Yup. Plenty of people compete without winning. Based off what Bart had posted here as his intent then he is clearly competing for the top spot and is therefore in breach of the agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
Printable View
Yup. Plenty of people compete without winning. Based off what Bart had posted here as his intent then he is clearly competing for the top spot and is therefore in breach of the agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
I expected better than sexism from you Palem. Is it really necessary to "dominate" in here making use of your masculinity? I'd say the forum mod team is in need of some diversity in the sexes. I vote for Mirana!Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
On the public v private: I continuously try to make as much of this **** public as possible, so that perhaps one day we can eradicate it. I did not choose to play the game this way, I was forced into it about 6-7 ages ago. Now I play the game according to their rules, apart from the secrecy aspects!
Is Palem really playing in the forum-mod KD alongside ASF?
I'd also like to say that I am not currently scheming to pass ASF. I merely stated that I could if I wanted. Seems people are trying to find reasons to invade my underdefended province :(
Bart has stated he is not plotting to dethrone ASF. Bart has, as of yet, not won the Age 71 province land crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
And again, I would contend, echoing back to a previous post of mine, that to compete would require an concerted in-game effort by 8:9. No such effort is being undertaken (Bart is not farming acres from other banks, nor is he knocking down farm wars). The actions of 3rd parties can't be said to factor into the agreement, and no verifiable proof can be (or has been thus far) presented to suggest Bart is in fact conspiring against 8:13. It's Bart's word against unsubstantiated hearsay.
And again, Bart is not barred from competing. Just with ASF and thus only for so long as ASF has the opportunity to crown. If ASF's opportunity passes, Bart is in the clear.
And again, I do not believe that precedent set in previous situations allows for any conspiratorial activity by Bart to be considered a DB. Bart is free to take any effort he pleases to stop ASF from crowning as long as those efforts occur outside of the sphere of his in-game actions. If he were to benefit from any such conspiracy by virtue of no longer being beholden to clause #3 of his deal with ASF, that would merely be a happy bonus.
1. People said you weren't competing with ED because you signed a noncompete clause and seemingly had no motivation to break that clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
This is not the same situation, since you are actively working against the person you agreed to not compete against and have stated that you have the intention to beat them.
2. If say, Emeriti got BB to agree to a noncompete clause and then BB actively took steps try to win out over Emeriti (i.e. competing against them), they would also be in breach of their noncompete clause. However if say the devs deleted Emeriti, then BB working to crown would most definitely not be a breach of their noncompete clause, as they had no part in their downfall and thus were not competing against them.
3. You can actually do whatever the f you want all the time. If you'd like to break your CF with ASF and start an all out war you're free to do so. No one's gonna put you in jail or ban you from the game. However, you started this thread asking for opinions on whether or not terms are being broken and it's of mine and a few others that have voiced it that you are breaching your noncompete clause. Don't ask for opinions if dissenting opinions are going to ruffle your feathers
So is it then a DB if Kingdom A orchestrates a GB on Kingdom B whom they have A) an EoACF with or B) CF with a notice clause?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Waiting for Palem to ban himself for his sexist remarks toward Mirana.
http://orig04.deviantart.net/3ddb/f/...es-d5ra9uq.png
I think that depends on the motivation if they're just trying to power play the kingdom for their own interests then it's a dealbreak. If they're trying to police poor ethics then it's policing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
I realize those lines are almost always blurred so it's really just however the person understanding the situation interprets it.
What are you even talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Actually, yeah? I don't get it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
What is policing except power playing for your own interests? There is no such thing as poor ethics in Utopia. Any attempt to punish 'poor ethics' is just a self-serving attempt to encourage one's own preferred set of rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
And in any event, the community at large has expressed a significant amount of dissatisfaction with 8:13's use of sitting and farm wars, both of which can be construed as 'poor ethics'. Maybe Bart should merely declare this a police action in that case?
Im sure many people feel MEGA is undeserving of a crown they abused farm wars to get...
Actually this is false. You never said you wouldn't agree to that. I specifically offered you that as a show of good will to not hold you back in the event we weren't in competition through no fault of you. You stated you had no eyes for #1 and wouldn't get close to it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Hammertime will you do a non compete with us?
