To the Game Admins

[realm of ding dong]

If it sounds too good to be true it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as a player to judge that accepting the war proposal is a violation of game rules. Otherwise you are a CHEATER.

[emerix]

If it sounds too good to be true it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as a player to judge that accepting the war proposal is a violation of game rules. Otherwise you are a CHEATER.

Oh.

So, if my king decides to propose war on the no.1 kd in the world and they accept, fault lies with them?

I ask this because no where in the game rules does it state outright that accepting a war proposal is wrong. If you could kindly link me to an official version of what you said, I'll advise kd leadership to steer clear of both proposing war and accepting war proposals from now on.

[realm of ding dong]

Oh.

So, if my king decides to propose war on the no.1 kd in the world and they accept, fault lies with them?

I ask this because no where in the game rules does it state outright that accepting a war proposal is wrong. If you could kindly link me to an official version of what you said, I'll advise kd leadership to steer clear of both proposing war and accepting war proposals from now on.

There's PLENTY of precedence for kingdoms getting actioned for nothing other than accepting war proposals. It's not IN the "game rules" but anyone should KNOW that based on game history and because everyone is OMNISCIENT.

[emerix]

There's PLENTY of precedence for kingdoms getting actioned for nothing other than accepting war proposals. It's not IN the "game rules" but anyone should KNOW that based on game history and because everyone is OMNISCIENT.

There is? War proposals were introduced as a game mechanic only last age. Would love to have a look at some of these precedents.

[realm of ding dong]

There is? War proposals were introduced as a game mechanic only last age. Would love to have a look at some of these precedents.

Forget about precedence for a second. You dont NEED to be a historian of the game. Here, I quote, from the official game rules: "Players attempting to manipulate rules and quirks of the game in ways obviously not intended may be subject to deletion.

It should be very clear to any thinking person that your war was in DIRECT VIOLATION of the game rules. I'm not sure exactly how to spell out what constitutes a fake war other than by quoting you the rules, which are unambiguous and unequivocal.

Or from the Game wiki, in case you are a total moron and the game rules weren't clear enough.

"Any informal or formal agreements made between kingdoms in regards to warring must abide by the Code of Conduct. Violations may cause the war to be deemed a Fake War. Fake Wars are subject to actions by the game operators. As the determination for a Fake War is made on a case-by-case basis by the game operators, the exact punishment may vary.
Ways a war can be faked (Please note, this is just an idea and not a comprehensive list):
Requesting specific people be targeted by opposing kingdom or accepting to action a request from the opposing monarch.
Non-aggression pact during war of any duration and at any time.
Attempts to manipulate war-win rankings using friends to initiate multiple wars.
Agreement to trading acres for a war win.
"Ending" a war before minimum war duration."

It couldn't be any more BLINDINGLY obvious that your specific war, as you explain it, INCONTROVERTIBLY failed to "abide by the Code of Conduct."

[realm of ding dong]

Any informal or formal agreements.

I really think this is what trips most people up. People, it doesn't MATTER if it's formal OR informal. Some people think if they don't get the agreement NOTARIZED or if they don't print it on fancy stationery then somehow it's "OK" to make the agreement. NOT the case. READ THE RULES PEOPLE.

[emerix]

I really think this is what trips most people up. People, it doesn't MATTER if it's formal OR informal. Some people think if they don't get the agreement NOTARIZED or if they don't print it on fancy stationery then somehow it's "OK" to make the agreement. NOT the case. READ THE RULES PEOPLE.

There were no agreements!! Nothing! We refused to agree to anything!!

edit: there was NO communication prior to acceptance of 1:9's proposal.

there was communication but NO AGREEMENT following the declaration of war.

[emerix]

Forget about precedence for a second. You dont NEED to be a historian of the game. Here, I quote, from the official game rules: "Players attempting to manipulate rules and quirks of the game in ways obviously not intended may be subject to deletion.

It should be very clear to any thinking person that your war was in DIRECT VIOLATION of the game rules. I'm not sure exactly how to spell out what constitutes a fake war other than by quoting you the rules, which are unambiguous and unequivocal.

Or from the Game wiki, in case you are a total moron and the game rules weren't clear enough.

"Any informal or formal agreements made between kingdoms in regards to warring must abide by the Code of Conduct. Violations may cause the war to be deemed a Fake War. Fake Wars are subject to actions by the game operators. As the determination for a Fake War is made on a case-by-case basis by the game operators, the exact punishment may vary.
Ways a war can be faked (Please note, this is just an idea and not a comprehensive list):
Requesting specific people be targeted by opposing kingdom or accepting to action a request from the opposing monarch.
Non-aggression pact during war of any duration and at any time.
Attempts to manipulate war-win rankings using friends to initiate multiple wars.
Agreement to trading acres for a war win.
"Ending" a war before minimum war duration."

It couldn't be any more BLINDINGLY obvious that your specific war, as you explain it, INCONTROVERTIBLY failed to "abide by the Code of Conduct."

See this line in my post:-

"We had no prior messages or arrangements with anyone in 1:9. They sent us a war proposal and we accepted. WAR!"

No manipulation, no pre-arrangements, no informal agreements, no formal agreements. If anything it was 1:9 that wanted us to:-

1] target specific provs only; and/or
2] stop attacks/ops in exchange for a guaranteed min time withdrawal;

to which we replied that "we're sorry but we cannot agree because that would be a fake war but we have sympathy for your situation so if an admin says its ok for us to back off til min time, we'll back off."

So, how was our war in DIRECT VIOLATION of the game rules as you so eloquently put it?

[DavidC]

EDIT: The part about sending messages etc to make you appear to be a culprit in the fake war usually comes with reporting and other such evidence to make you look guilty. I read your messages to him and while I do believe your contention, it still does not make it acceptable. What's to stop your friends from doing the same thing after your war, sending you a similar message and you responding in the same way? Drawing that line and making those judgements is never going to be clear cut and dry. In this instance it was easy to see what was truly going on, but when things get muddy and it's difficult to determine true intent the correct course of action becomes less clear. In this instance it was clear that this should not have happened and therefore it was halted.

[emerix]

EDIT: The part about sending messages etc to make you appear to be a culprit in the fake war usually comes with reporting and other such evidence to make you look guilty. I read your messages to him and while I do believe your contention, it still does not make it acceptable. What's to stop your friends from doing the same thing after your war, sending you a similar message and you responding in the same way? Drawing that line and making those judgements is never going to be clear cut and dry. In this instance it was easy to see what was truly going on, but when things get muddy and it's difficult to determine true intent the correct course of action becomes less clear. In this instance it was clear that this should not have happened and therefore it was halted.

Errr, sorry? I think you're confusing us (6:4) with the earlier kd that 1:9 warred (6:2).

To the best of my knowledge, whoever was left in 1:9 dropped that accusation very quickly, even in these public forums, when it is clear that we had no idea what was going on.

[Pillz]

Errr, sorry? I think you're confusing us (6:4) with the earlier kd that 1:9 warred (6:2).

To the best of my knowledge, whoever was left in 1:9 dropped that accusation very quickly, even in these public forums, when it is clear that we had no idea what was going on.

who the **** are these ghettos???