#2 province grande mucca deleted

[I_am_Spartacus]

Well not sure which scenario your talking about, if its the X Y one i posted, both X and Y should both be punished. As for the current one, both should be punished and they both were. As far as the deletions go, maybe just a thought, they looked at the past wars of both kds and saw it as a reoccuring theme of NAPing during a war.. we may never know.

My prior 2 wars had no similar war terms. So it's quite amusing they take this one war so far out of context.

[Syntico]

Cheating should not be tolerated.

[ZodZilla]

Cheating should not be tolerated.

Agreed, but defining cheating helps. And deletions in grey areas are unnecessary.

Funny that clearly defined things, like "you may not post any content that is related to drugs, sex or any criminal activity", are rarely actioned. Go take a look at Dopefiends KD page and see how many names have illegal drugs in them. Not that I care, I think it's pretty cool, but the rules clearly supersede my opinion. I suppose no one filled out a complaint form, and just being aware of an issue isn't enough to act on it... even if it was acted upon, I highly doubt those provinces would be deleted, even though they broke a clearly defined rule in an obvious way.

[Syntico]

The Legendary Absalom Alliance, the REAL police of the Utopian industry, should announce that Ryan's unofficial coverup contract will not be renewed for the next age due to this apparent cheating.

[fariz]

I'm with DHaran on this one and dorje a few pages back.

1) It wasn't a fake war
2) Even if you disagree with #1 you don't delete someone with 2 weeks left to go in the age after spending 3 months playing his province
3) Even if you disagree with #1 you talk to the player first. Ryan is online 24/7 and its fairly easy to get ahold of him and say "I don't like this, stop it or I'm deleting" or you suspend.

Deleting someone without any sort of precedence after spending as much time as he did on the game is just flat out wrong.

i agree with flogger. maybe moderator should talk to ryan first before delete. ryan is online 24/7 as far as i am concern. there is no problem to reach him at all.

[fariz]

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??

Bante u are funny! HA HA. u should come and join #ma. we need more funny people there.

[Syntico]

Trust me, I'm a doctor.

So, guilty until proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt?

[flogger]

This is a game of ever changing politics and deals and diplomacy. Nowadays, people seem to think every kingdom has the right to fight 1 on 1 wars. When the game started, people could fight in 2 wars simutaneously and it was not considered unfair.

There's no need for the developers or mods to determine what sort of deals kingdoms should be able to make in fighting, the utopian community polices that sort of thing well enough. And the policing and determining what is right and wrong is more often the most entertaining and fun part about the game.

Any developer or mod stepping in in this situation is overstepping their bounds. If they do not like large provinces gaining off of small ones, simply change the rules next age to make the in-war landgain system similar to the out-of-war landgain system. Out of war Ryan would only gain 3 acres per hit. Making such changes is in the developer/mods power.

Or even better, why not just change the whole system for the better by implementing the following changes:

1) Make the explore formula more exponential, so that one province can't take a majority of the kingdoms explore pool
2) Make explore pool not go away in war, so kingdoms can re-grow chained provinces after war so kingdoms who war aren't "screwed" by having really small provinces for their next fight.
3) Then you can eliminate all EoW/Fortified doubling of explore costs.

Have the explore pool serve a real function: To not penalize kingdoms for going to war, and to let provinces recover after wards. Right now the explore pool is pretty much solely used by kingdoms and provinces that wish to rank higher.

[DDodge]

at the ghetto level, only purpose the explore pool serves is to confuse people trying to figure out total land exchanged in a war.

[DDodge]

This age will ever be remembered as "The Age of Ryan's Sabotage."

tragic stuff

[Tasty]

Very sad indeed.. Wow, This has to be the most absurd thing that has happened to the game yet. I feel ashamed to say I play Utopia now. You should reconsider your thinking Bishop. So sad...

[cefria]

Realest, I think your pretty cool to tell people to relax! I think you would be a great doctor.

[K9orange]

we got same offer from that ryan guy, although we had no big cow atm, so he only offered that war terms he posted in begining of this thread, we agreed to war, when hostile was at its peak and it was obvious to him we were no ghetto and had all the activity needed to take out his kd mates and would probably even have had a chance of harming him in the long run, CF arrived at our doorstep, and they moved on, so yea, definetly he tried to farm,...but still, he wouldnt give up all his kd for it, so i guess that was "cool" of him....

[Topsy]

So after realizing his KD would be pwned by you guys if it went to war he CF'd. I actually think that may be a fairly common use of the feature.

[KuhaN]

I'm really tired of shady top playing. Individual naps such as these are simply put an agreement for mutual farm war on the noobs in the kingdom. This is free acre generation with zero risk.

I support this deletion 100%. I would also support deletions for GBP pumping 100%.

Either way, I'm pretty sure this wasn't the only infraction because I'm confident to say that Ryan doesn't have enough talent to make #2 in a lone kingdom. I wouldn't be shocked at all to hear that other people were logging into his account.

That aside, I think it's safe to say that the majority of shady play comes from Absalom or Absalom affiliates. You guys come up with clever ways to skirt around the rules to benefit yourselves and in return make the game overly complicated for people who just play by common sense rules.

Another note: Sanctuary of Absalom will be the single reason why Fortified relation will be reworked next round. Fortified is a great tool for turtling under defended provinces post war and/or rejecting a wave from a more powerful kingdom. I seriously doubt that it was intended as a tool to block with where you just notice a kingdom and sit in fortified to waste everyone's time.

Agreed.

Ryan's deletion, which is borderline, I have two issues with. First is, as Proteus pointed out, that a cow-nap, though farming, has been standard play over recent ages. For this specific form of gameplay to be interpreted as a fakewar is a stretch, but to do it without warning to players is really not good. If in any of the dozen or so wars-with-a-cow-nap over the past year there had been an outside hit on either cow, both sides would have no doubt agreed that it was a "dirty" hit into a "real" war. This redefining-the-rules-without-telling-us-and-then-deleting-"cheaters" trend from the developers and mods is really poor for the game. I am entirely against cow naps and in favor of banning farming, but to do so without telling the players is seriously problematic. And to respond to minor or accidental cheating with a late-age deletion is really over the top - a suspension would be more than enough to get the point across and entirely in line with an infraction of this type.

Secondly - more of a nit-pick - the rules against fakewarring, and all the other nit-picky means of getting yourself deleted, need to be added to the game rules. There is a link at the top of the page that is supposed to tell you what's illegal, but it does not do so.

And Godly, your acquaintance with the facts leads me to suspect that you aren't even playing this age. As it is your own kingdom and monarch that began and pushed the cow-nap concept, I really question your integrity in calling this a "good" deletion. Following it up with a bad argument that "he must have deserved deletion for some other reason" (there's a name for this sort of argument, used so that you can teach young people not to use it) proves to me that you have no interest in whether it actually was a "good" deletion, as long as your enemy suffers. And to then change topic to a completely different rant about fortified stance where you are again wrong on the facts (to wit: it was pulse that refused to leave fortified, not sanctuary) only encourages me to engage in ad hominem arguments and help you derail the complaint. But I will refrain from going any farther down that avenue.

stfu.