#2 province grande mucca deleted

Very sad indeed.. Wow, This has to be the most absurd thing that has happened to the game yet. I feel ashamed to say I play Utopia now. You should reconsider your thinking Bishop. So sad...

Realest, I think your pretty cool to tell people to relax! I think you would be a great doctor.

we got same offer from that ryan guy, although we had no big cow atm, so he only offered that war terms he posted in begining of this thread, we agreed to war, when hostile was at its peak and it was obvious to him we were no ghetto and had all the activity needed to take out his kd mates and would probably even have had a chance of harming him in the long run, CF arrived at our doorstep, and they moved on, so yea, definetly he tried to farm,...but still, he wouldnt give up all his kd for it, so i guess that was "cool" of him....

So after realizing his KD would be pwned by you guys if it went to war he CF'd. I actually think that may be a fairly common use of the feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Godly

I'm really tired of shady top playing. Individual naps such as these are simply put an agreement for mutual farm war on the noobs in the kingdom. This is free acre generation with zero risk.

I support this deletion 100%. I would also support deletions for GBP pumping 100%.

Either way, I'm pretty sure this wasn't the only infraction because I'm confident to say that Ryan doesn't have enough talent to make #2 in a lone kingdom. I wouldn't be shocked at all to hear that other people were logging into his account.

That aside, I think it's safe to say that the majority of shady play comes from Absalom or Absalom affiliates. You guys come up with clever ways to skirt around the rules to benefit yourselves and in return make the game overly complicated for people who just play by common sense rules.

Another note: Sanctuary of Absalom will be the single reason why Fortified relation will be reworked next round. Fortified is a great tool for turtling under defended provinces post war and/or rejecting a wave from a more powerful kingdom. I seriously doubt that it was intended as a tool to block with where you just notice a kingdom and sit in fortified to waste everyone's time.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdorje

Ryan's deletion, which is borderline, I have two issues with. First is, as Proteus pointed out, that a cow-nap, though farming, has been standard play over recent ages. For this specific form of gameplay to be interpreted as a fakewar is a stretch, but to do it without warning to players is really not good. If in any of the dozen or so wars-with-a-cow-nap over the past year there had been an outside hit on either cow, both sides would have no doubt agreed that it was a "dirty" hit into a "real" war. This redefining-the-rules-without-telling-us-and-then-deleting-"cheaters" trend from the developers and mods is really poor for the game. I am entirely against cow naps and in favor of banning farming, but to do so without telling the players is seriously problematic. And to respond to minor or accidental cheating with a late-age deletion is really over the top - a suspension would be more than enough to get the point across and entirely in line with an infraction of this type.

Secondly - more of a nit-pick - the rules against fakewarring, and all the other nit-picky means of getting yourself deleted, need to be added to the game rules. There is a link at the top of the page that is supposed to tell you what's illegal, but it does not do so.

And Godly, your acquaintance with the facts leads me to suspect that you aren't even playing this age. As it is your own kingdom and monarch that began and pushed the cow-nap concept, I really question your integrity in calling this a "good" deletion. Following it up with a bad argument that "he must have deserved deletion for some other reason" (there's a name for this sort of argument, used so that you can teach young people not to use it) proves to me that you have no interest in whether it actually was a "good" deletion, as long as your enemy suffers. And to then change topic to a completely different rant about fortified stance where you are again wrong on the facts (to wit: it was pulse that refused to leave fortified, not sanctuary) only encourages me to engage in ad hominem arguments and help you derail the complaint. But I will refrain from going any farther down that avenue.

---

stfu.

like i said, it was cool of him,....free acres for him, really bad war for his kd, so he decided to pick another target......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UtopiaNub

You aren't interested in seeing how the active playerbase views this situation?

---

This is not a popularity contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus

Why wasn't I contacted prior?

---

Had we needed clarification we would have done so.

What the utopian community will most likely take away and remember from this incident is dont use in game messages for your communication or you'll risk deletion. Sad to see yet another part of the utopian game die.


(Yes a bit overly dramatic, but you get the point)

You think whoever reported this was able to see in game messages?

so there was a report?

i dont get it... why dont u present all facts clearlly for everyone to understand why those 2 got deleted, take a final and irevocable decision(reinstate or not) and move on.

This thread turned up into sh^tty talking.

Back then Mehul wouldnt even botter to read/reply such posts... but you guys are trying to make everyone happy by talking to them (wich I like and support) but atm you are just doing worse to the wholle utopia comunitty with ur indecision and blurry replyes.

