#2 province grande mucca deleted

[DHaran]

Concept is the same, you argue that since nobody agrees its a fake war then it should be okey. Newsflash it doesnt matter what the players think, its those who se the rules. Since you dont set the rules you cant really dictate what is and whats not.

You are completely missing the point I have made multiple times. I don't really have a problem with the devs deciding this a FW now, even though I don't agree, that's their decision, not mine. But it was not known as a FW previous to this, therefor it shouldn't have been a deletable offense, and clarification should have been made for future scenarios. It would have been a positive way to handle it, rather than the massively negative situation we had instead. Reinterpretation of rules on the fly is bad news.

[flogger]

I look forward to seeing your extensive survey that allows you to state that nobody thinks its a fw.

I had a province nap with a kingdom 2 ages ago that I was in war with. Given that we lost 50,000 acres in that war, I don't think anyone on the server considered it a fake war.

Goes back to the suggestion made many times, as long as it costs hundreds of millions of dollars for large provinces to build their lands, they will make province naps with eachother. Fix this problem and you'll no longer have province naps to deal with. The goofy deals made often are made as a result of things that the devs should fix, that go unfixed.

[Korp]

I had a province nap with a kingdom 2 ages ago that I was in war with. Given that we lost 50,000 acres in that war, I don't think anyone on the server considered it a fake war.

What you think is fairly irrelevant isnt it? What you can prove is far more interesting.

[Palem]

But it was not known as a FW previous to this, therefor it shouldn't have been a deletable offense, and clarification should have been made for future scenarios. It would have been a positive way to handle it, rather than the massively negative situation we had instead. Reinterpretation of rules on the fly is bad news.

^This.
If someone had asked me if doing that was against the rules, I would have said "absolutely not" without thinking twice. Cow NAPS are in a grey area of the FW rules. Did the devs really expect us to just assume that single prov deals were against the rules now?

But it doesn't matter now. What's done is done. Live and learn.

[Nuriho]

Nuriho, nowhere was it said that a thief doing ops in war was considered fake. If you persist in this asinine behaviour you will be removed. You will not get another warning.

Quote Originally Posted by Allanon KT View Post
A prov-based NAP does NOT constitute a fake war.
A cow NAP does NOT constitute a fake war.
An agreement made before min-time between kingdoms to ceasefire mid-war after fighting and then have one of them withdraw at min-time does NOT constitute a fake-war.

These are all diplomatic agreements, not fake wars.
Your interpretation is incorrect. Allow me to provide clarification. We will be actioning any war that is not real.

Basically, what everyone gets out of this, is that the devs and possibly you decide, arbitrarily, what a real war is, and what a not real war is. There is no defined answer, so we all have to speculate. You say nobody said thieving safely in war is being fake, but nobody said it wasn't. After all, nobody said a single province couldn't NAP another single province during war. The problem here is the definition of real and not real war and punishments for.

edit: which, to clarify, tells me that thief ops safely during war is a fake war, due to seemingly random arbitrary cases on which a fake war is. You didn't say it isn't, so i must assume it is and report it; after all cheating is cheating. Why would you punish me for trying to rid the place of cheaters? You would punish the person reporting cheaters, but not the cheaters? And I am having "asinine behaviour?" Whatever, go reply to the point above the edit, this part seems more of a rant since you are being asinine to me, and i am being asinine to you (since the word isn't based on fact, but opinion).

[Bishop]

Where do u draw the line between it being a fake war. For example me saying i wont hit someone as an agreement to get to war, and then plan a war around not hitting that person all the time knowing that if i HAD to i can easily break my promise to get the war win.

The line is drawn there. Encouraging people to break the rules can result in action.

I had a province nap with a kingdom 2 ages ago that I was in war with.

2 ages ago you could fake war till your hearts content. This isnt 2 ages ago.

