#2 province grande mucca deleted

[KuhaN]

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

It depends what the reference would be.

"Hey, we cannot hit eachother, so let's NAP each other ok?" <--- Bad.
"Damn man I can't break you LOL" <--- fine.

[KuhaN]

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.

That's different to me. That'd be an OOW nap, not a war terms/in-war nap.

And I guarantee you two wouldn't have been deleted, unless you said something stupid in an in-game msg.

[ZodZilla]

That's different to me. That'd be an OOW nap, not a war terms/in-war nap.

If it holds up in war it's hardly an OOW nap.

[KuhaN]

If it holds up in war it's hardly an OOW nap.

I mean't that the nap took place OOW, and wasn't meant for a specific war. That's different.

[kbone]

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.

Thats wayyy too much interpretation on the part of the devs imo. Whether its true or not in this case, you could say whatever the hell you want to get a war/trick the opposition or do whatever it is you want. Theres so much diplomacy in this game, how on earth can the devs decipher your true intentions

[ZodZilla]

Again, if it was an existing nap and it holds up during a war that breaks out, I fail to see the difference. If anything, that's worse.

[KuhaN]

Thats wayyy too much interpretation on the part of the devs imo. Whether its true or not in this case, you could say whatever the hell you want to get a war/trick the opposition or do whatever it is you want. Theres so much diplomacy in this game, how on earth can the devs decipher your true intentions

Would you msg somebody in game and say this: "Fake War on the 14th, send x hits, thanks", and then let's say the hits do take place. You think the devs will try to decipher what this really means? rofl.

[kbone]

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.

ok great, but when was it ever made clear that an agreement between two provs would be considered a fake war?

[KuhaN]

Again, if it was an existing nap and it holds up during a war that breaks out, I fail to see the difference. If anything, that's worse.

The difference is this:

There were no messages sent between the two cows prior to the war saying that they would leave each other alone for the upcoming war.

Do you see the difference?

[Ordray]

ok great, but when was it ever made clear that an agreement between two provs would be considered a fake war?

I never said that it was. My post was a response to DHaran's post:

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?

[ZodZilla]

Read it again ninja muscles:

"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."

First day, a message was sent. Later, there was a war. The first day occured before the war, thus the message was sent before the war. During the war, the NAP held up.

[KuhaN]

ok great, but when was it ever made clear that an agreement between two provs would be considered a fake war?

Well, it took a little bit of common sense on the devs part imo. It was an agreement between two provs during, and specifically, for an upcoming war to leave each other alone. Imo, this is a fake war for the two players.

[kbone]

Would you msg somebody in game and say this: "Fake War on the 14th, send x hits, thanks", and then let's say the hits do take place. You think the devs will try to decipher what this really means? rofl.

Thats a really trivial example and doesnt really apply. in this instance devs tried to interpret intentions from in game messages and could have easily gotten it wrong

[KuhaN]

Read it again ninja muscles:

"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."

First day, a message was sent. Later, there was a war. The first day occured before the war, thus the message was sent before the war. During the war, the NAP held up.

Rofl @ ninja muscles.

I think you need to reread my messages :/ The NAP wasn't specifically for the war though, it was made for the entire round, it just so happened that the war took place in the round. This is a different story bro.

[KuhaN]

Thats a really trivial example and doesnt really apply. in this instance devs tried to interpret intentions from in game messages and could have easily gotten it wrong

Why doesn't it apply?

So Ryan saying, "NAP during war, ok?", and then after an x amount of hours in war the two provs do not do anything to eachother. How is that a trick? That is evidence.