Perhaps the player running the Bank could post a survey to show he was in war build? ;)

It would also be interesting to know if he had GBP due to bounces and what amounts of aid he sent and received

Deals like this have been made since the beginning of the game, having "war terms" is part of the political and diplomatic play of utopia..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landro

Perhaps the player running the Bank could post a survey to show he was in war build? ;)

It would also be interesting to know if he had GBP due to bounces and what amounts of aid he sent and received

---

25% barracks, I send my KD whatever they ask for if I have it. TB averaged around +6mill in this kd with decay. They can only take so much at their sizes.

I am not allowed to give full details without permission (or unless someone involved states details first)- but I can say that this was reported.

so the one we should blame is the person who made report?

hmmmm....

i guess we need to ask mr proteus a.k.a Sherlock holmes to find who is the one made the report.

mr sherlock! can u help us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fariz

so the one we should blame is the person who made report?

hmmmm....

i guess we need to ask mr proteus a.k.a Sherlock holmes to find who is the one made the report.

mr sherlock! can u help us?

---

The person who made the report is irrelevant as far as we are concerned and has no influence on the decision reached.

scott made a topic, where do you report cheaters... Just saying! ;-)
moohahahaha

http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...porting-cheats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fariz

so the one we should blame is the person who made report?

hmmmm....

i guess we need to ask mr proteus a.k.a Sherlock holmes to find who is the one made the report.

mr sherlock! can u help us?

---

but proteus is professor moriarty

Why are people still crying about this? The devs are never wrong.

Dont need Proteus. It was Scott! All kill Scott!

At the very least we all now know that doing something such as this in war will ultimately get you deleted. I don't necessarily agree however it is now irrelevant as the game developers have made a decision, one that I anticipate they will stick with regardless of this thread and/or any support it has in the forums.

Tough luck Ryan, best of luck in the future mate.

Bishop, while I can understand how you came to the conclusion that this was a fake war, I cannot come to terms with the decision to delete him. He wasn't aware what he was doing was wrong, most of us have a pretty good idea what constitutes a FW and none of us would have listed this scenario. Had someone asked you to define as many types of FWs as you could, you would not have listed a 2 prov NAP in war. If it is the final decision of the devs that this will not be allowed, then you really needed to ease up on the trigger finger and find a better way to handle it. As jdorje said, this has been accepted practice for a long time, and has never been mentioned as being against the rules, specifically when FWing was outlawed. Anything beyond a suspension for this ticky-tack situation was ridiculous. Ruining 3 months of work over a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of an unclear area of a rule is really not how it should have been handled.

The first infraction was always going to be seen by the community as harsh. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

The first infraction was always going to be seen by the community as harsh. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made.

---

+1 in that regard, sets a precedence I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

The first infraction was always going to be seen by the community as harsh. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made.

---

What a load of crap. If it was someone trying to get away with a standard and accepted FW then yes, harsh is right. That doesn't fly here, because most people would not call this a fake war, and nobody involved was intentionally fake warring. I don't even like calling it a FW still, because it wasn't. The devs decided on the fly that this was a FW, you should have known this was an unusual scenario and used it as an opportunity to educate the players on the rules and how you guys see it, but deleting him was over the top and uncalled for.

I don't see anything unusual about it. It was remarkably easy to reach a decision on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

What a load of crap. If it was someone trying to get away with a standard and accepted FW then yes, harsh is right. That doesn't fly here, because most people would not call this a fake war, and nobody involved was intentionally fake warring. I don't even like calling it a FW still, because it wasn't. The devs decided on the fly that this was a FW, you should have known this was an unusual scenario and used it as an opportunity to educate the players on the rules and how you guys see it, but deleting him was over the top and uncalled for.

---

Based on the information I have, the bank province used to nap to grow without outside interference.

I think Bishop has a point when he says the first punishment always seems harsh. I've seen this effect in real life too.

And let's not forget that cheaters will shout just as hard how innocent they are. The same happened when Sinners got deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

I don't see anything unusual about it. It was remarkably easy to reach a decision on.

---

This thread suggests otherwise. If the most experienced and oldest players, who would NEVER risk a #2 prov to deletion over a FW, don't understand it, then you are delusional to make that comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landro

Based on the information I have, the bank province used to nap to grow without outside interference.

I think Bishop has a point when he says the first punishment always seems harsh. I've seen this effect in real life too.

And let's not forget that cheaters will shout just as hard how innocent they are. The same happened when Sinners got deleted.

---

Cow NAPs in war have never been called a FW, and Bishop knows that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

This thread suggests otherwise. If the most experienced and oldest players, who would NEVER risk a #2 prov to deletion over a FW, don't understand it, then you are delusional to make that comment.

---

I don't believe that current leaders think it is allowed to create fake war to farm to number 1.

"Cow NAPs in war have never been called a FW, and Bishop knows that. "
This isnt the case here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

I don't believe that current leaders think it is allowed to create fake war to farm to number 1.

