#2 province grande mucca deleted

[Topsy]

Your claim that he is "guilty by association" doesn't really make sense. All the people in Ryan's KD were complicit in the other monarch farming land, are they "guilty by association" for allowing it when they attacked in and moved the meter?

Just because Ryan "looks" like the person who went in with the intention of a fake war(seeing as he is a bank in a ghetto), doesn't mean he did what that person did(enter into what may be construed as a fake war).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[Realest]

Well Topsy, how do you know that their kingdom was in on the whole thing? Since you are privy to this information somehow, I'd strongly suggest reporting it to the mods so they can take action on it. Unless ofc you are assuming. Nice try though, stop trying to take shots at me. You are only qualified to supersize my combos.

One can easily contend a monarch dictates his kingdom's path, so it logically follows a kingdom was following orders that can be easily manipulated. Notice how the kings of the respective kingdoms got deleted. That was your obvious clue there, detective dip****.

[Topsy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJe1...eature=related

[KuhaN]

For all the people arguing this deletion is wrong, answer these questions: 1. what makes u think the devs know what a nap is? 2. if Mehul was still the owner, what makes u think he knows what a nap is? 3. If a 25 player kd was "warring" another 25 player kd, and 24 out of the 25 players napped with 24 players from the other kd, would it still be a legit war if only two people were warring?. The bottomline is this: if people are napping with other players while in a war, they are doing it at a risk. Stop making things complicated, in the devs eyes this is simple fake warring, and I agree 100 hundred percent. Lastly, nobody cares about the past DHaran..... /thread.

[fariz]

Kuhan! go back to the GYM! :D

[DHaran]

I have a feeling that you were personally involved in this war. Be careful about (ab)using your mod powers in such a discussion.

Not sure how you came to that fail conclusion, I had no part in this war whatsoever. I don't even really know Ryan very well. Regardless, just because I'm in the conversation doesn't mean I will allow anyone to break forum rules, so there would be nothing abusive about it.

i think you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. he clearly said he went to war to avoid problematic confrontations.

The guy is obviously a litte bit nub, he doesn't understand that what he did is common, and wasn't violating any known rules.

For all the people arguing this deletion is wrong, answer these questions: 1. what makes u think the devs know what a nap is? 2. if Mehul was still the owner, what makes u think he knows what a nap is? 3. If a 25 player kd was "warring" another 25 player kd, and 24 out of the 25 players napped with 24 players from the other kd, would it still be a legit war if only two people were warring?. The bottomline is this: if people are napping with other players while in a war, they are doing it at a risk. Stop making things complicated, in the devs eyes this is simple fake warring, and I agree 100 hundred percent. Lastly, nobody cares about the past DHaran..... /thread.

The 24 player NAP argument doesn't apply whatsoever, because nobody was sitting out this war. Everyone was participating. Cow NAPs and Fake Wars are not, and have never been, under the same category. Ignoring the past would be idiocy, since that is our only frame of reference.

[Bishop]

The 24 player NAP argument doesn't apply whatsoever, because nobody was sitting out this war. Everyone was participating. Cow NAPs and Fake Wars are not, and have never been, under the same category. Ignoring the past would be idiocy, since that is our only frame of reference.

You really don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you think it doesn't apply. It does.

[DHaran]

You really don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you think it doesn't apply. It does.

lol no YOU don't get it. If there were 2 provinces not participating in the war, I can see your argument that it was a FW. That is not the case here. You essentially want to choose their war targets for them, this simple fact is absolutely unacceptable. Why would Ryan train up to hit the guy when he could just 4-tap others? And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway? Now whatever words we use to trick a ghetto into a war can get us deleted? Is any of this getting through to you?

I already covered a more suitable 24 prov NAP scenario, which you thought would be ok:

<DHaran> i can go to an extreme too, what if each prov only agreed to hit a corresponding prov in enemy kds, so all 25 provs in both kds are trading hits, thats a FW?
<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok

Can you explain why you think it's ok to NAP 24 provs this way, but not ok to NAP one?