Heaven non compete?
Heaven as in agreeing to not finish above you/
Hammertime yeah, just for #1 prov only if in competition
Heaven oh
Heaven I dun need that
Heaven and we won't get close to that anyways
Heaven but sure
There were some threats involved too, but not over the non compete. The threats were over our proposal for one free hit for cf.
Heaven look
Heaven I don't like spelling this out
Heaven but basically if I wanted I could get 4-5 KDs to hit you (there are many people that owe me favors). But since ur not the typical FSU KD
Heaven I'm trying my uttermost best here
Heaven to be civil
Hammertime I appreciate that
Heaven I want u guys to have fun
Heaven and just do ur thing
Heaven but I got a rep
Heaven in uto
Heaven if I start handing out land
Heaven I destroy a rep that I built for 7-8 ages
Heaven that has left plenty of corpses
Heaven and I mean
Heaven why would my friends give you a free pass
Heaven if yuo're gonna tax others (me in this case)
....
Heaven I mean
Heaven I'm fully planning to have an age off
Heaven and not focus too much on uto
Heaven but I also know myself, once I commit myself to something (a grudge) I don't easily hold
Heaven I dunno if u ever frequent the forums
Heaven http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...gh-Bart-(X-XX)
Heaven http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...-hitting-on-CD
Bart reassured me that the deal and non-compete meant not only that he wouldn't hit us, but also that he would leave us alone fully (including not coordinating with anyone else against us). In fact he was quite friendly and happy to get the cf since we could have completely farmed him and even offering to help us get more cf's etc.
Heaven the arrangement is that you won't hit us for the age
Heaven in exchange I will leave you guys alone fully, and will help you get ur Cfs
Also, just for clarification, this recent discussion wasn't about his previous actions of coordinating with another kingdom to loan them 25k cow acres to hit us down and then give them back to Bart for #1 province. This discussion was about if he planned to do any new things. For example, Bart felt that defecting one of his big provinces to hit us down would be acceptable under our agreement while I disagreed with that interpretation.
I don't see the issue. Bart is #2, you are #1 (from what I can tell in this thread). You are not being GBed by anyone.
Matija, Keep in mind it is Bart that made this thread, not me.
You'd have to prove the defected provs were acting on Bart's orders. Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam
Steel,Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Some people are men (or women) of their word. Others word only goes so far as what is provable even when transparently obvious. I see which category you fall under.
Your signed terms got too vague from the standpoint of what you initially wanted to accomplish it seems.
The same one you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam
Yet, here I am arguing for keeping your word and the spirit of agreements and I bet no one can give any examples of when I didn't do this.
Both should be deleted for chart manipulation
Im fine with both our provs being deleted. But thats up to the admins.
First of all, chart manipulation isn't against the utopian code, it's against player based ethics. Secondly, I'm not clear on how giving a weaker kingdom a free cf with the condition that they don't compete for #1 against them is anything unusual. Most of the top kingdoms all have similar deals with others.
The only unusual chart manipulation was Bart transferring land from his kingdom to another kingdom and then taking that land back on his top two provinces.
non compete sure seems complicated and stuff but why battle on words? I can say with 100% certanity that if I was in charge of making a cf deal and the people I had the cf with was working behind the scenes to harm me or backstab in any way I would considder the agreement breached and count the cf for nothing and if I deemed I could take them on directly I would do so immidiately without asking anyone in this forum no matter what terms was agreed or if the deal was signed in the blood of my ancestors or something.
If I could not take them on I would never make a deal with those people again and make a point of moving against them whenever possible or convenient.
But it has been a while since I last lead a kingdom and I've never done any deals like this.
I'm also fine with Barts two top provinces being deleted for chart manipulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Seems we agree for once!
