Debauchery...

[Korp]

Why so mad Sig? Its just a game. :)

[Roozed]

Still mad about the GC robbing? You are a ***.

I don't get mad. Nor do I feel sympathy. All I am saying is, Expect Us.

[DHaran]

Caught cheating and a forum ban, bad day.

[LameBeaver]

Banhammer's banging pretty loud today. /sigh

[Osaze]

I want to point out that he should have said the moderators were partial. If they were impartial why would he have a problem with them?

[DHaran]

Well any claim that this was some kind of biased action by Support is pure nonsense anyway. Support investigates all reports it receives. It is conceivable that being disliked by so many others led to them being reported, but that doesn't change the investigation or result.

[Tightpants]

good stuff mods

[pmyraje]

Every war I've been in this Age has had a whole load of terms and agreements in place and you can see from the childish tactics across the whole of Utopia of constantly changing kingdom names (yeah, like you'd ever read a fantasy book where the name of a kingdom suddenly changed part way through to "Rohan, agreed war with Sauron STFO cos we're kids"). It's all pretty stupid, but quite why this war suddenly gets 2 monarchs deleted when every other war with agreed terms doesn't is erm...yeah..."biased" is maybe the word I'm looking for!!

Edit: As an aside, not that it matters in any way, Psychosis was around 1 mill larger than Debauchery at the start of the war not 1 mill smaller.

[Zauper]

Every war I've been in this Age has had a whole load of terms and agreements in place and you can see from the childish tactics across the whole of Utopia of constantly changing kingdom names (yeah, like you'd ever read a fantasy book where the name of a kingdom suddenly changed part way through to "Rohan, agreed war with Sauron STFO cos we're kids"). It's all pretty stupid, but quite why this war suddenly gets 2 monarchs deleted when every other war with agreed terms doesn't is erm...yeah..."biased" is maybe the word I'm looking for!!

It wouldn't have been that they agreed to war, the question is what the terms are. Bishop has indicated in the past that certain terms might qualify you as a FW, it's possible that the interpretation of FW generally includes 'wars with terms that intentionally restrict potential damage'.

We'd have to see, and since Debauchery is publicly claiming that they didn't do it, I'd hope that support would be willing to post here why they were deleted.

[pmyraje]

Rules as to what constitutes a fake war should be posted clearly and publicly if Utopia wants to lay any claim to fairness. They used to be rampant back when I used to play and no-one gave a sh*t so I'm delighted there have at least been moves in the right direction on that front, but a war in which a lot of hits are exchanged, people are Landlusted, etc is hardly fake. It may well class as having terms that are not considered acceptable, but where is a list of warring terms that are considered acceptable? I don't see anything in the Guide or anywhere in the forum stating what counts as fake!

[goodz]

Rules as to what constitutes a fake war should be posted clearly and publicly if Utopia wants to lay any claim to fairness. They used to be rampant back when I used to play and no-one gave a sh*t so I'm delighted there have at least been moves in the right direction on that front, but a war in which a lot of hits are exchanged, people are Landlusted, etc is hardly fake. It may well class as having terms that are not considered acceptable, but where is a list of warring terms that are considered acceptable? I don't see anything in the Guide or anywhere in the forum stating what counts as fake!

rules restricting hitting certain provinces etc. I know aren't allowed.

I am unsure but believe things like "no dragons" are allowed. No dragons / No PK's / No black ops
used to be a pretty common set of terms. I believe back then black ops was AW and amnesia maybe? I can't really think of what it may have been :)

[Zauper]

Rules as to what constitutes a fake war should be posted clearly and publicly if Utopia wants to lay any claim to fairness. They used to be rampant back when I used to play and no-one gave a sh*t so I'm delighted there have at least been moves in the right direction on that front, but a war in which a lot of hits are exchanged, people are Landlusted, etc is hardly fake. It may well class as having terms that are not considered acceptable, but where is a list of warring terms that are considered acceptable? I don't see anything in the Guide or anywhere in the forum stating what counts as fake!

I think folks would agree that if you and I agreed to war, and we agreed that you would surrender at mintime, regardless of the hits/LL/etc, it was a fake war. It seems, based on the posts here, that Psychosis and they agreed to leave the big provs in psychosis alone. That could be problematic, I remember asking Bishop about something similar to that when he announced that FWs would be punished with deletion and he said that it would be disallowed to have that kind of deal. It is true that fake wars aren't defined (other than stating that they are illegal), and perhaps some more clarity there would be helpful.

Obviously, we'll have to see what support says.

goodz: I think black ops were all of the rogue-only ops (AW/NS/prop), and maybe also landlust? Not amnesia.

[pmyraje]

Strikes me there is a very thin line between an agreement to leave certain provinces alone and a kingdom giving out chaining targets for their kingdom to hit. It's ok to select provinces to chain that just happen to not include certain provinces but it's not ok to explicitly not hit certain provinces...

I guess Utopia hasn't moved on much from the old days after all in terms of fairness and transparency :( Oh well, it's not like I'd have expected it to!!

[Zauper]

Strikes me there is a very thin line between an agreement to leave certain provinces alone and a kingdom giving out chaining targets for their kingdom to hit. It's ok to select provinces to chain that just happen to not include certain provinces but it's not ok to explicitly not hit certain provinces...

I guess Utopia hasn't moved on much from the old days after all in terms of fairness and transparency :( Oh well, it's not like I'd have expected it to!!

The thin line being the difference between a deal with someone else and a decision? That's a fairly large difference.

[MrTroll]

LOL, this game is a ****ing joke. Apparently setting terms and warring a lot is NOT ok. The jealously here is pretty amusing. **** the impartiality of the moderating team, you have ruined this game. All of you are useless and have consistently made this game worse as the years progress. No wonder the fan base has ****ing disappeared. People spend more time monitoring how we come across wars than pressing the button and getting their own (Persian the ****ing giganta-pussy, RoughNecks give them button while smaller than Divinity, 5 days after Divinity claimed to have set a "wave" for us, instead of declaring on RK, since they have been "looking for war", they CF and go into fort..pussies).

In conclusion, **** you Bishop. You are a ******. That goes to the rest of you moderators too, who play in **** KDs, who are jealous douchebags and impartial as ****.

epic ragemode ROFL