Is there no room for diplomacy in Utopia any more?

[Krynn]

We have had a rash of deletions due to a false report of a fake war.

E-Mail to utopiasupport@utopia-game.com:

As you can see the war that was reported as a fake war was not.


We have now been told that the report was sent by Aus Yub, and you can see he was up

acres.


We have suffered 2 deletions because of this. We find it very unfair.

(Had to get the report from another player in IRC Due to my deletion:)

<george> ** Kingdom news report **
<george> For the time from July 23 of YR10 till February 24 of YR11 - 50 hours
<george> [ http://home-world.org/utopia/formatter/ - Seraphim online formatter ]
<george> ** Summary **
<george> Total attacks made: 52 (9,747 acres)
<george> -- Traditional march: 45 (9,111 acres)
<george> -- Ambush: 1 (198 acres)
<george> -- Conquest: 3 (438 acres)
<george> -- Failed: 3 (5.8% failure)
<george> -- Uniques: 40
<george> Total attacks suffered: 35 (5,346 acres)
<george> -- Traditional march: 33 (5,346 acres)
<george> -- Learn: 1
<george> -- Failed: 1 (2.9% failure)
<george> -- Uniques: 26
<george> ** The kingdom of ##:## **
<george> Total land exchanged: +4,401 (52/35)
<george> +681 Harry Dresden (4 [3]/1)
<george> +520 Frank Hardy (4 [3]/2)
<george> +481 Mishpacha (5 [3]/1)
<george> +472 Max Bump (4 [2]/0)
<george> +445 Nora Charles (5 [4]/3)
<george> +408 Columbo (3 [3]/2)
<george> +398 Under Arrest (6 [5]/9)
<george> +334 tango (4 [3]/1)
<george> +291 David Addison Jr (2 [2]/1)
<george> +264 Dirk Gently (3 [2]/1)
<george> +196 Sherlock Holmes (2 [1]/2)
<george> +144 An unknown province (1/0)
<george> +103 Sam Spade (1 [1]/0)
<george> +102 Fox Mulder (1 [1]/0)
<george> +89 Perry Mason (2 [2]/2)
<george> +49 Nick Charles (2 [2]/2)
<george> -7 Nancy Drew (3 [3]/4)
<george> -28 Abby Sciuto (0/1)

<george> -164 Paul Temple (0/2)
<george> -377 Kenneth Hutchinson (0/1)
<george> ** The kingdom of ##:## **
<george> Total land exchanged: -4,401 (35/52)
<george> +209 Bridgeburners (2 [2]/0)
<george> +196 Aus Yob (7 [4]/2)
<george> +131 1001001 (3 [3]/1)
<george> +56 kim jong un (4 [3]/4)
<george> -118 Era of the Undead (2 [2]/2)
<george> -213 Derpville (1 [1]/2)
<george> -344 Caldazar (4 [1]/4)
<george> -404 Kats kamp (3 [3]/6)
<george> -461 Radioactive 3 eyed fish (0/3)
<george> -473 noobville (3 [2]/5)
<george> -581 Deathmeter RA (0/3)
<george> -646 VikingsBeachParty (2 [2]/6)
<george> -746 Pappys Land Revived (1 [1]/4)
<george> -1,007 IwonderWhothisIs (3 [2]/10)



Krynn

now we were hurting this smaller kingdom pretty badly, so in a moment of good sportsmanship, we ended the war with diplomacy and gave the best terms we could think of for both teams. The game as I understand it is based on warring ability, team leadership and diplomacy with the other kingdoms on the server.

this was what I got when I had this checked out thru the "proper channels"

Hi,

We were in connect with the monarch of the other kingdom also. The details provided by him and the posts made in both your forums (and infact your wording here) indicate that the war was in violation of the games rules. It is not acceptable to use a war to trim provicnes or co-ordinate attacks with your opponent kingdom in any way.

I have never seen any rules like this posted any where.
And since when is it against the rules to use diplomacy to save your kingdom from total ruin?

