To the Game Admins

[Pillz]

According to you, a player without all the information the devs have at their disposal, arguing with a moderator and being belligerent to her for no reason whatsoever. You see why your opinion isn't really worth much?

-DM <3

There have been countless wars waged because one disgruntled kd member gave away a button.

It sucks that 1:9 had a multi monarch, but that's where his cheating stopped. It's the kingdoms fault for not removing him from the kd or electing a new monarch.

If we're going to be expanding the definition of fake war like this, I think we should just revamp the declaration system to something fully democratic.

Not to mention that, if we're going to treat this as a fake war, the admins should get serious about other forms of war abuse. Like farm outs for crowns, I'd like to see you defend that then? I don't recall you or Sassy_Wolfie decrying the injustice of Ronins crowning last age?

After all, agreement or no, how can a war not be fake if one side goes into it intending to lose to helping the other side?

Seems the admins want to control what circumstances are valid and which are not, but only for ghettos.

[Zombies are people too]

Seems the admins want to control what circumstances are valid and which are not, but only for ghettos.

Or as stated by them, they are improving their policing so I imagine, but cannot confirm because I am just a player, that examples as you mentioned last age will probably cease to exist.

Instead of grandstanding and demeaning everyone you don't agree with, or don't do things the way you feel they should be done, why not use your expansive knowledge of the game, it's history, and mechanics in a positive and helpful matter? Instead of being a pillar of the community, you come across as a hateful, petty individual that opens their credibility to debate and basically turns away everyone you call out in a vulgar, unnecessary manner.

-DM <3

[Sweetiepie]

Or as stated by them, they are improving their policing so I imagine, but cannot confirm because I am just a player, that examples as you mentioned last age will probably cease to exist.

Instead of grandstanding and demeaning everyone you don't agree with, or don't do things the way you feel they should be done, why not use your expansive knowledge of the game, it's history, and mechanics in a positive and helpful matter? Instead of being a pillar of the community, you come across as a hateful, petty individual that opens their credibility to debate and basically turns away everyone you call out in a vulgar, unnecessary manner.

-DM <3

As opposed to being a pillar of the Dirty Diamond's club while pretending to be an energetic youthful, dewy eyes beacon of hope and fair play, as you do? :)

[Zombies are people too]

As opposed to being a pillar of the Dirty Diamond's club while pretending to be an energetic youthful, dewy eyes beacon of hope and fair play, as you do? :)

What's your problem? The fact you think im a pillar in aod is proof by example that you don't know what you're talking about concerning AoD or me for that matter.


-DM <3

[Sweetiepie]

What's your problem? The fact you think im a pillar in aod is proof by example that you don't know what you're talking about concerning AoD or me for that matter.


-DM <3

I refer you to my previous post.
You are a self confessed member of AOD.
Either you are naive or you are one of the inner circle that will lie and lie.
It's one of the other.
But it sounds to me like you are defending the indefensible so I know which one I now believe it to be. I'm sure others will also draw their own conclusions.

I'm done talking to you now in this thread, because it simply detracts from the original focus.

[Zombies are people too]

pretending to be an energetic youthful, dewy eyes beacon of hope and fair play, as you do? :)

I actually prefer "The Great", but if i were to describe myself, I'm more a hopeless romantic with the heart of a mid 80's goth, covered in war paint.

You are a self confessed member of AOD.

Oui

Either you are naive or you are one of the inner circle that will lie and lie.
It's one of the other.

Only two options? Really? That's a very narrow-minded scope of possibilities. The latter being hilarious, like we are real people with real lives, not some clandestine order. You're kidding right?

But it sounds to me like you are defending the indefensible so I know which one I now believe it to be. I'm sure others will also draw their own conclusions.

They will, the depth of truth to those conclusions is a matter of debate though.

I'm done talking to you now in this thread.

Honestly kinda relieved; you came out of no where xD

-DM <3

[Palem]

It sucks that 1:9 had a multi monarch, but that's where his cheating stopped. It's the kingdoms fault for not removing him from the kd or electing a new monarch.

Do you think rape victims shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively too? Stop victim blaming.

If we're going to be expanding the definition of fake war like this,

It hasn't been expanded at all. Having pre-determined outcomes has always been considered as a fake war. Agreeing to trade a war win for some other thing has always been considered a fake war. Both of which have been actioned many times prior.

[Sweetiepie]

Do you think rape victims shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively too? Stop victim blaming.


It hasn't been expanded at all. Having pre-determined outcomes has always been considered as a fake war. Agreeing to trade a war win for some other thing has always been considered a fake war. Both of which have been actioned many times prior.

The problem is that 6:4 were not part of a war with a prearranged outcome. They are simply collateral damage. There are arguments both ways, to have let the war run itself out with the possibility that players from 1:9 would have quit, or to stop the war.

Perhaps the Devs could have given them the amount of creds the losing side would get in a real war.

There aren't any good solutions to this kind of thing, especially when decisions have to be made quickly, there's no time to have a long considered discussion about it.
Devs have totally cleared 6:4 of any wrongdoing and I guess that has to be enough.

[Pillz]

Do you think rape victims shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively too? Stop victim blaming.


It hasn't been expanded at all. Having pre-determined outcomes has always been considered as a fake war. Agreeing to trade a war win for some other thing has always been considered a fake war. Both of which have been actioned many times prior.

Oh **** off with your false equivalence bull****.

The monarch cheated in just one capacity - having multiple accounts.
Anything else really falls on his kingdom - particularly as this was the second time he'd done this sort of thing.

Are we going to start freezing every single war where 1 kingdom claims they didnt want it?