Basically, what everyone gets out of this, is that the devs and possibly you decide, arbitrarily, what a real war is, and what a not real war is. There is no defined answer, so we all have to speculate. You say nobody said thieving safely in war is being fake, but nobody said it wasn't. After all, nobody said a single province couldn't NAP another single province during war. The problem here is the definition of real and not real war and punishments for.

There is nothing arbitrary about it, but yes the people that makes the rules decide what the rules are for the good of the game. If you want to be wilfully ignorant I have no interest in helping you.

[Nuriho]

lol@wilfully ignorant. There's nothing ignorant about knowing what a rule is when it's not defined. Or, since you say there's nothing arbitrary, you either define on the spot, and do not publish the case with community until a ***** has been flipped, or have a whole list of scenarios defined, but do not publish with the community. How can I be ignorant of something that I am unable to gain knowledge of?

Withholding knowledge from me, then calling me ignorant.

[ZodZilla]

Bishop, it was entirely arbitrary. Why else would you have 19 pages of "WTF" from the community?

[Blaine]

They know they made wrong decision to delete them, but it's too late to admit it. It's quite common sense that the penalty was outright overkill. But it happened and we all know it even if they can't admit it. So, we could just learn from it and close the thread :) Thanks, bye.

[Bishop]

No, i stand 100% behind the decision. Im only posting here because people keep making incorrect statments. Nothing said in this thread is changing anything.

[Korp]

Bishop, it was entirely arbitrary. Why else would you have 19 pages of "WTF" from the community?

Most of time is the same people posting the same things over and over again.

[Blaine]

No, i stand 100% behind the decision. Im only posting here because people keep making incorrect statments. Nothing said in this thread is changing anything.

I still haven't got an answer to this: Why was deletion better solution to, lets say, warning or suspension? What did anybody gain from ruining someones 3 months of work over such a minor offense, that ppl have been doing for years. My kingdom is now dying because you took only thing keeping us going. We have thread in the forum "what role/race will you play next age" and already some have answered "I won't be here next age". (I'm from the kingdom Astrael was deleted from)

[ZodZilla]

Most of time is the same people posting the same things over and over again.

Just because you're thick enough that everything sounds the same does not make it so. Go troll on IRC somewhere. All non-Bishops are posting for the same reason he is - we don't like incorrect statements.

[I_am_Spartacus]

Both involved players referred to it as a fake war. Where is the ambiguity?

Excuse me? Fabricating lies to back your side now?

[I_am_Spartacus]

Anri is correct. Our position will not change on this.

<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok
^^ hardly a resounding confirmation.

"And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway?"
^^ Ryan.

Again, out of context. I could NOT break him. If I could have, with economic and strategic benefit, I would have.

10[20:32] <Ryan> it really wasnt even a 2 prov nap
10[20:32] <Ryan> it's a bluff war term i use to get all my wars
10[20:32] <Ryan> a) i wont send dragons in this war (not in range anyways)
10[20:32] <Ryan> b) i wont hit you in this war (cant break anyways)
10[20:33] <Ryan> war terms that dont negatively restrict my kd in any way
10[20:33] <Ryan> a2) I could get in dragon range by razing buildings / releasing some troops but it's not economically or strategically efficient
10[20:33] <Ryan> b2) i could get the offense to hit you but it's not economically or strategically efficient for myself or my kd
10[20:34] <Ryan> so I don't get why bishop gets to dictate what I should or shouldn't be doing in war in terms of strategy.
[20:35] <DHaran> i made the point who says you werent gonna hit the guy?
[20:35] <DHaran> tricking ppl into war is a FW now?
10[20:36] <Ryan> tricking people isnt a fw, bishop was fine with my no dragon term
10[20:36] <Ryan> but then he didnt want to understand how not hitting someone is the same concept
[20:38] <DHaran> my problem is the actions themselves broke no rules, but a few words about an agreement to not trade hits suddenly makes it illegal
[20:38] <DHaran> thats bogus
[20:39] <DHaran> if they still intervened, then they are completely deciding your targets for you in war, which is unacceptable