[Krynn]

You can also find this whole war and it's Diplomatic out come in:
Thread: Hostiles in the ghettto:
pages 3 & 4

[Kestrel038]

What strikes me as incongruous is the line "it is unacceptable to use a war.... to co-ordinate attacks with your enemy"... And yet, at the same time, it is considered acceptable to "arrange and co-ordinate" war starts.. button pushes etc etc. Surely if one is against the spirit of the game then the other one is also, and we may as well change the game so that no communication whatsoever is possible between any kingdoms hitting one another.

By the same token, several kingdoms on the server should be disbanded after co-ordinating attacks on other kingdoms oow. ABS for one (but by no means alone) should have been deleted a long time ago after multiple hostiles against their enemies.. such actions are after all "using the game mechnics to co-ordinate attacks against others"

As Krynn rightly points out, "diplomacy" has as much part in ending conflict.. as it does in trying to prevent it. If a war is entered into with good faith.. and one leader approaches another with proposed terms for surrender.. should the second kingdom ignore that proposal? Should we all be bullies who say "tough.. you're losing.. we're gonna hammer you until you can get out" Or should there be a system in place whereby the stronger kingdom is able to show a merciful nature and in turn protect it's own interests coming out of the war?

The only difference between the numbers posted above.. and a "normal" war report is the lack of a final wave on either side whilst one kingdom awaited the surrender of the other. And considering that neither kingdom was contacted to query the state of play prior to a decision being made, a decision of FW seems to have been arrived at by the moderating teamin haste and without full possession of the facts.

The news report for the above war clearly shows an initial onslaught of the stronger kingdom against the weaker to gain an edge in the midrange answered by max gain hits by the weaker. at teh halfway point the dynamic changed and the stronger kingdom focussed on acre and nw damage by switching to max gains and ignoring the smaller provinces making hits for 50 acres at a time. I have seen ghetto wars lasting 72 hours that show less activity. Are those treated as fake wars too? or is it only when a known troublemaker and multi-player on the server happens to have infilitrated one of the kingdoms and kicks up a fuss to his friends at the top that such a view is taken?

Once again, an example of how one persons views can differ greatly from another persons. And a demonstration that for as long as the decision making process on such events rests primarily with one or two people, true devils advocacy will never exist. Once opinions are formed by those responsible for deciding such matters, where is the voice of reason to suggest an alternative possiblity? Where is the right to reply to accusations of wrongdoing? Where is the accountability of those at the top to be as fair as they claim they are trying to make others be?

[DHaran]

Using war status to organize your kingdom to how you want it is not diplomacy, it's cheating.

[majigga]

"Cheating" being a subjective determination made by the guy who coordinated OOW razes against a person he'd just deleted for tenuous reasons.

[Kestrel038]

Using war status to organize your kingdom to how you want it is not diplomacy, it's cheating.

Selective reading against Dharan? +4401 acres is hardly organising your kingdom as you want it. Taking advantage of an enemies wish to surrender to keep your kingdom in better shape is not the same thing.

What IS cheating is organising hits pre-war to determine who gets the button and when.. discussing what time the button will be pushed is cheating.. teaming up with your allies to force a kingdom into war is cheating.. and yet all of these are utilised by the top guys every day of an age without comment. And yet one ghetto shows mercy to another and uses the situation to come out of war stronger than they otherwise would is the worst crime in the world according to you guys.

Fake war used to mean two friendly kingdoms declaring on one another and then taking the tie to re-inforce both kingdoms without hits against the enemy. Nowadays it seems that Fake war simply means any war that the moderation team says it is.. regardless of numbers or outcome.

The debauchery thread stated that "exchanging a war win for an acre gain" was FW.. this is clearly not the case here.. the winning kingdom took a major haul in acres.. hits were exchanged fairly on both sides according to two accepted game mechanics.. (Chaining and max-gains).

All your words suggest is that no two kingdoms should ever agree to anything at all during a war. It is now FW to tell your enemy that you're beaten and want out.. it is now FW to change your tactics mid war.. perhaps the moderation team should take some time re-writing the rules to tell us all how we should conduct a war.. and we can then all follow a rigid set of rules every time a war button is pushed.

