Debauchery...

[Kestrel038]

Fake war is a rule violation, end of discussion.

This decision was verified by an independent developer. If you'd like to call my impartiality into discussion you should first talk to the kingdom mates i have deleted and suspended.

If fake war is indeed a rule violation, then please show me the page where this rule is made clear to ALL players. to say "End of discussion" is not the sign of someone following an established protocol, but one who does not feel they can show their reasoning.

All I am asking for is.. to see the page available to all players where "fake war" (with or without the criteria for determining such) is classified as against the rules or code of conduct.. Then there can be no arguments by anyone.

And i never questioned your impartiality Bishop.. don't be so defensive. I simply said that where any decisions or investigations into wrongdoing are conducted by a player, then it reasonably gives rise to criticisms of bias and lack of impartiality.

Of course.. all that can be laid to rest by simply posting a link to the rules page where it clearly states that fake wars are against the rules. Is that so much for players to ask for?

[Kestrel038]

I predict 1st answer by mod is that this is a game, not real life :P

anyway, I think I read somewhere along the line by the monarch of Defender B (Psychosis), mentioned in his post that its pre-arranged to be only a 24h-max gain marathon..then till the leftover time till min-time withdraw are not mentioned..(been awhile since I read, but it should be something like that)

if you were to infer that to your 'medieval war' situation, which king/leader/monarch in the right mind will decide "Ok, lets have war for 1 day, fight all you want and after that, we'll give up"..? Coup de tat will happen and that king will already be dead..Dont think anyone will war with the mindset to lose it in the first place? or in Psychosis's situation, it was to avoid to being farmed by other KDs..dont think those situations suit real life situation as well (you decide to fight a war with another country just to avoid getting attacked by various other countries? lol) :P Im guessing real life war, there will be more chance of joining either side of the war to help out, instead of staying out of it like this game..lol..is there any 'mutually benefitting war' in real life? xD

The 1 who removed the WW is the developer who does not play the game, not bishop.the developer rarely (or doesnt) even appear in forum and game since he doesnt play. if we do not have mods, who will take care of it..? and I think the forum mods are not being paid to be one..its voluntary..why should some1 who ISNT getting paid, bother to check in on a game he does NOT play and care of whats happening in there n etc..? I definitely would not, i may check forum 1x in 2-3 weeks maybe if i dont play or forgets about the game totally, but that way the game itself will just crumble slowly..

regarding the mechanics to decide fake war, dont think its possible..does it mean if theres no hits from either side in 6h or more = fake war and auto delete KD or something..? that wont work, what happen to those KD who have wave times? :P or to those who DOES want to fake it, they can simply just send 1 general 1 soldier to bounce on some1 every 5h or so to keep the timer reset n etc :p doubt theres anyway to stop fake wars..loopholes that cant be covered will be there..

i'm not saying that the game can be directly compared to real life war type situations in every instance Andrew.. I was simply pointing out that people who complain about mid war CF agreements should not then be using the justification of "This is a war game after all".. I agree that in medieval times it would be unlikely for a nation to war another nation in order to escape a 3rd.. I was simply pointing out that a mid war CF agreement is NOT the same thing as an aranged fake war.. and should not be treated the same way as such a pre arranged sham should be.

[Olpah]

If fake war is indeed a rule violation, then please show me the page where this rule is made clear to ALL players. to say "End of discussion" is not the sign of someone following an established protocol, but one who does not feel they can show their reasoning.

All I am asking for is.. to see the page available to all players where "fake war" (with or without the criteria for determining such) is classified as against the rules or code of conduct.. Then there can be no arguments by anyone.

And i never questioned your impartiality Bishop.. don't be so defensive. I simply said that where any decisions or investigations into wrongdoing are conducted by a player, then it reasonably gives rise to criticisms of bias and lack of impartiality.

Of course.. all that can be laid to rest by simply posting a link to the rules page where it clearly states that fake wars are against the rules. Is that so much for players to ask for?

my god the fact that this is still being talked about is mind blowing. Reread the whole thread somewhere in the myriad of responses you will find the right answer.

FYI There is no written protocol for what a fake war is and there never will be -- we all know what it is, if you dont then your too noob to understand even if it was written out.

[Kestrel038]

my god the fact that this is still being talked about is mind blowing. Reread the whole thread somewhere in the myriad of responses you will find the right answer.

FYI There is no written protocol for what a fake war is and there never will be -- we all know what it is, if you dont then your too noob to understand even if it was written out.

But that isn't the issue Olpah.. sweeping statements that claim "Situation X is against the rules" should be backed up y the rules stating that situation X is indeed prohibited.. Had you even bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I added the caveat that such clearly defined rules do not need to define the criteria for said situation because as you rightly say, everybody knows what they are. However.. to state that any given situation is "against the rules" without a clear list of what is and is not allowable that is available to ALL players only serves to allow such situations to continue.

