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?
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodZilla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodZilla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KuhaN
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.
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.
Both sides are taking increasing liberties with their rhetoric ; it's a good old party.
Muammar Gaddafi was very happy to rule Libya the way he did too. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
@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!
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by aremarf
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.
Bleh, im going to sleep. You win. Good night.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
That implies a level of involvement in this situation from me that doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodZilla
I think we should discuss this some more, guys. 26 pages for one deleted noob isn't enough.
I don't believe it but I am going to support Bishop here.
how in the name of Allah can you be discussing this?
What has happened here. There are two big provinces, Ryan want crown, he has a this 8k acres or friends or whatever it is. They have a NAP. Ryan tell his shell kd to wave the orcs kd. Orc kd retals back and declares. Both orc and Ryan farming each others kd helping Ryan and the orc to even grow further.
Ask your selves this. My kingdom with a 10k acres province next age with 24 1k acres province wars my best friends kd which is 10k acres and rest are 1k acres. We start to war but me and my friend are napped and start hitting the small provinces and quad tap bottomfeed. Is this ok? Of course not, this is exactly what happened. Finally devs took some action to this cheating.
I would love to war my friends kd with a cow nap, and my kingdoms mate would accept it too as they get a BIG FAT cow and can grow back the acres loss. That is the whole point on winning, shift the acres upwards as much as you can so that small provinces can whore.
To see so many people including moderators defending Ryan and that other persons act is disgraceful and they should get rid of their moderator status asap. As Moderators you should see what is best for the game, not what is best for your friends.
What you Palem and Dharan are saying is that Rage of Abs and Fury of Abs can war eachother and still have cow nap, shifting acres up? Seriously???
Abs propaganda as its best....
Meh... the point is the provs had >50% of kd's nw wich makes them absolutely decisive (see also: automatic monarchy). If they NAP and war it's automaticly fake since the majority of both kds NW is NAPed and doesn't participate. No didn't read the thread.
Just as unlikely for Mansoor to agree with bishop...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mansoor
+1
Newsflash, Palem and I are forum mods, not game support. We don't have to agree with anything, we just have to enforce forum rules. Not that hard of a concept that some people can't seem to grasp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mansoor
As for the rest of your post, as has been said many times, the devs taking action on this is not the main issue, it's that they took action on something that is not a fake war and called it a fake war. They deleted someone for something nobody knew was wrong and has been common for years. Deletion on the first offense in this scenario is the problem. It is not much different than vacation mode abuse and that will only get you suspended.
Out of curiosity; would the people defending Ryan here, have made the same hassle for Hellrazor, if this would've happened to him? (Everyone knows he was doing the same thing when he was ghettoing)
I understand people have their opinion, but I fail to see why people continue to repeat themselves over and over and over again, while it was already said the decision stays as it is. I can see both sides having good arguments, but it wont change anything I believe.
You may as well speak to the wall closest to you; it'll have the same effect as posting here.
Absalomalaikum prot~
I don't know Ryan very well, so it being him has nothing to do with it for me. I would have made the same arguments for anyone, just because I think the confusion this created needs to be addressed, and the reaction was too harsh. Of course the decision won't be changed, but I think it should be clarified and handled differently. Suspension for VM abuse and deletion for FW abuse is a glaring difference in response to similar actions.
wow what garbage. nice to see the direction this game is going in
IMHO, this boils down to whether or not this scenario was already defined, even loosely, as against the rules. If it was, then the deletion is justified, end of story.
If not, then this action is akin to passing a law against something and then arresting people who did that something before the law was passed.
Also, you can't do something and then claim "I didn't know it was wrong." It is our obligation in society, and in this game, to know what is right and what it wrong. Again, it helps if the rules are clearly defined.
Basically this + how many provs got deleted = all you need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordray
No, it's not really a fake war when it's just 2 provinces doing it toward each other, but that's just semantics. They got deleted because the devs don't want to promote using wars the way the cows did. They made an agreement that's against the spirit of the game, and got punished harshly for it. If they hadn't, people would immediately start thinking of ways they could do the same thing but cover their asses at the same time. Ryan probably didn't deserve getting deleted, but it's not nearly as controversial as some people try to make it (like Realest has pointed out several times already).