[majigga]

perhaps the moderation team should take some time re-writing the rules to tell us all how we should conduct a war.. and we can then all follow a rigid set of rules every time a war button is pushed.

But if they did that then they couldn't use the ambiguity to their advantage whenever they felt like it.

[SillyRabbit]

The mods believe that there should be no clear definition of a fake war. Otherwise players would use it to find loopholes.
It seems to me like not having clearly defined rules on the topic of fake wars is causing more problems than otherwise.
As majigga said,

they couldn't use the ambiguity to their advantage whenever they felt like it.

"Cheating" being a subjective determination made by the guy who coordinated OOW razes against a person he'd just deleted for tenuous reasons.

I can confirm, the kd that Bishop and Dharan play in were razing my province in our last war with Dead Proets. Still think the mods are impartial?

[Palem]

@ Krynn - You were using the war to manipulate your kd setup. You wanted some provs trimmed and others grown. That's not warring and thus it's abuse of the war stance. You were benefitting from war protection while while not actually warring a kd. That's breaking the rules.

@ Kestrel - I don't have the faintest idea how you think "Coordinating attacks with the other kd" is the same thing as "Coordinating attacks against a kd"

Should we all be bullies who say "tough.. you're losing.. we're gonna hammer you until you can get out"

Yes. They wanted to war you and they WILL war you until the war has ended, otherwise they're benefiting from unjust protection from the rest of the game. If you don't want to get annihilated by a kd in war, then don't war them.

[brado]

to me, theres nothing wrong with what you did. its just that we have a bunch of no brain, no talent mods around here, sorry bout yer luck. protip: do not use ingame forums, use irc/external forms of communicating

[Sheister]

I have to say that I think it is ridiculous that admitting defeat and asking the other side to hit down a few provinces prior to your withdrawl is punishable.

[Palem]

I HIGHLY suggest people stop accusing Bishop of foul play. If he wanted to cheat he would prolly use it to achieve some form of success.

What IS cheating is organising hits pre-war to determine who gets the button and when.. discussing what time the button will be pushed is cheating.. teaming up with your allies to force a kingdom into war is cheating.. and yet all of these are utilised by the top guys every day of an age without comment.

That is not cheating in the slightest form.

Fake war used to mean two friendly kingdoms declaring on one another and then taking the tie to re-inforce both kingdoms without hits against the enemy. Nowadays it seems that Fake war simply means any war that the moderation team says it is.. regardless of numbers or outcome.

The debauchery thread stated that "exchanging a war win for an acre gain" was FW.. this is clearly not the case here.. the winning kingdom took a major haul in acres.. hits were exchanged fairly on both sides according to two accepted game mechanics.. (Chaining and max-gains).

All your words suggest is that no two kingdoms should ever agree to anything at all during a war. It is now FW to tell your enemy that you're beaten and want out.. it is now FW to change your tactics mid war.. perhaps the moderation team should take some time re-writing the rules to tell us all how we should conduct a war.. and we can then all follow a rigid set of rules every time a war button is pushed.

If at any point in a war, you're "at war" with a kd, but you aren't actually warring them, your war is fake. Hense the term "fake war". The mod team doesn't care how you war, as long as you are warring when you're benefitting from the protection you gain for warring a kd.


This isn't rocket science people. If you never do things that MIGHT be against the rules, you will never be deleted. That's a fact.

[majigga]

I HIGHLY suggest people stop accusing Bishop of foul play. If he wanted to cheat he would prolly use it to achieve some form of success.

Or what, we'll get deleted? Or OOW razed? Seems inappropriate that a mod can use his position to further personal agendas.

[Pillz]

I HIGHLY suggest people stop accusing Bishop of foul play. If he wanted to cheat he would prolly use it to achieve some form of success.

If only......

[Krynn]

This isn't rocket science people. If you never do things that MIGHT be against the rules, you will never be deleted. That's a fact.

then how about posting these rules so we know and do not get deleted.