And what pre-determined outcome? It's been established that the war discussed in this thread had no such agreement. It was stopped purely because the monarch got his kingdom into a war they did not want. **** off.

For Palem, the mod who can't read and shouldn't even be here anymore:

Your KD had no knowledge of what was going on inside the opponent KD, all you knew was you had a war declaration button and the chance to farm easy acres and honor with effectively zero risk.
Should your KD have received deletions? suspensions? removal of acres? pushed directly out of war & full KD suspensions? These are all potential consequences of fake wars. We saw fit that your KD had done no wrong and should not be punished under historical standards yet we could not allow the war to continue.

[Palem]

Are we going to start freezing every single war where 1 kingdom claims they didnt want it?

I'll respond with your response

Oh **** off with your false equivalence bull****.

The war wasn't cut off because they complained to support that they didn't want to be in that war. The war was cut off because their monarch was a multi that set up fake wars previously and even attempted to make their current war into a fake one. It's safe to assume that in the future, if your monarch is a multi and/or sets up fake wars that your war may come to a sudden halt. Anything beyond that is just you trying to pitch a fit because the admins actually bothered to action your cheating friends for cheating.

[emerix]

The war wasn't cut off because they complained to support that they didn't want to be in that war. The war was cut off because their monarch was a multi that set up fake wars previously and even attempted to make their current war into a fake one. It's safe to assume that in the future, if your monarch is a multi and/or sets up fake wars that your war may come to a sudden halt. Anything beyond that is just you trying to pitch a fit because the admins actually bothered to action your cheating friends for cheating.

Ummm, their monarch was a multi that set up fake wars previously, yes.

Their monarch defected and got the stew to propose war to us. We accepted and refused to agree to anything thereafter. If you're saying that everyone from 1:9 who messaged us, whether in-game mail or in war forums, asking for selective hits or for hits to stop in return for a guaranteed war win is guilty of trying to turn the war into a fake war, why wasn't half of 1:9 deleted then?

Not saying they should be deleted, just trying to see where the consistency is in all of this.

[Pillz]

I'll respond with your response



The war wasn't cut off because they complained to support that they didn't want to be in that war. The war was cut off because their monarch was a multi that set up fake wars previously and even attempted to make their current war into a fake one. It's safe to assume that in the future, if your monarch is a multi and/or sets up fake wars that your war may come to a sudden halt. Anything beyond that is just you trying to pitch a fit because the admins actually bothered to action your cheating friends for cheating.

Again, read the thread "moderator" rather than spamming it and all others with irrelevant drivel and fetishist images of Taylor Swift.

The monarch was a multi in that he had 2 provinces in his own kingdom. It didn't play into him setting up fake wars.
The kingdom crying about the war coming to a halt is the one that accepted his spontaneous, not-fake-war-termed war proposal.

The debate here centers around whether or not the war should have ended because the monarch had previously tried to set 'fake war terms' after war had started with Diamonds KD, and his kingdom was against the whole war to begin with (ie: he was getting them into wars at random without their consent).

If you'll read DavidC's posts, as I pointed out previously, you will see that no 'fake war terms' were ever made for the war discussed in this thread.

So the war was started legally (elected ingame monarch using a valid feature to propose wars)
The monarch was not baiting or farming wars using multies
No 'fake war terms' were agreed upon

Why then was the war ended? Typically if a monarch was found to be running multies during his kingdoms' war, he'd be deleted with the multies and war would be left to continue as normal.

The war was in no way fake, even if the declaring monarch always intended to farm out and withdraw to **** over his kingdom. If that sort of personal (or even kd wide) motive were grounds to end wars, then Zauper & Hawk have been extremely negligent the last 3 ages....

David & Jeff have decided that wars should now arbitrarily be terminated because the monarchs are not acting in their kingdoms' best interest. This is bull****. As is your continued status as moderator.

[Palem]

David & Jeff have decided that wars should now arbitrarily be terminated because the monarchs are not acting in their kingdoms' best interest. This is bull****. As is your continued status as moderator.

You are correct. That first sentence was in fact 100% bull****.

As far as my moderation, you are actually right. My efforts in moderating these forums have been less than inspired lately. I apologize to Bishop, the new owners, the old owners and to any posters who were affected by my efforts. From here on, it will be my goal to make this place a more hospitable for Utopians. A place where everyone can feel comfortable posting without either being treated poorly or having their posts derailed by things that happened 10 years ago.

Happy thanksgiving to my fellow American Utopians and have a swirvey day :)

[SnirpsneR]

You are correct. That first sentence was in fact 100% bull****.

As far as my moderation, you are actually right. My efforts in moderating these forums have been less than inspired lately. I apologize to Bishop, the new owners, the old owners and to any posters who were affected by my efforts. From here on, it will be my goal to make this place a more hospitable for Utopians. A place where everyone can feel comfortable posting without either being treated poorly or having their posts derailed by things that happened 10 years ago.

Happy thanksgiving to my fellow American Utopians and have a swirvey day :)

You stepping down?

[FATstrat]

You are correct. That first sentence was in fact 100% bull****.

As far as my moderation, you are actually right. My efforts in moderating these forums have been less than inspired lately. I apologize to Bishop, the new owners, the old owners and to any posters who were affected by my efforts. From here on, it will be my goal to make this place a more hospitable for Utopians. A place where everyone can feel comfortable posting without either being treated poorly or having their posts derailed by things that happened 10 years ago.

Happy thanksgiving to my fellow American Utopians and have a swirvey day :)

Can you sort out the gif spammers of the forum pls?