[KuhaN]

lol no YOU don't get it. If there were 2 provinces not participating in the war, I can see your argument that it was a FW. That is not the case here. You essentially want to choose their war targets for them, this simple fact is absolutely unacceptable. Why would Ryan train up to hit the guy when he could just 4-tap others? And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway? Now whatever words we use to trick a ghetto into a war can get us deleted? Is any of this getting through to you?

I already covered a more suitable 24 prov NAP scenario, which you thought would be ok:

<DHaran> i can go to an extreme too, what if each prov only agreed to hit a corresponding prov in enemy kds, so all 25 provs in both kds are trading hits, thats a FW?
<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok

Can you explain why you think it's ok to NAP 24 provs this way, but not ok to NAP one?

I understand the point you're trying to make DHaran, i really do, but that would still be considered a FW. What youre essentially trying to do is create a loophole around the term FW, and youre complicating things way too much. Its a risk napping individual provs in war, because through bull**** you can say, "oh well i was hitting this one guy all war long, how was it a fw?" Another stupid thing to do is to send an in game msg to a player saying how you two will not hit eachother but farm everybody else (clearly a fake war). Sure you can say, "well i was just tricking him", but that would be bull**** DHaran and you know it. If youre going to try and farm players while napping individuals provs then I hate to say it, but try being a little covert about it. Making it obvious and risky is stupid. Look at what happened to megaupload for example, if they were more discreet about it like the other upload sites then they wouldnt have been nailed. One last thing, warnings or suspensions is stupid, youre pretty much just letting the player get away with it, and making it more likely that other players do it. Deletion is always the way to go imo.

[Anri]

GL DHaran... Ever tried talking to a wall before?

[Bishop]

Anri is correct. Our position will not change on this.

<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok
^^ hardly a resounding confirmation.

"And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway?"
^^ Ryan.

[DHaran]

Anri is correct. Our position will not change on this.

Your position is wrong. You are taking the stance that any 2 UBs in a war not doing anything should get deleted for FWing, that is the fundamental truth here.

Even if this is the position of the devs, you were completely wrong to delete them for something that is not known as a FW. It's like making up a rule and deleting people for it without telling them what the rule is. It's a terrible way to handle it.

[I_am_Spartacus]

Anri is correct. Our position will not change on this.

<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok
^^ hardly a resounding confirmation.

"And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway?"
^^ Ryan.

Again, out of context. I could NOT break him. If I could have, with economic and strategic benefit, I would have.

10[20:32] <Ryan> it really wasnt even a 2 prov nap
10[20:32] <Ryan> it's a bluff war term i use to get all my wars
10[20:32] <Ryan> a) i wont send dragons in this war (not in range anyways)
10[20:32] <Ryan> b) i wont hit you in this war (cant break anyways)
10[20:33] <Ryan> war terms that dont negatively restrict my kd in any way
10[20:33] <Ryan> a2) I could get in dragon range by razing buildings / releasing some troops but it's not economically or strategically efficient
10[20:33] <Ryan> b2) i could get the offense to hit you but it's not economically or strategically efficient for myself or my kd
10[20:34] <Ryan> so I don't get why bishop gets to dictate what I should or shouldn't be doing in war in terms of strategy.
[20:35] <DHaran> i made the point who says you werent gonna hit the guy?
[20:35] <DHaran> tricking ppl into war is a FW now?
10[20:36] <Ryan> tricking people isnt a fw, bishop was fine with my no dragon term
10[20:36] <Ryan> but then he didnt want to understand how not hitting someone is the same concept
[20:38] <DHaran> my problem is the actions themselves broke no rules, but a few words about an agreement to not trade hits suddenly makes it illegal
[20:38] <DHaran> thats bogus
[20:39] <DHaran> if they still intervened, then they are completely deciding your targets for you in war, which is unacceptable

[DHaran]

You changed a rule to ban FWs, then decide to include things that nobody considers FWs and delete on first offenses without clarifying. Yea, that's good work Bishop.....

[gergnub]

You changed a rule to ban FWs, then decide to include things that nobody considers FWs and delete on first offenses without clarifying. Yea, that's good work Bishop.....

^ This. GG.