#2 province grande mucca deleted

[DHaran]

I stand by the stance that in the exact same scenario, without the agreement to not trade hits, you would see this as legal. If what they are PHYSICALLY doing ingame is not a fake war, how can a few non-binding words change that definition?

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

[flogger]

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change to because he was in a fake war or because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that's it a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

Well they're really only in danger if someone else wants to be the #1 province and reports them.

Fake war isn't a defined term. Bishop didn't define it, the devs didn't define it, the players did over time and it even appears to have a different meaning to different players. It doesn't mean the same thing to every person, but the devs and Bishop's meaning certainly doesn't coincide with the meaning the majority of utopians had for it, therefore perhaps a suspension was in order, but a deletion is a clear overreaction.

[KuhaN]

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

Well that's the point, nobody can get deleted without good evidence/proof. The proof here was that Ryan sent an in game msg confirming a NAP with another player in a war. The terms offered/accepted was a clear indication of a fake war between two players imo.

Come on now, "All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning"? Do you honestly think it's this bad? :P

[KuhaN]

Well they're really only in danger if someone else wants to be the #1 province and reports them.

Fake war isn't a defined term. Bishop didn't define it, the devs didn't define it, the players did over time. It doesn't mean the same thing to every person, but the devs and Bishop's meaning certainly doesn't coincide with the meaning the majority of utopians had for it, therefore perhaps a suspension was in order, but a deletion is a clear overreaction.

This isn't the NBA or the NFL. This is Utopia; your province isn't your life. Suspension/Warnings are meaningless.

The only thing a report does is have the devs check the evidence and the problem, it doesn't necessarily mean somebody's going to get deleted lol. I for one am happy that the devs are checking the reports on cheaters.

[flogger]

Well that's the point, nobody can get deleted without good evidence/proof. The proof here was that Ryan sent an in game msg confirming a NAP with another player in a war. The terms offered/accepted was a clear indication of a fake war between two players imo.
Come on now, "All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning"? Do you honestly think it's this bad? :P

I fought a war once in which I could not hit the enemy's cow, and vice versa. All other 24 players hit on both sides within an hour of their armies being home, had players called in the middle of the night, and I didn't sleep for 48 hours. We lost 1/3rd of our land. I can see no way that this can be defined as a fake war. There was nothing fake about it.

A common fakewar involved both sides stocking resources and barely logging on since they were at no risk of being hit. We were losing resources and being hit constantly.

This may be something the devs don't like, which is fine, but it sure as heck ain't a "fakewar" by the definition the utopian community has used for ages. If its a deletable offense, it should be stated so seperately, as it doesn't fit under the criteria given for punishment, which was "we will action fakewars." It's fairly ridiculous to state you'll action a noun but use a different definition of the noun than a majority of the people's understanding of the definition of the noun as a reason for punishment.

Calling what Ryan did a "fakewar" makes Bishop's argument weak, IMO. If they simply called it "farming" people wouldn't be in disagreement. And I think a vast amount of people would agree that farming is bad.

[ZodZilla]

I don't think cow provinces competing for top spot would agree suspensions are meaningless.

[KuhaN]

I fought a war once in which I could not hit the enemy's cow, and vice versa. All other 24 players hit on both sides within an hour of their armies being home, had players called in the middle of the night, and I didn't sleep for 48 hours. We lost 1/3rd of our land. I can see no way that this can be defined as a fake war. There was nothing fake about it.

It would have been a completely different story if the two players simply didn't hit eachother. That wasn't the case, they communicated with each other first in game and sent NAPs. Do you see the difference?

[KuhaN]

I don't think cow provinces competing for top spot would agree suspensions are meaningless.

It would be meaningless for 9/10ths of the players playing this game. So do players competing for top spot get suspensions while everybody else get deleted?

[ZodZilla]

The suspension would take them out of the war, thus putting an end to any 'abuse', and deletion would be applied if there was a further infraction.

[Ordray]

This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.

Maybe a real world example of something similar occurring with and without an agreement.
In business, if 2 companies decide to independently arrive at the same price to set their competing goods at for sale, then there is nothing illegal about that action, correct? Even if they stay at that same price forever, it's still legal because they're not working together to keep it there.

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.[Emphasis added]

You see, if the first part of the example occurs (they independently decide on the same price (or there about)) it is completely legal, however a simple e-mail, letter, meeting, or phone call between the 2 companies in which they agree on a price for their competing products makes the same thing illegal.

Now, back to Utopia. If the 2 provinces hadn't intended to hit as part of their war strategy or hadn't been able to hit one another (I believe that it was said that neither could break the other, but I may have misread that) and had simply gone to war without sharing and agreeing that they would not do so, then their war would have been ruled a legitimate war. However, that's not what happened, if what I gathered from the few posts that I read is indeed correct.

[KuhaN]

The suspension would take them out of the war, thus putting an end to any 'abuse', and deletion would be applied if there was a further infraction.

Ok, so for all the players not in top 5 kds, do you really think they give a sh*t if they are suspended?

I would abuse all the loopholes I could because I know I would probably most likely not get caught, and if I do, well it'll only be a suspension. Who cares? Oh yeah, players competing for the #1 spot

-.-

[ZodZilla]

What if they both simply realize they cannot effectively hit each other and reference that fact?

[KuhaN]

Maybe a real world example of something similar occurring with and without an agreement.
In business, if 2 companies decide to independently arrive at the same price to set their competing goods at for sale, then there is nothing illegal about that action, correct? Even if they stay at that same price forever, it's still legal because they're not working together to keep it there.



You see, if the first part of the example occurs (they independently decide on the same price (or there about)) it is completely legal, however a simple e-mail, letter, meeting, or phone call between the 2 companies in which they agree on a price for their competing products makes the same thing illegal.

Now, back to Utopia. If the 2 provinces hadn't intended to hit as part of their war strategy or hadn't been able to hit one another (I believe that it was said that neither could break the other, but I may have misread that) and had simply gone to war without sharing and agreeing that they would not do so, then their war would have been ruled a legitimate war. However, that's not what happened, if what I gathered from the few posts that I read is indeed correct.

Thank You! It's nice to see somebody else here that has good sense.

[flogger]

It would have been a completely different story if the two players simply didn't hit eachother. That wasn't the case, they communicated with each other first in game and sent NAPs. Do you see the difference?

We communicated with eachother the first day of the age saying we had a province NAP. Then we ended up warring a month and a half later.

[hint]

It completely makes it a fake war.

So if devs make a terrible judgement call, it suddenly becomes justified and right just because you stubbornly keep writing these punchlines? This is not China, Nazi Germany or USSR, it doesn't work that easy here against real people who both have access to information and better knowledge on the subject(utopia) than you and the devs. The punishment in this case for the 'crime' is simply not fair and many of those who claim different would sing different tune if it was one of their allies and not Ryan. But seeing as you appear to have made up your mind, I will stop there. I very much hope this was only a high priority example setting or public execution kind of thing to install fear, and in reality the devs understand their game better than this to do something so over the top again. I'd pretty much compare it to something like declaring a prohibition and then executing the first doctor caught with medical spirit. Might not be fair, but the point will get across i guess. Nevertheless I would maybe recommend looking at some of the sources behind so many cow naps(small hint: it costs about 20 times more gcpa for build change on 50k acres than 500) instead...