Intentional farmouts

[Binar]

A fake war by the definition of the rules that would allow support to step in? Nope. I'm not allowed to war Mythos (are they even still around?) because I used to play there? Or rather, Mythos isn't allowed to absolutely destroy my kingdom? Where's the line? That's just an absolute mess of a gray area that support has no need to get involved in.


That being said, you don't need support's approval for you and your friends to teach BB that that kind of garbage play doesn't fly. It's funny, everyone was perfectly fine getting their ducks in a row and gangbanging Emeriti when one of their former players was helping them out from a ghetto, but all of the sudden when it's BB everyone stomps their foot and says it's Bishop's responsibility. I really don't understand you people sometimes lol

this is yr0 though.
People might want to actually play this game before having to stop up and play rent-a-cop

[Godly]

Palem, suppose Mythos gives you a button and doesn't attack in war? It's one thing to have your friend fight you. It's another thing to have your friend use a war to give you a huge advantage in terms of free stuff.

Again, what is the definition of a fake war in the definition of the rules? Do you even know? Because I don't even know and I'm supposed to know everything about utopia.

You know why? THIS ENTIRE GAME'S RULESET IS A GREY AREA. There is an actual ****ing rule in the book that says "spirit of the rules." What the **** does that even mean?
"Players attempting to manipulate rules and quirks of the game in ways obviously not intended may be subject to deletion. Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game."

Every single rule that is made in utopia is meant to be as nebulous as possible because I believe if the rules were clearly defined, it would be too much of a burden to administrate it.

[Godly]

Every player that has made attacks this round that have been risky, gotten retaliated, or obliterated; every player that has been in a real war and actually earned those war benefits; every player that has dreamt of being a top kingdom but didn't want to go through these lengths to achieve it should demand from the administration an explanation on what happened in this instance. We have a right to know as people who play and support this game.

And prot, you have no right to be silent here. Show some respect for this community and get in here and tell everyone what happened.

[Band of Horses]

A fake war by the definition of the rules that would allow support to step in? Nope. I'm not allowed to war Mythos (are they even still around?) because I used to play there? Or rather, Mythos isn't allowed to absolutely destroy my kingdom? Where's the line? That's just an absolute mess of a gray area that support has no need to get involved in.


That being said, you don't need support's approval for you and your friends to teach BB that that kind of garbage play doesn't fly. It's funny, everyone was perfectly fine getting their ducks in a row and gangbanging Emeriti when one of their former players was helping them out from a ghetto, but all of the sudden when it's BB everyone stomps their foot and says it's Bishop's responsibility. I really don't understand you people sometimes lol

The emeriti GB took time to build. It was over a week after the incident that punishment started (If I am not mistaken). I think the reason most of us would like Bishop to get involved is because we don't have the proof needed and we think he might be able to. Sure none of the top kds want to get involved in a yr0 GB as it will slow down their growth and chance at crown, it just takes one to not participate and get the edge.

Palem, suppose Mythos gives you a button and doesn't attack in war? It's one thing to have your friend fight you. It's another thing to have your friend use a war to give you a huge advantage in terms of free stuff.

Again, what is the definition of a fake war in the definition of the rules? Do you even know? Because I don't even know and I'm supposed to know everything about utopia.

You know why? THIS ENTIRE GAME'S RULESET IS A GREY AREA. There is an actual ****ing rule in the book that says "spirit of the rules." What the **** does that even mean?
"Players attempting to manipulate rules and quirks of the game in ways obviously not intended may be subject to deletion. Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game."

Every single rule that is made in utopia is meant to be as nebulous as possible because I believe if the rules were clearly defined, it would be too much of a burden to administrate it.

The grey line you're walking down is what if I hate your guts, give you button you press it and then I stop hitting so as to make it a fake war. You can't force me to hit so now you get punished and I win. And now we have to always determine intent of the offender. It sucks and I hate it.
But you're right, the definitions are intentionally nebulous (nice word choice). And it makes it incredibly frustrating for players as we don't know what we have to police vs what admins have to.

This whole damn thing is so frustrating. And without knowing for sure the offenders past and intention I don't fully see a major difference between say Pyro v Shinra where Shinra stopped attacking and farmed out a crown to pyro, or Outplayerz v Fratzia where one guy gave a button and the whole kingdom payed the price and the other kd gained hugely from it.

Just give Bishop some time to be back at work before you guys annoy him into not getting involved. PLEASE!

[Palem]

Again, what is the definition of a fake war in the definition of the rules? Do you even know? Because I don't even know and I'm supposed to know everything about utopia.

It's using the war status in an unintended way.

Beating the ever loving **** out of a ghetto isn't against the rules. Having a friend play in that kingdom and be the one responsible for giving you the button is also not against the rules. If you don't like what they're doing then beat the **** out of them, or even better, have every single kingdom in the entire game help you beat the **** out of them, because that's also not against the rules. The community dictates what is and is not acceptable. That's always been the case.

it just takes one to not participate and get the edge.

Then have the same kingdoms action them too. Problem solved.

[Godly]

Bishop has already ruled that there won't be any action despite not stating it here specifically. I let the process play out before commenting.

