Don't let pillz's nonsense get the better of you. ASF is not an admin. He is a moderator for the strategy forum.Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
Don't let pillz's nonsense get the better of you. ASF is not an admin. He is a moderator for the strategy forum.
You're so stuck in your own little circle that you can't see it makes NO difference at all from the outside. He's part of the recognised mechanics whether you call them admin or mods makes sweet FA difference tbh
I've not accused ASF of being an admin. And I don't think moderators should mislead posters by lying about what people have said.
But, again, I do believe that moderators should be barred from competing in any capacity in game.
The unavoidable spill over into the forums and other public venues does nothing but erode the "community's" faith in their commitment to fairness Ingame and on the forums.
And by community I do mean snowflakes like sweetpie.
But it's ok I am sure many successful online games have forum mods publicly manipulate mechanics and attempt to break formal agreements they've made. It's a winning formula!
First off, I am not an admin.
As for the cf between Bart's kingdom and my kingdom, early age we had all of the top 4 provinces with two of them being avian tacticians with high offense. Bart had explored dwarves with low military and little offense threat. We were perfectly happy to just farm them, but Bart of course was not happy with this. He stated that if we did not EoA cf him, then he would get his friend kingdoms to gb us. Bart also said he didn't care about #1 province and wasn't going for it anyway and so he was happy to agree to not compete against us for it if we just gave him an EOA cf instead of farming him.
It's really quite strange that some think it is somehow against a game rule to give a weaker kingdom a free cf deal instead of farming them with the simple condition that they don't use that free cf deal to go for #1 province. Diplomacy is and has always been a large part of what utopia was intended to be about and deals similar to that are made all the time for the benefit of both parties.
If you want to argue the semantics of a NAP (non aggression pact) by saying its OK to have your friends it someone prepping to war you before it expires (and encouraging them to DB the target in the process), then the semantics of what it means to compete when youre only barred from competing with 1 KD are up in the air too.
Steel, certain actions have long been considered unacceptable in utopia. Getting help from another kingdom for a fight is one of these things. There was a deal made with Bart to "loan" 25k cow acres specifically for that fight which was both against the spirit and IRC agreement Bart had made as well as simply unfair in a 2v1 sort of way. Other kingdoms agreed that this was unfair and RoO and us worked out a resolution.
I assume the only reason you're even defending such actions is because you have some imagined grudge against me due to Abs.
there is a huge difference between saying we make a cf til yr 6 for example and saying we give you eoacf but you can't compete for ranks
the first may or may not influence the charts but definitely does not influence charts directly
the second clearly directly influences the charts , hence why I call it chart shaping, which is hopefully against the rules, if not, it should be
and again...just because tom , dick and harry have done it and got away with it doesn't make it okay. Try telling a police officer he shouldn't give you a speeding ticket because the car ahead of you drove above the limit too...
Goodwitch, we preferred to make a cf until YR6 (or just farm his land then with no cf). We were told that we would be gb'd if we didn't give an EOA cf to him. He had no problem with not competing for #1 province though, so that's where we ended up.
Last edited by AquaSeaFoam; 10-05-2017 at 00:31.
I fail to recognize a difference between that act and collecting tax before a conflict or getting a farm war to avoid notice.
It is also unfair to claim that it's unacceptable beyond those points, as fake wars of the past could easily be said to have fulfilled he same function and sometimes did include farms outside, yet those were always accepted.
You're misconstruing my motives here. Which I think I've made clear over a dozen threads and several ages. Namely that I seek absolute consistency, or absolute anarchy. You're the poster child for arbitrariness disguised as whatever the **** you think you do, and by default find yourself on the other side of me on basically all issues.
But yes I do think you and abs are cancer, and due in large part to your contribution to and complicity in this ridiculous cf climate. I mean among other things over the ages.
Which is ultimately amusing to me because I'd support abs actions in 9/10 cases if they didn't lie and misrepresent themselves and the circumstances of the issue at hand every single time something comes up.
Which is why I advocate for utter anarchy and the abandonment of user defined agreements in game. Then I could just pick my battles based solely on who I do or do not like personally.
Then you should have taken your GB and stayed within the spirit of the rules
That's what all the middle tier KD deal with. Bigger KD using there size or numbers as an advantage against the little guy to get what they want.
Zinc
Kobi and his boys together since age 50
A tax in utopia is an involuntary payment typically given by a kingdom that you are in position to farm should they refuse to pay for a cf. Bart and RoO had eoa cf and worked together for RoO to "borrow" a large amount of Bart's cow land specifically to hit down my kingdom by using the combined resources of both kingdoms. Others agreed that this did not seem fair, especially with Bart's non compete, but even without that. It'd be like if I would "loan" 40k cow land to Emeriti before they fought BB. That would be an unfair move and one I wouldn't do, but if I did do it, I would fully expect everyone else to agree it was unfair. Certainly these things are different and I'm sure you can see that if you try.
Absolutes rarely work. I seek reasonableness.
If you're not aware, Abs disbanded a while back and I had completely quit the game. When I came back to the game and helped found Emeriti, I learned that the game had changed while I was away and my kingdom got beat for the crown by Pyro my first competing age back. The cf climate had gotten much more "extreme" and taxing and land dropping ghettos had become the dominant way to get land. I was behind the times and got beat due to these deals that had become commonplace in my (and Abs) absence.
Last edited by AquaSeaFoam; 10-05-2017 at 00:53.
There was absolutely nothing against the game rules regarding that deal. If you want to argue that we broke the game rules, you should be arguing that we abused the median mechanics to explore more cheaply.
This is part of the problem you dont see the chart shaping you are doing as a violation. Probably because your a game mod and know how to abuse the system efficiently and undetected. You should do the honorable thing and delete.
so you are now additionally admitting to exploiting game mechanics ? once again because your a game mod and know how to abuse the system efficiently and undetected....
Starting to see a common theme here.....
Zinc
Kobi and his boys together since age 50
No admin, past or present, has ever thought that such a cf deal was against the game rules.
There seems to be a fine line between knowing the mechanics and playing in a way that best utilizes them and exploiting them. This line seems to be a gray area and you would have a much stronger case arguing this point than something like an eoa cf deal with no land exchanged being against the rules.
You mean the theme of biased players letting personal feelings cloud their judgment of facts? Yeah, very visible indeed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote