#2 province grande mucca deleted

[Lead Pipe]

IMO, the punishment should fit the crime. A deletion is too severe.

I'm strongly against Fake Wars and am glad that action is being taken. But to me it doesn't seem like a fake war, but rather a war with terms. I know that the devs have the ultimate decision on saying what is fake and what's not, but when it's not a clear-cut case of FW the prov shouldn't be deleted, maybe just give him a 24 hour suspension with a message saying why.

And I don't even like ryan that much, I even got him booted from Sanc at one point :P That happened a few years ago, and he does seem to have matured since.

[bante]

agree on dharan:)

anyway the reason i post here is..the monkey in my avatar is currently lost and is looking for his father...do u have any idea where my monkey can find his father??

[ZodZilla]

If the 2 large provinces where roommates and thus could not interact, would they be deleted? Is the issue that they did not interact (as many provinces don't end up interacting in a war), or it is simply that they talked about it? Assuming the latter, does that mean I can provide irc logs showing any player agreeing not to op or hit another during war, regardless of context, and have them deleted? Neat.

[ZodZilla]

Also it should be noted that I find this decision absolutely absurd. It was clearly not a 'fake' war, and indeed the nature of the arrangement was to secure a genuine (read:not fake) war for both kingdoms. Provinces should be reinstated, with interest :P

[Drixx]

Also it should be noted that I find this decision absolutely absurd. It was clearly not a 'fake' war, and indeed the nature of the arrangement was to secure a genuine (read:not fake) war for both kingdoms. Provinces should be reinstated, with interest :P

Precisely. Whatever else you might be able to say about Ryan, what he did was set terms before the war to make it a fair war for both sides. Bishop's decision, in effect, outlaws diplomacy. It's overreaching, and Bishop's responses in this thread are snarky at best.

But, as I said earlier, that is Bishop's MO. He refuses to have an adult conversation about things. He refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that his viewpoint is incorrect. He abuses his power and threatens people. If you disagree with him, you are mocked, talked down to or silenced.

This issue should be reversed. Those two monarchs did what monarchs are meant to do. They talked out terms for an even war for their kd's, and then both participated fully in the wars according to the agreed upon terms. Warfare is sometimes a gentlemanly affair where sides agree upon certain boundaries, and sometimes not. Much the same, it has worked this way in Utopia for as long as I can remember. Bishop's earlier response to this line of argument was "fakewar's used to be commonplace and allowed" or something along those lines. But, he's clearly missed the point. Fakewars were outlawed. Diplomacy and setting terms/boundaries for wars were not outlawed anywhere that I'm aware of. Both players in question were fully involved in the war with hits (and I presume ops from first hand accounts posted in this thread), so there doesn't seem to be a "fakewar" case here.

Bishop has never, as far as I can find via search, changed his mind about something he said or did. In this instance, he clearly overstepped both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. His past behavior tells me that no matter what the community has to say, and no matter that the ghetto players involved showed up and said "hey, these two guys were helping us learn the game and agreed to these terms to get both kd's an evenly matched war, and both were participating, there's no foul here!" this terrible decision will stand because for any other outcome to happen, Bishop would have to admit his initial action was incorrect or possibly ill advised, or in the nicest possible way of saying it... a bit hasty.

This is, I believe, something Bishop will never do.

Capital punishment was handed out against two players when everyone else involved in their situation says that there was no crime. No victims here. Simply two monarchs trying to help new players learn the game better and arrange a good war late in the age.

[ZodZilla]

It stands to reason that attacking Bishop will only serve to have this thread locked and detract from the issue at hand. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't think that would be productive.

[Drixx]

It stands to reason that attacking Bishop will only serve to have this thread locked and detract from the issue at hand. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't think that would be productive.

I agree. I am making a case that the decision was wrong. There was clearly no "fakewar" here. I'm arguing that the decision to delete two monarchs for trying to set up a fair war and treat each other like gentlemen sets a dangerous and bad precedent for the game.

And finally I'm pointing out that it needs to be reversed, but in order for that to happen, Bishop would have to change his mind. I am expressing a strong doubt that he will do so, based upon past experience. I truly hope he proves me wrong. In any case, I've exhausted what I have to say on the issue. Two wall of text posts are enough I think.

[Militaryman]

So just clarifying. X and Y province make a agreement prewar to leave each other alone and grow it should be fine... Yall are insane.... Two cows making a war in two ghetto kds and agreeing to not hit or op each other should be deleted. If you really think a ghetto kd is goinh to coord a bounce wave etc on someone 65% of thier kd nw your again insane... By x cow and y cow agreeing, both knew they wouldnt get hit and could freely grow.. Plain simple abuse... The only nap in a war is the cf ending. Prov naps in war is wrong.. Prov naps are lame and its nice to know thry ate being dealt with

[DHaran]

So are you saying all banks warring a non-bank kingdom should get deleted because they can grow freely?

[ZodZilla]

Here's another question: what would happen if a prov in a ghetto refused to fight in a war that his monarch declared for whatever reason? Would he be deleted? What if he went so far as to post his intentions in the War Forums? "This is a BS war because blah blah blah, I'm staying out of it."?

If a cow is used purely for economic purposes, and doesn't send out or op in war, you'll delete that province?

[flogger]

although it does seem to me the easiest solution is to just do what I said in 1999, eliminate cows.

[ZodZilla]

Militaryman - That was clearly not the case here. It wasn't a plot to steal free acres by evil cows, it was 2 kd's trying to find a war.

[Militaryman]

Yet zod it stills ends up being an agreement that both sides knew would result in free gains and growth without a hassle. Still abuse either way.

[Militaryman]

So are you saying all banks warring a non-bank kingdom should get deleted because they can grow freely?

Sure if said bank made nap to not atk etc. but thats a dif acenario. The one in ? Is should it be allowed for two cows 65%+ higher in nw then either kd be allowed to make personal naps in war that they know will benefit them. Answer is no.

[ZodZilla]

It's not free gains without a hastle, they are both still open to damage from every other province. Also as was pointed out by DHaran any cow effectively has free gains and growth in war. Should Sanctuary's cow be deleted this war if no one hits it or causes massive damage? Absurd.