If we have a policing force within utopia to deal with such matters, then we should also be privy to the rules by which they act. Otherwise it gives rise to accusations that saidforce has acted unjustly or with bias. If saidrule is clearly laid out and presented to all players as part of the T&C of participation, then nobody can complain. it is just such a lac that has gvien rise to this threadin the first place lol

[amk]

To all the people that kept asking for where are the pages and any statements to be clearly stating what condition is Fake war and when it is not - clearly they don't still get it nor admit what they did was wrong. They keep having these ideas that if they are punished for this, they must get others that "might" be doing the same thing to be punished as well. And they also don't know who are the they that has been doing similar things like them. They are just unsatisfied to be punished and won't accept the fact that they are the first to be punished so others won't do it. There must be a start for everything so be it and been appreciated that your loss has caught so many peoples attention and I quite sure no one will dare to do stuff you guys did. Its plain simple or otherwise the more you complains and the way you guys tried to revoke it, it will not get much support from most people in the server, just with a simple idea - it clearly doesn't look right rationally.

[LameBeaver]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule

Asking for a formally written down rule with regards to fake war means either you're a new player (ask old players or read this whole thread and you will get the main idea) or an old one who just want a written one so that you can bend it your way (like a lawyer looking for loopholes for his own gain).

-imho

[flutterby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule

Asking for a formally written down rule with regards to fake war means either you're a new player (ask old players or read this whole thread and you will get the main idea) or an old one who just want a written one so that you can bend it your way (like a lawyer looking for loopholes for his own gain).

-imho

Or it means you have no common sense or the ability to read through the age changes for about a year and change ago when it was implemented.

[Kestrel038]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule

Asking for a formally written down rule with regards to fake war means either you're a new player (ask old players or read this whole thread and you will get the main idea) or an old one who just want a written one so that you can bend it your way (like a lawyer looking for loopholes for his own gain).

-imho

Personally i don't care if it's unspoken or not... but if developers are going to penalise people for breaking a rule, then that rule should be clear to all, and not some "unspoken gentlemans agreement". I will put it in simple terms so that your tiny brain can understand.

If a "rule" is based on a "gentlemans agreement" between players of the game, then it is up to players of the game to enforce it and to punish those who contravene.

however... If a "rule" is enforced by game developers and the outcome of peoples games, or the specific gains etc they have are modified by the game developers for a breach, then that rule needs to be made official and included in game literature.

And to amk.. I am not even part of either kingdom, and I am not fighting this cause.. heck. the last FW scenario I was in was probably 4 or 5 years ago.. I just feel that if peoples stats are going to be reset for breaching the rules, it should be justifiable by being an official rule, and not merely some "code of honour". The devs need to either ratify the rule in official documentation, or they need to leave the enforcement of said rule to the community that created it.. anybody who thins that is unreasonable is quite obviously a player who has.. or hopes to.. bend the developers ear to gain their own advantage.. which is no better!!!

[DHaran]

The official rule is don't abuse game mechanics, it's isn't that difficult to follow. Trading wins for acres is an abuse of the warring system.

[Palem]

however... If a "rule" is enforced by game developers and the outcome of peoples games, or the specific gains etc they have are modified by the game developers for a breach, then that rule needs to be made official and included in game literature.

It's right here...

Spirit of the Rules

Players attempting to manipulate rules and quirks of the game in ways obviously not intended may be subject to deletion. Because of their nature, these types of circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis. Users should avoid actions they believe are against the spirit and intent of the game.

http://wiki.utopia-game.com/index.php?title=Game_Rules


The war stance exists so two sides can war each other. Not so two sides can manipulate a war in such a way that's mutually beneficial. Using war for anything other than waring each other is abuse of the war stance and thus against the rules.

[Osaze]

I wouldn't mind having a game rules tab at the top of say the throne page.

[Palem]

It's at the top of every page Osaze. Between Forum and Guide.

[Bishop]

Theres one at the top of every single page in the game.


Lobby Shop Rankings Forum Rules Guide Blog

Also via teh lobby when you log in you see: Reminder: Players must abide by the games rules. <-- links to rules.

[yamibone]

bishop why have the developers decided to make this age so long?!

[Kestrel038]

It's right here...

http://wiki.utopia-game.com/index.php?title=Game_Rules


The war stance exists so two sides can war each other. Not so two sides can manipulate a war in such a way that's mutually beneficial. Using war for anything other than waring each other is abuse of the war stance and thus against the rules.

Thank you for helping to prove my point.

"War begins when a kingdom declares war. A kingdom may only declare war if its target has more than 75% of its nw, and less than 133% of its nw or if the maximum hostility level is reached by both kingdoms."

So.. surely based on a combination of the "spirit" of the game, together with the gamemechanics listed above.. attacking a tiny kingdom that is unable to actually declare war until at least 100 hits have been traded on either side.. is ALSO manipulating a quirk of the game in a way not obviously intended? And yet that is considered acceptable by ALL the top kingdoms whilst mid-war CF agreements are deemed illegal. I DO love how the guys at the top constantly contradict themselves :)