And also, please stop asking for clear rules etc. You all know it's impossible to set rigid rules for what's allowed and not allowed. It never works, because all situations are different, and need to be judged differently. It doesn't take much for anyone to figure out what's risky and not.
Also, stop acting like you think you know everything just because you've read a thread about it. The devs, and Bishop, have shown several times that it's their policy not to hand out all the information underlying their decisions. Bishop often leaves stuff out for that reason, even if not doing it would help him defend himself. Try to be objective.
Well, possibly a better clarification wouldn't be bad. However, there are so many details to consider, that you'd have to include all of them. If you overlook one and someone abuses that one thing, you can't do anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
I suppose Ryan has a point saying he couldn't break and wasn't in dragonrange and therefor offering them as terms, but I'm quite sure dev's are unaware wether he was being serious or wether it was just a sneaky attempt to get himself a war.
This isn't the first time though that we go from allowing one thing to another. VM abuse was done before without being actioned, and then suddenly it was.
The difference though is that VM abuse got provinces suspended and this got them deleted. I think a suspension would have sufficed as well... to broadcast a message that such things aren't tolerated.
There's plenty of messages sent out to previous potential wars with fake terms in my messages and 2 prior wars based off of bluff terms from those messages. It would not be hard to go back a few more pages into my ingame msgs and see that. So it would be very easy for them to realize this was "just a sneaky attempt to get himself a war"Quote:
I suppose Ryan has a point saying he couldn't break and wasn't in dragonrange and therefor offering them as terms, but I'm quite sure dev's are unaware wether he was being serious or wether it was just a sneaky attempt to get himself a war.
all i get out of 26 pages is don't use in-game messaging system and you won't get deleted. Sounds like a simple solution.
after all, it's not about "spirit of the game" it's about "fake war"
Ryan knows what he did - just accept it and move on.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntico
And in the future remember that war terms where you cannot hit specific provinces under any circumstance = bad idea
someone care to summarize these 27 pages?
Ryan got deleted for cheating acording to Bishop (the law) people whine about how unfair it is, Bishop tells them how it is they keep whining.
Yep, I use fluff war terms to get wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntico
Lesson learned = do not make war terms that don't restrict or give your KD a negative in any way.
ex. "Our TMs won't hit your TMs. (can't break / not logical anyways)" "We won't send dragons (not in range / could drop into range but not logical)" "I won't hit your monarch (who I can't break anyways / not economically logical to train to do so)"
For those of you who think I'm pulling the above ^ out of my ass then please refer to my prior 2 wars that were based on the same style of bluff/fluff war terms. Heck, there's even a guy in this thread from one of the KD's I was about to war with those terms but his KD scared mine in hostile so we cfed prior to warring.
Poor Ryan - I has a sad for your deletion.
You died to warn the rest of us not to sin...
You are a Martyr...
You can be St. Grande Mucca Ryan the Deleted from now on.
@ i am spartacus,
not exactly what i said, but pretty close, you saw in hostile, that your kd didnt stand up, and at that point you were UB, but would it go to war, 20 active attackers and T/M?s would give you a bad war, since we could?ve made you breakable, without meatshield, this was a lose lose situation for you in your attempts of safetly bottomfeeding us, thus you found another war,....sure this is all assumptions, you intetions could have been other than trying to grow saftley, and i could be wrong, we might have never made you breakable,...but we would have givin it a go, since 20v1 often goes well for the 20.....
Its pretty clear the devs do not want kingdoms having any war terms with other kingdoms. The only confusion is about whether OOW naps between two provs is illegal. If they are legal, then what happens when their two kds happen to go to war with eachother? The nap is vetoed due to war?
You are wrong in this case, 20v1 often does go well for the 20 but not in this scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by K9orange