Whether he has or hasn't is irrelevant, he can break the deal as posted without actually crowning. Yes he has said he doesn't intend to dethrone ASF, but the thing is that Bart has a, shall we say sketchy record, so I wouldn't necessarily take his word for it if his actions seems to indicate something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
As stated by the dictionary you told Palem to go look up you can unconsciously compete with somebody, therefore it naturally follows that no concentrated ingame effort wouldn't and indeed couldn't be a requirement. Indirect action or unconscious action is sufficient if orchestrated by a party to the deal. If Bart is for example scheming with other kingdoms to try and have Kingdom C take #1 from ASF and then take #1 from Kingdom C then he is actively in competition for #1 regardless of whether he himself takes any action until ASF has already been dethroned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Not if Bart was actively trying to make ASF's opportunity pass because then he was in fact "actively striving to establish his dominance over ASF", ie compete with ASF and thus he would be in breach of the deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Sure there might be no precedent on this issue yet. But the usage of the word compete clearly sets a standard, which is that if Bart is by any means consciously or unconsciously trying to gain dominance over ASF then he is competing with ASF which is forbidden under the terms of the deal. On the other hand he is free to take any action that cannot be viewed as competing or trying to assert dominance, for example he can try to ruin ASF by indirect means as long as he doesn't gain from it, but if at any point in time he gains from it then he is competing and thus he is in breach of terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
The dictionaries are pretty clear as to what sort of actions constitutes competing, and as such anything that can be considered as competing is banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Various Dictionaries
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.
Fair & Honorable Play
The operators of the game aim to maintain the highest standards of ethics within the game. Any instance of inappropriate language, manipulation of bugs, or acts of deception/fraud can result in immediate removal from the game. We rely on our users to help us enforce these rules and provide an enjoyable gaming environment for users of all ages and backgrounds.
Im pretty sure that making an agreement to not compete is not in the spirit of the rules and that line 3 is the implantation of manipulation of the land chat
"3. 8:9 will not compete for #1 land on individual prov charts with 8:13 (we will stay #2 so long as 8:13 has a prov on #1. Also if we are #1 and 8:13 is #2, we will make sure to drop to #2 allowing 8:13 to be #1)."
This is could also be an ethic issue. is it ethical to make a deal to aid another Kd in being #1?
Could this be an act of deception or fraud being that both KD are ensuring the others #1 status ?
Being that you need more judges and less lawyers I'll be the judge and say
YES
This is not within the spirit of the rules and would be considered and ethics violation and Game chat manipulation
Would we even be talking about this if it was for war wins no they would both be deleted the intent is the same
OnlyZinc, I really don't see how that part of the code in any way applies to a cf deal like this. If you want to argue that complicated cf deals are bad for the game, you might have a point, but I can't see how this deal would in any way be against the rules.
You tried to DB RoO by coordinating a GB on them before your CF expired, while they were preparing to fight you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam
I understand, nothing you do is ever wrong, I get it, you've lied for so long that reality doesn't register any longer.
And how do you know what I tried to do? I'm pretty sure if I tried to do what you said, it would have happened. RoO and us worked our misunderstandings out already.
Try and consider what it is you are arguing for rather than just who you think you are arguing against.
If ASF can't crown, for whatever reason, Bart can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
You can't conflate Barts alleged machinations outside of the game to his competition (or lack thereof) with ASF in side of the game.
If you do, or more to the point, if ASF does, he is admitting that he violated his NAP with RoO by trying to orchestrate a GB on them. It is very simple.
Even now, ASF has admitted that this is just 'in case' Bart 'deal breaks' because no such action has yet occurred to 'violate' the deal.
Proving that Bart is behind any actions to stop ASF from crowning is on ASF if and when his position is threatened directly. This includes a prov defecting from 8:9.
As The deal is worded, Bart isn't violating anything and I will continue to hold the position that CF deals like that one only cover Ingame actions between the two kingdoms and not plans, schemes, or conversations conducted in concert with unaffiliated parties, which do not constitute violations of an agreement unless such a clause is stipulated.
Unless of course ASF and the rest of the people responsible for this cluster **** of anti-competitive CF system (all Cfs, not just non competes) can agree to some amount of consistency with regards to policing = db if a cf exists and that orchestrating a GB on a kd you have a cf with = db
and this is exactly the problem, you don't think chart shaping is against the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam
and to deflate the other points of your statement:
if they were weaker why would you even need to tell them not to compete?
just because Mr X murdered Mr Y and didn't get caught and convicted doesn't mean you can go kill Mr Z and expect to get away with it.