The situation you describe is so rare that I don't even know of an example... and it can be handled in a unique way. The administrators can step in, end the war, action the kingdom that didn't do anything, and give the winner *SOME* predefined bonuses for their trouble. We've already had instances in the past where kingdoms were granted 24 hours of EOWCF benefits when foul play like this occurred. That plus their 1 war wave should be sufficient.

[Band of Horses]

Then have the same kingdoms action them too. Problem solved.

Is that really the path you want to go down? I certainly don't :-/

Bishop has already ruled that there won't be any action despite not stating it here specifically. I let the process play out before commenting.

The situation you describe is so rare that I don't even know of an example... and it can be handled in a unique way. The administrators can step in, end the war, action the kingdom that didn't do anything, and give the winner *SOME* predefined bonuses for their trouble.

Oh wow, I did not know that. Respect to you for letting it play out first.

The admins can determine my intent? All I have to do is keep all my thoughts and opinions out of game right? Isn't that how you said you'd create a fake war if you wanted to?
Whatever can happen will happen in utopia. If this wasn't oop war this wouldn't have happened due to size difference and war bonus change this age, the 5k minimum bonus needs to go imo.

[Palem]

Is that really the path you want to go down? I certainly don't :-/

That's the path utopia's already down. This isn't anything new, by any means.

[Band of Horses]

That's the path utopia's already down. This isn't anything new, by any means.

I wouldn't say were at the point of GB everyone that doesn't agree with you yet.

[Aranfein]

I do think Bishop should step in as this is not about community punishment, its about removing the ww bonus and some of the gains they just got.

Godly if bishop wont do it then arrange a punishment, you told me a while back you had more backing then most, so show that this shouldnt be allowed, its a dangerous precedence to set that they arrange a fake war (as you said you have proof).

[Pale]

If there was enough proof that it was a former BB person or a friend giving them the button, action would have already been taken. The difference between this and the situation 2 ages ago with Emeriti is that it was 100% confirmed that the person hitting into post-war was in fact a person idling in Emeriti's council channel and there was logs of their leadership encouraging the behavior. We don't have that here. We don't even have 100% confirmation that it WAS a former BB person or a friend and Bishop isn't giving it to us unfortunately. Until we have 100% proof that it's a friend, not much to be done about it. Logs of some people talking about how BB plans on getting farm wars isn't proof either unless there was talk of them planting people or some kind of incrimination concerning this direct situation. It just looks really bad that they want to get farm wars but that doesn't make this a fake war. It's definitely ghetto bashing at its finest and it looks suspicious as hell. Suspicious or not, getting farm wars is not "illegal" unless it's done via the illegal means (planting, organizing via friends to get bonuses, etc). The people who allegedly have the logs even said what they have isn't actionable. We're all frustrated with this situation but over-reacting via gangbang without proof sets a really bad precedent. The only one who can really fix this situation is Bishop and/or the devs. If they won't then, well, f***

[Palem]

I wouldn't say were at the point of GB everyone that doesn't agree with you yet.

So getting support to just go ahead and delete them is that much better? lol

[Band of Horses]

So getting support to just go ahead and delete them is that much better? lol

You said to action the kd that didn't get involved in the actioning of the cheater and instead just kept whoring. Unless we confused ourselves there. No one is asking to delete someone that takes a bear play stance instead of fair play stance.

[Aranfein]

Pale i understand BB is your friends, but this is dodgy has hell and the fact that Bishop posted about taking action against fake wars, you would assume he would here too, when 1 province hits 8 times to give a war and then they hit what 10 times in 48hrs? even if BB is innocent of such behaviour they should in the name of what they preach, remove the gains.. (they have forced that before themselves, so i dont see anything wrong with doing so now), I believe that was Emeriti that got sanctioned a few ages ago for unfairly earned acres.

Same should apply to BB, otherwise its double standards when it comes to own kingdom.. Not like everyone cant see this is an unfair way of getting acres.

I still think Bishop should take action for such play, but if he doesnt then community should punish it.

[Pale]

Dude, I don't play and if there is wrongdoing, I'd action my own grandmother. SS's monarch is one of my friends and last age I actioned them. Different than you, I don't have a bias as to who gets messed up. You cross the line, you burn. You mean what flogger preaches? Flogger is not BB. He didn't even play till recently from my understanding. And we've already had the argument concerning farm wars. Idc if people farm ghettos who are stupid. It's way different if you're farming known kds mid to late age to pass someone you both have mutual hate for. Aka arranging to lose on purpose so your buddy can pass someone or gain a major advantager. It's not unfairly earned acres in my book unless there's a plant. Taking advantage of a situation 1 v 1 is not illegal and never should be. You can call it immortal, you can all it whatever you want. Actionable? Hell no. Not without a plant. Emeriti got actioned for "encouraging" a friendly to hit into post-war of their main competition at the time 2 ages ago. Last age emeriti did not get actioned, they were just pressured by the others in the top to keep their word concerning getting rid of some acres from a gangbang due to dealbreak. You're, again, comparing apples to oranges, which seems to be your mantra. Your hate for certain people or groups causes you to get vocal. I'm already on record saying if there's a plant confirmed, I have a bunch of kds lined up to punish. But that's the line I draw. Most of us who have played a long time draw this same line because we've been in a social situation on this game where it wasn't drawn and we've seen how dysfunctional it gets. You think I wouldn't enjoy joining in on a gangbang of BB? Hitting your friends you rarely get to hit is so much fun.