"Cow NAPs in war have never been called a FW, and Bishop knows that. "
This isnt the case here.

---

That's exactly the case here. Even if it's a 2 day cow NAP, it's still a cow NAP. The war was not fake, stop saying it was. All cows farm in wars, the only difference here is that the other kingdom had a cow and they didn't trade hits. You've delved into a diplomatic area the devs have no business in IMO. Regardless, you took this stance and that's fine, but deleting was the wrong move. I don't care what bogus justification you come up with, it was the wrong move.

And if the 2 of them had tried farming to #1-2 together buy staying in that war, I don't doubt the server would have policed it, as they do most shady diplo stuff.

2 big guys deciding to war to feed of eachothers kd = free acres...
and this people actually defend....

also, majority of the utopian community will not suffer from this, majority of playerbase will keep on playing and not be affected at all,
i do however hope that both those kds players finds some structure and keeps playing,....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

I don't believe that current leaders think it is allowed to create fake war to farm to number 1.

"Cow NAPs in war have never been called a FW, and Bishop knows that. "
This isnt the case here.

---

Let's clear this out now, is it a fake war when 2 people make a personal NAP over a war, while rest of the both kingdoms war it out normally? (not even knowing about such a NAP)

I ask this because this indeed was just a personal NAP between those 2, and we little guys did get a fair war because of that deal. (At least our king Astrael did the deal as it was only way to get us a war.. I really suggest mods to go read our kingdom chat and then decide if it was a correct thing to do)

If NAPs like that are illegal, then I can understand them getting punished.. thought deletion is still way too harsh for it, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K9orange

2 big guys deciding to war to feed of eachothers kd = free acres...
and this people actually defend....

also, majority of the utopian community will not suffer from this, majority of playerbase will keep on playing and not be affected at all,
i do however hope that both those kds players finds some structure and keeps playing,....

---

I certainly get the first point about free acres, that indeed ain't that fair. But why so strict punishment, when lesser course of action would have served just as well AND kept people happy.

When it comes to Astrael, shouldn't it be taken to consideration that he only took the deal to get his kingdom a war, war that was SUPER Hard to get. To me this feels same as if an poor police officer takes a bribe money only so that his 15 child family would get food on the table. And then he was sentenced to death for it, instead of getting fired or a warning :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaine

Let's clear this out now, is it a fake war when 2 people make a personal NAP over a war, while rest of the both kingdoms war it out normally? (not even knowing about such a NAP)

I ask this because this indeed was just a personal NAP between those 2, and we little guys did get a fair war because of that deal. (At least our king Astrael did the deal as it was only way to get us a war.. I really suggest mods to go read our kingdom chat and then decide if it was a correct thing to do)

If NAPs like that are illegal, then I can understand them getting punished.. thought deletion is still way too harsh for it, tbh.

---

I get the impression that Bishop deleted the province because he was abusing war to grow in safety. It's easy to argue that this is in violation of the spirit of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landro

I get the impression that Bishop deleted the province because he was abusing war to grow in safety. It's easy to argue that this is in violation of the spirit of the rules.

---

That is the case for ANY cow in a war. They overstepped their bounds. If they have a problem with cows getting free acres they need to change war mechanics. Unrelated issue really. The issue is this war was not fake, and they are calling it fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

That is the case for ANY cow in a war. They overstepped their bounds. If they have a problem with cows getting free acres they need to change war mechanics. Unrelated issue really. The issue is this war was not fake, and they are calling it fake.

---

Could you point to where Bishop said that this province was deleted because of FW?

Man, sometimes i miss Mehul, he wouldnt have this close contact with the players of utopia and just ignored the whining bunch. If he wrote something he would write something witty and close a thread. Bishop is too soft!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaine

rest of the both kingdoms [..] not even knowing about such a NAP

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaine

it was only way to get us a war..

---

Did you ever stop to think that maybe your king was the problem instead of the solution to finding a war ? That just maybe you're being played by a guy who puts his personal achievement before that of the kingdom ? No ?

+1000 to bishop for laying down the line!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landro

Could you point to where Bishop said that this province was deleted because of FW?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

Your interpretation is incorrect. Allow me to provide clarification. We will be actioning any war that is not real.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

A fake war is designated as a war that is fake. There is no specification that all provinces in a kingdom need to be involved, nor were uninvolved provinces actioned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

Indeed there is not. Agreeing to have a fake war with someone though is what we call fake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

I don't believe that current leaders think it is allowed to create fake war to farm to number 1.

---

Quote:

---

<Bishop> saying" war me and we can both farm our kds and not attack each other" - thats fake

---

Well that was a waste of my time, can you read the thread next time?