Pointing fault at someone else does not make you innocent.
non compete clauses have the same goal and the same effect as fake wars, to give you an unfair advantage in the game
I've got testimonials from people that do admit you tried to have them DB RoO to police for you. That you bribed mike because he's a spineless coward is besides the point. And this thread is concerned with the possibility of Barts 'db', I think the parallels to the RoO gb situation are enough to make the situations relatively analogous.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam
Its not black and white because the rules are vague. However any manipulation via agreement is unethical and violation of the spirit of the rules.
It says it right here " 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." not only did they not avoid it they made it public.
This is the non sense that makes newer players not want to stick around.
If you truly believe that this is acceptable. Explain how this is any different that an agreement to keep one KD with the war win crown.
because if this is allowed to continue I will be making agreements to have my KD hold the WW crown next age being that this is acceptable behavior
That depends entirely on what's stated in that deal, the case here is only because of the words used in the deal Bart posted, namely the word compete. And it seems crystal clear by the way that dictionaries phrase it that included in competition is any actions(even going as far as to include unconscious acts) which aim "to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others". Thus because of the definition of the words used it cannot be solely limited to direct ingame acts by Bart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
If the cf agreement with RoO was a standard you cannot attack us before X date and any notice has to be sent atleast Y hours before attacks can be made then scheming to gb a kingdom does not violate those terms.
If the wording was less specific and instead only says something that no hostile acts may be taken against us before X date, notice before Y time yada yada yada etc. Then I would agree that scheming to arrange a gb is definitely something that should be considered a hostile act or causus belli and therefore the scheming party is in breach of the agreement.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlyzinc
Unfortunately I see that ASF is an admin and it does not bode well for the game. Frankly it looks even dirtier from the outside if an admin/mod is involved. I think the new owners are sadly so embroiled in their own historical and ancient 'playstyle' that they have zero idea how to bring life back to this game and absolutely no idea what is wrong with it. Frankly how can they even believe that dumping a load of land onto a war winner is going to 'bring new blood' to the top end of the game and encourage more wars. No reasonable or decent person wants to participate in the circle jerk that is ' top kd non compete, lawyered up CFs, tactical friendships' and other crap that is required to be part of the circle jerk.
Bart has shone a light on a lot of dark places, possibly because he genuinely thinks they are not only crap, but that a clever person can 'out crap' their crap and show it up for the hollow mess that it is, rather than because he is one of the bigger circle jerks.
It looks like the new owners will be possibly the worst thing for the game, not the best thing, because they have no insight whatsoever. Sad times.
If I was a new player and read the crap in this thread I would be out of here and never return. Who on earth would want to join a 'fixed game'?
Thus far the 'Spirit of the Rules' section has only been used to action provinces or kingdoms that abuse bugs or quirks in the game, or things like that(like fakewars, or deals specifically intended to game the system like WW in exchange for acres, or the abuse of aid and the reset function etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlyzinc
Never(at least to my knowledge) has it been used to action ingame behaviour or kingdom interaction just because some people may consider it wrong. It's up to the community to police the ethics and morals of the game, it's not something that the admins should get involved with. CF deals have always existed for at least one and a half decade and it's a horrible idea to start messing with that now.
One problem is that you can never really enforce a ban on CF deals and such because interkd interactions can happen on mediums which the admins have no access to and therefore it's impossible for them to be aware of any such deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
So the rules only apply to the war win charts? that's what your saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
So just because something hasn't been done before means we can never do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
In Game behavior like fake war or foul Language, there is a whole section on "Language & Attitude" which clearly applies to in game behavior
I agree. however when one is placed infront of you for the admin to weigh in on you should really take some sort of actionQuote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
Am I not part of the community? This wreaks of ethical violations. The Mods clearly see this as he made it public and are commenting on it. We are policing by telling the admins the community sees this as a ToS violation
Don't let pillz's nonsense get the better of you. ASF is not an admin. He is a moderator for the strategy forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
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 tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan