Congratulations to the age 72 winners!

[JeffT]

What impression of bias? The bias is plainly evident.

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

[Pillz]

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

You don't see anything in the rules because you changed them. The original rules are posted in this thread and they are pretty clear persons under 13 can not play, at all, and make no mention of exceptions being doled out in instances of parental consent.

And why just 1 province? The whole KD was aware they had a player that violated the rules. So it's ok for someone to have multies to bait his KD some wars, and the KD won't be auctioned because only 1 player directly violated the rules?

Get a grip Zauper.

[JeffT]

You don't see anything in the rules because you changed them. The original rules are posted in this thread and they are pretty clear persons under 13 can not play, at all, and make no mention of exceptions being doled out in instances of parental consent.

And why just 1 province? The whole KD was aware they had a player that violated the rules. So it's ok for someone to have multies to bait his KD some wars, and the KD won't be auctioned because only 1 player directly violated the rules?

Get a grip Zauper.

Are you trying to refer to this line, which is the only thing I see looking back a few pages:

This Site is offered and made available only to users thirteen (13) years of age or older. If you are not yet 13 years of age, please discontinue using the Site immediately. If you are found to be underage, your account may be terminated without notice.

If you are, I'd suggest you re-learn English.

Baiting wars gets a kingdom actioned, as you well know. Being a multi gets the player actioned. This is a player/province level, not kingdom level.

[Pillz]

Are you trying to refer to this line, which is the only thing I see looking back a few pages:


If you are, I'd suggest you re-learn English.

Baiting wars gets a kingdom actioned, as you well know. Being a multi gets the player actioned. This is a player/province level, not kingdom level.

Having an extra player is not a kd level issue when they're aware it's a rule violation?

If you wanna learn English let's check this part:

This Site is offered and made available only to users thirteen (13) years of age or older. If you are not yet 13 years of age, please discontinue using the Site immediately.

[Pillz]

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

Your links are bull**** - the page was linked to today, the relevant lines posted here.

I've got the page from this afternoon open, and have screenshotted the paragraph to post later.

[Sweetiepie]

This feels like a good time to point out that Bart has emailed support admitting to FWing again as recently as 48 hours prior to age end (when 1:19 was forced OOW for fake warring).

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

Rules snapshot from 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160423...tle=Game_Rules
From 2 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606...tle=Game_Rules

What they Goodwitch is whinging about is looking for any old claptrap to say 'See, see the devs have friends and they play favourites!' Most normal people wouldn't stoop to use a player's personal situation and family links to go 'Amm, you're breaking the rules, delete delete!'

I do think most normal people in Uto would agree the following

a) An employee handbook doesn't say you can't **** on your desk, but it's not allowed anyway and you will get sacked if you do it
b) A creative approach to get a better Uto environment on track is a positive move
c) Some peeps want you to be ultra specific and tied down in relation to rules and punishment so they can find a way round them...see 'A'
d) Acting the way you guys did was a masterstroke - because if you had done it at the point the initial offences happened, they would have **** played and griefed for the rest of the round, having nothing else to aim for
e) It's a good lesson for others to remember to play right to the end of the age, not slack off because 'we can't crown'
f) Bart is probably laughing at the situation himself and seeing the funny side. Who knows, he may even have wanted it to come to this in order to clean up general top play. I wouldn't even be surprised. I think it's a mistake to underestimate him - and I don't even know him except for reading the forums.
g) we start with the assumption that you don't have favourites - although we might be wrong - and in support of that assumption after all Bishop although he has his failings has never, ever been accused of playing favourites in game, and heaven knows there are enough paranoid folks on here to shout if there was any suspicion. Would Bishop stand by and allow you to play favourites without saying a word to anyone - I don't think so. Doubtless Goodwitch will say that he has been chloroformed and tied up in his room. Without an internet connection and with the dodgy mic ;)

The end game = don't cheat and you'll be fine.
Hopefully one day it will also be don't ****play, and you'll be fine. I think this is a step in that direction. Goodwitch, I think that's what you're really keening about. The fact that ****play was stopped (Panthira's FW)....see 'A' in this list. IMO that situation was also handled correctly, despite your squealing that her kd should have been punished for it.

Just because kds have been allowed to get away with all sorts in the past doesn't mean that's the case now and that is not a bad thing.

I really hate agreeing with Sheister, but I think his posts in this thread are spot on.

[Sheister]

a) An employee handbook doesn't say you can't **** on your desk, but it's not allowed anyway and you will get sacked if you do it

I appreciate and respect your humanity. I appreciate this line even more.

[Bananamancer2000]

I'm not actually sure what you are taking issue with here -- Panthira's son playing? I don't see anything in the rules that someone under the age of... 13, presumably? That's the COPPA age at least.. must not play. If there were, the appropriate punishment would be to remove his province from the rankings (technically, it would be to delete his province and not allow him to return). Unfortunately, this reporting is happening off age -- the rankings have already been generated, which means no such punishment is possible.

I'm glad to hear, the kid crowned this age and I'm extremely proud of him. He's worked very hard the last year and a half, and has become a very reliable core. From spending a week at 50a and under constant pk threat, to taking the undead crown.

[Sheister]

..... to taking the undead crown.

Do we need to ask if Steel/Pillz thinks we should charge him with theft?

[Bananamancer2000]

Do we need to ask if Steel/Pillz thinks we should charge him with theft?

I'm sure he'd say worse.

We.had top 3 ud, but it meant a lot to me for him to take it.