok, so for all the players not in top 5 kds, do you really think they give a sh*t if they are suspended?

I would abuse all the loopholes I could because I know I would probably most likely not get caught, and if I do, well it'll only be a suspension. Who cares? Oh yeah, players competing for the #1 spot

-.-

What if they both simply realize they cannot effectively hit each other and reference that fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ordray

Maybe a real world example of something similar occurring with and without an agreement.
In business, if 2 companies decide to independently arrive at the same price to set their competing goods at for sale, then there is nothing illegal about that action, correct? Even if they stay at that same price forever, it's still legal because they're not working together to keep it there.



You see, if the first part of the example occurs (they independently decide on the same price (or there about)) it is completely legal, however a simple e-mail, letter, meeting, or phone call between the 2 companies in which they agree on a price for their competing products makes the same thing illegal.

Now, back to Utopia. If the 2 provinces hadn't intended to hit as part of their war strategy or hadn't been able to hit one another (I believe that it was said that neither could break the other, but I may have misread that) and had simply gone to war without sharing and agreeing that they would not do so, then their war would have been ruled a legitimate war. However, that's not what happened, if what I gathered from the few posts that I read is indeed correct.

---

Thank You! It's nice to see somebody else here that has good sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

It would have been a completely different story if the two players simply didn't hit eachother. That wasn't the case, they communicated with each other first in game and sent NAPs. Do you see the difference?

---

We communicated with eachother the first day of the age saying we had a province NAP. Then we ended up warring a month and a half later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

It completely makes it a fake war.

---

So if devs make a terrible judgement call, it suddenly becomes justified and right just because you stubbornly keep writing these punchlines? This is not China, Nazi Germany or USSR, it doesn't work that easy here against real people who both have access to information and better knowledge on the subject(utopia) than you and the devs. The punishment in this case for the 'crime' is simply not fair and many of those who claim different would sing different tune if it was one of their allies and not Ryan. But seeing as you appear to have made up your mind, I will stop there. I very much hope this was only a high priority example setting or public execution kind of thing to install fear, and in reality the devs understand their game better than this to do something so over the top again. I'd pretty much compare it to something like declaring a prohibition and then executing the first doctor caught with medical spirit. Might not be fair, but the point will get across i guess. Nevertheless I would maybe recommend looking at some of the sources behind so many cow naps(small hint: it costs about 20 times more gcpa for build change on 50k acres than 500) instead...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

What if they both simply realize they cannot effectively hit each other and reference that fact?

---

It depends what the reference would be.

"Hey, we cannot hit eachother, so let's NAP each other ok?" <--- Bad.
"Damn man I can't break you LOL" <--- fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

We communicated with eachother the first day of the age saying we had a province NAP. Then we ended up warring a month and a half later.

---

That's different to me. That'd be an OOW nap, not a war terms/in-war nap.

And I guarantee you two wouldn't have been deleted, unless you said something stupid in an in-game msg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

That's different to me. That'd be an OOW nap, not a war terms/in-war nap.

---

If it holds up in war it's hardly an OOW nap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

If it holds up in war it's hardly an OOW nap.

---

I mean't that the nap took place OOW, and wasn't meant for a specific war. That's different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

Well that's the point, nobody can get deleted without good evidence/proof. The proof here was that Ryan sent an in game msg confirming a NAP with another player in a war. The terms offered/accepted was a clear indication of a fake war between two players imo.

---

Thats wayyy too much interpretation on the part of the devs imo. Whether its true or not in this case, you could say whatever the hell you want to get a war/trick the opposition or do whatever it is you want. Theres so much diplomacy in this game, how on earth can the devs decipher your true intentions

Again, if it was an existing nap and it holds up during a war that breaks out, I fail to see the difference. If anything, that's worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kbone

Thats wayyy too much interpretation on the part of the devs imo. Whether its true or not in this case, you could say whatever the hell you want to get a war/trick the opposition or do whatever it is you want. Theres so much diplomacy in this game, how on earth can the devs decipher your true intentions

---

Would you msg somebody in game and say this: "Fake War on the 14th, send x hits, thanks", and then let's say the hits do take place. You think the devs will try to decipher what this really means? rofl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ordray

Maybe a real world example of something similar occurring with and without an agreement.
In business, if 2 companies decide to independently arrive at the same price to set their competing goods at for sale, then there is nothing illegal about that action, correct? Even if they stay at that same price forever, it's still legal because they're not working together to keep it there.



You see, if the first part of the example occurs (they independently decide on the same price (or there about)) it is completely legal, however a simple e-mail, letter, meeting, or phone call between the 2 companies in which they agree on a price for their competing products makes the same thing illegal.

Now, back to Utopia. If the 2 provinces hadn't intended to hit as part of their war strategy or hadn't been able to hit one another (I believe that it was said that neither could break the other, but I may have misread that) and had simply gone to war without sharing and agreeing that they would not do so, then their war would have been ruled a legitimate war. However, that's not what happened, if what I gathered from the few posts that I read is indeed correct.

---

ok great, but when was it ever made clear that an agreement between two provs would be considered a fake war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

Again, if it was an existing nap and it holds up during a war that breaks out, I fail to see the difference. If anything, that's worse.

---

The difference is this:

There were no messages sent between the two cows prior to the war saying that they would leave each other alone for the upcoming war.

Do you see the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kbone

ok great, but when was it ever made clear that an agreement between two provs would be considered a fake war?

---

I never said that it was. My post was a response to DHaran's post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I stand by the stance that in the exact same scenario, without the agreement to not trade hits, you would see this as legal. If what they are PHYSICALLY doing ingame is not a fake war, how can a few non-binding words change that definition?

---

Read it again ninja muscles:

"We communicated with eachother the first day of the age saying we had a province NAP. Then we ended up warring a month and a half later."

First day, a message was sent. Later, there was a war. The first day occured before the war, thus the message was sent before the war. During the war, the NAP held up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kbone

ok great, but when was it ever made clear that an agreement between two provs would be considered a fake war?

---

Well, it took a little bit of common sense on the devs part imo. It was an agreement between two provs during, and specifically, for an upcoming war to leave each other alone. Imo, this is a fake war for the two players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

Would you msg somebody in game and say this: "Fake War on the 14th, send x hits, thanks", and then let's say the hits do take place. You think the devs will try to decipher what this really means? rofl.

---

Thats a really trivial example and doesnt really apply. in this instance devs tried to interpret intentions from in game messages and could have easily gotten it wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZodZilla

Read it again ninja muscles:

"We communicated with eachother the first day of the age saying we had a province NAP. Then we ended up warring a month and a half later."

First day, a message was sent. Later, there was a war. The first day occured before the war, thus the message was sent before the war. During the war, the NAP held up.

---

Rofl @ ninja muscles.

I think you need to reread my messages :/ The NAP wasn't specifically for the war though, it was made for the entire round, it just so happened that the war took place in the round. This is a different story bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kbone

Thats a really trivial example and doesnt really apply. in this instance devs tried to interpret intentions from in game messages and could have easily gotten it wrong

---

Why doesn't it apply?

So Ryan saying, "NAP during war, ok?", and then after an x amount of hours in war the two provs do not do anything to eachother. How is that a trick? That is evidence.