doesn't matter if it was specifically for the war, they where still nap'd during the war. Is that not the issue we're talking about?
doesn't matter if it was specifically for the war, they where still nap'd during the war. Is that not the issue we're talking about?
And I'm saying that is a different story, and i would hope that they wouldn't get deleted for doing that.Originally Posted by ZodZilla
"Go back to the gym because you f'king suck at utopia, noob." -Godly
My classic black theme for Utopia - Updated 5/13/15
Greatest strategy thread/question of all-time.
Of course they would. Bishop said 2 provinces agreeing not to hit each other, and indeed not hitting each other while in war, would be action packed.
But they agreed not to hit eachother at the start of the round, they never agreed upon anything at the start of the war.
"Go back to the gym because you f'king suck at utopia, noob." -Godly
My classic black theme for Utopia - Updated 5/13/15
Greatest strategy thread/question of all-time.
I don't see why in-game/out of game should matter as far as deleting provinces is concerned. And while we made this NAP the first day of the age, there was also a >50% chance we would war that age.
The province naps are made between large provinces because they are mutually beneficial, of which I see no difference between what we did and what Ryan did.
Doesn't matter, original agreement did not exclude war, and indeed was carried into war.
On a side note, it's nice to see you've been pulled into the confusion.
I don't think the Devs really care about this type of lingo. They probably do not even know what a NAP is.
What we really need to clear up here is a good soild definition of fake war, and fake war between individual provinces as well from the devs.
To me, it's a fake war when two players agree not to do anything to eachother specifically for a war, thereby farming and pumping freely. You just nap all the threats and then you feast, even better. Atleast if you have not napped, you're still worried about the threat.
"Go back to the gym because you f'king suck at utopia, noob." -Godly
My classic black theme for Utopia - Updated 5/13/15
Greatest strategy thread/question of all-time.
I agree, we seriously need a definition of what is going to elicit action adventures.
As it stands, everyone is just saying "To me, a fake war is...", while Bish and the Devs arbitrarily make sad pandas.
nuahk it doesn't matter if the agreement they had was something the devs want to take action on going forward, it isn't a FW, and it wasn't announced they'd take action on it. What is this pumping freely crap people keep saying? Neither prov was safe to pump freely, they were fighting real wars, lol.
S E C R E T S
Both sides are taking increasing liberties with their rhetoric ; it's a good old party.
Last edited by ZodZilla; 27-01-2012 at 01:06.
Muammar Gaddafi was very happy to rule Libya the way he did too. Just a thought.
@flogger: precisely - the shifty definitions of "fake war" is at the root of much unhappiness.
@ordray: yes - you are right that intent and action should be considered - but even with intent, would you still label the crime as "fake war"? it doesn't fall within virtually everyone's notion of "fake war", so we agree it is "wrong" but do we disagree that this should be called "fake war"?
if Utopia devs deleted them for committing an "abuse violating the spirit of the game" - i think people would accept it more.
if they suspended him - we would have thought it more acceptable - because it is afterall the very first offence of its type actioned.
BTW, i would like to clarify - if we're winning a war like 100 attacks to 30 a whole day before minimum time, can they throw in the towel early in war forum? is that "fake war"? can they request not to enter post-war CF so we can help clear their inactives? is that "fake war"? this has happened this very age! how close we were to deletion!
Last edited by aremarf; 27-01-2012 at 02:30.
Asked by Legacy: "Ok. So if kd A is nice enough to stop all attacks, lets say 8h before min wartime, because kd B is getting their behind handed to them and kd B wants to do damagecontroll instead - that constitutes as a fakewar?
If I, as a small prov, have an agreement to not attack a friend of mine whos kd we are warring - that makes it a fakewar?
That IS good to know. Dont wanna get deleted."
Response by Bishop: "Yes to both situations. They would be actionable."
So there you go, the answer is yes, you just admitted to an offence this age, prepare to be actioned.
Oh noes! Prease dunch deereet me! :-(
this thread has culminated into a giant joke. so many terrible posters trying to argue against Ryan's deletion but making nothing but repeated noise.
if you want to get something done thats not the way.
i dont think he should have been deleted without warning, and I wanted to wait until this commotion slowed down before making a sensible argument but...
continuing to rant and mock and repeat bad points does nothing in regards to actually PRESENTING a SOLID CASE and working towards a GOAL.
poorly played by the vast majority of you that are opposed to the deletion. felt like someone needed to pop in here and say it.... so:
"not helping bro..."
You do understand that we're just venting at this point right? Bishop has made it clear that he just wants to bang his chest and wave his junk - there will be no reversal, there is no goal towards that cause. To that end, there is no case to me made. Personally I'm more interested in the precedence this sets and the implied BS.
That notwithstanding, feel free to present a solid case, since the rest of us are such terrible posters. I would be happy to read it.
Last edited by ZodZilla; 27-01-2012 at 07:38.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote