Congratulations to the age 72 winners!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheister

No they are not arbitrary. There is a difference between arbitrary and a lack of bright line rules. The law is rife with factors to be considered and how those factors meliorate for one outcome or the other. There are few rules in law that are bright line. There are few rules in sport that are bright line.

Consider in soccer that the decision on whether to allow play to continue in the presence of a foul is at the sole discretion of the official's split second evaluation of the advantage to the parties. Consider when a level of stick contact becomes slashing in hockey. Not every contact with a stick is slashing. The list goes on and on across sports, law, and almost every other element of society. There are judgment calls made every day. When a Cop is sitting on the side of the road and lights you up with his radar gun and does not instantly chase you for a ticket, they have made a judgment call, the letter of the law notwithstanding.

Grow up and accept reality.

---

I think you should probably step back and consider the implications of this thread and the admins recent actions.

Because my post was spot on and you're drying to make arguments out of smoke. Either the rules are enforced or not. Either punishments are universal or they're not.

I, for one, have always advocated that Utopia should be a free for all. If we're going to have rules I believe they should be well defined and consistently enforced.

Starting with removing Panthiras kd from ranking for age 72

Who are these ghettoes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

I think you should probably step back and consider the implications of this thread and the admins recent actions.

Because my post was spot on and you're drying to make arguments out of smoke. Either the rules are enforced or not. Either punishments are universal or they're not.

I, for one, have always advocated that Utopia should be a free for all. If we're going to have rules I believe they should be well defined and consistently enforced.

Starting with removing Panthiras kd from ranking for age 72

---

I think you should sit down and accept that there are these two people who, for better or worse, are the judges/referees/officials of this game and are empowered with broad discretion as to the fair treatment for actions in the game. They have made decisions. If this offends your sense of justice, then quit. Personally, I have given up on the concept of competitive utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheister

Personally, I have given up on the concept of competitive utopia.

---

You better have, after you were gifted first place by the owners who are friends and former players of your kd/leaders.

As for the rest of your post, yes, obviously the options are to quit or live with the fact that Utopia is now run according to which vendettas the owners can settle, or which friends they can give preferential treatment to.

I fought for fairness (and lawlessness) against all prior Utopian Regimes and I will continue to do so in this new, darkest age of Utopian proprietorship.

So matter and fact , everyone is happy that Barta got wiped from history rank , and the rest of 21 pages it's just bla bla of no one wins crown how they should and devs have no idea how to make rules transaprent or objective . Waste of time reading this . Im pretty sure you guys keep on spamming messages to increase ur post count :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlehobbit

So matter and fact , everyone is happy that Barta got wiped from history rank , and the rest of 21 pages it's just bla bla of no one wins crown how they should and devs have no idea how to make rules transaprent or objective . Waste of time reading this . Im pretty sure you guys keep on spamming messages to increase ur post count :)

---

No, only retarded and the blindly biased are pleased Sparta didn't crown.

Which is not to say they aren't in the majority but still, far from everyone.

I've taken the issue of the ToS violation by Panthiras kd up with DavidC.

Before he claims he can't prove the player in questions age, DavidC played in the accused kingdom and knew full well who was playing there and the circumstances of their playing there.

As The whole kd knows, that makes the kd complicit in the cheating.

"But it isn't cheating"

But it! The ToS make the player ineligible to have an account or province. By ignoring that rule, the kd has filled a slot with someone who can't (according to the rules) play. Which is clearly cheating.

And hawk, having knowledge of this from his time in CD, can't very well now claim that he can't prove it. Particularly after Panthira has posted for ages now about it, which both acts as a confession and as proof that the violation hawk knew about before/when/right after he bought Utopia is still ongoing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

I've taken the issue of the ToS violation by Panthiras kd up with DavidC.

Before he claims he can't prove the player in questions age, DavidC played in the accused kingdom and knew full well who was playing there and the circumstances of their playing there.

As The whole kd knows, that makes the kd complicit in the cheating.

"But it isn't cheating"

But it! The ToS make the player ineligible to have an account or province. By ignoring that rule, the kd has filled a slot with someone who can't (according to the rules) play. Which is clearly cheating.

And hawk, having knowledge of this from his time in CD, can't very well now claim that he can't prove it. Particularly after Panthira has posted for ages now about it, which both acts as a confession and as proof that the violation hawk knew about before/when/right after he bought Utopia is still ongoing.

---

David fixed the ToS. Which is a good thing.
It does not however change the impression of bias it leaves with other players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodwitch

David fixed the ToS. Which is a good thing.
It does not however change the impression of bias it leaves with other players.

---

What impression of bias? The bias is plainly evident. A kd he played in has spent the last 4+ ages violating the rules so he changed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

You better have, after you were gifted first place by the owners who are friends and former players of your kd/leaders.

As for the rest of your post, yes, obviously the options are to quit or live with the fact that Utopia is now run according to which vendettas the owners can settle, or which friends they can give preferential treatment to.

I fought for fairness (and lawlessness) against all prior Utopian Regimes and I will continue to do so in this new, darkest age of Utopian proprietorship.

---

Do you just not read, or do you just love to invent what you think people wrote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheister

Do you just not read, or do you just love to invent what you think people wrote?

---

You've lost me hombre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

What impression of bias? The bias is plainly evident. A kd he played in has spent the last 4+ ages violating the rules so he changed them.

---

The rule change was a good move as it keeps the game safe or at least safer from liability claims.
But it does not change the fact that last age the rules as they were then, were broken.
To clarify, I was reasonably sure that Panthira, her son or her kingdom would not be punished for breaking rules when I brought it up.
It just shows what "on a case by case" basis means in Utopian terms , so everyone can be aware.

I know a lot of people are happy Spartans didn't crown. But for those that may wonder why the rule was made and why now...above example will answer that question

(korp before you jump on that rule thing again, I don't get on people's cases about their language skills as I have had to learn several and I know it's hard...trust me on this, it's a rule(the theory) that gets enforced(the decision process) and leads to punishment(the action taken))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

What impression of bias? The bias is plainly evident.

---

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffT

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

---

You don't see anything in the rules because you changed them. The original rules are posted in this thread and they are pretty clear persons under 13 can not play, at all, and make no mention of exceptions being doled out in instances of parental consent.

And why just 1 province? The whole KD was aware they had a player that violated the rules. So it's ok for someone to have multies to bait his KD some wars, and the KD won't be auctioned because only 1 player directly violated the rules?

Get a grip Zauper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffT

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

---

Your links are bull**** - the page was linked to today, the relevant lines posted here.

I've got the page from this afternoon open, and have screenshotted the paragraph to post later.